In the multi-turn interaction schema, large language models (LLMs) can leverage user feedback to enhance the quality and relevance of their responses. However, evaluating an LLM's ability to incorporate user refutation feedback is crucial yet challenging. In this study, we introduce RefuteBench 2.0, which significantly extends the original RefuteBench by incorporating LLM agents as refuters and evaluators, which allows for flexible and comprehensive assessment. We design both transient and persistent refutation instructions with different validity periods. Meta-evaluation shows that the LLM-based refuter could generate more human-like refutations and the evaluators could assign scores with high correlation with humans. Experimental results of various LLMs show that current models could effectively satisfy the refutation but fail to memorize the refutation information. Interestingly, we also observe that the performance of the initial task decreases as the refutations increase. Analysis of the attention scores further shows a potential weakness of current LLMs: they struggle to retain and correctly use previous information during long context dialogues. https://github.com/ElliottYan/RefuteBench-2.0

Dynamical systems theory provides a framework for analyzing iterative processes and evolution over time. Within such systems, repetitive transformations can lead to stable configurations, known as attractors, including fixed points and limit cycles. Applying this perspective to large language models (LLMs), which iteratively map input text to output text, provides a principled approach to characterizing long-term behaviors. Successive paraphrasing serves as a compelling testbed for exploring such dynamics, as paraphrases re-express the same underlying meaning with linguistic variation. Although LLMs are expected to explore a diverse set of paraphrases in the text space, our study reveals that successive paraphrasing converges to stable periodic states, such as 2-period attractor cycles, limiting linguistic diversity. This phenomenon is attributed to the self-reinforcing nature of LLMs, as they iteratively favour and amplify certain textual forms over others. This pattern persists with increasing generation randomness or alternating prompts and LLMs. These findings underscore inherent constraints in LLM generative capability, while offering a novel dynamical systems perspective for studying their expressive potential.

This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of GPT-4's translation capabilities compared to human translators of varying expertise levels. Through systematic human evaluation using the MQM schema, we assess translations across three language pairs (Chinese$\longleftrightarrow$English, Russian$\longleftrightarrow$English, and Chinese$\longleftrightarrow$Hindi) and three domains (News, Technology, and Biomedical). Our findings reveal that GPT-4 achieves performance comparable to junior-level translators in terms of total errors, while still lagging behind senior translators. Unlike traditional Neural Machine Translation systems, which show significant performance degradation in resource-poor language directions, GPT-4 maintains consistent translation quality across all evaluated language pairs. Through qualitative analysis, we identify distinctive patterns in translation approaches: GPT-4 tends toward overly literal translations and exhibits lexical inconsistency, while human translators sometimes over-interpret context and introduce hallucinations. This study represents the first systematic comparison between LLM and human translators across different proficiency levels, providing valuable insights into the current capabilities and limitations of LLM-based translation systems.

Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized knowledge storage and retrieval, but face challenges with conflicting and outdated information. Knowledge editing techniques have been proposed to address these issues, yet they struggle with robustness tests involving long contexts, paraphrased subjects, and continuous edits. This work investigates the cause of these failures in locate-and-edit methods, offering theoretical insights into their key-value modeling and deriving mathematical bounds for robust and specific edits, leading to a novel 'group discussion' conceptual model for locate-and-edit methods. Empirical analysis reveals that keys used by current methods fail to meet robustness and specificity requirements. To address this, we propose a Robust Edit Pathway (REP) that disentangles editing keys from LLMs' inner representations. Evaluations on LLaMA2-7B and Mistral-7B using the CounterFact dataset show that REP significantly improves robustness across various metrics, both in-domain and out-of-domain, with minimal trade-offs in success rate and locality. Our findings advance the development of reliable and flexible knowledge updating in LLMs.

Enhancing the adaptive capabilities of large language models is a critical pursuit in both research and application. Traditional fine-tuning methods require substantial data and computational resources, especially for enhancing specific capabilities, while in-context learning is limited by the need for appropriate demonstrations and efficient token usage. Inspired by the expression of in-context learned capabilities through task vectors and the concept of modularization, we propose \alg, a framework consisting of two modules designed to effectively store and reuse task vectors to elicit the diverse capabilities of models without additional training or inference tokens. Our comprehensive experiments and analysis demonstrate that our pipeline is highly transferable across different input formats, tasks, and model architectures. ELICIT serves as a plug-and-play performance booster to enable adaptive elicitation of model capabilities. By externally storing and reusing vectors that represent in-context learned capabilities, \alg not only demonstrates the potential to operate modular capabilities but also significantly enhances the performance, versatility, adaptability, and scalability of large language models. Our code will be publicly available at https://github.com/LINs-lab/ELICIT.

This study comprehensively evaluates the translation quality of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, against human translators of varying expertise levels across multiple language pairs and domains. Through carefully designed annotation rounds, we find that GPT-4 performs comparably to junior translators in terms of total errors made but lags behind medium and senior translators. We also observe the imbalanced performance across different languages and domains, with GPT-4's translation capability gradually weakening from resource-rich to resource-poor directions. In addition, we qualitatively study the translation given by GPT-4 and human translators, and find that GPT-4 translator suffers from literal translations, but human translators sometimes overthink the background information. To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate LLMs against human translators and analyze the systematic differences between their outputs, providing valuable insights into the current state of LLM-based translation and its potential limitations.

The application scope of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly expanding. In practical use, users might provide feedback based on the model's output, hoping for a responsive model that can complete responses according to their feedback. Whether the model can appropriately respond to users' refuting feedback and consistently follow through with execution has not been thoroughly analyzed. In light of this, this paper proposes a comprehensive benchmark, RefuteBench, covering tasks such as question answering, machine translation, and email writing. The evaluation aims to assess whether models can positively accept feedback in form of refuting instructions and whether they can consistently adhere to user demands throughout the conversation. We conduct evaluations on numerous LLMs and find that LLMs are stubborn, i.e. exhibit inclination to their internal knowledge, often failing to comply with user feedback. Additionally, as the length of the conversation increases, models gradually forget the user's stated feedback and roll back to their own responses. We further propose a recall-and-repeat prompts as a simple and effective way to enhance the model's responsiveness to feedback.

Recent advances have made non-autoregressive (NAT) translation comparable to autoregressive methods (AT). However, their evaluation using BLEU has been shown to weakly correlate with human annotations. Limited research compares non-autoregressive translation and autoregressive translation comprehensively, leaving uncertainty about the true proximity of NAT to AT. To address this gap, we systematically evaluate four representative NAT methods across various dimensions, including human evaluation. Our empirical results demonstrate that despite narrowing the performance gap, state-of-the-art NAT still underperforms AT under more reliable evaluation metrics. Furthermore, we discover that explicitly modeling dependencies is crucial for generating natural language and generalizing to out-of-distribution sequences.

Large language models (LLMs) trained on vast corpora suffer from inevitable stereotype biases. Mitigating these biases with fine-tuning could be both costly and data-hungry. Model editing methods, which focus on modifying LLMs in a post-hoc manner, are of great potential to address debiasing. However, it lacks a comprehensive study that facilitates both internal and external model editing methods, supports various bias types, as well as understands the pros and cons of applying editing methods to stereotypical debiasing. To mitigate this gap, we carefully formulate social debiasing into an editing problem and benchmark seven existing model editing algorithms on stereotypical debiasing, i.e., debias editing. Our findings in three scenarios reveal both the potential and challenges of debias editing: (1) Existing model editing methods can effectively preserve knowledge and mitigate biases, while the generalization of debias effect from edited sentences to semantically equivalent sentences is limited.(2) Sequential editing highlights the robustness of SERAC (Mitchell et al. 2022b), while internal editing methods degenerate with the number of edits. (3) Model editing algorithms achieve generalization towards unseen biases both within the same type and from different types. In light of these findings, we further propose two simple but effective methods to improve debias editing, and experimentally show the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

Non-autoregressive translation (NAT) models achieve comparable performance and superior speed compared to auto-regressive translation (AT) models in the context of sentence-level machine translation (MT). However, their abilities are unexplored in document-level MT, hindering their usage in real scenarios. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive examination of typical NAT models in the context of document-level MT and further propose a simple but effective design of sentence alignment between source and target. Experiments show that NAT models achieve high acceleration on documents, and sentence alignment significantly enhances their performance. However, current NAT models still have a significant performance gap compared to their AT counterparts. Further investigation reveals that NAT models suffer more from the multi-modality and misalignment issues in the context of document-level MT, and current NAT models struggle with exploiting document context and handling discourse phenomena. We delve into these challenges and provide our code at \url{https://github.com/baoguangsheng/nat-on-doc}.