We propose a method to determine whether a given article was entirely written by a generative language model versus an alternative situation in which the article includes some significant edits by a different author, possibly a human. Our process involves many perplexity tests for the origin of individual sentences or other text atoms, combining these multiple tests using Higher Criticism (HC). As a by-product, the method identifies parts suspected to be edited. The method is motivated by the convergence of the log-perplexity to the cross-entropy rate and by a statistical model for edited text saying that sentences are mostly generated by the language model, except perhaps for a few sentences that might have originated via a different mechanism. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method using real data and analyze the factors affecting its success. This analysis raises several interesting open challenges whose resolution may improve the method's effectiveness.
Finding preferences expressed in natural language is an important but challenging task. State-of-the-art(SotA) methods leverage transformer-based models such as BERT, RoBERTa, etc. and graph neural architectures such as graph attention networks. Since Large Language Models (LLMs) are equipped to deal with larger context lengths and have much larger model sizes than the transformer-based model, we investigate their ability to classify comparative text directly. This work aims to serve as a first step towards using LLMs for the CPC task. We design and conduct a set of experiments that format the classification task into an input prompt for the LLM and a methodology to get a fixed-format response that can be automatically evaluated. Comparing performances with existing methods, we see that pre-trained LLMs are able to outperform the previous SotA models with no fine-tuning involved. Our results show that the LLMs can consistently outperform the SotA when the target text is large -- i.e. composed of multiple sentences --, and are still comparable to the SotA performance in shorter text. We also find that few-shot learning yields better performance than zero-shot learning.
Large language models are a form of artificial intelligence systems whose primary knowledge consists of the statistical patterns, semantic relationships, and syntactical structures of language1. Despite their limited forms of "knowledge", these systems are adept at numerous complex tasks including creative writing, storytelling, translation, question-answering, summarization, and computer code generation. However, they have yet to demonstrate advanced applications in natural science. Here we show how large language models can perform scientific synthesis, inference, and explanation. We present a method for using general-purpose large language models to make inferences from scientific datasets of the form usually associated with special-purpose machine learning algorithms. We show that the large language model can augment this "knowledge" by synthesizing from the scientific literature. When a conventional machine learning system is augmented with this synthesized and inferred knowledge it can outperform the current state of the art across a range of benchmark tasks for predicting molecular properties. This approach has the further advantage that the large language model can explain the machine learning system's predictions. We anticipate that our framework will open new avenues for AI to accelerate the pace of scientific discovery.
Evaluating the factuality of long-form text generated by large language models (LMs) is non-trivial because (1) generations often contain a mixture of supported and unsupported pieces of information, making binary judgments of quality inadequate, and (2) human evaluation is time-consuming and costly. In this paper, we introduce FACTSCORE, a new evaluation that breaks a generation into a series of atomic facts and computes the percentage of atomic facts supported by a reliable knowledge source. We conduct an extensive human evaluation to obtain FACTSCOREs of people biographies generated by several state-of-the-art commercial LMs -- InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and the retrieval-augmented PerplexityAI -- and report new analysis demonstrating the need for such a fine-grained score (e.g., ChatGPT only achieves 58%). Since human evaluation is costly, we also introduce an automated model that estimates FACTSCORE using retrieval and a strong language model, with less than a 2% error rate. Finally, we use this automated metric to evaluate 6,500 generations from a new set of 13 recent LMs that would have cost $26K if evaluated by humans, with various findings: GPT-4 and ChatGPT are more factual than public models, and Vicuna and Alpaca are some of the best public models. FACTSCORE is available for public use via `pip install factscore`.
Exploring alternative ideas by rewriting text is integral to the writing process. State-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) can simplify writing variation generation. However, current interfaces pose challenges for simultaneous consideration of multiple variations: creating new versions without overwriting text can be difficult, and pasting them sequentially can clutter documents, increasing workload and disrupting writers' flow. To tackle this, we present ABScribe, an interface that supports rapid, yet visually structured, exploration of writing variations in human-AI co-writing tasks. With ABScribe, users can swiftly produce multiple variations using LLM prompts, which are auto-converted into reusable buttons. Variations are stored adjacently within text segments for rapid in-place comparisons using mouse-over interactions on a context toolbar. Our user study with 12 writers shows that ABScribe significantly reduces task workload (d = 1.20, p < 0.001), enhances user perceptions of the revision process (d = 2.41, p < 0.001) compared to a popular baseline workflow, and provides insights into how writers explore variations using LLMs.
This paper presents a qualitative study that investigates the effects of some language choices in expressing the trigger part of a trigger-action rule on the users' mental models. Specifically, we explored how 11 non-programmer participants articulated the definition of trigger-action rules in different contexts by choosing among alternative conjunctions, verbal structures, and order of primitives. Our study shed some new light on how lexical choices influence the users' mental models in End-User Development tasks. Specifically, the conjunction "as soon as" clearly supports the idea of instantaneousness, and the conjunction "while" the idea of protractedness of an event; the most commonly used "if" and "when", instead, are prone to create ambiguity in the mental representation of events. The order of rule elements helps participants to construct accurate mental models. Usually, individuals are facilitated in comprehension when the trigger is displayed at the beginning of the rule, even though sometimes the reverse order (with the action first) is preferred as it conveys the central element of the rule.
With the increasing capabilities of large language models (LLMs), these high-performance models have achieved state-of-the-art results on a wide range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, the models' performance on commonly-used benchmark datasets often fails to accurately reflect their reliability and robustness when applied to real-world noisy data. To address these challenges, we propose a unified robustness evaluation framework based on the slot-filling task to systematically evaluate the dialogue understanding capability of LLMs in diverse input perturbation scenarios. Specifically, we construct a input perturbation evaluation dataset, Noise-LLM, which contains five types of single perturbation and four types of mixed perturbation data. Furthermore, we utilize a multi-level data augmentation method (character, word, and sentence levels) to construct a candidate data pool, and carefully design two ways of automatic task demonstration construction strategies (instance-level and entity-level) with various prompt templates. Our aim is to assess how well various robustness methods of LLMs perform in real-world noisy scenarios. The experiments have demonstrated that the current open-source LLMs generally achieve limited perturbation robustness performance. Based on these experimental observations, we make some forward-looking suggestions to fuel the research in this direction.
Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the field of natural language processing (NLP), providing a highly useful, task-agnostic foundation for a wide range of applications. The great promise of LLMs as general task solvers motivated people to extend their functionality largely beyond just a ``chatbot'', and use it as an assistant or even replacement for domain experts and tools in specific domains such as healthcare, finance, and education. However, directly applying LLMs to solve sophisticated problems in specific domains meets many hurdles, caused by the heterogeneity of domain data, the sophistication of domain knowledge, the uniqueness of domain objectives, and the diversity of the constraints (e.g., various social norms, cultural conformity, religious beliefs, and ethical standards in the domain applications). To fill such a gap, explosively-increase research, and practices have been conducted in very recent years on the domain specialization of LLMs, which, however, calls for a comprehensive and systematic review to better summarizes and guide this promising domain. In this survey paper, first, we propose a systematic taxonomy that categorizes the LLM domain-specialization techniques based on the accessibility to LLMs and summarizes the framework for all the subcategories as well as their relations and differences to each other. We also present a comprehensive taxonomy of critical application domains that can benefit from specialized LLMs, discussing their practical significance and open challenges. Furthermore, we offer insights into the current research status and future trends in this area.
Recent VQA models may tend to rely on language bias as a shortcut and thus fail to sufficiently learn the multi-modal knowledge from both vision and language. In this paper, we investigate how to capture and mitigate language bias in VQA. Motivated by causal effects, we proposed a novel counterfactual inference framework, which enables us to capture the language bias as the direct causal effect of questions on answers and reduce the language bias by subtracting the direct language effect from the total causal effect. Experiments demonstrate that our proposed counterfactual inference framework 1) is general to various VQA backbones and fusion strategies, 2) achieves competitive performance on the language-bias sensitive VQA-CP dataset while performs robustly on the balanced VQA v2 dataset.
Pre-trained language representation models, such as BERT, capture a general language representation from large-scale corpora, but lack domain-specific knowledge. When reading a domain text, experts make inferences with relevant knowledge. For machines to achieve this capability, we propose a knowledge-enabled language representation model (K-BERT) with knowledge graphs (KGs), in which triples are injected into the sentences as domain knowledge. However, too much knowledge incorporation may divert the sentence from its correct meaning, which is called knowledge noise (KN) issue. To overcome KN, K-BERT introduces soft-position and visible matrix to limit the impact of knowledge. K-BERT can easily inject domain knowledge into the models by equipped with a KG without pre-training by-self because it is capable of loading model parameters from the pre-trained BERT. Our investigation reveals promising results in twelve NLP tasks. Especially in domain-specific tasks (including finance, law, and medicine), K-BERT significantly outperforms BERT, which demonstrates that K-BERT is an excellent choice for solving the knowledge-driven problems that require experts.
In order to answer natural language questions over knowledge graphs, most processing pipelines involve entity and relation linking. Traditionally, entity linking and relation linking has been performed either as dependent sequential tasks or independent parallel tasks. In this paper, we propose a framework called "EARL", which performs entity linking and relation linking as a joint single task. EARL uses a graph connection based solution to the problem. We model the linking task as an instance of the Generalised Travelling Salesman Problem (GTSP) and use GTSP approximate algorithm solutions. We later develop EARL which uses a pair-wise graph-distance based solution to the problem.The system determines the best semantic connection between all keywords of the question by referring to a knowledge graph. This is achieved by exploiting the "connection density" between entity candidates and relation candidates. The "connection density" based solution performs at par with the approximate GTSP solution.We have empirically evaluated the framework on a dataset with 5000 questions. Our system surpasses state-of-the-art scores for entity linking task by reporting an accuracy of 0.65 to 0.40 from the next best entity linker.