Pre-trained language models based on masked language modeling (MLM) objective excel in natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. While fine-tuned MLM-based encoders consistently outperform causal language modeling decoders of comparable size, a recent trend of scaling decoder models to multiple billion parameters resulted in large language models (LLMs), making them competitive with MLM-based encoders. Although scale amplifies their prowess in NLU tasks, LLMs fall short of SOTA results in information extraction (IE) tasks, many framed as sequence labeling (SL). However, whether this is an intrinsic limitation of LLMs or whether their SL performance can be improved remains unclear. To address this, we explore strategies to enhance the SL performance of "open" LLMs (Llama2 and Mistral) on IE tasks. We investigate bidirectional information flow within groups of decoder blocks, applying layer-wise removal or enforcement of the causal mask (CM) during LLM fine-tuning. This approach yields performance gains competitive with SOTA SL models, matching or outperforming the results of CM removal from all blocks. Our findings hold for diverse SL tasks, proving that "open" LLMs with layer-dependent CM removal outperform strong MLM-based encoders and instruction-tuned LLMs. However, we observe no effect from CM removal on a small scale when maintaining an equivalent model size, pre-training steps, and pre-training and fine-tuning data.

With today's models there is an opaque nature to the generation process--it is never clear to the end user what data influences and shapes their newly crafted essay from ChatGPT [39], digitized surrealist art from DALLE-2 [42], or soulful jazz in the style of Rihanna from MusicLM [1]. Even further, due to the vast amounts of data they were trained on, it is usually not even clear when these models are "creating" near replicas of existing items from their training data. For users of generative models to be informed and responsible creators, there needs to be a mechanism that provides information about works in the model's training data that were highly influential upon the generated output, or directly copied by the model. This would allow the user to both cite existing work and learn about the influences of their generated output. We assume a model-generated product that is a copy or near-copy of a work in the model's training set indicates the model was influenced by that work. To develop methods to automatically detect the influences upon model-generated products it is, therefore, essential to develop good measures of similarity between works. In text, it is straightforward to detect when language models copy strings of text verbatim, given access to the training data. There is a growing body of work quantifying the degree to which these large language models memorize training data [10, 12, 23]. In the image space, it is more complex due to the high-resolution multi-pixel outputs of models, but work is being done to detect "approximate memorization" by finding highly similar images from the training data

Studies of reinforcement learning in humans and animals have demonstrated a preference for options that yielded relatively better outcomes in the past, even when those options are associated with lower absolute reward. The present study tested whether large language models would exhibit a similar bias. We had gpt-4-1106-preview (GPT-4 Turbo) and Llama-2-70B make repeated choices between pairs of options with the goal of maximizing payoffs. A complete record of previous outcomes was included in each prompt. Both models exhibited relative value decision biases similar to those observed in humans and animals. Making relative comparisons among outcomes more explicit magnified the bias, whereas prompting the models to estimate expected outcomes caused the bias to disappear. These results have implications for the potential mechanisms that contribute to context-dependent choice in human agents.

This study investigates the computational processing of euphemisms, a universal linguistic phenomenon, across multiple languages. We train a multilingual transformer model (XLM-RoBERTa) to disambiguate potentially euphemistic terms (PETs) in multilingual and cross-lingual settings. In line with current trends, we demonstrate that zero-shot learning across languages takes place. We also show cases where multilingual models perform better on the task compared to monolingual models by a statistically significant margin, indicating that multilingual data presents additional opportunities for models to learn about cross-lingual, computational properties of euphemisms. In a follow-up analysis, we focus on universal euphemistic "categories" such as death and bodily functions among others. We test to see whether cross-lingual data of the same domain is more important than within-language data of other domains to further understand the nature of the cross-lingual transfer.

Constitutions are foundational legal documents that underpin the governmental and societal structures. As such, they are a reflection of a nation's cultural and social uniqueness, but also contribute to establish topics of universal importance, like citizens' rights and duties (RD). In this work, using the renowned GPT-3.5, we leverage generative large language models to understand constitutional passages that transcend national boundaries. A key contribution of our study is the introduction of a novel application of abstractive summarization on a multi-source collection of constitutional texts, with a focus on European countries' constitution passages related to RD topics. Our results show the meaningfulness of GPT-3.5 to produce informative, coherent and faithful summaries capturing RD topics across European countries.

Advances in the performance of large language models (LLMs) have led some researchers to propose the emergence of theory of mind (ToM) in artificial intelligence (AI). LLMs can attribute beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions, and they will improve in their accuracy. Rather than employing the characteristically human method of empathy, they learn to attribute mental states by recognizing linguistic patterns in a dataset that typically do not include that individual. We ask whether LLMs' inability to empathize precludes them from honoring an individual's right to be an exception, that is, from making assessments of character and predictions of behavior that reflect appropriate sensitivity to a person's individuality. Can LLMs seriously consider an individual's claim that their case is different based on internal mental states like beliefs, desires, and intentions, or are they limited to judging that case based on its similarities to others? We propose that the method of empathy has special significance for honoring the right to be an exception that is distinct from the value of predictive accuracy, at which LLMs excel. We conclude by considering whether using empathy to consider exceptional cases has intrinsic or merely practical value and we introduce conceptual and empirical avenues for advancing this investigation.

Ensuring the accuracy of responses provided by large language models (LLMs) is crucial, particularly in clinical settings where incorrect information may directly impact patient health. To address this challenge, we construct K-QA, a dataset containing 1,212 patient questions originating from real-world conversations held on K Health (an AI-driven clinical platform). We employ a panel of in-house physicians to answer and manually decompose a subset of K-QA into self-contained statements. Additionally, we formulate two NLI-based evaluation metrics approximating recall and precision: (1) comprehensiveness, measuring the percentage of essential clinical information in the generated answer and (2) hallucination rate, measuring the number of statements from the physician-curated response contradicted by the LLM answer. Finally, we use K-QA along with these metrics to evaluate several state-of-the-art models, as well as the effect of in-context learning and medically-oriented augmented retrieval schemes developed by the authors. Our findings indicate that in-context learning improves the comprehensiveness of the models, and augmented retrieval is effective in reducing hallucinations. We make K-QA available to to the community to spur research into medically accurate NLP applications.

However, existing benchmarks do not fully assess LLMs' capability in handling real-world, lengthy clinical data. Methods: We present the LongHealth benchmark, comprising 20 detailed fictional patient cases across various diseases, with each case containing 5,090 to 6,754 words. The benchmark challenges LLMs with 400 multiple-choice questions in three categories: information extraction, negation, and sorting, challenging LLMs to extract and interpret information from large clinical documents. Results: We evaluated nine open-source LLMs with a minimum of 16,000 tokens and also included OpenAI's proprietary and cost-efficient GPT-3.5 Turbo for comparison. The highest accuracy was observed for Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct-v0.1, particularly in tasks focused on information retrieval from single and multiple patient documents. However, all models struggled significantly in tasks requiring the identification of missing information, highlighting a critical area for improvement in clinical data interpretation. Conclusion: While LLMs show considerable potential for processing long clinical documents, their current accuracy levels are insufficient for reliable clinical use, especially in scenarios requiring the identification of missing information. The LongHealth benchmark provides a more realistic assessment of LLMs in a healthcare setting and highlights the need for further model refinement for safe and effective clinical application. We make the benchmark and evaluation code publicly available.

Large language models (LLMs) require well-crafted prompts for effective use. Prompt engineering, the process of designing prompts, is challenging, particularly for non-experts who are less familiar with AI technologies. While researchers have proposed techniques and tools to assist LLM users in prompt design, these works primarily target AI application developers rather than non-experts. To address this research gap, we propose social prompt engineering, a novel paradigm that leverages social computing techniques to facilitate collaborative prompt design. To investigate social prompt engineering, we introduce Wordflow, an open-source and social text editor that enables everyday users to easily create, run, share, and discover LLM prompts. Additionally, by leveraging modern web technologies, Wordflow allows users to run LLMs locally and privately in their browsers. Two usage scenarios highlight how social prompt engineering and our tool can enhance laypeople's interaction with LLMs. Wordflow is publicly accessible at https://poloclub.github.io/wordflow.

External audits of AI systems are increasingly recognized as a key mechanism for AI governance. The effectiveness of an audit, however, depends on the degree of system access granted to auditors. Recent audits of state-of-the-art AI systems have primarily relied on black-box access, in which auditors can only query the system and observe its outputs. However, white-box access to the system's inner workings (e.g., weights, activations, gradients) allows an auditor to perform stronger attacks, more thoroughly interpret models, and conduct fine-tuning. Meanwhile, outside-the-box access to its training and deployment information (e.g., methodology, code, documentation, hyperparameters, data, deployment details, findings from internal evaluations) allows for auditors to scrutinize the development process and design more targeted evaluations. In this paper, we examine the limitations of black-box audits and the advantages of white- and outside-the-box audits. We also discuss technical, physical, and legal safeguards for performing these audits with minimal security risks. Given that different forms of access can lead to very different levels of evaluation, we conclude that (1) transparency regarding the access and methods used by auditors is necessary to properly interpret audit results, and (2) white- and outside-the-box access allow for substantially more scrutiny than black-box access alone.