This study investigates the efficacy of Large Language Models (LLMs) in causal discovery. Using newly available open-source LLMs, OLMo and BLOOM, which provide access to their pre-training corpora, we investigate how LLMs address causal discovery through three research questions. We examine: (i) the impact of memorization for accurate causal relation prediction, (ii) the influence of incorrect causal relations in pre-training data, and (iii) the contextual nuances that influence LLMs’ understanding of causal relations. Our findings indicate that while LLMs are effective in recognizing causal relations that occur frequently in pre-training data, their ability to generalize to new or rare causal relations is limited. Moreover, the presence of incorrect causal relations significantly undermines the confidence of LLMs in corresponding correct causal relations, and the contextual information critically affects the outcomes of LLMs to discern causal connections between random variables.

Automatically evaluating the quality of responses in dialogue systems is a challenging yet crucial task. Current metrics often fail to align with human judgments, especially when assessing responses that are grammatically correct. To address this issue, we propose a novel metric, called CausalScore, which assesses the relevance of responses by measuring the causal strength between dialogue histories and responses. The causal strength is estimated by utilizing both unconditional dependence and conditional dependencies from dialogue histories to responses. We compare our metric with the existing competitive metrics in terms of their alignment with human judgements. Our experimental results demonstrate that CausalScore significantly surpasses existing state-of-the-art metrics by aligning better with human judgements. Additionally, we collect a dialogue dataset CGDIALOG+ with human-annotated causal relations and a set of pairwise human judgements to facilitate the development of automatic metrics.

Norm violations occur when individuals fail to conform to culturally accepted behaviors, which may lead to potential conflicts. Remediating norm violations requires social awareness and cultural sensitivity of the nuances at play. To equip interactive AI systems with a remediation ability, we offer ReNoVi — a large-scale corpus of 9,258 multi-turn dialogues annotated with social norms, as well as define a sequence of tasks to help understand and remediate norm violations step by step. ReNoVi consists of two parts: 512 human-authored dialogues (real data), and 8,746 synthetic conversations generated by ChatGPT through prompt learning. While collecting sufficient human-authored data is costly, synthetic conversations provide suitable amounts of data to help mitigate the scarcity of training data, as well as the chance to assess the alignment between LLMs and humans in the awareness of social norms. We thus harness the power of ChatGPT to generate synthetic training data for our task. To ensure the quality of both human-authored and synthetic data, we follow a quality control protocol during data collection. Our experimental results demonstrate the importance of remediating norm violations in socio-cultural conversations, as well as the improvement in performance obtained from synthetic data.

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have drawn a lot of attentions recently in the legal domain due to its emergent ability to tackle a variety of legal tasks. However, it is still unknown if LLMs are able to analyze a legal case and perform reasoning in the same manner as lawyers. Therefore, we constructed a novel corpus consisting of scenarios pertain to Contract Acts Malaysia and Australian Social Act for Dependent Child. ChatGPT is applied to perform analysis on the corpus using the IRAC method, which is a framework widely used by legal professionals for organizing legal analysis. Each scenario in the corpus is annotated with a complete IRAC analysis in a semi-structured format so that both machines and legal professionals are able to interpret and understand the annotations. In addition, we conducted the first empirical assessment of ChatGPT for IRAC analysis in order to understand how well it aligns with the analysis of legal professionals. Our experimental results shed lights on possible future research directions to improve alignments between LLMs and legal experts in terms of legal reasoning.