Shreya Havaldar

Qing Lyu, Shreya Havaldar, Adam Stein et al.

While Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting boosts Language Models' (LM) performance on a gamut of complex reasoning tasks, the generated reasoning chain does not necessarily reflect how the model arrives at the answer (aka. faithfulness). We propose Faithful CoT, a reasoning framework involving two stages: Translation (Natural Language query $\rightarrow$ symbolic reasoning chain) and Problem Solving (reasoning chain $\rightarrow$ answer), using an LM and a deterministic solver respectively. This guarantees that the reasoning chain provides a faithful explanation of the final answer. Aside from interpretability, Faithful CoT also improves empirical performance: it outperforms standard CoT on 9 of 10 benchmarks from 4 diverse domains, with a relative accuracy gain of 6.3% on Math Word Problems (MWP), 3.4% on Planning, 5.5% on Multi-hop Question Answering (QA), and 21.4% on Relational Inference. Furthermore, with GPT-4 and Codex, it sets the new state-of-the-art few-shot performance on 7 datasets (with 95.0+ accuracy on 6 of them), showing a strong synergy between faithfulness and accuracy.

Shreya Havaldar, Sunny Rai, Bhumika Singhal et al.

Emotions are experienced and expressed differently across the world. In order to use Large Language Models (LMs) for multilingual tasks that require emotional sensitivity, LMs must reflect this cultural variation in emotion. In this study, we investigate whether the widely-used multilingual LMs in 2023 reflect differences in emotional expressions across cultures and languages. We find that embeddings obtained from LMs (e.g., XLM-RoBERTa) are Anglocentric, and generative LMs (e.g., ChatGPT) reflect Western norms, even when responding to prompts in other languages. Our results show that multilingual LMs do not successfully learn the culturally appropriate nuances of emotion and we highlight possible research directions towards correcting this.

Shreya Havaldar, Helen Jin, Chaehyeon Kim et al.

As LLMs are deployed in knowledge-intensive settings (e.g., surgery, astronomy, therapy), users expect not just answers, but also meaningful explanations for those answers. In these settings, users are often domain experts (e.g., doctors, astrophysicists, psychologists) who require explanations that reflect expert-level reasoning. However, current evaluation schemes primarily emphasize plausibility or internal faithfulness of the explanation, which fail to capture whether the content of the explanation truly aligns with expert intuition. We formalize expert alignment as a criterion for evaluating explanations with T-FIX, a benchmark spanning seven knowledge-intensive domains. In collaboration with domain experts, we develop novel metrics to measure the alignment of LLM explanations with expert judgment.

Helen Jin, Shreya Havaldar, Chaehyeon Kim et al.

Feature-based methods are commonly used to explain model predictions, but these methods often implicitly assume that interpretable features are readily available. However, this is often not the case for high-dimensional data, and it can be hard even for domain experts to mathematically specify which features are important. Can we instead automatically extract collections or groups of features that are aligned with expert knowledge? To address this gap, we present FIX (Features Interpretable to eXperts), a benchmark for measuring how well a collection of features aligns with expert knowledge. In collaboration with domain experts, we propose FIXScore, a unified expert alignment measure applicable to diverse real-world settings across cosmology, psychology, and medicine domains in vision, language, and time series data modalities. With FIXScore, we find that popular feature-based explanation methods have poor alignment with expert-specified knowledge, highlighting the need for new methods that can better identify features interpretable to experts.

Shreya Havaldar, Adam Stein, Eric Wong et al.

Meaningfully comparing language models is challenging with current explanation methods. Current explanations are overwhelming for humans due to large vocabularies or incomparable across models. We present TopEx, an explanation method that enables a level playing field for comparing language models via model-agnostic topics. We demonstrate how TopEx can identify similarities and differences between DistilRoBERTa and GPT-2 on a variety of NLP tasks.

Shreya Havaldar, Matthew Pressimone, Eric Wong et al.

Understanding how styles differ across languages is advantageous for training both humans and computers to generate culturally appropriate text. We introduce an explanation framework to extract stylistic differences from multilingual LMs and compare styles across languages. Our framework (1) generates comprehensive style lexica in any language and (2) consolidates feature importances from LMs into comparable lexical categories. We apply this framework to compare politeness, creating the first holistic multilingual politeness dataset and exploring how politeness varies across four languages. Our approach enables an effective evaluation of how distinct linguistic categories contribute to stylistic variations and provides interpretable insights into how people communicate differently around the world.

Shreya Havaldar, Hamidreza Alvari, John Palowitch et al.

Much of human communication depends on implication, conveying meaning beyond literal words to express a wider range of thoughts, intentions, and feelings. For models to better understand and facilitate human communication, they must be responsive to the text's implicit meaning. We focus on Natural Language Inference (NLI), a core tool for many language tasks, and find that state-of-the-art NLI models and datasets struggle to recognize a range of cases where entailment is implied, rather than explicit from the text. We formalize implied entailment as an extension of the NLI task and introduce the Implied NLI dataset (INLI) to help today's LLMs both recognize a broader variety of implied entailments and to distinguish between implicit and explicit entailment. We show how LLMs fine-tuned on INLI understand implied entailment and can generalize this understanding across datasets and domains.

Weiqiu You, Anton Xue, Shreya Havaldar et al.

In reasoning chains generated by large language models (LLMs), initial errors often propagate and undermine the reliability of the final conclusion. Current LLM-based error detection methods often fail to detect propagated errors because earlier errors can corrupt judgments of downstream reasoning. To better detect such errors, we introduce Autoregressive Reasoning Entailment Stability (ARES), a probabilistic framework that evaluates each reasoning step based solely on previously-verified premises. This inductive method yields a nuanced score for each step and provides certified statistical guarantees of its soundness, rather than a brittle binary label. ARES achieves state-of-the-art performance across four benchmarks (72.1% Macro-F1, +8.2 points) and demonstrates superior robustness on very long synthetic reasoning chains, where it excels at detecting propagated errors (90.3% F1, +27.6 points).

Shreya Havaldar, Adam Stein, Eric Wong et al.

Successful communication depends on the speaker's intended style (i.e., what the speaker is trying to convey) aligning with the listener's interpreted style (i.e., what the listener perceives). However, cultural differences often lead to misalignment between the two; for example, politeness is often lost in translation. We characterize the ways that LLMs fail to translate style - biasing translations towards neutrality and performing worse in non-Western languages. We mitigate these failures with RASTA (Retrieval-Augmented STylistic Alignment), a method that leverages learned stylistic concepts to encourage LLM translation to appropriately convey cultural communication norms and align style.

Shreya Havaldar, Sunny Rai, Young-Min Cho et al.

Existing benchmarks that measure cultural adaptation in LLMs are misaligned with the actual challenges these models face when interacting with users from diverse cultural backgrounds. In this work, we introduce the first framework and benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs in realistic, multicultural conversational settings. Grounded in sociocultural theory, our framework formalizes how linguistic style - a key element of cultural communication - is shaped by situational, relational, and cultural context. We construct a benchmark dataset based on this framework, annotated by culturally diverse raters, and propose a new set of desiderata for cross-cultural evaluation in NLP: conversational framing, stylistic sensitivity, and subjective correctness. We evaluate today's top LLMs on our benchmark and show that these models struggle with cultural adaptation in a conversational setting.

Davis Brown, Prithvi Balehannina, Helen Jin et al.

Language model evaluations often fail to characterize consequential failure modes, forcing experts to inspect outputs and build new benchmarks. We introduce task elicitation, a method that automatically builds new evaluations to profile model behavior. Task elicitation finds hundreds of natural-language tasks -- an order of magnitude more than prior work -- where frontier models exhibit systematic failures, in domains ranging from forecasting to online harassment. For example, we find that Sonnet 3.5 over-associates quantum computing and AGI and that o3-mini is prone to hallucination when fabrications are repeated in-context.

Shreya Havaldar, Salvatore Giorgi, Sunny Rai et al.

Cultural variation exists between nations (e.g., the United States vs. China), but also within regions (e.g., California vs. Texas, Los Angeles vs. San Francisco). Measuring this regional cultural variation can illuminate how and why people think and behave differently. Historically, it has been difficult to computationally model cultural variation due to a lack of training data and scalability constraints. In this work, we introduce a new research problem for the NLP community: How do we measure variation in cultural constructs across regions using language? We then provide a scalable solution: building knowledge-guided lexica to model cultural variation, encouraging future work at the intersection of NLP and cultural understanding. We also highlight modern LLMs' failure to measure cultural variation or generate culturally varied language.

Salvatore Giorgi, Shreya Havaldar, Farhan Ahmed et al.

We present metrics for evaluating dialog systems through a psychologically-grounded "human" lens in which conversational agents express a diversity of both states (e.g., emotion) and traits (e.g., personality), just as people do. We present five interpretable metrics from established psychology that are fundamental to human communication and relationships: emotional entropy, linguistic style and emotion matching, agreeableness, and empathy. These metrics can be applied (1) across dialogs and (2) on turns within dialogs. The psychological metrics are compared against seven state-of-the-art traditional metrics (e.g., BARTScore and BLEURT) on seven standard dialog system data sets. We also introduce a novel data set, the Three Bot Dialog Evaluation Corpus, which consists of annotated conversations from ChatGPT, GPT-3, and BlenderBot. We demonstrate that our proposed metrics offer novel information; they are uncorrelated with traditional metrics, can be used to meaningfully compare dialog systems, and lead to increased accuracy (beyond existing traditional metrics) in predicting crowd-sourced dialog judgements. The interpretability and unique signal of our psychological metrics make them a valuable tool for evaluating and improving dialog systems.