arXiv subjects

Gabriel Stanovsky

Publications and source records attributed to Gabriel Stanovsky.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2025

ReliableEval: A Recipe for Stochastic LLM Evaluation via Method of Moments

LLMs are highly sensitive to prompt phrasing, yet standard benchmarks typically report performance using a single prompt, raising concerns about the reliability of such evaluations. In this work, we argue for a stochastic method of moments evaluation over the space of meaning-preserving prompt perturbations. We introduce a formal definition of reliable evaluation that accounts for prompt sensitivity, and suggest ReliableEval - a method for estimating the number of prompt resamplings needed to obtain meaningful results. Using our framework, we stochastically evaluate five frontier LLMs and find that even top-performing models like GPT-4o and Claude-3.7-Sonnet exhibit substantial prompt sensitivity. Our approach is model-, task-, and metric-agnostic, offering a recipe for meaningful and robust LLM evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Trust Me, I'm Wrong: LLMs Hallucinate with Certainty Despite Knowing the Answer

Prior work on large language model (LLM) hallucinations has associated them with model uncertainty or inaccurate knowledge. In this work, we define and investigate a distinct type of hallucination, where a model can consistently answer a question correctly, but a seemingly trivial perturbation, which can happen in real-world settings, causes it to produce a hallucinated response with high certainty. This phenomenon, which we dub CHOKE (Certain Hallucinations Overriding Known Evidence), is particularly concerning in high-stakes domains such as medicine or law, where model certainty is often used as a proxy for reliability. We show that CHOKE examples are consistent across prompts, occur in different models and datasets, and are fundamentally distinct from other hallucinations. This difference leads existing mitigation methods to perform worse on CHOKE examples than on general hallucinations. Finally, we introduce a probing-based mitigation that outperforms existing methods on CHOKE hallucinations. These findings reveal an overlooked aspect of hallucinations, emphasizing the need to understand their origins and improve mitigation strategies to enhance LLM safety. The code is available at https://github.com/technion-cs-nlp/Trust_me_Im_wrong .

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Planted in Pretraining, Swayed by Finetuning: A Case Study on the Origins of Cognitive Biases in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit cognitive biases -- systematic tendencies of irrational decision-making, similar to those seen in humans. Prior work has found that these biases vary across models and can be amplified by instruction tuning. However, it remains unclear if these differences in biases stem from pretraining, finetuning, or even random noise due to training stochasticity. We propose a two-step causal experimental approach to disentangle these factors. First, we finetune models multiple times using different random seeds to study how training randomness affects over $30$ cognitive biases. Second, we introduce \emph{cross-tuning} -- swapping instruction datasets between models to isolate bias sources. This swap uses datasets that led to different bias patterns, directly testing whether biases are dataset-dependent. Our findings reveal that while training randomness introduces some variability, biases are mainly shaped by pretraining: models with the same pretrained backbone exhibit more similar bias patterns than those sharing only finetuning data. These insights suggest that understanding biases in finetuned models requires considering their pretraining origins beyond finetuning effects. This perspective can guide future efforts to develop principled strategies for evaluating and mitigating bias in LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Can LLMs Help Uncover Insights about LLMs? A Large-Scale, Evolving Literature Analysis of Frontier LLMs

The surge of LLM studies makes synthesizing their findings challenging. Analysis of experimental results from literature can uncover important trends across studies, but the time-consuming nature of manual data extraction limits its use. Our study presents a semi-automated approach for literature analysis that accelerates data extraction using LLMs. It automatically identifies relevant arXiv papers, extracts experimental results and related attributes, and organizes them into a structured dataset, LLMEvalDB. We then conduct an automated literature analysis of frontier LLMs, reducing the effort of paper surveying and data extraction by more than 93% compared to manual approaches. We validate LLMEvalDB by showing that it reproduces key findings from a recent manual analysis of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and also uncovers new insights that go beyond it, showing, for example, that in-context examples benefit coding & multimodal tasks but offer limited gains in math reasoning tasks compared to zero-shot CoT. Our automatically updatable dataset enables continuous tracking of target models by extracting evaluation studies as new data becomes available. Through LLMEvalDB and empirical analysis, we provide insights into LLMs while facilitating ongoing literature analyses of their behavior.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

The State and Fate of Summarization Datasets: A Survey

Automatic summarization has consistently attracted attention due to its versatility and wide application in various downstream tasks. Despite its popularity, we find that annotation efforts have largely been disjointed, and have lacked common terminology. Consequently, it is challenging to discover existing resources or identify coherent research directions. To address this, we survey a large body of work spanning 133 datasets in over 100 languages, creating a novel ontology covering sample properties, collection methods and distribution. With this ontology we make key observations, including the lack in accessible high-quality datasets for low-resource languages, and the field's over-reliance on the news domain and on automatically collected distant supervision. Finally, we make available a web interface that allows users to interact and explore our ontology and dataset collection, as well as a template for a summarization data card, which can be used to streamline future research into a more coherent body of work.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

In-Context Learning on a Budget: A Case Study in Token Classification

Few shot in-context learning (ICL) typically assumes access to large annotated training sets. However, in many real world scenarios, such as domain adaptation, there is only a limited budget to annotate a small number of samples, with the goal of maximizing downstream performance. We study various methods for selecting samples to annotate within a predefined budget, focusing on token classification tasks, which are expensive to annotate and are relatively less studied in ICL setups. Across various tasks, models, and datasets, we observe that no method significantly outperforms the others, with most yielding similar results, including random sample selection for annotation. Moreover, we demonstrate that a relatively small annotated sample pool can achieve performance comparable to using the entire training set. We hope that future work adopts our realistic paradigm which takes annotation budget into account.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Improving Image Captioning by Mimicking Human Reformulation Feedback at Inference-time

Incorporating automatically predicted human feedback into the process of training generative models has attracted substantial recent interest, while feedback at inference time has received less attention. The typical feedback at training time, i.e., preferences of choice given two samples, does not naturally transfer to the inference phase. We introduce a novel type of feedback -- caption reformulations -- and train models to mimic reformulation feedback based on human annotations. Our method does not require training the image captioning model itself, thereby demanding substantially less computational effort. We experiment with two types of reformulation feedback: first, we collect a dataset of human reformulations that correct errors in the generated captions. We find that incorporating reformulation models trained on this data into the inference phase of existing image captioning models results in improved captions, especially when the original captions are of low quality. We apply our method to non-English image captioning, a domain where robust models are less prevalent, and gain substantial improvement. Second, we apply reformulations to style transfer. Quantitative evaluations reveal state-of-the-art performance on German image captioning and English style transfer, while human validation with a detailed comparative framework exposes the specific axes of improvement.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Schema-Driven Information Extraction from Heterogeneous Tables

In this paper, we explore the question of whether large language models can support cost-efficient information extraction from tables. We introduce schema-driven information extraction, a new task that transforms tabular data into structured records following a human-authored schema. To assess various LLM's capabilities on this task, we present a benchmark comprised of tables from four diverse domains: machine learning papers, chemistry literature, material science journals, and webpages. We use this collection of annotated tables to evaluate the ability of open-source and API-based language models to extract information from tables covering diverse domains and data formats. Our experiments demonstrate that surprisingly competitive performance can be achieved without requiring task-specific pipelines or labels, achieving F1 scores ranging from 74.2 to 96.1, while maintaining cost efficiency. Moreover, through detailed ablation studies and analyses, we investigate the factors contributing to model success and validate the practicality of distilling compact models to reduce API reliance.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

SAUCE: Synchronous and Asynchronous User-Customizable Environment for Multi-Agent LLM Interaction

Many human interactions, such as political debates, are carried out in group settings, where there are arbitrarily many participants, each with different views and agendas. To explore such complex social settings, we present SAUCE: a customizable Python platform, allowing researchers to plug-and-play various LLMs participating in discussions on any topic chosen by the user. Our platform takes care of instantiating the models, scheduling their responses, managing the discussion history, and producing a comprehensive output log, all customizable through configuration files, requiring little to no coding skills. A novel feature of SAUCE is our asynchronous communication feature, where models decide when to speak in addition to what to say, thus modeling an important facet of human communication. We show SAUCE's attractiveness in two initial experiments, and invite the community to use it in simulating various group simulations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Looking Beyond The Top-1: Transformers Determine Top Tokens In Order

Understanding the inner workings of Transformers is crucial for achieving more accurate and efficient predictions. In this work, we analyze the computation performed by Transformers in the layers after the top-1 prediction has become fixed, which has been previously referred to as the "saturation event". We expand the concept of saturation events for top-k tokens, demonstrating that similar saturation events occur across language, vision, and speech models. We find that these saturation events happen in order of the corresponding tokens' ranking, i.e., the model first decides on the top ranking token, then the second highest ranking token, and so on. This phenomenon seems intrinsic to the Transformer architecture, occurring across different architectural variants (decoder-only, encoder-only, and to a lesser extent full-Transformer), and even in untrained Transformers. We propose an underlying mechanism of task transition for this sequential saturation, where task k corresponds to predicting the k-th most probable token, and the saturation events are in fact discrete transitions between the tasks. In support of this we show that it is possible to predict the current task from hidden layer embedding. Furthermore, using an intervention method we demonstrate that we can cause the model to switch from one task to the next. Finally, leveraging our findings, we introduce a novel token-level early-exit strategy, which surpasses existing methods in balancing performance and efficiency.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Do Zombies Understand? A Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Exploration of Machine Cognition

Recent advances in LLMs have sparked a debate on whether they understand text. In this position paper, we argue that opponents in this debate hold different definitions for understanding, and particularly differ in their view on the role of consciousness. To substantiate this claim, we propose a thought experiment involving an open-source chatbot $Z$ which excels on every possible benchmark, seemingly without subjective experience. We ask whether $Z$ is capable of understanding, and show that different schools of thought within seminal AI research seem to answer this question differently, uncovering their terminological disagreement. Moving forward, we propose two distinct working definitions for understanding which explicitly acknowledge the question of consciousness, and draw connections with a rich literature in philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

SEAM: A Stochastic Benchmark for Multi-Document Tasks

Various tasks, such as summarization, multi-hop question answering, or coreference resolution, are naturally phrased over collections of real-world documents. Such tasks present a unique set of challenges, revolving around the lack of coherent narrative structure across documents, which often leads to contradiction, omission, or repetition of information. Despite their real-world application and challenging properties, there is currently no benchmark which specifically measures the abilities of large language models (LLMs) on multi-document tasks. To bridge this gap, we present SEAM (a Stochastic Evaluation Approach for Multi-document tasks), a conglomerate benchmark over a diverse set of multi-document datasets, setting conventional evaluation criteria, input-output formats, and evaluation protocols. In particular, SEAM addresses the sensitivity of LLMs to minor prompt variations through repeated evaluations, where in each evaluation we sample uniformly at random the values of arbitrary factors (e.g., the order of documents). We evaluate different LLMs on SEAM finding that multi-document tasks pose a significant challenge for LLMs, even for state-of-the-art models with 70B parameters. In addition, we show that the stochastic approach uncovers underlying statistical trends which cannot be observed in a static benchmark. We hope that SEAM will spur progress via consistent and meaningful evaluation of multi-document tasks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Leveraging Collection-Wide Similarities for Unsupervised Document Structure Extraction

Document collections of various domains, e.g., legal, medical, or financial, often share some underlying collection-wide structure, which captures information that can aid both human users and structure-aware models. We propose to identify the typical structure of document within a collection, which requires to capture recurring topics across the collection, while abstracting over arbitrary header paraphrases, and ground each topic to respective document locations. These requirements pose several challenges: headers that mark recurring topics frequently differ in phrasing, certain section headers are unique to individual documents and do not reflect the typical structure, and the order of topics can vary between documents. Subsequently, we develop an unsupervised graph-based method which leverages both inter- and intra-document similarities, to extract the underlying collection-wide structure. Our evaluations on three diverse domains in both English and Hebrew indicate that our method extracts meaningful collection-wide structure, and we hope that future work will leverage our method for multi-document applications and structure-aware models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Applying Intrinsic Debiasing on Downstream Tasks: Challenges and Considerations for Machine Translation

Most works on gender bias focus on intrinsic bias -- removing traces of information about a protected group from the model's internal representation. However, these works are often disconnected from the impact of such debiasing on downstream applications, which is the main motivation for debiasing in the first place. In this work, we systematically test how methods for intrinsic debiasing affect neural machine translation models, by measuring the extrinsic bias of such systems under different design choices. We highlight three challenges and mismatches between the debiasing techniques and their end-goal usage, including the choice of embeddings to debias, the mismatch between words and sub-word tokens debiasing, and the effect on different target languages. We find that these considerations have a significant impact on downstream performance and the success of debiasing.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

A Nurse is Blue and Elephant is Rugby: Cross Domain Alignment in Large Language Models Reveal Human-like Patterns

Cross-domain alignment refers to the task of mapping a concept from one domain to another. For example, ``If a \textit{doctor} were a \textit{color}, what color would it be?''. This seemingly peculiar task is designed to investigate how people represent concrete and abstract concepts through their mappings between categories and their reasoning processes over those mappings. In this paper, we adapt this task from cognitive science to evaluate the conceptualization and reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) through a behavioral study. We examine several LLMs by prompting them with a cross-domain mapping task and analyzing their responses at both the population and individual levels. Additionally, we assess the models' ability to reason about their predictions by analyzing and categorizing their explanations for these mappings. The results reveal several similarities between humans' and models' mappings and explanations, suggesting that models represent concepts similarly to humans. This similarity is evident not only in the model representation but also in their behavior. Furthermore, the models mostly provide valid explanations and deploy reasoning paths that are similar to those of humans.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to the development of various evaluation benchmarks. These benchmarks typically rely on a single instruction template for evaluating all LLMs on a specific task. In this paper, we comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances, involving 20 different LLMs and 39 tasks from 3 benchmarks. To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead. We discuss tailored evaluation metrics for specific use cases (e.g., LLM developers vs. developers interested in a specific downstream task), ensuring a more reliable and meaningful assessment of LLM capabilities. We then implement these criteria and conduct evaluations of multiple models, providing insights into the true strengths and limitations of current LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Instructed to Bias: Instruction-Tuned Language Models Exhibit Emergent Cognitive Bias

Recent studies show that instruction tuning (IT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) improve the abilities of large language models (LMs) dramatically. While these tuning methods can help align models with human objectives and generate high-quality text, not much is known about their potential adverse effects. In this work, we investigate the effect of IT and RLHF on decision making and reasoning in LMs, focusing on three cognitive biases - the decoy effect, the certainty effect, and the belief bias - all of which are known to influence human decision-making and reasoning. Our findings highlight the presence of these biases in various models from the GPT-3, Mistral, and T5 families. Notably, we find a stronger presence of biases in models that have undergone instruction tuning, such as Flan-T5, Mistral-Instruct, GPT3.5, and GPT4. Our work constitutes a step toward comprehending cognitive biases in instruction-tuned LMs, which is crucial for the development of more reliable and unbiased language models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

K-QA: A Real-World Medical Q&A Benchmark

Ensuring the accuracy of responses provided by large language models (LLMs) is crucial, particularly in clinical settings where incorrect information may directly impact patient health. To address this challenge, we construct K-QA, a dataset containing 1,212 patient questions originating from real-world conversations held on K Health (an AI-driven clinical platform). We employ a panel of in-house physicians to answer and manually decompose a subset of K-QA into self-contained statements. Additionally, we formulate two NLI-based evaluation metrics approximating recall and precision: (1) comprehensiveness, measuring the percentage of essential clinical information in the generated answer and (2) hallucination rate, measuring the number of statements from the physician-curated response contradicted by the LLM answer. Finally, we use K-QA along with these metrics to evaluate several state-of-the-art models, as well as the effect of in-context learning and medically-oriented augmented retrieval schemes developed by the authors. Our findings indicate that in-context learning improves the comprehensiveness of the models, and augmented retrieval is effective in reducing hallucinations. We make K-QA available to to the community to spur research into medically accurate NLP applications.

cs.CL↗