Xiting Wang

Hanyu Zhang, Xiting Wang, Chengao Li et al.

As large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed across various domains, the ability to control their generated outputs has become more critical. This control involves aligning LLMs outputs with human values and ethical principles or customizing LLMs on specific topics or styles for individual users. Existing controlled generation methods either require significant computational resources and extensive trial-and-error or provide coarse-grained control. In this paper, we propose Generation with Concept Activation Vector (GCAV), a lightweight model control framework that ensures accurate control without requiring resource-extensive fine-tuning. Specifically, GCAV first trains a concept activation vector for specified concepts to be controlled, such as toxicity. During inference, GCAV steers the concept vector in LLMs, for example, by removing the toxicity concept vector from the activation layers. Control experiments from different perspectives, including toxicity reduction, sentiment control, linguistic style, and topic control, demonstrate that our framework achieves state-of-the-art performance with granular control, allowing for fine-grained adjustments of both the steering layers and the steering magnitudes for individual samples.

Luning Sun, Yuzhuo Yuan, Yuan Yao et al. · cambridge

Artificial intelligence has, so far, largely automated routine tasks, but what does it mean for the future of work if Large Language Models (LLMs) show creativity comparable to humans? To measure the creativity of LLMs holistically, the current study uses 13 creative tasks spanning three domains. We benchmark the LLMs against individual humans, and also take a novel approach by comparing them to the collective creativity of groups of humans. We find that the best LLMs (Claude and GPT-4) rank in the 52nd percentile against humans, and overall LLMs excel in divergent thinking and problem solving but lag in creative writing. When questioned 10 times, an LLM's collective creativity is equivalent to 8-10 humans. When more responses are requested, two additional responses of LLMs equal one extra human. Ultimately, LLMs, when optimally applied, may compete with a small group of humans in the future of work.

Meng Li, Haoran Jin, Ruixuan Huang et al.

With the growing popularity of general-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs), comes a need for more global explanations of model behaviors. Concept-based explanations arise as a promising avenue for explaining high-level patterns learned by LLMs. Yet their evaluation poses unique challenges, especially due to their non-local nature and high dimensional representation in a model's hidden space. Current methods approach concepts from different perspectives, lacking a unified formalization. This makes evaluating the core measures of concepts, namely faithfulness or readability, challenging. To bridge the gap, we introduce a formal definition of concepts generalizing to diverse concept-based explanations' settings. Based on this, we quantify the faithfulness of a concept explanation via perturbation. We ensure adequate perturbation in the high-dimensional space for different concepts via an optimization problem. Readability is approximated via an automatic and deterministic measure, quantifying the coherence of patterns that maximally activate a concept while aligning with human understanding. Finally, based on measurement theory, we apply a meta-evaluation method for evaluating these measures, generalizable to other types of explanations or tasks as well. Extensive experimental analysis has been conducted to inform the selection of explanation evaluation measures.