Disentangling Likes and Dislikes in Personalized Generative Explainable Recommendation

Recent research on explainable recommendation generally frames the task as a standard text generation problem, and evaluates models simply based on the textual similarity between the predicted and ground-truth explanations. However, this approach fails to consider one crucial aspect of the systems: whether their outputs accurately reflect the users' (post-purchase) sentiments, i.e., whether and why they would like and/or dislike the recommended items. To shed light on this issue, we introduce new datasets and evaluation methods that focus on the users' sentiments. Specifically, we construct the datasets by explicitly extracting users' positive and negative opinions from their post-purchase reviews using an LLM, and propose to evaluate systems based on whether the generated explanations 1) align well with the users' sentiments, and 2) accurately identify both positive and negative opinions of users on the target items. We benchmark several recent models on our datasets and demonstrate that achieving strong performance on existing metrics does not ensure that the generated explanations align well with the users' sentiments. Lastly, we find that existing models can provide more sentiment-aware explanations when the users' (predicted) ratings for the target items are directly fed into the models as input. We will release our code and datasets upon acceptance.

Enhancing Language Model Reasoning via Weighted Reasoning in Self-Consistency

While large language models (LLMs) have rapidly improved their performance on a broad number of tasks, they still often fall short on reasoning tasks. As LLMs become more integrated in diverse real-world tasks, advancing their reasoning capabilities is crucial to their effectiveness in nuanced, complex problems. Wang et al's self-consistency framework reveals that sampling multiple rationales before taking a majority vote reliably improves model performance across various closed-answer reasoning tasks. Standard methods based on this framework aggregate the final decisions of these rationales but fail to utilize the detailed step-by-step reasoning paths applied by these paths. Our work enhances this approach by incorporating and analyzing both the reasoning paths of these rationales in addition to their final decisions before taking a majority vote. These methods not only improve the reliability of reasoning paths but also cause more robust performance on complex reasoning tasks.

Self-Updatable Large Language Models with Parameter Integration

Despite significant advancements in large language models (LLMs), the rapid and frequent integration of small-scale experiences, such as interactions with surrounding objects, remains a substantial challenge. Two critical factors in assimilating these experiences are (1) Efficacy: the ability to accurately remember recent events; (2) Retention: the capacity to recall long-past experiences. Current methods either embed experiences within model parameters using continual learning, model editing, or knowledge distillation techniques, which often struggle with rapid updates and complex interactions, or rely on external storage to achieve long-term retention, thereby increasing storage requirements. In this paper, we propose SELF-PARAM (Self-Updatable Large Language Models with Parameter Integration). SELF-PARAM requires no extra parameters while ensuring near-optimal efficacy and long-term retention. Our method employs a training objective that minimizes the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between the predictions of an original model (with access to contextual information) and a target model (without such access). By generating diverse question-answer pairs related to the knowledge and minimizing the KL divergence across this dataset, we update the target model to internalize the knowledge seamlessly within its parameters. Evaluations on question-answering and conversational recommendation tasks demonstrate that SELF-PARAM significantly outperforms existing methods, even when accounting for non-zero storage requirements. This advancement paves the way for more efficient and scalable integration of experiences in large language models by embedding knowledge directly into model parameters.

DiversityMedQA: Assessing Demographic Biases in Medical Diagnosis using Large Language Models

As large language models (LLMs) gain traction in healthcare, concerns about their susceptibility to demographic biases are growing. We introduce {DiversityMedQA}, a novel benchmark designed to assess LLM responses to medical queries across diverse patient demographics, such as gender and ethnicity. By perturbing questions from the MedQA dataset, which comprises medical board exam questions, we created a benchmark that captures the nuanced differences in medical diagnosis across varying patient profiles. Our findings reveal notable discrepancies in model performance when tested against these demographic variations. Furthermore, to ensure the perturbations were accurate, we also propose a filtering strategy that validates each perturbation. By releasing DiversityMedQA, we provide a resource for evaluating and mitigating demographic bias in LLM medical diagnoses.

From Bias to Balance: Detecting Facial Expression Recognition Biases in Large Multimodal Foundation Models

This study addresses the racial biases in facial expression recognition (FER) systems within Large Multimodal Foundation Models (LMFMs). Despite advances in deep learning and the availability of diverse datasets, FER systems often exhibit higher error rates for individuals with darker skin tones. Existing research predominantly focuses on traditional FER models (CNNs, RNNs, ViTs), leaving a gap in understanding racial biases in LMFMs. We benchmark four leading LMFMs: GPT-4o, PaliGemma, Gemini, and CLIP to assess their performance in facial emotion detection across different racial demographics. A linear classifier trained on CLIP embeddings obtains accuracies of 95.9\% for RADIATE, 90.3\% for Tarr, and 99.5\% for Chicago Face. Furthermore, we identify that Anger is misclassified as Disgust 2.1 times more often in Black Females than White Females. This study highlights the need for fairer FER systems and establishes a foundation for developing unbiased, accurate FER technologies. Visit https://kvjvhub.github.io/FERRacialBias/ for further information regarding the biases within facial expression recognition.

AAVENUE: Detecting LLM Biases on NLU Tasks in AAVE via a Novel Benchmark

Detecting biases in natural language understanding (NLU) for African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is crucial to developing inclusive natural language processing (NLP) systems. To address dialect-induced performance discrepancies, we introduce AAVENUE ({AAVE} {N}atural Language {U}nderstanding {E}valuation), a benchmark for evaluating large language model (LLM) performance on NLU tasks in AAVE and Standard American English (SAE). AAVENUE builds upon and extends existing benchmarks like VALUE, replacing deterministic syntactic and morphological transformations with a more flexible methodology leveraging LLM-based translation with few-shot prompting, improving performance across our evaluation metrics when translating key tasks from the GLUE and SuperGLUE benchmarks. We compare AAVENUE and VALUE translations using five popular LLMs and a comprehensive set of metrics including fluency, BARTScore, quality, coherence, and understandability. Additionally, we recruit fluent AAVE speakers to validate our translations for authenticity. Our evaluations reveal that LLMs consistently perform better on SAE tasks than AAVE-translated versions, underscoring inherent biases and highlighting the need for more inclusive NLP models. We have open-sourced our source code on GitHub and created a website to showcase our work at https://aavenue.live.

Question-Analysis Prompting Improves LLM Performance in Reasoning Tasks

Although LLMs have the potential to transform many fields, they still underperform humans in reasoning tasks. Existing methods induce the model to produce step-by-step calculations, but this research explores the question: Does making the LLM analyze the question improve its performance? We propose a novel prompting strategy called Question Analysis Prompting (QAP), in which the model is prompted to explain the question in $n$ words before solving. The value of $n$ influences the length of response generated by the model. QAP is evaluated on GPT 3.5 Turbo and GPT 4 Turbo on arithmetic datasets GSM8K, AQuA, and SAT and commonsense dataset StrategyQA. QAP is compared with other state-of-the-art prompts including Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Plan and Solve Prompting (PS+) and Take A Deep Breath (TADB). QAP outperforms all state-of-the-art prompts on AQuA and SAT datasets on both GPT3.5 and GPT4. QAP consistently ranks among the top-2 prompts on 75\% of the tests. A key factor of QAP performance can be attributed to response length, where detailed responses are beneficial when answering harder questions, but can negatively affect easy questions.

PathFinder: Guided Search over Multi-Step Reasoning Paths

With recent advancements in large language models, methods like chain-of-thought prompting to elicit reasoning chains have been shown to improve results on reasoning tasks. However, tasks that require multiple steps of reasoning still pose significant challenges to state-of-the-art models. Drawing inspiration from the beam search algorithm, we propose PathFinder, a tree-search-based reasoning path generation approach. It enhances diverse branching and multi-hop reasoning through the integration of dynamic decoding, enabled by varying sampling methods and parameters. Using constrained reasoning, PathFinder integrates novel quality constraints, pruning, and exploration methods to enhance the efficiency and the quality of generation. Moreover, it includes scoring and ranking features to improve candidate selection. Our approach outperforms competitive baselines on three complex arithmetic and commonsense reasoning tasks by 6% on average. Our model generalizes well to longer, unseen reasoning chains, reflecting similar complexities to beam search with large branching factors.

Contrastive Decoding Improves Reasoning in Large Language Models

We demonstrate that Contrastive Decoding -- a simple, computationally light, and training-free text generation method proposed by Li et al 2022 -- achieves large out-of-the-box improvements over greedy decoding on a variety of reasoning tasks. Originally shown to improve the perceived quality of long-form text generation, Contrastive Decoding searches for strings that maximize a weighted difference in likelihood between strong and weak models. We show that Contrastive Decoding leads LLaMA-65B to outperform LLaMA 2, GPT-3.5 and PaLM 2-L on the HellaSwag commonsense reasoning benchmark, and to outperform LLaMA 2, GPT-3.5 and PaLM-540B on the GSM8K math word reasoning benchmark, in addition to improvements on a collection of other tasks. Analysis suggests that Contrastive Decoding improves over existing methods by preventing some abstract reasoning errors, as well as by avoiding simpler modes such as copying sections of the input during chain-of-thought. Overall, Contrastive Decoding outperforms nucleus sampling for long-form generation and greedy decoding for reasoning tasks, making it a powerful general purpose method for generating text from language models.

Shepherd: A Critic for Language Model Generation

As large language models improve, there is increasing interest in techniques that leverage these models' capabilities to refine their own outputs. In this work, we introduce Shepherd, a language model specifically tuned to critique responses and suggest refinements, extending beyond the capabilities of an untuned model to identify diverse errors and provide suggestions to remedy them. At the core of our approach is a high quality feedback dataset, which we curate from community feedback and human annotations. Even though Shepherd is small (7B parameters), its critiques are either equivalent or preferred to those from established models including ChatGPT. Using GPT-4 for evaluation, Shepherd reaches an average win-rate of 53-87% compared to competitive alternatives. In human evaluation, Shepherd strictly outperforms other models and on average closely ties with ChatGPT.