Advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly improved multi-step reasoning through generating free-text rationales. However, recent studies show that LLMs tend to lose focus over the middle of long contexts. This raises concerns that as reasoning progresses, LLMs may overlook information in earlier steps when decoding subsequent steps, leading to generate unreliable and redundant rationales. To address this, we propose guiding LLMs to generate more accurate and concise step-by-step rationales by (1) proactively referencing information from underutilized prior steps, and (2) minimizing redundant information between new and existing steps. We introduce stepwise informativeness search, an inference-time tree search framework incorporating two selection heuristics: grounding-guided selection which prioritizes steps paying higher attention over underutilized steps; and novelty-guided selection which encourages steps with novel conclusions. During rationale generation, we use a self-grounding strategy that prompts LLMs to explicitly reference relevant prior steps to provide premises before deduction at each step. Experimental results on four reasoning datasets demonstrate that our approach improves reasoning accuracy by generating higher-quality rationales with reduced errors and redundancy.

Long-term, open-domain dialogue capabilities are essential for chatbots aiming to recall past interactions and demonstrate emotional intelligence (EI). Yet, most existing research relies on synthetic, LLM-generated data, leaving open questions about real-world conversational patterns. To address this gap, we introduce REALTALK, a 21-day corpus of authentic messaging app dialogues, providing a direct benchmark against genuine human interactions. We first conduct a dataset analysis, focusing on EI attributes and persona consistency to understand the unique challenges posed by real-world dialogues. By comparing with LLM-generated conversations, we highlight key differences, including diverse emotional expressions and variations in persona stability that synthetic dialogues often fail to capture. Building on these insights, we introduce two benchmark tasks: (1) persona simulation where a model continues a conversation on behalf of a specific user given prior dialogue context; and (2) memory probing where a model answers targeted questions requiring long-term memory of past interactions. Our findings reveal that models struggle to simulate a user solely from dialogue history, while fine-tuning on specific user chats improves persona emulation. Additionally, existing models face significant challenges in recalling and leveraging long-term context within real-world conversations.

Recent works show that these biases may stem from uneven cultural representation in pretraining corpora. This work investigates how pretraining leads to biased culture-conditioned generations by analyzing how models associate entities with cultures based on pretraining data patterns. Additionally, the model favors generating entities with extraordinarily high frequency regardless of the conditioned culture, reflecting biases toward frequent pretraining terms irrespective of relevance. Our findings reflect trends observed specifically within OLMo-7B's pretraining data and are limited to this dataset. We make no claims about whether these results reflect real-world conditions.] In open-ended generative tasks like narrative writing or dialogue, language models often show bias against marginalized social groups based on gender, race, or culture (Gallegos et al., 2024; Manvi et al., 2024; Li et al., 2024b). Cultural bias is particularly notable due to the vast number of cultures to account for. Cultures are often unevenly represented in the pretraining corpora, with some mentioned more frequently than others, irrespective of their real-world prevalence (Li et al., 2024a). Recent studies reveal that models favor entities (Naous et al., 2023) and opinions (Ryan et al., 2024) from frequently represented cultures in pretraining while showing inadequate knowledge and templated answers for less frequent ones (Li et al., 2024b). Such biases in culture-conditioned generations can be linked to studies showing that LLMs' memorization and generalization are constrained by pretraining data imbalances. Zhang et al. (2024) find that these imbalances cause models to overgeneralize to high-frequency knowledge, overshadowing lower-frequency knowledge.

Sound decision-making relies on accurate prediction for tangible outcomes ranging from military conflict to disease outbreaks. To improve crowdsourced forecasting accuracy, we developed SAGE, a hybrid forecasting system that combines human and machine generated forecasts. The system provides a platform where users can interact with machine models and thus anchor their judgments on an objective benchmark. The system also aggregates human and machine forecasts weighting both for propinquity and based on assessed skill while adjusting for overconfidence. We present results from the Hybrid Forecasting Competition (HFC) - larger than comparable forecasting tournaments - including 1085 users forecasting 398 real-world forecasting problems over eight months. Our main result is that the hybrid system generated more accurate forecasts compared to a human-only baseline which had no machine generated predictions. We found that skilled forecasters who had access to machine-generated forecasts outperformed those who only viewed historical data. We also demonstrated the inclusion of machine-generated forecasts in our aggregation algorithms improved performance, both in terms of accuracy and scalability. This suggests that hybrid forecasting systems, which potentially require fewer human resources, can be a viable approach for maintaining a competitive level of accuracy over a larger number of forecasting questions.

We examine diverging preferences in human-labeled preference datasets. We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes--task underspecification, response style, refusals, and annotation errors. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches, which are designed with the assumption that annotator disagreement is noise. We then explore how these findings impact two areas of LLM development: reward modeling and evaluation. In our experiments, we demonstrate how standard reward modeling methods, like the Bradley-Terry model, fail to differentiate whether a given preference judgment is the result of unanimous agreement among annotators or the majority opinion among diverging user preferences. We also find that these tendencies are also echoed by popular LLM-as-Judge evaluation methods, which consistently identify a winning response in cases of diverging preferences. These findings highlight remaining challenges in LLM evaluations, which are greatly influenced by divisive features like response style, and in developing pluralistically aligned LLMs. To address these issues, we develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training. As large language models (LLMs) continue to rise in prominence and to serve millions of people on a daily basis, there is an increasing need to ensure that systems are pluralistically aligned (Sorensen et al., 2024). Learning from human preferences has emerged as the standard method for adapting LLMs to facilitate user-assistant interactions with much success. Despite these advances, however, the field continues to struggle with the challenge of handing diverging preferences, where users disagree on the ideal response to a prompt. Prior works on developing pluralistically aligned LLMs have focused on the development of synthetic preference datasets, where disagreements are simulated based on author-defined features and frequencies (Poddar et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2024). In this work, we take a step back to ask the foundational question when and why do human annotators disagree in their preferences? To make this research possible, we introduce MultiPref-Disagreements and HelpSteer2-Disagreements.

We introduce Lifelong ICL, a problem setting that challenges long-context language models (LMs) to learn from a sequence of language tasks through in-context learning (ICL). We further introduce Task Haystack, an evaluation suite dedicated to assessing and diagnosing how long-context LMs utilizes contexts in Lifelong ICL. When given a task instruction and test inputs, long-context LMs are expected to leverage the relevant demonstrations in the Lifelong ICL prompt, avoid distraction and interference from other tasks, and achieve test accuracies that are not significantly worse than the Single-task ICL baseline. Task Haystack draws inspiration from the widely-adopted "needle-in-a-haystack" (NIAH) evaluation, but presents new and unique challenges. It demands that models (1) utilize the contexts with deeper understanding, rather than resorting to simple copying and pasting; (2) navigate through long streams of evolving topics and tasks, which closely approximates the complexities of real-world usage of long-context LMs. Additionally, Task Haystack inherits the controllability aspect of NIAH, providing model developers with tools and visualizations to identify model vulnerabilities effectively. We benchmark 12 long-context LMs using Task Haystack. We find that state-of-the-art closed models such as GPT-4o still struggle in this setting, failing 15% of the cases on average, while all open-weight models we evaluate further lack behind by a large margin, failing up to 61% of the cases. In our controlled analysis, we identify factors such as distraction and recency bias as contributors to these failure cases. Further, we observe declines in performance when task instructions are paraphrased at test time or when ICL demonstrations are repeated excessively, raising concerns about the robustness, instruction understanding, and true context utilization of current long-context LMs.

The reconfiguration of human-LM interactions from simple sentence completions to complex, multi-domain, humanlike engagements necessitates new methodologies to understand how humans choose to rely on LMs. In our work, we contend that reliance is influenced by numerous factors within the interactional context of a generation, a departure from prior work that used verbalized confidence (e.g., "I'm certain the answer is...") as the key determinant of reliance. Here, we introduce Rel-A.I., an in situ, system-level evaluation approach to measure human reliance on LM-generated epistemic markers (e.g., "I think it's..", "Undoubtedly it's..."). Using this methodology, we measure reliance rates in three emergent human-LM interaction settings: long-term interactions, anthropomorphic generations, and variable subject matter. Our findings reveal that reliance is not solely based on verbalized confidence but is significantly affected by other features of the interaction context. Prior interactions, anthropomorphic cues, and subject domain all contribute to reliance variability. An expression such as, "I'm pretty sure it's...", can vary up to 20% in reliance frequency depending on its interactional context. Our work underscores the importance of context in understanding human reliance and offers future designers and researchers with a methodology to conduct such measurements.

Authorship Verification (AV) (do two documents have the same author?) is essential for many sensitive real-life applications. AV is often used in proprietary domains that require a private, offline model, making SOTA online models like ChatGPT undesirable. Other SOTA systems use methods, e.g. Siamese Networks, that are uninterpretable, and hence cannot be trusted in high-stakes applications. In this work, we take the first step to address the above challenges with our model CAVE (Controllable Authorship Verification Explanations): CAVE generates free-text AV explanations that are controlled to be 1) structured (can be decomposed into sub-explanations with respect to relevant linguistic features), and 2) easily verified for explanation-label consistency (via intermediate labels in sub-explanations). In this work, we train a Llama-3-8B as CAVE; since there are no human-written corpora for AV explanations, we sample silver-standard explanations from GPT-4-TURBO and distill them into a pretrained Llama-3-8B. Results on three difficult AV datasets IMdB2, Blog-Auth, and FanFiction show that CAVE generates high quality explanations (as measured by automatic and human evaluation) as well as competitive task accuracies.

Language models (LMs) are known to suffer from forgetting of previously learned examples when fine-tuned, breaking stability of deployed LM systems. Despite efforts on mitigating forgetting, few have investigated whether, and how forgotten upstream examples are associated with newly learned tasks. Insights on such associations enable efficient and targeted mitigation of forgetting. In this paper, we empirically analyze forgetting that occurs in $N$ upstream examples while the model learns $M$ new tasks and visualize their associations with a $M \times N$ matrix. We empirically demonstrate that the degree of forgetting can often be approximated by simple multiplicative contributions of the upstream examples and newly learned tasks. We also reveal more complicated patterns where specific subsets of examples are forgotten with statistics and visualization. Following our analysis, we predict forgetting that happens on upstream examples when learning a new task with matrix completion over the empirical associations, outperforming prior approaches that rely on trainable LMs. Project website: https://inklab.usc.edu/lm-forgetting-prediction/

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive human-like performance across various reasoning tasks. However, their mastery of underlying inferential rules still falls short of human capabilities. To investigate this, we propose a logic scaffolding inferential rule generation framework, to construct an inferential rule base, ULogic, comprising both primitive and compositional rules across five domains. Our analysis of GPT-series models over a rule subset reveals significant gaps in LLMs' logic understanding compared to human performance, especially in compositional and structural complex rules with certain bias patterns. We further distill these rules into a smaller-scale inference engine for flexible rule generation and enhancing downstream reasoning. Through a multi-judger evaluation, our inference engine proves effective in generating accurate, complex and abstract conclusions and premises, and improve various commonsense reasoning tasks. Overall, our work sheds light on LLMs' limitations in grasping inferential rule and suggests ways to enhance their logical reasoning abilities~\footnote{Code and data are available at \url{https://github.com/SiyuanWangw/ULogic}.}.