Augmented Language Models (ALMs) empower large language models with the ability to use tools, transforming them into intelligent agents for real-world interactions. However, most existing frameworks for ALMs, to varying degrees, are deficient in the following critical features: flexible customization, collaborative democratization, and holistic evaluation. This paper proposes Gentopia, a lightweight and extensible framework for ALMs. Gentopia allows the flexible customization of agents through simple configurations, seamlessly integrating various language models, task formats, prompting modules, and plugins into a unified paradigm. Furthermore, we establish Gentpool, a public platform enabling the registration and sharing of user-customized agents. Agents registered in Gentpool are composable such that they can be assembled together for agent collaboration, advancing the democratization of artificial intelligence. To ensure high-quality agents, Gentbench, an integral component of Gentpool, is designed to thoroughly evaluate user-customized agents across diverse aspects such as safety, robustness, efficiency, etc. We release Gentopia on Github and will continuously move forward.
Existing self-explaining models typically favor extracting the shortest possible rationales — snippets of an input text “responsible for” corresponding output — to explain the model prediction, with the assumption that shorter rationales are more intuitive to humans. However, this assumption has yet to be validated. Is the shortest rationale indeed the most human-understandable? To answer this question, we design a self-explaining model, LimitedInk, which allows users to extract rationales at any target length. Compared to existing baselines, LimitedInk achieves compatible end-task performance and human-annotated rationale agreement, making it a suitable representation of the recent class of self-explaining models. We use LimitedInk to conduct a user study on the impact of rationale length, where we ask human judges to predict the sentiment label of documents based only on LimitedInk-generated rationales with different lengths. We show rationales that are too short do not help humans predict labels better than randomly masked text, suggesting the need for more careful design of the best human rationales.