Shramay Palta

Using a sample of 25,000 Bing Copilot conversations, we study how the agent responds to users of varying levels of domain expertise and the resulting impact on user experience along multiple dimensions. Our findings show that across a variety of topical domains, the agent largely responds at proficient or expert levels of expertise (77% of conversations) which correlates with positive user experience regardless of the user’s level of expertise. Misalignment, such that the agent responds at a level of expertise below that of the user, has a negative impact on overall user experience, with the impact more profound for more complex tasks. We also show that users engage more, as measured by the number of words in the conversation, when the agent responds at a level of expertise commensurate with that of the user. Our findings underscore the importance of alignment between user and AI when designing human-centered AI systems, to ensure satisfactory and productive interactions.

Questions involving commonsense reasoning about everyday situations often admit many possible or plausible answers. In contrast, multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks for commonsense reasoning require a hard selection of a single correct answer, which, in principle, should represent the most plausible answer choice. On 250 MCQ items sampled from two commonsense reasoning benchmarks, we collect 5,000 independent plausibility judgments on answer choices. We find that for over 20% of the sampled MCQs, the answer choice rated most plausible does not match the benchmark gold answers; upon manual inspection, we confirm that this subset exhibits higher rates of problems like ambiguity or semantic mismatch between question and answer choices. Experiments with LLMs reveal low accuracy and high variation in performance on the subset, suggesting our plausibility criterion may be helpful in identifying more reliable benchmark items for commonsense evaluation.

Generative models are now widely used by graphic designers and artists. Prior works have shown that these models remember and often replicate content from their training data during generation. Hence as their proliferation increases, it has become important to perform a database search to determine whether the properties of the image are attributable to specific training data, every time before a generated image is used for professional purposes. Existing tools for this purpose focus on retrieving images of similar semantic content. Meanwhile, many artists are concerned with style replication in text-to-image models. We present a framework for understanding and extracting style descriptors from images. Our framework comprises a new dataset curated using the insight that style is a subjective property of an image that captures complex yet meaningful interactions of factors including but not limited to colors, textures, shapes, etc.. We also propose a method to extract style descriptors that can be used to attribute style of a generated image to the images used in the training dataset of a text-to-image model. We showcase promising results in various style retrieval tasks. We also quantitatively and qualitatively analyze style attribution and matching in the Stable Diffusion model.

Chain-of-thought (COT) prompting can help large language models (LLMs) reason toward correct answers, but its efficacy in reasoning toward incorrect answers is unexplored. This process of elimination (PoE), when used with COT, can enhance self-consistency, interpretability, and tasks such as medical diagnoses of exclusion. Thus, we propose PoE with COT, where LLMs must reason toward incorrect options on multiple-choice questions. We evaluate the ability of GPT-3.5, LLaMA-2, and Falcon to perform PoE with COT on a total of four commonsense and scientific reasoning datasets. We find that the strategy of PoE always underperforms the strategy of choosing the correct answer. The agreement of these strategies is also lower than the self-consistency of each strategy. To study these issues further, we conduct error analyses and give suggestions for future work.

It is common sense that one should prefer to eat a salad with a fork rather than with a chainsaw. However, for eating a bowl of rice, the choice between a fork and a pair of chopsticks is culturally relative. We introduce FORK, a small, manually-curated set of CommonsenseQA-style questions for probing cultural biases and assumptions present in commonsense reasoning systems, with a specific focus on food-related customs. We test several CommonsenseQA systems on FORK, and while we see high performance on questions about the US culture, the poor performance of these systems on questions about non-US cultures highlights systematic cultural assumptions aligned with US over non-US cultures.