To uncover the factual basis, we delve into this ambiguity and detail it into two flaws according to experimental insight. Specifically, the first flaw lies in that SAM prediction is sensitive to slightly different prompt variants.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in code generation. However, the effects of hallucinations (e.g., output noise) make it particularly challenging for LLMs to generate high-quality code in one pass. In this work, we propose a simple and effective \textbf{u}ncertainty-aware \textbf{s}elective \textbf{c}ontrastive \textbf{d}ecoding ($\mathbb{USCD}$) mechanism to improve the quality of one-pass code generation in LLMs and reduce the impact of output noise. To be specific, we first elaborately designed a negative prompt (namely lame prompt) to output noise by removing input-output examples from the standard few-shot prompt. Our preliminary study shows that the Jensen-Shannon divergence (JS divergence) between token distribution uncertainty and the output noise is relatively low (approximately $0.25$), indicating their high relevance. Then, we selectively eliminate output noise induced by lame prompts based on the uncertainty of the prediction distribution from the standard prompt. Notably, our proposed plug-and-play mechanism is an inference-only method, enjoying appealing flexibility. Extensive experiments on widely used benchmarks, e.g., HumanEval, MBPP, and MultiPL-E, upon several LLMs (i.e., Inocder-6b, CodeLlama-7b, WizardCoder-15b, StarCoder, and Llama2-7b), demonstrate that our proposed USCD significantly improves one-pass code generation, with an average \textit{pass@$1$} scores increase of 16.59\%. We will release code and data on GitHub.

The goal of stock trend prediction is to forecast future market movements for informed investment decisions. Existing methods mostly focus on predicting stock trends with supervised models trained on extensive annotated data. However, human annotation can be resource-intensive and the annotated data are not readily available. Inspired by the impressive few-shot capability of Large Language Models (LLMs), we propose using LLMs in a few-shot setting to overcome the scarcity of labeled data and make prediction more feasible to investors. Previous works typically merge multiple financial news for predicting stock trends, causing two significant problems when using LLMs: (1) Merged news contains noise, and (2) it may exceed LLMs' input limits, leading to performance degradation. To overcome these issues, we propose a two-step method 'denoising-then-voting'. Specifically, we introduce an `Irrelevant' category, and predict stock trends for individual news instead of merged news. Then we aggregate these predictions using majority voting. The proposed method offers two advantages: (1) Classifying noisy news as irrelevant removes its impact on the final prediction. (2) Predicting for individual news mitigates LLMs' input length limits. Our method achieves 66.59% accuracy in S&P 500, 62.17% in CSI-100, and 61.17% in HK stock prediction, outperforming the standard few-shot counterparts by around 7%, 4%, and 4%. Furthermore, our proposed method performs on par with state-of-the-art supervised methods.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, demonstrating remarkable computational power and linguistic capabilities. However, these models are inherently prone to various biases stemming from their training data. These include selection, linguistic, and confirmation biases, along with common stereotypes related to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, disability, and age. This study explores the presence of these biases within the responses given by the most recent LLMs, analyzing the impact on their fairness and reliability. We also investigate how known prompt engineering techniques can be exploited to effectively reveal hidden biases of LLMs, testing their adversarial robustness against jailbreak prompts specially crafted for bias elicitation. Extensive experiments are conducted using the most widespread LLMs at different scales, confirming that LLMs can still be manipulated to produce biased or inappropriate responses, despite their advanced capabilities and sophisticated alignment processes. Our findings underscore the importance of enhancing mitigation techniques to address these safety issues, toward a more sustainable and inclusive artificial intelligence.

We introduce Venn Diagram (VD) Prompting, an innovative prompting technique which allows Large Language Models (LLMs) to combine and synthesize information across complex, diverse and long-context documents in knowledge-intensive question-answering tasks. Generating answers from multiple documents involves numerous steps to extract relevant and unique information and amalgamate it into a cohesive response. To improve the quality of the final answer, multiple LLM calls or pretrained models are used to perform different tasks such as summarization, reorganization and customization. The approach covered in the paper focuses on replacing the multi-step strategy via a single LLM call using VD prompting. Our proposed technique also aims to eliminate the inherent position bias in the LLMs, enhancing consistency in answers by removing sensitivity to the sequence of input information. It overcomes the challenge of inconsistency traditionally associated with varying input sequences. We also explore the practical applications of the VD prompt based on our examination of the prompt's outcomes. In the experiments performed on four public benchmark question-answering datasets, VD prompting continually matches or surpasses the performance of a meticulously crafted instruction prompt which adheres to optimal guidelines and practices.

In-context learning enables large language models (LLMs) to perform a variety of tasks, including learning to make reward-maximizing choices in simple bandit tasks. Given their potential use as (autonomous) decision-making agents, it is important to understand how these models perform such reinforcement learning (RL) tasks and the extent to which they are susceptible to biases. Motivated by the fact that, in humans, it has been widely documented that the value of an outcome depends on how it compares to other local outcomes, the present study focuses on whether similar value encoding biases apply to how LLMs encode rewarding outcomes. Results from experiments with multiple bandit tasks and models show that LLMs exhibit behavioral signatures of a relative value bias. Adding explicit outcome comparisons to the prompt produces opposing effects on performance, enhancing maximization in trained choice sets but impairing generalization to new choice sets. Computational cognitive modeling reveals that LLM behavior is well-described by a simple RL algorithm that incorporates relative values at the outcome encoding stage. Lastly, we present preliminary evidence that the observed biases are not limited to fine-tuned LLMs, and that relative value processing is detectable in the final hidden layer activations of a raw, pretrained model. These findings have important implications for the use of LLMs in decision-making applications.

The recent success of Large Language Models (LLMs) has catalyzed an increasing interest in their self-correction capabilities. This paper presents a comprehensive investigation into the intrinsic self-correction of LLMs, attempting to address the ongoing debate about its feasibility. Our research has identified an important latent factor - the "confidence" of LLMs - during the self-correction process. Overlooking this factor may cause the models to over-criticize themselves, resulting in unreliable conclusions regarding the efficacy of self-correction. We have experimentally observed that LLMs possess the capability to understand the "confidence" in their own responses. It motivates us to develop an "If-or-Else" (IoE) prompting framework, designed to guide LLMs in assessing their own "confidence", facilitating intrinsic self-corrections. We conduct extensive experiments and demonstrate that our IoE-based Prompt can achieve a consistent improvement regarding the accuracy of self-corrected responses over the initial answers. Our study not only sheds light on the underlying factors affecting self-correction in LLMs, but also introduces a practical framework that utilizes the IoE prompting principle to efficiently improve self-correction capabilities with "confidence". The code is available at https://github.com/MBZUAI-CLeaR/IoE-Prompting.git.