Daily Papers

Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) is proved to be greatly valuable for enhancing the reasoning ability of LLMs. Researchers have been starting to apply RFT to MLLMs, hoping it will also enhance the capabilities of visual understanding. However, these works are at a very early stage and have not examined how suitable RFT actually is for visual tasks. In this work, we endeavor to understand the suitabilities and limitations of RFT for visual tasks, through experimental analysis and observations. We start by quantitative comparisons on various tasks, which shows RFT is generally better than SFT on visual tasks. %especially when the number of training samples are limited. To check whether such advantages are brought up by the reasoning process, we design a new reward that encourages the model to ``think'' more, whose results show more thinking can be beneficial for complicated tasks but harmful for simple tasks. We hope this study can provide more insight for the rapid advancements on this topic.

Background. The development of empirical studies in software engineering mainly relies on the data available on code hosting platforms, being GitHub the most representative. Nevertheless, in the last years, the emergence of Machine Learning (ML) has led to the development of platforms specifically designed for developing ML-based projects, being Hugging Face Hub (HFH) the most popular one. With over 250k repositories, and growing fast, HFH is becoming a promising ecosystem of ML artifacts and therefore a potential source of data for empirical studies. However, so far there have been no studies evaluating the potential of HFH for such studies. Objective. In this proposal for a registered report, we aim at performing an exploratory study of the current state of HFH in order to investigate its suitability to be used as a source platform for empirical studies. Method. We conduct a qualitative and quantitative analysis of HFH for empirical studies. The former will be performed by comparing the features of HFH with those of other code hosting platforms, such as GitHub and GitLab. The latter will be performed by analyzing the data available in HFH.

Large language models have demonstrated robust performance on various language tasks using zero-shot or few-shot learning paradigms. While being actively researched, multimodal models that can additionally handle images as input have yet to catch up in size and generality with language-only models. In this work, we ask whether language-only models can be utilised for tasks that require visual input -- but also, as we argue, often require a strong reasoning component. Similar to some recent related work, we make visual information accessible to the language model using separate verbalisation models. Specifically, we investigate the performance of open-source, open-access language models against GPT-3 on five vision-language tasks when given textually-encoded visual information. Our results suggest that language models are effective for solving vision-language tasks even with limited samples. This approach also enhances the interpretability of a model's output by providing a means of tracing the output back through the verbalised image content.

We take a snapshot of current resources available for teaching and learning AI with a focus on the Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM) community. The review was carried out in 2021 and 2022. The review provides an overview of material we identified as being relevant, offers a description of this material and makes recommendations for future work in this area.

The emergent phenomena of large foundation models have revolutionized natural language processing. However, evaluating these models presents significant challenges due to their size, capabilities, and deployment across diverse applications. Existing literature often focuses on individual aspects, such as benchmark performance or specific tasks, but fails to provide a cohesive process that integrates the nuances of diverse use cases with broader ethical and operational considerations. This work focuses on three key aspects: (1) Formalizing the Evaluation Process by providing a structured framework tailored to specific use-case contexts, (2) Offering Actionable Tools and Frameworks such as checklists and templates to ensure thorough, reproducible, and practical evaluations, and (3) Surveying Recent Work with a targeted review of advancements in LLM evaluation, emphasizing real-world applications.

In many contexts, lying -- the use of verbal falsehoods to deceive -- is harmful. While lying has traditionally been a human affair, AI systems that make sophisticated verbal statements are becoming increasingly prevalent. This raises the question of how we should limit the harm caused by AI "lies" (i.e. falsehoods that are actively selected for). Human truthfulness is governed by social norms and by laws (against defamation, perjury, and fraud). Differences between AI and humans present an opportunity to have more precise standards of truthfulness for AI, and to have these standards rise over time. This could provide significant benefits to public epistemics and the economy, and mitigate risks of worst-case AI futures. Establishing norms or laws of AI truthfulness will require significant work to: (1) identify clear truthfulness standards; (2) create institutions that can judge adherence to those standards; and (3) develop AI systems that are robustly truthful. Our initial proposals for these areas include: (1) a standard of avoiding "negligent falsehoods" (a generalisation of lies that is easier to assess); (2) institutions to evaluate AI systems before and after real-world deployment; and (3) explicitly training AI systems to be truthful via curated datasets and human interaction. A concerning possibility is that evaluation mechanisms for eventual truthfulness standards could be captured by political interests, leading to harmful censorship and propaganda. Avoiding this might take careful attention. And since the scale of AI speech acts might grow dramatically over the coming decades, early truthfulness standards might be particularly important because of the precedents they set.