Robert West

Kristina Gligoric, Tiziano Piccardi, Jake Hofman et al.

Science is facing a reproducibility crisis. Previous work has proposed incorporating data analysis replications into classrooms as a potential solution. However, despite the potential benefits, it is unclear whether this approach is feasible, and if so, what the involved stakeholders-students, educators, and scientists-should expect from it. Can students perform a data analysis replication over the course of a class? What are the costs and benefits for educators? And how can this solution help benchmark and improve the state of science? In the present study, we incorporated data analysis replications in the project component of the Applied Data Analysis course (CS-401) taught at EPFL (N=354 students). Here we report pre-registered findings based on surveys administered throughout the course. First, we demonstrate that students can replicate previously published scientific papers, most of them qualitatively and some exactly. We find discrepancies between what students expect of data analysis replications and what they experience by doing them along with changes in expectations about reproducibility, which together serve as evidence of attitude shifts to foster students' critical thinking. Second, we provide information for educators about how much overhead is needed to incorporate replications into the classroom and identify concerns that replications bring as compared to more traditional assignments. Third, we identify tangible benefits of the in-class data analysis replications for scientific communities, such as a collection of replication reports and insights about replication barriers in scientific work that should be avoided going forward. Overall, we demonstrate that incorporating replication tasks into a large data science class can increase the reproducibility of scientific work as a by-product of data science instruction, thus benefiting both science and students.

Saibo Geng, Hudson Cooper, Michał Moskal et al.

Reliably generating structured outputs has become a critical capability for modern language model (LM) applications. Constrained decoding has emerged as the dominant technology across sectors for enforcing structured outputs during generation. Despite its growing adoption, little has been done with the systematic evaluation of the behaviors and performance of constrained decoding. Constrained decoding frameworks have standardized around JSON Schema as a structured data format, with most uses guaranteeing constraint compliance given a schema. However, there is poor understanding of the effectiveness of the methods in practice. We present an evaluation framework to assess constrained decoding approaches across three critical dimensions: efficiency in generating constraint-compliant outputs, coverage of diverse constraint types, and quality of the generated outputs. To facilitate this evaluation, we introduce JSONSchemaBench, a benchmark for constrained decoding comprising 10K real-world JSON schemas that encompass a wide range of constraints with varying complexity. We pair the benchmark with the existing official JSON Schema Test Suite and evaluate six state-of-the-art constrained decoding frameworks, including Guidance, Outlines, Llamacpp, XGrammar, OpenAI, and Gemini. Through extensive experiments, we gain insights into the capabilities and limitations of constrained decoding on structured generation with real-world JSON schemas. Our work provides actionable insights for improving constrained decoding frameworks and structured generation tasks, setting a new standard for evaluating constrained decoding and structured generation. We release JSONSchemaBench at https://github.com/guidance-ai/jsonschemabench

Paula Rescala, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Tiancheng Hu et al.

The capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have raised concerns about their potential to create and propagate convincing narratives. Here, we study their performance in detecting convincing arguments to gain insights into LLMs' persuasive capabilities without directly engaging in experimentation with humans. We extend a dataset by Durmus and Cardie (2018) with debates, votes, and user traits and propose tasks measuring LLMs' ability to (1) distinguish between strong and weak arguments, (2) predict stances based on beliefs and demographic characteristics, and (3) determine the appeal of an argument to an individual based on their traits. We show that LLMs perform on par with humans in these tasks and that combining predictions from different LLMs yields significant performance gains, surpassing human performance. The data and code released with this paper contribute to the crucial effort of continuously evaluating and monitoring LLMs' capabilities and potential impact. (https://go.epfl.ch/persuasion-llm)

Zachary Horvitz, Jingru Chen, Rahul Aditya et al.

Humor is a fundamental facet of human cognition and interaction. Yet, despite recent advances in natural language processing, humor detection remains a challenging task that is complicated by the scarcity of datasets that pair humorous texts with similar non-humorous counterparts. In our work, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs), can generate synthetic data for humor detection via editing texts. We benchmark LLMs on an existing human dataset and show that current LLMs display an impressive ability to 'unfun' jokes, as judged by humans and as measured on the downstream task of humor detection. We extend our approach to a code-mixed English-Hindi humor dataset, where we find that GPT-4's synthetic data is highly rated by bilingual annotators and provides challenging adversarial examples for humor classifiers.

Kristina Gligorić, Ryen W. White, Emre Kıcıman et al.

Nutrition is a key determinant of long-term health, and social influence has long been theorized to be a key determinant of nutrition. It has been difficult to quantify the postulated role of social influence on nutrition using traditional methods such as surveys, due to the typically small scale and short duration of studies. To overcome these limitations, we leverage a novel source of data: logs of 38 million food purchases made over an 8-year period on the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) university campus, linked to anonymized individuals via the smartcards used to make on-campus purchases. In a longitudinal observational study, we ask: How is a person's food choice affected by eating with someone else whose own food choice is healthy vs. unhealthy? To estimate causal effects from the passively observed log data, we control confounds in a matched quasi-experimental design: we identify focal users who at first do not have any regular eating partners but then start eating with a fixed partner regularly, and we match focal users into comparison pairs such that paired users are nearly identical with respect to covariates measured before acquiring the partner, where the two focal users' new eating partners diverge in the healthiness of their respective food choice. A difference-in-differences analysis of the paired data yields clear evidence of social influence: focal users acquiring a healthy-eating partner change their habits significantly more toward healthy foods than focal users acquiring an unhealthy-eating partner. We further identify foods whose purchase frequency is impacted significantly by the eating partner's healthiness of food choice. Beyond the main results, the work demonstrates the utility of passively sensed food purchase logs for deriving insights, with the potential of informing the design of public health interventions and food offerings.