Underlying data distributions of natural language, programming code, and mathematical symbols vary vastly, presenting a complex challenge for large language models (LLMs) that strive to achieve high performance across all three domains simultaneously. Achieving a very high level of proficiency for an LLM within a specific domain often requires extensive training with relevant corpora, which is typically accompanied by a sacrifice in performance in other domains. In this paper, we propose to fuse models that are already highly-specialized directly. The proposed fusing framework, UltraFuser, consists of three distinct specialists that are already sufficiently trained on language, coding, and mathematics. A token-level gating mechanism is introduced to blend the specialists' outputs. A two-stage training strategy accompanied by balanced sampling is designed to ensure stability. To effectively train the fused model, we further construct a high-quality supervised instruction tuning dataset, UltraChat 2, which includes text, code, and mathematical content. This dataset comprises approximately 300,000 instructions and covers a wide range of topics in each domain. Experiments show that our model could simultaneously achieve mastery of the three crucial domains.

Alignment in artificial intelligence pursues the consistency between model responses and human preferences as well as values. In practice, the multifaceted nature of human preferences inadvertently introduces what is known as the "alignment tax" -a compromise where enhancements in alignment within one objective (e.g.,harmlessness) can diminish performance in others (e.g.,helpfulness). However, existing alignment techniques are mostly unidirectional, leading to suboptimal trade-offs and poor flexibility over various objectives. To navigate this challenge, we argue the prominence of grounding LLMs with evident preferences. We introduce controllable preference optimization (CPO), which explicitly specifies preference scores for different objectives, thereby guiding the model to generate responses that meet the requirements. Our experimental analysis reveals that the aligned models can provide responses that match various preferences among the "3H" (helpfulness, honesty, harmlessness) desiderata. Furthermore, by introducing diverse data and alignment goals, we surpass baseline methods in aligning with single objectives, hence mitigating the impact of the alignment tax and achieving Pareto improvements in multi-objective alignment.

This paper proposes INTERactiVE chaiN Of Repairing (INTERVENOR), which mimics human code repairing behavior (iteratively judging, rethinking, and repairing) and prompts the coding ability of regard Large Language Models (LLMs). Specifically, INTERVENOR employs two LLM based agents, Code Learner and Code Teacher, to play different roles in code repairing and work interactively to repair the generated codes. The Code Learner is asked to generate and repair code according to the instructions from the Code Teacher. The Code Teacher rethinks the code errors according to the corresponding feedback from compilers and iteratively generates the chain-of-repairing (CoR) to guide the code repairing process for Code Learner. Our experiments show that INTERVENOR outperforms the state-of-the-art methods and achieves about 13% and 4.5% improvements over the GPT-3.5 model in code generation and code translation tasks, respectively. Our further analyses show that CoR can illuminate the bug reasons and solution plans via natural language. With the feedback of code compilers, INTERVENOR can accurately identify the syntax errors and assertion errors in the code and provide precise instructions to repair codes. All data and codes are available at https://github.com/NEUIR/INTERVENOR

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities in multimodal understanding, reasoning, and interaction. However, existing MLLMs prevalently suffer from serious hallucination problems, generating text that is not factually grounded in associated images. The problem makes existing MLLMs untrustworthy and thus impractical in real-world (especially high-stakes) applications. To address the challenge, we present RLHF-V, which enhances MLLM trustworthiness via behavior alignment from fine-grained correctional human feedback. Specifically, RLHF-V collects human preference in the form of segment-level corrections on hallucinations, and performs dense direct preference optimization over the human feedback. Comprehensive experiments on five benchmarks in both automatic and human evaluation show that, RLHF-V can enable substantially more trustworthy MLLM behaviors with promising data and computation efficiency. Remarkably, using 1.4k annotated data samples, RLHF-V significantly reduces the hallucination rate of the base MLLM by 34.8%, outperforming the concurrent LLaVA-RLHF trained on 10k annotated data. The final model achieves state-of-the-art performance in trustworthiness among open-source MLLMs, and shows better robustness than GPT-4V in preventing hallucinations aroused from over-generalization. We open-source our code, model, and data at https://github.com/RLHF-V/RLHF-V.

This paper reexamines the research on out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness in the field of NLP. We find that the distribution shift settings in previous studies commonly lack adequate challenges, hindering the accurate evaluation of OOD robustness. To address these issues, we propose a benchmark construction protocol that ensures clear differentiation and challenging distribution shifts. Then we introduce BOSS, a Benchmark suite for Out-of-distribution robustneSS evaluation covering 5 tasks and 20 datasets. Based on BOSS, we conduct a series of experiments on pre-trained language models for analysis and evaluation of OOD robustness. First, for vanilla fine-tuning, we examine the relationship between in-distribution (ID) and OOD performance. We identify three typical types that unveil the inner learning mechanism, which could potentially facilitate the forecasting of OOD robustness, correlating with the advancements on ID datasets. Then, we evaluate 5 classic methods on BOSS and find that, despite exhibiting some effectiveness in specific cases, they do not offer significant improvement compared to vanilla fine-tuning. Further, we evaluate 5 LLMs with various adaptation paradigms and find that when sufficient ID data is available, fine-tuning domain-specific models outperform LLMs on ID examples significantly. However, in the case of OOD instances, prioritizing LLMs with in-context learning yields better results. We identify that both fine-tuned small models and LLMs face challenges in effectively addressing downstream tasks. The code is public at \url{https://github.com/lifan-yuan/OOD_NLP}.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has become a pivot technique in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. In RLHF practice, preference data plays a crucial role in bridging human proclivity and LLMs. However, the scarcity of diverse, naturalistic datasets of human preferences on LLM outputs at scale poses a great challenge to RLHF as well as feedback learning research within the open-source community. Current preference datasets, either proprietary or limited in size and prompt variety, result in limited RLHF adoption in open-source models and hinder further exploration. We meticulously devise annotation instructions and employ GPT-4 to offer detailed feedback in both numerical and textual forms. Experimental results indicate that our models outperform existing open-source models, achieving top performance across multiple benchmarks. Large language models (LLMs), represented by ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) and GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023), have demonstrated proficiency in generating fluent text as well as solving various languageoriented tasks. Trained on massive corpora through likelihood maximization techniques, these LLMs have exhibited remarkable generalization and equipped the ability to execute diverse tasks in response to user directives (Ouyang et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). Unfortunately, relying solely on likelihood maximization during training leads to well-known issues - LLMs may generate convincing but incorrect or unsafe content that deviates from human preferences (Stiennon et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022; Perez et al., 2022). To further align LLMs with human preferences, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) (Ouyang et al., 2022; Askell et al., 2021; Bai et al., 2022a; Touvron et al., 2023b) has been introduced and widely adopted by leading corporations. RLHF builds upon preference data, which rates and compares different responses given the same prompt. Typically, RLHF trains a reward model on preference data and then applies RL algorithms such as Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) (Schulman et al., 2017) on LLMs to optimize the rewards (OpenAI, 2022; 2023; Touvron et al., 2023b; Bai et al., 2022a). While proprietary models have largely capitalized on RLHF's potential to produce outputs that are both more useful and safer, a significant gap persists in the open-source community. As a result, few open-source models adopt RLHF as it demonstrates marginal gains, which critically hinders successful RLHF practice and further research.

Humans possess an extraordinary ability to create and utilize tools, allowing them to overcome physical limitations and explore new frontiers. With the advent of foundation models, AI systems have the potential to be equally adept in tool use as humans. This paradigm, i.e., tool learning with foundation models, combines the strengths of specialized tools and foundation models to achieve enhanced accuracy, efficiency, and automation in problem-solving. Despite its immense potential, there is still a lack of a comprehensive understanding of key challenges, opportunities, and future endeavors in this field. To this end, we present a systematic investigation of tool learning in this paper. We first introduce the background of tool learning, including its cognitive origins, the paradigm shift of foundation models, and the complementary roles of tools and models. Then we recapitulate existing tool learning research into tool-augmented and tool-oriented learning. We formulate a general tool learning framework: starting from understanding the user instruction, models should learn to decompose a complex task into several subtasks, dynamically adjust their plan through reasoning, and effectively conquer each sub-task by selecting appropriate tools. We also discuss how to train models for improved tool-use capabilities and facilitate the generalization in tool learning. Considering the lack of a systematic tool learning evaluation in prior works, we experiment with 18 representative tools and show the potential of current foundation models in skillfully utilizing tools. Finally, we discuss several open problems that require further investigation for tool learning. Overall, we hope this paper could inspire future research in integrating tools with foundation models.

Textual adversarial attacks can discover models' weaknesses by adding semantic-preserved but misleading perturbations to the inputs. The long-lasting adversarial attack-and-defense arms race in Natural Language Processing (NLP) is algorithm-centric, providing valuable techniques for automatic robustness evaluation. However, the existing practice of robustness evaluation may exhibit issues of incomprehensive evaluation, impractical evaluation protocol, and invalid adversarial samples. In this paper, we aim to set up a unified automatic robustness evaluation framework, shifting towards model-centric evaluation to further exploit the advantages of adversarial attacks. To address the above challenges, we first determine robustness evaluation dimensions based on model capabilities and specify the reasonable algorithm to generate adversarial samples for each dimension. Then we establish the evaluation protocol, including evaluation settings and metrics, under realistic demands. Finally, we use the perturbation degree of adversarial samples to control the sample validity. We implement a toolkit RobTest that realizes our automatic robustness evaluation framework. In our experiments, we conduct a robustness evaluation of RoBERTa models to demonstrate the effectiveness of our evaluation framework, and further show the rationality of each component in the framework. The code will be made public at \url{https://github.com/thunlp/RobTest}.

With the evergrowing sizes of pre-trained models (PTMs), it has been an emerging practice to only provide the inference APIs for users, namely model-as-a-service (MaaS) setting. To adapt PTMs with model parameters frozen, most current approaches focus on the input side, seeking for powerful prompts to stimulate models for correct answers. However, we argue that input-side adaptation could be arduous due to the lack of gradient signals and they usually require thousands of API queries, resulting in high computation and time costs. In light of this, we present Decoder Tuning (DecT), which in contrast optimizes task-specific decoder networks on the output side. Specifically, DecT first extracts prompt-stimulated output scores for initial predictions. On top of that, we train an additional decoder network on the output representations to incorporate posterior data knowledge. By gradient-based optimization, DecT can be trained within several seconds and requires only one PTM query per sample. Empirically, we conduct extensive natural language understanding experiments and show that DecT significantly outperforms state-of-the-art algorithms with a $200\times$ speed-up.

Pre-trained language models (PLMs) may fail in giving reliable estimates of their predictive uncertainty. We take a close look into this problem, aiming to answer two questions: (1) Do PLMs learn to become calibrated in the training process? (2) How effective are existing calibration methods? For the first question, we conduct fine-grained control experiments to study the dynamic change in PLMs' calibration performance in training. We consider six factors as control variables, including dataset difficulty, available training samples, training steps, the number of tunable parameters, model scale, and pretraining. We observe a consistent change in calibration performance across six factors. We find that PLMs don't learn to become calibrated in training, evidenced by the continual increase in confidence, no matter whether the predictions are correct or not. We highlight that our finding somewhat contradicts two established conclusions: (a) Larger PLMs are more calibrated; (b) Pretraining improves model calibration. Next, we study the effectiveness of existing calibration methods in mitigating the overconfidence issue. Besides unlearnable calibration methods (e.g., label smoothing), we adapt and extend two recently proposed learnable methods that directly collect data to train models to have reasonable confidence estimations. Experimental results show that learnable methods significantly reduce PLMs' confidence in wrong predictions. The code is available at \url{https://github.com/lifan-yuan/PLMCalibration}.