The advent of large language models (LLMs) has ushered in a new paradigm of search engines that use generative models to gather and summarize information to answer user queries. This emerging technology, which we formalize under the unified framework of Generative Engines (GEs), has the potential to generate accurate and personalized responses, and is rapidly replacing traditional search engines like Google and Bing. Generative Engines typically satisfy queries by synthesizing information from multiple sources and summarizing them with the help of LLMs. While this shift significantly improves \textit{user} utility and \textit{generative search engine} traffic, it results in a huge challenge for the third stakeholder -- website and content creators. Given the black-box and fast-moving nature of Generative Engines, content creators have little to no control over when and how their content is displayed. With generative engines here to stay, the right tools should be provided to ensure that creator economy is not severely disadvantaged. To address this, we introduce Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), a novel paradigm to aid content creators in improving the visibility of their content in Generative Engine responses through a black-box optimization framework for optimizing and defining visibility metrics. We facilitate systematic evaluation in this new paradigm by introducing GEO-bench, a benchmark of diverse user queries across multiple domains, coupled with sources required to answer these queries. Through rigorous evaluation, we show that GEO can boost visibility by up to 40\% in generative engine responses. Moreover, we show the efficacy of these strategies varies across domains, underscoring the need for domain-specific methods. Our work opens a new frontier in the field of information discovery systems, with profound implications for generative engines and content creators.

Modern Large language models (LLMs) can still generate responses that may not be aligned with human expectations or values. While many weight-based alignment methods have been proposed, many of them still leave models vulnerable to attacks when used on their own. To help mitigate this issue, we introduce Bergeron, a framework designed to improve the robustness of LLMs against adversarial attacks. Bergeron employs a two-tiered architecture. Here, a secondary LLM serves as a simulated conscience that safeguards a primary LLM. We do this by monitoring for and correcting potentially harmful text within both the prompt inputs and the generated outputs of the primary LLM. Empirical evaluation shows that Bergeron can improve the alignment and robustness of several popular LLMs without costly fine-tuning. It aids both open-source and black-box LLMs by complementing and reinforcing their existing alignment training.

In the context of information systems, text sanitization techniques are used to identify and remove sensitive data to comply with security and regulatory requirements. Even though many methods for privacy preservation have been proposed, most of them are focused on the detection of entities from specific domains (e.g., credit card numbers, social security numbers), lacking generality and requiring customization for each desirable domain. Moreover, removing words is, in general, a drastic measure, as it can degrade text coherence and contextual information. Less severe measures include substituting a word for a safe alternative, yet it can be challenging to automatically find meaningful substitutions. We present a zero-shot text sanitization technique that detects and substitutes potentially sensitive information using Large Language Models. Our evaluation shows that our method excels at protecting privacy while maintaining text coherence and contextual information, preserving data utility for downstream tasks.

Human moderation of online conversation is essential to maintaining civility and focus in a dialogue, but is challenging to scale and harmful to moderators. The inclusion of sophisticated natural language generation modules as a force multiplier aid moderators is a tantalizing prospect, but adequate evaluation approaches have so far been elusive. In this paper, we establish a systematic definition of conversational moderation effectiveness through a multidisciplinary lens that incorporates insights from social science. We then propose a comprehensive evaluation framework that uses this definition to asses models' moderation capabilities independently of human intervention. With our framework, we conduct the first known study Figure 1: While banning users or deleting their comments of conversational dialogue models as moderators, may push them towards echo chambers (left), conversational finding that appropriately prompted models moderation can guide users towards more can provide specific and fair feedback on constructive behavior (right). Recent developments in toxic behavior but struggle to influence users to conversational AI present an opportunity to perform this increase their levels of respect and cooperation.

The significant progress of large language models (LLMs) provides a promising opportunity to build human-like systems for various practical applications. However, when applied to specific task domains, an LLM pre-trained on a general-purpose corpus may exhibit a deficit or inadequacy in two types of domain-specific knowledge. One is a comprehensive set of domain data that is typically large-scale and continuously evolving. The other is specific working patterns of this domain reflected in the data. The absence or inadequacy of such knowledge impacts the performance of the LLM. In this paper, we propose a general paradigm that augments LLMs with DOmain-specific KnowledgE to enhance their performance on practical applications, namely DOKE. This paradigm relies on a domain knowledge extractor, working in three steps: 1) preparing effective knowledge for the task; 2) selecting the knowledge for each specific sample; and 3) expressing the knowledge in an LLM-understandable way. Then, the extracted knowledge is incorporated through prompts, without any computational cost of model fine-tuning. We instantiate the general paradigm on a widespread application, i.e. recommender systems, where critical item attributes and collaborative filtering signals are incorporated. Experimental results demonstrate that DOKE can substantially improve the performance of LLMs in specific domains.

Large Language Models (LLMs), despite their remarkable progress across various general domains, encounter significant barriers in medicine and healthcare. This field faces unique challenges such as domain-specific terminologies and the reasoning over specialized knowledge. To address these obstinate issues, we propose a novel Multi-disciplinary Collaboration (MC) framework for the medical domain that leverages role-playing LLM-based agents who participate in a collaborative multi-round discussion, thereby enhancing LLM proficiency and reasoning capabilities. This training-free and interpretable framework encompasses five critical steps: gathering domain experts, proposing individual analyses, summarising these analyses into a report, iterating over discussions until a consensus is reached, and ultimately making a decision. Our work particularly focuses on the zero-shot scenario, our results on nine data sets (MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and six subtasks from MMLU) establish that our proposed MC framework excels at mining and harnessing the medical expertise in LLMs, as well as extending its reasoning abilities. Based on these outcomes, we further conduct a human evaluation to pinpoint and categorize common errors within our method, as well as ablation studies aimed at understanding the impact of various factors on overall performance.

The training of large language models (LLMs) on extensive, unfiltered corpora sourced from the internet is a common and advantageous practice. Consequently, LLMs have learned and inadvertently reproduced various types of biases, including violent, offensive, and toxic language. However, recent research shows that generative pretrained transformer (GPT) language models can recognize their own biases and detect toxicity in generated content, a process referred to as self-diagnosis. In response, researchers have developed a decoding algorithm that allows LLMs to self-debias, or reduce their likelihood of generating harmful text. This study investigates the efficacy of the diagnosing-debiasing approach in mitigating two additional types of biases: insults and political bias. These biases are often used interchangeably in discourse, despite exhibiting potentially dissimilar semantic and syntactic properties. We aim to contribute to the ongoing effort of investigating the ethical and social implications of human-AI interaction.

Modeling environmental ecosystems is critical for the sustainability of our planet, but is extremely challenging due to the complex underlying processes driven by interactions amongst a large number of physical variables. As many variables are difficult to measure at large scales, existing works often utilize a combination of observable features and locally available measurements or modeled values as input to build models for a specific study region and time period. This raises a fundamental question in advancing the modeling of environmental ecosystems: how to build a general framework for modeling the complex relationships amongst various environmental data over space and time? In this paper, we introduce a new framework, FREE, which maps available environmental data into a text space and then converts the traditional predictive modeling task in environmental science to the semantic recognition problem. The proposed FREE framework leverages recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) to supplement the original input features with natural language descriptions. This facilitates capturing the data semantics and also allows harnessing the irregularities of input features. When used for long-term prediction, FREE has the flexibility to incorporate newly collected observations to enhance future prediction. The efficacy of FREE is evaluated in the context of two societally important real-world applications, predicting stream water temperature in the Delaware River Basin and predicting annual corn yield in Illinois and Iowa. Beyond the superior predictive performance over multiple baseline methods, FREE is shown to be more data- and computation-efficient as it can be pre-trained on simulated data generated by physics-based models.

Human interactions are deeply rooted in the interplay of thoughts, beliefs, and desires made possible by Theory of Mind (ToM): our cognitive ability to understand the mental states of ourselves and others. Although ToM may come naturally to us, emulating it presents a challenge to even the most advanced Large Language Models (LLMs). Recent improvements to LLMs' reasoning capabilities from simple yet effective prompting techniques such as Chain-of-Thought have seen limited applicability to ToM. In this paper, we turn to the prominent cognitive science theory "Simulation Theory" to bridge this gap. We introduce SimToM, a novel two-stage prompting framework inspired by Simulation Theory's notion of perspective-taking. To implement this idea on current ToM benchmarks, SimToM first filters context based on what the character in question knows before answering a question about their mental state. Our approach, which requires no additional training and minimal prompt-tuning, shows substantial improvement over existing methods, and our analysis reveals the importance of perspective-taking to Theory-of-Mind capabilities. Our findings suggest perspective-taking as a promising direction for future research into improving LLMs' ToM capabilities.

This paper considers how interactions with AI algorithms can boost human creative thought. We employ a psychological task that demonstrates limits on human creativity, namely semantic feature generation: given a concept name, respondents must list as many of its features as possible. Human participants typically produce only a fraction of the features they know before getting "stuck." In experiments with humans and with a language AI (GPT-4) we contrast behavior in the standard task versus a variant in which participants can ask for algorithmically-generated hints. Algorithm choice is administered by a multi-armed bandit whose reward indicates whether the hint helped generating more features. Humans and the AI show similar benefits from hints, and remarkably, bandits learning from AI responses prefer the same prompting strategy as those learning from human behavior. The results suggest that strategies for boosting human creativity via computer interactions can be learned by bandits run on groups of simulated participants.