Estimating Commonsense Plausibility through Semantic Shifts

Commonsense plausibility estimation is critical for evaluating language models (LMs), yet existing generative approaches--reliant on likelihoods or verbalized judgments--struggle with fine-grained discrimination. In this paper, we propose ComPaSS, a novel discriminative framework that quantifies commonsense plausibility by measuring semantic shifts when augmenting sentences with commonsense-related information. Plausible augmentations induce minimal shifts in semantics, while implausible ones result in substantial deviations. Evaluations on two types of fine-grained commonsense plausibility estimation tasks across different backbones, including LLMs and vision-language models (VLMs), show that ComPaSS consistently outperforms baselines. It demonstrates the advantage of discriminative approaches over generative methods in fine-grained commonsense plausibility evaluation. Experiments also show that (1) VLMs yield superior performance to LMs, when integrated with ComPaSS, on vision-grounded commonsense tasks. (2) contrastive pre-training sharpens backbone models' ability to capture semantic nuances, thereby further enhancing ComPaSS.

Unbiased Learning to Rank with Query-Level Click Propensity Estimation: Beyond Pointwise Observation and Relevance

Most existing unbiased learning-to-rank (ULTR) approaches are based on the user examination hypothesis, which assumes that users will click a result only if it is both relevant and observed (typically modeled by position). However, in real-world scenarios, users often click only one or two results after examining multiple relevant options, due to limited patience or because their information needs have already been satisfied. Motivated by this, we propose a query-level click propensity model to capture the probability that users will click on different result lists, allowing for non-zero probabilities that users may not click on an observed relevant result. We hypothesize that this propensity increases when more potentially relevant results are present, and refer to this user behavior as relevance saturation bias. Our method introduces a Dual Inverse Propensity Weighting (DualIPW) mechanism -- combining query-level and position-level IPW -- to address both relevance saturation and position bias. Through theoretical derivation, we prove that DualIPW can learn an unbiased ranking model. Experiments on the real-world Baidu-ULTR dataset demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art ULTR baselines. The code and dataset information can be found at https://github.com/Trustworthy-Information-Access/DualIPW.

Towards Fully Exploiting LLM Internal States to Enhance Knowledge Boundary Perception

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive performance across diverse tasks but often struggle to accurately gauge their knowledge boundaries, leading to confident yet incorrect responses. This paper explores leveraging LLMs' internal states to enhance their perception of knowledge boundaries from efficiency and risk perspectives. We investigate whether LLMs can estimate their confidence using internal states before response generation, potentially saving computational resources. Our experiments on datasets like Natural Questions, HotpotQA, and MMLU reveal that LLMs demonstrate significant pre-generation perception, which is further refined post-generation, with perception gaps remaining stable across varying conditions. To mitigate risks in critical domains, we introduce Consistency-based Confidence Calibration ($C^3$), which assesses confidence consistency through question reformulation. $C^3$ significantly improves LLMs' ability to recognize their knowledge gaps, enhancing the unknown perception rate by 5.6\% on NQ and 4.9\% on HotpotQA. Our findings suggest that pre-generation confidence estimation can optimize efficiency, while $C^3$ effectively controls output risks, advancing the reliability of LLMs in practical applications.

CausalDiff: Causality-Inspired Disentanglement via Diffusion Model for Adversarial Defense

Despite ongoing efforts to defend neural classifiers from adversarial attacks, they remain vulnerable, especially to unseen attacks. In contrast, humans are difficult to be cheated by subtle manipulations, since we make judgments only based on essential factors. Inspired by this observation, we attempt to model label generation with essential label-causative factors and incorporate label-non-causative factors to assist data generation. For an adversarial example, we aim to discriminate the perturbations as non-causative factors and make predictions only based on the label-causative factors. Concretely, we propose a casual diffusion model (CausalDiff) that adapts diffusion models for conditional data generation and disentangles the two types of casual factors by learning towards a novel casual information bottleneck objective. Empirically, CausalDiff has significantly outperformed state-of-the-art defense methods on various unseen attacks, achieving an average robustness of 86.39% (+4.01%) on CIFAR-10, 56.25% (+3.13%) on CIFAR-100, and 82.62% (+4.93%) on GTSRB (German Traffic Sign Recognition Benchmark).

Are Large Language Models More Honest in Their Probabilistic or Verbalized Confidence?

Large language models (LLMs) have been found to produce hallucinations when the question exceeds their internal knowledge boundaries. A reliable model should have a clear perception of its knowledge boundaries, providing correct answers within its scope and refusing to answer when it lacks knowledge. Existing research on LLMs' perception of their knowledge boundaries typically uses either the probability of the generated tokens or the verbalized confidence as the model's confidence in its response. However, these studies overlook the differences and connections between the two. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive analysis and comparison of LLMs' probabilistic perception and verbalized perception of their factual knowledge boundaries. First, we investigate the pros and cons of these two perceptions. Then, we study how they change under questions of varying frequencies. Finally, we measure the correlation between LLMs' probabilistic confidence and verbalized confidence. Experimental results show that 1) LLMs' probabilistic perception is generally more accurate than verbalized perception but requires an in-domain validation set to adjust the confidence threshold. 2) Both perceptions perform better on less frequent questions. 3) It is challenging for LLMs to accurately express their internal confidence in natural language.

Contextual Dual Learning Algorithm with Listwise Distillation for Unbiased Learning to Rank

Unbiased Learning to Rank (ULTR) aims to leverage biased implicit user feedback (e.g., click) to optimize an unbiased ranking model. The effectiveness of the existing ULTR methods has primarily been validated on synthetic datasets. However, their performance on real-world click data remains unclear. Recently, Baidu released a large publicly available dataset of their web search logs. Subsequently, the NTCIR-17 ULTRE-2 task released a subset dataset extracted from it. We conduct experiments on commonly used or effective ULTR methods on this subset to determine whether they maintain their effectiveness. In this paper, we propose a Contextual Dual Learning Algorithm with Listwise Distillation (CDLA-LD) to simultaneously address both position bias and contextual bias. We utilize a listwise-input ranking model to obtain reconstructed feature vectors incorporating local contextual information and employ the Dual Learning Algorithm (DLA) method to jointly train this ranking model and a propensity model to address position bias. As this ranking model learns the interaction information within the documents list of the training set, to enhance the ranking model's generalization ability, we additionally train a pointwise-input ranking model to learn the listwise-input ranking model's capability for relevance judgment in a listwise manner. Extensive experiments and analysis confirm the effectiveness of our approach.

Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become an important way of information seeking, there have been increasing concerns about the unethical content LLMs may generate. In this paper, we conduct a rigorous evaluation of LLMs' implicit bias towards certain groups by attacking them with carefully crafted instructions to elicit biased responses. Our attack methodology is inspired by psychometric principles in cognitive and social psychology. We propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching, based on which we built evaluation datasets for four common bias types. Each prompt attack has bilingual versions. Extensive evaluation of representative LLMs shows that 1) all three attack methods work effectively, especially the Deception attacks; 2) GLM-3 performs the best in defending our attacks, compared to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4; 3) LLMs could output content of other bias types when being taught with one type of bias. Our methodology provides a rigorous and effective way of evaluating LLMs' implicit bias and will benefit the assessments of LLMs' potential ethical risks.

Iterative Utility Judgment Framework via LLMs Inspired by Relevance in Philosophy

Utility and topical relevance are critical measures in information retrieval (IR), reflecting system and user perspectives, respectively. While topical relevance has long been emphasized, utility is a higher standard of relevance and is more useful for facilitating downstream tasks, e.g., in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). When we incorporate utility judgments into RAG, we realize that the topical relevance, utility, and answering in RAG are closely related to the three types of relevance that Schutz discussed from a philosophical perspective. They are topical relevance, interpretational relevance, and motivational relevance, respectively. Inspired by the dynamic iterations of the three types of relevance, we propose an Iterative utiliTy judgmEnt fraMework (ITEM) to promote each step of the cycle of RAG. We conducted extensive experiments on multi-grade passage retrieval and factoid question-answering datasets (i.e., TREC DL, WebAP, and NQ). Experimental results demonstrate significant improvements in utility judgments, ranking of topical relevance, and answer generation upon representative baselines, including multiple single-shot utility judging approaches. Our code and benchmark can be found at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ITEM-B486/.

MORE: Multi-mOdal REtrieval Augmented Generative Commonsense Reasoning

Since commonsense information has been recorded significantly less frequently than its existence, language models pre-trained by text generation have difficulty to learn sufficient commonsense knowledge. Several studies have leveraged text retrieval to augment the models' commonsense ability. Unlike text, images capture commonsense information inherently but little effort has been paid to effectively utilize them. In this work, we propose a novel Multi-mOdal REtrieval (MORE) augmentation framework, to leverage both text and images to enhance the commonsense ability of language models. Extensive experiments on the Common-Gen task have demonstrated the efficacy of MORE based on the pre-trained models of both single and multiple modalities.

When Do LLMs Need Retrieval Augmentation? Mitigating LLMs' Overconfidence Helps Retrieval Augmentation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been found to have difficulty knowing they do not possess certain knowledge and tend to provide specious answers in such cases. Retrieval Augmentation (RA) has been extensively studied to mitigate LLMs' hallucinations. However, due to the extra overhead and unassured quality of retrieval, it may not be optimal to conduct RA all the time. A straightforward idea is to only conduct retrieval when LLMs are uncertain about a question. This motivates us to enhance the LLMs' ability to perceive their knowledge boundaries to help RA. In this paper, we first quantitatively measure LLMs' such ability and confirm their overconfidence. Then, we study how LLMs' certainty about a question correlates with their dependence on external retrieved information. We propose several methods to enhance LLMs' perception of knowledge boundaries and show that they are effective in reducing overconfidence. Additionally, equipped with these methods, LLMs can achieve comparable or even better performance of RA with much fewer retrieval calls.