The rapid growth of scientific publications, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizes the need for tools to help researchers efficiently comprehend the latest advancements. One essential part of understanding scientific literature is research aspect classification, which categorizes sentences in abstracts to Background, Purpose, Method, and Finding. In this study, we investigate the impact of different datasets on model performance for the crowd-annotated CODA-19 research aspect classification task. Specifically, we explore the potential benefits of using the large, automatically curated PubMed 200K RCT dataset and evaluate the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs), such as LLaMA, GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4. Our results indicate that using the PubMed 200K RCT dataset does not improve performance for the CODA-19 task. We also observe that while GPT-4 performs well, it does not outperform the SciBERT model fine-tuned on the CODA-19 dataset, emphasizing the importance of a dedicated and task-aligned datasets dataset for the target task. Our code is available at https://github.com/Crowd-AI-Lab/CODA-19-exp.

Vision-Language Pretraining (VLP) has demonstrated remarkable capabilities in learning visual representations from textual descriptions of images without annotations. Yet, effective VLP demands large-scale image-text pairs, a resource that suffers scarcity in the medical domain. Moreover, conventional VLP is limited to 2D images while medical images encompass diverse modalities, often in 3D, making the learning process more challenging. To address these challenges, we present Generative Text-Guided 3D Vision-Language Pretraining for Unified Medical Image Segmentation (GTGM), a framework that extends of VLP to 3D medical images without relying on paired textual descriptions. Specifically, GTGM utilizes large language models (LLM) to generate medical-style text from 3D medical images. This synthetic text is then used to supervise 3D visual representation learning. Furthermore, a negative-free contrastive learning objective strategy is introduced to cultivate consistent visual representations between augmented 3D medical image patches, which effectively mitigates the biases associated with strict positive-negative sample pairings. We evaluate GTGM on three imaging modalities - Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and electron microscopy (EM) over 13 datasets. GTGM's superior performance across various medical image segmentation tasks underscores its effectiveness and versatility, by enabling VLP extension into 3D medical imagery while bypassing the need for paired text.

Prompting large language models has gained immense popularity in recent years due to the advantage of producing good results even without the need for labelled data. However, this requires prompt tuning to get optimal prompts that lead to better model performances. In this paper, we explore the use of soft-prompt tuning on sentiment classification task to quantify the biases of large language models (LLMs) such as Open Pre-trained Transformers (OPT) and Galactica language model. Since these models are trained on real-world data that could be prone to bias toward certain groups of populations, it is important to identify these underlying issues. Using soft-prompts to evaluate bias gives us the extra advantage of avoiding the human-bias injection that can be caused by manually designed prompts. We check the model biases on different sensitive attributes using the group fairness (bias) and find interesting bias patterns. Since LLMs have been used in the industry in various applications, it is crucial to identify the biases before deploying these models in practice. We open-source our pipeline and encourage industry researchers to adapt our work to their use cases.

We present BlenderBot 3x, an update on the conversational model BlenderBot 3, which is now trained using organic conversation and feedback data from participating users of the system in order to improve both its skills and safety. We are publicly releasing the participating de-identified interaction data for use by the research community, in order to spur further progress. Training models with organic data is challenging because interactions with people "in the wild" include both high quality conversations and feedback, as well as adversarial and toxic behavior. We study techniques that enable learning from helpful teachers while avoiding learning from people who are trying to trick the model into unhelpful or toxic responses. BlenderBot 3x is both preferred in conversation to BlenderBot 3, and is shown to produce safer responses in challenging situations. While our current models are still far from perfect, we believe further improvement can be achieved by continued use of the techniques explored in this work.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable abilities recently, including passing advanced professional exams and demanding benchmark tests. This performance has led many to suggest that they are close to achieving humanlike or 'true' understanding of language, and even Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Here, we provide a new open-source benchmark that can assess semantic abilities of LLMs using two-word phrases using a task that can be performed relatively easily by humans without advanced training. Combining multiple words into a single concept is a fundamental aspect of human language and intelligence. The test requires meaningfulness judgments of 1768 noun-noun combinations that have been rated as meaningful (e.g., baby boy) or not meaningful (e.g., goat sky). by 150 human raters. We provide versions of the task that probe meaningfulness ratings on a 0-4 scale as well as binary judgments. We conducted a series of experiments using the TWT on GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and Bard, with both versions. Results demonstrated that, compared to humans, all models perform poorly at rating meaningfulness of these phrases. GPT-3.5 and Bard are also unable to make binary discriminations between sensible and nonsense phrases as making sense. GPT-4 makes a substantial improvement in binary discrimination of combinatorial phrases but is still significantly worse than human performance. The TWT can be used to understand the limitations and weaknesses of current LLMs, and potentially improve them. The test also reminds us that caution is warranted in attributing 'true understanding' or AGI to LLMs. TWT is available at: https://github.com/NickRiccardi/two-word-test

Societal biases present in pre-trained large language models are a critical issue as these models have been shown to propagate biases in countless downstream applications, rendering them unfair towards specific groups of people. Since large-scale retraining of these models from scratch is both time and compute-expensive, a variety of approaches have been previously proposed that de-bias a pre-trained model. While the majority of current state-of-the-art debiasing methods focus on changes to the training regime, in this paper, we propose data intervention strategies as a powerful yet simple technique to reduce gender bias in pre-trained models. Specifically, we empirically show that by fine-tuning a pre-trained model on only 10 de-biased (intervened) training examples, the tendency to favor any gender is significantly reduced. Since our proposed method only needs a few training examples, our few-shot debiasing approach is highly feasible and practical. Through extensive experimentation, we show that our debiasing technique performs better than competitive state-of-the-art baselines with minimal loss in language modeling ability.

Humor is a central aspect of human communication that has not been solved for artificial agents so far. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly able to capture implicit and contextual information. Especially, OpenAI's ChatGPT recently gained immense public attention. The GPT3-based model almost seems to communicate on a human level and can even tell jokes. Humor is an essential component of human communication. But is ChatGPT really funny? We put ChatGPT's sense of humor to the test. In a series of exploratory experiments around jokes, i.e., generation, explanation, and detection, we seek to understand ChatGPT's capability to grasp and reproduce human humor. Since the model itself is not accessible, we applied prompt-based experiments. Our empirical evidence indicates that jokes are not hard-coded but mostly also not newly generated by the model. Over 90% of 1008 generated jokes were the same 25 Jokes. The system accurately explains valid jokes but also comes up with fictional explanations for invalid jokes. Joke-typical characteristics can mislead ChatGPT in the classification of jokes. ChatGPT has not solved computational humor yet but it can be a big leap toward "funny" machines.

Code LLMs are being rapidly deployed and there is evidence that they can make professional programmers more productive. Current benchmarks for code generation measure whether models generate correct programs given an expert prompt. In this paper, we present a new benchmark containing multiple prompts per problem, written by a specific population of non-expert prompters: beginning programmers. StudentEval contains 1,749 prompts for 48 problems, written by 80 students who have only completed one semester of Python programming. Our students wrote these prompts while working interactively with a Code LLM, and we observed very mixed success rates. We use StudentEval to evaluate 5 Code LLMs and find that StudentEval is a better discriminator of model performance than existing benchmarks. We analyze the prompts and find significant variation in students' prompting techniques. We also find that nondeterministic LLM sampling could mislead students into thinking that their prompts are more (or less) effective than they actually are, which has implications for how to teach with Code LLMs.

Psycholinguistic analyses provide a means of evaluating large language model (LLM) output and making systematic comparisons to human-generated text. These methods can be used to characterize the psycholinguistic properties of LLM output and illustrate areas where LLMs fall short in comparison to human-generated text. In this work, we apply psycholinguistic methods to evaluate individual sentences from long-form analogies about biochemical concepts. We compare analogies generated by human subjects enrolled in introductory biochemistry courses to analogies generated by chatGPT. We perform a supervised classification analysis using 78 features extracted from Coh-metrix that analyze text cohesion, language, and readability (Graesser et. al., 2004). Results illustrate high performance for classifying student-generated and chatGPT-generated analogies. To evaluate which features contribute most to model performance, we use a hierarchical clustering approach. Results from this analysis illustrate several linguistic differences between the two sources.

Whereas the recent emergence of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT has exhibited impressive general performance, it still has a large gap with fully-supervised models on specific tasks such as multi-span question answering. Previous researches found that in-context learning is an effective approach to exploiting LLM, by using a few task-related labeled data as demonstration examples to construct a few-shot prompt for answering new questions. A popular implementation is to concatenate a few questions and their correct answers through simple templates, informing LLM of the desired output. In this paper, we propose a novel way of employing labeled data such that it also informs LLM of some undesired output, by extending demonstration examples with feedback about answers predicted by an off-the-shelf model, e.g., correct, incorrect, or incomplete. Experiments on three multi-span question answering datasets as well as a keyphrase extraction dataset show that our new prompting strategy consistently improves LLM's in-context learning performance.