Search for: All records

Language models are aligned to emulate the collective voice of many, resulting in outputs that align with no one in particular. Steering LLMs away from generic output is possible through supervised finetuning or RLHF, but requires prohibitively large datasets for new ad-hoc tasks. We argue that it is instead possible to align an LLM to a specific setting by leveraging a very small number (< 10) of demonstrations as feedback. Our method, Demonstration ITerated Task Optimization (DITTO), directly aligns language model outputs to a user's demonstrated behaviors. Derived using ideas from online imitation learning, DITTO cheaply generates online comparison data by treating users' demonstrations as preferred over output from the LLM and its intermediate checkpoints. Concretely, DITTO operates by having an LLM generate examples that are presumed to be inferior to expert demonstrations. The method iteratively constructs pairwise preference relationships between these LLM-generated samples and expert demonstrations, potentially including comparisons between different training checkpoints. These constructed preference pairs are then used to train the model using a preference optimization algorithm (e.g. DPO). We evaluate DITTO's ability to learn fine-grained style and task alignment across domains such as news articles, emails, and blog posts. Additionally, we conduct a user study soliciting a range of demonstrations from participants (N = 16). Across our benchmarks and user study, we find that win-rates for DITTO outperform few-shot prompting, supervised fine-tuning, and other self-play methods by an avg. of 19% points. By using demonstrations as feedback directly, DITTO offers a novel method for effective customization of LLMs. 

Online mental health support communities, in which volunteer counselors provide accessible mental and emotional health support, have grown in recent years. Despite millions of people using these platforms, the clinical effectiveness of these communities on mental health symptoms remains unknown. Although volunteers receive some training on the therapeutic skills proven effective in face-to-face environments, such as active listening and motivational interviewing, it is unclear how the usage of these skills in an online context affects people's mental health. In our work, we collaborate with one of the largest online peer support platforms and use both natural language processing and machine learning techniques to examine how one-on-one support chats on the platform affect clients' depression and anxiety symptoms. We measure how characteristics of support-providers, such as their experience on the platform and use of therapeutic skills (e.g. affirmation, showing empathy), affect support-seekers' mental health changes. Based on a propensity-score matching analysis to approximate a random-assignment experiment, results shows that online peer support chats improve both depression and anxiety symptoms with a statistically significant but relatively small effect size. Additionally, support providers' techniques such as emphasizing the autonomy of the client lead to better mental health outcomes. However, we also found that the use of some behaviors, such as persuading and providing information, are associated with worsening of mental health symptoms. Our work provides key understanding for mental health care in the online setting and designing training systems for online support providers. 

Realistic practice and tailored feedback are key processes for training peer counselors with clinical skills. However, existing mechanisms of providing feedback largely rely on human supervision. Peer counselors often lack mechanisms to receive detailed feedback from experienced mentors, making it difficult for them to support the large number of people with mental health issues who use peer counseling. Our work aims to leverage large language models to provide contextualized and multi-level feedback to empower peer counselors, especially novices, at scale. To achieve this, we co-design with a group of senior psychotherapy supervisors to develop a multi-level feedback taxonomy, and then construct a publicly available dataset with comprehensive feedback annotations of 400 emotional support conversations. We further design a self-improvement method on top of large language models to enhance the automatic generation of feedback. Via qualitative and quantitative evaluation with domain experts, we demonstrate that our method minimizes the risk of potentially harmful and low-quality feedback generation which is desirable in such high-stakes scenarios. 

Millions of users come to online peer counseling platforms to seek support on diverse topics ranging from relationship stress to anxiety. However, studies show that online peer support groups are not always as effective as expected largely due to users' negative experiences with unhelpful counselors. Peer counselors are key to the success of online peer counseling platforms, but most of them often do not have systematic ways to receive guidelines or supervision. In this work, we introduce CARE: an interactive AI-based tool to empower peer counselors through automatic suggestion generation. During the practical training stage, CARE helps diagnose which specific counseling strategies are most suitable in the given context and provides tailored example responses as suggestions. Counselors can choose to select, modify, or ignore any suggestion before replying to the support seeker. Building upon the Motivational Interviewing framework, CARE utilizes large-scale counseling conversation data together with advanced natural language generation techniques to achieve these functionalities. We demonstrate the efficacy of CARE by performing both quantitative evaluations and qualitative user studies through simulated chats and semi-structured interviews. We also find that CARE especially helps novice counselors respond better in challenging situations. 

Generating a chain of thought (CoT) can increase large language model (LLM) performance on a wide range of tasks. Zero-shot CoT evaluations, however, have been conducted primarily on logical tasks (e.g. arithmetic, commonsense QA). In this paper, we perform a controlled evaluation of zero-shot CoT across two sensitive domains: harmful questions and stereotype benchmarks. We find that using zero-shot CoT reasoning in a prompt can significantly increase a model's likelihood to produce undesirable output. Without future advances in alignment or explicit mitigation instructions, zero-shot CoT should be avoided on tasks where models can make inferences about marginalized groups or harmful topics.