REVIEW 2 cited by
Joint Repetition Suppression and Content Moderation of Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Natural language generation (NLG) is one of the most impactful fields in NLP, and recent years have witnessed its evolution brought about by large language models (LLMs). As the key instrument for writing assistance applications, they are generally prone to replicating or extending offensive content provided in the input. In low-resource data regime, they can also lead to repetitive outputs. Usually, offensive content and repetitions are mitigated with post-hoc methods, including n-gram level blocklists, top-k and nucleus sampling. In this paper, we apply non-exact repetition suppression using token and sequence level unlikelihood loss, and further explore the framework of unlikelihood training objective in order to jointly endow the model with abilities to avoid generating offensive words and phrases from the beginning. Finally, with comprehensive experiments, we demonstrate that our proposed methods work exceptionally in controlling the repetition and content quality of LLM outputs.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
FREYR: A Framework for Recognizing and Executing Your Requests
FREYR, a modular pipeline that separates intent detection, parameter generation, and summarization, achieves higher task completion than Ollama's native tool calling on the LLMaker benchmark.
-
Guardians and Offenders: A Survey on Harmful Content Generation and Safety Mitigation of LLM
The submission's abstract promises an LLM safety survey, but the provided body is the opening page of an unrelated arithmetic-dynamics paper, so the artifact is internally inconsistent.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.