As daily reliance on large language models (LLMs) grows, assessing their generation quality is crucial to understanding how they might impact on our communications. This paper investigates the capability of LLMs in storytelling, focusing on narrative development and plot progression. We introduce a novel computational framework to analyze narratives through three discourse-level aspects: i) story arcs, ii) turning points, and iii) affective dimensions, including arousal and valence. By leveraging expert and automatic annotations, we uncover significant discrepancies between the LLM- and human- written stories. While human-written stories are suspenseful, arousing, and diverse in narrative structures, LLM stories are homogeneously positive and lack tension. Next, we measure narrative reasoning skills as a precursor to generative capacities, concluding that most LLMs fall short of human abilities in discourse understanding. Finally, we show that explicit integration of aforementioned discourse features can enhance storytelling, as is demonstrated by over 40% improvement in neural storytelling in terms of diversity, suspense, and arousal. Such advances promise to facilitate greater and more natural roles LLMs in human communication.

Journalists engage in multiple steps in the news writing process that depend on human creativity, like exploring different “angles” (i.e. the specific perspectives a reporter takes). These can potentially be aided by large language models (LLMs). By affecting planning decisions, such interventions can have an outsize impact on creative output. We advocate a careful approach to evaluating these interventions to ensure alignment with human values.In a case study of journalistic coverage of press releases, we assemble a large dataset of 250k press releases and 650k articles covering them. We develop methods to identify news articles that _challenge and contextualize_ press releases. Finally, we evaluate suggestions made by LLMs for these articles and compare these with decisions made by human journalists. Our findings are three-fold: (1) Human-written news articles that challenge and contextualize press releases more take more creative angles and use more informational sources. (2) LLMs align better with humans when recommending angles, compared with informational sources. (3) Both the angles and sources LLMs suggest are significantly less creative than humans.

Human writers plan, _then_ write. For large language models (LLMs) to play a role in longer-form article generation, we must understand the planning steps humans make before writing. We explore one kind of planning, source-selection in news, as a case-study for evaluating plans in long-form generation. We ask: why do _specific_ stories call for _specific_ kinds of sources? We imagine a generative process for story writing where a source-selection schema is first selected by a journalist, and then sources are chosen based on categories in that schema. Learning the article’s _plan_ means predicting the schema initially chosen by the journalist. Working with professional journalists, we adapt five existing schemata and introduce three new ones to describe journalistic plans for the inclusion of sources in documents. Then, inspired by Bayesian latent-variable modeling, we develop metrics to select the most likely plan, or schema, underlying a story, which we use to compare schemata. We find that two schemata: _stance_ and _social affiliation_ best explain source plans in most documents. However, other schemata like _textual entailment_ explain source plans in factually rich topics like “Science”. Finally, we find we can predict the most suitable schema given just the article’s headline with reasonable accuracy. We see this as an important case-study for human planning, and provides a framework and approach for evaluating other kinds of plans, like discourse or plot-oriented plans. We release a corpora, _NewsSources_, with annotations for 4M articles, for further study.

While legal AI has made strides in recent years, it still struggles with basic legal concepts: _when_ does a law apply? _Who_ does it applies to? _What_ does it do? We take a _discourse_ approach to addressing these problems and introduce a novel taxonomy for span-and-relation parsing of legal texts. We create a dataset, _LegalDiscourse_ of 602 state-level law paragraphs consisting of 3,715 discourse spans and 1,671 relations. Our trained annotators have an agreement-rate 𝜅>.8, yet few-shot GPT3.5 performs poorly at span identification and relation classification. Although fine-tuning improves performance, GPT3.5 still lags far below human level. We demonstrate the usefulness of our schema by creating a web application with journalists. We collect over 100,000 laws for 52 U.S. states and territories using 20 scrapers we built, and apply our trained models to 6,000 laws using U.S. Census population numbers. We describe two journalistic outputs stemming from this application: (1) an investigation into the increase in liquor licenses following population growth and (2) a decrease in applicable laws under different under-count projections.

Journalists regularly make decisions on whether or not to report stories, based on “news values”. In this work, we wish to explicitly model these decisions to explore _when_ and _why_ certain stories get press attention. This is challenging because very few labelled links between source documents and news articles exist and language use between corpora is very different. We address this problem by implementing a novel _probabilistic relational modeling_ framework, which we show is a low-annotation linking methodology that outperforms other, more state-of-the-art retrieval-based baselines. Next, we define a new task: __newsworthiness prediction__, to predict if a policy item will get covered. We focus on news coverage of local public policy in the San Francisco Bay Area by the _San Francisco Chronicle_. We gather 15k policies discussed across 10 years of public policy meetings, and transcribe over 3,200 hours of public discussion. In general, we find limited impact of public discussion on newsworthiness prediction accuracy, suggesting that some of the most important stories barely get discussed in public.Finally, we show that newsworthiness predictions can be a useful assistive tool for journalists seeking to keep abreast of local government. We perform human evaluation with expert journalists and show our systems identify policies they consider newsworthy with 68% F1 and our coverage recommendations are helpful with an 84% win-rate against baseline. We release all code and data to our work here: https://github.com/alex2awesome/newsworthiness-public.

The ability to infer pre- and postconditions of an action is vital for comprehending complex instructions, and is essential for applications such as autonomous instruction-guided agents and assistive AI that supports humans to perform physical tasks. In this work, we propose a task dubbed action condition inference, which extracts mentions of preconditions and postconditions of actions in instructional manuals. We propose a weakly supervised approach utilizing automatically constructed large-scale training instances from online instructions, and curate a densely human-annotated and validated dataset to study how well the current NLP models do on the proposed task. We design two types of models differ by whether contextualized and global information is leveraged, as well as various combinations of heuristics to construct the weak supervisions.Our experiments show a > 20% F1-score improvement with considering the entire instruction contexts and a > 6% F1-score benefit with the proposed heuristics. However, the best performing model is still well-behind human performance.

News articles are driven by the informational sources journalists use in reporting. Modeling when, how and why sources get used together in stories can help us better understand the information we consume and even help journalists with the task of producing it. In this work, we take steps toward this goal by constructing the largest and widest-ranging annotated dataset, to date, of informational sources used in news writing. We first show that our dataset can be used to train high-performing models for information detection and source attribution. Then, we introduce a novel task, source prediction, to study the compositionality of sources in news articles – i.e. how they are chosen to complement each other. We show good modeling performance on this task, indicating that there is a pattern to the way different sources are used together in news storytelling. This insight opens the door for a focus on sources in narrative science (i.e. planning-based language generation) and computational journalism (i.e. a source-recommendation system to aid journalists writing stories). All data and model code can be found at https://github.com/alex2awesome/source-exploration.

News article revision histories provide clues to narrative and factual evolution in news articles. To facilitate analysis of this evolution, we present the first publicly available dataset of news revision histories, NewsEdits. Our dataset is large-scale and multilingual; it contains 1.2 million articles with 4.6 million versions from over 22 English- and French-language newspaper sources based in three countries, spanning 15 years of coverage (2006-2021).We define article-level edit actions: Addition, Deletion, Edit and Refactor, and develop a high-accuracy extraction algorithm to identify these actions. To underscore the factual nature of many edit actions, we conduct analyses showing that added and deleted sentences are more likely to contain updating events, main content and quotes than unchanged sentences. Finally, to explore whether edit actions are predictable, we introduce three novel tasks aimed at predicting actions performed during version updates. We show that these tasks are possible for expert humans but are challenging for large NLP models. We hope this can spur research in narrative framing and help provide predictive tools for journalists chasing breaking news.

While GPT-2 generates sentences that are remarkably human-like, longer documents can ramble and do not follow human-like writing structure. We study the problem of imposing structure on long-range text. We propose a novel controlled text generation task, sequentially controlled text generation, and identify a dataset, NewsDiscourse as a starting point for this task. We develop a sequential controlled text generation pipeline with generation and editing. We test different degrees of structural awareness and show that, in general, more structural awareness results in higher control- accuracy, grammaticality, coherency and topicality, approaching human-level writing performance.

As labeling schemas evolve over time, small differences can render datasets following older schemas unusable. This prevents researchers from building on top of previous annotation work and results in the existence, in discourse learning in particular, of many small class-imbalanced datasets. In this work, we show that a multitask learning approach can combine discourse datasets from similar and diverse domains to improve discourse classification. We show an improvement of 4.9% Micro F1-score over current state-of-the-art benchmarks on the NewsDiscourse dataset, one of the largest discourse datasets recently published, due in part to label correlations across tasks, which improve performance for underrepresented classes. We also offer an extensive review of additional techniques proposed to address resource-poor problems in NLP, and show that none of these approaches can improve classification accuracy in our setting.