Directed Structural Adaptation to Overcome Statistical Conflicts and Enable Continual Learning

Adaptive networks today rely on overparameterized fixed topologies that cannot break through the statistical conflicts they encounter in the data they are exposed to, and are prone to "catastrophic forgetting" as the network attempts to reuse the existing structures to learn new task. We propose a structural adaptation method, DIRAD, that can complexify as needed and in a directed manner without being limited by statistical conflicts within a dataset. We then extend this method and present the PREVAL framework, designed to prevent "catastrophic forgetting" in continual learning by detection of new data and assigning encountered data to suitable models adapted to process them, without needing task labels anywhere in the workflow. We show the reliability of the DIRAD in growing a network with high performance and orders-of-magnitude simpler than fixed topology networks; and demonstrate the proof-of-concept operation of PREVAL, in which continual adaptation to new tasks is observed while being able to detect and discern previously-encountered tasks.

Copyright-Aware Incentive Scheme for Generative Art Models Using Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning

Generative art using Diffusion models has achieved remarkable performance in image generation and text-to-image tasks. However, the increasing demand for training data in generative art raises significant concerns about copyright infringement, as models can produce images highly similar to copyrighted works. Existing solutions attempt to mitigate this by perturbing Diffusion models to reduce the likelihood of generating such images, but this often compromises model performance. Another approach focuses on economically compensating data holders for their contributions, yet it fails to address copyright loss adequately. Our approach begin with the introduction of a novel copyright metric grounded in copyright law and court precedents on infringement. We then employ the TRAK method to estimate the contribution of data holders. To accommodate the continuous data collection process, we divide the training into multiple rounds. Finally, We designed a hierarchical budget allocation method based on reinforcement learning to determine the budget for each round and the remuneration of the data holder based on the data holder's contribution and copyright loss in each round. Extensive experiments across three datasets show that our method outperforms all eight benchmarks, demonstrating its effectiveness in optimizing budget distribution in a copyright-aware manner. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first technical work that introduces to incentive contributors and protect their copyrights by compensating them.

RLCP: A Reinforcement Learning-based Copyright Protection Method for Text-to-Image Diffusion Model

The increasing sophistication of text-to-image generative models has led to complex challenges in defining and enforcing copyright infringement criteria and protection. Existing methods, such as watermarking and dataset deduplication, fail to provide comprehensive solutions due to the lack of standardized metrics and the inherent complexity of addressing copyright infringement in diffusion models. To deal with these challenges, we propose a Reinforcement Learning-based Copyright Protection(RLCP) method for Text-to-Image Diffusion Model, which minimizes the generation of copyright-infringing content while maintaining the quality of the model-generated dataset. Our approach begins with the introduction of a novel copyright metric grounded in copyright law and court precedents on infringement. We then utilize the Denoising Diffusion Policy Optimization (DDPO) framework to guide the model through a multi-step decision-making process, optimizing it using a reward function that incorporates our proposed copyright metric. Additionally, we employ KL divergence as a regularization term to mitigate some failure modes and stabilize RL fine-tuning. Experiments conducted on 3 mixed datasets of copyright and non-copyright images demonstrate that our approach significantly reduces copyright infringement risk while maintaining image quality.

Nuance Matters: Probing Epistemic Consistency in Causal Reasoning

To address this gap, our study introduces the concept of causal epistemic consistency, which focuses on the self-consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) in differentiating intermediates with nuanced differences in causal reasoning. We propose a suite of novel metrics -- intensity ranking concordance, cross-group position agreement, and intra-group clustering -- to evaluate LLMs on this front. Through extensive empirical studies on 21 high-profile LLMs, including GPT-4, Claude3, and LLaMA3-70B, we have favoring evidence that current models struggle to maintain epistemic consistency in identifying the polarity and intensity of intermediates in causal reasoning. Additionally, we explore the potential of using internal token probabilities as an auxiliary tool to maintain causal epistemic consistency. In summary, our study bridges a critical gap in AI research by investigating the self-consistency over fine-grained intermediates involved in causal reasoning.

A Logical Fallacy-Informed Framework for Argument Generation

Despite the remarkable performance of Large Language Models (LLMs), they still struggle with generating logically sound arguments, resulting in potential risks such as spreading misinformation. An important factor contributing to LLMs' suboptimal performance in generating coherent arguments is their oversight of logical fallacies. To address this issue, we introduce FIPO, a fallacy-informed framework that leverages preference optimization methods to steer LLMs toward logically sound arguments. FIPO includes a classification loss, to capture the fine-grained information on fallacy categories. Our results on argumentation datasets show that our method reduces the fallacy errors by up to 17.5%. Furthermore, our human evaluation results indicate that the quality of the generated arguments by our method significantly outperforms the fine-tuned baselines, as well as prior preference optimization methods, such as DPO. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring models are aware of logical fallacies for effective argument generation.

Could ChatGPT get an Engineering Degree? Evaluating Higher Education Vulnerability to AI Assistants

AI assistants are being increasingly used by students enrolled in higher education institutions. While these tools provide opportunities for improved teaching and education, they also pose significant challenges for assessment and learning outcomes. We conceptualize these challenges through the lens of vulnerability, the potential for university assessments and learning outcomes to be impacted by student use of generative AI. We investigate the potential scale of this vulnerability by measuring the degree to which AI assistants can complete assessment questions in standard university-level STEM courses. Specifically, we compile a novel dataset of textual assessment questions from 50 courses at EPFL and evaluate whether two AI assistants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adequately answer these questions. We use eight prompting strategies to produce responses and find that GPT-4 answers an average of 65.8% of questions correctly, and can even produce the correct answer across at least one prompting strategy for 85.1% of questions. When grouping courses in our dataset by degree program, these systems already pass non-project assessments of large numbers of core courses in various degree programs, posing risks to higher education accreditation that will be amplified as these models improve. Our results call for revising program-level assessment design in higher education in light of advances in generative AI.

The Odyssey of Commonsense Causality: From Foundational Benchmarks to Cutting-Edge Reasoning

Understanding commonsense causality is a unique mark of intelligence for humans. It helps people understand the principles of the real world better and benefits the decision-making process related to causation. For instance, commonsense causality is crucial in judging whether a defendant's action causes the plaintiff's loss in determining legal liability. Despite its significance, a systematic exploration of this topic is notably lacking. Our comprehensive survey bridges this gap by focusing on taxonomies, benchmarks, acquisition methods, qualitative reasoning, and quantitative measurements in commonsense causality, synthesizing insights from over 200 representative articles. Our work aims to provide a systematic overview, update scholars on recent advancements, provide a pragmatic guide for beginners, and highlight promising future research directions in this vital field.

Making Reasoning Matter: Measuring and Improving Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform better when asked to reason step-by-step before answering a question. However, it is unclear to what degree the model's final answer is faithful to the stated reasoning steps. In this paper, we perform a causal mediation analysis on twelve LLMs to examine how intermediate reasoning steps generated by the LLM influence the final outcome and find that LLMs do not reliably use their intermediate reasoning steps when generating an answer. To address this issue, we introduce FRODO, a framework to tailor small-sized LMs to generate correct reasoning steps and robustly reason over these steps. FRODO consists of an inference module that learns to generate correct reasoning steps using an implicit causal reward function and a reasoning module that learns to faithfully reason over these intermediate inferences using a counterfactual and causal preference objective. Our experiments show that FRODO significantly outperforms four competitive baselines. Furthermore, FRODO improves the robustness and generalization ability of the reasoning LM, yielding higher performance on out-of-distribution test sets. Finally, we find that FRODO's rationales are more faithful to its final answer predictions than standard supervised fine-tuning.

δ-CAUSAL: Exploring Defeasibility in Causal Reasoning

Defeasibility in causal reasoning implies that the causal relationship between cause and effect can be strengthened or weakened. Namely, the causal strength between cause and effect should increase or decrease with the incorporation of strengthening arguments (supporters) or weakening arguments (defeaters), respectively. However, existing works ignore defeasibility in causal reasoning and fail to evaluate existing causal strength metrics in defeasible settings. In this work, we present {\delta}-CAUSAL, the first benchmark dataset for studying defeasibility in causal reasoning. {\delta}-CAUSAL includes around 11K events spanning ten domains, featuring defeasible causality pairs, i.e., cause-effect pairs accompanied by supporters and defeaters. We further show current causal strength metrics fail to reflect the change of causal strength with the incorporation of supporters or defeaters in {\delta}-CAUSAL. To this end, we propose CESAR (Causal Embedding aSsociation with Attention Rating), a metric that measures causal strength based on token-level causal relationships. CESAR achieves a significant 69.7% relative improvement over existing metrics, increasing from 47.2% to 80.1% in capturing the causal strength change brought by supporters and defeaters. We further demonstrate even Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-3.5 still lag 4.5 and 10.7 points behind humans in generating supporters and defeaters, emphasizing the challenge posed by {\delta}-CAUSAL.

REFINER: Reasoning Feedback on Intermediate Representations

Language models (LMs) have recently shown remarkable performance on reasoning tasks by explicitly generating intermediate inferences, e.g., chain-of-thought prompting. However, these intermediate inference steps may be inappropriate deductions from the initial context and lead to incorrect final predictions. Here we introduce REFINER, a framework for finetuning LMs to explicitly generate intermediate reasoning steps while interacting with a critic model that provides automated feedback on the reasoning. Specifically, the critic provides structured feedback that the reasoning LM uses to iteratively improve its intermediate arguments. Empirical evaluations of REFINER on three diverse reasoning tasks show significant improvements over baseline LMs of comparable scale. Furthermore, when using GPT3.5 as the reasoner, the trained critic significantly improves reasoning without finetuning the reasoner. Finally, our critic model is trained without expensive human-in-the-loop data but can be substituted with humans at inference time.