Are LLMs Better than Reported? Detecting Label Errors and Mitigating Their Effect on Model Performance

NLP benchmarks rely on standardized datasets for training and evaluating models and are crucial for advancing the field. Traditionally, expert annotations ensure high-quality labels; however, the cost of expert annotation does not scale well with the growing demand for larger datasets required by modern models. While crowd-sourcing provides a more scalable solution, it often comes at the expense of annotation precision and consistency. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to enhance the annotation process, particularly for detecting label errors in existing datasets. In this work, we consider the recent approach of LLM-as-a-judge, leveraging an ensemble of LLMs to flag potentially mislabeled examples. Through a case study of four datasets from the TRUE benchmark, covering different tasks and domains, we empirically analyze the labeling quality of existing datasets, and compare expert, crowd-sourced, and our LLM-based annotations in terms of agreement, label quality, and efficiency, demonstrating the strengths and limitations of each annotation method. Our findings reveal a substantial number of label errors, which, when corrected, induce a significant upward shift in reported model performance. This suggests that many of the LLMs so-called mistakes are due to label errors rather than genuine model failures. Additionally, we discuss the implications of mislabeled data and propose methods to mitigate them in training to improve model performance.

GLEE: A Unified Framework and Benchmark for Language-based Economic Environments

Large Language Models (LLMs) show significant potential in economic and strategic interactions, where communication via natural language is often prevalent. This raises key questions: Do LLMs behave rationally? Can they mimic human behavior? Do they tend to reach an efficient and fair outcome? What is the role of natural language in the strategic interaction? How do characteristics of the economic environment influence these dynamics? These questions become crucial concerning the economic and societal implications of integrating LLM-based agents into real-world data-driven systems, such as online retail platforms and recommender systems. While the ML community has been exploring the potential of LLMs in such multi-agent setups, varying assumptions, design choices and evaluation criteria across studies make it difficult to draw robust and meaningful conclusions. To address this, we introduce a benchmark for standardizing research on two-player, sequential, language-based games. Inspired by the economic literature, we define three base families of games with consistent parameterization, degrees of freedom and economic measures to evaluate agents' performance (self-gain), as well as the game outcome (efficiency and fairness). We develop an open-source framework for interaction simulation and analysis, and utilize it to collect a dataset of LLM vs. LLM interactions across numerous game configurations and an additional dataset of human vs. LLM interactions. Through extensive experimentation, we demonstrate how our framework and dataset can be used to: (i) compare the behavior of LLM-based agents to human players in various economic contexts; (ii) evaluate agents in both individual and collective performance measures; and (iii) quantify the effect of the economic characteristics of the environments on the behavior of agents.

NL-Eye: Abductive NLI for Images

Will a Visual Language Model (VLM)-based bot warn us about slipping if it detects a wet floor? Recent VLMs have demonstrated impressive capabilities, yet their ability to infer outcomes and causes remains underexplored. To address this, we introduce NL-Eye, a benchmark designed to assess VLMs' visual abductive reasoning skills. NL-Eye adapts the abductive Natural Language Inference (NLI) task to the visual domain, requiring models to evaluate the plausibility of hypothesis images based on a premise image and explain their decisions. NL-Eye consists of 350 carefully curated triplet examples (1,050 images) spanning diverse reasoning categories: physical, functional, logical, emotional, cultural, and social. The data curation process involved two steps - writing textual descriptions and generating images using text-to-image models, both requiring substantial human involvement to ensure high-quality and challenging scenes. Our experiments show that VLMs struggle significantly on NL-Eye, often performing at random baseline levels, while humans excel in both plausibility prediction and explanation quality. This demonstrates a deficiency in the abductive reasoning capabilities of modern VLMs. NL-Eye represents a crucial step toward developing VLMs capable of robust multimodal reasoning for real-world applications, including accident-prevention bots and generated video verification.

LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinations

Large language models (LLMs) often produce errors, including factual inaccuracies, biases, and reasoning failures, collectively referred to as "hallucinations". Recent studies have demonstrated that LLMs' internal states encode information regarding the truthfulness of their outputs, and that this information can be utilized to detect errors. In this work, we show that the internal representations of LLMs encode much more information about truthfulness than previously recognized. We first discover that the truthfulness information is concentrated in specific tokens, and leveraging this property significantly enhances error detection performance. Yet, we show that such error detectors fail to generalize across datasets, implying that -- contrary to prior claims -- truthfulness encoding is not universal but rather multifaceted. Next, we show that internal representations can also be used for predicting the types of errors the model is likely to make, facilitating the development of tailored mitigation strategies. Lastly, we reveal a discrepancy between LLMs' internal encoding and external behavior: they may encode the correct answer, yet consistently generate an incorrect one. Taken together, these insights deepen our understanding of LLM errors from the model's internal perspective, which can guide future research on enhancing error analysis and mitigation.

A Systematic Review of NLP for Dementia- Tasks, Datasets and Opportunities

The close link between cognitive decline and language has fostered long-standing collaboration between the NLP and medical communities in dementia research. To examine this, we reviewed over 200 papers applying NLP to dementia related efforts, drawing from medical, technological, and NLP-focused literature. We identify key research areas, including dementia detection, linguistic biomarker extraction, caregiver support, and patient assistance, showing that half of all papers focus solely on dementia detection using clinical data. However, many directions remain unexplored: artificially degraded language models, synthetic data, digital twins, and more. We highlight gaps and opportunities around trust, scientific rigor, applicability, and cross-community collaboration, and showcase the diverse datasets encountered throughout our review: recorded, written, structured, spontaneous, synthetic, clinical, social media based, and more. This review aims to inspire more creative approaches to dementia research within the medical and NLP communities.

On Behalf of the Stakeholders: Trends in NLP Model Interpretability in the Era of LLMs

Recent advancements in NLP systems, particularly with the introduction of LLMs, have led to widespread adoption of these systems by a broad spectrum of users across various domains, impacting decision-making, the job market, society, and scientific research. This surge in usage has led to an explosion in NLP model interpretability and analysis research, accompanied by numerous technical surveys. Yet, these surveys often overlook the needs and perspectives of explanation stakeholders. In this paper, we address three fundamental questions: Why do we need interpretability, what are we interpreting, and how? By exploring these questions, we examine existing interpretability paradigms, their properties, and their relevance to different stakeholders. We further explore the practical implications of these paradigms by analyzing trends from the past decade across multiple research fields. To this end, we retrieved thousands of papers and employed an LLM to characterize them. Our analysis reveals significant disparities between NLP developers and non-developer users, as well as between research fields, underscoring the diverse needs of stakeholders. For example, explanations of internal model components are rarely used outside the NLP field. We hope this paper informs the future design, development, and application of methods that align with the objectives and requirements of various stakeholders.

Can LLMs Learn Macroeconomic Narratives from Social Media?

This study empirically tests the $\textit{Narrative Economics}$ hypothesis, which posits that narratives (ideas that are spread virally and affect public beliefs) can influence economic fluctuations. We introduce two curated datasets containing posts from X (formerly Twitter) which capture economy-related narratives (Data will be shared upon paper acceptance). Employing Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods, we extract and summarize narratives from the tweets. We test their predictive power for $\textit{macroeconomic}$ forecasting by incorporating the tweets' or the extracted narratives' representations in downstream financial prediction tasks. Our work highlights the challenges in improving macroeconomic models with narrative data, paving the way for the research community to realistically address this important challenge. From a scientific perspective, our investigation offers valuable insights and NLP tools for narrative extraction and summarization using Large Language Models (LLMs), contributing to future research on the role of narratives in economics.

Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?

When large language models are aligned via supervised fine-tuning, they may encounter new factual information that was not acquired through pre-training. It is often conjectured that this can teach the model the behavior of hallucinating factually incorrect responses, as the model is trained to generate facts that are not grounded in its pre-existing knowledge. In this work, we study the impact of such exposure to new knowledge on the capability of the fine-tuned model to utilize its pre-existing knowledge. To this end, we design a controlled setup, focused on closed-book QA, where we vary the proportion of the fine-tuning examples that introduce new knowledge. We demonstrate that large language models struggle to acquire new factual knowledge through fine-tuning, as fine-tuning examples that introduce new knowledge are learned significantly slower than those consistent with the model's knowledge. However, we also find that as the examples with new knowledge are eventually learned, they linearly increase the model's tendency to hallucinate. Taken together, our results highlight the risk in introducing new factual knowledge through fine-tuning, and support the view that large language models mostly acquire factual knowledge through pre-training, whereas fine-tuning teaches them to use it more efficiently.

Leveraging Prompt-Learning for Structured Information Extraction from Crohn's Disease Radiology Reports in a Low-Resource Language

Automatic conversion of free-text radiology reports into structured data using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques is crucial for analyzing diseases on a large scale. While effective for tasks in widely spoken languages like English, generative large language models (LLMs) typically underperform with less common languages and can pose potential risks to patient privacy. Fine-tuning local NLP models is hindered by the skewed nature of real-world medical datasets, where rare findings represent a significant data imbalance. We introduce SMP-BERT, a novel prompt learning method that leverages the structured nature of reports to overcome these challenges. In our studies involving a substantial collection of Crohn's disease radiology reports in Hebrew (over 8,000 patients and 10,000 reports), SMP-BERT greatly surpassed traditional fine-tuning methods in performance, notably in detecting infrequent conditions (AUC: 0.99 vs 0.94, F1: 0.84 vs 0.34). SMP-BERT empowers more accurate AI diagnostics available for low-resource languages.

Bored to Death: Artificial Intelligence Research Reveals the Role of Boredom in Suicide Behavior

Background: Recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) contributed significantly to suicide assessment, however, our theoretical understanding of this complex behavior is still limited. Objective: This study aimed to harness AI methodologies to uncover hidden risk factors that trigger or aggravate suicide behaviors. Method: The primary dataset included 228,052 Facebook postings by 1,006 users who completed the gold-standard Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale. This dataset was analyzed using a bottom-up research pipeline without a-priory hypotheses and its findings were validated using a top-down analysis of a new dataset. This secondary dataset included responses by 1,062 participants to the same suicide scale as well as to well-validated scales measuring depression and boredom. Results: An almost fully automated, AI-guided research pipeline resulted in four Facebook topics that predicted the risk of suicide, of which the strongest predictor was boredom. A comprehensive literature review using APA PsycInfo revealed that boredom is rarely perceived as a unique risk factor of suicide. A complementing top-down path analysis of the secondary dataset uncovered an indirect relationship between boredom and suicide, which was mediated by depression. An equivalent mediated relationship was observed in the primary Facebook dataset as well. However, here, a direct relationship between boredom and suicide risk was also observed. Conclusions: Integrating AI methods allowed the discovery of an under-researched risk factor of suicide. The study signals boredom as a maladaptive 'ingredient' that might trigger suicide behaviors, regardless of depression. Further studies are recommended to direct clinicians' attention to this burdening, and sometimes existential experience.