Large language models have demonstrated surprising ability to perform in-context learning, i.e., these models can be directly applied to solve numerous downstream tasks by conditioning on a prompt constructed by a few input-output examples. However, prior research has shown that in-context learning can suffer from high instability due to variations in training examples, example order, and prompt formats. Therefore, the construction of an appropriate prompt is essential for improving the performance of in-context learning. In this paper, we revisit this problem from the view of predictive bias. Specifically, we introduce a metric to evaluate the predictive bias of a fixed prompt against labels or a given attributes. Then we empirically show that prompts with higher bias always lead to unsatisfactory predictive quality. Based on this observation, we propose a novel search strategy based on the greedy search to identify the near-optimal prompt for improving the performance of in-context learning. We perform comprehensive experiments with state-of-the-art mainstream models such as GPT-3 on various downstream tasks. Our results indicate that our method can enhance the model's in-context learning performance in an effective and interpretable manner.

This paper introduces RiskCards, a framework for structured assessment and documentation of risks associated with an application of language models. As with all language, text generated by language models can be harmful, or used to bring about harm. Automating language generation adds both an element of scale and also more subtle or emergent undesirable tendencies to the generated text. Prior work establishes a wide variety of language model harms to many different actors: existing taxonomies identify categories of harms posed by language models; benchmarks establish automated tests of these harms; and documentation standards for models, tasks and datasets encourage transparent reporting. However, there is no risk-centric framework for documenting the complexity of a landscape in which some risks are shared across models and contexts, while others are specific, and where certain conditions may be required for risks to manifest as harms. RiskCards address this methodological gap by providing a generic framework for assessing the use of a given language model in a given scenario. Each RiskCard makes clear the routes for the risk to manifest harm, their placement in harm taxonomies, and example prompt-output pairs. While RiskCards are designed to be open-source, dynamic and participatory, we present a "starter set" of RiskCards taken from a broad literature survey, each of which details a concrete risk presentation. Language model RiskCards initiate a community knowledge base which permits the mapping of risks and harms to a specific model or its application scenario, ultimately contributing to a better, safer and shared understanding of the risk landscape.

The recent release of ChatGPT has garnered widespread recognition for its exceptional ability to generate human-like responses in dialogue. Given its usage by users from various nations and its training on a vast multilingual corpus that incorporates diverse cultural and societal norms, it is crucial to evaluate its effectiveness in cultural adaptation. In this paper, we investigate the underlying cultural background of ChatGPT by analyzing its responses to questions designed to quantify human cultural differences. Our findings suggest that, when prompted with American context, ChatGPT exhibits a strong alignment with American culture, but it adapts less effectively to other cultural contexts. Furthermore, by using different prompts to probe the model, we show that English prompts reduce the variance in model responses, flattening out cultural differences and biasing them towards American culture. This study provides valuable insights into the cultural implications of ChatGPT and highlights the necessity of greater diversity and cultural awareness in language technologies.

AI systems may be better thought of as peers than as tools. This paper explores applications of augmented collective intelligence (ACI) beneficial to collaborative ideation. Design considerations are offered for an experiment that evaluates the performance of hybrid human- AI collectives. The investigation described combines humans and large language models (LLMs) to ideate on increasingly complex topics. A promising real-time collection tool called Polis is examined to facilitate ACI, including case studies from citizen engagement projects in Taiwan and Bowling Green, Kentucky. The authors discuss three challenges to consider when designing an ACI experiment: topic selection, participant selection, and evaluation of results. The paper concludes that researchers should address these challenges to conduct empirical studies of ACI in collaborative ideation.

Scholarly writing presents a complex space that generally follows a methodical procedure to plan and produce both rationally sound and creative compositions. Recent works involving large language models (LLM) demonstrate considerable success in text generation and revision tasks; however, LLMs still struggle to provide structural and creative feedback on the document level that is crucial to academic writing. In this paper, we introduce a novel taxonomy that categorizes scholarly writing behaviors according to intention, writer actions, and the information types of the written data. We also provide ManuScript, an original dataset annotated with a simplified version of our taxonomy to show writer actions and the intentions behind them. Motivated by cognitive writing theory, our taxonomy for scientific papers includes three levels of categorization in order to trace the general writing flow and identify the distinct writer activities embedded within each higher-level process. ManuScript intends to provide a complete picture of the scholarly writing process by capturing the linearity and non-linearity of writing trajectory, such that writing assistants can provide stronger feedback and suggestions on an end-to-end level. The collected writing trajectories are viewed at https://minnesotanlp.github.io/REWARD_demo/

Changing how pre-trained models behave -- e.g., improving their performance on a downstream task or mitigating biases learned during pre-training -- is a common practice when developing machine learning systems. In this work, we propose a new paradigm for steering the behavior of neural networks, centered around \textit{task vectors}. A task vector specifies a direction in the weight space of a pre-trained model, such that movement in that direction improves performance on the task. We build task vectors by subtracting the weights of a pre-trained model from the weights of the same model after fine-tuning on a task. We show that these task vectors can be modified and combined together through arithmetic operations such as negation and addition, and the behavior of the resulting model is steered accordingly. Negating a task vector decreases performance on the target task, with little change in model behavior on control tasks. Moreover, adding task vectors together can improve performance on multiple tasks at once. Finally, when tasks are linked by an analogy relationship of the form ``A is to B as C is to D", combining task vectors from three of the tasks can improve performance on the fourth, even when no data from the fourth task is used for training. Overall, our experiments with several models, modalities and tasks show that task arithmetic is a simple, efficient and effective way of editing models.

Without writing a single line of code by a human, an example Monte Carlo simulation based application for stochastic dependence modeling with copulas is developed using a state-of-the-art large language model (LLM) fine-tuned for conversations. This includes interaction with ChatGPT in natural language and using mathematical formalism, which, under careful supervision by a human-expert, led to producing a working code in MATLAB, Python and R for sampling from a given copula model, evaluation of the model's density, performing maximum likelihood estimation, optimizing the code for parallel computing for CPUs as well as for GPUs, and visualization of the computed results. In contrast to other emerging studies that assess the accuracy of LLMs like ChatGPT on tasks from a selected area, this work rather investigates ways how to achieve a successful solution of a standard statistical task in a collaboration of a human-expert and artificial intelligence (AI). Particularly, through careful prompt engineering, we separate successful solutions generated by ChatGPT from unsuccessful ones, resulting in a comprehensive list of related pros and cons. It is demonstrated that if the typical pitfalls are avoided, we can substantially benefit from collaborating with an AI partner. For example, we show that if ChatGPT is not able to provide a correct solution due to a lack of or incorrect knowledge, the human-expert can feed it with the correct knowledge, e.g., in the form of mathematical theorems and formulas, and make it to apply the gained knowledge in order to provide a solution that is correct. Such ability presents an attractive opportunity to achieve a programmed solution even for users with rather limited knowledge of programming techniques.

Debatepedia is a publicly available dataset consisting of arguments and counter-arguments on controversial topics that has been widely used for the single-document query-focused abstractive summarization task in recent years. However, it has been recently found that this dataset is limited by noise and even most queries in this dataset do not have any relevance to the respective document. In this paper, we present a methodology for cleaning the Debatepedia dataset by leveraging the generative power of large language models to make it suitable for query-focused abstractive summarization. More specifically, we harness the language generation capabilities of ChatGPT to regenerate its queries. We evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed ChatGPT annotated version of the Debatepedia dataset using several benchmark summarization models and demonstrate that the newly annotated version of Debatepedia outperforms the original dataset in terms of both query relevance as well as summary generation quality. We will make this annotated and cleaned version of the dataset publicly available.

This paper discusses OpenAIs ChatGPT, a generative pre-trained transformer, which uses natural language processing to fulfill text-based user requests (i.e., a chatbot). The history and principles behind ChatGPT and similar models are discussed. This technology is then discussed in relation to its potential impact on academia and scholarly research and publishing. ChatGPT is seen as a potential model for the automated preparation of essays and other types of scholarly manuscripts. Potential ethical issues that could arise with the emergence of large language models like GPT-3, the underlying technology behind ChatGPT, and its usage by academics and researchers, are discussed and situated within the context of broader advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing for research and scholarly publishing.

Delirium is an acute decline or fluctuation in attention, awareness, or other cognitive function that can lead to serious adverse outcomes. Despite the severe outcomes, delirium is frequently unrecognized and uncoded in patients' electronic health records (EHRs) due to its transient and diverse nature. Natural language processing (NLP), a key technology that extracts medical concepts from clinical narratives, has shown great potential in studies of delirium outcomes and symptoms. To assist in the diagnosis and phenotyping of delirium, we formed an expert panel to categorize diverse delirium symptoms, composed annotation guidelines, created a delirium corpus with diverse delirium symptoms, and developed NLP methods to extract delirium symptoms from clinical notes. We compared 5 state-of-the-art transformer models including 2 models (BERT and RoBERTa) from the general domain and 3 models (BERT_MIMIC, RoBERTa_MIMIC, and GatorTron) from the clinical domain. GatorTron achieved the best strict and lenient F1 scores of 0.8055 and 0.8759, respectively. We conducted an error analysis to identify challenges in annotating delirium symptoms and developing NLP systems. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large language model-based delirium symptom extraction system. Our study lays the foundation for the future development of computable phenotypes and diagnosis methods for delirium.