亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

Contextualized embeddings are the preferred tool for modeling Lexical Semantic Change (LSC). Current evaluations typically focus on a specific task known as Graded Change Detection (GCD). However, performance comparison across work are often misleading due to their reliance on diverse settings. In this paper, we evaluate state-of-the-art models and approaches for GCD under equal conditions. We further break the LSC problem into Word-in-Context (WiC) and Word Sense Induction (WSI) tasks, and compare models across these different levels. Our evaluation is performed across different languages on eight available benchmarks for LSC, and shows that (i) APD outperforms other approaches for GCD; (ii) XL-LEXEME outperforms other contextualized models for WiC, WSI, and GCD, while being comparable to GPT-4; (iii) there is a clear need for improving the modeling of word meanings, as well as focus on how, when, and why these meanings change, rather than solely focusing on the extent of semantic change.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive proficiency in code generation. Nonetheless, similar to human developers, these models might generate code that contains security vulnerabilities and flaws. Writing secure code remains a substantial challenge, as vulnerabilities often arise during interactions between programs and external systems or services, such as databases and operating systems. In this paper, we propose a novel approach, Feedback-Driven Solution Synthesis (FDSS), designed to explore the use of LLMs in receiving feedback from Bandit, which is a static code analysis tool, and then the LLMs generate potential solutions to resolve security vulnerabilities. Each solution, along with the vulnerable code, is then sent back to the LLM for code refinement. Our approach shows a significant improvement over the baseline and outperforms existing approaches. Furthermore, we introduce a new dataset, PythonSecurityEval, collected from real-world scenarios on Stack Overflow to evaluate the LLMs' ability to generate secure code. Code and data are available at \url{//github.com/Kamel773/LLM-code-refine}

Large Language Models (LLMs) possess the potential to exert substantial influence on public perceptions and interactions with information. This raises concerns about the societal impact that could arise if the ideologies within these models can be easily manipulated. In this work, we investigate how effectively LLMs can learn and generalize ideological biases from their instruction-tuning data. Our findings reveal a concerning vulnerability: exposure to only a small amount of ideologically driven samples significantly alters the ideology of LLMs. Notably, LLMs demonstrate a startling ability to absorb ideology from one topic and generalize it to even unrelated ones. The ease with which LLMs' ideologies can be skewed underscores the risks associated with intentionally poisoned training data by malicious actors or inadvertently introduced biases by data annotators. It also emphasizes the imperative for robust safeguards to mitigate the influence of ideological manipulations on LLMs.

This paper gives an overview of Software Defined Optical Networks or SDONs and how they can be implemented. It traces the evolution of Optical networks upto GMPLS and traces the idea of SDN and builds upto OpenFlow. The paper explores the need for SDONs and explains what a SDON solution could look like, including the hardware. It also seeks to explain how OpenFlow could be used as a part of this solution to overcome the limitations of GMPLS.

Compressing Large Language Models (LLMs) often leads to reduced performance, especially for knowledge-intensive tasks. In this work, we dive into how compression damages LLMs' inherent knowledge and the possible remedies. We start by proposing two conjectures on the nature of the damage: one is certain knowledge being forgotten (or erased) after LLM compression, hence necessitating the compressed model to (re)learn from data with additional parameters; the other presumes that knowledge is internally displaced and hence one requires merely "inference re-direction" with input-side augmentation such as prompting, to recover the knowledge-related performance. Extensive experiments are then designed to (in)validate the two conjectures. We observe the promise of prompting in comparison to model tuning; we further unlock prompting's potential by introducing a variant called Inference-time Dynamic Prompting (IDP), that can effectively increase prompt diversity without incurring any inference overhead. Our experiments consistently suggest that compared to the classical re-training alternatives such as LoRA, prompting with IDP leads to better or comparable post-compression performance recovery, while saving the extra parameter size by 21x and reducing inference latency by 60%. Our experiments hence strongly endorse the conjecture of "knowledge displaced" over "knowledge forgotten", and shed light on a new efficient mechanism to restore compressed LLM performance. We additionally visualize and analyze the different attention and activation patterns between prompted and re-trained models, demonstrating they achieve performance recovery in two different regimes.

Work on instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) has used automatic methods based on text overlap and LLM judgments as cost-effective alternatives to human evaluation. In this paper, we study the reliability of such methods across a broad range of tasks and in a cross-lingual setting. In contrast to previous findings, we observe considerable variability in correlations between automatic methods and human evaluators when scores are differentiated by task type. Specifically, the widely-used ROUGE-L metric strongly correlates with human judgments for short-answer English tasks but is unreliable in free-form generation tasks and cross-lingual transfer. The effectiveness of GPT-4 as an evaluator depends on including reference answers when prompting for assessments, which can lead to overly strict evaluations in free-form generation tasks. In summary, we find that, while automatic evaluation methods can approximate human judgements under specific conditions, their reliability is highly context-dependent. Our findings enhance the understanding of how automatic methods should be applied and interpreted when developing and evaluating instruction-tuned LLMs.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has marked a significant advancement in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Previous studies have developed various extensions of CoT, which focus primarily on enhancing end-task performance. In addition, there has been research on assessing the quality of reasoning chains in CoT. This raises an intriguing question: Is it possible to predict the accuracy of LLM outputs by scrutinizing the reasoning chains they generate? To answer this research question, we introduce a benchmark, R2PE, designed specifically to explore the relationship between reasoning chains and performance in various reasoning tasks spanning five different domains. This benchmark aims to measure the falsehood of the final output of LLMs based on the reasoning steps. To make full use of information in multiple reasoning chains, we propose the process discernibility score (PDS) framework that beats the answer-checking baseline by a large margin. Concretely, this resulted in an average of 5.1% increase in the F1 score across all 45 subsets within R2PE. We further demonstrate our PDS's efficacy in advancing open-domain QA accuracy. Data and code are available at //github.com/XinXU-USTC/R2PE.

This paper considers the challenges that Large Language Models (LLMs) face when reasoning over text that includes information involving uncertainty explicitly quantified via probability values. This type of reasoning is relevant to a variety of contexts ranging from everyday conversations to medical decision-making. Despite improvements in the mathematical reasoning capabilities of LLMs, they still exhibit significant difficulties when it comes to probabilistic reasoning. To deal with this problem, we first introduce the Bayesian Linguistic Inference Dataset (BLInD), a new dataset specifically designed to test the probabilistic reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We then leverage this new dataset to thoroughly illustrate the specific limitations of LLMs for tasks involving probabilistic reasoning and present several strategies that map the problem to different formal representations, including Python code, probabilistic inference algorithms, and probabilistic logical programming. We conclude by providing an evaluation of our methods on BLInD and on an adaptation of a causal reasoning question-answering dataset, which further shows their practical effectiveness.

In the field of robotics and automation, navigation systems based on Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently shown impressive performance. However, the security aspects of these systems have received relatively less attention. This paper pioneers the exploration of vulnerabilities in LLM-based navigation models in urban outdoor environments, a critical area given the technology's widespread application in autonomous driving, logistics, and emergency services. Specifically, we introduce a novel Navigational Prompt Suffix (NPS) Attack that manipulates LLM-based navigation models by appending gradient-derived suffixes to the original navigational prompt, leading to incorrect actions. We conducted comprehensive experiments on an LLMs-based navigation model that employs various LLMs for reasoning. Our results, derived from the Touchdown and Map2Seq street-view datasets under both few-shot learning and fine-tuning configurations, demonstrate notable performance declines across three metrics in the face of both white-box and black-box attacks. These results highlight the generalizability and transferability of the NPS Attack, emphasizing the need for enhanced security in LLM-based navigation systems. As an initial countermeasure, we propose the Navigational Prompt Engineering (NPE) Defense strategy, concentrating on navigation-relevant keywords to reduce the impact of adversarial suffixes. While initial findings indicate that this strategy enhances navigational safety, there remains a critical need for the wider research community to develop stronger defense methods to effectively tackle the real-world challenges faced by these systems.

The aim of this paper is to extend the framework of causal inference, in particular as it has been developed by Judea Pearl, in order to model actions and identify their intended effects, in the direction opened by Elisabeth Anscombe. We show how intentions can be inferred from a causal model and its implied correlations observable in data. The paper defines confounding effects as the reasons why teleological inference may fail and introduces interference as a way to control for them. The ''fundamental problem'' of teleological inference is presented, explaining why causal analysis needs an extension in order to take intentions into account.