Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines

Recent advances in AI -- including generative approaches -- have resulted in technology that can support humans in scientific discovery and decision support but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals. The responsible use of AI increasingly shows the need for human-AI teaming, necessitating effective interaction between humans and machines. A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise. In cognitive science, human generalisation commonly involves abstraction and concept learning. In contrast, AI generalisation encompasses out-of-domain generalisation in machine learning, rule-based reasoning in symbolic AI, and abstraction in neuro-symbolic AI. In this perspective paper, we combine insights from AI and cognitive science to identify key commonalities and differences across three dimensions: notions of generalisation, methods for generalisation, and evaluation of generalisation. We map the different conceptualisations of generalisation in AI and cognitive science along these three dimensions and consider their role in human-AI teaming. This results in interdisciplinary challenges across AI and cognitive science that must be tackled to provide a foundation for effective and cognitively supported alignment in human-AI teaming scenarios.

Mixtures of In-Context Learners

In-context learning (ICL) adapts LLMs by providing demonstrations without fine-tuning the model parameters; however, it does not differentiate between demonstrations and quadratically increases the complexity of Transformer LLMs, exhausting the memory. As a solution, we propose Mixtures of In-Context Learners (MoICL), a novel approach to treat subsets of demonstrations as experts and learn a weighting function to merge their output distributions based on a training set. In our experiments, we show performance improvements on 5 out of 7 classification datasets compared to a set of strong baselines (up to +13\% compared to ICL and LENS). Moreover, we enhance the Pareto frontier of ICL by reducing the inference time needed to achieve the same performance with fewer demonstrations. Finally, MoICL is more robust to out-of-domain (up to +11\%), imbalanced (up to +49\%), or noisy demonstrations (up to +38\%) or can filter these out from datasets. Overall, MoICL is a more expressive approach to learning from demonstrations without exhausting the context window or memory.

An Auditing Test To Detect Behavioral Shift in Language Models

As language models (LMs) approach human-level performance, a comprehensive understanding of their behavior becomes crucial. This includes evaluating capabilities, biases, task performance, and alignment with societal values. Extensive initial evaluations, including red teaming and diverse benchmarking, can establish a model's behavioral profile. However, subsequent fine-tuning or deployment modifications may alter these behaviors in unintended ways. We present a method for continual Behavioral Shift Auditing (BSA) in LMs. Building on recent work in hypothesis testing, our auditing test detects behavioral shifts solely through model generations. Our test compares model generations from a baseline model to those of the model under scrutiny and provides theoretical guarantees for change detection while controlling false positives. The test features a configurable tolerance parameter that adjusts sensitivity to behavioral changes for different use cases. We evaluate our approach using two case studies: monitoring changes in (a) toxicity and (b) translation performance. We find that the test is able to detect meaningful changes in behavior distributions using just hundreds of examples.

DeCoRe: Decoding by Contrasting Retrieval Heads to Mitigate Hallucinations

Large Language Models (LLMs) often hallucinate, producing unfaithful or factually incorrect outputs by misrepresenting the provided context or incorrectly recalling internal knowledge. Recent studies have identified specific attention heads within the Transformer architecture, known as retrieval heads, responsible for extracting relevant contextual information. We hypothesise that masking these retrieval heads can induce hallucinations and that contrasting the outputs of the base LLM and the masked LLM can reduce hallucinations. To this end, we propose Decoding by Contrasting Retrieval Heads (DeCoRe), a novel training-free decoding strategy that amplifies information found in the context and model parameters. DeCoRe mitigates potentially hallucinated responses by dynamically contrasting the outputs of the base LLM and the masked LLM, using conditional entropy as a guide. Our extensive experiments confirm that DeCoRe significantly improves performance on tasks requiring high contextual faithfulness, such as summarisation (XSum by 18.6%), instruction following (MemoTrap by 10.9%), and open-book question answering (NQ-Open by 2.4% and NQ-Swap by 5.5%).

Analysing the Residual Stream of Language Models Under Knowledge Conflicts

Large language models (LLMs) can store a significant amount of factual knowledge in their parameters. However, their parametric knowledge may conflict with the information provided in the context. Such conflicts can lead to undesirable model behaviour, such as reliance on outdated or incorrect information. In this work, we investigate whether LLMs can identify knowledge conflicts and whether it is possible to know which source of knowledge the model will rely on by analysing the residual stream of the LLM. Through probing tasks, we find that LLMs can internally register the signal of knowledge conflict in the residual stream, which can be accurately detected by probing the intermediate model activations. This allows us to detect conflicts within the residual stream before generating the answers without modifying the input or model parameters. Moreover, we find that the residual stream shows significantly different patterns when the model relies on contextual knowledge versus parametric knowledge to resolve conflicts. This pattern can be employed to estimate the behaviour of LLMs when conflict happens and prevent unexpected answers before producing the answers. Our analysis offers insights into how LLMs internally manage knowledge conflicts and provides a foundation for developing methods to control the knowledge selection processes.

Steering Knowledge Selection Behaviours in LLMs via SAE-Based Representation Engineering

Large language models (LLMs) can store a significant amount of factual knowledge in their parameters. However, their parametric knowledge may conflict with the information provided in the context -- this phenomenon, known as \emph{context-memory knowledge conflicts}, can lead to undesirable model behaviour, such as reliance on outdated or incorrect information. Analysing the internal activations of LLMs, we find that they can internally register the signals of knowledge conflict at mid-layers. Such signals allow us to detect whether a knowledge conflict occurs and use \emph{inference-time} intervention strategies to resolve it. In this work, we propose \textsc{SpARE}, a \emph{training-free} representation engineering method that uses pre-trained sparse auto-encoders (SAEs) to control the knowledge selection behaviour of LLMs. \textsc{SpARE} identifies the functional features that control the knowledge selection behaviours and applies them to edit the internal activations of LLMs at inference time. Our experimental results show that \textsc{SpARE} can effectively control the usage of either knowledge source to resolve knowledge conflict in open-domain question-answering tasks, surpassing existing representation engineering methods ($+10\%$) as well as contrastive decoding methods ($+15\%$).

Unveiling and Consulting Core Experts in Retrieval-Augmented MoE-based LLMs

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) significantly improved the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to solve knowledge-intensive tasks. While existing research seeks to enhance RAG performance by retrieving higher-quality documents or designing RAG-specific LLMs, the internal mechanisms within LLMs that contribute to the effectiveness of RAG systems remain underexplored. In this paper, we aim to investigate these internal mechanisms within the popular Mixture-of-Expert (MoE)-based LLMs and demonstrate how to improve RAG by examining expert activations in these LLMs. Our controlled experiments reveal that several core groups of experts are primarily responsible for RAG-related behaviors. The activation of these core experts can signify the model's inclination towards external/internal knowledge and adjust its behavior. For instance, we identify core experts that can (1) indicate the sufficiency of the model's internal knowledge, (2) assess the quality of retrieved documents, and (3) enhance the model's ability to utilize context. Based on these findings, we propose several strategies to enhance RAG's efficiency and effectiveness through expert activation. Experimental results across various datasets and MoE-based LLMs show the effectiveness of our method.

Is Complex Query Answering Really Complex?

Complex query answering (CQA) on knowledge graphs (KGs) is gaining momentum as a challenging reasoning task. In this paper, we show that the current benchmarks for CQA are not really complex, and the way they are built distorts our perception of progress in this field. For example, we find that in these benchmarks, most queries (up to 98% for some query types) can be reduced to simpler problems, e.g., link prediction, where only one link needs to be predicted. The performance of state-of-the-art CQA models drops significantly when such models are evaluated on queries that cannot be reduced to easier types. Thus, we propose a set of more challenging benchmarks, composed of queries that require models to reason over multiple hops and better reflect the construction of real-world KGs. In a systematic empirical investigation, the new benchmarks show that current methods leave much to be desired from current CQA methods.

FLARE: Faithful Logic-Aided Reasoning and Exploration

Modern Question Answering (QA) and Reasoning approaches based on Large Language Models (LLMs) commonly use prompting techniques, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), assuming the resulting generation will have a more granular exploration and reasoning over the question space and scope. However, such methods struggle with generating outputs that are faithful to the intermediate chain of reasoning produced by the model. On the other end of the spectrum, neuro-symbolic methods such as Faithful CoT (F-CoT) propose to combine LLMs with external symbolic solvers. While such approaches boast a high degree of faithfulness, they usually require a model trained for code generation and struggle with tasks that are ambiguous or hard to formalise strictly. We introduce \textbf{F}aithful \textbf{L}ogic-\textbf{A}ided \textbf{R}easoning and \textbf{E}xploration (\textbf{\ours}), a novel interpretable approach for traversing the problem space using task decompositions. We use the LLM to plan a solution, soft-formalise the query into facts and predicates using a logic programming code and simulate that code execution using an exhaustive multi-hop search over the defined space. Our method allows us to compute the faithfulness of the reasoning process w.r.t. the generated code and analyse the steps of the multi-hop search without relying on external solvers. Our methods achieve SOTA results on $\mathbf{7}$ out of $\mathbf{9}$ diverse reasoning benchmarks. We also show that model faithfulness positively correlates with overall performance and further demonstrate that {\textbf{\ours}} allows pinpointing the decisive factors sufficient for and leading to the correct answer with optimal reasoning during the multi-hop search.

Dot Product is All You Need: Bridging the Gap Between Item Recommendation and Link Prediction

Item recommendation (the task of predicting if a user may interact with new items from the catalogue in a recommendation system) and link prediction (the task of identifying missing links in a knowledge graph) have long been regarded as distinct problems. In this work, we show that the item recommendation problem can be seen as an instance of the link prediction problem, where entities in the graph represent users and items, and the task consists of predicting missing instances of the relation type <<interactsWith>>. In a preliminary attempt to demonstrate the assumption, we decide to test three popular factorisation-based link prediction models on the item recommendation task, showing that their predictive accuracy is competitive with ten state-of-the-art recommendation models. The purpose is to show how the former may be seamlessly and effectively applied to the recommendation task without any specific modification to their architectures. Finally, while beginning to unveil the key reasons behind the recommendation performance of the selected link prediction models, we explore different settings for their hyper-parameter values, paving the way for future directions.