Effective human-robot collaboration hinges on robust communication channels, with visual signaling playing a pivotal role due to its intuitive appeal. Yet, the creation of visually intuitive cues often demands extensive resources and specialized knowledge. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers promising avenues for enhancing human-robot interactions and revolutionizing the way we generate context-aware visual cues. To this end, we introduce SiSCo--a novel framework that combines the computational power of LLMs with mixed-reality technologies to streamline the creation of visual cues for human-robot collaboration. Our results show that SiSCo improves the efficiency of communication in human-robot teaming tasks, reducing task completion time by approximately 73% and increasing task success rates by 18% compared to baseline natural language signals. Additionally, SiSCo reduces cognitive load for participants by 46%, as measured by the NASA-TLX subscale, and receives above-average user ratings for on-the-fly signals generated for unseen objects. To encourage further development and broader community engagement, we provide full access to SiSCo's implementation and related materials on our GitHub repository.

Despite the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine, they may generate responses lacking supporting evidence or based on hallucinated evidence. While Retrieval Augment Generation (RAG) is popular to address this issue, few studies implemented and evaluated RAG in downstream domain-specific applications. We developed a RAG pipeline with 70,000 ophthalmology-specific documents that retrieve relevant documents to augment LLMs during inference time. In a case study on long-form consumer health questions, we systematically evaluated the responses including over 500 references of LLMs with and without RAG on 100 questions with 10 healthcare professionals. The evaluation focuses on factuality of evidence, selection and ranking of evidence, attribution of evidence, and answer accuracy and completeness. LLMs without RAG provided 252 references in total. Of which, 45.3% hallucinated, 34.1% consisted of minor errors, and 20.6% were correct. In contrast, LLMs with RAG significantly improved accuracy (54.5% being correct) and reduced error rates (18.8% with minor hallucinations and 26.7% with errors). 62.5% of the top 10 documents retrieved by RAG were selected as the top references in the LLM response, with an average ranking of 4.9. The use of RAG also improved evidence attribution (increasing from 1.85 to 2.49 on a 5-point scale, P<0.001), albeit with slight decreases in accuracy (from 3.52 to 3.23, P=0.03) and completeness (from 3.47 to 3.27, P=0.17). The results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibited hallucinated and erroneous evidence in the responses, raising concerns for downstream applications in the medical domain. RAG substantially reduced the proportion of such evidence but encountered challenges.

Natural language processing (NLP) has witnessed a profound impact of large language models (LLMs) that excel in a multitude of tasks. However, the limitation of LLMs in multilingual settings, particularly in underrepresented languages, remains a significant hurdle. This thesis aims to bridge the gap in NLP research and development by focusing on underrepresented languages. A comprehensive evaluation of LLMs is conducted to assess their capabilities in these languages, revealing the challenges of multilingual and multicultural generalization. Addressing the multilingual generalization gap, this thesis proposes data-and-compute-efficient methods to mitigate the disparity in LLM ability in underrepresented languages, allowing better generalization on underrepresented languages without the loss of task generalization ability. The proposed solutions cover cross-lingual continual instruction tuning, retrieval-based cross-lingual in-context learning, and in-context query alignment. Furthermore, a novel method to measure cultural values alignment between LLMs operating in different languages is proposed, ensuring cultural sensitivity and inclusivity. These contributions aim to enhance the multilingual and multicultural alignment of LLMs in underrepresented languages, ultimately advancing the NLP field toward greater equality and inclusiveness.

Knowledge sharing is crucial in healthcare, especially when leveraging data from multiple clinical sites to address data scarcity, reduce costs, and enable timely interventions. Transfer learning can facilitate cross-site knowledge transfer, but a major challenge is heterogeneity in clinical concepts across different sites. Large Language Models (LLMs) show significant potential of capturing the semantic meaning of clinical concepts and reducing heterogeneity. This study analyzed electronic health records from two large healthcare systems to assess the impact of semantic embeddings from LLMs on local, shared, and transfer learning models. Results indicate that domain-specific LLMs, such as Med-BERT, consistently outperform in local and direct transfer scenarios, while generic models like OpenAI embeddings require fine-tuning for optimal performance. However, excessive tuning of models with biomedical embeddings may reduce effectiveness, emphasizing the need for balance. This study highlights the importance of domain-specific embeddings and careful model tuning for effective knowledge transfer in healthcare.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Despite significant advancements in bias mitigation techniques using data augmentation, zero-shot prompting, and model fine-tuning, biases continuously persist, including subtle biases that may elude human detection. Recent research has shown a growing interest in multi-LLM approaches, which have been demonstrated to be effective in improving the quality of reasoning and factuality in LLMs. Building on this approach, we propose a novel multi-LLM debiasing framework aimed at reducing bias in LLMs. Our work is the first to introduce and evaluate two distinct approaches within this framework for debiasing LLMs: a centralized method, where the conversation is facilitated by a single central LLM, and a decentralized method, where all models communicate directly. Our findings reveal that our multi-LLM framework significantly reduces bias in LLMs, outperforming the baseline method across several social groups.

Equivocation and ambiguity in public speech are well-studied discourse phenomena, especially in political science and analysis of political interviews. Inspired by the well-grounded theory on equivocation, we aim to resolve the closely related problem of response clarity in questions extracted from political interviews, leveraging the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and human expertise. To this end, we introduce a novel taxonomy that frames the task of detecting and classifying response clarity and a corresponding clarity classification dataset which consists of question-answer (QA) pairs drawn from political interviews and annotated accordingly. Our proposed two-level taxonomy addresses the clarity of a response in terms of the information provided for a given question (high-level) and also provides a fine-grained taxonomy of evasion techniques that relate to unclear, ambiguous responses (lower-level). We combine ChatGPT and human annotators to collect, validate and annotate discrete QA pairs from political interviews, to be used for our newly introduced response clarity task. We provide a detailed analysis and conduct several experiments with different model architectures, sizes and adaptation methods to gain insights and establish new baselines over the proposed dataset and task.

Pretrained large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) tasks such as summarization, question answering, and translation. However, LLMs pose significant security risks due to their tendency to memorize training data, leading to potential privacy breaches and copyright infringement. Accurate measurement of this memorization is essential to evaluate and mitigate these potential risks. However, previous attempts to characterize memorization are constrained by either using prefixes only or by prepending a constant soft prompt to the prefixes, which cannot react to changes in input. To address this challenge, we propose a novel method for estimating LLM memorization using dynamic, prefix-dependent soft prompts. Our approach involves training a transformer-based generator to produce soft prompts that adapt to changes in input, thereby enabling more accurate extraction of memorized data. Our method not only addresses the limitations of previous methods but also demonstrates superior performance in diverse experimental settings compared to state-of-the-art techniques. In particular, our method can achieve the maximum relative improvement of 112.75% and 32.26% over the vanilla baseline in terms of discoverable memorization rate for the text generation task and code generation task respectively.

We study language ideologies in text produced by LLMs through a case study on English gendered language reform (related to role nouns like congressperson/-woman/-man, and singular they). First, we find political bias: when asked to use language that is "correct" or "natural", LLMs use language most similarly to when asked to align with conservative (vs. progressive) values. This shows how LLMs' metalinguistic preferences can implicitly communicate the language ideologies of a particular political group, even in seemingly non-political contexts. Second, we find LLMs exhibit internal inconsistency: LLMs use gender-neutral variants more often when more explicit metalinguistic context is provided. This shows how the language ideologies expressed in text produced by LLMs can vary, which may be unexpected to users. We discuss the broader implications of these findings for value alignment.

Mitigating explicit and implicit biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) has become a critical focus in the field of natural language processing. However, many current methodologies evaluate scenarios in isolation, without considering the broader context or the spectrum of potential biases within each situation. To address this, we introduce the Sensitivity Testing on Offensive Progressions (STOP) dataset, which includes 450 offensive progressions containing 2,700 unique sentences of varying severity that progressively escalate from less to more explicitly offensive. Covering a broad spectrum of 9 demographics and 46 sub-demographics, STOP ensures inclusivity and comprehensive coverage. We evaluate several leading closed- and open-source models, including GPT-4, Mixtral, and Llama 3. Our findings reveal that even the best-performing models detect bias inconsistently, with success rates ranging from 19.3% to 69.8%. We also demonstrate how aligning models with human judgments on STOP can improve model answer rates on sensitive tasks such as BBQ, StereoSet, and CrowS-Pairs by up to 191%, while maintaining or even improving performance. STOP presents a novel framework for assessing the complex nature of biases in LLMs, which will enable more effective bias mitigation strategies and facilitates the creation of fairer language models.

Abstracting with credit is permitted.