We use cookies to analyze the browsing and usage of our website and to personalize your experience. You can disable these technologies at any time, but this may limit certain functionalities of the site. Read our Privacy Policy for more information.
Setting cookies
You can enable and disable the types of cookies you wish to accept. However certain choices you make could affect the services offered on our sites (e.g. suggestions, personalised ads, etc.).
Essential cookies
These cookies are necessary for the operation of the site and cannot be deactivated. (Still active)
Analytics cookies
Do you accept the use of cookies to measure the audience of our sites?
Multimedia Player
Do you accept the use of cookies to display and allow you to watch the video content hosted by our partners (YouTube, etc.)?
Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly bei… (see more)ng used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub \emph{criteria drift}: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears \emph{dependent} on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined \emph{a priori}), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.
Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly bei… (see more)ng used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub \emph{criteria drift}: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears \emph{dependent} on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined \emph{a priori}), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.
Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly bei… (see more)ng used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub \emph{criteria drift}: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears \emph{dependent} on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined \emph{a priori}), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.
Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly bei… (see more)ng used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub \emph{criteria drift}: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears \emph{dependent} on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined \emph{a priori}), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.
State-of-the-art neural algorithmic reasoners make use of message passing in graph neural networks (GNNs). But typical GNNs blur the distinc… (see more)tion between the definition and invocation of the message function, forcing a node to send messages to its neighbours at every layer, synchronously. When applying GNNs to learn to execute dynamic programming algorithms, however, on most steps only a handful of the nodes would have meaningful updates to send. One, hence, runs the risk of inefficiencies by sending too much irrelevant data across the graph. But more importantly, many intermediate GNN steps have to learn the identity functions, which is a non-trivial learning problem. In this work, we explicitly separate the concepts of node state update and message function invocation. With this separation, we obtain a mathematical formulation that allows us to reason about asynchronous computation in both algorithms and neural networks. Our analysis yields several practical implementations of synchronous scalable GNN layers that are provably invariant under various forms of asynchrony.
2024-04-17
Proceedings of the Second Learning on Graphs Conference (published)
Genomic Copy Number Variants (CNVs) that increase risk for neurodevelopmental disorders are also associated with lower cognitive ability in … (see more)general population cohorts. Studies have focussed on a small set of recurrent CNVs, but burden analyses suggested that the vast majority of CNVs affecting cognitive ability are too rare to reach variant-level association. As a result, the full range of gene-dosage-sensitive biological processes linked to cognitive ability remains unknown. To investigate this issue, we identified all CNVs >50 kilobases in 258k individuals from 6 general population cohorts with assessments of general cognitive abilities. We performed a CNV-GWAS and functional burden analyses, which tested 6502 gene-sets defined by tissue and cell-type transcriptomics as well as gene ontology disrupted by all rare coding CNVs. CNV-GWAS identified a novel duplication at 2q12.3 associated with higher performance in cognitive ability. Among the 864 gene-sets associated with cognitive ability, only 11% showed significant effects for both deletions and duplication. Accordingly, we systematically observed negative correlations between deletion and duplication effect sizes across all levels of biological observations. We quantified the preferential effects of deletions versus duplication using tagDS, a new normalized metric. Cognitive ability was preferentially affected by cortical, presynaptic, and negative-regulation gene-sets when duplicated. In contrast, preferential effects of deletions were observed for subcortical, post-synaptic, and positive-regulation gene-sets. A large proportion of gene-sets assigned to non-brain organs were associated with cognitive ability due to low tissue specificity genes, which were associated with higher sensitive to haploinsufficiency. Overall, most biological functions associated with cognitive ability are divided into those sensitive to either deletion or duplications.
Genomic Copy Number Variants (CNVs) that increase risk for neurodevelopmental disorders are also associated with lower cognitive ability in … (see more)general population cohorts. Studies have focussed on a small set of recurrent CNVs, but burden analyses suggested that the vast majority of CNVs affecting cognitive ability are too rare to reach variant-level association. As a result, the full range of gene-dosage-sensitive biological processes linked to cognitive ability remains unknown. To investigate this issue, we identified all CNVs >50 kilobases in 258k individuals from 6 general population cohorts with assessments of general cognitive abilities. We performed a CNV-GWAS and functional burden analyses, which tested 6502 gene-sets defined by tissue and cell-type transcriptomics as well as gene ontology disrupted by all rare coding CNVs. CNV-GWAS identified a novel duplication at 2q12.3 associated with higher performance in cognitive ability. Among the 864 gene-sets associated with cognitive ability, only 11% showed significant effects for both deletions and duplication. Accordingly, we systematically observed negative correlations between deletion and duplication effect sizes across all levels of biological observations. We quantified the preferential effects of deletions versus duplication using tagDS, a new normalized metric. Cognitive ability was preferentially affected by cortical, presynaptic, and negative-regulation gene-sets when duplicated. In contrast, preferential effects of deletions were observed for subcortical, post-synaptic, and positive-regulation gene-sets. A large proportion of gene-sets assigned to non-brain organs were associated with cognitive ability due to low tissue specificity genes, which were associated with higher sensitive to haploinsufficiency. Overall, most biological functions associated with cognitive ability are divided into those sensitive to either deletion or duplications.
Genomic Copy Number Variants (CNVs) that increase risk for neurodevelopmental disorders are also associated with lower cognitive ability in … (see more)general population cohorts. Studies have focussed on a small set of recurrent CNVs, but burden analyses suggested that the vast majority of CNVs affecting cognitive ability are too rare to reach variant-level association. As a result, the full range of gene-dosage-sensitive biological processes linked to cognitive ability remains unknown. To investigate this issue, we identified all CNVs >50 kilobases in 258k individuals from 6 general population cohorts with assessments of general cognitive abilities. We performed a CNV-GWAS and functional burden analyses, which tested 6502 gene-sets defined by tissue and cell-type transcriptomics as well as gene ontology disrupted by all rare coding CNVs. CNV-GWAS identified a novel duplication at 2q12.3 associated with higher performance in cognitive ability. Among the 864 gene-sets associated with cognitive ability, only 11% showed significant effects for both deletions and duplication. Accordingly, we systematically observed negative correlations between deletion and duplication effect sizes across all levels of biological observations. We quantified the preferential effects of deletions versus duplication using tagDS, a new normalized metric. Cognitive ability was preferentially affected by cortical, presynaptic, and negative-regulation gene-sets when duplicated. In contrast, preferential effects of deletions were observed for subcortical, post-synaptic, and positive-regulation gene-sets. A large proportion of gene-sets assigned to non-brain organs were associated with cognitive ability due to low tissue specificity genes, which were associated with higher sensitive to haploinsufficiency. Overall, most biological functions associated with cognitive ability are divided into those sensitive to either deletion or duplications.
Neural Algorithmic Reasoning (NAR) is a research area focused on designing neural architectures that can reliably capture classical computat… (see more)ion, usually by learning to execute algorithms. A typical approach is to rely on Graph Neural Network (GNN) architectures, which encode inputs in high-dimensional latent spaces that are repeatedly transformed during the execution of the algorithm. In this work we perform a detailed analysis of the structure of the latent space induced by the GNN when executing algorithms. We identify two possible failure modes: (i) loss of resolution, making it hard to distinguish similar values; (ii) inability to deal with values outside the range observed during training. We propose to solve the first issue by relying on a softmax aggregator, and propose to decay the latent space in order to deal with out-of-range values. We show that these changes lead to improvements on the majority of algorithms in the standard CLRS-30 benchmark when using the state-of-the-art Triplet-GMPNN processor. Our code is available at https://github.com/mirjanic/nar-latent-spaces
2024-04-17
Proceedings of the Second Learning on Graphs Conference (published)
Large language models (LLMs) excel at few-shot in-context learning (ICL) -- learning from a few examples provided in context at inference, w… (see more)ithout any weight updates. Newly expanded context windows allow us to investigate ICL with hundreds or thousands of examples -- the many-shot regime. Going from few-shot to many-shot, we observe significant performance gains across a wide variety of generative and discriminative tasks. While promising, many-shot ICL can be bottlenecked by the available amount of human-generated examples. To mitigate this limitation, we explore two new settings: Reinforced and Unsupervised ICL. Reinforced ICL uses model-generated chain-of-thought rationales in place of human examples. Unsupervised ICL removes rationales from the prompt altogether, and prompts the model only with domain-specific questions. We find that both Reinforced and Unsupervised ICL can be quite effective in the many-shot regime, particularly on complex reasoning tasks. Finally, we demonstrate that, unlike few-shot learning, many-shot learning is effective at overriding pretraining biases, can learn high-dimensional functions with numerical inputs, and performs comparably to fine-tuning. We also find that inference cost increases linearly in the many-shot regime, and frontier LLMs benefit from many-shot ICL to varying degrees. Our analysis also reveals the limitations of next-token prediction loss as an indicator of downstream ICL performance.
