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

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their prowess in generating synthetic text and images; however, their potential for generating tabular data -- arguably the most common data type in business and scientific applications -- is largely underexplored. This paper demonstrates that LLMs, used as-is, or after traditional fine-tuning, are severely inadequate as synthetic table generators. Due to the autoregressive nature of LLMs, fine-tuning with random order permutation runs counter to the importance of modeling functional dependencies, and renders LLMs unable to model conditional mixtures of distributions (key to capturing real world constraints). We showcase how LLMs can be made to overcome some of these deficiencies by making them permutation-aware.

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have recently dramatically pushed the state of the art in image captioning and many image understanding tasks (e.g., visual question answering). LVLMs, however, often \textit{hallucinate} and produce captions that mention concepts that cannot be found in the image. These hallucinations erode the trustworthiness of LVLMs and are arguably among the main obstacles to their ubiquitous adoption. Recent work suggests that addition of grounding objectives -- those that explicitly align image regions or objects to text spans -- reduces the amount of LVLM hallucination. Although intuitive, this claim is not empirically justified as the reduction effects have been established, we argue, with flawed evaluation protocols that (i) rely on data (i.e., MSCOCO) that has been extensively used in LVLM training and (ii) measure hallucination via question answering rather than open-ended caption generation. In this work, in contrast, we offer the first systematic analysis of the effect of fine-grained object grounding on LVLM hallucination under an evaluation protocol that more realistically captures LVLM hallucination in open generation. Our extensive experiments over three backbone LLMs reveal that grounding objectives have little to no effect on object hallucination in open caption generation.

Going beyond mere fine-tuning of vision-language models (VLMs), learnable prompt tuning has emerged as a promising, resource-efficient alternative. Despite their potential, effectively learning prompts faces the following challenges: (i) training in a low-shot scenario results in overfitting, limiting adaptability, and yielding weaker performance on newer classes or datasets; (ii) prompt-tuning's efficacy heavily relies on the label space, with decreased performance in large class spaces, signaling potential gaps in bridging image and class concepts. In this work, we investigate whether better text semantics can help address these concerns. In particular, we introduce a prompt-tuning method that leverages class descriptions obtained from Large Language Models (LLMs). These class descriptions are used to bridge image and text modalities. Our approach constructs part-level description-guided image and text features, which are subsequently aligned to learn more generalizable prompts. Our comprehensive experiments conducted across 11 benchmark datasets show that our method outperforms established methods, demonstrating substantial improvements.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate an impressive ability to internalize knowledge and answer natural language questions. Although previous studies validate that LLMs perform well on general knowledge while presenting poor performance on long-tail nuanced knowledge, the community is still doubtful about whether the traditional knowledge graphs should be replaced by LLMs. In this paper, we ask if the schema of knowledge graph (i.e., taxonomy) is made obsolete by LLMs. Intuitively, LLMs should perform well on common taxonomies and at taxonomy levels that are common to people. Unfortunately, there lacks a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates the LLMs over a wide range of taxonomies from common to specialized domains and at levels from root to leaf so that we can draw a confident conclusion. To narrow the research gap, we constructed a novel taxonomy hierarchical structure discovery benchmark named TaxoGlimpse to evaluate the performance of LLMs over taxonomies. TaxoGlimpse covers ten representative taxonomies from common to specialized domains with in-depth experiments of different levels of entities in this taxonomy from root to leaf. Our comprehensive experiments of eighteen state-of-the-art LLMs under three prompting settings validate that LLMs can still not well capture the knowledge of specialized taxonomies and leaf-level entities.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities, but still suffer from inconsistency issues (e.g. LLMs can react differently to disturbances like rephrasing or inconsequential order change). In addition to these inconsistencies, we also observe that LLMs, while capable of solving hard problems, can paradoxically fail at easier ones. To evaluate this hard-to-easy inconsistency, we develop the ConsisEval benchmark, where each entry comprises a pair of questions with a strict order of difficulty. Furthermore, we introduce the concept of consistency score to quantitatively measure this inconsistency and analyze the potential for improvement in consistency by relative consistency score. Based on comprehensive experiments across a variety of existing models, we find: (1) GPT-4 achieves the highest consistency score of 92.2\% but is still inconsistent to specific questions due to distraction by redundant information, misinterpretation of questions, etc.; (2) models with stronger capabilities typically exhibit higher consistency, but exceptions also exist; (3) hard data enhances consistency for both fine-tuning and in-context learning. Our data and code will be publicly available on GitHub.

Language models (LMs) are known to represent the perspectives of some social groups better than others, which may impact their performance, especially on subjective tasks such as content moderation and hate speech detection. To explore how LMs represent different perspectives, existing research focused on positional alignment, i.e., how closely the models mimic the opinions and stances of different groups, e.g., liberals or conservatives. However, human communication also encompasses emotional and moral dimensions. We define the problem of affective alignment, which measures how LMs' emotional and moral tone represents those of different groups. By comparing the affect of responses generated by 36 LMs to the affect of Twitter messages, we observe significant misalignment of LMs with both ideological groups. This misalignment is larger than the partisan divide in the U.S. Even after steering the LMs towards specific ideological perspectives, the misalignment and liberal tendencies of the model persist, suggesting a systemic bias within LMs.

Despite the recent observation that large language models (LLMs) can store substantial factual knowledge, there is a limited understanding of the mechanisms of how they acquire factual knowledge through pretraining. This work addresses this gap by studying how LLMs acquire factual knowledge during pretraining. The findings reveal several important insights into the dynamics of factual knowledge acquisition during pretraining. First, counterintuitively, we observe that pretraining on more data shows no significant improvement in the model's capability to acquire and maintain factual knowledge. Next, there is a power-law relationship between training steps and forgetting of memorization and generalization of factual knowledge, and LLMs trained with duplicated training data exhibit faster forgetting. Third, training LLMs with larger batch sizes can enhance the models' robustness to forgetting. Overall, our observations suggest that factual knowledge acquisition in LLM pretraining occurs by progressively increasing the probability of factual knowledge presented in the pretraining data at each step. However, this increase is diluted by subsequent forgetting. Based on this interpretation, we demonstrate that we can provide plausible explanations for recently observed behaviors of LLMs, such as the poor performance of LLMs on long-tail knowledge and the benefits of deduplicating the pretraining corpus.

Ensuring that large language models (LLMs) reflect diverse user values and preferences is crucial as their user bases expand globally. It is therefore encouraging to see the growing interest in LLM personalization within the research community. However, current works often rely on the LLM-as-a-Judge approach for evaluation without thoroughly examining its validity. In this paper, we investigate the reliability of LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge, asking LLMs to judge user preferences based on personas. Our findings suggest that directly applying LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge is less reliable than previously assumed, showing low and inconsistent agreement with human ground truth. The personas typically used are often overly simplistic, resulting in low predictive power. To address these issues, we introduce verbal uncertainty estimation into the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge pipeline, allowing the model to express low confidence on uncertain judgments. This adjustment leads to much higher agreement (above 80%) on high-certainty samples for binary tasks. Through human evaluation, we find that the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge achieves comparable performance to third-party humans evaluation and even surpasses human performance on high-certainty samples. Our work indicates that certainty-enhanced LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge offers a promising direction for developing more reliable and scalable methods for evaluating LLM personalization.

Feature attribution methods are popular in interpretable machine learning. These methods compute the attribution of each input feature to represent its importance, but there is no consensus on the definition of "attribution", leading to many competing methods with little systematic evaluation, complicated in particular by the lack of ground truth attribution. To address this, we propose a dataset modification procedure to induce such ground truth. Using this procedure, we evaluate three common methods: saliency maps, rationales, and attentions. We identify several deficiencies and add new perspectives to the growing body of evidence questioning the correctness and reliability of these methods applied on datasets in the wild. We further discuss possible avenues for remedy and recommend new attribution methods to be tested against ground truth before deployment. The code is available at \url{//github.com/YilunZhou/feature-attribution-evaluation}.

Non-convex optimization is ubiquitous in modern machine learning. Researchers devise non-convex objective functions and optimize them using off-the-shelf optimizers such as stochastic gradient descent and its variants, which leverage the local geometry and update iteratively. Even though solving non-convex functions is NP-hard in the worst case, the optimization quality in practice is often not an issue -- optimizers are largely believed to find approximate global minima. Researchers hypothesize a unified explanation for this intriguing phenomenon: most of the local minima of the practically-used objectives are approximately global minima. We rigorously formalize it for concrete instances of machine learning problems.