The impressive performance of ChatGPT and other foundation-model-based products in human language understanding has prompted both academia and industry to explore how these models can be tailored for specific industries and application scenarios. This process, known as the customization of domain-specific foundation models, addresses the limitations of general-purpose models, which may not fully capture the unique patterns and requirements of domain-specific data. Despite its importance, there is a notable lack of comprehensive overview papers on building domain-specific foundation models, while numerous resources exist for general-purpose models. To bridge this gap, this article provides a timely and thorough overview of the methodology for customizing domain-specific foundation models. It introduces basic concepts, outlines the general architecture, and surveys key methods for constructing domain-specific models. Furthermore, the article discusses various domains that can benefit from these specialized models and highlights the challenges ahead. Through this overview, we aim to offer valuable guidance and reference for researchers and practitioners from diverse fields to develop their own customized foundation models.

Due to its collaborative nature, Wikidata is known to have a complex taxonomy, with recurrent issues like the ambiguity between instances and classes, the inaccuracy of some taxonomic paths, the presence of cycles, and the high level of redundancy across classes. Manual efforts to clean up this taxonomy are time-consuming and prone to errors or subjective decisions. We present WiKC, a new version of Wikidata taxonomy cleaned automatically using a combination of Large Language Models (LLMs) and graph mining techniques. Operations on the taxonomy, such as cutting links or merging classes, are performed with the help of zero-shot prompting on an open-source LLM. The quality of the refined taxonomy is evaluated from both intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives, on a task of entity typing for the latter, showing the practical interest of WiKC.

One-size-fits-all large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to help people with their writing. However, the style these models are trained to write in may not suit all users or use cases. LLMs would be more useful as writing assistants if their idiolect could be customized to match each user. In this paper, we explore whether parameter-efficient finetuning (PEFT) with Low-Rank Adaptation can effectively guide the style of LLM generations. We use this method to customize LLaMA-2 to ten different authors and show that the generated text has lexical, syntactic, and surface alignment with the target author but struggles with content memorization. Our findings highlight the potential of PEFT to support efficient, user-level customization of LLMs.

Despite substantial progress of large language models (LLMs) for automatic poetry generation, the generated poetry lacks diversity while the training process differs greatly from human learning. Under the rationale that the learning process of the poetry generation systems should be more human-like and their output more diverse and novel, we introduce a framework based on social learning where we emphasize non-cooperative interactions besides cooperative interactions to encourage diversity. Our experiments are the first attempt at LLM-based multi-agent systems in non-cooperative environments for poetry generation employing both TRAINING-BASED agents (GPT-2) and PROMPTING-BASED agents (GPT-3 and GPT-4). Our evaluation based on 96k generated poems shows that our framework benefits the poetry generation process for TRAINING-BASED agents resulting in 1) a 3.0-3.7 percentage point (pp) increase in diversity and a 5.6-11.3 pp increase in novelty according to distinct and novel n-grams. The generated poetry from TRAINING-BASED agents also exhibits group divergence in terms of lexicons, styles and semantics. PROMPTING-BASED agents in our framework also benefit from non-cooperative environments and a more diverse ensemble of models with non-homogeneous agents has the potential to further enhance diversity, with an increase of 7.0-17.5 pp according to our experiments. However, PROMPTING-BASED agents show a decrease in lexical diversity over time and do not exhibit the group-based divergence intended in the social network. Our paper argues for a paradigm shift in creative tasks such as automatic poetry generation to include social learning processes (via LLM-based agent modeling) similar to human interaction.

While visual question-answering (VQA) benchmarks have catalyzed the development of reasoning techniques, they have focused on vertical thinking. Effective problem-solving also necessitates lateral thinking, which remains understudied in AI and has not been used to test visual perception systems. To bridge this gap, we formulate visual lateral thinking as a multiple-choice question-answering task and describe a three-step taxonomy-driven methodology for instantiating task examples. Then, we develop COLUMBUS, a synthetic benchmark that applies the task pipeline to create QA sets with text and icon rebus puzzles based on publicly available collections of compounds and common phrases. COLUMBUS comprises over 1,000 puzzles, each with four answer candidates. While the SotA vision-language models (VLMs) achieve decent performance, our evaluation demonstrates a substantial gap between humans and models. VLMs benefit from human-curated descriptions but struggle to self-generate such representations at the right level of abstraction.

Author profiling is the task of inferring characteristics about individuals by analyzing content they share. Supervised machine learning still dominates automatic systems that perform this task, despite the popularity of prompting large language models to address natural language understanding tasks. One reason is that the classification instances consist of large amounts of posts, potentially a whole user profile, which may exceed the input length of Transformers. Even if a model can use a large context window, the entirety of posts makes the application of API-accessed black box systems costly and slow, next to issues which come with such "needle-in-the-haystack" tasks. To mitigate this limitation, we propose a new method for author profiling which aims at distinguishing relevant from irrelevant content first, followed by the actual user profiling only with relevant data. To circumvent the need for relevance-annotated data, we optimize this relevance filter via reinforcement learning with a reward function that utilizes the zero-shot capabilities of large language models. We evaluate our method for Big Five personality trait prediction on two Twitter corpora. On publicly available real-world data with a skewed label distribution, our method shows similar efficacy to using all posts in a user profile, but with a substantially shorter context. An evaluation on a version of these data balanced with artificial posts shows that the filtering to relevant posts leads to a significantly improved accuracy of the predictions.

LLMs have shown remarkable capabilities, but precisely controlling their response behavior remains challenging. Existing activation steering methods alter LLM behavior indiscriminately, limiting their practical applicability in settings where selective responses are essential, such as content moderation or domain-specific assistants. In this paper, we propose Conditional Activation Steering (CAST), which analyzes LLM activation patterns during inference to selectively apply or withhold activation steering based on the input context. Our method is based on the observation that different categories of prompts activate distinct patterns in the model's hidden states. Using CAST, one can systematically control LLM behavior with rules like "if input is about hate speech or adult content, then refuse" or "if input is not about legal advice, then refuse." This allows for selective modification of responses to specific content while maintaining normal responses to other content, all without requiring weight optimization. We release an open-source implementation of our framework.

Many use cases require retrieving smaller portions of text, and dense vector-based retrieval systems often perform better with shorter text segments, as the semantics are less likely to be "over-compressed" in the embeddings. Consequently, practitioners often split text documents into smaller chunks and encode them separately. However, chunk embeddings created in this way can lose contextual information from surrounding chunks, resulting in suboptimal representations. In this paper, we introduce a novel method called "late chunking," which leverages long context embedding models to first embed all tokens of the long text, with chunking applied after the transformer model and just before mean pooling. The resulting chunk embeddings capture the full contextual information, leading to superior results across various retrieval tasks without the need for additional training. Moreover, our method is generic enough to be applied to any long-context embedding model.

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved code generation, particularly in one-pass code generation. However, most existing approaches focus solely on generating code in a single programming language, overlooking the potential of leveraging the multi-language capabilities of LLMs. LLMs have varying patterns of errors across different languages, suggesting that a more robust approach could be developed by leveraging these multi-language outputs. In this study, we propose Multi-Programming Language Ensemble (MPLE), a novel ensemble-based method that utilizes code generation across multiple programming languages to enhance overall performance. By treating each language-specific code generation process as an individual "weak expert" and effectively integrating their outputs, our method mitigates language-specific errors and biases. This multi-language ensemble strategy leverages the complementary strengths of different programming languages, enabling the model to produce more accurate and robust code. Our approach can be seamlessly integrated with commonly used techniques such as the reflection algorithm and Monte Carlo tree search to improve code generation quality further. Experimental results show that our framework consistently enhances baseline performance by up to 17.92% on existing benchmarks (HumanEval and HumanEval-plus), with a standout result of 96.25% accuracy on the HumanEval benchmark, achieving new state-of-the-art results across various LLM models. The code will be released at https://github.com/NinjaTech-AI/MPLE

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have sparked optimism about their potential to accelerate scientific discovery, with a growing number of works proposing research agents that autonomously generate and validate new ideas. Despite this, no evaluations have shown that LLM systems can take the very first step of producing novel, expert-level ideas, let alone perform the entire research process. We address this by establishing an experimental design that evaluates research idea generation while controlling for confounders and performs the first head-to-head comparison between expert NLP researchers and an LLM ideation agent. By recruiting over 100 NLP researchers to write novel ideas and blind reviews of both LLM and human ideas, we obtain the first statistically significant conclusion on current LLM capabilities for research ideation: we find LLM-generated ideas are judged as more novel (p < 0.05) than human expert ideas while being judged slightly weaker on feasibility. Studying our agent baselines closely, we identify open problems in building and evaluating research agents, including failures of LLM self-evaluation and their lack of diversity in generation. Finally, we acknowledge that human judgements of novelty can be difficult, even by experts, and propose an end-to-end study design which recruits researchers to execute these ideas into full projects, enabling us to study whether these novelty and feasibility judgements result in meaningful differences in research outcome.