Concept guidance has emerged as a cheap and simple way to control the behavior of language models by probing their hidden representations for concept vectors and using them to perturb activations at inference time. While the focus of previous work has largely been on truthfulness, in this paper we extend this framework to a richer set of concepts such as appropriateness, humor, creativity and quality, and explore to what degree current detection and guidance strategies work in these challenging settings. To facilitate evaluation, we develop a novel metric for concept guidance that takes into account both the success of concept elicitation as well as the potential degradation in fluency of the guided model. Our extensive experiments reveal that while some concepts such as truthfulness more easily allow for guidance with current techniques, novel concepts such as appropriateness or humor either remain difficult to elicit, need extensive tuning to work, or even experience confusion. Moreover, we find that probes with optimal detection accuracies do not necessarily make for the optimal guides, contradicting previous observations for truthfulness. Our work warrants a deeper investigation into the interplay between detectability, guidability, and the nature of the concept, and we hope that our rich experimental test-bed for guidance research inspires stronger follow-up approaches.

Recent years have seen important advances in the building of interpretable models, machine learning models that are designed to be easily understood by humans. In this work, we show that large language models (LLMs) are remarkably good at working with interpretable models, too. In particular, we show that LLMs can describe, interpret, and debug Generalized Additive Models (GAMs). Combining the flexibility of LLMs with the breadth of statistical patterns accurately described by GAMs enables dataset summarization, question answering, and model critique. LLMs can also improve the interaction between domain experts and interpretable models, and generate hypotheses about the underlying phenomenon. We release \url{https://github.com/interpretml/TalkToEBM} as an open-source LLM-GAM interface.

Task embedding, a meta-learning technique that captures task-specific information, has become prevalent, especially in areas such as multi-task learning, model editing, and interpretability. However, it faces challenges with the emergence of prompt-guided Large Language Models (LLMs) operating in a gradientfree manner. Existing task embedding methods rely on fine-tuned, task-specific language models, which hinders the adaptability of task embeddings across diverse models, especially prompt-based LLMs. To unleash the power of task embedding in the era of LLMs, we propose a framework for unified task embeddings (FUTE), harmonizing task embeddings from various models, including smaller language models and LLMs with varied prompts, within a single vector space. Such uniformity enables the comparison and analysis of similarities amongst different models, extending the scope and utility of existing task embedding methods in addressing multi-model scenarios, whilst maintaining their performance to be comparable to architecture-specific methods.

Recent methods have demonstrated that Large Language Models (LLMs) can solve reasoning tasks better when they are encouraged to solve subtasks of the main task first. In this paper we devise a similar strategy that breaks down reasoning tasks into a problem decomposition phase and a problem solving phase and show that the strategy is able to outperform a single stage solution. Further, we hypothesize that the decomposition should be easier to distill into a smaller model compared to the problem solving because the latter requires large amounts of domain knowledge while the former only requires learning general problem solving strategies. We propose methods to distill these two capabilities and evaluate their impact on reasoning outcomes and inference cost. We find that we can distill the problem decomposition phase and at the same time achieve good generalization across tasks, datasets, and models. However, it is harder to distill the problem solving capability without losing performance and the resulting distilled model struggles with generalization. These results indicate that by using smaller, distilled problem decomposition models in combination with problem solving LLMs we can achieve reasoning with cost-efficient inference and local adaptation.

The paper introduces Hands-Free VR, a voice-based natural-language interface for VR. The user gives a command using their voice, the speech audio data is converted to text using a speech-to-text deep learning model that is fine-tuned for robustness to word phonetic similarity and to spoken English accents, and the text is mapped to an executable VR command using a large language model that is robust to natural language diversity. Hands-Free VR was evaluated in a controlled within-subjects study (N = 22) that asked participants to find specific objects and to place them in various configurations. In the control condition participants used a conventional VR user interface to grab, carry, and position the objects using the handheld controllers. In the experimental condition participants used Hands-Free VR. The results confirm that: (1) Hands-Free VR is robust to spoken English accents, as for 20 of our participants English was not their first language, and to word phonetic similarity, correctly transcribing the voice command 96.71% of the time; (2) Hands-Free VR is robust to natural language diversity, correctly mapping the transcribed command to an executable command in 97.83% of the time; (3) Hands-Free VR had a significant efficiency advantage over the conventional VR interface in terms of task completion time, total viewpoint translation, total view direction rotation, and total left and right hand translations; (4) Hands-Free VR received high user preference ratings in terms of ease of use, intuitiveness, ergonomics, reliability, and desirability.

In the domain of Natural Language Processing (NLP), Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promise in text-generation tasks. However, their educational applications, particularly for domain-specific queries, remain underexplored. This study investigates LLMs' capabilities in educational scenarios, focusing on concept graph recovery and question-answering (QA). We assess LLMs' zero-shot performance in creating domain-specific concept graphs and introduce TutorQA, a new expert-verified NLP-focused benchmark for scientific graph reasoning and QA. TutorQA consists of five tasks with 500 QA pairs. To tackle TutorQA queries, we present CGLLM, a pipeline integrating concept graphs with LLMs for answering diverse questions. Our results indicate that LLMs' zero-shot concept graph recovery is competitive with supervised methods, showing an average 3% F1 score improvement. In TutorQA tasks, LLMs achieve up to 26% F1 score enhancement. Moreover, human evaluation and analysis show that CGLLM generates answers with more fine-grained concepts.

Critique ability are crucial in the scalable oversight and self-improvement of Large Language Models (LLMs). While many recent studies explore the critique ability of LLMs to judge and refine flaws in generations, how to comprehensively and reliably measure the critique abilities of LLMs is under-explored. This paper introduces CriticBench, a novel benchmark designed to comprehensively and reliably evaluate four key critique ability dimensions of LLMs: feedback, comparison, refinement and meta-feedback. CriticBench encompasses nine diverse tasks, each assessing the LLMs' ability to critique responses at varying levels of quality granularity. Our extensive evaluations of open-source and closed-source LLMs reveal intriguing relationships between the critique ability and tasks, response qualities, and model scales. Datasets, resources and evaluation toolkit for CriticBench will be publicly released at https://github.com/open-compass/CriticBench.

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT-3.5 [25], GPT-4 [1] and Bard [21], have revolutionized and popularized natural language processing and AI, demonstrating human-like and super-human performance in a wide range of text-based tasks [37]. While the layman may find the responses of LLMs hard to distinguish from human-generated ones [26, 3], a plethora of recent literature has shown that it is possible to successfully discern human-generated text from LLM-generated text using various computational techniques [30, 5, 15]. Among the developed techniques, the linguistic approach, which focuses on the structure, patterns, and nuances inherent in human language, stands out as a promising option that offers both high statistical performance [14] as well as theoretically-grounded explanatory power [23], as opposed to alternative "black-box" machine-learning techniques [2, 29]. Indeed, recent literature has shown that human and LLM-generated texts are, generally speaking, linguistically different across a wide variety of tasks and datasets including news reporting [23], hotel reviewing [9], essay writing [14] and scientific communication [6] to name a few. Common to these and similar studies is the observation that LLM-generated texts tend to be extensive and comprehensive, highly organized, follow a logical structure or formally stated, and present higher objectivity and lower prevalence of bias and harmful content compared to human-generated texts [34]. Extensive research into human-generated texts has consistently demonstrated the inherent diversity in human writing styles, resulting in distinct linguistic patterns, structures, and nuances [27, 22, 28].

In this study, we investigate the reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in professing human-like personality traits through responses to personality questionnaires. Our goal is to evaluate the consistency between LLMs' professed personality inclinations and their actual "behavior", examining the extent to which these models can emulate human-like personality patterns. Through a comprehensive analysis of LLM outputs against established human benchmarks, we seek to understand the cognition-action divergence in LLMs and propose hypotheses for the observed results based on psychological theories and metrics.

Rapid progress in high-level task planning and code generation for open-world robot manipulation has been witnessed in Embodied AI. However, previous studies put much effort into general common sense reasoning and task planning capabilities of large-scale language or multi-modal models, relatively little effort on ensuring the deployability of generated code on real robots, and other fundamental components of autonomous robot systems including robot perception, motion planning, and control. To bridge this ``ideal-to-real'' gap, this paper presents \textbf{RobotScript}, a platform for 1) a deployable robot manipulation pipeline powered by code generation; and 2) a code generation benchmark for robot manipulation tasks in free-form natural language. The RobotScript platform addresses this gap by emphasizing the unified interface with both simulation and real robots, based on abstraction from the Robot Operating System (ROS), ensuring syntax compliance and simulation validation with Gazebo. We demonstrate the adaptability of our code generation framework across multiple robot embodiments, including the Franka and UR5 robot arms, and multiple grippers. Additionally, our benchmark assesses reasoning abilities for physical space and constraints, highlighting the differences between GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Gemini in handling complex physical interactions. Finally, we present a thorough evaluation on the whole system, exploring how each module in the pipeline: code generation, perception, motion planning, and even object geometric properties, impact the overall performance of the system.