While existing image-text alignment models reach high quality binary assessments, they fall short of pinpointing the exact source of misalignment. In this paper, we present a method to provide detailed textual and visual explanation of detected misalignments between text-image pairs. We leverage large language models and visual grounding models to automatically construct a training set that holds plausible misaligned captions for a given image and corresponding textual explanations and visual indicators. We also publish a new human curated test set comprising ground-truth textual and visual misalignment annotations. Empirical results show that fine-tuning vision language models on our training set enables them to articulate misalignments and visually indicate them within images, outperforming strong baselines both on the binary alignment classification and the explanation generation tasks. Our method code and human curated test set are available at: https://mismatch-quest.github.io/

There is a constant need for educators to develop and maintain effective up-to-date assessments. While there is a growing body of research in computing education on utilizing large language models (LLMs) in generation and engagement with coding exercises, the use of LLMs for generating programming MCQs has not been extensively explored. We analyzed the capability of GPT-4 to produce multiple-choice questions (MCQs) aligned with specific learning objectives (LOs) from Python programming classes in higher education. Specifically, we developed an LLM-powered (GPT-4) system for generation of MCQs from high-level course context and module-level LOs. We evaluated 651 LLM-generated and 449 human-crafted MCQs aligned to 246 LOs from 6 Python courses. We found that GPT-4 was capable of producing MCQs with clear language, a single correct choice, and high-quality distractors. We also observed that the generated MCQs appeared to be well-aligned with the LOs. Our findings can be leveraged by educators wishing to take advantage of the state-of-the-art generative models to support MCQ authoring efforts.

Large Language Models have seen rapid progress in capability in recent years; this progress has been accelerating and their capabilities, measured by various benchmarks, are beginning to approach those of humans. There is a strong demand to use such models in a wide variety of applications but, due to unresolved vulnerabilities and limitations, great care needs to be used before applying them to intelligence and safety-critical applications. This paper reviews recent literature related to LLM assessment and vulnerabilities to synthesize the current research landscape and to help understand what advances are most critical to enable use of of these technologies in intelligence and safety-critical applications. The vulnerabilities are broken down into ten high-level categories and overlaid onto a high-level life cycle of an LLM. Some general categories of mitigations are reviewed.

Communicating science and technology is essential for the public to understand and engage in a rapidly changing world. Tweetorials are an emerging phenomenon where experts explain STEM topics on social media in creative and engaging ways. However, STEM experts struggle to write an engaging "hook" in the first tweet that captures the reader's attention. We propose methods to use large language models (LLMs) to help users scaffold their process of writing a relatable hook for complex scientific topics. We demonstrate that LLMs can help writers find everyday experiences that are relatable and interesting to the public, avoid jargon, and spark curiosity. Our evaluation shows that the system reduces cognitive load and helps people write better hooks. Lastly, we discuss the importance of interactivity with LLMs to preserve the correctness, effectiveness, and authenticity of the writing.

Natural Language to SQL systems (NL-to-SQL) have recently shown a significant increase in accuracy for natural language to SQL query translation. This improvement is due to the emergence of transformer-based language models, and the popularity of the Spider benchmark - the de-facto standard for evaluating NL-to-SQL systems. The top NL-to-SQL systems reach accuracies of up to 85\%. However, Spider mainly contains simple databases with few tables, columns, and entries, which does not reflect a realistic setting. Moreover, complex real-world databases with domain-specific content have little to no training data available in the form of NL/SQL-pairs leading to poor performance of existing NL-to-SQL systems. In this paper, we introduce ScienceBenchmark, a new complex NL-to-SQL benchmark for three real-world, highly domain-specific databases. For this new benchmark, SQL experts and domain experts created high-quality NL/SQL-pairs for each domain. To garner more data, we extended the small amount of human-generated data with synthetic data generated using GPT-3. We show that our benchmark is highly challenging, as the top performing systems on Spider achieve a very low performance on our benchmark. Thus, the challenge is many-fold: creating NL-to-SQL systems for highly complex domains with a small amount of hand-made training data augmented with synthetic data. To our knowledge, ScienceBenchmark is the first NL-to-SQL benchmark designed with complex real-world scientific databases, containing challenging training and test data carefully validated by domain experts.

Following the success of GPT4, there has been a surge in interest in multimodal large language model (MLLM) research. This line of research focuses on developing general-purpose LLMs through fine-tuning pre-trained LLMs and vision models. However, catastrophic forgetting, a notorious phenomenon where the fine-tuned model fails to retain similar performance compared to the pre-trained model, still remains an inherent problem in multimodal LLMs (MLLM). In this paper, we introduce EMT: Evaluating MulTimodality for evaluating the catastrophic forgetting in MLLMs, by treating each MLLM as an image classifier. We first apply EMT to evaluate several open-source fine-tuned MLLMs and we discover that almost all evaluated MLLMs fail to retain the same performance levels as their vision encoders on standard image classification tasks. Moreover, we continue fine-tuning LLaVA, an MLLM and utilize EMT to assess performance throughout the fine-tuning. Interestingly, our results suggest that early-stage fine-tuning on an image dataset improves performance across other image datasets, by enhancing the alignment of text and visual features. However, as fine-tuning proceeds, the MLLMs begin to hallucinate, resulting in a significant loss of generalizability, even when the image encoder remains frozen. Our results suggest that MLLMs have yet to demonstrate performance on par with their vision models on standard image classification tasks and the current MLLM fine-tuning procedure still has room for improvement.

Explainability and Safety engender Trust. These require a model to exhibit consistency and reliability. To achieve these, it is necessary to use and analyze data and knowledge with statistical and symbolic AI methods relevant to the AI application - neither alone will do. Consequently, we argue and seek to demonstrate that the NeuroSymbolic AI approach is better suited for making AI a trusted AI system. We present the CREST framework that shows how Consistency, Reliability, user-level Explainability, and Safety are built on NeuroSymbolic methods that use data and knowledge to support requirements for critical applications such as health and well-being. This article focuses on Large Language Models (LLMs) as the chosen AI system within the CREST framework. LLMs have garnered substantial attention from researchers due to their versatility in handling a broad array of natural language processing (NLP) scenarios. For example, ChatGPT and Google's MedPaLM have emerged as highly promising platforms for providing information in general and health-related queries, respectively. Nevertheless, these models remain black boxes despite incorporating human feedback and instruction-guided tuning. For instance, ChatGPT can generate unsafe responses despite instituting safety guardrails. CREST presents a plausible approach harnessing procedural and graph-based knowledge within a NeuroSymbolic framework to shed light on the challenges associated with LLMs.

However, at the present time, they lack the required deep understanding of complex methodologies, they have difficulty in evaluating innovative claims, and they are unable to assess ethical issues and conflicts of interest. Herein, we consider 13 GPT-related papers across different scientific domains, reviewed by a human reviewer and SciSpace, a large language model, with the reviews evaluated by three distinct types of evaluators, namely GPT-3.5, a crowd panel, and GPT-4. We found that 50% of SciSpace's responses to objective questions align with those of a human reviewer, with GPT-4 (informed evaluator) often rating the human reviewer higher in accuracy, and SciSpace higher in structure, clarity, and completeness. In subjective questions, the uninformed evaluators (GPT-3.5 and crowd panel) showed varying preferences between SciSpace and human responses, with the crowd panel showing a preference for the human responses. However, GPT-4 rated them equally in accuracy and structure but favored SciSpace for completeness.

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly incorporated into scientific workflows. However, we have yet to fully grasp the implications of this integration. How should the advent of large language models affect the practice of science? For this opinion piece, we have invited four diverse groups of scientists to reflect on this query, sharing their perspectives and engaging in debate. Schulz et al. make the argument that working with LLMs is not fundamentally different from working with human collaborators, while Bender et al. argue that LLMs are often misused and over-hyped, and that their limitations warrant a focus on more specialized, easily interpretable tools. Marelli et al. emphasize the importance of transparent attribution and responsible use of LLMs. Finally, Botvinick and Gershman advocate that humans should retain responsibility for determining the scientific roadmap. To facilitate the discussion, the four perspectives are complemented with a response from each group. By putting these different perspectives in conversation, we aim to bring attention to important considerations within the academic community regarding the adoption of LLMs and their impact on both current and future scientific practices.

The formidable capacity for zero- or few-shot decision-making in language agents encourages us to pose a compelling question: Can language agents be alternatives to PPO agents in traditional sequential decision-making tasks? To investigate this, we first take environments collected in OpenAI Gym as our testbeds and ground them to textual environments that construct the TextGym simulator. This allows for straightforward and efficient comparisons between PPO agents and language agents, given the widespread adoption of OpenAI Gym. To ensure a fair and effective benchmarking, we introduce $5$ levels of scenario for accurate domain-knowledge controlling and a unified RL-inspired framework for language agents. Additionally, we propose an innovative explore-exploit-guided language (EXE) agent to solve tasks within TextGym. Through numerical experiments and ablation studies, we extract valuable insights into the decision-making capabilities of language agents and make a preliminary evaluation of their potential to be alternatives to PPO in classical sequential decision-making problems. This paper sheds light on the performance of language agents and paves the way for future research in this exciting domain. Our code is publicly available at~\url{https://github.com/mail-ecnu/Text-Gym-Agents}.