Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise as a writing aid for professionals performing legal analyses. However, LLMs can often hallucinate in this setting, in ways difficult to recognize by non-professionals and existing text evaluation metrics. In this work, we pose the question: when can machine-generated legal analysis be evaluated as acceptable? We introduce the neutral notion of gaps, as opposed to hallucinations in a strict erroneous sense, to refer to the difference between human-written and machine-generated legal analysis. Gaps do not always equate to invalid generation. Working with legal experts, we consider the CLERC generation task proposed in Hou et al. (2024b), leading to a taxonomy, a fine-grained detector for predicting gap categories, and an annotated dataset for automatic evaluation. Our best detector achieves 67% F1 score and 80% precision on the test set. Employing this detector as an automated metric on legal analysis generated by SOTA LLMs, we find around 80% contain hallucinations of different kinds.

Moreover, these honeypots are easier for attackers In the realm of cybersecurity, honeypots have to detect and can only gather limited information proven to be a valuable tool for detecting and about the nature of attacks, resulting in restricted analyzing malicious activity by serving as decoy responses to threats [6]. Additionally, the use of systems that attract potential attackers, allowing fixed rate-limiting thresholds in experiments to prevent organizations to study their tactics and enhance damage may inadvertently reveal their presence their overall security infrastructure [1]. Honeypots to scanners, thus compromising their covert come in various forms, including low-interaction nature [7]. These factors highlight the necessity for honeypots that simulate services with minimal a balanced approach in the deployment and configuration functionality to gather information about general of honeypots to optimize their effectiveness attack patterns [2], and high-interaction honeypots while mitigating inherent limitations.

The traditional data annotation process is often labor-intensive, time-consuming, and susceptible to human bias, which complicates the management of increasingly complex datasets. This study explores the potential of large language models (LLMs) as automated data annotators to improve efficiency and consistency in annotation tasks. By employing rationale-driven collaborative few-shot prompting techniques, we aim to improve the performance of LLMs in text annotation. We conduct a rigorous evaluation of six LLMs across four benchmark datasets, comparing seven distinct methodologies. Our results demonstrate that collaborative methods consistently outperform traditional few-shot techniques and other baseline approaches, particularly in complex annotation tasks. Our work provides valuable insights and a robust framework for leveraging collaborative learning methods to tackle challenging text annotation tasks.

LLMs are increasingly used to design reward functions based on human preferences in Reinforcement Learning (RL). We focus on LLM-designed rewards for Restless Multi-Armed Bandits, a framework for allocating limited resources among agents. In applications such as public health, this approach empowers grassroots health workers to tailor automated allocation decisions to community needs. In the presence of multiple agents, altering the reward function based on human preferences can impact subpopulations very differently, leading to complex tradeoffs and a multi-objective resource allocation problem. We are the first to present a principled method termed Social Choice Language Model for dealing with these tradeoffs for LLM-designed rewards for multiagent planners in general and restless bandits in particular. The novel part of our model is a transparent and configurable selection component, called an adjudicator, external to the LLM that controls complex tradeoffs via a user-selected social welfare function. Our experiments demonstrate that our model reliably selects more effective, aligned, and balanced reward functions compared to purely LLM-based approaches.

Estimation of a model's confidence on its outputs is critical for Conversational AI systems based on large language models (LLMs), especially for reducing hallucination and preventing over-reliance. In this work, we provide an exhaustive exploration of methods, including approaches proposed for open- and closed-weight LLMs, aimed at quantifying and leveraging model uncertainty to improve the reliability of LLM-generated responses, specifically focusing on dialogue state tracking (DST) in task-oriented dialogue systems (TODS). Regardless of the model type, well-calibrated confidence scores are essential to handle uncertainties, thereby improving model performance. We evaluate four methods for estimating confidence scores based on softmax, raw token scores, verbalized confidences, and a combination of these methods, using the area under the curve (AUC) metric to assess calibration, with higher AUC indicating better calibration. We also enhance these with a self-probing mechanism, proposed for closed models. Furthermore, we assess these methods using an open-weight model fine-tuned for the task of DST, achieving superior joint goal accuracy (JGA). Our findings also suggest that fine-tuning open-weight LLMs can result in enhanced AUC performance, indicating better confidence score calibration.

Mamba and Vision Mamba (Vim) models have shown their potential as an alternative to methods based on Transformer architecture. This work introduces Fast Mamba for Vision (Famba-V), a cross-layer token fusion technique to enhance the training efficiency of Vim models. The key idea of Famba-V is to identify and fuse similar tokens across different Vim layers based on a suit of cross-layer strategies instead of simply applying token fusion uniformly across all the layers that existing works propose. We evaluate the performance of Famba-V on CIFAR-100. Our results show that Famba-V is able to enhance the training efficiency of Vim models by reducing both training time and peak memory usage during training. Moreover, the proposed cross-layer strategies allow Famba-V to deliver superior accuracy-efficiency trade-offs. These results all together demonstrate Famba-V as a promising efficiency enhancement technique for Vim models.

This article benchmarked the ability of OpenAI's GPTs and a number of open-source LLMs to perform annotation tasks on political content. We used a novel protest event dataset comprising more than three million digital interactions and created a gold standard that includes ground-truth labels annotated by human coders about toxicity and incivility on social media. We included in our benchmark Google's Perspective algorithm, which, along with GPTs, was employed throughout their respective APIs while the open-source LLMs were deployed locally. The findings show that Perspective API using a laxer threshold, GPT-4o, and Nous Hermes 2 Mixtral outperform other LLM's zero-shot classification annotations. In addition, Nous Hermes 2 and Mistral OpenOrca, with a smaller number of parameters, are able to perform the task with high performance, being attractive options that could offer good trade-offs between performance, implementing costs and computing time. Ancillary findings using experiments setting different temperature levels show that although GPTs tend to show not only excellent computing time but also overall good levels of reliability, only open-source LLMs ensure full reproducibility in the annotation.

This paper introduces SGCode, a flexible prompt-optimizing system to generate secure code with large language models (LLMs). SGCode integrates recent prompt-optimization approaches with LLMs in a unified system accessible through front-end and back-end APIs, enabling users to 1) generate secure code, which is free of vulnerabilities, 2) review and share security analysis, and 3) easily switch from one prompt optimization approach to another, while providing insights on model and system performance. We populated SGCode on an AWS server with PromSec, an approach that optimizes prompts by combining an LLM and security tools with a lightweight generative adversarial graph neural network to detect and fix security vulnerabilities in the generated code. Extensive experiments show that SGCode is practical as a public tool to gain insights into the trade-offs between model utility, secure code generation, and system cost. SGCode has only a marginal cost compared with prompting LLMs. SGCode is available at: http://3.131.141.63:8501/.

In recent years, there has been a surge in the publication of clinical trial reports, making it challenging to conduct systematic reviews. Automatically extracting Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) from clinical trial studies can alleviate the traditionally time-consuming process of manually scrutinizing systematic reviews. Existing approaches of PICO frame extraction involves supervised approach that relies on the existence of manually annotated data points in the form of BIO label tagging. Recent approaches, such as In-Context Learning (ICL), which has been shown to be effective for a number of downstream NLP tasks, require the use of labeled examples. In this work, we adopt ICL strategy by employing the pretrained knowledge of Large Language Models (LLMs), gathered during the pretraining phase of an LLM, to automatically extract the PICO-related terminologies from clinical trial documents in unsupervised set up to bypass the availability of large number of annotated data instances. Additionally, to showcase the highest effectiveness of LLM in oracle scenario where large number of annotated samples are available, we adopt the instruction tuning strategy by employing Low Rank Adaptation (LORA) to conduct the training of gigantic model in low resource environment for the PICO frame extraction task. Our empirical results show that our proposed ICL-based framework produces comparable results on all the version of EBM-NLP datasets and the proposed instruction tuned version of our framework produces state-of-the-art results on all the different EBM-NLP datasets. Our project is available at \url{https://github.com/shrimonmuke0202/AlpaPICO.git}.

In evaluating the long-context capabilities of large language models (LLMs), benchmarks such as "Needle-in-a-Haystack" (NIAH), Ruler, and Needlebench are commonly used. While these benchmarks measure how well models understand longcontext input sequences, they do not effectively gauge the quality of long-form text generation--a critical aspect for applications such as design proposals and creative writing. To address this gap, we have introduced a new long-form text evaluation benchmark, LongGenBench, which tests models' ability to identify specific events within generated long text sequences. In this benchmark, we prompt long-context LMs to create long-form text that must include particular events or constraints and evaluate their ability to incorporate these elements. We evaluated ten longcontext LMs across four distinct scenarios, three types of prompt instructions, and two different generation-length settings (16K and 32K). Although these models perform well on NIAH benchmarks, none demonstrated satisfactory performance on the LongGenBench, raising concerns about their ability to generate coherent long-form text that follows instructions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced their ability to process and generate long text sequences, which is essential for various natural language processing tasks (Xiong et al., 2023; Bai et al., 2023a). For instance, GPT-4 (Achiam et al., 2023) and LLaMa-3.1 (Dubey et al., 2024) manage context windows of up to 128K tokens; Claude 2.1 (Anthropic, 2024a) supports up to 200K tokens; and the Claude 3 series (Anthropic, 2024b) handles inputs exceeding 1 million tokens.