Search for: All records

Practitioners increasingly use machine learning (ML) models, yet models have become more complex and harder to understand. To understand complex models, researchers have proposed techniques to explain model predictions. However, practitioners struggle to use explainability methods because they do not know which explanation to choose and how to interpret the explanation. Here we address the challenge of using explainability methods by proposing TalkToModel: an interactive dialogue system that explains ML models through natural language conversations. TalkToModel consists of three components: an adaptive dialogue engine that interprets natural language and generates meaningful responses; an execution component that constructs the explanations used in the conversation; and a conversational interface. In real-world evaluations, 73% of healthcare workers agreed they would use TalkToModel over existing systems for understanding a disease prediction model, and 85% of ML professionals agreed TalkToModel was easier to use, demonstrating that TalkToModel is highly effective for model explainability.

 

Misgendering, the act of incorrectly addressing someone’s gender, inflicts serious harm and is pervasive in everyday technologies, yet there is a notable lack of research to combat it. We are the first to address this lack of research into interventions for misgendering by conducting a survey of gender-diverse individuals in the US to understand perspectives about automated interventions for text-based misgendering. Based on survey insights on the prevalence of misgendering, desired solutions, and associated concerns, we introduce a misgendering interventions task and evaluation dataset, MisgenderMender. We define the task with two sub-tasks: (i) detecting misgendering, followed by (ii) correcting misgendering where misgendering is present, in domains where editing is appropriate. MisgenderMender comprises 3790 instances of social media content and LLM-generations about non-cisgender public figures, annotated for the presence of misgendering, with additional annotations for correcting misgendering in LLM-generated text. Using this dataset, we set initial benchmarks by evaluating existing NLP systems and highlighting challenges for future models to address. 

Language models are achieving impressive performance on various tasks by aggressively adopting inference-time prompting techniques,such as zero-shot and few-shot prompting. In this work, we introduce EchoPrompt, a simple yet effective approach that prompts the model to rephrase its queries before answering them. EchoPrompt is tailored for four scenarios, including standard and chain-of-thought prompting, in both zero-shot and few-shot settings. Experimental results show that EchoPrompt yields substantial improvementsacross all these settings for four families of causal language models. These improvements are observed across various numerical reasoning (e.g., GSM8K, SVAMP), reading comprehension (e.g., DROP), and logical reasoning (e.g., Coin flipping) tasks. On average, EchoPrompt improves the Zero-shot-CoT performance of code-davinci-002 by 5% in numerical tasks and 13% in reading comprehension tasks. Our empirical results indicate that EchoPrompt is an effective technique that enhances in-context learning performance. 

The latest large language models (LMs) support increasingly longer contexts. While this trend permits using substantial amounts of text with SOTA LMs, requiring these large LMs to process potentially redundant or irrelevant data needlessly increases inference time and cost. To remedy this problem, we propose BLINDER, a method that leverages a small finetuned LM to sample the minimal set of input features that maximizes the performance of a downstream LM. BLINDER trains an LM with a value head to estimate the likelihood of optimal outputs from a downstream LM given an input. We evaluate BLINDER on embodied decision making tasks with notoriously verbose state descriptions: NetHack and robot planning. BLINDER reduces the length of LM actor input by 87% and 99% while improving task success rates by 158% and 54% on NetHack and robot planning respectively which represents substantial inference cost savings while actually increasing performance. 

Bias amplification is a phenomenon in which models exacerbate biases or stereotypes present in the training data. In this paper, we study bias amplification in the text-to-image domain using Stable Diffusion by comparing gender ratios in training vs. generated images. We find that the model appears to amplify gender-occupation biases found in the training data (LAION) considerably. However, we discover that amplification can be largely attributed to discrepancies between training captions and model prompts. For example, an inherent difference is that captions from the training data often contain explicit gender information while our prompts do not, which leads to a distribution shift and consequently inflates bias measures. Once we account for distributional differences between texts used for training and generation when evaluating amplification, we observe that amplification decreases drastically. Our findings illustrate the challenges of comparing biases in models and their training data, as well as evaluation more broadly, and highlight how confounding factors can impact analyses. 

We introduce UnStereoEval (USE), a novel framework tailored for investigating gender bias in stereotype-free scenarios. USE defines a sentence-level score based on pretraining data statistics to determine if the sentence contain minimal word-gender associations. To systematically benchmark the fairness of popular language models in stereotype-free scenarios, we utilize USE to automatically generate benchmarks without any gender-related language. By leveraging USE's sentence-level score, we also repurpose prior gender bias benchmarks (Winobias and Winogender) for non-stereotypical evaluation. Surprisingly, we find low fairness across all 28 evaluated models. Concretely, models demonstrate fair behavior in only 9%-41% of stereotype-free sentences, suggesting that bias does not solely stem from the presence of gender-related words. These results raise important questions about where underlying model biases come from and highlight the need for more systematic and comprehensive bias evaluation. 

In-context learning and chain-of-thought prompting have demonstrated surprising performance improvements on mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Therefore, understanding the underlying factors enabling these capabilities is crucial. However, the specific aspects of pretraining data that equip models with mathematical reasoning capabilities remain largely unexplored and are less studied systematically. In this study, we identify subsets of model pretraining data that contribute to math reasoning ability of the model, and evaluate it on several mathematical operations (e.g. addition, multiplication) and tasks (e.g. the asdiv dataset). We measure the importance of such subsets by continual training of the model on pretraining data subsets, and then we quantify the change in performance on the mathematical benchmark to assess their importance. If a subset results in an improved performance, we conjecture that such subset contributes to a model's overall mathematical ability. Our results unveil that while training on math-only data contributes to simple arithmetic abilities, it does not solely explain performance on more complex reasoning abilities like chain-of-thought reasoning. We also find that code data contributes to chain-of-thought reasoning while reducing the arithmetic performance. 

Gender bias in language technologies has been widely studied, but research has mostly been restricted to a binary paradigm of gender. It is essential also to consider non-binary gender identities, as excluding them can cause further harm to an already marginalized group. In this paper, we comprehensively evaluate popular language models for their ability to correctly use English gender-neutral pronouns (e.g., singular they, them) and neo-pronouns (e.g., ze, xe, thon) that are used by individuals whose gender identity is not represented by binary pronouns. We introduce Misgendered, a framework for evaluating large language models’ ability to correctly use preferred pronouns, consisting of (i) instances declaring an individual’s pronoun, followed by a sentence with a missing pronoun, and (ii) an experimental setup for evaluating masked and auto-regressive language models using a unified method. When prompted out-of-the-box, language models perform poorly at correctly predicting neo-pronouns (averaging 7.6% accuracy) and gender-neutral pronouns (averaging 31.0% accuracy). This inability to generalize results from a lack of representation of non-binary pronouns in training data and memorized associations. Few-shot adaptation with explicit examples in the prompt improves the performance but plateaus at only 45.4% for neo-pronouns. We release the full dataset, code, and demo at https://tamannahossainkay.github.io/misgendered/. 

In-context learning (ICL), the ability of large language models to perform novel tasks by conditioning on a prompt with a few task examples, requires these examples to be informative about the test instance. The standard approach of independently ranking and selecting the most similar examples selects redundant examples while omitting important information. In this work, we show that BERTScore-Recall (BSR) selects better examples that demonstrate more of the salient aspects, e.g. reasoning patterns, of the test input. We further extend BSR and many standard metrics to easily optimizable set-level metrics, giving still better coverage of those salient aspects. On 15 datasets spanning 6 tasks and with 7 diverse LLMs, we show that (1) BSR is the superior metric for in-context example selection across the board, and (2) for compositional tasks, set selection using Set-BSR outperforms independent ranking by up to 17 points on average and, despite being training-free, surpasses methods that leverage task or LLM-specific training. 

Current evaluation schemes for large language models often fail to consider the impact of the overlap between pretraining corpus and test data on model performance statistics. Snoopy is an online interface that allows researchers to study this impact in few-shot learning settings. Our demo provides term frequency statistics for the Pile, which is an 800 GB corpus, accompanied by the precomputed performance of EleutherAI/GPT models on more than 20 NLP benchmarks, including numerical, commonsense reasoning, natural language understanding, and question-answering tasks. Snoopy allows a user to interactively align specific terms in test instances with their frequency in the Pile, enabling exploratory analysis of how term frequency is related to the accuracy of the models, which are hard to discover through automated means. A user can look at correlations over various model sizes and numbers of in-context examples and visualize the result across multiple (potentially aggregated) datasets. Using Snoopy, we show that a researcher can quickly replicate prior analyses for numerical tasks while simultaneously allowing for much more expansive exploration that was previously challenging. Snoopy is available at https://nlp.ics.uci.edu/snoopy.