Rapid improvements in large language models have unveiled a critical challenge in human-AI interaction: sycophancy. In this context, sycophancy refers to the tendency of models to excessively agree with or flatter users, often at the expense of factual accuracy. While previous studies have primarily analyzed this behavior in single-turn interactions, its persistence and evolution in multi-step conversations remain largely unexplored. We introduce TRUTH DECAY, a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate sycophancy in extended dialogues, where language models must navigate iterative user feedback, challenges, and persuasion. We prompt models to elicit four types of sycophantic biases. We then propose and test sycophancy reduction strategies, evaluating their effectiveness beyond single-step interactions.

LLMs have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in understanding tasks but continue to struggle with long-context comprehension, particularly with content located in the middle of extensive inputs. This limitation, known as the Lost-in-the-Middle (LITM) problem, hinders models from fully processing and utilizing information across lengthy contexts. To address this issue, we introduce pause-tuning, a technique that redistributes attention to enhance comprehension of long-context inputs. Our approach involves fine-tuning language models on datasets with artificially inserted pause tokens, which serve to segment the input into smaller, more manageable parts. We evaluate pause-tuning against alternative approaches using the Needle-in-a-Haystack benchmark, where models must retrieve information embedded within contexts of up to 128K tokens. Experimental results demonstrate significant performance gains, with the LLaMA 3.2 3B Instruct model and the LLaMA 3.1 8B Instruct model improving by 10.61% and 3.57% respectively on average, suggesting that pause-tuning successfully enhances attention redistribution and improves long-context retention. The code and data are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LITM-PauseTokens-7357.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems using large language models (LLMs) often generate inaccurate responses due to the retrieval of irrelevant or loosely related information. Existing methods, which operate at the document level, fail to effectively filter out such content. We propose LLM-driven chunk filtering, ChunkRAG, a framework that enhances RAG systems by evaluating and filtering retrieved information at the chunk level. Our approach employs semantic chunking to divide documents into coherent sections and utilizes LLM-based relevance scoring to assess each chunk's alignment with the user's query. By filtering out less pertinent chunks before the generation phase, we significantly reduce hallucinations and improve factual accuracy. Experiments show that our method outperforms existing RAG models, achieving higher accuracy on tasks requiring precise information retrieval. This advancement enhances the reliability of RAG systems, making them particularly beneficial for applications like fact-checking and multi-hop reasoning.

Recent research on explainable recommendation generally frames the task as a standard text generation problem, and evaluates models simply based on the textual similarity between the predicted and ground-truth explanations. However, this approach fails to consider one crucial aspect of the systems: whether their outputs accurately reflect the users' (post-purchase) sentiments, i.e., whether and why they would like and/or dislike the recommended items. To shed light on this issue, we introduce new datasets and evaluation methods that focus on the users' sentiments. Specifically, we construct the datasets by explicitly extracting users' positive and negative opinions from their post-purchase reviews using an LLM, and propose to evaluate systems based on whether the generated explanations 1) align well with the users' sentiments, and 2) accurately identify both positive and negative opinions of users on the target items. We benchmark several recent models on our datasets and demonstrate that achieving strong performance on existing metrics does not ensure that the generated explanations align well with the users' sentiments. Lastly, we find that existing models can provide more sentiment-aware explanations when the users' (predicted) ratings for the target items are directly fed into the models as input. We will release our code and datasets upon acceptance.

While large language models (LLMs) have rapidly improved their performance on a broad number of tasks, they still often fall short on reasoning tasks. As LLMs become more integrated in diverse real-world tasks, advancing their reasoning capabilities is crucial to their effectiveness in nuanced, complex problems. Wang et al. [27]'s self-consistency framework reveals that sampling multiple rationales before taking a majority vote reliably improves model performance across various closed-answer reasoning tasks. Standard methods based on this framework aggregate the final decisions of these rationales but fail to utilize the detailed step-by-step reasoning paths applied by these paths. Our work enhances this approach by incorporating and analyzing both the reasoning paths of these rationales in addition to their final decisions before taking a majority vote. These methods not only improve the reliability of reasoning paths but also cause more robust performance on complex reasoning tasks.

Despite significant advancements in large language models (LLMs), the rapid and frequent integration of small-scale experiences, such as interactions with surrounding objects, remains a substantial challenge. Two critical factors in assimilating these experiences are (1) Efficacy: the ability to accurately remember recent events; (2) Retention: the capacity to recall long-past experiences. Current methods either embed experiences within model parameters using continual learning, model editing, or knowledge distillation techniques, which often struggle with rapid updates and complex interactions, or rely on external storage to achieve long-term retention, thereby increasing storage requirements. In this paper, we propose SELF-PARAM (Self-Updatable Large Language Models with Parameter Integration). SELF-PARAM requires no extra parameters while ensuring near-optimal efficacy and long-term retention. Our method employs a training objective that minimizes the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between the predictions of an original model (with access to contextual information) and a target model (without such access). By generating diverse question-answer pairs related to the knowledge and minimizing the KL divergence across this dataset, we update the target model to internalize the knowledge seamlessly within its parameters. Evaluations on question-answering and conversational recommendation tasks demonstrate that SELF-PARAM significantly outperforms existing methods, even when accounting for non-zero storage requirements. This advancement paves the way for more efficient and scalable integration of experiences in large language models by embedding knowledge directly into model parameters.

Although LLMs have the potential to transform many fields, they still underperform humans in reasoning tasks. Existing methods induce the model to produce step-by-step calculations, but this research explores the question: Does making the LLM analyze the question improve its performance? We propose a novel prompting strategy called Question Analysis Prompting (QAP), in which the model is prompted to explain the question in $n$ words before solving. The value of $n$ influences the length of response generated by the model. QAP is evaluated on GPT 3.5 Turbo and GPT 4 Turbo on arithmetic datasets GSM8K, AQuA, and SAT and commonsense dataset StrategyQA. QAP is compared with other state-of-the-art prompts including Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Plan and Solve Prompting (PS+) and Take A Deep Breath (TADB). QAP outperforms all state-of-the-art prompts on AQuA and SAT datasets on both GPT3.5 and GPT4. QAP consistently ranks among the top-2 prompts on 75\% of the tests. A key factor of QAP performance can be attributed to response length, where detailed responses are beneficial when answering harder questions, but can negatively affect easy questions.

Rapidly increasing model scales coupled with steering methods such as chain-of-thought prompting have led to drastic improvements in language model reasoning. At the same time, models struggle with compositional generalization and are far from human performance on many reasoning-based benchmarks. Leveraging the success of chain-of-thought prompting, and also taking inspiration from context-aware decoding (CAD), we explore input-based contrasting methods to further encourage the type of reasoning induced by chain-of-thought prompting. While work remains to stabilize these results across datasets and models, the improvements we find warrant further investigation into input-based steering methods for context-aware reasoning.

With recent advancements in large language models, methods like chain-of-thought prompting to elicit reasoning chains have been shown to improve results on reasoning tasks. However, tasks that require multiple steps of reasoning still pose significant challenges to state-of-the-art models. Drawing inspiration from the beam search algorithm, we propose PathFinder, a tree-search-based reasoning path generation approach. It enhances diverse branching and multi-hop reasoning through the integration of dynamic decoding, enabled by varying sampling methods and parameters. Using constrained reasoning, PathFinder integrates novel quality constraints, pruning, and exploration methods to enhance the efficiency and the quality of generation. Moreover, it includes scoring and ranking features to improve candidate selection. Our approach outperforms competitive baselines on three complex arithmetic and commonsense reasoning tasks by 6% on average. Our model generalizes well to longer, unseen reasoning chains, reflecting similar complexities to beam search with large branching factors.

We demonstrate that Contrastive Decoding - a simple, computationally light, and training-free text generation method proposed by Li et al 2022 - achieves large out-of-the-box improvements over greedy decoding on a variety of reasoning tasks. Originally shown to improve the perceived quality of long-form text generation, Contrastive Decoding searches for strings that maximize a weighted difference in likelihood between strong and weak models. We show that Contrastive Decoding leads LLaMA-65B to outperform LLaMA 2, GPT-3.5 and PaLM 2-L on the HellaSwag commonsense reasoning benchmark, and to outperform LLaMA 2, GPT-3.5 and PaLM-540B on the GSM8K math word reasoning benchmark, in addition to improvements on a collection of other tasks. Analysis suggests that Contrastive Decoding improves over existing methods by preventing some abstract reasoning errors, as well as by avoiding simpler modes such as copying sections of the input during chain-of-thought. Overall, Contrastive Decoding outperforms nucleus sampling for long-form generation and greedy decoding for reasoning tasks, making it a powerful general purpose method for generating text from language models. Figure 1: Contrastive decoding improves reasoning Figure 2: Contrastive scoring significantly improves across model scales and reasoning tasks. Text is generated from large language models (LLMs) in different ways for different tasks. For openended text generation tasks, truncated sampling is normally used, as the most likely strings under a model tend to be short and uninteresting (Holtzman et al., 2020). For reasoning problems, greedy decoding is normally preferred, to avoid risking sampling errors.