In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have become incredibly popular, with ChatGPT for example being used by over a billion users. While these models exhibit remarkable language understanding and logical prowess, a notable challenge surfaces in the form of "hallucinations." This phenomenon results in LLMs outputting misinformation in a confident manner, which can lead to devastating consequences with such a large user base. However, we question the appropriateness of the term "hallucination" in LLMs, proposing a psychological taxonomy based on cognitive biases and other psychological phenomena. Our approach offers a more fine-grained understanding of this phenomenon, allowing for targeted solutions. By leveraging insights from how humans internally resolve similar challenges, we aim to develop strategies to mitigate LLM hallucinations. This interdisciplinary approach seeks to move beyond conventional terminology, providing a nuanced understanding and actionable pathways for improvement in LLM reliability.

As language model agents leveraging external tools rapidly evolve, significant progress has been made in question-answering(QA) methodologies utilizing supplementary documents and the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) approach. This advancement has improved the response quality of language models and alleviates the appearance of hallucination. However, these methods exhibit limited retrieval accuracy when faced with massive indistinguishable documents, presenting notable challenges in their practical application. In response to these emerging challenges, we present HiQA, an advanced framework for multi-document question-answering (MDQA) that integrates cascading metadata into content as well as a multi-route retrieval mechanism. We also release a benchmark called MasQA to evaluate and research in MDQA. Finally, HiQA demonstrates the state-of-the-art performance in multi-document environments.

This paper investigates the voting behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly OpenAI's GPT4 and LLaMA2, and their alignment with human voting patterns. Our approach included a human voting experiment to establish a baseline for human preferences and a parallel experiment with LLM agents. The study focused on both collective outcomes and individual preferences, revealing differences in decision-making and inherent biases between humans and LLMs. We observed a trade-off between preference diversity and alignment in LLMs, with a tendency towards more uniform choices as compared to the diverse preferences of human voters. This finding indicates that LLMs could lead to more homogenized collective outcomes when used in voting assistance, underscoring the need for cautious integration of LLMs into democratic processes.

An empirical investigation into the simulation of the Big Five personality traits by large language models (LLMs), namely Llama2, GPT4, and Mixtral, is presented. We analyze the personality traits simulated by these models and their stability. This contributes to the broader understanding of the capabilities of LLMs to simulate personality traits and the respective implications for personalized human-computer interaction.

The present paper looks at one of the most thorough articles on the intelligence of GPT, research conducted by engineers at Microsoft. Although there is a great deal of value in their work, I will argue that, for familiar philosophical reasons, their methodology, !Blackbox Interpretability"#is wrongheaded. But there is a better way. There is an exciting and emerging discipline of !Inner Interpretability"#(and specifically Mechanistic Interpretability) that aims to uncover the internal activations and weights of models in order to understand what they represent and the algorithms they implement. In my view, a crucial mistake in Black-box Interpretability is the failure to appreciate that how processes are carried out matters when it comes to intelligence and understanding. I can#t pretend to have a full story that provides both necessary and sufficient conditions for being intelligent, but I do think that Inner Interpretability dovetails nicely with plausible philosophical views of what intelligence requires. So the conclusion is modest, but the important point in my view is seeing how to get the research on the right track. Towards the end of the paper, I will show how some of the philosophical concepts can be used to further refine how Inner Interpretability is approached, so the paper helps draw out a profitable, future two-way exchange between Philosophers and Computer Scientists.

Large language models and AI chatbots have been at the forefront of democratizing artificial intelligence. However, the releases of ChatGPT and other similar tools have been followed by growing concerns regarding the difficulty of controlling large language models and their outputs. Currently, we are witnessing a cat-and-mouse game where users attempt to misuse the models with a novel attack called prompt injections. In contrast, the developers attempt to discover the vulnerabilities and block the attacks simultaneously. In this paper, we provide an overview of these emergent threats and present a categorization of prompt injections, which can guide future research on prompt injections and act as a checklist of vulnerabilities in the development of LLM interfaces. Moreover, based on previous literature and our own empirical research, we discuss the implications of prompt injections to LLM end users, developers, and researchers.

Opinion summarisation aims to summarise the salient information and opinions presented in documents such as product reviews, discussion forums, and social media texts into short summaries that enable users to effectively understand the opinions therein. Generating biased summaries has the risk of potentially swaying public opinion. Previous studies focused on studying bias in opinion summarisation using extractive models, but limited research has paid attention to abstractive summarisation models. In this study, using political bias as a case study, we first establish a methodology to quantify bias in abstractive models, then trace it from the pre-trained models to the task of summarising social media opinions using different models and adaptation methods. We find that most models exhibit intrinsic bias. Using a social media text summarisation dataset and contrasting various adaptation methods, we find that tuning a smaller number of parameters is less biased compared to standard fine-tuning; however, the diversity of topics in training data used for fine-tuning is critical.

Recently emerged prompt-based Recommendation Language Models (RLM) can solve multiple recommendation tasks uniformly. The RLMs make full use of the inherited knowledge learned from the abundant pre-training data to solve the downstream recommendation tasks by prompts, without introducing additional parameters or network training. However, handcrafted prompts require significant expertise and human effort since slightly rewriting prompts may cause massive performance changes. In this paper, we propose PAP-REC, a framework to generate the Personalized Automatic Prompt for RECommendation language models to mitigate the inefficiency and ineffectiveness problems derived from manually designed prompts. Specifically, personalized automatic prompts allow different users to have different prompt tokens for the same task, automatically generated using a gradient-based method. One challenge for personalized automatic prompt generation for recommendation language models is the extremely large search space, leading to a long convergence time. To effectively and efficiently address the problem, we develop surrogate metrics and leverage an alternative updating schedule for prompting recommendation language models. Experimental results show that our PAP-REC framework manages to generate personalized prompts, and the automatically generated prompts outperform manually constructed prompts and also outperform various baseline recommendation models. The source code of the work is available at https://github.com/rutgerswiselab/PAP-REC.

Computational experiments have emerged as a valuable method for studying complex systems, involving the algorithmization of counterfactuals. However, accurately representing real social systems in Agent-based Modeling (ABM) is challenging due to the diverse and intricate characteristics of humans, including bounded rationality and heterogeneity. To address this limitation, the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) has been proposed, enabling agents to possess anthropomorphic abilities such as complex reasoning and autonomous learning. These agents, known as LLM-based Agent, offer the potential to enhance the anthropomorphism lacking in ABM. Nonetheless, the absence of explicit explainability in LLMs significantly hinders their application in the social sciences. Conversely, computational experiments excel in providing causal analysis of individual behaviors and complex phenomena. Thus, combining computational experiments with LLM-based Agent holds substantial research potential. This paper aims to present a comprehensive exploration of this fusion. Primarily, it outlines the historical development of agent structures and their evolution into artificial societies, emphasizing their importance in computational experiments. Then it elucidates the advantages that computational experiments and LLM-based Agents offer each other, considering the perspectives of LLM-based Agent for computational experiments and vice versa. Finally, this paper addresses the challenges and future trends in this research domain, offering guidance for subsequent related studies.

In this paper, we propose a social robot capable of verbally interacting with children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). This communication is meant to teach perspective-taking using text generated using a Large Language Model (LLM) pipeline. The social robot NAO acts as a stimulator (verbally describes a social situation and asks a question), prompter (presents three options to choose from), and reinforcer (praises when the answer is correct). For the role of the stimulator, the social situation, questions, and options are generated using our LLM pipeline. We compare two approaches: GPT-2 + BART and GPT-2 + GPT-2, where the first GPT-2 common between the pipelines is used for unsupervised social situation generation. We use the SOCIALIQA dataset to fine-tune all of our LLM pipelines. We found that the GPT-2 + BART pipeline had a better BERTscore for generating the questions and the options by combining their individual loss functions. This observation was also consistent with the human evaluations. Lastly, the unsupervised generation of social situations was visualized using T-SNE plots, and the entire pipeline was evaluated for appropriateness for children with ASD by human experts.