Lisa Alazraki

Lisa Alazraki, Ali Ghachem, Neophytos Polydorou et al.

In this work, we present a new dataset and a computational strategy for a digital coach that aims to guide users in practicing the protocols of self-attachment therapy. Our framework augments a rule-based conversational agent with a deep-learning classifier for identifying the underlying emotion in a user's text response, as well as a deep-learning assisted retrieval method for producing novel, fluent and empathetic utterances. We also craft a set of human-like personas that users can choose to interact with. Our goal is to achieve a high level of engagement during virtual therapy sessions. We evaluate the effectiveness of our framework in a non-clinical trial with N=16 participants, all of whom have had at least four interactions with the agent over the course of five days. We find that our platform is consistently rated higher for empathy, user engagement and usefulness than the simple rule-based framework. Finally, we provide guidelines to further improve the design and performance of the application, in accordance with the feedback received.

Lisa Alazraki, Lluis Castrejon, Mostafa Dehghani et al.

This paper studies ensembling in the era of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). Ensembling is a classical method to combine different models to get increased performance. In the recent work on Encyclopedic-VQA the authors examine a wide variety of models to solve their task: from vanilla LVLMs, to models including the caption as extra context, to models augmented with Lens-based retrieval of Wikipedia pages. Intuitively these models are highly complementary, which should make them ideal for ensembling. Indeed, an oracle experiment shows potential gains from 48.8% accuracy (the best single model) all the way up to 67% (best possible ensemble). So it is a trivial exercise to create an ensemble with substantial real gains. Or is it?

Alicia Jiayun Law, Ruoyu Hu, Lisa Alazraki et al.

In this work, we propose a computational framework that leverages existing out-of-language data to create a conversational agent for the delivery of Self-Attachment Technique (SAT) in Mandarin. Our framework does not require large-scale human translations, yet it achieves a comparable performance whilst also maintaining safety and reliability. We propose two different methods of augmenting available response data through empathetic rewriting. We evaluate our chatbot against a previous, English-only SAT chatbot through non-clinical human trials (N=42), each lasting five days, and quantitatively show that we are able to attain a comparable level of performance to the English SAT chatbot. We provide qualitative analysis on the limitations of our study and suggestions with the aim of guiding future improvements.

Sina Elahimanesh, Shayan Salehi, Sara Zahedi Movahed et al.

In the wake of the post-pandemic era, marked by social isolation and surging rates of depression and anxiety, conversational agents based on digital psychotherapy can play an influential role compared to traditional therapy sessions. In this work, we develop a voice-capable chatbot in Farsi to guide users through Self-Attachment (SAT), a novel, self-administered, holistic psychological technique based on attachment theory. Our chatbot uses a dynamic array of rule-based and classification-based modules to comprehend user input throughout the conversation and navigates a dialogue flowchart accordingly, recommending appropriate SAT exercises that depend on the user's emotional and mental state. In particular, we collect a dataset of over 6,000 utterances and develop a novel sentiment-analysis module that classifies user sentiment into 12 classes, with accuracy above 92%. To keep the conversation novel and engaging, the chatbot's responses are retrieved from a large dataset of utterances created with the aid of Farsi GPT-2 and a reinforcement learning approach, thus requiring minimal human annotation. Our chatbot also offers a question-answering module, called SAT Teacher, to answer users' questions about the principles of Self-Attachment. Finally, we design a cross-platform application as the bot's user interface. We evaluate our platform in a ten-day human study with N=52 volunteers from the non-clinical population, who have had over 2,000 dialogues in total with the chatbot. The results indicate that the platform was engaging to most users (75%), 72% felt better after the interactions, and 74% were satisfied with the SAT Teacher's performance.

Lisa Alazraki, Marek Rei

External tools help large language models succeed at tasks where they would otherwise typically fail. In existing frameworks, choosing tools at test time relies on naive greedy decoding, regardless of whether the model has been fine-tuned on tool-annotated data or prompted with in-context examples. In contrast, we find that gathering and choosing among a suitable set of candidate tools has greater potential to lead to an optimal selection. We present Tool selECTion via meta-reasONing (TECTON), a two-phase system that first reasons over a task and outputs candidate tools using a custom fine-tuned language modelling head. Then, with the custom head disabled, it meta-reasons (i.e., it reasons over the previous reasoning process) to make a final choice. We show that TECTON results in substantial gains--both in-distribution and out-of-distribution--on a range of math reasoning datasets.

Lisa Alazraki, Maximilian Mozes, Jon Ander Campos et al.

Showing incorrect answers to Large Language Models (LLMs) is a popular strategy to improve their performance in reasoning-intensive tasks. It is widely assumed that, in order to be helpful, the incorrect answers must be accompanied by comprehensive rationales, explicitly detailing where the mistakes are and how to correct them. However, in this work we present a counterintuitive finding: we observe that LLMs perform better in math reasoning tasks when these rationales are eliminated from the context and models are left to infer on their own what makes an incorrect answer flawed. This approach also substantially outperforms chain-of-thought prompting in our evaluations. These results are consistent across LLMs of different sizes and varying reasoning abilities. To gain an understanding of why LLMs learn from mistakes more effectively without explicit corrective rationales, we perform a thorough analysis, investigating changes in context length and answer diversity between different prompting strategies, and their effect on performance. We also examine evidence of overfitting to the in-context rationales when these are provided, and study the extent to which LLMs are able to autonomously infer high-quality corrective rationales given only incorrect answers as input. We find evidence that, while incorrect answers are more beneficial for LLM learning than additional diverse correct answers, explicit corrective rationales over-constrain the model, thus limiting those benefits.

Lisa Alazraki, Tan Yi-Chern, Jon Ander Campos et al.

The capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are routinely evaluated by other LLMs trained to predict human preferences. This framework--known as LLM-as-a-judge--is highly scalable and relatively low cost. However, it is also vulnerable to malicious exploitation, as LLM responses can be tuned to overfit the preferences of the judge. Previous work shows that the answers generated by a candidate-LLM can be edited post hoc to maximise the score assigned to them by a judge-LLM. In this study, we adopt a different approach and use the signal provided by judge-LLMs as a reward to adversarially tune models that generate text preambles designed to boost downstream performance. We find that frozen LLMs pipelined with these models attain higher LLM-evaluation scores than existing frameworks. Crucially, unlike other frameworks which intervene directly on the model's response, our method is virtually undetectable. We also demonstrate that the effectiveness of the tuned preamble generator transfers when the candidate-LLM and the judge-LLM are replaced with models that are not used during training. These findings raise important questions about the design of more reliable LLM-as-a-judge evaluation settings. They also demonstrate that human preferences can be reverse engineered effectively, by pipelining LLMs to optimise upstream preambles via reinforcement learning--an approach that could find future applications in diverse tasks and domains beyond adversarial attacks.