United States

In an effort to mitigate the harms of large language models (LLMs), learning from human feedback (LHF) has been used to steer LLMs towards outputs that are intended to be both less harmful and more helpful. Despite the widespread adoption of LHF in practice, the quality of this feedback and its effectiveness as a safety mitigation technique remain unclear. This study addresses these issues by auditing the widely-used Helpful and Harmless (HH) dataset by Anthropic. Our work includes: (1) a thorough investigation of the dataset&#39;s content through both manual and automated evaluation; (2) experiments demonstrating the dataset&#39;s impact on models&#39; safety; and (3) an analysis of the 100 most influential papers citing this dataset. Through our audit, we showcase how conceptualization failures and quality issues identified in the HH dataset can create additional harms by leading to disparate safety behaviors across demographic groups. Our findings highlight the need for more nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to safety mitigation in LLMs.

NAACL 2025

Beyond the Safety Bundle: Auditing the Helpful and Harmless Dataset

helpful and harmless preferences

learning from human feedback

safety

fairness

### Welcome!
The 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2024) will take place in Bangkok, Thailand from August 11th to 16th, 2024. Our Virtual Poster Sessions will take place online Thursday, August 22, 2024.

You are required to register for this event. **Please register [here](https://2024.aclweb.org/registration). **

If you have already registered, please check your inbox for an email from Underline granting you access to ACL 2024 content.

Please register!

ACL 2024

The 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2024) will take place in Bangkok, Thailand from August 11th to 16th, 2024. More information will be announced soon.

In an effort to mitigate the harms of large language models (LLMs), learning from human feedback (LHF) has been used to steer LLMs towards outputs that are intended to be both less harmful and more helpful. Despite the widespread adoption of LHF in practice, the quality of this feedback and its effectiveness as a safety mitigation technique remain unclear. This study addresses these issues by auditing the widely-used Helpful and Harmless (HH) dataset by Anthropic. Our work includes: (1) a thorough investigation of the dataset's content through both manual and automated evaluation; (2) experiments demonstrating the dataset's impact on models' safety; and (3) an analysis of the 100 most influential papers citing this dataset. Through our audit, we showcase how conceptualization failures and quality issues identified in the HH dataset can create additional harms by leading to disparate safety behaviors across demographic groups. Our findings highlight the need for more nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to safety mitigation in LLMs.

technical paper

### Welcome to 2025 Annual Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Welcome to the 2025 meeting of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics! I am proud to help organize the first NAACL conference to carry the new name of our organization, one that emphasizes inclusion for all of the Americas. I am also pleased to welcome you to Albuquerque, New Mexico, a state whose unique blend of cultural influences will make for an excellent backdrop for NAACL 2025, especially with this year’s special theme on NLP in a Multicultural World. 
**[Continue reading...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jX-qGhqVSZZCIrAnJaz798pflu5Irrdn/view?usp=sharing)**

*- Colin Cherry, Google, NAACL 2025 General Chair* 

[![](https://assets.underline.io/markdown_image/1/image/b087f8a4dc5816d6e1a6514e59c59ac3.png)](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T96GzPqObXrMln2BMByCSXTSizjTg69P/view?usp=sharing)

You need to log in with the email address you registered with. Access credentials have been sent to your email. 

Please be sure to check your spam and other email folders if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in to explore this event.

To access NAACL 2025 event page you are required to register. Please follow [**this link**](https://2025.naacl.org/registration/registration/) to register. Access will depend on your registration type.

Welcome to 2025 Annual Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Large language models (LLMs) have shown the emergent capability of in-context learning (ICL). One line of research has claimed that ICL is functionally equivalent to gradient descent, a type of error-driven learning mechanism. In this paper, we introduce a new way of diagnosing whether ICL is functionally performing error-driven learning. Our approach is based on the inverse frequency effect (IFE)---a phenomenon in which an agent's behavior is influenced to a greater degree when presented with improbable examples as compared to more likely ones. The IFE has previously been identified in psycholinguistics where humans exhibit the IFE in the context of structural priming (the tendency for people to produce sentence structures they have encountered recently). In that context, the IFE has been used as evidence that human structural priming must involve error-driven learning mechanisms. In our experiments, we simulated structural priming with ICL and found that LLMs indeed display the IFE, with the effect being stronger in larger models. We conclude that at least in the case we studied, ICL is indeed a type of error-driven learning, supporting the hypothesis that an error signal is implicitly computed in the forward pass during ICL. Our results suggest that both humans and LLMs make use of error-driven processing mechanisms in on-line processing.

Is In-Context Learning a Type of Error-Driven Learning? Evidence from the Inverse Frequency Effect in Structural Priming

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in low-resource and linguistically diverse languages remains a significant challenge in NLP, particularly for languages using non-Latin scripts like those spoken in India. Existing benchmarks predominantly focus on English, leaving substantial gaps in assessing LLM capabilities in these languages. We introduce MILU, a Multi-task Indic Language Understanding Benchmark, a comprehensive evaluation benchmark designed to address this gap. MILU spans 8 domains and 41 subjects across 11 Indic languages, reflecting general and culturally specific knowledge. With an India-centric design, incorporates material from regional and state-level examinations, covering topics such as local history, arts, festivals, and laws, alongside standard subjects like science and mathematics. We evaluate over 42 LLMs, and find that current LLMs struggle with MILU, with GPT-4o achieving the highest average accuracy at 74 percent. Open multilingual models outperform language-specific fine-tuned models, which perform only slightly better than random baselines. Models also perform better in high resource languages as compared to low resource ones. Domain-wise analysis indicates that models perform poorly in culturally relevant areas like Arts and Humanities, Law and Governance compared to general fields like STEM. To the best of our knowledge, MILU is the first of its kind benchmark focused on Indic languages, serving as a crucial step towards comprehensive cultural evaluation. All code, benchmarks, and artifacts are publicly available to foster open research.

MILU: A Multi-task Indic Language Understanding Benchmark

While compositional accounts of human language understanding are based on a hierarchical tree-like process, neural models like transformers lack a direct inductive bias for such tree structures. Introducing syntactic inductive biases could unlock more robust and data-efficient learning in transformer language models (LMs), but existing methods for incorporating such structure greatly restrict models, either limiting their expressivity or increasing inference complexity. This work instead aims to softly inject syntactic inductive biases into given transformer circuits, through a structured regularizer. We introduce TreeReg, an auxiliary loss function that converts bracketing decisions from silver parses into a set of differentiable orthogonality constraints on vector hidden states. TreeReg integrates seamlessly with the standard LM objective, requiring no architectural changes. LMs pre-trained with TreeReg on natural language corpora such as WikiText-103 achieve up to 10% lower perplexities on out-of-distribution data and up to 9.5 point improvements in syntactic generalization, requiring less than half the training data to outperform standard LMs. TreeReg still provides gains for pre-trained LLMs: Continued pre-training of Sheared Llama with TreeReg results in improved syntactic generalization, and fine-tuning on MultiNLI with TreeReg mitigates degradation of performance on adversarial NLI benchmarks by 41.2 points. We release all code to guide future research.

Sneaking Syntax into Transformer Language Models with Tree Regularization

Language models (LMs) are increasingly used as simulacra for people, yet their ability to match the distribution of views of a specific demographic group and be *distributionally aligned* remains uncertain. This notion of distributional alignment is complex, as there is significant variation in the types of attributes that are simulated. Prior works have underexplored the role of three critical variables---the question domain, steering method, and distribution expression method---which motivates our contribution of a benchmark explicitly addressing these dimensions. We construct a dataset expanding beyond political values, create human baselines for this task, and evaluate the extent to which an LM can align with a particular group's opinion distribution to inform design choices of such simulation systems. Our analysis reveals open problems regarding if, and how, LMs can be used to simulate humans, and that LLMs can more accurately describe the opinion distribution than simulate such distributions.

Benchmarking Distributional Alignment of Large Language Models

Knowledge graph embeddings (KGE) apply machine learning methods on knowledge graphs (KGs) to provide non-classical reasoning capabilities based on similarities and analogies. The learned KG embeddings are typically used to answer queries by ranking all potential answers, but rankings often lack a meaningful probabilistic interpretation - lower-ranked answers do not necessarily have a lower probability of being true. This limitation makes it difficult to quantify uncertainty of model's predictions, posing challenges for the application of KGE methods in high-stakes domains like medicine. We address this issue by applying the theory of conformal prediction that allows generating answer sets, which contain the correct answer with probabilistic guarantees. We explain how conformal prediction can be used to generate such answer sets for link prediction tasks. Our empirical evaluation on four benchmark datasets using six representative KGE methods validates that the generated answer sets satisfy the probabilistic guarantees given by the theory of conformal prediction. We also demonstrate that the generated answer sets often have a sensible size and that the size adapts well with respect to the difficulty of the query.

Conformalized Answer Set Prediction for Knowledge Graph Embedding

Question answering (QA)—giving correct answers to questions—is a popular task, but we test **reverse question answering (RQA)**: for an input answer, give a question with that answer. Past work tests QA and RQA separately, but we test them jointly, comparing their difficulty, aiding benchmark design, and checking reasoning consistency. We run 16 LLMs on QA and RQA with trivia questions/answers, revealing: 1) Versus RQA, LLMs are much less accurate in RQA for numerical answers, but slightly more accurate in RQA for textual answers; 2) LLMs often answer their own invalid questions from RQA accurately in QA, so RQA errors are not just from knowledge gaps; 3) RQA errors correlate with question difficulty and inversely correlate with answer frequencies in the Dolma corpus; and 4) LLMs struggle to give valid multi-hop questions. By finding question and answer types that lead to RQA errors, we suggest improvements for LLM reasoning.

Reverse Question Answering: Can an LLM Write a Question so Hard (or Bad) that it Can’t Answer?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown proficiency in generating persuasive dialogue, yet concerns about the fluency and sophistication of their outputs persist. This paper presents a multi-LLM communication framework designed to enhance the generation of persuasive data automatically. This framework facilitates the efficient production of high-quality, diverse linguistic content with minimal human oversight. Through extensive evaluations, we demonstrate that the generated data excels in naturalness, linguistic diversity, and the strategic use of persuasion, even in complex scenarios involving social taboos. The framework also proves adept at generalizing across novel contexts. Our results highlight the framework's potential to significantly advance research in both computational and social science domains concerning persuasive communication.

Communication Makes Perfect: Persuasion Dataset Construction via Multi-LLM Communication

Enforcing representation smoothness in pre-trained language models (PLMs) through Jacobian and Hessian regularization provides an effective approach for enhancing both robustness and generalization. Although such regularization methods have proven effective in computer vision, their application in natural language processing, where PLM inputs are derived from a discrete domain, poses unique challenges. We introduce JacHess, a regularization approach for PLMs that minimizes the norms of the Jacobian and Hessian matrices in intermediate representations, using embeddings as substitutes for discrete token inputs. JacHess supports dual-mode regularization, alternating between fine-tuning with labeled data and regularization with unlabeled data. We evaluate JacHess on the GLUE benchmark and demonstrate that it consistently and significantly improves in-distribution generalization and enhances performance under domain shift. Across diverse PLMs, JacHess outperforms comparable representation-based regularization methods and unregularized fine-tuning, while also improving model calibration. Our findings, coupled with a computationally efficient estimator for the Jacobian and Hessian norms, position JacHess as a robust and widely applicable solution for enhancing PLM performance.

From Robustness to Improved Generalization and Calibration in Pre-trained Language Models

How do people understand and evaluate claims about others' beliefs, even though these beliefs cannot be directly observed? In this paper, we introduce a cognitive model of epistemic language interpretation, grounded in Bayesian inferences about other agents' goals, beliefs, and intentions: a language-augmented Bayesian theory-of-mind (LaBToM). By translating natural language into an epistemic language-of-thought, then evaluating these translations against the inferences produced by inverting a probabilistic generative model of rational action and perception, LaBToM captures quantitative human judgments about initial and present belief claims. We validate our model in an experiment where participants evaluate belief sentences about an agent who has to find keys hidden in boxes to reach its goal. In contrast with multimodal LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini Pro) and various ablations, our model produces a much stronger fit with human ratings for a wide range of epistemic expressions, including modal language, uncertainty expressions, knowledge claims, likelihood comparisons, and descriptions of false beliefs.

Understanding Epistemic Language with a Language-augmented Bayesian Theory of Mind

Event Argument Extraction (EAE) is a key task in natural language processing, focusing on identifying and classifying event arguments in text. However, the widely adopted exact span match (ESM) evaluation metric has notable limitations due to its rigid span constraints, often misidentifying valid predictions as errors and underestimating system performance. In this paper, we evaluate nine state-of-the-art EAE models on the RAMS and GENEVA datasets, highlighting ESM's limitations. To address these issues, we introduce BEMEAE (Beyond Exact Span Match for Event Argument Extraction), a novel evaluation metric that recognizes predictions that are semantically equivalent to or improve upon the reference. BEMEAE integrates deterministic components with a semantic matching component for more accurate assessment. Our experiments demonstrate that BEMEAE aligns more closely with human judgments. We show that BEMEAE not only leads to higher F1 scores compared to ESM but also results in significant changes in model rankings, underscoring ESM's inadequacy for comprehensive evaluation of EAE.

Downloads

Next from NAACL 2025

Is In-Context Learning a Type of Error-Driven Learning? Evidence from the Inverse Frequency Effect in Structural Priming

Similar lecture

From Representational Harms to Quality-of-Service Harms: A Case Study on Llama 2 Safety Safeguards