Language model alignment research often attempts to ensure that models are not only helpful and harmless, but also truthful and unbiased. However, optimizing these objectives simultaneously can obscure how improving one aspect might impact the others. In this work, we focus on analyzing the relationship between two concepts essential in both language model alignment and political science: truthfulness and political bias. We train reward models on various popular truthfulness datasets and subsequently evaluate their political bias. Our findings reveal that optimizing reward models for truthfulness on these datasets tends to result in a left-leaning political bias. We also find that existing open-source reward models (i.e., those trained on standard human preference datasets) already show a similar bias and that the bias is larger for larger models. These results raise important questions about the datasets used to represent truthfulness, potential limitations of aligning models to be both truthful and politically unbiased, and what language models capture about the relationship between truth and politics.

Learning on text-attributed graphs (TAGs), in which nodes are associated with one or more texts, has been the subject of much recent work. However, most approaches tend to make strong assumptions about the downstream task of interest, are reliant on hand-labeled data, or fail to equally balance the importance of both text and graph representations. In this work, we propose Contrastive Graph-Text pretraining (ConGraT), a general, self-supervised approach for jointly learning separate representations of texts and nodes in a TAG. Our method trains a language model (LM) and a graph neural network (GNN) to align their representations in a common latent space using a batch-wise contrastive learning objective inspired by CLIP. We further propose an extension to the CLIP objective that leverages graph structure to incorporate information about inter-node similarity. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ConGraT outperforms baselines on various downstream tasks, including node and text category classification, link prediction, and language modeling. Finally, we present an application of our method to community detection in social graphs, which enables finding more textually grounded communities, rather than purely graph-based ones.

Despite the many use cases for large language models (LLMs) in creating personalized chatbots, there has been limited research on evaluating the extent to which the behaviors of personalized LLMs accurately and consistently reflect specific personality traits. We consider studying the behavior of LLM-based agents which we refer to as LLM personas and present a case study with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to investigate whether LLMs can generate content that aligns with their assigned personality profiles. To this end, we simulate distinct LLM personas based on the Big Five personality model, have them complete the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI) personality test and a story writing task, and then assess their essays with automatic and human evaluations. Results show that LLM personas’ self-reported BFI scores are consistent with their designated personality types, with large effect sizes observed across five traits. Additionally, LLM personas’ writings have emerging representative linguistic patterns for personality traits when compared with a human writing corpus. Furthermore, human evaluation shows that humans can perceive some personality traits with an accuracy of up to 80%. Interestingly, the accuracy drops significantly when the annotators were informed of AI authorship.

As the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) becomes more widespread, understanding their self-evaluation of confidence in generated responses becomes increasingly important as it is integral to the reliability of the output of these models. We introduce the concept of Confidence-Probability Alignment, that connects an LLM’s internal confidence, quantified by token probabilities, to the confidence conveyed in the model’s response when explicitly asked about its certainty. Using various datasets and prompting techniques that encourage model introspection, we probe the alignment between models’ internal and expressed confidence. These techniques encompass using structured evaluation scales to rate confidence, including answer options when prompting, and eliciting the model’s confidence level for outputs it does not recognize as its own. Notably, among the models analyzed, OpenAI’s GPT-4 showed the strongest confidence-probability alignment, with an average Spearman’s  ̂𝜌 of 0.42, across a wide range of tasks. Our work contributes to the ongoing efforts to facilitate risk assessment in the application of LLMs and to further our understanding of model trustworthiness.

Making legal knowledge accessible to non-experts is crucial for enhancing general legal literacy and encouraging civic participation in democracy. However, legal documents are often challenging to understand for people without legal backgrounds. In this paper, we present a novel application of large language models (LLMs) in legal education to help non-experts learn intricate legal concepts through storytelling, an effective pedagogical tool in conveying complex and abstract concepts. We also introduce a new dataset LegalStories, which consists of 294 complex legal doctrines, each accompanied by a story and a set of multiple-choice questions generated by LLMs. To construct the dataset, we experiment with various LLMs to generate legal stories explaining these concepts. Furthermore, we use an expert-in-the-loop approach to iteratively design multiple-choice questions. Then, we evaluate the effectiveness of storytelling with LLMs through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with legal novices on 10 samples from the dataset. We find that LLM-generated stories enhance comprehension of legal concepts and interest in law among non-native speakers compared to only definitions. Moreover, stories consistently help participants relate legal concepts to their lives. Finally, we find that learning with stories shows a higher retention rate for non-native speakers in the follow-up assessment. Our work has strong implications for using LLMs in promoting teaching and learning in the legal field and beyond.

Facilitated dialogue is increasingly popular as a method of civic engagement and as a method for gathering social insight, but resources for its study are scant. We present Fora, a unique collection of annotated facilitated dialogues. We compile 262 facilitated conversations that were hosted with partner organizations seeking to engage their members and surface insights regarding issues like education, elections, and public health, primarily through the sharing of personal experience. Alongside this corpus of 39,911 speaker turns, we present a framework for the analysis of facilitated dialogue. We taxonomize key personal sharing behaviors and facilitation strategies in the corpus, annotate a 25% sample (10,000+ speaker turns) of the data accordingly, and evaluate and establish baselines on a number of tasks essential to the identification of these phenomena in dialogue. We describe the data, and relate facilitator behavior to turn-taking and participant sharing. We outline how this research can inform future work in understanding and improving facilitated dialogue, parsing spoken conversation, and improving the behavior of dialogue agents.

Debiasing methods that seek to mitigate the tendency of Language Models (LMs) to occasionally output toxic or inappropriate text have recently gained traction. In this paper, we propose a standardized protocol which distinguishes methods that yield not only desirable results, but are also consistent with their mechanisms and specifications. For example, we ask, given a debiasing method that is developed to reduce toxicity in LMs, if the definition of toxicity used by the debiasing method is reversed, would the debiasing results also be reversed? We used such considerations to devise three criteria for our new protocol: Specification Polarity, Specification Importance, and Domain Transferability. As a case study, we apply our protocol to a popular debiasing method, Self-Debiasing, and compare it to one we propose, called Instructive Debiasing, and demonstrate that consistency is as important an aspect to debiasing viability as is simply a desirable result. We show that our protocol provides essential insights into the generalizability and interpretability of debiasing methods that may otherwise go overlooked.

We explore the connection between presupposition, discourse and sarcasm and propose to leverage that connection in a transfer learning scenario with the goal of improving the performance of NLI models on cases involving presupposition. We exploit advances in training transformer-based models that show that pre-finetuning—–i.e., finetuning the model on an additional task or dataset before the actual finetuning phase—–can help these models, in some cases, achieve a higher performance on a given downstream task. Building on those advances and that aforementioned connection, we propose pre-finetuning NLI models on carefully chosen tasks in an attempt to improve their performance on NLI cases involving presupposition. We notice that, indeed, pre-finetuning on those tasks leads to performance improvements. Furthermore, we run several diagnostic tests to understand whether these gains are merely a byproduct of additional training data. The results show that, while additional training data seems to be helping on its own in some cases, the choice of the tasks plays a role in the performance improvements.

Presuppositions are assumptions that are taken for granted by an utterance, and identifying them is key to a pragmatic interpretation of language. In this paper, we investigate the capabilities of transformer models to perform NLI on cases involving presupposition. First, we present simple heuristics to create alternative “contrastive” test cases based on the ImpPres dataset and investigate the model performance on those test cases. Second, to better understand how the model is making its predictions, we analyze samples from sub-datasets of ImpPres and examine model performance on them. Overall, our findings suggest that NLI-trained transformer models seem to be exploiting specific structural and lexical cues as opposed to performing some kind of pragmatic reasoning.

Extractive summarization has been the mainstay of automatic summarization for decades. Despite all the progress, extractive summarizers still suffer from shortcomings including coreference issues arising from extracting sentences away from their original context in the source document. This affects the coherence and readability of extractive summaries. In this work, we propose a lightweight post-editing step for extractive summaries that centers around a single linguistic decision: the definiteness of noun phrases. We conduct human evaluation studies that show that human expert judges substantially prefer the output of our proposed system over the original summaries. Moreover, based on an automatic evaluation study, we provide evidence for our system’s ability to generate linguistic decisions that lead to improved extractive summaries. We also draw insights about how the automatic system is exploiting some local cues related to the writing style of the main article texts or summary texts to make the decisions, rather than reasoning about the contexts pragmatically.

Semantics and pragmatics are two complimentary and intertwined aspects of meaning in language. The former is concerned with the literal (context-free) meaning of words and sentences, the latter focuses on the intended meaning, one that is context-dependent. While NLP research has focused in the past mostly on semantics, the goal of this thesis is to develop computational models that leverage this pragmatic knowledge in language that is crucial to performing many NLP tasks correctly. In this proposal, we begin by reviewing the current progress in this thesis, namely, on the tasks of definiteness prediction and adverbial presupposition triggering. Then we discuss the proposed research for the remainder of the thesis which builds on this progress towards the goal of building better and more pragmatically-aware natural language generation and understanding systems.

We introduce the novel task of predicting adverbial presupposition triggers, which is useful for natural language generation tasks such as summarization and dialogue systems. We introduce two new corpora, derived from the Penn Treebank and the Annotated English Gigaword dataset and investigate the use of a novel attention mechanism tailored to this task. Our attention mechanism augments a baseline recurrent neural network without the need for additional trainable parameters, minimizing the added computational cost of our mechanism. We demonstrate that this model statistically outperforms our baselines.

We examine the potential of recurrent neural networks for handling pragmatic inferences involving complex contextual cues for the task of article usage prediction. We train and compare several variants of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks with an attention mechanism. Our model outperforms a previous state-of-the-art system, achieving up to 96.63% accuracy on the WSJ/PTB corpus. In addition, we perform a series of analyses to understand the impact of various model choices. We find that the gain in performance can be attributed to the ability of LSTMs to pick up on contextual cues, both local and further away in distance, and that the model is able to solve cases involving reasoning about coreference and synonymy. We also show how the attention mechanism contributes to the interpretability of the model’s effectiveness.