Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent summaries across domains using prompting techniques, reducing the effort required for summarization applications. However, crafting effective prompts that guide LLMs to generate summaries with the appropriate level of detail and writing style remains a challenge. In this paper, we explore the use of salient information extracted from the source document to enhance summarization prompts. We show that adding keyphrases in prompts can improve ROUGE F1 and recall, making the generated summaries more similar to the reference and more complete. The number of keyphrases can control the precision-recall trade-off. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that incorporating phrase-level salient information is superior to word- or sentence-level. However, the impact on summary faithfulness is not universally positive across LLMs. To enable this approach, we introduce Keyphrase Signal Extractor (SigExt), a lightweight model that can be finetuned to extract salient keyphrases. By using SigExt, we achieve consistent ROUGE improvements across datasets and LLMs without any LLM customization. Our findings provide insights into leveraging salient information in building prompt-based summarization systems.

The NLP community typically relies on performance of a model on a held-out test set to assess generalization. Performance drops observed in datasets outside of official test sets are generally attributed to “out-of-distribution” effects. Here, we explore the foundations of generalizability and study the factors that affect it, articulating lessons from clinical studies. In clinical research, generalizability is an act of reasoning that depends on (a) *internal validity* of experiments to ensure controlled measurement of cause and effect, and (b) *external validity* or transportability of the results to the wider population. We demonstrate how learning spurious correlations, such as the distance between entities in relation extraction tasks, can affect a model’s internal validity and in turn adversely impact generalization. We, therefore, present the need to ensure internal validity when building machine learning models in NLP. Our recommendations also apply to generative large language models, as they are known to be sensitive to even minor semantic preserving alterations. We also propose adapting the idea of *matching* in randomized controlled trials and observational studies to NLP evaluation to measure causation.

In this position paper, we argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking that draws upon the insights from disciplines such as user experience research and human behavioral psychology to ensure that the experimental design and results are reliable. The conclusions from these evaluations, therefore, must consider factors such as usability, aesthetics and cognitive biases. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. Furthermore, the evaluation should differentiate the capabilities and weaknesses of increasingly powerful large language models - which requires effective test sets. Scalability of human evaluation is also crucial to wider adoption. Hence, to design an effective human evaluation system in the age of generative NLP we propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars - Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.

BERT-based models have had strong performance on leaderboards, yet have been demonstrably worse in real-world settings requiring generalization. Limited quantities of training data is considered a key impediment to achieving generalizability in machine learning. In this paper, we examine the impact of training data quality, not quantity, on a model’s generalizability. We consider two characteristics of training data: the portion of human-adversarial (h-adversarial), i.e. sample pairs with seemingly minor differences but different ground-truth labels, and human-affable (h-affable) training samples, i.e. sample pairs with minor differences but the same ground-truth label. We find that for a fixed size of training samples, as a rule of thumb, having 10-30% h-adversarial instances improves the precision, and therefore F1, by up to 20 points in the tasks of text classification and relation extraction. Increasing h-adversarials beyond this range can result in performance plateaus or even degradation. In contrast, h-affables may not contribute to a model’s generalizability and may even degrade generalization performance.

Public datasets are often used to evaluate the efficacy and generalizability of state-of-the-art methods for many tasks in natural language processing (NLP). However, the presence of overlap between the train and test datasets can lead to inflated results, inadvertently evaluating the model’s ability to memorize and interpreting it as the ability to generalize. In addition, such data sets may not provide an effective indicator of the performance of these methods in real world scenarios. We identify leakage of training data into test data on several publicly available datasets used to evaluate NLP tasks, including named entity recognition and relation extraction, and study them to assess the impact of that leakage on the model’s ability to memorize versus generalize.