The improved competence of generative models can help building multi-modal virtual assistants that leverage modalities beyond language. By observing humans performing multi-step tasks, one can build assistants that have situational awareness of actions and tasks being performed, enabling them to cater assistance based on this understanding. In this paper, we develop a Context-aware Instructional Task Assistant with Multi-modal Large Language Models (InsTALL) that leverages an online visual stream (e.g. a user's screen share or video recording) and responds in real-time to user queries related to the task at hand. To enable useful assistance, InsTALL 1) trains a multi-modal model on task videos and paired textual data, and 2) automatically extracts task graph from video data and leverages it at training and inference time. We show InsTALL achieves state-of-the-art performance across proposed sub-tasks considered for multimodal activity understanding -- task recognition (TR), action recognition (AR), next action prediction (AP), and plan prediction (PP) -- and outperforms existing baselines on two novel sub-tasks related to automatic error identification.

Multi-objective alignment from human feedback (MOAHF) in large language models (LLMs) is a challenging problem as human preferences are complex, multifaceted, and often conflicting. Recent works on MOAHF considered a-priori multi-objective optimization (MOO), where human preferences are known at training or inference time. In contrast, when human preferences are unknown or difficult to quantify, a natural approach is to cover the Pareto front by multiple diverse solutions. We propose an algorithm HaM for learning diverse LLM policies that maximizes their hypervolume. This is the first application of a-posteriori MOO to MOAHF. HaM is computationally and space efficient, and empirically superior across objectives such as harmlessness, helpfulness, humor, faithfulness, and hallucination, on various datasets.

Direct alignment algorithms (DAAs), such as direct preference optimization (DPO), have become popular alternatives for Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) due to their simplicity, efficiency, and stability. However, the preferences used in DAAs are usually collected before the alignment training begins and remain unchanged (off-policy). This can lead to two problems where the policy model (1) picks up on spurious correlations in the dataset (as opposed to learning the intended alignment expressed in the human preference labels), and (2) overfits to feedback on off-policy trajectories that have less likelihood of being generated by an updated policy model. To address these issues, we introduce Self-Reviewing and Alignment (SeRA), a cost-efficient and effective method that can be readily combined with existing DAAs. SeRA comprises of two components: (1) sample selection using implicit reward margins, which helps alleviate over-fitting to some undesired features, and (2) preference bootstrapping using implicit rewards to augment preference data with updated policy models in a cost-efficient manner. Extensive experimentation, including some on instruction-following tasks, demonstrate the effectiveness and generality of SeRA in training LLMs on offline preference datasets with DAAs.

Conversational systems often rely on embedding models for intent classification and intent clustering tasks. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), which enable instructional embeddings allowing one to adjust semantics over the embedding space using prompts, are being viewed as a panacea for these downstream conversational tasks. However, traditional evaluation benchmarks rely solely on task metrics that don't particularly measure gaps related to semantic understanding. Thus, we propose an intent semantic toolkit that gives a more holistic view of intent embedding models by considering three tasks -- (1) intent classification, (2) intent clustering, and (3) a novel triplet task. The triplet task gauges the model's understanding of two semantic concepts paramount in real-world conversational systems -- negation and implicature. We observe that current embedding models fare poorly in semantic understanding of these concepts. To address this, we propose a pre-training approach to improve the embedding model by leveraging augmentation with data generated by an auto-regressive model and a contrastive loss term. Our approach improves the semantic understanding of the intent embedding model on the aforementioned linguistic dimensions while slightly effecting their performance on downstream task metrics.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are nowadays expected to generate content aligned with human preferences. Current work focuses on alignment at model training time, through techniques such as Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF). However, it is unclear if such methods are an effective choice to teach alignment objectives to the model. First, the inability to incorporate multiple, custom rewards and reliance on a model developer's view of universal and static principles are key limitations. Second, the residual gaps in model training and the reliability of such approaches are also questionable (e.g. susceptibility to jail-breaking even after safety training). To address these, we propose DeAL, a framework that allows the user to customize reward functions and enables Decoding-time Alignment of LLMs (DeAL). At its core, we view decoding as a heuristic-guided search process and facilitate the use of a wide variety of alignment objectives. Our experiments with programmatic constraints such as keyword and length constraints (studied widely in the pre-LLM era) and abstract objectives such as harmlessness and helpfulness (proposed in the post-LLM era) show that we can DeAL with fine-grained trade-offs, improve adherence to alignment objectives, and address residual gaps in LLMs. Lastly, while DeAL can be effectively paired with RLHF and prompting techniques, its generality makes decoding slower, an optimization we leave for future work.

In executable task-oriented semantic parsing, the system aims to translate users' utterances in natural language to machine-interpretable programs (API calls) that can be executed according to pre-defined API specifications. With the popularity of Large Language Models (LLMs), in-context learning offers a strong baseline for such scenarios, especially in data-limited regimes. However, LLMs are known to hallucinate and therefore pose a formidable challenge in constraining generated content. Thus, it remains uncertain if LLMs can effectively perform task-oriented utterance-to-API generation where respecting API's structural and task-specific constraints is crucial. In this work, we seek to measure, analyze and mitigate such constraints violations. First, we identify the categories of various constraints in obtaining API-semantics from task-oriented utterances, and define fine-grained metrics that complement traditional ones. Second, we leverage these metrics to conduct a detailed error analysis of constraints violations seen in state-of-the-art LLMs, which motivates us to investigate two mitigation strategies: Semantic-Retrieval of Demonstrations (SRD) and API-aware Constrained Decoding (API-CD). Our experiments show that these strategies are effective at reducing constraints violations and improving the quality of the generated API calls, but require careful consideration given their implementation complexity and latency.

Advances in neural modeling have achieved state-of-the-art (SOTA) results on public natural language processing (NLP) benchmarks, at times surpassing human performance. However, there is a gap between public benchmarks and real-world applications where noise, such as typographical or grammatical mistakes, is abundant and can result in degraded performance. Unfortunately, works which evaluate the robustness of neural models on noisy data and propose improvements, are limited to the English language. Upon analyzing noise in different languages, we observe that noise types vary greatly across languages. Thus, existing investigations do not generalize trivially to multilingual settings. To benchmark the performance of pretrained multilingual language models, we construct noisy datasets covering five languages and four NLP tasks and observe a clear gap in the performance between clean and noisy data in the zero-shot cross-lingual setting. After investigating several ways to boost the robustness of multilingual models in this setting, we propose Robust Contrastive Pretraining (RCP). RCP combines data augmentation with a contrastive loss term at the pretraining stage and achieves large improvements on noisy (and original test data) across two sentence-level (+3.2%) and two sequence-labeling (+10 F1-score) multilingual classification tasks.

Empowering decision support systems with automated planning has received significant recognition in the planning community. The central idea for such systems is to augment the capabilities of the human-in-the-loop with automated planning techniques and provide timely support to enhance the decision-making experience. In addition to this, an effective decision support system must be able to provide intuitive explanations based on specific queries on proposed decisions to its end users. This makes decision-support systems an ideal test-bed to study the effectiveness of various XAIP techniques being developed in the community. To this end, we present our decision support system RADAR-X that extends RADAR (Grover et al. 2020) by allowing the user to participate in an interactive explanatory dialogue with the system. Specifically, we allow the user to ask for contrastive explanations, wherein the user can try to understand why a specific plan was chosen over an alternative (referred to as the foil). Furthermore, we use the foil raised as evidence for unspecified user preferences and use it to further refine plan suggestions.

The field of cybersecurity has mostly been a cat-and-mouse game with the discovery of new attacks leading the way. To take away an attacker's advantage of reconnaissance, researchers have proposed proactive defense methods such as Moving Target Defense (MTD). To find good movement strategies, researchers have modeled MTD as leader-follower games between the defender and a cyber-adversary. We argue that existing models are inadequate in sequential settings when there is incomplete information about a rational adversary and yield sub-optimal movement strategies. Further, while there exists an array of work on learning defense policies in sequential settings for cyber-security, they are either unpopular due to scalability issues arising out of incomplete information or tend to ignore the strategic nature of the adversary simplifying the scenario to use single-agent reinforcement learning techniques. To address these concerns, we propose (1) a unifying game-theoretic model, called the Bayesian Stackelberg Markov Games (BSMGs), that can model uncertainty over attacker types and the nuances of an MTD system and (2) a Bayesian Strong Stackelberg Q-learning (BSS-Q) approach that can, via interaction, learn the optimal movement policy for BSMGs within a reasonable time. We situate BSMGs in the landscape of incomplete-information Markov games and characterize the notion of Strong Stackelberg Equilibrium (SSE) in them. We show that our learning approach converges to an SSE of a BSMG and then highlight that the learned movement policy (1) improves the state-of-the-art in MTD for web-application security and (2) converges to an optimal policy in MTD domains with incomplete information about adversaries even when prior information about rewards and transitions is absent.

Deep Neural Networks are often brittle on image classification tasks and known to misclassify inputs. While these misclassifications may be inevitable, all failure modes cannot be considered equal. Certain misclassifications (eg. classifying the image of a dog to an airplane) can create surprise and result in the loss of human trust in the system. Even worse, certain errors (eg. a person misclassified as a primate) can have societal impacts. Thus, in this work, we aim to reduce inexplicable errors. To address this challenge, we first discuss how to obtain the class-level semantics that captures the human's expectation ($M^h$) regarding which classes are semantically close vs. ones that are far away. We show that for data-sets like CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, class-level semantics can be obtained by leveraging human subject studies (significantly inexpensive compared to existing works) and, whenever possible, by utilizing publicly available human-curated knowledge. Second, we propose the use of Weighted Loss Functions to penalize misclassifications by the weight of their inexplicability. Finally, we show that training (or even fine-tuning) existing classifiers with the two proposed methods lead to Deep Neural Networks that have (1) comparable top-1 accuracy, an important metric in operational contexts, (2) more explicable failure modes and (3) require significantly less cost in teams of additional human labels compared to existing work.