Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) is a popular technique for parameter-efficient fine-tuning of Large Language Models (LLMs). We study how different LoRA modules can be merged to achieve skill composition -- testing the performance of the merged model on a target task that involves combining multiple skills, each skill coming from a single LoRA. This setup is favorable when it is difficult to obtain training data for the target task and when it can be decomposed into multiple skills. First, we identify practically occurring use-cases that can be studied under the realm of skill composition, e.g. solving hard math-word problems with code, creating a bot to answer questions on proprietary manuals or about domain-specialized corpora. Our main contribution is to show that concatenation of LoRAs (CAT), which optimally weights LoRAs that were individually trained on different skills, outperforms existing model- and data- merging techniques; for instance on math-word problems, CAT beats these methods by an average of 43% and 12% respectively. Thus, this paper advocates model merging as an efficient way to solve compositional tasks and underscores CAT as a simple, compute-friendly and effective procedure. To our knowledge, this is the first work demonstrating the superiority of model merging over data mixing for binary skill composition tasks. Code and data are available at https://github.com/aksh555/LoRA-Soups

As premodern texts are passed down over centuries, errors inevitably accrue. These errors can be challenging to identify, as some have survived undetected for so long precisely because they are so elusive. While prior work has evaluated error detection methods on artificially-generated errors, we introduce the first dataset of real errors in premodern Greek, enabling the evaluation of error detection methods on errors that genuinely accumulated at some stage in the centuries-long copying process. To create this dataset, we use metrics derived from BERT conditionals to sample 1,000 words more likely to contain errors, which are then annotated and labeled by a domain expert as errors or not. We then propose and evaluate new error detection methods and find that our discriminator-based detector outperforms all other methods, improving the true positive rate for classifying real errors by 5%. We additionally observe that scribal errors are more difficult to detect than print or digitization errors. Our dataset enables the evaluation of error detection methods on real errors in premodern texts for the first time, providing a benchmark for developing more effective error detection algorithms to assist scholars in restoring premodern works.

Although language model (LM) agents are demonstrating growing potential in many domains, their success in cybersecurity has been limited due to simplistic design and the lack of fundamental features for this domain. We present EnIGMA, an LM agent for autonomously solving Capture The Flag (CTF) challenges. EnIGMA introduces new Agent-Computer Interfaces (ACIs) to improve the success rate on CTF challenges. We establish the novel Interactive Agent Tool concept, which enables LM agents to run interactive command-line utilities essential for these challenges. Empirical analysis of EnIGMA on over 350 CTF challenges from three different benchmarks indicates that providing a robust set of new tools with demonstration of their usage helps the LM solve complex problems and achieves state-of-the-art results on the NYU CTF and Intercode-CTF benchmarks. Finally, we discuss insights on ACI design and agent behavior on cybersecurity tasks that highlight the need to adapt real-world tools for LM agents.

Existing benchmarks do not test language agents on their interaction with human users or ability to follow domain-specific rules, both of which are vital for deploying them in real world applications. We propose $\tau$-bench, a benchmark emulating dynamic conversations between a user (simulated by language models) and a language agent provided with domain-specific API tools and policy guidelines. We employ an efficient and faithful evaluation process that compares the database state at the end of a conversation with the annotated goal state. We also propose a new metric (pass^k) to evaluate the reliability of agent behavior over multiple trials. Our experiments show that even state-of-the-art function calling agents (like gpt-4o) succeed on <50% of the tasks, and are quite inconsistent (pass^8 <25% in retail). Our findings point to the need for methods that can improve the ability of agents to act consistently and follow rules reliably.

Language model (LM) agents are increasingly being used to automate complicated tasks in digital environments. Just as humans benefit from powerful software applications, such as integrated development environments, for complex tasks like software engineering, we posit that LM agents represent a new category of end users with their own needs and abilities, and would benefit from specially-built interfaces to the software they use. We investigate how interface design affects the performance of language model agents. As a result of this exploration, we introduce SWE-agent: a system that facilitates LM agents to autonomously use computers to solve software engineering tasks. SWE-agent's custom agent-computer interface (ACI) significantly enhances an agent's ability to create and edit code files, navigate entire repositories, and execute tests and other programs. We evaluate SWE-agent on SWE-bench and HumanEvalFix, achieving state-of-the-art performance on both with a pass@1 rate of 12.5% and 87.7%, respectively, far exceeding the previous state-of-the-art achieved with non-interactive LMs. Finally, we provide insight on how the design of the ACI can impact agents' behavior and performance.

Computing olympiads contain some of the most challenging problems for humans, requiring complex algorithmic reasoning, puzzle solving, in addition to generating efficient code. However, it has been understudied as a domain to evaluate language models (LMs). In this paper, we introduce the USACO benchmark with 307 problems from the USA Computing Olympiad, along with high-quality unit tests, reference code, and official analyses for each problem. These resources enable us to construct and test a range of LM inference methods for competitive programming for the first time. We find GPT-4 only achieves a 8.7% pass@1 accuracy with zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting, and our best inference method improves it to 20.2% using a combination of self-reflection and retrieval over episodic knowledge. However, this is far from solving the benchmark. To better understand the remaining challenges, we design a novel human-in-the-loop study and surprisingly find that a small number of targeted hints enable GPT-4 to solve 13 out of 15 problems previously unsolvable by any model and method. Our benchmark, baseline methods, quantitative results, and qualitative analysis serve as an initial step toward LMs with grounded, creative, and algorithmic reasoning.

State-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) have become indispensable tools for various tasks. However, training LLMs to serve as effective assistants for humans requires careful consideration. A promising approach is reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), which leverages human feedback to update the model in accordance with human preferences and mitigate issues like toxicity and hallucinations. Yet, an understanding of RLHF for LLMs is largely entangled with initial design choices that popularized the method and current research focuses on augmenting those choices rather than fundamentally improving the framework. In this paper, we analyze RLHF through the lens of reinforcement learning principles to develop an understanding of its fundamentals, dedicating substantial focus to the core component of RLHF -- the reward model. Our study investigates modeling choices, caveats of function approximation, and their implications on RLHF training algorithms, highlighting the underlying assumptions made about the expressivity of reward. Our analysis improves the understanding of the role of reward models and methods for their training, concurrently revealing limitations of the current methodology. We characterize these limitations, including incorrect generalization, model misspecification, and the sparsity of feedback, along with their impact on the performance of a language model. The discussion and analysis are substantiated by a categorical review of current literature, serving as a reference for researchers and practitioners to understand the challenges of RLHF and build upon existing efforts.

Installing probabilistic world models into artificial agents opens an efficient channel for humans to communicate with and control these agents. In addition to updating agent policies, humans can modify their internal world models in order to influence their decisions. The challenge, however, is that currently existing world models are difficult for humans to adapt because they lack a natural communication interface. Aimed at addressing this shortcoming, we develop Language-Guided World Models (LWMs), which can capture environment dynamics by reading language descriptions. These models enhance agent communication efficiency, allowing humans to simultaneously alter their behavior on multiple tasks with concise language feedback. They also enable agents to self-learn from texts originally written to instruct humans. To facilitate the development of LWMs, we design a challenging benchmark based on the game of MESSENGER (Hanjie et al., 2021), requiring compositional generalization to new language descriptions and environment dynamics. Our experiments reveal that the current state-of-the-art Transformer architecture performs poorly on this benchmark, motivating us to design a more robust architecture. To showcase the practicality of our proposed LWMs, we simulate a scenario where these models augment the interpretability and safety of an agent by enabling it to generate and discuss plans with a human before execution. By effectively incorporating language feedback on the plan, the models boost the agent performance in the real environment by up to three times without collecting any interactive experiences in this environment.

Language models are increasingly being deployed for general problem solving across a wide range of tasks, but are still confined to token-level, left-to-right decision-making processes during inference. This means they can fall short in tasks that require exploration, strategic lookahead, or where initial decisions play a pivotal role. To surmount these challenges, we introduce a new framework for language model inference, Tree of Thoughts (ToT), which generalizes over the popular Chain of Thought approach to prompting language models, and enables exploration over coherent units of text (thoughts) that serve as intermediate steps toward problem solving. ToT allows LMs to perform deliberate decision making by considering multiple different reasoning paths and self-evaluating choices to decide the next course of action, as well as looking ahead or backtracking when necessary to make global choices. Our experiments show that ToT significantly enhances language models' problem-solving abilities on three novel tasks requiring non-trivial planning or search: Game of 24, Creative Writing, and Mini Crosswords. For instance, in Game of 24, while GPT-4 with chain-of-thought prompting only solved 4% of tasks, our method achieved a success rate of 74%. Code repo with all prompts: https://github.com/princeton-nlp/tree-of-thought-llm.

Semantic textual similarity (STS), a cornerstone task in NLP, measures the degree of similarity between a pair of sentences, and has broad application in fields such as information retrieval and natural language understanding. However, sentence similarity can be inherently ambiguous, depending on the specific aspect of interest. We resolve this ambiguity by proposing a novel task called Conditional STS (C-STS) which measures sentences' similarity conditioned on an feature described in natural language (hereon, condition). As an example, the similarity between the sentences "The NBA player shoots a three-pointer." and "A man throws a tennis ball into the air to serve." is higher for the condition "The motion of the ball" (both upward) and lower for "The size of the ball" (one large and one small). C-STS's advantages are two-fold: (1) it reduces the subjectivity and ambiguity of STS and (2) enables fine-grained language model evaluation through diverse natural language conditions. We put several state-of-the-art models to the test, and even those performing well on STS (e.g. SimCSE, Flan-T5, and GPT-4) find C-STS challenging; all with Spearman correlation scores below 50. To encourage a more comprehensive evaluation of semantic similarity and natural language understanding, we make nearly 19K C-STS examples and code available for others to train and test their models.