Intrigued by the claims of emergent reasoning capabilities in LLMs trained on general web corpora, in this paper, we set out to investigate their planning capabilities. We aim to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of LLMs in generating plans autonomously in commonsense planning tasks and (2) the potential of LLMs in LLM-Modulo settings where they act as a source of heuristic guidance for external planners and verifiers. We conduct a systematic study by generating a suite of instances on domains similar to the ones employed in the International Planning Competition and evaluate LLMs in two distinct modes: autonomous and heuristic. Our findings reveal that LLMs' ability to generate executable plans autonomously is rather limited, with the best model (GPT-4) having an average success rate of ~12% across the domains. However, the results in the LLM-Modulo setting show more promise. In the LLM-Modulo setting, we demonstrate that LLM-generated plans can improve the search process for underlying sound planners and additionally show that external verifiers can help provide feedback on the generated plans and back-prompt the LLM for better plan generation.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently achieved human-level performance on a range of professional and academic benchmarks. The accessibility of these models has lagged behind their performance. State-of-the-art LLMs require costly infrastructure; are only accessible via rate-limited, geo-locked, and censored web interfaces; and lack publicly available code and technical reports. In this paper, we tell the story of GPT4All, a popular open source repository that aims to democratize access to LLMs. We outline the technical details of the original GPT4All model family, as well as the evolution of the GPT4All project from a single model into a fully fledged open source ecosystem. It is our hope that this paper acts as both a technical overview of the original GPT4All models as well as a case study on the subsequent growth of the GPT4All open source ecosystem.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed with increasing real-world responsibilities, it is important to be able to specify and constrain the behavior of these systems in a reliable manner. Model developers may wish to set explicit rules for the model, such as "do not generate abusive content", but these may be circumvented by jailbreaking techniques. Evaluating how well LLMs follow developer-provided rules in the face of adversarial inputs typically requires manual review, which slows down monitoring and methods development. To address this issue, we propose Rule-following Language Evaluation Scenarios (RuLES), a programmatic framework for measuring rule-following ability in LLMs. RuLES consists of 15 simple text scenarios in which the model is instructed to obey a set of rules in natural language while interacting with the human user. Each scenario has a concise evaluation program to determine whether the model has broken any rules in a conversation. Through manual exploration of model behavior in our scenarios, we identify 6 categories of attack strategies and collect two suites of test cases: one consisting of unique conversations from manual testing and one that systematically implements strategies from the 6 categories. Across various popular proprietary and open models such as GPT-4 and Llama 2, we find that all models are susceptible to a wide variety of adversarial hand-crafted user inputs, though GPT-4 is the best-performing model. Additionally, we evaluate open models under gradient-based attacks and find significant vulnerabilities. We propose RuLES as a challenging new setting for research into exploring and defending against both manual and automatic attacks on LLMs.

Recent advancements in text-to-image generation have revolutionized numerous fields, including art and cinema, by automating the generation of high-quality, context-aware images and video. However, the utility of these technologies is often limited by the inadequacy of text prompts in guiding the generator to produce artistically coherent and subject-relevant images. In this paper, We describe the techniques that can be used to make Large Language Models (LLMs) act as Art Directors that enhance image and video generation. We describe our unified system for this called "LaDi". We explore how LaDi integrates multiple techniques for augmenting the capabilities of text-to-image generators (T2Is) and text-to-video generators (T2Vs), with a focus on constrained decoding, intelligent prompting, fine-tuning, and retrieval. LaDi and these techniques are being used today in apps and platforms developed by Plai Labs.

We propose a new synthesis algorithm that can efficiently search programs with local variables (e.g., those introduced by lambdas). Prior bottom-up synthesis algorithms are not able to evaluate programs with free local variables, and therefore cannot effectively reduce the search space of such programs (e.g., using standard observational equivalence reduction techniques), making synthesis slow. Our algorithm can reduce the space of programs with local variables. The key idea, dubbed lifted interpretation, is to lift up the program interpretation process, from evaluating one program at a time to simultaneously evaluating all programs from a grammar. Lifted interpretation provides a mechanism to systematically enumerate all binding contexts for local variables, thereby enabling us to evaluate and reduce the space of programs with local variables. Our ideas are instantiated in the domain of web automation. The resulting tool, Arborist, can automate a significantly broader range of challenging tasks more efficiently than state-of-the-art techniques including WebRobot and Helena.

In this study, we delve into the dynamic landscape of machine learning research evolution. Initially, through the utilization of Latent Dirichlet Allocation, we discern pivotal themes and fundamental concepts that have emerged within the realm of machine learning. Subsequently, we undertake a comprehensive analysis to track the evolutionary trajectories of these identified themes. To quantify the novelty and divergence of research contributions, we employ the Kullback-Leibler Divergence metric. This statistical measure serves as a proxy for ``surprise'', indicating the extent of differentiation between the content of academic papers and the subsequent developments in research. By amalgamating these insights, we gain the ability to ascertain the pivotal roles played by prominent researchers and the significance of specific academic venues (periodicals and conferences) within the machine learning domain.

In the era of widespread public use of AI systems across various domains, ensuring adversarial robustness has become increasingly vital to maintain safety and prevent undesirable errors. Researchers have curated various adversarial datasets (through perturbations) for capturing model deficiencies that cannot be revealed in standard benchmark datasets. However, little is known about how these adversarial examples differ from the original data points, and there is still no methodology to measure the intended and unintended consequences of those adversarial transformations. In this research, we conducted a systematic survey of existing quantifiable metrics that describe text instances in NLP tasks, among dimensions of difficulty, diversity, and disagreement. We selected several current adversarial effect datasets and compared the distributions between the original and their adversarial counterparts. The results provide valuable insights into what makes these datasets more challenging from a metrics perspective and whether they align with underlying assumptions.

The lack of contextual information in text data can make the annotation process of text-based emotion classification datasets challenging. As a result, such datasets often contain labels that fail to consider all the relevant emotions in the vocabulary. This misalignment between text inputs and labels can degrade the performance of machine learning models trained on top of them. As re-annotating entire datasets is a costly and time-consuming task that cannot be done at scale, we propose to use the expressive capabilities of large language models to synthesize additional context for input text to increase its alignment with the annotated emotional labels. In this work, we propose a formal definition of textual context to motivate a prompting strategy to enhance such contextual information. We provide both human and empirical evaluation to demonstrate the efficacy of the enhanced context. Our method improves alignment between inputs and their human-annotated labels from both an empirical and human-evaluated standpoint.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as powerful tools for several high-stakes natural language processing (NLP) applications. Recent prompting works claim to elicit intermediate reasoning steps and key tokens that serve as proxy explanations for LLM predictions. However, there is no certainty whether these explanations are reliable and reflect the LLMs behavior. In this work, we make one of the first attempts at quantifying the uncertainty in explanations of LLMs. To this end, we propose two novel metrics -- $\textit{Verbalized Uncertainty}$ and $\textit{Probing Uncertainty}$ -- to quantify the uncertainty of generated explanations. While verbalized uncertainty involves prompting the LLM to express its confidence in its explanations, probing uncertainty leverages sample and model perturbations as a means to quantify the uncertainty. Our empirical analysis of benchmark datasets reveals that verbalized uncertainty is not a reliable estimate of explanation confidence. Further, we show that the probing uncertainty estimates are correlated with the faithfulness of an explanation, with lower uncertainty corresponding to explanations with higher faithfulness. Our study provides insights into the challenges and opportunities of quantifying uncertainty in LLM explanations, contributing to the broader discussion of the trustworthiness of foundation models.

In-Context Learning (ICL) combined with pre-trained large language models has achieved promising results on various NLP tasks. However, ICL requires high-quality annotated demonstrations which might not be available in real-world scenarios. To overcome this limitation, we propose \textbf{D}ata \textbf{A}ugmentation for \textbf{I}n-Context \textbf{L}earning (\textbf{DAIL}). DAIL leverages the intuition that large language models are more familiar with the content generated by themselves. It first utilizes the language model to generate paraphrases of the test sample and employs majority voting to determine the final result based on individual predictions. Our extensive empirical evaluation shows that DAIL outperforms the standard ICL method and other ensemble-based methods in the low-resource scenario. Additionally, we explore the use of voting consistency as a confidence score of the model when the logits of predictions are inaccessible. We believe our work will stimulate further research on ICL in low-resource settings.