Factuality evaluation aims to detect factual errors produced by language models (LMs) and hence guide the development of more factual models. Towards this goal, we train a factuality evaluator, FenCE, that provides LM generators with claim-level factuality feedback. We conduct data augmentation on a combination of public judgment datasets to train FenCE to (1) generate textual critiques along with scores and (2) make claim-level judgment based on diverse source documents obtained by various tools. We then present a framework that leverages FenCE to improve the factuality of LM generators by constructing training data. Specifically, we generate a set of candidate responses, leverage FenCE to revise and score each response without introducing lesser-known facts, and train the generator by preferring highly scored revised responses. Experiments show that our data augmentation methods improve the evaluator's accuracy by 2.9% on LLM-AggreFact. With FenCE, we improve Llama3-8B-chat's factuality rate by 14.45% on FActScore, outperforming state-of-the-art factuality finetuning methods by 6.96%.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) are predominantly designed with English as the primary language, and even the few that are multilingual tend to exhibit strong English-centric biases. Much like speakers who might produce awkward expressions when learning a second language, LLMs often generate unnatural outputs in non-English languages, reflecting English-centric patterns in both vocabulary and grammar. Despite the importance of this issue, the naturalness of multilingual LLM outputs has received limited attention. In this paper, we address this gap by introducing novel automatic corpus-level metrics to assess the lexical and syntactic naturalness of LLM outputs in a multilingual context. Using our new metrics, we evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs on a curated benchmark in French and Chinese, revealing a tendency towards English-influenced patterns. To mitigate this issue, we also propose a simple and effective alignment method to improve the naturalness of an LLM in a target language and domain, achieving consistent improvements in naturalness without compromising the performance on general-purpose benchmarks. Our work highlights the importance of developing multilingual metrics, resources and methods for the new wave of multilingual LLMs.

The mathematical capabilities of AI systems are complex and multifaceted. Most existing research has predominantly focused on the correctness of AI-generated solutions to mathematical problems. In this work, we argue that beyond producing correct answers, AI systems should also be capable of, or assist humans in, developing novel solutions to mathematical challenges. This study explores the creative potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in mathematical reasoning, an aspect that has received limited attention in prior research. Our experiments demonstrate that, while LLMs perform well on standard mathematical tasks, their capacity for creative problem-solving varies considerably. In recent years, artificial intelligence has made significant strides, particularly in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) capable of tackling complex problem-solving tasks. Beyond solving student-oriented math problems, leading mathematicians have begun exploring the use of LLMs to assist in tackling unresolved mathematical challenges (Romera-Paredes et al., 2024; Trinh et al., 2024). Despite these models' success in achieving high accuracy on existing mathematical datasets, their potential for creative problem-solving remains largely underexplored. Mathematical creativity goes beyond solving problems correctly; it involves generating novel solutions, applying unconventional techniques, and offering deep insights--areas traditionally associated with human ingenuity. Yet, most studies have focused primarily on correctness and efficiency, paying little attention to the innovative approaches LLMs might employ. Furthermore, creativity in mathematical problem-solving is rarely integrated into existing benchmarks, limiting our understanding of LLMs' full potential.

This position paper proposes a novel approach to advancing NLP security by leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) as engines for generating diverse adversarial attacks. Building upon recent work demonstrating LLMs' effectiveness in creating word-level adversarial examples, we argue for expanding this concept to encompass a broader range of attack types, including adversarial patches, universal perturbations, and targeted attacks. We posit that LLMs' sophisticated language understanding and generation capabilities can produce more effective, semantically coherent, and human-like adversarial examples across various domains and classifier architectures. This paradigm shift in adversarial NLP has far-reaching implications, potentially enhancing model robustness, uncovering new vulnerabilities, and driving innovation in defense mechanisms. By exploring this new frontier, we aim to contribute to the development of more secure, reliable, and trustworthy NLP systems for critical applications.

The emergence of powerful LLMs has led to a paradigm shift in abstractive summarization of spoken documents. The properties that make LLMs so valuable for this task -- creativity, ability to produce fluent speech, and ability to abstract information from large corpora -- also present new challenges to evaluating their content. Quick, cost-effective automatic evaluations such as ROUGE and BERTScore offer promise, but do not yet show competitive performance when compared to human evaluations. We draw on methodologies from the social sciences to propose an evaluation paradigm for spoken document summarization explicitly tailored for generative AI content. We provide detailed evaluation criteria and best practices guidelines to ensure robustness in the experimental design, replicability, and trustworthiness of human evaluation studies. We additionally include two case studies that show how these human-in-the-loop evaluation methods have been implemented at a major U.S. technology company.

In today's global digital landscape, misinformation transcends linguistic boundaries, posing a significant challenge for moderation systems. While significant advances have been made in misinformation detection, the focus remains largely on monolingual high-resource contexts, with low-resource languages often overlooked. This survey aims to bridge that gap by providing a comprehensive overview of the current research on low-resource language misinformation detection in both monolingual and multilingual settings. We review the existing datasets, methodologies, and tools used in these domains, identifying key challenges related to: data resources, model development, cultural and linguistic context, real-world applications, and research efforts. We also examine emerging approaches, such as language-agnostic models and multi-modal techniques, while emphasizing the need for improved data collection practices, interdisciplinary collaboration, and stronger incentives for socially responsible AI research. Our findings underscore the need for robust, inclusive systems capable of addressing misinformation across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts.

Despite their impressive capabilities, large language models (LLMs) often lack interpretability and can generate toxic content. While using LLMs as foundation models and applying semantic steering methods are widely practiced, we believe that efficient methods should be based on a thorough understanding of LLM behavior. To this end, we propose using eye movement measures to interpret LLM behavior across layers. We find that LLMs exhibit patterns similar to human gaze across layers and different layers function differently. Inspired by these findings, we introduce a heuristic steering layer selection and apply it to layer intervention methods via fine-tuning and inference. Using language toxification and detoxification as test beds, we demonstrate that our proposed CogSteer methods achieve better results in terms of toxicity scores while efficiently saving 97% of the computational resources and 60% of the training time. Our model-agnostic approach can be adopted into various LLMs, contributing to their interpretability and promoting trustworthiness for safe deployment.

Tabular machine learning problems often require time-consuming and labor-intensive feature engineering. Recent efforts have focused on using large language models (LLMs) to capitalize on their potential domain knowledge. At the same time, researchers have observed ethically concerning negative biases in other LLM-related use cases, such as text generation. These developments motivated us to investigate whether LLMs exhibit a bias that negatively impacts the performance of feature engineering. While not ethically concerning, such a bias could hinder practitioners from fully utilizing LLMs for automated data science. Therefore, we propose a method to detect potential biases by detecting anomalies in the frequency of operators (e.g., adding two features) suggested by LLMs when engineering new features. Our experiments evaluate the bias of four LLMs, two big frontier and two small open-source models, across 27 tabular datasets. Our results indicate that LLMs are biased toward simple operators, such as addition, and can fail to utilize more complex operators, such as grouping followed by aggregations. Furthermore, the bias can negatively impact the predictive performance when using LLM-generated features. Our results call for mitigating bias when using LLMs for feature engineering.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) with unit test feedback has enhanced large language models (LLMs) code generation, but relies on sparse rewards provided only after complete code evaluation, limiting learning efficiency and incremental improvements. When generated code fails all unit tests, no learning signal is received, hindering progress on complex tasks. To address this, we propose a Process Reward Model (PRM) that delivers dense, line-level feedback on code correctness during generation, mimicking human code refinement and providing immediate guidance. We explore various strategies for training PRMs and integrating them into the RL framework, finding that using PRMs both as dense rewards and for value function initialization significantly boosts performance. Our approach increases our in-house LLM's pass rate from 28.2% to 29.8% on LiveCodeBench and from 31.8% to 35.8% on our internal benchmark. Our experimental results highlight the effectiveness of PRMs in enhancing RL-driven code generation, especially for long-horizon scenarios.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, yet they struggle with inconsistent reasoning, particularly in novel domains and complex logical sequences. This research introduces Proof of Thought, a framework that enhances the reliability and transparency of LLM outputs. Our approach bridges LLM-generated ideas with formal logic verification, employing a custom interpreter to convert LLM outputs into First Order Logic constructs for theorem prover scrutiny. Central to our method is an intermediary JSON-based Domain-Specific Language, which by design balances precise logical structures with intuitive human concepts. This hybrid representation enables both rigorous validation and accessible human comprehension of LLM reasoning processes. Key contributions include a robust type system with sort management for enhanced logical integrity, explicit representation of rules for clear distinction between factual and inferential knowledge, and a flexible architecture that allows for easy extension to various domain-specific applications. We demonstrate Proof of Thought's effectiveness through benchmarking on StrategyQA and a novel multimodal reasoning task, showing improved performance in open-ended scenarios. By providing verifiable and interpretable results, our technique addresses critical needs for AI system accountability and sets a foundation for human-in-the-loop oversight in high-stakes domains.