Moral foundations theory (MFT) is a psychological assessment tool that decomposes human moral reasoning into five factors, including care/harm, liberty/oppression, and sanctity/degradation (Graham et al., 2009). People vary in the weight they place on these dimensions when making moral decisions, in part due to their cultural upbringing and political ideology. As large language models (LLMs) are trained on datasets collected from the internet, they may reflect the biases that are present in such corpora. This paper uses MFT as a lens to analyze whether popular LLMs have acquired a bias towards a particular set of moral values. We analyze known LLMs and find they exhibit particular moral foundations, and show how these relate to human moral foundations and political affiliations. We also measure the consistency of these biases, or whether they vary strongly depending on the context of how the model is prompted. Finally, we show that we can adversarially select prompts that encourage the moral to exhibit a particular set of moral foundations, and that this can affect the model’s behavior on downstream tasks. These findings help illustrate the potential risks and unintended consequences of LLMs assuming a particular moral stance.

Despite recent advances in multimodal pre-training for visual description, state-of-the-art models still produce captions containing errors, such as hallucinating objects not present in a scene. The existing prominent metric for object hallucination, CHAIR, is limited to a fixed set of MS COCO objects and synonyms. In this work, we propose a modernized open-vocabulary metric, ALOHa, which leverages large language models (LLMs) to measure object hallucinations. Specifically, we use an LLM to extract groundable objects from a candidate caption, measure their semantic similarity to reference objects from captions and object detections, and use Hungarian matching to produce a final hallucination score. We show that ALOHa correctly identifies 13.6% more hallucinated objects than CHAIR on HAT, a new gold-standard subset of MS COCO Captions annotated for hallucinations, and 30.8% more on nocaps, where objects extend beyond MS COCO categories.

Traditional automated metrics for evaluating conditional natural language generation rely on pairwise comparisons between a single generated text and the best-matching gold-standard reference. This method is effective when ground truth data diversity can be attributed to noise, however, it falls short when diversity in references holds valuable contextual information, as in visual description or summarization, as it does not evaluate the ability of a model to generate text matching the diversity of the ground truth samples. In this paper, we challenge the adequacy of existing metrics in such semantically diverse contexts and introduce a novel approach for evaluating conditional language generation models, leveraging a family of meta-metrics that build on existing pairwise distance functions. These meta-metrics assess not just single-samples, but distributions of reference and model-generated captions using small sample sets. We demonstrate our approach through a case study of visual description in the English language which reveals not only how current models prioritize single-description quality over diversity, but further sheds light on the impact of sampling methods and temperature settings on description quality and diversity.

If you ask a human to describe an image, they might do so in a thousand different ways. Traditionally, image captioning models are trained to generate a single “best’ (most like a reference) image caption. Unfortunately, doing so encourages captions that are “informationally impoverished,’ and focus on only a subset of the possible details, while ignoring other potentially useful information in the scene. In this work, we introduce a simple, yet novel, method: “Image Captioning by Committee Consensus’ (IC3), designed to generate a single caption that captures high-level details from several annotator viewpoints. Humans rate captions produced by IC3 at least as helpful as baseline SOTA models more than two thirds of the time, and IC3 can improve the performance of SOTA automated recall systems by up to 84%, outperforming single human-generated reference captions, and indicating significant improvements over SOTA approaches for visual description. Code is available at [https://davidmchan.github.io/caption-by-committee/](https://davidmchan.github.io/caption-by-committee/)

The evaluation of machine-generated image captions poses an interesting yet persistent challenge. Effective evaluation measures must consider numerous dimensions of similarity, including semantic relevance, visual structure, object interactions, caption diversity, and specificity. Existing highly-engineered measures attempt to capture specific aspects, but fall short in providing a holistic score that aligns closely with human judgments. Here, we propose CLAIR, a novel method that leverages the zero-shot language modeling capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to evaluate candidate captions. In our evaluations, CLAIR demonstrates a stronger correlation with human judgments of caption quality compared to existing measures. Notably, on Flickr8K-Expert, CLAIR achieves relative correlation improvements over SPICE of 39.6% and over image-augmented methods such as RefCLIP-S of 18.3%. Moreover, CLAIR provides noisily interpretable results by allowing the language model to identify the underlying reasoning behind its assigned score.

This work presents a new approach to unsupervised abstractive summarization based on maximizing a combination of coverage and fluency for a given length constraint. It introduces a novel method that encourages the inclusion of key terms from the original document into the summary: key terms are masked out of the original document and must be filled in by a coverage model using the current generated summary. A novel unsupervised training procedure leverages this coverage model along with a fluency model to generate and score summaries. When tested on popular news summarization datasets, the method outperforms previous unsupervised methods by more than 2 R-1 points, and approaches results of competitive supervised methods. Our model attains higher levels of abstraction with copied passages roughly two times shorter than prior work, and learns to compress and merge sentences without supervision.

This work describes an automatic news chatbot that draws content from a diverse set of news articles and creates conversations with a user about the news. Key components of the system include the automatic organization of news articles into topical chatrooms, integration of automatically generated questions into the conversation, and a novel method for choosing which questions to present which avoids repetitive suggestions. We describe the algorithmic framework and present the results of a usability study that shows that news readers using the system successfully engage in multi-turn conversations about specific news stories.