Mexico

Planning is a crucial task for agents in task oriented dialogs (TODs). Human agents typically resolve user issues by following predefined workflows, decomposing workflow steps into actionable items, and performing actions by executing APIs in order; all of which require reasoning and planning. With the recent advances in LLMs, there have been increasing attempts to use them for task planning and API usage. However, the faithfulness of the plans to predefined workflows and API dependencies, is not guaranteed with LLMs. Moreover, workflows in real life are often custom-defined and prone to changes; hence, adaptation is desirable. To study this, we propose the problem of faithful planning in TODs that needs to resolve user intents by following predefined flows and preserving API dependencies. To solve this problem, we propose $\textbf{FLAP}$, a $\textbf{Fl}$ow-$\textbf{A}$dhering $\textbf{P}$lanning algorithm based on constrained decoding with lookahead heuristic for LLMs. Our algorithm alleviates the need for finetuning LLMs using domain specific (plan/dependency) data, enables quick adaptation to predefined flows, and outperforms other decoding and prompting-based baselines. Further, our algorithm empowers smaller LLMs ($\approx7$B) to perform at par larger LLMs ($\approx30$B-$40$B).

NAACL 2024

FLAP: Flow-Adhering Planning with Constrained Decoding in LLMs

planning in tods.

constrained decoding of llms for faithful planning

### 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.

technical paper

## Welcome to 2024 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics!
This year, the conference is in Mexico City. NAACL was actually already planned for Mexico City in 2021, but due to the pandemic the entire conference was moved online. This year, finally, we get to go! So it is my sincere pleasure to welcome you to Mexico City, whether in person or virtually. Having the conference in Mexico City is a good opportunity to emphasize that NAACL is our flagship conference for ACL members not only in North America but also in Central and South America, even though NAACL has been bearing “North” in its name. At this year’s conference, we have a theme to match, with a theme track on the Languages of Latin America to showcase the linguistic diversity of the region.
 
The opportunity to present at NAACL should not depend on a researcher’s travel budget, or their family status. This is why it is so important to make virtual participation at NAACL as good an experience as possible – but we want to also provide a good experience for in-person participants. As a community, we are still working out the best way to do that. This year at NAACL, we are trying out a big virtual poster session ahead of the conference, with the hope that this will make make for a lively and interactive experience. At the same time, we are reducing virtual oral presentations, which seem to be particularly tricky to make to work well. A big thanks to the NAACL program chairs and to Luciana Benotti for all their ideas and work to improve the virtual experience. And participants, virtual as well as in-person: Please let us know what worked for you and what didn’t, so we can continue to improve hybrid conferences. 
 
I have been lucky to work with many amazing people. Without their insight, dedication and patience, and without the many hours of work they put in, NAACL would not have been possible. A huge thank you to the program chairs Helena Gomez, Kevin Duh, and Steve Bethard – you are the best! 
 
Finally, I would like to thank all authors, invited speakers and panelists, area chairs and reviewers, the volunteers organizing and chairing sessions, and all attendees, in-person and virtual. Thank you for helping us make NAACL 2024 come to life. 
 
Welcome and hope you all enjoy the conference! 
Katrin Erk 
The University of Texas at Austin 
NAACL-2024 General Chair 
*You can read the full Welcome message in the [Conference Handbook (downloadable)](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H1NvW0VASQjkSCYgw3mr-3l4yYDSxz6B/view?usp=sharing)*

To access the event page you need to register [**here.**](http://acl.swoogo.com/naacl2024) 
Your access to the event page is limited based on your registration type. If you registered for workshops only, you will gain access to full workshops content on the day of the workshops program.

2024 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

In-context learning (ICL) has shown impressive results in few-shot learning tasks, yet its underlying mechanism is still not fully understood. A recent line of work suggests that ICL performs gradient descent (GD)-based optimization implicitly. While appealing, much of the research focuses on simplified settings, where the parameters of a shallow model are optimized. In this work, we revisit evidence for ICL-GD correspondence on realistic NLP tasks and models. We find gaps in evaluation, both in terms of problematic metrics and insufficient baselines. We show that surprisingly, even untrained models achieve comparable ICL-GD similarity scores despite not exhibiting ICL. Next, we explore a major discrepancy in the flow of information throughout the model between ICL and GD, which we term \textit{Layer Causality}. We propose a simple GD-based optimization procedure that respects layer causality, and show it improves similarity scores significantly.

In-context Learning and Gradient Descent Revisited

Large language models are successful in answering factoid questions but are also prone to hallucination. We investigate the phenomenon of LLMs possessing correct answer knowledge yet still hallucinating from the perspective of inference dynamics, an area not previously covered in studies on hallucinations. We are able to conduct this analysis via two key ideas. First, we identify the factual questions that query the same triplet knowledge but result in different answers. The difference between the model behaviors on the correct and incorrect outputs hence suggests the patterns when hallucinations happen. Second, to measure the pattern, we utilize mappings from the residual streams to vocabulary space. We reveal the different dynamics of the output token probabilities along the depths of layers between the correct and hallucinated cases. In hallucinated cases, the output token's information rarely demonstrates abrupt increases and consistent superiority in the later stages of the model. Leveraging the dynamic curve as a feature, we build a classifier capable of accurately detecting hallucinatory predictions with an 88\% success rate. Our study shed light on understanding the reasons for LLMs' hallucinations on their known facts, and more importantly, on accurately predicting when they are hallucinating.

On Large Language Models’ Hallucination with Regard to Known Facts

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for accessing information on the web. Their truthfulness and factuality are thus of great interest. To help users make the right decisions about the information they get, LLMs should not only provide information but also help users fact-check it. We conduct human experiments with 80 crowdworkers to compare language models with search engines (information retrieval systems) at facilitating fact-checking. We prompt LLMs to validate a given claim and provide corresponding explanations. Users reading LLM explanations are significantly more efficient than those using search engines while achieving similar accuracy. However, they over-rely on the LLMs when the explanation is wrong. To reduce over-reliance on LLMs, we ask LLMs to provide contrastive information—explain both why the claim is true and false, and then we present both sides of the explanation to users. This contrastive explanation mitigates users’ over-reliance on LLMs, but cannot significantly outperform search engines. Further, showing both search engine results and LLM explanations offers no complementary benefits compared to search engines alone. Taken together, our study highlights that natural language explanations by LLMs may not be a reliable replacement for reading the retrieved passages, especially in high-stakes settings where over-relying on wrong AI explanations could lead to critical consequences.

Large Language Models Help Humans Verify Truthfulness – Except When They Are Convincingly Wrong

Despite remarkable strides made in the development of entity linking systems in recent years, a comprehensive comparative analysis of these systems using a unified framework is notably absent. This paper addresses this oversight by introducing a new black-box benchmark and conducting a comprehensive evaluation of all state-of-the-art entity linking methods. We use an ablation study to investigate the impact of candidate sets on the performance of entity linking. Our findings uncover exactly how much such entity linking systems depend on candidate sets, and how much this limits the general applicability of each system. We present an alternative approach to candidate sets, demonstrating that leveraging the entire in-domain candidate set can serve as a viable substitute for certain models. We show the trade-off between less restrictive candidate sets, increased inference time and memory footprint for some models.

Unified Examination of Entity Linking in Absence of Candidate Sets

Large language models (LLM) have recently shown the extraordinary ability to perform unseen tasks based on few-shot examples provided as text, also known as in-context learning (ICL). While recent works have attempted to understand the mechanisms driving ICL, few have explored training strategies that incentivize these models to generalize to multiple tasks. Multi-task learning (MTL) for generalist models is a promising direction that offers transfer learning potential, enabling large parameterized models to be trained from simpler, related tasks. In this work, we investigate the combination of MTL with ICL to build models that efficiently learn tasks while being robust to out-of-distribution examples. We propose several effective curriculum learning strategies that allow ICL models to achieve higher data efficiency and more stable convergence. Our experiments reveal that ICL models can effectively learn difficult tasks by training on progressively harder tasks while mixing in prior tasks, denoted as mixed curriculum in this work.

How does Multi-Task Training Affect Transformer In-Context Capabilities? Investigations with Function Classes

In text ranking, it is generally believed that the cross-encoders already gather sufficient token interaction information via the attention mechanism in the hidden layers. However, our results show that the cross-encoders can consistently benefit from additional token interaction in the similarity computation at the last layer. We introduce CELI (Cross-Encoder with Late Interaction), which incorporates a late interaction layer into the current cross-encoder models. This simple method brings 5% improvement on BEIR without compromising in-domain effectiveness or search latency. Extensive experiments show that this finding is consistent across different sizes of the cross-encoder models and the first-stage retrievers. Our findings suggest that boiling all information into the [CLS] token is a suboptimal use for cross-encoders, and advocate further studies to investigate its relevance score mechanism.

CELI: Simple yet Effective Approach to Enhance Out-of-Domain Generalization of Cross-Encoders.

Textual backdoor attacks, characterized by subtle manipulations of input triggers and training dataset labels, pose significant threats to security-sensitive applications. The rise of advanced generative models, such as GPT-4, with their capacity for human-like rewriting, makes these attacks increasingly challenging to detect. In this study, we conduct an in-depth examination of black-box generative models as tools for backdoor attacks, thereby emphasizing the need for effective defense strategies. We propose BGMAttack, a novel framework that harnesses advanced generative models to execute stealthier backdoor attacks on text classifiers. Unlike prior approaches constrained by subpar generation quality, BGMAttack renders backdoor triggers more elusive to human cognition and advanced machine detection. A rigorous evaluation of attack effectiveness over four sentiment classification tasks, complemented by four human cognition stealthiness tests, reveals BGMAttack’s superior performance, achieving a state-of-the-art attack success rate of 97.35\% on average while maintaining superior stealth compared to conventional methods. The dataset and code are available: \href{https://github.com/JiazhaoLi/BGMAttack}{https://github.com/JiazhaoLi/BGMAttack}.

ChatGPT as an Attack Tool: Stealthy Textual Backdoor Attack via Blackbox Generative Model Trigger

Eliciting feedback from end users of NLP models can be beneficial for improving models. However, how should we present model responses to users so they are most amenable to be corrected from user feedback? Further, what properties do users value to understand and trust responses? We answer these questions by analyzing the effect of rationales (or explanations) generated by QA models to support their answers. We specifically consider decomposed QA models that first extract an intermediate rationale based on a context and a question and then use solely this rationale to answer the question. A rationale outlines the approach followed by the model to answer the question. Our work considers various formats of these rationales that vary according to well-defined properties of interest. We sample rationales from language models using few-shot prompting for two datasets, and then perform two user studies. First, we present users with incorrect answers and corresponding rationales in various formats and ask them to provide natural language feedback to revise the rationale. We then measure the effectiveness of this feedback in patching these rationales through in-context learning. The second study evaluates how well different rationale formats enable users to understand and trust model answers, when they are correct. We find that rationale formats significantly affect how easy it is (1) for users to give feedback for rationales, and (2) for models to subsequently execute this feedback. In addition, formats with attributions to the context and in-depth reasoning significantly enhance user-reported understanding and trust of model outputs.

What if you said that differently?: How Explanation Formats Affect Human Feedback Efficacy and User Perception

Are Large Language Models (LLMs) temporally grounded? Since LLMs cannot perceive and interact with the environment, it is impossible to answer this question directly. Instead, we provide LLMs with textual narratives and probe them with respect to their common-sense knowledge of the structure and duration of events, their ability to order events along a timeline, and self-consistency within their temporal model (e.g., temporal relations such as after and before are mutually exclusive for any pair of events). We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs (such as LLaMA 2 and GPT-4) on three tasks reflecting these abilities. Generally, we find that LLMs lag significantly behind both human performance as well as small-scale, specialised LMs. In-context learning, instruction tuning, and chain-of-thought prompting reduce this gap only to a limited degree. Crucially, LLMs struggle the most with self-consistency, displaying incoherent behaviour in at least 27.23\% of their predictions. Contrary to expectations, we also find that scaling the model size does not guarantee positive gains in performance. To explain these results, we study the sources from which LLMs may gather temporal information: we find that sentence ordering in unlabelled texts, available during pre-training, is only weakly correlated with event ordering. Moreover, public instruction tuning mixtures contain few temporal tasks. Hence, we conclude that current LLMs lack a consistent temporal model of textual narratives.

Are Large Language Model Temporally Grounded?

We breifly introduce the our large language model pipeline parallelism framework for long context on heterogeneous cost-effective devices.

Downloads

Next from NAACL 2024

In-context Learning and Gradient Descent Revisited

Similar lecture

Open Grounded Planning: Challenges and Benchmark Construction

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from NAACL 2024

In-context Learning and Gradient Descent Revisited

Similar lecture

Open Grounded Planning: Challenges and Benchmark Construction

Downloads