With the widespread consumption of AI-generated content, there has been an increased focus on developing automated tools to verify the factual accuracy of such content. However, prior research and tools developed for fact verification treat it as a binary classification or a linear regression problem. Although this is a useful mechanism as part of automatic guardrails in systems, we argue that such tools lack transparency in the prediction reasoning and diversity in source evidence to provide a trustworthy user experience. We develop Facts&Evidence - an interactive and transparent tool for user-driven verification of complex text. The tool facilitates the intricate decision-making involved in fact-verification, presenting its users a breakdown of complex input texts to visualize the credibility of individual claims along with an explanation of model decisions and attribution to multiple, diverse evidence sources. Facts&Evidence aims to empower consumers of machine-generated text and give them agency to understand, verify, selectively trust and use such text.

Foundation Models that are capable of processing and generating multi-modal data have transformed AI's role in medicine. However, a key limitation of their reliability is hallucination, where inaccurate or fabricated information can impact clinical decisions and patient safety. We define medical hallucination as any instance in which a model generates misleading medical content. This paper examines the unique characteristics, causes, and implications of medical hallucinations, with a particular focus on how these errors manifest themselves in real-world clinical scenarios. Our contributions include (1) a taxonomy for understanding and addressing medical hallucinations, (2) benchmarking models using medical hallucination dataset and physician-annotated LLM responses to real medical cases, providing direct insight into the clinical impact of hallucinations, and (3) a multi-national clinician survey on their experiences with medical hallucinations. Our results reveal that inference techniques such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Search Augmented Generation can effectively reduce hallucination rates. However, despite these improvements, non-trivial levels of hallucination persist. These findings underscore the ethical and practical imperative for robust detection and mitigation strategies, establishing a foundation for regulatory policies that prioritize patient safety and maintain clinical integrity as AI becomes more integrated into healthcare. The feedback from clinicians highlights the urgent need for not only technical advances but also for clearer ethical and regulatory guidelines to ensure patient safety. A repository organizing the paper resources, summaries, and additional information is available at https://github.com/mitmedialab/medical hallucination.

Large language models (LLMs) often fail to ask effective questions under uncertainty, making them unreliable in domains where proactive information-gathering is essential for decisionmaking. We present ALFA, a framework that improves LLM question-asking by (i) decomposing the notion of a "good" question into a set of theory-grounded attributes (e.g., clarity, relevance), (ii) controllably synthesizing attribute-specific question variations, and (iii) aligning models via preference-based optimization to explicitly learn to ask better questions along these fine-grained attributes. Focusing on clinical reasoning as a case study, we introduce the MediQ-AskDocs dataset, composed of 17k real-world clinical interactions augmented with 80k attribute-specific preference pairs of follow-up questions, as well as a novel expert-annotated interactive healthcare QA task to evaluate question-asking abilities. Models aligned with ALFA reduce diagnostic errors by 56.6% on MediQ-AskDocs compared to SOTA instruction-tuned LLMs, with a question-level win-rate of 64.4% and strong generalizability. Our findings suggest that explicitly guiding question-asking with structured, fine-grained attributes offers a scalable path to improve LLMs, especially in expert application domains.

AI systems often exhibit political bias, influencing users' opinions and decision-making. While political neutrality-defined as the absence of bias-is often seen as an ideal solution for fairness and safety, this position paper argues that true political neutrality is neither feasible nor universally desirable due to its subjective nature and the biases inherent in AI training data, algorithms, and user interactions. However, inspired by Joseph Raz's philosophical insight that "neutrality [...] can be a matter of degree" (Raz, 1986), we argue that striving for some neutrality remains essential for promoting balanced AI interactions and mitigating user manipulation. Therefore, we use the term "approximation" of political neutrality to shift the focus from unattainable absolutes to achievable, practical proxies. We propose eight techniques for approximating neutrality across three levels of conceptualizing AI, examining their trade-offs and implementation strategies. In addition, we explore two concrete applications of these approximations to illustrate their practicality. Finally, we assess our framework on current large language models (LLMs) at the output level, providing a demonstration of how it can be evaluated. This work seeks to advance nuanced discussions of political neutrality in AI and promote the development of responsible, aligned language models.

This position paper argues that in many realistic (i.e., complex, contextualized, subjective) scenarios, one LLM is not enough to produce a reliable output. We challenge the status quo of relying solely on a single general-purpose LLM and argue for multi-LLM collaboration to better represent the extensive diversity of data, skills, and people. We first posit that a single LLM underrepresents real-world data distributions, heterogeneous skills, and pluralistic populations, and that such representation gaps cannot be trivially patched by further training a single LLM. We then organize existing multi-LLM collaboration methods into a hierarchy, based on the level of access and information exchange, ranging from API-level, text-level, logit-level, to weight-level collaboration. Based on these methods, we highlight how multi-LLM collaboration addresses challenges that a single LLM struggles with, such as reliability, democratization, and pluralism. Finally, we identify the limitations of existing multi-LLM methods and motivate future work. We envision multi-LLM collaboration as an essential path toward compositional intelligence and collaborative AI development.

We propose Heterogeneous Swarms, an algorithm to design multi-LLM systems by jointly optimizing model roles and weights. We represent multi-LLM systems as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) of LLMs with topological message passing for collaborative generation. Given a pool of LLM experts and a utility function, Heterogeneous Swarms employs two iterative steps: role-step and weight-step. For role-step, we interpret model roles as learning a DAG that specifies the flow of inputs and outputs between LLMs. Starting from a swarm of random continuous adjacency matrices, we decode them into discrete DAGs, call the LLMs in topological order, evaluate on the utility function (e.g. accuracy on a task), and optimize the adjacency matrices with particle swarm optimization based on the utility score. For weight-step, we assess the contribution of individual LLMs in the multi-LLM systems and optimize model weights with swarm intelligence. We propose JFK-score to quantify the individual contribution of each LLM in the best-found DAG of the role-step, then optimize model weights with particle swarm optimization based on the JFK-score. Experiments demonstrate that Heterogeneous Swarms outperforms 15 role- and/or weight-based baselines by 18.5% on average across 12 tasks. Further analysis reveals that Heterogeneous Swarms discovers multi-LLM systems with heterogeneous model roles and substantial collaborative gains, and benefits from the diversity of language models.

Do large language models (LLMs) have theory of mind? A plethora of papers and benchmarks have been introduced to evaluate if current models have been able to develop this key ability of social intelligence. However, all rely on limited datasets with simple patterns that can potentially lead to problematic blind spots in evaluation and an overestimation of model capabilities. We introduce ExploreToM, the first framework to allow large-scale generation of diverse and challenging theory of mind data for robust training and evaluation. Our approach leverages an A* search over a custom domain-specific language to produce complex story structures and novel, diverse, yet plausible scenarios to stress test the limits of LLMs. Our evaluation reveals that state-of-the-art LLMs, such as Llama-3.1-70B and GPT-4o, show accuracies as low as 0% and 9% on ExploreToM-generated data, highlighting the need for more robust theory of mind evaluation. As our generations are a conceptual superset of prior work, fine-tuning on our data yields a 27-point accuracy improvement on the classic ToMi benchmark (Le et al., 2019). ExploreToM also enables uncovering underlying skills and factors missing for models to show theory of mind, such as unreliable state tracking or data imbalances, which may contribute to models' poor performance on benchmarks.

As modern AI models become integral to everyday tasks, concerns about their inherent biases and their potential impact on human decision-making have emerged. While bias in models are well-documented, less is known about how these biases influence human decisions. This paper presents two interactive experiments investigating the effects of partisan bias in AI language models on political decision-making. Participants interacted freely with either a biased liberal, biased conservative, or unbiased control model while completing political decision-making tasks. We found that participants exposed to politically biased models were significantly more likely to adopt opinions and make decisions aligning with the AI's bias, regardless of their personal political partisanship. However, we also discovered that prior knowledge about AI could lessen the impact of the bias, highlighting the possible importance of AI education for robust bias mitigation. Our findings not only highlight the critical effects of interacting with biased AI and its ability to impact public discourse and political conduct, but also highlights potential techniques for mitigating these risks in the future.

Conventional algorithms for training language models (LMs) with human feedback rely on preferences that are assumed to account for an "average" user, disregarding subjectivity and finer-grained variations. Recent studies have raised concerns that aggregating such diverse and often contradictory human feedback to finetune models results in generic models that generate outputs not preferred by many user groups, as they tend to average out styles and norms. To address this issue, we draw inspiration from recommendation systems and propose ComPO, a method to personalize preference optimization in LMs by contextualizing the probability distribution of model outputs with the preference provider. Focusing on group-level preferences rather than individuals, we collect and release ComPRed, a question answering dataset with community-level preferences from Reddit. This dataset facilitates studying diversity in preferences without incurring privacy concerns associated with individual feedback. Our experiments reveal that conditioning language models on a community identifier (i.e., subreddit name) during preference tuning substantially enhances model performance. Conversely, replacing this context with random subreddit identifiers significantly diminishes performance, highlighting the effectiveness of our approach in tailoring responses to communities' preferences.

In the absence of abundant reliable annotations for challenging tasks and contexts, how can we expand the frontier of LLM capabilities with potentially wrong answers? We focus on two research questions: (1) Can LLMs generate reliable preferences among wrong options? And if so, (2) Would alignment with such wrong-over-wrong preferences be helpful? We employ methods based on self-consistency, token probabilities, and LLM-as-a-judge to elicit wrong-over-wrong preferences, and fine-tune language models with preference optimization approaches using these synthesized preferences. Extensive experiments with seven LLMs and eight datasets demonstrate that (1) LLMs do have preliminary capability in distinguishing various shades of wrong, achieving up to 20.9% higher performance than random guess; (2) Alignment with wrong-over-wrong preferences helps LLMs to produce less wrong and sometimes even outright correct answers, while overall improving model calibration.