While language models (LMs) can sometimes generate factually correct text and estimate truth values of individual claims, these generally do not reflect a globally coherent, manipulable model of the world. As a consequence, current LMs also generate incorrect or nonsensical content, and are difficult to edit and bring up to date. We present a method called Deductive Closure Training (DCT) that uses LMs themselves to identify implications of (and contradictions within) the text that they generate, yielding an efficient self-supervised procedure for improving LM factuality. Given a collection of seed documents, DCT prompts LMs to generate additional text implied by these documents, reason globally about the correctness of this generated text, and finally fine-tune on text inferred to be correct. Given seed documents from a trusted source, DCT provides a tool for supervised model updating; if seed documents are sampled from the LM itself, DCT enables fully unsupervised fine-tuning for improved coherence and accuracy. Across the CREAK, MQuAKE, and Reversal Curse datasets, supervised DCT improves LM fact verification and text generation accuracy by 3-26%; on CREAK, fully unsupervised DCT improves verification accuracy by 12%. These results show that LMs’ reasoning capabilities during inference can be leveraged during training to improve their reliability.

Despite their unprecedented success, even the largest language models make mistakes. Similar to how humans learn and improve using feedback, previous work proposed providing language models with natural language feedback to guide them in repairing their outputs. Because human-generated critiques are expensive to obtain, researchers have devised learned critique generators in lieu of human critics while assuming one can train downstream models to utilize generated feedback. However, this approach does not apply to black-box or limited access models such as ChatGPT, as they cannot be fine-tuned. Moreover, in the era of large general-purpose language agents, fine-tuning is neither computationally nor spatially efficient as it results in multiple copies of the network. In this work, we introduce RL4F (Reinforcement Learning for Feedback), a multi-agent collaborative framework where the critique generator is trained to maximize end-task performance of GPT-3, a fixed model more than 200 times its size. RL4F produces critiques that help GPT-3 revise its outputs. We study three datasets for action planning, summarization and alphabetization and show relative improvements up to 10% in multiple text similarity metrics over other learned, retrieval-augmented or prompting-based critique generators.

Researchers have devised numerous ways to quantify social biases vested in pretrained language models. As some language models are capable of generating coherent completions given a set of textual prompts, several prompting datasets have been proposed to measure biases between social groups—posing language generation as a way of identifying biases. In this opinion paper, we analyze how specific choices of prompt sets, metrics, automatic tools and sampling strategies affect bias results. We find out that the practice of measuring biases through text completion is prone to yielding contradicting results under different experiment settings. We additionally provide recommendations for reporting biases in open-ended language generation for a more complete outlook of biases exhibited by a given language model. Code to reproduce the results is released under https://github.com/feyzaakyurek/bias-textgen.

Large language models trained on a mixture of NLP tasks that are converted into a text-to-text format using prompts, can generalize into novel forms of language and handle novel tasks. A large body of work within prompt engineering attempts to understand the effects of input forms and prompts in achieving superior performance. We consider an alternative measure and inquire whether the way in which an input is encoded affects social biases promoted in outputs. In this paper, we study T0, a large-scale multi-task text-to-text language model trained using prompt-based learning. We consider two different forms of semantically equivalent inputs: question-answer format and premise-hypothesis format. We use an existing bias benchmark for the former BBQ and create the first bias benchmark in natural language inference BBNLI with hand-written hypotheses while also converting each benchmark into the other form. The results on two benchmarks suggest that given two different formulations of essentially the same input, T0 conspicuously acts more biased in question answering form, which is seen during training, compared to premise-hypothesis form which is unlike its training examples. Code and data are released under https://github.com/feyzaakyurek/bbnli.

News framing refers to the practice in which aspects of specific issues are highlighted in the news to promote a particular interpretation. In NLP, although recent works have studied framing in English news, few have studied how the analysis can be extended to other languages and in a multi-label setting. In this work, we explore multilingual transfer learning to detect multiple frames from just the news headline in a genuinely low-resource context where there are few/no frame annotations in the target language. We propose a novel method that can leverage elementary resources consisting of a dictionary and few annotations to detect frames in the target language. Our method performs comparably or better than translating the entire target language headline to the source language for which we have annotated data. This work opens up an exciting new capability of scaling up frame analysis to many languages, even those without existing translation technologies. Lastly, we apply our method to detect frames on the issue of U.S. gun violence in multiple languages and obtain exciting insights on the relationship between different frames of the same problem across different countries with different languages.