Nicholas Andrews

Ajay Patel, Nicholas Andrews, Chris Callison-Burch

Authorship style transfer involves altering text to match the style of a target author whilst preserving the original meaning. Existing unsupervised approaches like STRAP have largely focused on style transfer to target authors with many examples of their writing style in books, speeches, or other published works. This high-resource training data requirement (often greater than 100,000 words) makes these approaches primarily useful for style transfer to published authors, politicians, or other well-known figures and authorship styles, while style transfer to non-famous authors has not been well-studied. We introduce the low-resource authorship style transfer task, a more challenging class of authorship style transfer where only a limited amount of text in the target author's style may exist. In our experiments, we specifically choose source and target authors from Reddit and style transfer their Reddit posts, limiting ourselves to just 16 posts (on average ~500 words) of the target author's style. Style transfer accuracy is typically measured by how often a classifier or human judge will classify an output as written by the target author. Recent authorship representations models excel at authorship identification even with just a few writing samples, making automatic evaluation of this task possible for the first time through evaluation metrics we propose. Our results establish an in-context learning technique we develop as the strongest baseline, though we find current approaches do not yet achieve mastery of this challenging task. We release our data and implementations to encourage further investigation.

David Mueller, Nicholas Andrews, Mark Dredze

Traditional multi-task learning architectures train a single model across multiple tasks through a shared encoder followed by task-specific decoders. Learning these models often requires specialized training algorithms that address task-conflict in the shared parameter updates, which otherwise can lead to negative transfer. A new type of multi-task learning within NLP homogenizes multi-task architectures as a shared encoder and language model decoder, which does surprisingly well across a range of diverse tasks. Does this new architecture suffer from task-conflicts that require specialized training algorithms? We study how certain factors in the shift towards text-to-text models affects multi-task conflict and negative transfer, finding that both directional conflict and transfer are surprisingly constant across architectures.

Ziyang Huang, Yi Cao, Ali K. Shargh et al.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous coding agents and have achieved remarkably strong performance on software engineering benchmarks. However, it is unclear whether such success transfers to computational scientific workflows, where tasks require not only strong coding ability, but also the ability to navigate complex, domain-specific procedures and to interpret results in the context of scientific claims. To address this question, we present AutoMat, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents' ability to reproduce claims from computational materials science. AutoMat poses three interrelated challenges: recovering underspecified computational procedures, navigating specialized toolchains, and determining whether the resulting evidence supports a claim. By working closely with subject matter experts, we curate a set of claims from real materials science papers to test whether coding agents can recover and execute the end-to-end workflow needed to support (or undermine) such claims. We then evaluate multiple representative coding agent settings across several foundation models. Our results show that current LLM-based agents obtain low overall success rates on AutoMat, with the best-performing setting achieving a success rate of only 54.1%. Error analysis further reveals that agents perform worst when workflows must be reconstructed from paper text alone and that they fail primarily due to incomplete procedures, methodological deviations, and execution fragility. Taken together, these findings position AutoMat as both a benchmark for computational scientific reproducibility and a tool for diagnosing the current limitations of agentic systems in AI-for-science settings.

Xiao Ye, Andrew Wang, Jacob Choi et al.

Humans regularly engage in analogical thinking, relating personal experiences to current situations (X is analogous to Y because of Z). Analogical thinking allows humans to solve problems in creative ways, grasp difficult concepts, and articulate ideas more effectively. Can language models (LMs) do the same? To answer this question, we propose AnaloBench, a benchmark to determine analogical reasoning ability in LMs. Our benchmarking approach focuses on aspects of this ability that are common among humans: (i) recalling related experiences from a large amount of information, and (ii) applying analogical reasoning to complex and lengthy scenarios. We test a broad collection of proprietary models (e.g., GPT family, Claude V2) and open source models such as LLaMA2. As in prior results, scaling up LMs results in some performance boosts. Surprisingly, scale offers minimal gains when, (i) analogies involve lengthy scenarios, or (ii) recalling relevant scenarios from a large pool of information, a process analogous to finding a needle in a haystack. We hope these observations encourage further research in this field.

Aleem Khan, Andrew Wang, Sophia Hager et al.

Prior work in style-controlled text generation has focused on tasks such as emulating the style of prolific literary authors, producing formal or informal text, and mitigating toxicity of generated text. Plentiful demonstrations of these styles are available, and as a result modern language models are often able to emulate them, either via prompting or discriminative control. However, in applications such as writing assistants, it is desirable for language models to produce text in an author-specific style on the basis of a potentially small writing sample. For example, someone writing in a particular dialect may prefer writing suggestions that retain the same dialect. We find that instruction-tuned language models can struggle to reproduce author-specific style demonstrated in a prompt. Instead, we propose to guide a language model to generate text in a target style using contrastively-trained representations that capture stylometric features. Our approach (StyleMC) combines an author-adapted language model with sequence-level inference to improve stylistic consistency, and is found to be effective in a variety of conditions, including unconditional generation and style transfer. Additionally, we find that the proposed approach can serve as an effective anonymization method, by editing a document to mask authorship while preserving the original meaning

Dongwei Jiang, Alvin Zhang, Andrew Wang et al.

Recent studies have shown LLMs possess some ability to improve their responses when given external feedback. However, it remains unclear how effectively and thoroughly these models can incorporate extrinsic feedback. In an ideal scenario, if LLMs receive near-perfect and complete feedback, we would expect them to fully integrate the feedback and reach correct solutions. In this paper, we systematically investigate LLMs' ability to incorporate feedback by designing a controlled experimental environment. For each problem, a solver model attempts a solution, then a feedback generator with access to near-complete ground-truth answers produces targeted feedback, after which the solver tries again. We evaluate this pipeline across a diverse range of tasks, including math reasoning, knowledge reasoning, scientific reasoning, and general multi-domain evaluations with state-of-the-art language models including Claude 3.7 with extended thinking. Surprisingly, even under these near-ideal conditions, solver models consistently show resistance to feedback, a limitation that we term Feedback Friction. To mitigate this limitation, we experiment with sampling-based strategies like progressive temperature increases and explicit rejection of previously attempted incorrect answers, which yield improvements but still fail to help models achieve target performance. We analyze Feedback Friction and find that models' confidence on specific questions, measured by semantic entropy, predicts feedback resistance: high-confidence predictions remain resistant to external correction. We hope that highlighting this issue in LLMs will help future research in self-improvement.

Sophia Hager, David Mueller, Kevin Duh et al.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for factual question-answering, it becomes more important for LLMs to have the capability to communicate the likelihood that their answer is correct. For these verbalized expressions of uncertainty to be meaningful, they should reflect the error rates at the expressed level of confidence. However, when prompted to express confidence, the error rates of current LLMs are inconsistent with their communicated confidences, highlighting the need for uncertainty quantification methods. Many prior methods calculate lexical uncertainty, estimating a model's confidence in the specific string it generated. In some cases, however, it may be more useful to estimate semantic uncertainty, or the model's confidence in the answer regardless of how it is verbalized. We propose a simple procedure, uncertainty distillation, to teach an LLM to verbalize calibrated semantic confidences. Using held-out data to map initial uncertainty estimates to meaningful probabilities, we create examples annotated with verbalized probabilities for supervised fine-tuning. We compare uncertainty distillation to several strong baselines, and find that our method yields verbalized confidences that correlate well with observed error rates.

Steven Reich, David Mueller, Nicholas Andrews

Modern neural networks do not always produce well-calibrated predictions, even when trained with a proper scoring function such as cross-entropy. In classification settings, simple methods such as isotonic regression or temperature scaling may be used in conjunction with a held-out dataset to calibrate model outputs. However, extending these methods to structured prediction is not always straightforward or effective; furthermore, a held-out calibration set may not always be available. In this paper, we study ensemble distillation as a general framework for producing well-calibrated structured prediction models while avoiding the prohibitive inference-time cost of ensembles. We validate this framework on two tasks: named-entity recognition and machine translation. We find that, across both tasks, ensemble distillation produces models which retain much of, and occasionally improve upon, the performance and calibration benefits of ensembles, while only requiring a single model during test-time.

Mitchell A. Gordon, Kevin Duh, Nicholas Andrews

Pre-trained universal feature extractors, such as BERT for natural language processing and VGG for computer vision, have become effective methods for improving deep learning models without requiring more labeled data. While effective, feature extractors like BERT may be prohibitively large for some deployment scenarios. We explore weight pruning for BERT and ask: how does compression during pre-training affect transfer learning? We find that pruning affects transfer learning in three broad regimes. Low levels of pruning (30-40%) do not affect pre-training loss or transfer to downstream tasks at all. Medium levels of pruning increase the pre-training loss and prevent useful pre-training information from being transferred to downstream tasks. High levels of pruning additionally prevent models from fitting downstream datasets, leading to further degradation. Finally, we observe that fine-tuning BERT on a specific task does not improve its prunability. We conclude that BERT can be pruned once during pre-training rather than separately for each task without affecting performance.