In this paper, we propose Selection and Pooling with Large Language Models (SPILL), an intuitive and domain-adaptive method for intent clustering without fine-tuning. Existing embeddings-based clustering methods rely on a few labeled examples or unsupervised fine-tuning to optimize results for each new dataset, which makes them less generalizable to multiple datasets. Our goal is to make these existing embedders more generalizable to new domain datasets without further fine-tuning. Inspired by our theoretical derivation and simulation results on the effectiveness of sampling and pooling techniques, we view the clustering task as a small-scale selection problem. A good solution to this problem is associated with better clustering performance. Accordingly, we propose a two-stage approach: First, for each utterance (referred to as the seed), we derive its embedding using an existing embedder. Then, we apply a distance metric to select a pool of candidates close to the seed. Because the embedder is not optimized for new datasets, in the second stage, we use an LLM to further select utterances from these candidates that share the same intent as the seed. Finally, we pool these selected candidates with the seed to derive a refined embedding for the seed. We found that our method generally outperforms directly using an embedder, and it achieves comparable results to other state-of-the-art studies, even those that use much larger models and require fine-tuning, showing its strength and efficiency. Our results indicate that our method enables existing embedders to be further improved without additional fine-tuning, making them more adaptable to new domain datasets. Additionally, viewing the clustering task as a small-scale selection problem gives the potential of using LLMs to customize clustering tasks according to the user's goals.

Identifying user intents in information-seeking dialogs is crucial for a system to meet user's information needs. Intent prediction (IP) is challenging and demands sufficient dialogs with human-labeled intents for training. However, manually annotating intents is resource-intensive. While large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective in generating synthetic data, there is no study on using LLMs to generate intent-aware information-seeking dialogs. In this paper, we focus on leveraging LLMs for zero-shot generation of large-scale, open-domain, and intent-aware information-seeking dialogs. We propose SOLID, which has novel self-seeding and multi-intent self-instructing schemes. The former improves the generation quality by using the LLM's own knowledge scope to initiate dialog generation; the latter prompts the LLM to generate utterances sequentially, and mitigates the need for manual prompt design by asking the LLM to autonomously adapt its prompt instruction when generating complex multi-intent utterances. Furthermore, we propose SOLID-RL, which is further trained to generate a dialog in one step on the data generated by SOLID. We propose a length-based quality estimation mechanism to assign varying weights to SOLID-generated dialogs based on their quality during the training process of SOLID-RL. We use SOLID and SOLID-RL to generate more than 300k intent-aware dialogs, surpassing the size of existing datasets. Experiments show that IP methods trained on dialogs generated by SOLID and SOLID-RL achieve better IP quality than ones trained on human-generated dialogs.

Attributing answers to source documents is an approach used to enhance the verifiability of a model's output in retrieval augmented generation (RAG). Prior work has mainly focused on improving and evaluating the attribution quality of large language models (LLMs) in RAG, but this may come at the expense of inducing biases in the attribution of answers. We define and examine two aspects in the evaluation of LLMs in RAG pipelines, namely attribution sensitivity and bias with respect to authorship information. We explicitly inform an LLM about the authors of source documents, instruct it to attribute its answers, and analyze (i) how sensitive the LLM's output is to the author of source documents, and (ii) whether the LLM exhibits a bias towards human-written or AI-generated source documents. We design an experimental setup in which we use counterfactual evaluation to study three LLMs in terms of their attribution sensitivity and bias in RAG pipelines. Our results show that adding authorship information to source documents can significantly change the attribution quality of LLMs by 3% to 18%. Moreover, we show that LLMs can have an attribution bias towards explicit human authorship, which can serve as a competing hypothesis for findings of prior work that shows that LLM-generated content may be preferred over human-written contents. Our findings indicate that metadata of source documents can influence LLMs' trust, and how they attribute their answers. Furthermore, our research highlights attribution bias and sensitivity as a novel aspect of brittleness in LLMs.

In this short paper we propose a data augmentation method for intent detection in zero-resource domains. Existing data augmentation methods rely on few labelled examples for each intent category, which can be expensive in settings with many possible intents. We use a two-stage approach: First, we generate utterances for intent labels using an open-source large language model in a zero-shot setting. Second, we develop a smaller sequence-to-sequence model (the Refiner), to improve the generated utterances. The Refiner is fine-tuned on seen domains and then applied to unseen domains. We evaluate our method by training an intent classifier on the generated data, and evaluating it on real (human) data. We find that the Refiner significantly improves the data utility and diversity over the zero-shot LLM baseline for unseen domains and over common baseline approaches. Our results indicate that a two-step approach of a generative LLM in zero-shot setting and a smaller sequence-to-sequence model can provide high-quality data for intent detection.

While recent research increasingly showcases the remarkable capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), it's vital to confront their hidden pitfalls. Among these challenges, the issue of memorization stands out, posing significant ethical and legal risks. In this paper, we presents a Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) on the topic of memorization in LLMs. Memorization is the effect that a model tends to store and reproduce phrases or passages from the training data and has been shown to be the fundamental issue to various privacy and security attacks against LLMs. We begin by providing an overview of the literature on the memorization, exploring it across five key dimensions: intentionality, degree, retrievability, abstraction, and transparency. Next, we discuss the metrics and methods used to measure memorization, followed by an analysis of the factors that contribute to memorization phenomenon. We then examine how memorization manifests itself in specific model architectures and explore strategies for mitigating these effects. We conclude our overview by identifying potential research topics for the near future: to develop methods for balancing performance and privacy in LLMs, and the analysis of memorization in specific contexts, including conversational agents, retrieval-augmented generation, multilingual language models, and diffusion language models.

Scaling up language models to billions of parameters has opened up possibilities for in-context learning, allowing instruction tuning and few-shot learning on tasks that the model was not specifically trained for. This has achieved breakthrough performance on language tasks such as translation, summarization, and question-answering. Furthermore, in addition to these associative "System 1" tasks, recent advances in Chain-of-thought prompt learning have demonstrated strong "System 2" reasoning abilities, answering a question in the field of artificial general intelligence whether LLMs can reason. The field started with the question whether LLMs can solve grade school math word problems. This paper reviews the rapidly expanding field of prompt-based reasoning with LLMs. Our taxonomy identifies different ways to generate, evaluate, and control multi-step reasoning. We provide an in-depth coverage of core approaches and open problems, and we propose a research agenda for the near future. Finally, we highlight the relation between reasoning and prompt-based learning, and we discuss the relation between reasoning, sequential decision processes, and reinforcement learning. We find that self-improvement, self-reflection, and some metacognitive abilities of the reasoning processes are possible through the judicious use of prompts. True self-improvement and self-reasoning, to go from reasoning with LLMs to reasoning by LLMs, remains future work.

Tool learning empowers large language models (LLMs) as agents to use external tools and extend their utility. Existing methods employ one single LLM-based agent to iteratively select and execute tools, thereafter incorporating execution results into the next action prediction. Despite their progress, these methods suffer from performance degradation when addressing practical tasks due to: (1) the pre-defined pipeline with restricted flexibility to calibrate incorrect actions, and (2) the struggle to adapt a general LLM-based agent to perform a variety of specialized actions. To mitigate these problems, we propose ConAgents, a Cooperative and interactive Agents framework, which coordinates three specialized agents for tool selection, tool execution, and action calibration separately. ConAgents introduces two communication protocols to enable the flexible cooperation of agents. To effectively generalize the ConAgents into open-source models, we also propose specialized action distillation, enhancing their ability to perform specialized actions in our framework. Our extensive experiments on three datasets show that the LLMs, when equipped with the ConAgents, outperform baselines with substantial improvement (i.e., up to 14% higher success rate).

Augmenting large language models (LLMs) with external tools has emerged as a promising approach to extend their utility, empowering them to solve practical tasks. Existing work typically empowers LLMs as tool users with a manually designed workflow, where the LLM plans a series of tools in a step-by-step manner, and sequentially executes each tool to obtain intermediate results until deriving the final answer. However, they suffer from two challenges in realistic scenarios: (1) The handcrafted control flow is often ad-hoc and constraints the LLM to local planning; (2) The LLM is instructed to use only manually demonstrated tools or well-trained Python functions, which limits its generalization to new tools. In this work, we first propose Automatic Tool Chain (ATC), a framework that enables the LLM to act as a multi-tool user, which directly utilizes a chain of tools through programming. To scale up the scope of the tools, we next propose a black-box probing method. This further empowers the LLM as a tool learner that can actively discover and document tool usages, teaching themselves to properly master new tools. For a comprehensive evaluation, we build a challenging benchmark named ToolFlow, which diverges from previous benchmarks by its long-term planning scenarios and complex toolset. Experiments on both existing datasets and ToolFlow illustrate the superiority of our framework.

Biomedical entity linking, a main component in automatic information extraction from health-related texts, plays a pivotal role in connecting textual entities (such as diseases, drugs and body parts mentioned by patients) to their corresponding concepts in a structured biomedical knowledge base. The task remains challenging despite recent developments in natural language processing. This paper presents the first evaluated biomedical entity linking model for the Dutch language. We use MedRoBERTa.nl as base model and perform second-phase pretraining through self-alignment on a Dutch biomedical ontology extracted from the UMLS and Dutch SNOMED. We derive a corpus from Wikipedia of ontology-linked Dutch biomedical entities in context and fine-tune our model on this dataset. We evaluate our model on the Dutch portion of the Mantra GSC-corpus and achieve 54.7% classification accuracy and 69.8% 1-distance accuracy. We then perform a case study on a collection of unlabeled, patient-support forum data and show that our model is hampered by the limited quality of the preceding entity recognition step. Manual evaluation of small sample indicates that of the correctly extracted entities, around 65% is linked to the correct concept in the ontology. Our results indicate that biomedical entity linking in a language other than English remains challenging, but our Dutch model can be used to for high-level analysis of patient-generated text.

For a viewpoint-diverse news recommender, identifying whether two news articles express the same viewpoint is essential. One way to determine "same or different" viewpoint is stance detection. In this paper, we investigate the robustness of operationalization choices for few-shot stance detection, with special attention to modelling stance across different topics. Our experiments test pre-registered hypotheses on stance detection. Specifically, we compare two stance task definitions (Pro/Con versus Same Side Stance), two LLM architectures (bi-encoding versus cross-encoding), and adding Natural Language Inference knowledge, with pre-trained RoBERTa models trained with shots of 100 examples from 7 different stance detection datasets. Some of our hypotheses and claims from earlier work can be confirmed, while others give more inconsistent results. The effect of the Same Side Stance definition on performance differs per dataset and is influenced by other modelling choices. We found no relationship between the number of training topics in the training shots and performance. In general, cross-encoding out-performs bi-encoding, and adding NLI training to our models gives considerable improvement, but these results are not consistent across all datasets. Our results indicate that it is essential to include multiple datasets and systematic modelling experiments when aiming to find robust modelling choices for the concept `stance'.