Before being deployed for user-facing applications, developers align Large Language Models (LLMs) to user preferences through a variety of procedures, such as Reinforcement Learning From Human Feedback (RLHF) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Current evaluations of these procedures focus on benchmarks of instruction following, reasoning, and truthfulness. However, human preferences are not universal, and aligning to specific preference sets may have unintended effects. We explore how alignment impacts performance along three axes of global representation: English dialects, multilingualism, and opinions from and about countries worldwide. Our results show that current alignment procedures create disparities between English dialects and global opinions. We find alignment improves capabilities in several languages. We conclude by discussing design decisions that led to these unintended impacts and recommendations for more equitable preference tuning. We make our code and data publicly available on Github.

As the reach of large language models (LMs) expands globally, their ability to cater to diverse cultural contexts becomes crucial. Despite advancements in multilingual capabilities, models are not designed with appropriate cultural nuances. In this paper, we show that multilingual and Arabic monolingual LMs exhibit bias towards entities associated with Western culture. We introduce CAMeL, a novel resource of 628 naturally-occurring prompts and 20,368 entities spanning eight types that contrast Arab and Western cultures. CAMeL provides a foundation for measuring cultural biases in LMs through both extrinsic and intrinsic evaluations. Using CAMeL, we examine the cross-cultural performance in Arabic of 16 different LMs on tasks such as story generation, NER, and sentiment analysis, where we find concerning cases of stereotyping and cultural unfairness. We further test their text-infilling performance, revealing the incapability of appropriate adaptation to Arab cultural contexts. Finally, we analyze 6 Arabic pre-training corpora and find that commonly used sources such as Wikipedia may not be best suited to build culturally aware LMs, if used as they are without adjustment. We will make CAMeL publicly available at: https://github.com/tareknaous/camel

Recent advancements in high-quality, large-scale English resources have pushed the frontier of English Automatic Text Simplification (ATS) research. However, less work has been done on multilingual text simplification due to the lack of a diverse evaluation benchmark that covers complex-simple sentence pairs in many languages. This paper introduces the MultiSim benchmark, a collection of 27 resources in 12 distinct languages containing over 1.7 million complex-simple sentence pairs. This benchmark will encourage research in developing more effective multilingual text simplification models and evaluation metrics. Our experiments using MultiSim with pre-trained multilingual language models reveal exciting performance improvements from multilingual training in non-English settings. We observe strong performance from Russian in zero-shot cross-lingual transfer to low-resource languages. We further show that few-shot prompting with BLOOM-176b achieves comparable quality to reference simplifications outperforming fine-tuned models in most languages. We validate these findings through human evaluation.

Authorship verification is the task of, given a document and a candi- date author, determining whether or not the document was written by the candi- date author. Traditional approaches to authorship verification have revolved around a “candidate author vs. everything else” approach. Thus, perhaps the most important aspect of performing authorship verification on a document is the development of an appropriate distractor set to represent “everything not the candidate author”. The validity of the results of such experiments hinges on the ability to develop an appropriately representative set of distractor documents. Here, we propose a method for performing authorship verification without the use of a distractor set. Using only training data from the candidate author, we are able to perform authorship verification with high confidence (greater than 90% accuracy rates across a large corpus).