While recent NLP evaluation benchmark tasks test some aspects of human-imitative behavior (e.g., BIG-bench's'human-like behavior' tasks), few, if not none, examine creative problem solving abilities.

The quest for human imitative AI has been an enduring topic in AI research since inception. The technical evolution and emerging capabilities of the latest cohort of large language models (LLMs) have reinvigorated the subject beyond academia to cultural zeitgeist. While recent NLP evaluation benchmark tasks test some aspects of human-imitative behaviour (e.g., BIG-bench's `human-like behavior' tasks), few, if not none, examine abilities. Creative problem solving in humans is a well-studied topic in cognitive neuroscience with standardized tests that predominantly use ability to associate (heterogeneous) connections among clue words as a metric for creativity. Exposure to misleading stimuli --- distractors dubbed --- impede human performance in such tasks via the and Einstellung paradigm. In cognitive neuroscience studies, such fixations are experimentally induced by pre-exposing participants to orthographically similar incorrect words to subsequent word-fragments or clues. The popular British quiz show Only Connect's segment essentially mimics Mednick's Remote Associates Test (RAT) formulation with built-in, deliberate red herrings, that makes it an ideal proxy dataset to explore and study fixation effect and Einstellung paradigm from cognitive neuroscience in LLMs. In addition to presenting the novel Only Connect Wall (OCW) dataset, we also report results from our evaluation of selected pre-trained language models and LLMs (including OpenAI's GPT series) on creative problem solving tasks like grouping clue words by heterogeneous connections, and identifying correct open knowledge domain connections in respective groups. We synthetically generate two additional datasets: OCW-Randomized, OCW-WordNet to further analyze our red-herrings hypothesis in language models.The code and link to the dataset is available at url .

Measuring the full abilities of large language models (LLMs) requires benchmarks representing multiple tasks. We aim to create large, high-quality datasets for comparison of logical reasoning skills across several languages and of suitable difficulty for LLMs of various reasoning ability. We explore multiple ways of increasing difficulty. We generate zebra puzzles in multiple languages, themes, sizes and including 14 different clue types and 8 red herring types (uninformative clues). We find puzzle sizes 2x3 and 4x5 are sufficiently challenging for GPT-4o mini (a non-reasoning model) and o3-mini (a reasoning model), respectively. Including 5 red herrings decreases o3-mini puzzle-level accuracy on 4x5 puzzles by 15$\pm$7 %. Scores of o3-mini on 4x5 puzzles are not significantly affected by use of English vs. Danish or the common houses theme vs. the country-specific smoerrebroed theme. We find no correlation between difficulty and the selected clue types. Datasets of 128+1024 puzzles are published as MultiZebraLogic in each of nine Germanic languages for sizes 2x3 and 4x5. We publish code for puzzle generation, designed for adaptablity into more languages and themes.

While recent NLP evaluation benchmark tasks test some aspects of human-imitative behavior (e.g., BIG-bench's'human-like behavior' tasks), few, if not none, examine creative problem solving abilities.

The quest for human imitative AI has been an enduring topic in AI research since inception. The technical evolution and emerging capabilities of the latest cohort of large language models (LLMs) have reinvigorated the subject beyond academia to cultural zeitgeist. While recent NLP evaluation benchmark tasks test some aspects of human-imitative behaviour (e.g., BIG-bench's human-like behavior' tasks), few, if not none, examine creative problem solving abilities. Creative problem solving in humans is a well-studied topic in cognitive neuroscience with standardized tests that predominantly use ability to associate (heterogeneous) connections among clue words as a metric for creativity. Exposure to misleading stimuli --- distractors dubbed red herrings --- impede human performance in such tasks via the fixation effect and Einstellung paradigm.

Memes are one of the most popular types of content used in an online disinformation campaign. They are primarily effective on social media platforms since they can easily reach many users. Memes in a disinformation campaign achieve their goal of influencing the users through several rhetorical and psychological techniques, such as causal oversimplification, name-calling, and smear. The SemEval 2024 Task 4 \textit{Multilingual Detection of Persuasion Technique in Memes} on identifying such techniques in the memes is divided across three sub-tasks: ($\mathbf{1}$) Hierarchical multi-label classification using only textual content of the meme, ($\mathbf{2}$) Hierarchical multi-label classification using both, textual and visual content of the meme and ($\mathbf{3}$) Binary classification of whether the meme contains a persuasion technique or not using it's textual and visual content. This paper proposes an ensemble of Class Definition Prediction (CDP) and hyperbolic embeddings-based approaches for this task. We enhance meme classification accuracy and comprehensiveness by integrating HypEmo's hierarchical label embeddings (Chen et al., 2023) and a multi-task learning framework for emotion prediction. We achieve a hierarchical F1-score of 0.60, 0.67, and 0.48 on the respective sub-tasks.

The quest for human imitative AI has been an enduring topic in AI research since its inception. The technical evolution and emerging capabilities of the latest cohort of large language models (LLMs) have reinvigorated the subject beyond academia to the cultural zeitgeist. While recent NLP evaluation benchmark tasks test some aspects of human-imitative behaviour (e.g., BIG-bench's 'human-like behavior' tasks), few, if not none, examine creative problem solving abilities. Creative problem solving in humans is a well-studied topic in cognitive neuroscience with standardized tests that predominantly use the ability to associate (heterogeneous) connections among clue words as a metric for creativity. Exposure to misleading stimuli - distractors dubbed red herrings - impede human performance in such tasks via the fixation effect and Einstellung paradigm. In cognitive neuroscience studies, such fixations are experimentally induced by pre-exposing participants to orthographically similar incorrect words to subsequent word-fragments or clues. The popular British quiz show Only Connect's Connecting Wall segment essentially mimics Mednick's Remote Associates Test (RAT) formulation with built-in, deliberate red herrings, which makes it an ideal proxy dataset to explore and study fixation effect and Einstellung paradigm from cognitive neuroscience in LLMs. In this paper we present the novel Only Connect Wall (OCW) dataset and report results from our evaluation of selected pre-trained language models and LLMs on creative problem solving tasks like grouping clue words by heterogeneous connections, and identifying correct open knowledge domain connections in respective groups. We synthetically generate two additional datasets: OCW-Randomized, OCW-WordNet to further analyze our red-herrings hypothesis in language models. The code and link to the dataset are available at https://github.com/TaatiTeam/OCW.

With LLMs shifting their role from statistical modeling of language to serving as general-purpose AI agents, how should LLM evaluations change? Arguably, a key ability of an AI agent is to flexibly combine, as needed, the basic skills it has learned. The capability to combine skills plays an important role in (human) pedagogy and also in a paper on emergence phenomena (Arora & Goyal, 2023). This work introduces Skill-Mix, a new evaluation to measure ability to combine skills. Using a list of $N$ skills the evaluator repeatedly picks random subsets of $k$ skills and asks the LLM to produce text combining that subset of skills. Since the number of subsets grows like $N^k$, for even modest $k$ this evaluation will, with high probability, require the LLM to produce text significantly different from any text in the training set. The paper develops a methodology for (a) designing and administering such an evaluation, and (b) automatic grading (plus spot-checking by humans) of the results using GPT-4 as well as the open LLaMA-2 70B model. Administering a version of to popular chatbots gave results that, while generally in line with prior expectations, contained surprises. Sizeable differences exist among model capabilities that are not captured by their ranking on popular LLM leaderboards ("cramming for the leaderboard"). Furthermore, simple probability calculations indicate that GPT-4's reasonable performance on $k=5$ is suggestive of going beyond "stochastic parrot" behavior (Bender et al., 2021), i.e., it combines skills in ways that it had not seen during training. We sketch how the methodology can lead to a Skill-Mix based eco-system of open evaluations for AI capabilities of future models.

Last Friday afternoon, Twitter posted the source code of its recommendation algorithm to GitHub. Twitter said it was "open sourcing" its algorithm, something I would typically be in favor of. Recommendation algorithms and open source code are major focuses of my work as a researcher and advocate for corporate accountability in the tech industry. My research has demonstrated why and how companies like YouTube should be more transparent about the inner workings of their recommendation algorithms--and I've run campaigns pressuring them to do so. Mozilla, the nonprofit where I am a senior fellow, famously open-sourced the Netscape browser code and invited a community of developers around the world to contribute to it in 1998, and it has continued to push for an open internet since.

Fallacies are used as seemingly valid arguments to support a position and persuade the audience about its validity. Recognizing fallacies is an intrinsically difficult task both for humans and machines. Moreover, a big challenge for computational models lies in the fact that fallacies are formulated differently across the datasets with differences in the input format (e.g., question-answer pair, sentence with fallacy fragment), genre (e.g., social media, dialogue, news), as well as types and number of fallacies (from 5 to 18 types per dataset). To move towards solving the fallacy recognition task, we approach these differences across datasets as multiple tasks and show how instruction-based prompting in a multitask setup based on the T5 model improves the results against approaches built for a specific dataset such as T5, BERT or GPT-3. We show the ability of this multitask prompting approach to recognize 28 unique fallacies across domains and genres and study the effect of model size and prompt choice by analyzing the per-class (i.e., fallacy type) results. Finally, we analyze the effect of annotation quality on model performance, and the feasibility of complementing this approach with external knowledge.