Theodora Worledge

Theodora Worledge, Judy Hanwen Shen, Nicole Meister et al. · stanford

As businesses, products, and services spring up around large language models, the trustworthiness of these models hinges on the verifiability of their outputs. However, methods for explaining language model outputs largely fall across two distinct fields of study which both use the term "attribution" to refer to entirely separate techniques: citation generation and training data attribution. In many modern applications, such as legal document generation and medical question answering, both types of attributions are important. In this work, we argue for and present a unified framework of large language model attributions. We show how existing methods of different types of attribution fall under the unified framework. We also use the framework to discuss real-world use cases where one or both types of attributions are required. We believe that this unified framework will guide the use case driven development of systems that leverage both types of attribution, as well as the standardization of their evaluation.

Theodora Worledge, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Carlos Guestrin

Across all fields of academic study, experts cite their sources when sharing information. While large language models (LLMs) excel at synthesizing information, they do not provide reliable citation to sources, making it difficult to trace and verify the origins of the information they present. In contrast, search engines make sources readily accessible to users and place the burden of synthesizing information on the user. Through a survey, we find that users prefer search engines over LLMs for high-stakes queries, where concerns regarding information provenance outweigh the perceived utility of LLM responses. To examine the interplay between verifiability and utility of information-sharing tools, we introduce the extractive-abstractive spectrum, in which search engines and LLMs are extreme endpoints encapsulating multiple unexplored intermediate operating points. Search engines are extractive because they respond to queries with snippets of sources with links (citations) to the original webpages. LLMs are abstractive because they address queries with answers that synthesize and logically transform relevant information from training and in-context sources without reliable citation. We define five operating points that span the extractive-abstractive spectrum and conduct human evaluations on seven systems across four diverse query distributions that reflect real-world QA settings: web search, language simplification, multi-step reasoning, and medical advice. As outputs become more abstractive, we find that perceived utility improves by as much as 200%, while the proportion of properly cited sentences decreases by as much as 50% and users take up to 3 times as long to verify cited information. Our findings recommend distinct operating points for domain-specific LLM systems and our failure analysis informs approaches to high-utility LLM systems that empower users to verify information.

Theodora Worledge, Othman Bensouda Koraichi, Daniel Bernal et al.

Overwhelmed courts in the United States review millions of default judgments each year. Unfortunately, such manual reviews are time-consuming and prone to error. In an audit of 188 debt collection cases granted default judgment by the Superior Court of Los Angeles, we find that 4% contained major defects that should have entirely prevented default judgment, 10% contained inconsistencies requiring reduced judgments, and 32% contained errors requiring amendment prior to judgment. To support courthouses in default judgment review, we collaborated with courthouse attorneys and judges in designing a Default Assistant. The Default Assistant employs large language models to evaluate a case with respect to predetermined legal requirements and provide cited recommendations for an expert user's review. We equip users to verify these recommendations by grounding the assistant's explanations in cited quotes and tables from the original case filings. We conduct a controlled study with 66 law students that conservatively simulates court review, with more time and resources than court staff. We nevertheless find users aided by the Default Assistant were 6.0% more accurate on the average requirement than unaided reviewers (p < 1.0e-4). Simultaneously, users were 25.9% faster in reviewing the average requirement than unaided reviewers (p < 2.5e-10). Statutory requirements demanding extensive document search realized the largest gains, with error reductions and time savings from AI assistance up to 62% and 34%, respectively, relative to unassisted user performance and with differences statistically significant (p < 0.05). Our work provides a proof-of-concept that AI assistants with citations have the potential to help resource-constrained courts conduct default judgment review more accurately and efficiently.

Esther Rolf, Theodora Worledge, Benjamin Recht et al.

Collecting more diverse and representative training data is often touted as a remedy for the disparate performance of machine learning predictors across subpopulations. However, a precise framework for understanding how dataset properties like diversity affect learning outcomes is largely lacking. By casting data collection as part of the learning process, we demonstrate that diverse representation in training data is key not only to increasing subgroup performances, but also to achieving population level objectives. Our analysis and experiments describe how dataset compositions influence performance and provide constructive results for using trends in existing data, alongside domain knowledge, to help guide intentional, objective-aware dataset design.