Papers by Boshi Wang
Iteratively Prompt Pre-trained Language Models for Chain of Thought (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Pre-trained language models (PLMs) internalize a great amount of knowledge, but have been shown incapable of recalling this knowledge to solve complex & multi-step reasoning tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose an iterative prompting framework which progressively elicits relevant knowledge from PLMs for multi-step inference. |
| Outcome: | The proposed prompting framework outperforms existing prompting methods on three datasets involving multi-step reasoning. |
Towards Understanding Chain-of-Thought Prompting: An Empirical Study of What Matters (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting can dramatically improve the multi-step reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). |
| Approach: | They propose to use Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to encourage the LLM to generate intermediate rationales for solving a problem by providing a series of reasoning steps in the demonstrations. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can generate coherent lines of reasoning even with invalid demonstrations while still generating coherent lines during inference. |
How Trustworthy are Open-Source LLMs? An Assessment under Malicious Demonstrations Shows their Vulnerabilities (2024.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Rapid progress in open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) is driving AI development, but lacks sufficient trustworthiness to detect and mitigate adversarial demonstrations. |
| Approach: | They propose an extended Chain of Utterances-based (CoU) prompting strategy to attack open-source LLMs. |
| Outcome: | The proposed attack strategy is based on malicious demonstrations and toxicity tests on open-source models. |
Automatic Evaluation of Attribution by Large Language Models (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Generative large language models (LLMs) incorporate external references to generate and support claims. however, evaluating the attribution remains an open problem. |
| Approach: | They investigate automatic evaluation of attribution given by large language models . they define different types of attributed errors and then explore two approaches . |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods highlight promising signals and challenges. |
LLMs in the Imaginarium: Tool Learning through Simulated Trial and Error (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on tool-augmented LLMs focuses on the broad coverage of tools and the flexibility of adding new tools. |
| Approach: | They propose a biologically inspired method for tool-augmented LLMs that orchestrates three key mechanisms for successful tool use behaviors in the biological system: trial and error, imagination, and memory. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method improves tool learning for LLMs under both in-context learning and fine-tuning settings, bringing a boost of 46.7% to Mistral-Instruct-7B and outperforms GPT-4. |
Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in complex reasoning tasks, but it is difficult to know whether they are reasoning based on deep understandings of truth and logic or leveraging their vast previously-seen patterns in a relatively shallow way. |
| Approach: | They propose to test large language models by engaging with them in a debate-like conversation where the user and LLM need to discuss to make the correct decision starting from opposing arguments. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can achieve the correct answer on its own, but can also hold and defend its belief instead of blindly believing or getting misled by the user’s (invalid) arguments and critiques. |