We present a method for systematically evaluating the correctness and robustness of instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) for code generation via a new benchmark, Turbulence. Turbulence consists of a large set of natural language $\textit{question templates}$, each of which is a programming problem, parameterised so that it can be asked in many different forms. Each question template has an associated $\textit{test oracle}$ that judges whether a code solution returned by an LLM is correct. Thus, from a single question template, it is possible to ask an LLM a $\textit{neighbourhood}$ of very similar programming questions, and assess the correctness of the result returned for each question. This allows gaps in an LLM's code generation abilities to be identified, including $\textit{anomalies}$ where the LLM correctly solves $\textit{almost all}$ questions in a neighbourhood but fails for particular parameter instantiations. We present experiments against five LLMs from OpenAI, Cohere and Meta, each at two temperature configurations. Our findings show that, across the board, Turbulence is able to reveal gaps in LLM reasoning ability. This goes beyond merely highlighting that LLMs sometimes produce wrong code (which is no surprise): by systematically identifying cases where LLMs are able to solve some problems in a neighbourhood but do not manage to generalise to solve the whole neighbourhood, our method is effective at highlighting $\textit{robustness}$ issues. We present data and examples that shed light on the kinds of mistakes that LLMs make when they return incorrect code results.

Large language models (LLM) have achieved remarkable performance on various NLP tasks and are augmented by tools for broader applications. Yet, how to evaluate and analyze the tool-utilization capability of LLMs is still under-explored. In contrast to previous works that evaluate models holistically, we comprehensively decompose the tool utilization into multiple sub-processes, including instruction following, planning, reasoning, retrieval, understanding, and review. Based on that, we further introduce T-Eval to evaluate the tool utilization capability step by step. T-Eval disentangles the tool utilization evaluation into several sub-domains along model capabilities, facilitating the inner understanding of both holistic and isolated competency of LLMs. We conduct extensive experiments on T-Eval and in-depth analysis of various LLMs. T-Eval not only exhibits consistency with the outcome-oriented evaluation but also provides a more fine-grained analysis of the capabilities of LLMs, providing a new perspective in LLM evaluation on tool-utilization ability. The benchmark will be available at https://github.com/open-compass/T-Eval.

With the advancement of generation models, AI-generated content (AIGC) is becoming more realistic, flooding the Internet. A recent study suggests that this phenomenon causes source bias in text retrieval for web search. Specifically, neural retrieval models tend to rank generated texts higher than human-written texts. In this paper, we extend the study of this bias to cross-modal retrieval. Firstly, we successfully construct a suitable benchmark to explore the existence of the bias. Subsequent extensive experiments on this benchmark reveal that AI-generated images introduce an invisible relevance bias to text-image retrieval models. Specifically, our experiments show that text-image retrieval models tend to rank the AI-generated images higher than the real images, even though the AI-generated images do not exhibit more visually relevant features to the query than real images. This invisible relevance bias is prevalent across retrieval models with varying training data and architectures. Furthermore, our subsequent exploration reveals that the inclusion of AI-generated images in the training data of the retrieval models exacerbates the invisible relevance bias. The above phenomenon triggers a vicious cycle, which makes the invisible relevance bias become more and more serious. To elucidate the potential causes of invisible relevance and address the aforementioned issues, we introduce an effective training method aimed at alleviating the invisible relevance bias. Subsequently, we apply our proposed debiasing method to retroactively identify the causes of invisible relevance, revealing that the AI-generated images induce the image encoder to embed additional information into their representation. This information exhibits a certain consistency across generated images with different semantics and can make the retriever estimate a higher relevance score.

The use of propagandistic techniques in online contents has increased in recent years aiming to manipulate online audiences. Efforts to automatically detect and debunk such content have been made addressing various modeling scenarios. These include determining whether the content (text, image, or multimodal) (i) is propagandistic, (ii) employs one or more propagandistic techniques, and (iii) includes techniques with identifiable spans. Significant research efforts have been devoted to the first two scenarios compared to the latter. Therefore, in this study, we focus on the task of detecting propagandistic textual spans. Specifically, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, can effectively perform the task. Moreover, we study the potential of employing the model to collect more cost-effective annotations. Our experiments use a large-scale in-house dataset consisting of annotations from human annotators with varying expertise levels. The results suggest that providing more information to the model as prompts improves its performance compared to human annotations. Moreover, our work is the first to show the potential of utilizing LLMs to develop annotated datasets for this specific task, prompting it with annotations from human annotators with limited expertise. We plan to make the collected span-level labels from multiple annotators, including GPT-4, available for the community.

Recently, the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has revolutionized the paradigm of information retrieval (IR) applications, especially in web search. With their remarkable capabilities in generating human-like texts, LLMs have created enormous texts on the Internet. As a result, IR systems in the LLMs era are facing a new challenge: the indexed documents now are not only written by human beings but also automatically generated by the LLMs. How these LLM-generated documents influence the IR systems is a pressing and still unexplored question. In this work, we conduct a quantitative evaluation of different IR models in scenarios where both human-written and LLM-generated texts are involved. Surprisingly, our findings indicate that neural retrieval models tend to rank LLM-generated documents higher. We refer to this category of biases in neural retrieval models towards the LLM-generated text as the \textbf{source bias}. Moreover, we discover that this bias is not confined to the first-stage neural retrievers, but extends to the second-stage neural re-rankers. Then, we provide an in-depth analysis from the perspective of text compression and observe that neural models can better understand the semantic information of LLM-generated text, which is further substantiated by our theoretical analysis. To mitigate the source bias, we also propose a plug-and-play debiased constraint for the optimization objective, and experimental results show the effectiveness. Finally, we discuss the potential severe concerns stemming from the observed source bias and hope our findings can serve as a critical wake-up call to the IR community and beyond. To facilitate future explorations of IR in the LLM era, the constructed two new benchmarks and codes will later be available at \url{https://github.com/KID-22/LLM4IR-Bias}.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop an open-source multimodal large language model (CXR-LLAVA) for interpreting chest X-ray images (CXRs), leveraging recent advances in large language models (LLMs) to potentially replicate the image interpretation skills of human radiologists Materials and Methods: For training, we collected 592,580 publicly available CXRs, of which 374,881 had labels for certain radiographic abnormalities (Dataset 1) and 217,699 provided free-text radiology reports (Dataset 2). After pre-training a vision transformer with Dataset 1, we integrated it with an LLM influenced by the LLAVA network. Then, the model was fine-tuned, primarily using Dataset 2. The model's diagnostic performance for major pathological findings was evaluated, along with the acceptability of radiologic reports by human radiologists, to gauge its potential for autonomous reporting. Results: The model demonstrated impressive performance in test sets, achieving an average F1 score of 0.81 for six major pathological findings in the MIMIC internal test set and 0.62 for seven major pathological findings in the external test set. The model's F1 scores surpassed those of GPT-4-vision and Gemini-Pro-Vision in both test sets. In human radiologist evaluations of the external test set, the model achieved a 72.7% success rate in autonomous reporting, slightly below the 84.0% rate of ground truth reports. Conclusion: This study highlights the significant potential of multimodal LLMs for CXR interpretation, while also acknowledging the performance limitations. Despite these challenges, we believe that making our model open-source will catalyze further research, expanding its effectiveness and applicability in various clinical contexts. CXR-LLAVA is available at https://github.com/ECOFRI/CXR_LLAVA.

Text-based knowledge graph completion (KGC) methods, leveraging textual entity descriptions are at the research forefront. The efficacy of these models hinges on the quality of the textual data. This study explores whether enriched or more efficient textual descriptions can amplify model performance. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable improvements in NLP tasks, attributed to their sophisticated text generation and conversational capabilities. LLMs assimilate linguistic patterns and integrate knowledge from their training data. Compared to traditional databases like Wikipedia, LLMs provide several advantages, facilitating broader information querying and content augmentation. We hypothesize that LLMs, without fine-tuning, can refine entity descriptions, serving as an auxiliary knowledge source. An in-depth analysis was conducted to verify this hypothesis. We found that (1) without fine-tuning, LLMs have the capability to further improve the quality of entity text descriptions. We validated this through experiments on the FB15K-237 and WN18RR datasets. (2) LLMs exhibit text generation hallucination issues and selectively output words with multiple meanings. This was mitigated by contextualizing prompts to constrain LLM outputs. (3) Larger model sizes do not necessarily guarantee better performance; even the 7B model can achieve optimized results in this comparative task. These findings underscore the untapped potential of large models in text-based KGC, which is a promising direction for further research in KGC. The code and datasets are accessible at \href{https://github.com/sjlmg/CP-KGC}.

While transformers have pioneered attention-driven architectures as a cornerstone of language modeling, their dependence on explicitly contextual information underscores limitations in their abilities to tacitly learn overarching textual themes. This study challenges the heuristic paradigm of performance benchmarking by investigating social media data as a source of distributed patterns. In stark contrast to networks that rely on capturing complex long-term dependencies, models of online data inherently lack structure and are forced to detect latent structures in the aggregate. To properly represent these abstract relationships, this research dissects empirical social media corpora into their elemental components, analyzing over two billion tweets across population-dense locations. We create Bag-of-Word embedding specific to each city and compare their respective representations. This finds that even amidst noisy data, geographic location has a considerable influence on online communication, and that hidden insights can be uncovered without the crutch of advanced algorithms. This evidence presents valuable geospatial implications in social science and challenges the notion that intricate models are prerequisites for pattern recognition in natural language. This aligns with the evolving landscape that questions the embrace of absolute interpretability over abstract understanding and bridges the divide between sophisticated frameworks and intangible relationships.

As Large Language Models and Natural Language Processing (NLP) technology rapidly develop and spread into daily life, it becomes crucial to anticipate how their use could harm people. One problem that has received a lot of attention in recent years is that this technology has displayed harmful biases, from generating derogatory stereotypes to producing disparate outcomes for different social groups. Although a lot of effort has been invested in assessing and mitigating these biases, our methods of measuring the biases of NLP models have serious problems and it is often unclear what they actually measure. In this paper, we provide an interdisciplinary approach to discussing the issue of NLP model bias by adopting the lens of psychometrics -- a field specialized in the measurement of concepts like bias that are not directly observable. In particular, we will explore two central notions from psychometrics, the construct validity and the reliability of measurement tools, and discuss how they can be applied in the context of measuring model bias. Our goal is to provide NLP practitioners with methodological tools for designing better bias measures, and to inspire them more generally to explore tools from psychometrics when working on bias measurement tools.

Just a few days ago, OpenAI's usage policies page explicitly states that the company prohibits the use of its technology for "military and warfare" purposes. That line has since been deleted. As first noticed by The Intercept, the company updated the page on January 10 "to be clearer and provide more service-specific guidance," as the changelog states. It still prohibits the use of its large language models (LLMs) for anything that can cause harm, and it warns people against using its services to "develop or use weapons." However, the company has removed language pertaining to "military and warfare."