Large language models (LLMs) exhibit the ability to generalize given few-shot examples in their input prompt, an emergent capability known as in-context learning (ICL). We investigate whether LLMs use ICL to perform structured reasoning in ways that are consistent with a Bayesian framework or rely on pattern matching. Using a controlled setting of biased coin flips, we find that: (1) LLMs often possess biased priors, causing initial divergence in zero-shot settings, (2) in-context evidence outweighs explicit bias instructions, (3) LLMs broadly follow Bayesian posterior updates, with deviations primarily due to miscalibrated priors rather than flawed updates, and (4) attention magnitude has negligible effect on Bayesian inference. With sufficient demonstrations of biased coin flips via ICL, LLMs update their priors in a Bayesian manner. Code and visualizations are available on the [project page](https://ai-climate.berkeley.edu/llm-coin-flips/).

Large language models (LLMs) are trained from vast repositories of text authored by millions of distinct authors, reflecting an enormous diversity of human traits. While these models bear the potential to be used as approximations of human subjects in behavioral studies, prior efforts have been limited in steering model responses to match individual human users. In this work, we introduce Anthology, a method for conditioning LLMs to particular virtual personas by harnessing open-ended life narratives, which we refer to as backstories. We show that our methodology enhances the consistency and reliability of experimental outcomes while ensuring better representation of diverse sub-populations. Across three nationally representative human surveys conducted as part of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), we demonstrate that Anthology achieves up to 18% improvement in matching the response distributions of human respondents and 27% improvement in consistency metrics.

Traditional automated metrics for evaluating conditional natural language generation rely on pairwise comparisons between a single generated text and the best-matching gold-standard reference. This method is effective when ground truth data diversity can be attributed to noise, however, it falls short when diversity in references holds valuable contextual information, as in visual description or summarization, as it does not evaluate the ability of a model to generate text matching the diversity of the ground truth samples. In this paper, we challenge the adequacy of existing metrics in such semantically diverse contexts and introduce a novel approach for evaluating conditional language generation models, leveraging a family of meta-metrics that build on existing pairwise distance functions. These meta-metrics assess not just single-samples, but distributions of reference and model-generated captions using small sample sets. We demonstrate our approach through a case study of visual description in the English language which reveals not only how current models prioritize single-description quality over diversity, but further sheds light on the impact of sampling methods and temperature settings on description quality and diversity.

Recent advances in machine learning have demonstrated that multi-modal pre-training can improve automatic speech recognition (ASR) performance compared to randomly initialized models, even when models are fine-tuned on uni-modal tasks. Existing multi-modal pre-training methods for the ASR task have primarily focused on single-stage pre-training where a single unsupervised task is used for pre-training followed by fine-tuning on the downstream task. In this work, we introduce a novel method combining multi-modal and multi-task unsupervised pre-training with a translation-based supervised mid-training approach. We empirically demonstrate that such a multi-stage approach leads to relative word error rate (WER) improvements of up to 38.45% over baselines on both Librispeech and SUPERB. Additionally, we share several important findings for choosing pre-training methods and datasets.

Despite recent advances in multimodal pre-training for visual description, state-of-the-art models still produce captions containing errors, such as hallucinating objects not present in a scene. The existing prominent metric for object hallucination, CHAIR, is limited to a fixed set of MS COCO objects and synonyms. In this work, we propose a modernized open-vocabulary metric, ALOHa, which leverages large language models (LLMs) to measure object hallucinations. Specifically, we use an LLM to extract groundable objects from a candidate caption, measure their semantic similarity to reference objects from captions and object detections, and use Hungarian matching to produce a final hallucination score. We show that ALOHa correctly identifies 13.6% more hallucinated objects than CHAIR on HAT, a new gold-standard subset of MS COCO Captions annotated for hallucinations, and 30.8% more on nocaps, where objects extend beyond MS COCO categories.

If you ask a human to describe an image, they might do so in a thousand different ways. Traditionally, image captioning models are trained to generate a single “best’ (most like a reference) image caption. Unfortunately, doing so encourages captions that are “informationally impoverished,’ and focus on only a subset of the possible details, while ignoring other potentially useful information in the scene. In this work, we introduce a simple, yet novel, method: “Image Captioning by Committee Consensus’ (IC3), designed to generate a single caption that captures high-level details from several annotator viewpoints. Humans rate captions produced by IC3 at least as helpful as baseline SOTA models more than two thirds of the time, and IC3 can improve the performance of SOTA automated recall systems by up to 84%, outperforming single human-generated reference captions, and indicating significant improvements over SOTA approaches for visual description. Code is available at [https://davidmchan.github.io/caption-by-committee/](https://davidmchan.github.io/caption-by-committee/)

The evaluation of machine-generated image captions poses an interesting yet persistent challenge. Effective evaluation measures must consider numerous dimensions of similarity, including semantic relevance, visual structure, object interactions, caption diversity, and specificity. Existing highly-engineered measures attempt to capture specific aspects, but fall short in providing a holistic score that aligns closely with human judgments. Here, we propose CLAIR, a novel method that leverages the zero-shot language modeling capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to evaluate candidate captions. In our evaluations, CLAIR demonstrates a stronger correlation with human judgments of caption quality compared to existing measures. Notably, on Flickr8K-Expert, CLAIR achieves relative correlation improvements over SPICE of 39.6% and over image-augmented methods such as RefCLIP-S of 18.3%. Moreover, CLAIR provides noisily interpretable results by allowing the language model to identify the underlying reasoning behind its assigned score.