In the current digital era, the rapid spread of misinformation on online platforms presents significant challenges to societal well-being, public trust, and democratic processes, influencing critical decision making and public opinion. To address these challenges, there is a growing need for automated fake news detection mechanisms. Pre-trained large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities across various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, prompting exploration into their potential for verifying news claims. Instead of employing LLMs in a non-agentic way, where LLMs generate responses based on direct prompts in a single shot, our work introduces FactAgent, an agentic approach of utilizing LLMs for fake news detection. FactAgent enables LLMs to emulate human expert behavior in verifying news claims without any model training, following a structured workflow. This workflow breaks down the complex task of news veracity checking into multiple sub-steps, where LLMs complete simple tasks using their internal knowledge or external tools. At the final step of the workflow, LLMs integrate all findings throughout the workflow to determine the news claim's veracity. Compared to manual human verification, FactAgent offers enhanced efficiency. Experimental studies demonstrate the effectiveness of FactAgent in verifying claims without the need for any training process. Moreover, FactAgent provides transparent explanations at each step of the workflow and during final decision-making, offering insights into the reasoning process of fake news detection for end users. FactAgent is highly adaptable, allowing for straightforward updates to its tools that LLMs can leverage within the workflow, as well as updates to the workflow itself using domain knowledge. This adaptability enables FactAgent's application to news verification across various domains.

We introduce an intuitive method to test the robustness (stability and explainability) of any black-box LLM in real-time, based upon the local deviation from harmoniticity, denoted as $\gamma$. To the best of our knowledge this is the first completely model-agnostic and unsupervised method of measuring the robustness of any given response from an LLM, based upon the model itself conforming to a purely mathematical standard. We conduct human annotation experiments to show the positive correlation of $\gamma$ with false or misleading answers, and demonstrate that following the gradient of $\gamma$ in stochastic gradient ascent efficiently exposes adversarial prompts. Measuring $\gamma$ across thousands of queries in popular LLMs (GPT-4, ChatGPT, Claude-2.1, Mixtral-8x7B, Smaug-72B, Llama2-7B, and MPT-7B) allows us to estimate the liklihood of wrong or hallucinatory answers automatically and quantitatively rank the reliability of these models in various objective domains (Web QA, TruthfulQA, and Programming QA). Across all models and domains tested, human ratings confirm that $\gamma \to 0$ indicates trustworthiness, and the low-$\gamma$ leaders among these models are GPT-4, ChatGPT, and Smaug-72B.

A good summary can often be very useful during program comprehension. While a brief, fluent, and relevant summary can be helpful, it does require significant human effort to produce. Often, good summaries are unavailable in software projects, thus making maintenance more difficult. There has been a considerable body of research into automated AI-based methods, using Large Language models (LLMs), to generate summaries of code; there also has been quite a bit work on ways to measure the performance of such summarization methods, with special attention paid to how closely these AI-generated summaries resemble a summary a human might have produced. Measures such as BERTScore and BLEU have been suggested and evaluated with human-subject studies. However, LLMs often err and generate something quite unlike what a human might say. Given an LLM-produced code summary, is there a way to gauge whether it's likely to be sufficiently similar to a human produced summary, or not? In this paper, we study this question, as a calibration problem: given a summary from an LLM, can we compute a confidence measure, which is a good indication of whether the summary is sufficiently similar to what a human would have produced in this situation? We examine this question using several LLMs, for several languages, and in several different settings. We suggest an approach which provides well-calibrated predictions of likelihood of similarity to human summaries.

Large language models (LLMs) suffer from low efficiency as the mismatch between the requirement of auto-regressive decoding and the design of most contemporary GPUs. Specifically, billions to trillions of parameters must be loaded to the GPU cache through its limited memory bandwidth for computation, but only a small batch of tokens is actually computed. Consequently, the GPU spends most of its time on memory transfer instead of computation. Recently, parallel decoding, a type of speculative decoding algorithms, is becoming more popular and has demonstrated impressive efficiency improvement in generation. It introduces extra decoding heads to large models, enabling them to predict multiple subsequent tokens simultaneously and verify these candidate continuations in a single decoding step. However, this approach deviates from the training objective of next token prediction used during pre-training, resulting in a low hit rate for candidate tokens. In this paper, we propose a new speculative decoding algorithm, Clover, which integrates sequential knowledge into the parallel decoding process. This enhancement improves the hit rate of speculators and thus boosts the overall efficiency. Clover transmits the sequential knowledge from pre-speculated tokens via the Regressive Connection, then employs an Attention Decoder to integrate these speculated tokens. Additionally, Clover incorporates an Augmenting Block that modifies the hidden states to better align with the purpose of speculative generation rather than next token prediction. The experiment results demonstrate that Clover outperforms the baseline by up to 91% on Baichuan-Small and 146% on Baichuan-Large, respectively, and exceeds the performance of the previously top-performing method, Medusa, by up to 37% on Baichuan-Small and 57% on Baichuan-Large, respectively.

Understanding the non-literal meaning of an utterance is critical for large language models (LLMs) to become human-like social communicators. In this work, we introduce SwordsmanImp, the first Chinese multi-turn-dialogue-based dataset aimed at conversational implicature, sourced from dialogues in the Chinese sitcom $\textit{My Own Swordsman}$. It includes 200 carefully handcrafted questions, all annotated on which Gricean maxims have been violated. We test eight close-source and open-source LLMs under two tasks: a multiple-choice question task and an implicature explanation task. Our results show that GPT-4 attains human-level accuracy (94%) on multiple-choice questions. CausalLM demonstrates a 78.5% accuracy following GPT-4. Other models, including GPT-3.5 and several open-source models, demonstrate a lower accuracy ranging from 20% to 60% on multiple-choice questions. Human raters were asked to rate the explanation of the implicatures generated by LLMs on their reasonability, logic and fluency. While all models generate largely fluent and self-consistent text, their explanations score low on reasonability except for GPT-4, suggesting that most LLMs cannot produce satisfactory explanations of the implicatures in the conversation. Moreover, we find LLMs' performance does not vary significantly by Gricean maxims, suggesting that LLMs do not seem to process implicatures derived from different maxims differently. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/sjtu-compling/llm-pragmatics.

In this paper, we explore the challenges associated with establishing an end-to-end fact-checking pipeline in a real-world context, covering over 90 languages. Our real-world experimental benchmarks demonstrate that fine-tuning Transformer models specifically for fact-checking tasks, such as claim detection and veracity prediction, provide superior performance over large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4, GPT-3.5-Turbo, and Mistral-7b. However, we illustrate that LLMs excel in generative tasks such as question decomposition for evidence retrieval. Through extensive evaluation, we show the efficacy of fine-tuned models for fact-checking in a multilingual setting and complex claims that include numerical quantities.

Language models have been effective in a wide range of applications, yet the most sophisticated models are often proprietary. For example, GPT-4 by OpenAI and various models by Anthropic are expensive and consume substantial energy. In contrast, the open-source community has produced competitive models, like Llama3. Furthermore, niche-specific smaller language models, such as those tailored for legal, medical or financial tasks, have outperformed their proprietary counterparts. This paper introduces a novel approach that employs \textit{functional tokens} to integrate \textbf{multiple open-source models}, each optimized for particular tasks. Our newly developed Octopus v4 model leverages \textit{functional tokens} to intelligently direct user queries to the most appropriate vertical model and reformat the query to achieve the best performance. Octopus v4, an evolution of the Octopus v1, v2, and v3 models, excels in selection and parameter understanding and reformatting. Additionally, we explore the use of graph as a versatile data structure that effectively coordinates multiple open-source models by harnessing the capabilities of the Octopus model and \textit{functional tokens}. Use our open-sourced GitHub (\url{https://www.nexa4ai.com/}) to try Octopus v4 models (\url{https://huggingface.co/NexaAIDev/Octopus-v4}), and contrite to a larger graph of language models. By activating models less than 10B parameters, we achieved SOTA MMLU score of 74.8 among the same level models.

Current evaluation benchmarks for question answering (QA) in Indic languages often rely on machine translation of existing English datasets. This approach suffers from bias and inaccuracies inherent in machine translation, leading to datasets that may not reflect the true capabilities of EQA models for Indic languages. This paper proposes a new benchmark specifically designed for evaluating Hindi EQA models and discusses the methodology to do the same for any task. This method leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate a high-quality dataset in an extractive setting, ensuring its relevance for the target language. We believe this new resource will foster advancements in Hindi NLP research by providing a more accurate and reliable evaluation tool.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed significant advancements in Natural Language Processing (NLP), yet they encounter challenges such as hallucination and the need for domain-specific knowledge. To mitigate these, recent methodologies have integrated information retrieved from external resources with LLMs, substantially enhancing their performance across NLP tasks. This survey paper addresses the absence of a comprehensive overview on Retrieval-Augmented Language Models (RALMs), both Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Retrieval-Augmented Understanding (RAU), providing an in-depth examination of their paradigm, evolution, taxonomy, and applications. The paper discusses the essential components of RALMs, including Retrievers, Language Models, and Augmentations, and how their interactions lead to diverse model structures and applications. RALMs demonstrate utility in a spectrum of tasks, from translation and dialogue systems to knowledge-intensive applications. The survey includes several evaluation methods of RALMs, emphasizing the importance of robustness, accuracy, and relevance in their assessment. It also acknowledges the limitations of RALMs, particularly in retrieval quality and computational efficiency, offering directions for future research. In conclusion, this survey aims to offer a structured insight into RALMs, their potential, and the avenues for their future development in NLP. The paper is supplemented with a Github Repository containing the surveyed works and resources for further study: https://github.com/2471023025/RALM_Survey.

The Segment Anything Model (SAM) and CLIP are remarkable vision foundation models (VFMs). SAM, a prompt driven segmentation model, excels in segmentation tasks across diverse domains, while CLIP is renowned for its zero shot recognition capabilities. However, their unified potential has not yet been explored in medical image segmentation. To adapt SAM to medical imaging, existing methods primarily rely on tuning strategies that require extensive data or prior prompts tailored to the specific task, making it particularly challenging when only a limited number of data samples are available. This work presents an in depth exploration of integrating SAM and CLIP into a unified framework for medical image segmentation. Specifically, we propose a simple unified framework, SaLIP, for organ segmentation. Initially, SAM is used for part based segmentation within the image, followed by CLIP to retrieve the mask corresponding to the region of interest (ROI) from the pool of SAM generated masks. Finally, SAM is prompted by the retrieved ROI to segment a specific organ. Thus, SaLIP is training and fine tuning free and does not rely on domain expertise or labeled data for prompt engineering. Our method shows substantial enhancements in zero shot segmentation, showcasing notable improvements in DICE scores across diverse segmentation tasks like brain (63.46%), lung (50.11%), and fetal head (30.82%), when compared to un prompted SAM. Code and text prompts are available at: https://github.com/aleemsidra/SaLIP.