Breaking down a problem into intermediate steps has demonstrated impressive performance in Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning. However, the growth of the reasoning chain introduces uncertainty and error accumulation, making it challenging to elicit accurate final results. To tackle this challenge of uncertainty in multi-step reasoning, we introduce a stepwise self-evaluation mechanism to guide and calibrate the reasoning process of LLMs. We propose a decoding algorithm integrating the self-evaluation guidance via stochastic beam search. The self-evaluation guidance serves as a better-calibrated automatic criterion, facilitating an efficient search in the reasoning space and resulting in superior prediction quality.

We introduce Inference-Time Intervention (ITI), a technique designed to enhance the "truthfulness" of large language models (LLMs). ITI operates by shifting model activations during inference, following a learned set of directions across a limited number of attention heads. This intervention significantly improves the performance of LLaMA models on the TruthfulQA benchmark. On an instruction-finetuned LLaMA called Alpaca, ITI improves its truthfulness from 32.5\% to 65.1\% . We identify a tradeoff between truthfulness and helpfulness and demonstrate how to balance it by tuning the intervention strength.

Large language models of code (Code-LLMs) have recently brought tremendous advances to code completion, a fundamental feature of programming assistance and code intelligence. However, most existing works ignore the possible presence of bugs in the code context for generation, which are inevitable in software development. Therefore, we introduce and study the buggy-code completion problem, inspired by the realistic scenario of real-time code suggestion where the code context contains potential bugs – anti-patterns that can become bugs in the completed program. To systematically study the task, we introduce two datasets: one with synthetic bugs derived from semantics-altering operator changes (buggy-HumanEval) and one with realistic bugs derived from user submissions to coding problems (buggy-FixEval). We find that the presence of potential bugs significantly degrades the generation performance of the high-performing Code-LLMs. For instance, the passing rates of CODEGEN-2B-MONO on test cases of buggy-HumanEval drop more than 50% given a single potential bug in the context.

Anomaly detection (AD) plays a crucial role in many safety-critical application domains. The challenge of adapting an anomaly detector to drift in the normal data distribution, especially when no training data is available for the "new normal," has led to the development of zero-shot AD techniques. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective method called Adaptive Centered Representations (ACR) for zero-shot batch-level AD. Our approach trains off-the-shelf deep anomaly detectors (such as deep SVDD) to adapt to a set of inter-related training data distributions in combination with batch normalization, enabling automatic zero-shot generalization for unseen AD tasks. This simple recipe, batch normalization plus meta-training, is a highly effective and versatile tool.

Agents capable of carrying out general tasks on a computer can improve efficiency and productivity by automating repetitive tasks and assisting in complex problem-solving. Ideally, such agents should be able to solve new computer tasks presented to them through natural language commands. However, previous approaches to this problem require large amounts of expert demonstrations and task-specific reward functions, both of which are impractical for new tasks. In this work, we show that a pre-trained large language model (LLM) agent can execute computer tasks guided by natural language using a simple prompting scheme where the agent \textbf{R}ecursively \textbf{C}riticizes and \textbf{I}mproves its output (RCI). The RCI approach significantly outperforms existing LLM methods for automating computer tasks and surpasses supervised learning (SL) and reinforcement learning (RL) approaches on the MiniWoB benchmark.

The recent emergence of Large Language Models based on the Transformer architecture has enabled dramatic advancements in the field of Natural Language Processing. However, these models have long inference latency, which limits their deployment and makes them prohibitively expensive for various real-time applications. The inference latency is further exacerbated by autoregressive generative tasks, as models need to run iteratively to generate tokens sequentially without leveraging token-level parallelization. To address this, we propose Big Little Decoder (BiLD), a framework that can improve inference efficiency and latency for a wide range of text generation applications. The BiLD framework contains two models with different sizes that collaboratively generate text.

Generating plans of action, and reasoning about change have long been considered a core competence of intelligent agents. It is thus no surprise that evaluating the planning and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) has become a hot topic of research. Most claims about LLM planning capabilities are however based on common sense tasks–where it becomes hard to tell whether LLMs are planning or merely retrieving from their vast world knowledge. There is a strong need for systematic and extensible planning benchmarks with sufficient diversity to evaluate whether LLMs have innate planning capabilities. Motivated by this, we propose PlanBench, an extensible benchmark suite based on the kinds of domains used in the automated planning community, especially in the International Planning Competition, to test the capabilities of LLMs in planning or reasoning about actions and change.

Despite substantial advancements, Natural Language Processing (NLP) models often require post-training adjustments to enforce business rules, rectify undesired behavior, and align with user values. These adjustments involve operationalizing "concepts"--dictating desired model responses to certain inputs. However, it's difficult for a single entity to enumerate and define all possible concepts, indicating a need for a multi-user, collaborative model alignment framework. Moreover, the exhaustive delineation of a concept is challenging, and an improper approach can create shortcuts or interfere with original data or other concepts.To address these challenges, we introduce CoAlign, a framework that enables multi-user interaction with the model, thereby mitigating individual limitations. CoAlign aids users in operationalizing their concepts using Large Language Models, and relying on the principle that NLP models exhibit simpler behaviors in local regions.

Recent works such as VisProg and ViperGPT have smartly composed foundation models for visual reasoning--using large language models (LLMs) to produce programs that can be executed by pre-trained vision-language models. However, they operate in limited domains, such as 2D images, not fully exploiting the generalization of language: abstract concepts like "left" can also be grounded in 3D, temporal, and action data, as in moving to your left. This limited generalization stems from these inference-only methods' inability to learn or adapt pre-trained models to a new domain. We propose the Logic-Enhanced FoundaTion Model (LEFT), a unified framework that learns to ground and reason with concepts across domains with a differentiable, domain-independent, first-order logic-based program executor. LEFT has an LLM interpreter that outputs a program represented in a general, logic-based reasoning language, which is shared across all domains and tasks.

We introduce a principled method for performing zero-shot transfer in reinforcement learning (RL) by exploiting approximate models of the environment. Zero-shot transfer in RL has been investigated by leveraging methods rooted in generalized policy improvement (GPI) and successor features (SFs). Although computationally efficient, these methods are model-free: they analyze a library of policies---each solving a particular task---and identify which action the agent should take. We investigate the more general setting where, in addition to a library of policies, the agent has access to an approximate environment model. Even though model-based RL algorithms can identify near-optimal policies, they are typically computationally intensive.