Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to possess impressive capabilities, while also raising crucial concerns about the faithfulness of their responses. A primary issue arising in this context is the management of (un)answerable queries by LLMs, which often results in hallucinatory behavior due to overconfidence. In this paper, we explore the behavior of LLMs when presented with (un)answerable queries. We ask: do models represent the fact that the question is (un)answerable when generating a hallucinatory answer? Our results show strong indications that such models encode the answerability of an input query, with the representation of the first decoded token often being a strong indicator. These findings shed new light on the spatial organization within the latent representations of LLMs, unveiling previously unexplored facets of these models. Moreover, they pave the way for the development of improved decoding techniques with better adherence to factual generation, particularly in scenarios where query (un)answerability is a concern.

Current approaches for text summarization are predominantly automatic, with rather limited space for human intervention and control over the process. In this paper, we introduce SummHelper, and screencast demo at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGcknJwGhxk a 2-phase summarization assistant designed to foster human-machine collaboration. The initial phase involves content selection, where the system recommends potential content, allowing users to accept, modify, or introduce additional selections. The subsequent phase, content consolidation, involves SummHelper generating a coherent summary from these selections, which users can then refine using visual mappings between the summary and the source text. Small-scale user studies reveal the effectiveness of our application, with participants being especially appreciative of the balance between automated guidance and opportunities for personal input.

The recently introduced Controlled Text Reduction (CTR) task isolates the text generation step within typical summarization-style tasks. It does so by challenging models to generate coherent text conforming to pre-selected content within the input text (“highlights”). This framing enables increased modularity in summarization-like tasks, allowing to couple a single CTR model with various content-selection setups and modules. However, there are currently no reliable CTR models, while the performance of the existing baseline for the task is mediocre, falling short of practical utility. Here, we address this gap by introducing a high-quality, open-source CTR model that tackles two prior key limitations: inadequate enforcement of the content-preservation constraint, and suboptimal silver training data. Addressing these, we amplify the content-preservation constraint in both training, via RL, and inference, via a controlled decoding strategy. Further, we substantially improve the silver training data quality via GPT-4 distillation. Overall, pairing the distilled dataset with the highlight-adherence strategies yields marked gains over the current baseline, of up to 30 ROUGE-L points, providing a reliable CTR model for downstream use.

Producing a reduced version of a source text, as in generic or focused summarization, inherently involves two distinct subtasks: deciding on targeted content and generating a coherent text conveying it. While some popular approaches address summarization as a single end-to-end task, prominent works support decomposed modeling for individual subtasks. Further, semi-automated text reduction is also very appealing, where users may identify targeted content while models would generate a corresponding coherent summary. In this paper, we focus on the second subtask, of generating coherent text given pre-selected content. Concretely, we formalize Controlled Text Reduction as a standalone task, whose input is a source text with marked spans of targeted content (“highlighting”).A model then needs to generate a coherent text that includes all and only the target information.We advocate the potential of such models, both for modular fully-automatic summarization, as well as for semi-automated human-in-the-loop use cases.Facilitating proper research, we crowdsource high-quality dev and test datasets for the task. Further, we automatically generate a larger “silver” training dataset from available summarization benchmarks, leveraging a pretrained summary-source alignment model.Finally, employing these datasets, we present a supervised baseline model, showing promising results and insightful analyses.

The integration of syntactic structures into Transformer machine translation has shown positive results, but to our knowledge, no work has attempted to do so with semantic structures. In this work we propose two novel parameter-free methods for injecting semantic information into Transformers, both rely on semantics-aware masking of (some of) the attention heads. One such method operates on the encoder, through a Scene-Aware Self-Attention (SASA) head. Another on the decoder, through a Scene-Aware Cross-Attention (SACrA) head. We show a consistent improvement over the vanilla Transformer and syntax-aware models for four language pairs. We further show an additional gain when using both semantic and syntactic structures in some language pairs.

Probing neural models for the ability to perform downstream tasks using their activation patterns is often used to localize what parts of the network specialize in performing what tasks. However, little work addressed potential mediating factors in such comparisons. As a test-case mediating factor, we consider the prediction’s context length, namely the length of the span whose processing is minimally required to perform the prediction. We show that not controlling for context length may lead to contradictory conclusions as to the localization patterns of the network, depending on the distribution of the probing dataset. Indeed, when probing BERT with seven tasks, we find that it is possible to get 196 different rankings between them when manipulating the distribution of context lengths in the probing dataset. We conclude by presenting best practices for conducting such comparisons in the future.