Long-form generations from large language models (LLMs) contain a mix of factual and non-factual claims, making evaluating factuality difficult.Prior works evaluate the factuality of a long paragraph by decomposing it into multiple facts, verifying those facts independently, and aggregating the results.Such methods assume that combining factual claims forms a factual paragraph.The above assumption can be violated: we show that strong open-source models like Llama-chat can generate paragraphs that contain verifiable facts, but the facts are combined into a non-factual paragraph due to entity ambiguity.We further reveal that existing factuality metrics, including FActScore and citation recall, cannot properly evaluate these non-factual paragraphs and overestimate their factuality.To address this, we introduce an enhanced metric, **D-FActScore**, specifically designed for content with ambiguous entities.We evaluate the D-FActScores of people biographies generated by retrieval-augmented LLMs.We show that D-FActScore can better assess the factuality of paragraphs with entity ambiguity than FActScore.We also find that four widely used open-source LLMs tend to mix information of distinct entities to form non-factual paragraphs, making their D-FActScore much lower than FActScore by over 10%.

Large language models (LLMs) can solve problems step-by-step.While this chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning boosts LLMs’ performance, it is unclear if LLMs know when to use CoT and whether those CoT are always necessary to answer the question. This paper shows that LLMs tend to generate redundant calculations and reasoning on a manually constructed math QA dataset, GSM8K-Zero.GSM8K-Zero is constructed such that the questions can be answered without any calculations, but LLMs, including Llama-2 models and Claude-2, tend to generate lengthy and unnecessary calculations to answer the questions.We also conduct experiments to explain why LLMs generate redundant calculations and reasonings.

In spoken dialogue, even if two current turns are the same sentence, their responses might still differ when they are spoken in different styles. The spoken styles, containing paralinguistic and prosodic information, mark the most significant difference between text and speech modality. When using text-only LLMs to model spoken dialogue, text-only LLMs cannot give different responses based on the speaking style of the current turn. In this paper, we focus on enabling LLMs to listen to the speaking styles and respond properly. Our goal is to teach the LLM that “even if the sentences are identical if they are spoken in different styles, their corresponding responses might be different”. Since there is no suitable dataset for achieving this goal, we collect a speech-to-speech dataset, StyleTalk, with the following desired characteristics: when two current speeches have the same content but are spoken in different styles, their responses will be different. To teach LLMs to understand and respond properly to the speaking styles, we propose the Spoken-LLM framework that can model the linguistic content and the speaking styles. We train Spoken-LLM using the StyleTalk dataset and devise a two-stage training pipeline to help the Spoken-LLM better learn the speaking styles. Based on extensive experiments, we show that Spoken-LLM outperforms text-only baselines and prior speech LLMs methods.

Human evaluation is indispensable and inevitable for assessing the quality of texts generated by machine learning models or written by humans. However, human evaluation is very difficult to reproduce and its quality is notoriously unstable, hindering fair comparisons among different natural language processing (NLP) models and algorithms. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. In this paper, we explore if such an ability of the LLMs can be used as an alternative to human evaluation. We present the LLMs with the exact same instructions, samples to be evaluated, and questions used to conduct human evaluation, and then ask the LLMs to generate responses to those questions; we dub this LLM evaluation. We use human evaluation and LLM evaluation to evaluate the texts in two NLP tasks: open-ended story generation and adversarial attacks. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation: the texts rated higher by human experts are also rated higher by the LLMs.We also find that the results of LLM evaluation are stable over different formatting of the task instructions and the sampling algorithm used to generate the answer. We are the first to show the potential of using LLMs to assess the quality of texts and discuss the limitations and ethical considerations of LLM evaluation.

In this paper, we explore the following question: Are synonym substitution attacks really synonym substitution attacks (SSAs)?We approach this question by examining how SSAs replace words in the original sentence and show that there are still unresolved obstacles that make current SSAs generate invalid adversarial samples. We reveal that four widely used word substitution methods generate a large fraction of invalid substitution words that are ungrammatical or do not preserve the original sentence’s semantics. Next, we show that the semantic and grammatical constraints used in SSAs for detecting invalid word replacements are highly insufficient in detecting invalid adversarial samples.

Using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate text quality has recently gained popularity. Some existing prior works explore the idea of using LLMs for evaluation, while they differ in some details of the evaluation process. In this paper, we analyze *LLM evaluation* and *G-Eval*, and we discuss how those details in the evaluation process change how well the ratings given by LLMs correlate with human ratings. We find that the auto Chain-of-Thought (CoT) used in G-Eval does not always make G-Eval more aligned with human ratings. We also show that forcing the LLM to output only a numeric rating, as in G-Eval, is suboptimal. Last, we reveal that asking the LLM to explain its own ratings consistently improves the correlation between the ChatGPT and human ratings and pushes state-of-the-art (SoTA) correlations on two meta-evaluation datasets.

Pre-trained language models (PLMs) are language models that are pre-trained on large-scaled corpora in a self-supervised fashion. These PLMs have fundamentally changed the natural language processing community in the past few years. In this tutorial, we aim to provide a broad and comprehensive introduction from two perspectives: why those PLMs work, and how to use them in NLP tasks. The first part of the tutorial shows some insightful analysis on PLMs that partially explain their exceptional downstream performance. The second part first focuses on emerging pre-training methods that enable PLMs to perform diverse downstream tasks and then illustrates how one can apply those PLMs to downstream tasks under different circumstances. These circumstances include fine-tuning PLMs when under data scarcity, and using PLMs with parameter efficiency. We believe that attendees of different backgrounds would find this tutorial informative and useful.

While behaviors of pretrained language models (LMs) have been thoroughly examined, what happened during pretraining is rarely studied. We thus investigate the developmental process from a set of randomly initialized parameters to a totipotent language model, which we refer to as the embryology of a pretrained language model. Our results show that ALBERT learns to reconstruct and predict tokens of different parts of speech (POS) in different learning speeds during pretraining. We also find that linguistic knowledge and world knowledge do not generally improve as pretraining proceeds, nor do downstream tasks’ performance. These findings suggest that knowledge of a pretrained model varies during pretraining, and having more pretrain steps does not necessarily provide a model with more comprehensive knowledge. We provide source codes and pretrained models to reproduce our results at https://github.com/d223302/albert-embryology.