In the current user-server interaction paradigm of prompted generation with large language models (LLMs) on cloud, the server fully controls the generation process, which leaves zero options for users who want to keep the generated text private to themselves. For privacy-aware text generation on cloud, we propose LatticeGen, a cooperative protocol in which the server still handles most of the computation while the client controls the sampling operation. The key idea is that the true generated sequence is mixed with noise tokens by the client and hidden in a noised lattice. Only the client knows which tokens are the true ones. Considering potential attacks from a hypothetically malicious server and how the client can defend against it, we propose the repeated beam-search attack and the mixing noise scheme. In our experiments we apply LatticeGen to protect both prompt and generation. It is shown that while the noised lattice degrades generation quality, LatticeGen successfully protects the true generation to a remarkable degree under strong attacks (more than 50% of the semantic remains hidden as measured by BERTScore).

In this work, we explore a useful but often neglected methodology for robustness analysis of text generation evaluation metrics: stress tests with synthetic data. Basically, we design and synthesize a wide range of potential errors and check whether they result in a commensurate drop in the metric scores. We examine a range of recently proposed evaluation metrics based on pretrained language models, for the tasks of open-ended generation, translation, and summarization. Our experiments reveal interesting insensitivities, biases, or even loopholes in existing metrics. For example, we find that BERTScore is confused by truncation errors in summarization, and MAUVE (built on top of GPT-2) is insensitive to errors at the beginning or middle of generations. Further, we investigate the reasons behind these blind spots and suggest practical workarounds for a more reliable evaluation of text generation. We have released our code and data at https://github.com/cloudygoose/blindspot_nlg.

Extremely Weakly Supervised Text Classification (XWS-TC) refers to text classification based on minimal high-level human guidance, such as a few label-indicative seed words or classification instructions. There are two mainstream approaches for XWS-TC, however, never being rigorously compared: (1) training classifiers based on pseudo-labels generated by (softly) matching seed words (Seed) and (2) prompting (and calibrating) language models using classification instruction (and raw texts) to decode label words (Prompt). This paper presents the first XWS-TC benchmark to compare the two approaches on fair grounds, where the datasets, supervisions, and hyperparameter choices are standardized across methods. Our benchmarking results suggest that (1) Both Seed and Prompt approaches are competitive and there is no clear winner; (2) Seed is empirically more tolerant than Prompt to human guidance (e.g., seed words, classification instructions, and label words) changes; (3) Seed is empirically more selective than Prompt to the pre-trained language models; (4) Recent Seed and Prompt methods have close connections and a clustering post-processing step based on raw in-domain texts is a strong performance booster to both. We hope this benchmark serves as a guideline in selecting XWS-TC methods in different scenarios and stimulate interest in developing guidance- and model-robust XWS-TC methods.