Despite the success of conventional collaborative filtering (CF) approaches for recommendation systems, they exhibit limitations in leveraging semantic knowledge within the textual attributes of users and items. Recent focus on the application of large language models for recommendation (LLM4Rec) has highlighted their capability for effective semantic knowledge capture. However, these methods often overlook the collaborative signals in user behaviors. Some simply instruct-tune a language model, while others directly inject the embeddings of a CF-based model, lacking a synergistic fusion of different modalities. To address these issues, we propose a framework of Collaborative Cross-modal Fusion with Large Language Models, termed CCF-LLM, for recommendation. In this framework, we translate the user-item interactions into a hybrid prompt to encode both semantic knowledge and collaborative signals, and then employ an attentive cross-modal fusion strategy to effectively fuse latent embeddings of both modalities. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CCF-LLM outperforms existing methods by effectively utilizing semantic and collaborative signals in the LLM4Rec context.

Recent studies demonstrate that prompting an appropriate role-playing persona to an LLM improves its reasoning capability. However, assigning a proper persona is difficult since an LLM's performance is extremely sensitive to assigned prompts; therefore, personas sometimes hinder LLMs and degrade their reasoning capabilities. In this paper, we propose a novel framework, Jekyll \& Hyde, which ensembles the results of role-playing and neutral prompts to eradicate performance degradation via unilateral use of role-playing prompted LLM and enhance the robustness of an LLM's reasoning ability. Specifically, Jekyll \& Hyde collects two potential solutions from both role-playing and neutral prompts and selects a better solution after cross-checking via an LLM evaluator. However, LLM-based evaluators tend to be affected by the order of those potential solutions within the prompt when selecting the proper solution; thus, we also propose a robust LLM evaluator to mitigate the position bias. The experimental analysis demonstrates that role-playing prompts distract LLMs and degrade their reasoning abilities in 4 out of 12 datasets, even when using GPT-4. In addition, we reveal that Jekyll \& Hyde improves reasoning capabilities by selecting better choices among the potential solutions on twelve widely-used reasoning datasets. We further show that our proposed LLM evaluator outperforms other baselines, proving the LLMs' position bias is successfully mitigated.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) excel in solving text-based mathematical problems, but they struggle with mathematical diagrams since they are primarily trained on natural scene images. For humans, visual aids generally enhance problem-solving, but MLLMs perform worse as information shifts from textual to visual modality. This decline is mainly due to their shortcomings in aligning images and text. To tackle aforementioned challenges, we propose Math-PUMA, a methodology focused on Progressive Upward Multimodal Alignment. This approach is designed to improve the mathematical reasoning skills of MLLMs through a three-stage training process, with the second stage being the critical alignment stage. We first enhance the language model's mathematical reasoning capabilities with extensive set of textual mathematical problems. We then construct a multimodal dataset with varying degrees of textual and visual information, creating data pairs by presenting each problem in at least two forms. By leveraging the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence of next-token prediction distributions to align visual and textual modalities, consistent problem-solving abilities are ensured. Finally, we utilize multimodal instruction tuning for MLLMs with high-quality multimodal data. Experimental results on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that the MLLMs trained with Math-PUMA surpass most open-source MLLMs. Our approach effectively narrows the performance gap for problems presented in different modalities.

Guardrails have become an integral part of Large language models (LLMs), by moderating harmful or toxic response in order to maintain LLMs' alignment to human expectations. However, the existing guardrail methods do not consider different needs and access rights of individual users, and treat all the users with the same rule. This study introduces an adaptive guardrail mechanism, supported by trust modeling and enhanced with in-context learning, to dynamically modulate access to sensitive content based on user trust metrics. By leveraging a combination of direct interaction trust and authority-verified trust, the system precisely tailors the strictness of content moderation to align with the user's credibility and the specific context of their inquiries. Our empirical evaluations demonstrate that the adaptive guardrail effectively meets diverse user needs, outperforming existing guardrails in practicality while securing sensitive information and precisely managing potentially hazardous content through a context-aware knowledge base. This work is the first to introduce trust-oriented concept within a guardrail system, offering a scalable solution that enriches the discourse on ethical deployment for next-generation LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance across various natural language processing tasks, yet they occasionally tend to yield content that factually inaccurate or discordant with the expected output, a phenomenon empirically referred to as "hallucination". To tackle this issue, recent works have investigated contrastive decoding between the original model and an amateur model with induced hallucination, which has shown promising results. Nonetheless, this method may undermine the output distribution of the original LLM caused by its coarse contrast and simplistic subtraction operation, potentially leading to errors in certain cases. In this paper, we introduce a novel contrastive decoding framework termed LOL (LOwer Layer Matters). Our approach involves concatenating the contrastive decoding of both the final and lower layers between the original model and the amateur model, thereby achieving multi-layer fusion to aid in the mitigation of hallucination. Additionally, we incorporate a truthfulness refocused module that leverages contextual guidance to enhance factual encoding, further capturing truthfulness during contrastive decoding. Extensive experiments conducted on two publicly available datasets illustrate that our proposed LOL framework can substantially alleviate hallucination while surpassing existing baselines in most cases. Compared with the best baseline, we improve by average 4.5 points on all metrics of TruthfulQA. The source code is coming soon.

The impressive performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) has consistently surpassed numerous human-designed benchmarks, presenting new challenges in assessing the shortcomings of LLMs. Designing tasks and finding LLMs' limitations are becoming increasingly important. In this paper, we investigate the question of whether an LLM can discover its own limitations from the errors it makes. To this end, we propose a Self-Challenge evaluation framework with human-in-the-loop. Starting from seed instances that GPT-4 fails to answer, we prompt GPT-4 to summarize error patterns that can be used to generate new instances and incorporate human feedback on them to refine these patterns for generating more challenging data, iteratively. We end up with 8 diverse patterns, such as text manipulation and questions with assumptions. We then build a benchmark, SC-G4, consisting of 1,835 instances generated by GPT-4 using these patterns, with human-annotated gold responses. The SC-G4 serves as a challenging benchmark that allows for a detailed assessment of LLMs' abilities. Our results show that only 44.96\% of instances in SC-G4 can be answered correctly by GPT-4. Interestingly, our pilot study indicates that these error patterns also challenge other LLMs, such as Claude-3 and Llama-3, and cannot be fully resolved through fine-tuning. Our work takes the first step to demonstrate that LLMs can autonomously identify their inherent flaws and provide insights for future dynamic and automatic evaluation.

Security patches are essential for enhancing the stability and robustness of projects in the software community. While vulnerabilities are officially expected to be patched before being disclosed, patching vulnerabilities is complicated and remains a struggle for many organizations. To patch vulnerabilities, security practitioners typically track vulnerable issue reports (IRs), and analyze their relevant insecure code to generate potential patches. However, the relevant insecure code may not be explicitly specified and practitioners cannot track the insecure code in the repositories, thus limiting their ability to generate patches. In such cases, providing examples of insecure code and the corresponding patches would benefit the security developers to better locate and fix the insecure code. In this paper, we propose PatUntrack to automatically generating patch examples from IRs without tracked insecure code. It auto-prompts Large Language Models (LLMs) to make them applicable to analyze the vulnerabilities. It first generates the completed description of the Vulnerability-Triggering Path (VTP) from vulnerable IRs. Then, it corrects hallucinations in the VTP description with external golden knowledge. Finally, it generates Top-K pairs of Insecure Code and Patch Example based on the corrected VTP description. To evaluate the performance, we conducted experiments on 5,465 vulnerable IRs. The experimental results show that PatUntrack can obtain the highest performance and improve the traditional LLM baselines by +14.6% (Fix@10) on average in patch example generation. Furthermore, PatUntrack was applied to generate patch examples for 76 newly disclosed vulnerable IRs. 27 out of 37 replies from the authors of these IRs confirmed the usefulness of the patch examples generated by PatUntrack, indicating that they can benefit from these examples for patching the vulnerabilities.

Large Transformer networks are increasingly used in settings where low inference latency can improve the end-user experience and enable new applications. However, autoregressive inference is resource intensive and requires parallelism for efficiency. Parallelism introduces collective communication that is both expensive and represents a phase when hardware resources are underutilized. Towards mitigating this, Kraken is an evolution of the standard Transformer architecture that is designed to complement existing tensor parallelism schemes for efficient inference on multi-device systems. By introducing a fixed degree of intra-layer model parallelism, the architecture allows collective operations to be overlapped with compute, decreasing latency and increasing hardware utilization. When trained on OpenWeb-Text, Kraken models reach a similar perplexity as standard Transformers while also preserving their language modeling capabilities when evaluated on the SuperGLUE benchmark. Importantly, when tested on multi-GPU systems using TensorRT-LLM engines, Kraken speeds up Time To First Token by a mean of 35.6% across a range of model sizes, context lengths, and degrees of tensor parallelism.

Recent studies on logical reasoning in auto-regressive Language Models (LMs) have sparked a debate on whether such models can learn systematic reasoning principles during pre-training or merely exploit superficial patterns in the training data. This paper presents a mechanistic interpretation of syllogistic reasoning in LMs to further enhance our understanding of internal dynamics. Specifically, we present a methodology for circuit discovery aimed at disentangling content-independent reasoning mechanisms from world knowledge acquired during pre-training. Through two distinct intervention methods, we uncover a sufficient and necessary circuit involving middle-term suppression that elucidates how LMs transfer information to derive valid conclusions from premises. Furthermore, we investigate how belief biases manifest in syllogistic reasoning, finding evidence of partial contamination from additional attention heads responsible for encoding commonsense and contextualized knowledge. Finally, we explore the generalization of the discovered mechanisms across various syllogistic schemes and model sizes, finding that the identified circuit is sufficient and necessary for all the schemes on which the model achieves high downstream accuracy ($\geq$ 60\%). Overall, our findings suggest that LMs indeed learn transferable content-independent reasoning mechanisms, but that, at the same time, such mechanisms do not involve generalisable and abstract logical primitives, being susceptible to contamination by the same world knowledge acquired during pre-training.

Despite Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) showing promising capability in leveraging external knowledge, a comprehensive evaluation of RAG systems is still challenging due to the modular nature of RAG, evaluation of long-form responses and reliability of measurements. In this paper, we propose a fine-grained evaluation framework, RAGChecker, that incorporates a suite of diagnostic metrics for both the retrieval and generation modules. Meta evaluation verifies that RAGChecker has significantly better correlations with human judgments than other evaluation metrics. Using RAGChecker, we evaluate 8 RAG systems and conduct an in-depth analysis of their performance, revealing insightful patterns and trade-offs in the design choices of RAG architectures. The metrics of RAGChecker can guide researchers and practitioners in developing more effective RAG systems. This work has been open sourced at https://github.com/amazon-science/RAGChecker.