Grammatical error correction tools are effective at correcting grammatical errors in users' input sentences but do not provide users with \textit{natural language} explanations about their errors. Such explanations are essential for helping users learn the language by gaining a deeper understanding of its grammatical rules (DeKeyser, 2003; Ellis et al., 2006). To address this gap, we propose the task of grammar error explanation, where a system needs to provide one-sentence explanations for each grammatical error in a pair of erroneous and corrected sentences. We analyze the capability of GPT-4 in grammar error explanation, and find that it only produces explanations for 60.2% of the errors using one-shot prompting. To improve upon this performance, we develop a two-step pipeline that leverages fine-tuned and prompted large language models to perform structured atomic token edit extraction, followed by prompting GPT-4 to generate explanations. We evaluate our pipeline on German and Chinese grammar error correction data sampled from language learners with a wide range of proficiency levels. Human evaluation reveals that our pipeline produces 93.9% and 98.0% correct explanations for German and Chinese data, respectively. To encourage further research in this area, we will open-source our data and code.

How-to procedures, such as how to plant a garden, are ubiquitous. But one size does not fit all - humans often need to customize these procedural plans according to their specific needs, e.g., planting a garden without pesticides. While LLMs can fluently generate generic procedures, we present the first study on how well LLMs can customize open-domain procedures. We introduce CustomPlans, a probe dataset of customization hints that encodes diverse user needs for open-domain How-to procedures. Using LLMs as CustomizationAgent and ExecutionAgent in different settings, we establish their abilities to perform open-domain procedure customization. Human evaluation shows that using these agents in a Sequential setting is the best, but they are good enough only ~51% of the time. Error analysis shows that LLMs do not sufficiently address user customization needs in their generated procedures.

Task-oriented dialogue (ToD) systems help users execute well-defined tasks across a variety of domains (e.g., $\textit{flight booking}$ or $\textit{food ordering}$), with their Natural Language Understanding (NLU) components being dedicated to the analysis of user utterances, predicting users' intents ($\textit{Intent Detection}$, ID) and extracting values for informational slots ($\textit{Value Extraction}$, VE). In most domains, labelled NLU data is scarce, making sample-efficient learning -- enabled with effective transfer paradigms -- paramount. In this work, we introduce SQATIN, a new framework for dialog NLU based on (i) instruction tuning and (ii) question-answering-based formulation of ID and VE tasks. According to the evaluation on established NLU benchmarks, SQATIN sets the new state of the art in dialogue NLU, substantially surpassing the performance of current models based on standard fine-tuning objectives in both in-domain training and cross-domain transfer. SQATIN yields particularly large performance gains in cross-domain transfer, owing to the fact that our QA-based instruction tuning leverages similarities between natural language descriptions of classes (i.e., slots and intents) across domains.

Scientific jargon can impede researchers when they read materials from other domains. Current methods of jargon identification mainly use corpus-level familiarity indicators (e.g., Simple Wikipedia represents plain language). However, researchers' familiarity of a term can vary greatly based on their own background. We collect a dataset of over 10K term familiarity annotations from 11 computer science researchers for terms drawn from 100 paper abstracts. Analysis of this data reveals that jargon familiarity and information needs vary widely across annotators, even within the same sub-domain (e.g., NLP). We investigate features representing individual, sub-domain, and domain knowledge to predict individual jargon familiarity. We compare supervised and prompt-based approaches, finding that prompt-based methods including personal publications yields the highest accuracy, though zero-shot prompting provides a strong baseline. This research offers insight into features and methods to integrate personal data into scientific jargon identification.

Evaluating retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems traditionally relies on hand annotations for input queries, passages to retrieve, and responses to generate. We introduce ARES, an Automated RAG Evaluation System, for evaluating RAG systems along the dimensions of context relevance, answer faithfulness, and answer relevance. Using synthetic training data, ARES finetunes lightweight LM judges to assess the quality of individual RAG components. To mitigate potential prediction errors, ARES utilizes a small set of human-annotated datapoints for prediction-powered inference (PPI). Across six different knowledge-intensive tasks in KILT and SuperGLUE, ARES accurately evaluates RAG systems while using a few hundred human annotations during evaluation. Furthermore, ARES judges remain effective across domain shifts, proving accurate even after changing the type of queries and/or documents used in the evaluated RAG systems. We make our datasets and code for replication and deployment available at https://github.com/stanford-futuredata/ARES.

With the recent surge of language models in different applications, attention to safety and robustness of these models has gained significant importance. Here we introduce a joint framework in which we simultaneously probe and improve the robustness of a black-box target model via adversarial prompting and belief augmentation using iterative feedback loops. This framework utilizes an automated red teaming approach to probe the target model, along with a belief augmenter to generate instructions for the target model to improve its robustness to those adversarial probes. Importantly, the adversarial model and the belief generator leverage the feedback from past interactions to improve the effectiveness of the adversarial prompts and beliefs, respectively. In our experiments, we demonstrate that such a framework can reduce toxic content generation both in dynamic cases where an adversary directly interacts with a target model and static cases where we use a static benchmark dataset to evaluate our model.

Resolving ambiguities through interaction is a hallmark of natural language, and modeling this behavior is a core challenge in crafting AI assistants. In this work, we study such behavior in LMs by proposing a task-agnostic framework for resolving ambiguity by asking users clarifying questions. Our framework breaks down this objective into three subtasks: (1) determining when clarification is needed, (2) determining what clarifying question to ask, and (3) responding accurately with the new information gathered through clarification. We evaluate systems across three NLP applications: question answering, machine translation and natural language inference. For the first subtask, we present a novel uncertainty estimation approach, intent-sim, that determines the utility of querying for clarification by estimating the entropy over user intents. Our method consistently outperforms existing uncertainty estimation approaches at identifying predictions that will benefit from clarification. When only allowed to ask for clarification on 10% of examples, our system is able to double the performance gains over randomly selecting examples to clarify. Furthermore, we find that intent-sim is robust, demonstrating improvements across a wide range of NLP tasks and LMs. Together, our work lays foundation for studying clarifying interactions with LMs.

The rapid progress in open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) is significantly driving AI development forward. However, there is still a limited understanding of their trustworthiness. Deploying these models at scale without sufficient trustworthiness can pose significant risks, highlighting the need to uncover these issues promptly. In this work, we conduct an assessment of open-source LLMs on trustworthiness, scrutinizing them across eight different aspects including toxicity, stereotypes, ethics, hallucination, fairness, sycophancy, privacy, and robustness against adversarial demonstrations. We propose an enhanced Chain of Utterances-based (CoU) prompting strategy by incorporating meticulously crafted malicious demonstrations for trustworthiness attack. Our extensive experiments encompass recent and representative series of open-source LLMs, including Vicuna, MPT, Falcon, Mistral, and Llama 2. The empirical outcomes underscore the efficacy of our attack strategy across diverse aspects. More interestingly, our result analysis reveals that models with superior performance in general NLP tasks do not always have greater trustworthiness; in fact, larger models can be more vulnerable to attacks. Additionally, models that have undergone instruction tuning, focusing on instruction following, tend to be more susceptible, although fine-tuning LLMs for safety alignment proves effective in mitigating adversarial trustworthiness attacks.

To help address the growing demand for ever-longer sequence lengths in transformer models, Liu et al. recently proposed Ring Attention, an exact attention algorithm capable of overcoming per-device memory bottle- necks by distributing self-attention across multiple devices. In this paper, we study the performance characteristics of Ring Attention in the important special case of causal transformer models, and identify a key workload imbal- ance due to triangular structure of causal attention computations. We propose a simple extension to Ring Attention, which we call Striped Attention to fix this imbalance. Instead of devices having contiguous subsequences, each device has a subset of tokens distributed uniformly throughout the sequence, which we demonstrate leads to more even workloads. In experiments running Striped Attention on A100 GPUs and TPUv4s, we are able to achieve up to 1.45x end-to-end throughput improvements over the original Ring Attention algorithm on causal transformer training at a sequence length of 256k. Furthermore, on 16 TPUv4 chips, we were able to achieve 1.65x speedups at sequence lengths of 786k. We release the code for our experiments as open source

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been demonstrating the ability to solve complex tasks by delivering answers that are positively evaluated by humans due in part to the intensive use of human feedback that refines responses. However, the suggestibility transmitted through human feedback increases the inclination to produce responses that correspond to the user's beliefs or misleading prompts as opposed to true facts, a behaviour known as sycophancy. This phenomenon decreases the bias, robustness, and, consequently, their reliability. In this paper, we shed light on the suggestibility of LLMs to sycophantic behaviour, demonstrating these tendencies via human-influenced prompts over different tasks. Our investigation reveals that LLMs show sycophantic tendencies when responding to queries involving subjective opinions and statements that should elicit a contrary response based on facts, demonstrating a lack of robustness.