Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning abilities when prompted to generate chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations alongside answers. However, previous research on evaluating LLMs has solely focused on answer accuracy, neglecting the correctness of the generated CoT. In this paper, we delve deeper into the CoT reasoning capabilities of LLMs in multi-hop question answering by utilizing knowledge graphs (KGs). We propose a novel discriminative and generative CoT evaluation paradigm to assess LLMs' knowledge of reasoning and the accuracy of the generated CoT. Through experiments conducted on 5 different families of LLMs across 2 multi-hop question-answering datasets, we find that LLMs possess sufficient knowledge to perform reasoning. However, there exists a significant disparity between answer accuracy and faithfulness of the CoT reasoning generated by LLMs, indicating that they often arrive at correct answers through incorrect reasoning.

This paper investigates the propagation of harmful information in multilingual large language models (LLMs) and evaluates the efficacy of various unlearning methods. We demonstrate that fake information, regardless of the language it is in, once introduced into these models through training data, can spread across different languages, compromising the integrity and reliability of the generated content. Our findings reveal that standard unlearning techniques, which typically focus on English data, are insufficient in mitigating the spread of harmful content in multilingual contexts and could inadvertently reinforce harmful content across languages. We show that only by addressing harmful responses in both English and the original language of the harmful data can we effectively eliminate generations for all languages. This underscores the critical need for comprehensive unlearning strategies that consider the multilingual nature of modern LLMs to enhance their safety and reliability across diverse linguistic landscapes.

Recent advancements in Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) have significantly impacted the alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs). The sensitivity of reinforcement learning algorithms such as Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) has led to new line work on Direct Policy Optimization (DPO), which treats RLHF in a supervised learning framework. The increased practical use of these RLHF methods warrants an analysis of their vulnerabilities. In this work, we investigate the vulnerabilities of DPO to poisoning attacks under different scenarios and compare the effectiveness of preference poisoning, a first of its kind. We comprehensively analyze DPO's vulnerabilities under different types of attacks, i.e., backdoor and non-backdoor attacks, and different poisoning methods across a wide array of language models, i.e., LLama 7B, Mistral 7B, and Gemma 7B. We find that unlike PPO-based methods, which, when it comes to backdoor attacks, require at least 4\% of the data to be poisoned to elicit harmful behavior, we exploit the true vulnerabilities of DPO more simply so we can poison the model with only as much as 0.5\% of the data. We further investigate the potential reasons behind the vulnerability and how well this vulnerability translates into backdoor vs non-backdoor attacks.

This paper explores the performance of encoder and decoder language models on multilingual Natural Language Understanding (NLU) tasks, with a broad focus on Germanic languages. Building upon the ScandEval benchmark, which initially was restricted to evaluating encoder models, we extend the evaluation framework to include decoder models. We introduce a method for evaluating decoder models on NLU tasks and apply it to the languages Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Faroese, German, Dutch, and English. Through a series of experiments and analyses, we address key research questions regarding the comparative performance of encoder and decoder models, the impact of NLU task types, and the variation across language resources. Our findings reveal that decoder models can achieve significantly better NLU performance than encoder models, with nuances observed across different tasks and languages. Additionally, we investigate the correlation between decoders and task performance via a UMAP analysis, shedding light on the unique capabilities of decoder and encoder models. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of language model paradigms in NLU tasks and provides valuable insights for model selection and evaluation in multilingual settings.

Language models (LMs) are susceptible to "memorizing" training data, including a large amount of private or copyright-protected content. To safeguard the right to be forgotten (RTBF), machine unlearning has emerged as a promising method for LMs to efficiently "forget" sensitive training content and mitigate knowledge leakage risks. However, despite its good intentions, could the unlearning mechanism be counterproductive? In this paper, we propose the Textual Unlearning Leakage Attack (TULA), where an adversary can infer information about the unlearned data only by accessing the models before and after unlearning. Furthermore, we present variants of TULA in both black-box and white-box scenarios. Through various experimental results, we critically demonstrate that machine unlearning amplifies the risk of knowledge leakage from LMs. Specifically, TULA can increase an adversary's ability to infer membership information about the unlearned data by more than 20% in black-box scenario. Moreover, TULA can even reconstruct the unlearned data directly with more than 60% accuracy with white-box access. Our work is the first to reveal that machine unlearning in LMs can inversely create greater knowledge risks and inspire the development of more secure unlearning mechanisms.

Social media enables activists to directly communicate with the public and provides a space for movement leaders, participants, bystanders, and opponents to collectively construct and contest narratives. Focusing on Twitter messages from social movements surrounding three issues in 2018-2019 (guns, immigration, and LGBTQ rights), we create a codebook, annotated dataset, and computational models to detect diagnostic (problem identification and attribution), prognostic (proposed solutions and tactics), and motivational (calls to action) framing strategies. We conduct an in-depth unsupervised linguistic analysis of each framing strategy, and uncover cross-movement similarities in associations between framing and linguistic features such as pronouns and deontic modal verbs. Finally, we compare framing strategies across issues and other social, cultural, and interactional contexts. For example, we show that diagnostic framing is more common in replies than original broadcast posts, and that social movement organizations focus much more on prognostic and motivational framing than journalists and ordinary citizens.

While fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) excel in generating grammatically valid SQL in Text-to-SQL parsing, they often struggle to ensure semantic accuracy in queries, leading to user confusion and diminished system usability. To tackle this challenge, we introduce SQLFixAgent, an innovative multi-agent collaborative framework designed for detecting and repairing erroneous SQL. Our framework comprises a core agent, SQLRefiner, alongside two auxiliary agents: SQLReviewer and QueryCrafter. The SQLReviewer agent employs the rubber duck debugging method to identify potential semantic mismatches between SQL statement and user query. If the error is detected, the QueryCrafter agent generates multiple SQL statements as candidate repairs using a fine-tuned SQLTool. Subsequently, leveraging similar repair retrieval and failure memory reflexion, the SQLRefiner agent selects the most fitting SQL statement from the candidates as the final repair. We evaluated our proposed framework on five Text-to-SQL benchmarks. The experimental results show that our method consistently enhances the performance of the baseline model, specifically achieving an execution accuracy improvement of over 3\% on the Bird benchmark. Our framework also has a higher token efficiency compared to other advanced methods, making it more competitive.

The rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs) have opened up new opportunities for transforming patient engagement in healthcare through conversational AI. This paper presents an overview of the current landscape of LLMs in healthcare, specifically focusing on their applications in analyzing and generating conversations for improved patient engagement. We showcase the power of LLMs in handling unstructured conversational data through four case studies: (1) analyzing mental health discussions on Reddit, (2) developing a personalized chatbot for cognitive engagement in seniors, (3) summarizing medical conversation datasets, and (4) designing an AI-powered patient engagement system. These case studies demonstrate how LLMs can effectively extract insights and summarizations from unstructured dialogues and engage patients in guided, goal-oriented conversations. Leveraging LLMs for conversational analysis and generation opens new doors for many patient-centered outcomes research opportunities. However, integrating LLMs into healthcare raises important ethical considerations regarding data privacy, bias, transparency, and regulatory compliance. We discuss best practices and guidelines for the responsible development and deployment of LLMs in healthcare settings. Realizing the full potential of LLMs in digital health will require close collaboration between the AI and healthcare professionals communities to address technical challenges and ensure these powerful tools' safety, efficacy, and equity.

Calibrating language models (LMs) aligns their generation confidence with the actual likelihood of answer correctness, which can inform users about LMs' reliability and mitigate hallucinated content. However, prior calibration methods, such as self-consistency-based and logit-based approaches, are either limited in inference-time efficiency or fall short of providing informative signals. Moreover, simply filtering out low-confidence responses reduces the LM's helpfulness when the answers are correct. Therefore, effectively using calibration techniques to enhance an LM's factuality remains an unsolved challenge. In this paper, we first propose an activation-based calibration method, ActCab, which trains a linear layer on top of the LM's last-layer activations that can better capture the representations of knowledge. Built on top of ActCab, we further propose CoDec, a confidence-guided decoding strategy to elicit truthful answers with high confidence from LMs. By evaluating on five popular QA benchmarks, ActCab achieves superior calibration performance than all competitive baselines, e.g., by reducing the average expected calibration error (ECE) score by up to 39%. Further experiments on CoDec show consistent improvements in several LMs' factuality on challenging QA datasets, such as TruthfulQA, highlighting the value of confidence signals in enhancing factuality.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs), such as hallucinations and outdated information. However, it remains unclear how LLMs handle knowledge conflicts arising from different augmented retrieved passages, especially when these passages originate from the same source and have equal trustworthiness. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions that have varying answers based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia, a dataset widely regarded as a high-quality pre-training resource for most LLMs. Specifically, we introduce WikiContradict, a benchmark consisting of 253 high-quality, human-annotated instances designed to assess LLM performance when augmented with retrieved passages containing real-world knowledge conflicts. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages. Through rigorous human evaluations on a subset of WikiContradict instances involving 5 LLMs and over 3,500 judgements, we shed light on the behaviour and limitations of these models. For instance, when provided with two passages containing contradictory facts, all models struggle to generate answers that accurately reflect the conflicting nature of the context, especially for implicit conflicts requiring reasoning. Since human evaluation is costly, we also introduce an automated model that estimates LLM performance using a strong open-source language model, achieving an F-score of 0.8. Using this automated metric, we evaluate more than 1,500 answers from seven LLMs across all WikiContradict instances. To facilitate future work, we release WikiContradict on: https://ibm.biz/wikicontradict.