United States

We examine how users perceive the limitations of an AI system when it encounters a task that it cannot perform perfectly and whether providing explanations alongside its answers aids users in constructing an appropriate mental model of the system&#39;s capabilities and limitations. We employ a visual question answer and explanation task where we control the AI system&#39;s limitations by manipulating the visual inputs: during inference, the system either processes full-color or grayscale images. Our goal is to determine whether participants can perceive the limitations of the system. We hypothesize that explanations will make limited AI capabilities more transparent to users. However, our results show that explanations do not have this effect. Instead of allowing users to more accurately assess the limitations of the AI system, explanations generally increase users&#39; perceptions of the system&#39;s competence -- regardless of its actual performance.

EMNLP 2024

The Illusion of Competence: Evaluating the Effect of Explanations on Users&#39; Mental Models of Visual Question Answering Systems

weakly supervised vision language learning

video text prompting

spatio-temporal video grounding

## Welcome to EMNLP 2024! 
We are excited to welcome you to one of the most prominent conferences in the field of Natural Language Processing. This year, EMNLP 2024 is being held in a hybrid format,
offering both virtual and in-person participation in beautiful Miami. Due to a record-breaking number of submissions, we've expanded the total number of accepted papers to accommodate more cutting-edge research from around the globe.
### [Conference Handbook](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WPROgxjLAC96AJL7Ugy0tEnYm7dkrbHt/view?usp=sharing)

You are required to register for this event. **Please register [here](https://2024.emnlp.org/registration/).** The EMNLP 2024 event page on Underline will be open to public one week prior to the event.

Please register!

EMNLP 2024 will take place in Miami, Florida from Nov 12th to Nov 16th, 2024, at the Hyatt Regency Miami Hote and on Underline for remote participants.

We examine how users perceive the limitations of an AI system when it encounters a task that it cannot perform perfectly and whether providing explanations alongside its answers aids users in constructing an appropriate mental model of the system's capabilities and limitations. We employ a visual question answer and explanation task where we control the AI system's limitations by manipulating the visual inputs: during inference, the system either processes full-color or grayscale images. Our goal is to determine whether participants can perceive the limitations of the system. We hypothesize that explanations will make limited AI capabilities more transparent to users. However, our results show that explanations do not have this effect. Instead of allowing users to more accurately assess the limitations of the AI system, explanations generally increase users' perceptions of the system's competence -- regardless of its actual performance.

The Illusion of Competence: Evaluating the Effect of Explanations on Users' Mental Models of Visual Question Answering Systems

poster

In the last decade, the generalization and adaptation abilities of deep learning models were typically evaluated on fixed training and test distributions. Contrary to traditional deep learning, large language models (LLMs) are (i) even more overparameterized, (ii) trained on unlabeled text corpora curated from the Internet with minimal human intervention, and (iii) trained in an online fashion. These stark contrasts prevent researchers from transferring lessons learned on model generalization and adaptation in deep learning contexts to LLMs.

To this end, our short paper introduces empirical observations that aim to shed light on further training of already pretrained language models. Specifically, we demonstrate that training a model on a text domain could degrade its perplexity on the test portion of the same domain. We observe with our subsequent analysis that the performance degradation is positively correlated with the similarity between the additional and the original pretraining dataset of the LLM. Our further token-level perplexity analysis reveals that the perplexity degradation is due to a handful of tokens that are not informative about the domain. We hope these findings will guide us in determining when to adapt a model vs when to rely on its foundational capabilities.

Adaptation Odyssey in LLMs: Why Does Additional Pretraining Sometimes Fail to Improve?

A diverse array of reasoning strategies has been proposed to elicit the capabilities of large language models. However, in this paper, we point out that traditional evaluations which focus solely on performance metrics miss a key factor: the increased effectiveness due to additional compute. By overlooking this aspect, a skewed view of strategy efficiency is often presented. This paper introduces a framework that incorporates the compute budget into the evaluation, providing a more informative comparison that takes into account both performance metrics and computational cost. In this budget-aware perspective, we find that complex reasoning strategies often don't surpass simpler baselines purely due to algorithmic ingenuity, but rather due to the larger computational resources allocated. When we provide a simple baseline like chain-of-thought self-consistency with comparable compute resources, it frequently outperforms reasoning strategies proposed in the literature. In this scale-aware perspective, we find that unlike self-consistency, certain strategies such as multi-agent debate or Reflexion can become worse if more compute budget is utilized.

Reasoning in Token Economies: Budget-Aware Evaluation of LLM Reasoning Strategies

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for complex multi-turn conversations across diverse real-world applications. However, existing benchmarks mainly focus on single-turn evaluations, overlooking the models' capabilities in multi-turn interactions. To address this gap, we introduce {\name}, a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate the multi-turn conversational abilities of LLMs. By analyzing human-LLM conversations, we categorize interaction patterns into four types: recollection, expansion, refinement, and follow-up. We construct multi-turn queries for each category either by augmenting existing datasets or creating new examples using GPT-4 with a human-in-the-loop process to avoid data leakage. To study the factors impacting multi-turn abilities, we create single-turn versions of the 1170 multi-turn queries and compare performance. Our evaluation of 10 well-known LLMs shows that while closed-source models generally surpass open-source ones, certain open-source models exceed GPT-3.5-Turbo in specific tasks. We observe significant performance degradation in multi-turn settings compared to single-turn settings in most models, which is not correlated with the models' fundamental capabilities. Moreover, we identify the distance to relevant content and susceptibility to error propagation as the key factors influencing multi-turn performance.

MT-Eval: A Multi-Turn Capabilities Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models

This research addresses command-line embedding in cybersecurity, a field obstructed by the lack of comprehensive datasets due to privacy and regulation concerns. We propose the first dataset of similar command lines, named CyPHER, for training and unbiased evaluation. The training set is generated using a set of large language models (LLMs) comprising 28,520 similar command-line pairs. Our testing dataset consists of 2,807 similar command-line pairs sourced from authentic command-line data.

In addition, we propose a command-line embedding model named CmdCaliper, enabling the computation of semantic similarity with command lines. Performance evaluations demonstrate that the smallest version of CmdCaliper (30 million parameters) suppresses state-of-the-art (SOTA) sentence embedding models with ten times more parameters across various tasks (e.g., malicious command-line detection and similar command-line retrieval).

Our study explores the feasibility of data generation using LLMs in the cybersecurity domain. Furthermore, we release our proposed command-line dataset, embedding models’ weights and all program codes to the public. This advancement paves the way for more effective command-line embedding for future researchers.

CmdCaliper: A Semantic-Aware Command-Line Embedding Model and Dataset for Security Research

We present Multi-expert Prompting, a novel enhancement of ExpertPrompting (Xu et al., 2023), designed to improve the large language model (LLM) generation. Specifically, it guides an LLM to fulfill an input instruction by simulating multiple experts, aggregating their responses, and selecting the best among individual and aggregated responses. This process is performed in a single chain of thoughts through our seven carefully designed subtasks derived from the Nominal Group Technique (Ven and Delbecq, 1974), a well-established decision-making framework. Our evaluations demonstrate that Multi-expert Prompting significantly outperforms ExpertPrompting and comparable baselines in enhancing the truthfulness, factuality, informativeness, and usefulness of responses while reducing toxicity and hurtfulness. It further achieves state-of-the-art truthfulness by outperforming the best baseline by 8.69% with ChatGPT. Multi-expert Prompting is efficient, explainable, and highly adaptable to diverse scenarios, eliminating the need for manual prompt construction.

Multi-expert Prompting Improves Reliability, Safety and Usefulness of Large Language Models

As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to exhibit remarkable performance in natural language understanding tasks, there is a crucial need to measure their ability for human-like multi-step logical reasoning. Existing logical reasoning evaluation benchmarks often focus primarily on simplistic single-step or multi-step reasoning with a limited set of inference rules. Furthermore, the lack of datasets for evaluating non-monotonic reasoning represents a crucial gap since it aligns more closely with human-like reasoning. To address these limitations, we propose Multi-LogiEval, a comprehensive evaluation dataset encompassing multi-step logical reasoning with various inference rules and depths. Multi-LogiEval covers three logic types — propositional, first-order, and non-monotonic consisting of more than 30 inference rules and more than 60 of their combinations with various depths. Leveraging this dataset, we conduct evaluations on a range of LLMs such as GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini-Pro, Orca, and Mistral, employing a zero-shot chain-of-thought. Experimental results show that there is a significant drop in the performance of LLMs as the reasoning steps/depth increases (average accuracy of ~68% at depth-1 to ~43% at depth-5). We further conduct a thorough investigation of reasoning chains generated by LLMs which reveals several important findings. We believe that Multi-LogiEval facilitates future research for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning ability of LLMs.

Multi-LogiEval: Towards Evaluating Multi-Step Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models

Research in vision and language has made considerable progress thanks to benchmarks such as COCO. COCO captions focused on unambiguous facts in English; ArtEmis introduced subjective emotions and ArtELingo introduced some multilinguality (Chinese and Arabic). However we believe there should be more multilinguality. Hence, we present ArtELingo-28, a vision-language benchmark that spans 28 languages and encompasses approximately 200,000 annotations (140 annotations per image). Traditionally, vision research focused on unambiguous class labels, whereas ArtELingo-28 emphasizes diversity of opinions over languages and cultures. The challenge is to build machine learning systems that assign emotional captions to images. Baseline results will be presented for three novel conditions: Zero-Shot, Few-Shot and One-vs-All Zero-Shot. We find that cross-lingual transfer is more successful for culturally-related languages. Data and code will be made publicly available.

No Culture Left Behind: ArtELingo-28, a Benchmark of WikiArt with Captions in 28 Languages

The evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to significant advancements, with models like Claude and Gemini capable of processing contexts up to 1 million tokens. However, efficiently handling long sequences remains challenging, particularly during the prefilling stage when input lengths exceed GPU memory capacity. Traditional methods often segment sequence into chunks and compress them iteratively with fixed-size memory. However, our empirical analysis shows that the fixed-size memory results in wasted computational and GPU memory resources. Therefore, we introduces Incremental Memory (IM), a method that starts with a small memory size and gradually increases it, optimizing computational efficiency. Additionally, we propose Decremental Chunk based on Incremental Memory (IMDC), which reduces chunk size while increasing memory size, ensuring stable and lower GPU memory usage. Our experiments demonstrate that IMDC is consistently faster (1.45x) and reduces GPU memory consumption by 23.3% compared to fixed-size memory, achieving comparable performance on the LongBench Benchmark.

Memorize Step by Step: Efficient Long-Context Prefilling with Incremental Memory and Decremental Chunk

Training data compositions for Large Language Models (LLMs) can significantly affect their downstream performance. 
However, a thorough data ablation study exploring large sets of candidate data mixtures is typically prohibitively expensive since the full effect is seen only after training the models; this can lead practitioners to settle for sub-optimal data mixtures. 
We propose an efficient method for approximating data ablations which trains individual models on subsets of a training corpus and reuses them across evaluations of combinations of subsets.
In continued pre-training experiments, we find that, given an arbitrary evaluation set, the perplexity score of a single model trained on a candidate set of data is strongly correlated with perplexity scores of parameter averages of models trained on distinct partitions of that data. 
From this finding, we posit that researchers and practitioners can conduct inexpensive simulations of data ablations by maintaining a pool of models that were each trained on partitions of a large training corpus, and assessing candidate data mixtures by evaluating parameter averages of combinations of these models. 
This approach allows for substantial improvements in amortized training efficiency -- scaling only linearly with respect to new data -- by enabling reuse of previous training computation, opening new avenues for improving model performance through rigorous, incremental data assessment and mixing.

Scalable Data Ablation Approximations for Language Models through Modular Training and Merging

Scaling the context size of large language models (LLMs) enables them to perform various new tasks, e.g., book summarization. However, the memory cost of the Key and Value (KV) cache in attention significantly limits the practical applications of LLMs. Recent works have explored token pruning for KV cache reduction in LLMs, relying solely on attention scores as a token importance indicator. However, our investigation into value vector norms revealed a notably non-uniform pattern questioning their reliance only on attention scores. Inspired by this, we propose a new method: Value-Aware Token Pruning (VATP) which uses both attention scores and the $ \ell_{1} $ norm of value vectors to evaluate token importance. Extensive experiments on LLaMA2-7B-chat and Vicuna-v1.5-7B across 16 LongBench tasks demonstrate that VATP outperforms attention-score-only baselines in over 12 tasks, confirming the effectiveness of incorporating value vector norms into token importance evaluation of LLMs.

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2024

Adaptation Odyssey in LLMs: Why Does Additional Pretraining Sometimes Fail to Improve?

Similar lecture

Do Explanations Help or Hurt? Saliency Maps vs Natural Language Explanations in a Clinical Decision-Support Setting