Scaling inference compute in large language models (LLMs) through repeated sampling consistently increases the coverage (fraction of problems solved) as the number of samples increases. We conjecture that this observed improvement is partially due to the answer distribution of standard evaluation benchmarks, which is skewed towards a relatively small set of common answers. To test this conjecture, we define a baseline that enumerates answers according to their prevalence in the training set. Experiments spanning two domains -- mathematical reasoning and factual knowledge -- reveal that this baseline outperforms repeated model sampling for some LLMs, while the coverage for others is on par with that of a mixture strategy that obtains $k$ answers by using only $10$ model samples and similarly guessing the remaining $k-10$ attempts via enumeration. Our baseline enables a more accurate measurement of how much repeated sampling improves coverage in such settings beyond prompt-agnostic guessing.

There has been an increasing interest in detecting hallucinations in model-generated texts, both manually and automatically, at varying levels of granularity. However, most existing methods fail to precisely pinpoint the errors. In this work, we introduce QASemConsistency, a new formalism for localizing factual inconsistencies in attributable text generation, at a fine-grained level. Drawing inspiration from Neo-Davidsonian formal semantics, we propose decomposing the generated text into minimal predicate-argument level propositions, expressed as simple question-answer (QA) pairs, and assess whether each individual QA pair is supported by a trusted reference text. As each QA pair corresponds to a single semantic relation between a predicate and an argument, QASemConsistency effectively localizes the unsupported information. We first demonstrate the effectiveness of the QASemConsistency methodology for human annotation, by collecting crowdsourced annotations of granular consistency errors, while achieving a substantial inter-annotator agreement ($\kappa > 0.7)$. Then, we implement several methods for automatically detecting localized factual inconsistencies, with both supervised entailment models and open-source LLMs.

Despite recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), their performance on tasks involving long contexts remains sub-optimal. In-Context Learning (ICL) with few-shot examples may be an appealing solution to enhance LLM performance in this scenario; However, naively adding ICL examples with long context introduces challenges, including substantial token overhead added for each few-shot example and context mismatch between the demonstrations and the target query. In this work, we propose to automatically generate few-shot examples for long context QA tasks by recycling contexts. Specifically, given a long input context (1-3k tokens) and a query, we generate additional query-output pairs from the given context as few-shot examples, while introducing the context only once. This ensures that the demonstrations are leveraging the same context as the target query while only adding a small number of tokens to the prompt. We further enhance each demonstration by instructing the model to explicitly identify the relevant paragraphs before the answer, which improves performance while providing fine-grained attribution to the answer source. We apply our method on multiple LLMs and obtain substantial improvements (+23\% on average across models) on various QA datasets with long context, especially when the answer lies within the middle of the context. Surprisingly, despite introducing only single-hop ICL examples, LLMs also successfully generalize to multi-hop long-context QA using our approach.

When large language models are aligned via supervised fine-tuning, they may encounter new factual information that was not acquired through pre-training. It is often conjectured that this can teach the model the behavior of hallucinating factually incorrect responses, as the model is trained to generate facts that are not grounded in its pre-existing knowledge. In this work, we study the impact of such exposure to new knowledge on the capability of the fine-tuned model to utilize its pre-existing knowledge. To this end, we design a controlled setup, focused on closed-book QA, where we vary the proportion of the fine-tuning examples that introduce new knowledge. We demonstrate that large language models struggle to acquire new factual knowledge through fine-tuning, as fine-tuning examples that introduce new knowledge are learned significantly slower than those consistent with the model's knowledge. However, we also find that as the examples with new knowledge are eventually learned, they linearly increase the model's tendency to hallucinate. Taken together, our results highlight the risk in introducing new factual knowledge through fine-tuning, and support the view that large language models mostly acquire factual knowledge through pre-training, whereas fine-tuning teaches them to use it more efficiently.

Language models often exhibit undesirable behaviors, such as gender bias or toxic language. Interventions in the representation space were shown effective in mitigating such issues by altering the LM behavior. We first show that two prominent intervention techniques, Linear Erasure and Steering Vectors, do not enable a high degree of control and are limited in expressivity. We then propose a novel intervention methodology for generating expressive counterfactuals in the representation space, aiming to make representations of a source class (e.g., "toxic") resemble those of a target class (e.g., "non-toxic"). This approach, generalizing previous linear intervention techniques, utilizes a closed-form solution for the Earth Mover's problem under Gaussian assumptions and provides theoretical guarantees on the representation space's geometric organization. We further build on this technique and derive a nonlinear intervention that enables controlled generation. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approaches in mitigating bias in multiclass classification and in reducing the generation of toxic language, outperforming strong baselines.

Prompting language models to provide step-by-step answers (e.g., "Chain-of-Thought") is the prominent approach for complex reasoning tasks, where more accurate reasoning chains typically improve downstream task performance. Recent literature discusses automatic methods to verify reasoning steps to evaluate and improve their correctness. However, no fine-grained step-level datasets are available to enable thorough evaluation of such verification methods, hindering progress in this direction. We introduce Reveal: Reasoning Verification Evaluation, a new dataset to benchmark automatic verifiers of complex Chain-of-Thought reasoning in open-domain question answering settings. Reveal includes comprehensive labels for the relevance, attribution to evidence passages, and logical correctness of each reasoning step in a language model's answer, across a wide variety of datasets and state-of-the-art language models.

Factual questions typically can be answered correctly at different levels of granularity. For example, both ``August 4, 1961'' and ``1961'' are correct answers to the question ``When was Barack Obama born?''. Standard question answering (QA) evaluation protocols, however, do not explicitly take this into account and compare a predicted answer against answers of a single granularity level. In this work, we propose GRANOLA QA, a novel evaluation setting where a predicted answer is evaluated in terms of accuracy and informativeness against a set of multi-granularity answers. We present a simple methodology for enriching existing datasets with multi-granularity answers, and create GRANOLA-EQ, a multi-granularity version of the EntityQuestions dataset. We evaluate a range of decoding methods on GRANOLA-EQ, including a new algorithm, called Decoding with Response Aggregation (DRAG), that is geared towards aligning the response granularity with the model's uncertainty. Our experiments show that large language models with standard decoding tend to generate specific answers, which are often incorrect. In contrast, when evaluated on multi-granularity answers, DRAG yields a nearly 20 point increase in accuracy on average, which further increases for rare entities. Overall, this reveals that standard evaluation and decoding schemes may significantly underestimate the knowledge encapsulated in LMs.

As instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) gain global adoption, their ability to follow instructions in multiple languages becomes increasingly crucial. One promising approach is cross-lingual transfer, where a model acquires specific functionality on some language by finetuning on another language. In this work, we investigate how multilinguality during instruction tuning of a multilingual LLM affects instruction-following across languages. We first show that many languages transfer some instruction-following capabilities to other languages from even monolingual tuning. Furthermore, we find that only 40 multilingual examples in an English tuning set substantially improve multilingual instruction-following, both in seen and unseen languages during tuning. In general, we observe that models tuned on multilingual mixtures exhibit comparable or superior performance in several languages compared to monolingually tuned models, despite training on 10x fewer examples in those languages. Finally, we find that increasing the number of languages in the instruction tuning set from 1 to only 2, 3, or 4 increases cross-lingual generalization. Our results suggest that building massively multilingual instruction-tuned models can be done with only a very small set of multilingual instruction-responses.

Abstractive summarization has enjoyed renewed interest in recent years, thanks to pre-trained language models and the availability of large-scale datasets. Despite promising results, current models still suffer from generating factually inconsistent summaries, reducing their utility for real-world application. Several recent efforts attempt to address this by devising models that automatically detect factual inconsistencies in machine generated summaries. However, they focus exclusively on English, a language with abundant resources. In this work, we leverage factual consistency evaluation models to improve multilingual summarization. We explore two intuitive approaches to mitigate hallucinations based on the signal provided by a multilingual NLI model, namely data filtering and controlled generation. Experimental results in the 45 languages from the XLSum dataset show gains over strong baselines in both automatic and human evaluation.

A growing area of research investigates augmenting language models with tools (e.g., search engines, calculators) to overcome their shortcomings (e.g., missing or incorrect knowledge, incorrect logical inferences). Various few-shot tool-usage strategies have been proposed. However, there is no systematic and fair comparison across different strategies, or between these strategies and strong baselines that do not leverage tools. We conduct an extensive empirical analysis, finding that (1) across various datasets, example difficulty levels, and models, strong no-tool baselines are competitive to tool-assisted strategies, implying that effectively using tools with in-context demonstrations is a difficult unsolved problem; (2) for knowledge-retrieval tasks, strategies that *refine* incorrect outputs with tools outperform strategies that retrieve relevant information *ahead of* or *during generation*; (3) tool-assisted strategies are expensive in the number of tokens they require to work -- incurring additional costs by orders of magnitude -- which does not translate into significant improvement in performance. Overall, our findings suggest that few-shot tool integration is still an open challenge, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evaluations of future strategies to accurately assess their *benefits* and *costs*.