Increasingly, model compression techniques enable large language models (LLMs) to be deployed in real-world applications. As a result of this momentum towards local deployment, compressed LLMs will interact with a large population. Prior work on compression typically prioritize preserving perplexity, which is directly analogous to training loss. The impact of compression method on other critical aspects of model behavior—particularly safety—requires systematic assessment. To this end, we investigate the impact of model compression along four dimensions: (1) degeneration harm, i.e., bias and toxicity in generation; (2) representational harm, i.e., biases in discriminative tasks; (3) dialect bias; and (4) language modeling and downstream task performance. We examine a wide spectrum of LLM compression techniques, including unstructured pruning, semi-structured pruning, and quantization. Our analysis reveals that compression can lead to unexpected consequences. Although compression may unintentionally alleviate LLMs’ degeneration harm, it can still exacerbate representational harm. Furthermore, increasing compression produces a divergent impact on different protected groups. Finally, different compression methods have drastically different safety impacts: for example, quantization mostly preserves bias while pruning degrades quickly. Our findings underscore the importance of integrating safety assessments into the development of compressed LLMs to ensure their reliability across real-world applications.

In this work, we introduce a novel approach that equips LLM agents with introspection, enhancing consistency and adaptability in solving complex tasks. Our approach prompts LLM agents to decompose a given task into manageable subtasks (i.e., to make a plan), and to continuously introspect upon the suitability and results of their actions. We implement a three-fold introspective intervention: 1) anticipatory reflection on potential failures and alternative remedy before action execution, 2) post-action alignment with subtask objectives and backtracking with remedy to ensure utmost effort in plan execution, and 3) comprehensive review upon plan completion for future strategy refinement. By deploying and experimenting with this methodology—a zero-shot approach—within WebArena for practical tasks in web environments, our agent demonstrates superior performance with a success rate of 23.5% over existing zero-shot methods by 3.5%. The experimental results suggest that our introspection-driven approach not only enhances the agent’s ability to navigate unanticipated challenges through a robust mechanism of plan execution, but also improves efficiency by reducing the number of trials and plan revisions by 45% needed to achieve a task.

We present MUG, a novel interactive task for multimodal grounding where a user and an agent work collaboratively on an interface screen. Prior works modeled multimodal UI grounding in one round: the user gives a command and the agent responds to the command. Yet, in a realistic scenario, a user command can be ambiguous when the target action is inherently difficult to articulate in natural language. MUG allows multiple rounds of interactions such that upon seeing the agent responses, the user can give further commands for the agent to refine or even correct its actions. Such interaction is critical for improving grounding performances in real-world use cases. To investigate the problem, we create a new dataset that consists of 77,820 sequences of human user-agent interaction on mobile interfaces in which 20% involves multiple rounds of interactions. To establish benchmark, we experiment with a range of modeling variants and evaluation strategies, including both offline and online evaluation—the online strategy consists of both human evaluation and automatic with simulators. Our experiments show that iterative interaction significantly improves the absolute task completion by 18% over the entire test set and 31% over the challenging split. Our results lay the foundation for further investigation of the problem.

Claim: This work is not advocating the use of LLMs for paper (meta-)reviewing. Instead, wepresent a comparative analysis to identify and distinguish LLM activities from human activities. Two research goals: i) Enable better recognition of instances when someone implicitly uses LLMs for reviewing activities; ii) Increase community awareness that LLMs, and AI in general, are currently inadequate for performing tasks that require a high level of expertise and nuanced judgment.This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload?This study focuses on the topic of LLMs as NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLMs in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with “deficiency” labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) “LLMs as Reviewers”, how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) “LLMs as Metareviewers”, how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.