With the widespread consumption of AI-generated content, there has been an increased focus on developing automated tools to verify the factual accuracy of such content. However, prior research and tools developed for fact verification treat it as a binary classification or a linear regression problem. Although this is a useful mechanism as part of automatic guardrails in systems, we argue that such tools lack transparency in the prediction reasoning and diversity in source evidence to provide a trustworthy user experience. We develop Facts&Evidence - an interactive and transparent tool for user-driven verification of complex text. The tool facilitates the intricate decision-making involved in fact-verification, presenting its users a breakdown of complex input texts to visualize the credibility of individual claims along with an explanation of model decisions and attribution to multiple, diverse evidence sources. Facts&Evidence aims to empower consumers of machine-generated text and give them agency to understand, verify, selectively trust and use such text.

AI systems often exhibit political bias, influencing users' opinions and decision-making. While political neutrality-defined as the absence of bias-is often seen as an ideal solution for fairness and safety, this position paper argues that true political neutrality is neither feasible nor universally desirable due to its subjective nature and the biases inherent in AI training data, algorithms, and user interactions. However, inspired by Joseph Raz's philosophical insight that "neutrality [...] can be a matter of degree" (Raz, 1986), we argue that striving for some neutrality remains essential for promoting balanced AI interactions and mitigating user manipulation. Therefore, we use the term "approximation" of political neutrality to shift the focus from unattainable absolutes to achievable, practical proxies. We propose eight techniques for approximating neutrality across three levels of conceptualizing AI, examining their trade-offs and implementation strategies. In addition, we explore two concrete applications of these approximations to illustrate their practicality. Finally, we assess our framework on current large language models (LLMs) at the output level, providing a demonstration of how it can be evaluated. This work seeks to advance nuanced discussions of political neutrality in AI and promote the development of responsible, aligned language models.

This position paper argues that in many realistic (i.e., complex, contextualized, subjective) scenarios, one LLM is not enough to produce a reliable output. We challenge the status quo of relying solely on a single general-purpose LLM and argue for multi-LLM collaboration to better represent the extensive diversity of data, skills, and people. We first posit that a single LLM underrepresents real-world data distributions, heterogeneous skills, and pluralistic populations, and that such representation gaps cannot be trivially patched by further training a single LLM. We then organize existing multi-LLM collaboration methods into a hierarchy, based on the level of access and information exchange, ranging from API-level, text-level, logit-level, to weight-level collaboration. Based on these methods, we highlight how multi-LLM collaboration addresses challenges that a single LLM struggles with, such as reliability, democratization, and pluralism. Finally, we identify the limitations of existing multi-LLM methods and motivate future work. We envision multi-LLM collaboration as an essential path toward compositional intelligence and collaborative AI development.

We propose Heterogeneous Swarms, an algorithm to design multi-LLM systems by jointly optimizing model roles and weights. We represent multi-LLM systems as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) of LLMs with topological message passing for collaborative generation. Given a pool of LLM experts and a utility function, Heterogeneous Swarms employs two iterative steps: role-step and weight-step. For role-step, we interpret model roles as learning a DAG that specifies the flow of inputs and outputs between LLMs. Starting from a swarm of random continuous adjacency matrices, we decode them into discrete DAGs, call the LLMs in topological order, evaluate on the utility function (e.g. accuracy on a task), and optimize the adjacency matrices with particle swarm optimization based on the utility score. For weight-step, we assess the contribution of individual LLMs in the multi-LLM systems and optimize model weights with swarm intelligence. We propose JFK-score to quantify the individual contribution of each LLM in the best-found DAG of the role-step, then optimize model weights with particle swarm optimization based on the JFK-score. Experiments demonstrate that Heterogeneous Swarms outperforms 15 role- and/or weight-based baselines by 18.5% on average across 12 tasks. Further analysis reveals that Heterogeneous Swarms discovers multi-LLM systems with heterogeneous model roles and substantial collaborative gains, and benefits from the diversity of language models.

As modern AI models become integral to everyday tasks, concerns about their inherent biases and their potential impact on human decision-making have emerged. While bias in models are well-documented, less is known about how these biases influence human decisions. This paper presents two interactive experiments investigating the effects of partisan bias in AI language models on political decision-making. Participants interacted freely with either a biased liberal, biased conservative, or unbiased control model while completing political decision-making tasks. We found that participants exposed to politically biased models were significantly more likely to adopt opinions and make decisions aligning with the AI's bias, regardless of their personal political partisanship. However, we also discovered that prior knowledge about AI could lessen the impact of the bias, highlighting the possible importance of AI education for robust bias mitigation. Our findings not only highlight the critical effects of interacting with biased AI and its ability to impact public discourse and political conduct, but also highlights potential techniques for mitigating these risks in the future.

In the absence of abundant reliable annotations for challenging tasks and contexts, how can we expand the frontier of LLM capabilities with potentially wrong answers? We focus on two research questions: (1) Can LLMs generate reliable preferences among wrong options? And if so, (2) Would alignment with such wrong-over-wrong preferences be helpful? We employ methods based on self-consistency, token probabilities, and LLM-as-a-judge to elicit wrong-over-wrong preferences, and fine-tune language models with preference optimization approaches using these synthesized preferences. Extensive experiments with seven LLMs and eight datasets demonstrate that (1) LLMs do have preliminary capability in distinguishing various shades of wrong, achieving up to 20.9% higher performance than random guess; (2) Alignment with wrong-over-wrong preferences helps LLMs to produce less wrong and sometimes even outright correct answers, while overall improving model calibration.

We propose Model Swarms, a collaborative search algorithm to adapt LLMs via swarm intelligence, the collective behavior guiding individual systems. Specifically, Model Swarms starts with a pool of LLM experts and a utility function. Guided by the best-found checkpoints across models, diverse LLM experts collaboratively move in the weight space and optimize a utility function representing model adaptation objectives. Compared to existing model composition approaches, Model Swarms offers tuning-free model adaptation, works in low-data regimes with as few as 200 examples, and does not require assumptions about specific experts in the swarm or how they should be composed. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Model Swarms could flexibly adapt LLM experts to a single task, multi-task domains, reward models, as well as diverse human interests, improving over 12 model composition baselines by up to 21.0% across tasks and contexts. Further analysis reveals that LLM experts discover previously unseen capabilities in initial checkpoints and that Model Swarms enable the weak-to-strong transition of experts through the collaborative search process.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate great potential for problems with implicit graphical structures, while recent works seek to enhance the graph reasoning capabilities of LLMs through specialized instruction tuning. The resulting 'graph LLMs' are evaluated with in-distribution settings only, thus it remains underexplored whether LLMs are learning generalizable graph reasoning skills or merely memorizing patterns in the synthetic training data. To this end, we propose the NLGift benchmark, an evaluation suite of LLM graph reasoning generalization: whether LLMs could go beyond semantic, numeric, structural, reasoning patterns in the synthetic training data and improve utility on real-world graph-based tasks. Extensive experiments with two LLMs across four graph reasoning tasks demonstrate that while generalization on simple patterns (semantic, numeric) is somewhat satisfactory, LLMs struggle to generalize across reasoning and real-world patterns, casting doubt on the benefit of synthetic graph tuning for real-world tasks with underlying network structures. We explore three strategies to improve LLM graph reasoning generalization, and we find that while post-training alignment is most promising for real-world tasks, empowering LLM graph reasoning to go beyond pattern memorization remains an open research question.

Multilingual LLMs often have knowledge disparities across languages, with larger gaps in under-resourced languages. Teaching LLMs to abstain in the face of knowledge gaps is thus a promising strategy to mitigate hallucinations in multilingual settings. However, previous studies on LLM abstention primarily focus on English; we find that directly applying existing solutions beyond English results in up to 20.5% performance gaps between high and low-resource languages, potentially due to LLMs' drop in calibration and reasoning beyond a few resource-rich languages. To this end, we propose strategies to enhance LLM abstention by learning from multilingual feedback, where LLMs self-reflect on proposed answers in one language by generating multiple feedback items in related languages: we show that this helps identifying the knowledge gaps across diverse languages, cultures, and communities. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our multilingual feedback approach outperforms various strong baselines, achieving up to 9.2% improvement for low-resource languages across three black-box and open models on three datasets, featuring open-book, closed-book, and commonsense QA. Further analysis reveals that multilingual feedback is both an effective and a more equitable abstain strategy to serve diverse language speakers, and cultural factors have great impact on language selection and LLM abstention behavior, highlighting future directions for multilingual and multi-cultural reliable language modeling.

In high-stakes domains like clinical reasoning, AI assistants powered by large language models (LLMs) are yet to be reliable and safe. We identify a key obstacle towards reliability: existing LLMs are trained to answer any question, even with incomplete context in the prompt or insufficient parametric knowledge. We propose to change this paradigm to develop more careful LLMs that ask follow-up questions to gather necessary and sufficient information and respond reliably. We introduce MEDIQ, a framework to simulate realistic clinical interactions, which incorporates a Patient System and an adaptive Expert System. The Patient may provide incomplete information in the beginning; the Expert refrains from making diagnostic decisions when unconfident, and instead elicits missing details from the Patient via follow-up questions. To evaluate MEDIQ, we convert MEDQA and CRAFT-MD -- medical benchmarks for diagnostic question answering -- into an interactive setup. We develop a reliable Patient system and prototype several Expert systems, first showing that directly prompting state-of-the-art LLMs to ask questions degrades the quality of clinical reasoning, indicating that adapting LLMs to interactive information-seeking settings is nontrivial. We then augment the Expert with a novel abstention module to better estimate model confidence and decide whether to ask more questions, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy by 20.3%; however, performance still lags compared to an (unrealistic in practice) upper bound when full information is given upfront. Further analyses reveal that interactive performance can be improved by filtering irrelevant contexts and reformatting conversations. Overall, our paper introduces a novel problem towards LLM reliability, a novel MEDIQ framework, and highlights important future directions to extend the information-seeking abilities of LLM assistants in critical domains.