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

Events serve as fundamental units of occurrence within various contexts. The processing of event semantics in textual information forms the basis of numerous natural language processing (NLP) applications. Recent studies have begun leveraging large language models (LLMs) to address event semantic processing. However, the extent that LLMs can effectively tackle these challenges remains uncertain. Furthermore, the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework for event semantic processing poses a significant challenge in evaluating these capabilities. In this paper, we propose an overarching framework for event semantic processing, encompassing understanding, reasoning, and prediction, along with their fine-grained aspects. To comprehensively evaluate the event semantic processing abilities of models, we introduce a novel benchmark called EVEVAL. We collect 8 datasets that cover all aspects of event semantic processing. Extensive experiments are conducted on EVEVAL, leading to several noteworthy findings based on the obtained results.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have democratized synthetic data generation, which in turn has the potential to simplify and broaden a wide gamut of NLP tasks. Here, we tackle a pervasive problem in synthetic data generation: its generative distribution often differs from the distribution of real-world data researchers care about (in other words, it is unfaithful). In a case study on sarcasm detection, we study three strategies to increase the faithfulness of synthetic data: grounding, filtering, and taxonomy-based generation. We evaluate these strategies using the performance of classifiers trained with generated synthetic data on real-world data. While all three strategies improve the performance of classifiers, we find that grounding works best for the task at hand. As synthetic data generation plays an ever-increasing role in NLP research, we expect this work to be a stepping stone in improving its utility. We conclude this paper with some recommendations on how to generate high(er)-fidelity synthetic data for specific tasks.

With the emergence of more powerful large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and GPT-4, in-context learning (ICL) has gained significant prominence in leveraging these models for specific tasks by utilizing data-label pairs as precondition prompts. While incorporating demonstrations can greatly enhance the performance of LLMs across various tasks, it may introduce a new security concern: attackers can manipulate only the demonstrations without changing the input to perform an attack. In this paper, we investigate the security concern of ICL from an adversarial perspective, focusing on the impact of demonstrations. We propose an ICL attack based on TextAttack, which aims to only manipulate the demonstration without changing the input to mislead the models. Our results demonstrate that as the number of demonstrations increases, the robustness of in-context learning would decreases. Furthermore, we also observe that adversarially attacked demonstrations exhibit transferability to diverse input examples. These findings emphasize the critical security risks associated with ICL and underscore the necessity for extensive research on the robustness of ICL, particularly given its increasing significance in the advancement of LLMs.

The increasing scale of large language models (LLMs) brings emergent abilities to various complex tasks requiring reasoning, such as arithmetic and commonsense reasoning. It is known that the effective design of task-specific prompts is critical for LLMs' ability to produce high-quality answers. In particular, an effective approach for complex question-and-answer tasks is example-based prompting with chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, which significantly improves the performance of LLMs. However, current CoT methods rely on a fixed set of human-annotated exemplars, which are not necessarily the most effective examples for different tasks. This paper proposes a new method, Active-Prompt, to adapt LLMs to different tasks with task-specific example prompts (annotated with human-designed CoT reasoning). For this purpose, we propose a solution to the key problem of determining which questions are the most important and helpful ones to annotate from a pool of task-specific queries. By borrowing ideas from the related problem of uncertainty-based active learning, we introduce several metrics to characterize the uncertainty so as to select the most uncertain questions for annotation. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of our proposed method, achieving state-of-the-art on eight complex reasoning tasks. Further analyses of different uncertainty metrics, pool sizes, zero-shot learning, and accuracy-uncertainty relationship demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Our code will be available at //github.com/shizhediao/active-prompt.

OpenAI has released the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) and revolutionized the approach in artificial intelligence to human-model interaction. Several publications on ChatGPT evaluation test its effectiveness on well-known natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, the existing studies are mostly non-automated and tested on a very limited scale. In this work, we examined ChatGPT's capabilities on 25 diverse analytical NLP tasks, most of them subjective even to humans, such as sentiment analysis, emotion recognition, offensiveness, and stance detection. In contrast, the other tasks require more objective reasoning like word sense disambiguation, linguistic acceptability, and question answering. We also evaluated GPT-4 model on five selected subsets of NLP tasks. We automated ChatGPT and GPT-4 prompting process and analyzed more than 49k responses. Our comparison of its results with available State-of-the-Art (SOTA) solutions showed that the average loss in quality of the ChatGPT model was about 25% for zero-shot and few-shot evaluation. For GPT-4 model, a loss for semantic tasks is significantly lower than for ChatGPT. We showed that the more difficult the task (lower SOTA performance), the higher the ChatGPT loss. It especially refers to pragmatic NLP problems like emotion recognition. We also tested the ability to personalize ChatGPT responses for selected subjective tasks via Random Contextual Few-Shot Personalization, and we obtained significantly better user-based predictions. Additional qualitative analysis revealed a ChatGPT bias, most likely due to the rules imposed on human trainers by OpenAI. Our results provide the basis for a fundamental discussion of whether the high quality of recent predictive NLP models can indicate a tool's usefulness to society and how the learning and validation procedures for such systems should be established.

ChatGPT and GPT-4 have attracted substantial interest from both academic and industrial circles, owing to their remarkable few-shot (or even zero-shot) ability to handle various tasks. Recent work shows that, after being fine-tuned with a few sets of instruction-driven data, the recently proposed LLM, LLaMa, exhibits an impressive capability to address a broad range of tasks. However, the zero-shot performance of LLMs does not consistently outperform that of models fined-tuned for specific scenarios. To explore whether the capabilities of LLMs can be further enhanced for specific scenarios, we choose the writing-assistance scenario as the testbed, including seven writing tasks. We collect training data for these tasks, reframe them in an instruction-following format, and subsequently refine LLaMa via instruction tuning. Experimental results show that continually fine-tuning LLaMa on writing instruction data significantly improves its ability on writing tasks. We also conduct more experiments and analyses to offer insights for future work on effectively fine-tuning LLaMa for specific scenarios.

Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, are prone to generate hallucinations, \ie content that conflicts with the source or cannot be verified by the factual knowledge. To understand what types of content and to which extent LLMs are apt to hallucinate, we introduce the Hallucination Evaluation for Large Language Models (HaluEval) benchmark, a large collection of generated and human-annotated hallucinated samples for evaluating the performance of LLMs in recognizing hallucination. To generate these samples, we propose a ChatGPT-based two-step framework, \ie sampling-then-filtering. Besides, we also hire some human labelers to annotate the hallucinations in ChatGPT responses. The empirical results suggest that ChatGPT is likely to generate hallucinated content in specific topics by fabricating unverifiable information (\ie about $11.4\%$ user queries). Moreover, existing LLMs face great challenges in recognizing the hallucinations in texts. While, our experiments also prove that the hallucination recognition can be improved by providing external knowledge or adding reasoning steps. Our benchmark can be accessed at //github.com/RUCAIBox/HaluEval.

Speech language models (SpeechLMs) process and generate acoustic data only, without textual supervision. In this work, we propose TWIST, a method for training SpeechLMs using a warm-start from a pretrained textual language models. We show using both automatic and human evaluations that TWIST outperforms a cold-start SpeechLM across the board. We empirically analyze the effect of different model design choices such as the speech tokenizer, the pretrained textual model, and the dataset size. We find that model and dataset scale both play an important role in constructing better-performing SpeechLMs. Based on our observations, we present the largest (to the best of our knowledge) SpeechLM both in terms of number of parameters and training data. We additionally introduce two spoken versions of the StoryCloze textual benchmark to further improve model evaluation and advance future research in the field. Speech samples can be found on our website: //pages.cs.huji.ac.il/adiyoss-lab/twist/ .

To support software developers in understanding and maintaining programs, various automatic code summarization techniques have been proposed to generate a concise natural language comment for a given code snippet. Recently, the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has led to a great boost in the performance of natural language processing tasks. Among them, ChatGPT is the most popular one which has attracted wide attention from the software engineering community. However, it still remains unclear how ChatGPT performs in (automatic) code summarization. Therefore, in this paper, we focus on evaluating ChatGPT on a widely-used Python dataset called CSN-Python and comparing it with several state-of-the-art (SOTA) code summarization models. Specifically, we first explore an appropriate prompt to guide ChatGPT to generate in-distribution comments. Then, we use such a prompt to ask ChatGPT to generate comments for all code snippets in the CSN-Python test set. We adopt three widely-used metrics (including BLEU, METEOR, and ROUGE-L) to measure the quality of the comments generated by ChatGPT and SOTA models (including NCS, CodeBERT, and CodeT5). The experimental results show that in terms of BLEU and ROUGE-L, ChatGPT's code summarization performance is significantly worse than all three SOTA models. We also present some cases and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of ChatGPT in code summarization. Based on the findings, we outline several open challenges and opportunities in ChatGPT-based code summarization.

Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, are prone to generate hallucinations, \ie content that conflicts with the source or cannot be verified by the factual knowledge. To understand what types of content and to which extent LLMs are apt to hallucinate, we introduce the Hallucination Evaluation for Large Language Models (HELMA) benchmark, a large collection of generated and human-annotated hallucinated samples for evaluating the performance of LLMs in recognizing and alleviating hallucination. To generate these samples, we propose a ChatGPT-based two-step framework, \ie sampling-then-filtering. Specifically, we first adopt two different sampling methods to generate hallucinated samples based on instructions, and then use an example-enhanced filtering method to select the best one. Furthermore, we also hire some human labelers to annotate the hallucinations in ChatGPT responses. The empirical results suggest that ChatGPT has some probabilities to generate hallucinations and existing LLMs face great challenges in recognizing the hallucinations in text. In addition, the performance can be improved by providing external knowledge or adding reasoning steps. Our benchmark can be accessed at //github.com/RUCAIBox/HELMA.