Giulia Pucci

Giulia Pucci, Emily Hemendinger, Ruizhe Li et al.

Recent evidence shows that people with eating disorders (EDs) are increasingly seeking guidance, advice, and emotional support from Large Language Model (LLM)-based chat systems. Although these systems are not designed to provide clinical advice, their perceived expertise, neutrality and accessibility make them a frequent, albeit risky, source of support. This paper investigates potential patterns of interaction between users with EDs and LLMs, focusing on the potential harms arising from models that uncritically adapt to, and facilitate unsafe or self-harming user requests. We find, in consultation with clinical ED experts, that specific linguistic cues in prompts increase the likelihood of unsafe responses and, through systematically varying the degree of potential risk present in the user prompt, report the extent to which LLMs uncritically adapt to problematic, and potentially dangerous user inputs.

Leonardo Ranaldi, Giulia Pucci, Andre Freitas

The language ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is often unbalanced towards English because of the imbalance in the distribution of the pre-training data. This disparity is demanded in further fine-tuning and affecting the cross-lingual abilities of LLMs. In this paper, we propose to empower Instructiontuned LLMs (It-LLMs) in languages other than English by building semantic alignment between them. Hence, we propose CrossAlpaca, an It-LLM with cross-lingual instruction-following and Translation-following demonstrations to improve semantic alignment between languages. We validate our approach on the multilingual Question Answering (QA) benchmarks XQUAD and MLQA and adapted versions of MMLU and BBH. Our models, tested over six different languages, outperform the It-LLMs tuned on monolingual data. The final results show that instruction tuning on non-English data is not enough and that semantic alignment can be further improved by Translation-following demonstrations.

Leonardo Ranaldi, Giulia Pucci

Large Language Models have been demonstrating broadly satisfactory generative abilities for users, which seems to be due to the intensive use of human feedback that refines responses. Nevertheless, suggestibility inherited via human feedback improves the inclination to produce answers corresponding to users' viewpoints. This behaviour is known as sycophancy and depicts the tendency of LLMs to generate misleading responses as long as they align with humans. This phenomenon induces bias and reduces the robustness and, consequently, the reliability of these models. In this paper, we study the suggestibility of Large Language Models (LLMs) to sycophantic behaviour, analysing these tendencies via systematic human-interventions prompts over different tasks. Our investigation demonstrates that LLMs have sycophantic tendencies when answering queries that involve subjective opinions and statements that should elicit a contrary response based on facts. In contrast, when faced with math tasks or queries with an objective answer, they, at various scales, do not follow the users' hints by demonstrating confidence in generating the correct answers.

Leonardo Ranaldi, Giulia Pucci, Federico Ranaldi et al.

Reasoning methods, best exemplified by the well-known Chain-of-Thought (CoT), empower the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) by eliciting them to solve complex tasks in a step-by-step manner. Although they are achieving significant success, the ability to deliver multi-step reasoning remains limited to English because of the imbalance in the distribution of pre-training data, which makes other languages a barrier. In this paper, we propose Cross-lingual Tree-of-Thoughts (Cross-ToT), a method for aligning Cross-lingual CoT reasoning across languages. The proposed method, through a self-consistent cross-lingual prompting mechanism inspired by the Tree-of-Thoughts approach, provides multi-step reasoning paths in different languages that, during the steps, lead to the final solution. Experimental evaluations show that our method significantly outperforms existing prompting methods by reducing the number of interactions and achieving state-of-the-art performance.

Leonardo Ranaldi, Giulia Pucci, Fabio Massimo Zanzotto

The cognitive essence of humans is deeply intertwined with the concept of animacy, which plays an essential role in shaping their memory, vision, and multi-layered language understanding. Although animacy appears in language via nuanced constraints on verbs and adjectives, it is also learned and refined through extralinguistic information. Similarly, we assume that the LLMs' limited abilities to understand natural language when processing animacy are motivated by the fact that these models are trained exclusively on text. Hence, the question this paper aims to answer arises: can LLMs, in their digital wisdom, process animacy in a similar way to what humans would do? We then propose a systematic analysis via prompting approaches. In particular, we probe different LLMs by prompting them using animate, inanimate, usual, and stranger contexts. Results reveal that, although LLMs have been trained predominantly on textual data, they exhibit human-like behavior when faced with typical animate and inanimate entities in alignment with earlier studies. Hence, LLMs can adapt to understand unconventional situations by recognizing oddities as animated without needing to interface with unspoken cognitive triggers humans rely on to break down animations.