Recent years have witnessed impressive results of pre-trained vision-language models on knowledge-intensive tasks such as visual question answering (VQA). Despite the recent advances in VQA, existing methods mainly adopt a discriminative formulation that predicts answers within a pre-defined label set, leading to easy overfitting on low-resource domains with limited labeled data (e.g., medicine) and poor generalization under domain shift to another dataset. To tackle this limitation, we propose a novel generative model enhanced by multimodal prompt retrieval (MPR) that integrates retrieved prompts and multimodal features to generate answers in free text. Our generative model enables rapid zero-shot dataset adaptation to unseen data distributions and open-set answer labels across datasets. Our experiments on medical VQA tasks show that MPR outperforms its non-retrieval counterpart by up to 30% accuracy points in a few-shot domain adaptation setting.

University admission at many highly selective institutions uses a holistic review process, where all aspects of the application, including protected attributes (e.g., race, gender), grades, essays, and recommendation letters are considered, to compose an excellent and diverse class. In this study, we empirically evaluate how influential protected attributes are for predicting admission decisions using a machine learning (ML) model, and in how far textual information (e.g., personal essay, teacher recommendation) may substitute for the loss of protected attributes in the model. Using data from 14,915 applicants to an undergraduate admission office at a selective U.S. institution in the 2022-2023 cycle, we find that the exclusion of protected attributes from the ML model leads to substantially reduced admission-prediction performance. The inclusion of textual information via both a TF-IDF representation and a Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) model partially restores model performance, but does not appear to provide a full substitute for admitting a similarly diverse class. In particular, while the text helps with gender diversity, the proportion of URM applicants is severely impacted by the exclusion of protected attributes, and the inclusion of new attributes generated from the textual information does not recover this performance loss.

Ranking documents using Large Language Models (LLMs) by directly feeding the query and candidate documents into the prompt is an interesting and practical problem. However, there has been limited success so far, as researchers have found it difficult to outperform fine-tuned baseline rankers on benchmark datasets. We analyze pointwise and listwise ranking prompts used by existing methods and argue that off-the-shelf LLMs do not fully understand these ranking formulations, possibly due to the nature of how LLMs are trained. In this paper, we propose to significantly reduce the burden on LLMs by using a new technique called Pairwise Ranking Prompting (PRP). Our results are the first in the literature to achieve state-of-the-art ranking performance on standard benchmarks using moderate-sized open-sourced LLMs. On TREC-DL2020, PRP based on the Flan-UL2 model with 20B parameters outperforms the previous best approach in the literature, which is based on the blackbox commercial GPT-4 that has 50x (estimated) model size, by over 5% at NDCG@1. On TREC-DL2019, PRP is only inferior to the GPT-4 solution on the NDCG@5 and NDCG@10 metrics, while outperforming other existing solutions, such as InstructGPT which has 175B parameters, by over 10% for nearly all ranking metrics. Furthermore, we propose several variants of PRP to improve efficiency and show that it is possible to achieve competitive results even with linear complexity. We also discuss other benefits of PRP, such as supporting both generation and scoring LLM APIs, as well as being insensitive to input ordering.

Large language models (LLMs) often contain misleading content, emphasizing the need to align them with human values to ensure secur AI systems. Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has been employed to achieve this alignment by combining a reward model, typically based on Bradley-Terry paired comparison, with an RL algorithm such as Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) to optimize LLM responses. However, RLHF exhibits complexity, instability, and sensitivity to hyperparameters. In this paper, we propose Preference Ranking Optimization (PRO) as an alternative to PPO for directly aligning LLMs with the Bradley-Terry comparison. PRO extends the pairwise Bradley-Terry comparison to accommodate preference rankings of any length. By iteratively contrasting the likelihood of generating responses, PRO instructs the LLM to prioritize the best response while progressively ranking the remaining responses. In this manner, PRO effectively transforms human alignment into aligning the probability ranking of $n$ responses generated by LLM with the preference ranking of humans towards these responses. Experiments have shown that PRO outperforms existing alignment algorithms, achieving comparable results to ChatGPT and human responses through automatic-based, reward-based, GPT-4, and human evaluations. Furthermore, we demonstrate that longer, more diverse, and higher-quality preference ranking sequences can consistently enhance the performance of human alignment.

Despite their impressive scale, knowledge bases (KBs), such as Wikidata, still contain significant gaps. Language models (LMs) have been proposed as a source for filling these gaps. However, prior works have focused on prominent entities with rich coverage by LMs, neglecting the crucial case of long-tail entities. In this paper, we present a novel method for LM-based-KB completion that is specifically geared for facts about long-tail entities. The method leverages two different LMs in two stages: for candidate retrieval and for candidate verification and disambiguation. To evaluate our method and various baselines, we introduce a novel dataset, called MALT, rooted in Wikidata. Our method outperforms all baselines in F1, with major gains especially in recall.

We evaluated the capability of a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT-4) to automatically generate high-quality learning objectives (LOs) in the context of a practically oriented university course on Artificial Intelligence. Discussions of opportunities (e.g., content generation, explanation) and risks (e.g., cheating) of this emerging technology in education have intensified, but to date there has not been a study of the models' capabilities in supporting the course design and authoring of LOs. LOs articulate the knowledge and skills learners are intended to acquire by engaging with a course. To be effective, LOs must focus on what students are intended to achieve, focus on specific cognitive processes, and be measurable. Thus, authoring high-quality LOs is a challenging and time consuming (i.e., expensive) effort. We evaluated 127 LOs that were automatically generated based on a carefully crafted prompt (detailed guidelines on high-quality LOs authoring) submitted to GPT-4 for conceptual modules and projects of an AI Practitioner course. We analyzed the generated LOs if they follow certain best practices such as beginning with action verbs from Bloom's taxonomy in regards to the level of sophistication intended. Our analysis showed that the generated LOs are sensible, properly expressed (e.g., starting with an action verb), and that they largely operate at the appropriate level of Bloom's taxonomy, respecting the different nature of the conceptual modules (lower levels) and projects (higher levels). Our results can be leveraged by instructors and curricular designers wishing to take advantage of the state-of-the-art generative models to support their curricular and course design efforts.

As LLMs become commonplace, machine-generated text has the potential to flood the internet with spam, social media bots, and valueless content. Watermarking is a simple and effective strategy for mitigating such harms by enabling the detection and documentation of LLM-generated text. Yet a crucial question remains: How reliable is watermarking in realistic settings in the wild? There, watermarked text may be modified to suit a user's needs, or entirely rewritten to avoid detection. We study the robustness of watermarked text after it is re-written by humans, paraphrased by a non-watermarked LLM, or mixed into a longer hand-written document. We find that watermarks remain detectable even after human and machine paraphrasing. While these attacks dilute the strength of the watermark, paraphrases are statistically likely to leak n-grams or even longer fragments of the original text, resulting in high-confidence detections when enough tokens are observed. For example, after strong human paraphrasing the watermark is detectable after observing 800 tokens on average, when setting a 1e 5 false positive rate. We also consider a range of new detection schemes that are sensitive to short spans of watermarked text embedded inside a large document, and we compare the robustness of watermarking to other kinds of detectors.

We present LLM-Blender, an ensembling framework designed to attain consistently superior performance by leveraging the diverse strengths of multiple open-source large language models (LLMs). Our framework consists of two modules: PairRanker and GenFuser, addressing the observation that optimal LLMs for different examples can significantly vary. PairRanker employs a specialized pairwise comparison method to distinguish subtle differences between candidate outputs. It jointly encodes the input text and a pair of candidates, using cross-attention encoders to determine the superior one. Our results demonstrate that PairRanker exhibits the highest correlation with ChatGPT-based ranking. Then, GenFuser aims to merge the top-ranked candidates, generating an improved output by capitalizing on their strengths and mitigating their weaknesses. To facilitate large-scale evaluation, we introduce a benchmark dataset, MixInstruct, which is a mixture of multiple instruction datasets featuring oracle pairwise comparisons. Our LLM-Blender significantly outperform individual LLMs and baseline methods across various metrics, establishing a substantial performance gap.

We investigate how to enhance answer precision in frequently asked questions posed by distributed users using cloud-based Large Language Models (LLMs). Our study focuses on a typical situations where users ask similar queries that involve identical mathematical reasoning steps and problem-solving procedures. Due to the unsatisfactory accuracy of LLMs' zero-shot prompting with standalone questions, we propose to improve the distributed synonymous questions using Self-Consistency (SC) and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) techniques. Specifically, we first retrieve synonymous questions from a crowd-sourced database and create a federated question pool. We call these federated synonymous questions with the same or different parameters SP-questions or DP-questions, respectively. We refer to our methods as Fed-SP-SC and Fed-DP-CoT, which can generate significantly more accurate answers for all user queries without requiring sophisticated model-tuning. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that our proposed methods can significantly enhance question accuracy by fully exploring the synonymous nature of the questions and the consistency of the answers.

Sam Altman, the CEO of artificial intelligence lab OpenAI, told a Senate panel he welcomes federal regulation on the technology'to mitigate' its risks. A class-action complaint filed Wednesday in the northern district of California alleges tech leaders OpenAI and Microsoft Corp. used "stolen and misappropriated" information from hundreds of millions of internet users without their knowledge to train and develop its artificial intelligence tech like chatbot ChatGPT. The 16 plaintiffs, who are represented by the Clarkson Law Firm and listed with initials, claimed the defendants "continue to unlawfully collect and feed additional personal data from millions" worldwide to that end and that they systematically scraped 300 billion words from the internet without consent. "Once trained on stolen data, defendants saw the immediate profit potential and rushed the products to market without implementing proper safeguards or controls to ensure that they would not produce or support harmful or malicious content and conduct that could further violate the law, infringe rights and endanger lives," Clarkson continued. "Without these safeguards, the products have already demonstrated their ability to harm humans, in real ways."