Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in working environments for a wide range of tasks, excelling at solving individual problems in isolation. However, are they also able to effectively collaborate over long-term interactions? To investigate this, we introduce MemoryCode, a synthetic multi-session dataset designed to test LLMs' ability to track and execute simple coding instructions amid irrelevant information, simulating a realistic setting. While all the models we tested handle isolated instructions well, even the performance of state-of-the-art models like GPT-4o deteriorates when instructions are spread across sessions. Our analysis suggests this is due to their failure to retrieve and integrate information over long instruction chains. Our results highlight a fundamental limitation of current LLMs, restricting their ability to collaborate effectively in long interactions.

Ambiguity resolution is key to effective communication. While humans effortlessly address ambiguity through conversational grounding strategies, the extent to which current language models can emulate these strategies remains unclear. In this work, we examine referential ambiguity in image-based question answering by introducing RACQUET, a carefully curated dataset targeting distinct aspects of ambiguity. Through a series of evaluations, we reveal significant limitations and problems of overconfidence of state-of-the-art large multimodal language models in addressing ambiguity in their responses. The overconfidence issue becomes particularly relevant for RACQUET-BIAS, a subset designed to analyze a critical yet underexplored problem: failing to address ambiguity leads to stereotypical, socially biased responses. Our results underscore the urgency of equipping models with robust strategies to deal with uncertainty without resorting to undesirable stereotypes.

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLM-generated judgments instead of human judgments. In the absence of a comparison against human data, this raises concerns about the validity of these evaluations; in case they are conducted with proprietary models, this also raises concerns over reproducibility. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show that each LLM exhibits a large variance across datasets in its correlation to human judgments. We conclude that LLMs are not yet ready to systematically replace human judges in NLP.

Questions are essential tools for acquiring the necessary information to complete information-seeking tasks. However, large language models (LLMs), especially open-source models, often perform poorly in generating informative questions, as measured by expected information gain (EIG). In this paper, we propose a method to enhance the informativeness of LLM-generated questions in 20-question game dialogues. We sample multiple questions from the same model (LLAMA 2-CHAT 7B) for each game and create pairs of low-EIG and high-EIG questions to apply a Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) algorithm. Our results show that this method produces more effective questions (in terms of EIG), even in domains different from those used to train the DPO model.

While human speakers use a variety of different expressions when describing the same object in an image, giving rise to a distribution of plausible labels driven by pragmatic constraints, the extent to which current Vision & Language Large Language Models (VLLMs) can mimic this crucial feature of language use is an open question. This applies to common, everyday objects, but it is particularly interesting for uncommon or novel objects for which a category label may be lacking or fuzzy. Furthermore, similar patterns of variation are observed among human speakers for highly context-sensitive expressions, such as the quantifiers 'few' or 'most'. In our work, we evaluate VLLMs (FROMAGe, BLIP-2, LLaVA) on three categories (nouns, attributes, and quantifiers) where humans show great subjective variability concerning the distribution over plausible labels, using datasets and resources mostly under-explored in previous work. Our results reveal mixed evidence on the ability of VLLMs to capture human naming preferences at generation time: while some models are good at mimicking human distributions for nouns and attributes, all of them fail to assign quantifiers, a task that requires more accurate, high-level reasoning.

Clarification questions are an essential dialogue tool to signal misunderstanding, ambiguities, and under-specification in language use. While humans are able to resolve uncertainty by asking questions since childhood, modern dialogue systems struggle to generate effective questions. To make progress in this direction, in this work we take a collaborative dialogue task as a testbed and study how model uncertainty relates to human uncertainty -- an as yet under-explored problem. We show that model uncertainty does not mirror human clarification-seeking behavior, which suggests that using human clarification questions as supervision for deciding when to ask may not be the most effective way to resolve model uncertainty. To address this issue, we propose an approach to generating clarification questions based on model uncertainty estimation, compare it to several alternatives, and show that it leads to significant improvements in terms of task success. Our findings highlight the importance of equipping dialogue systems with the ability to assess their own uncertainty and exploit in interaction.