Misinformation about climate change causes numerous negative impacts, necessitating corrective responses. Psychological research has offered various strategies for reducing the influence of climate misinformation, such as the fact-myth-fallacy-fact-structure. However, practically implementing corrective interventions at scale represents a challenge. Automatic detection and correction of misinformation offers a solution to the misinformation problem. This study documents the development of large language models that accept as input a climate myth and produce a debunking that adheres to the fact-myth-fallacy-fact (“truth sandwich”) structure, by incorporating contrarian claim classification and fallacy detection into an LLM prompting framework. We combine open (Mixtral, Palm2) and proprietary (GPT-4) LLMs with prompting strategies of varying complexity. Experiments reveal promising performance of GPT-4 and Mixtral if combined with structured prompts. We identify specific challenges of debunking generation and human evaluation, and map out avenues for future work. We release a dataset of high-quality truth-sandwich debunkings, source code and a demo of the debunking system.

In this work, we measure the impact of affixal negation on modern English large language models (LLMs). In affixal negation, the negated meaning is expressed through a negative morpheme, which is potentially challenging for LLMs as their tokenizers are often not morphologically plausible. We conduct extensive experiments using LLMs with different subword tokenization methods, which lead to several insights on the interaction between tokenization performance and negation sensitivity. Despite some interesting mismatches between tokenization accuracy and negation detection performance, we show that models can, on the whole, reliably recognize the meaning of affixal negation.

Framing studies how individuals and societies make sense of the world, by communicating or representing complex issues through schema of interpretation. The framing of information in the mass media influences our interpretation of facts and corresponding decisions, so detecting and analysing it is essential to understand biases in the information we consume. Despite that, framing is still mostly examined manually, on a case-by-case basis, while existing large-scale automatic analyses using NLP methods are not mature enough to solve this task. In this survey we show that despite the growing interest to framing in NLP its current approaches do not capture those aspects which allow to frame, rather than simply convey, the message. To this end, we bring together definitions of frames and framing adopted in different disciplines; examine cognitive, linguistic, and communicative aspects a frame contains beyond its topical content. We survey recent work on computational frame detection, and discuss how framing aspects and frame definitions are (or should) be reflected in NLP approaches.

Evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) quality is difficult. This is especially true in the case of MDS for biomedical literature reviews, where models must synthesize contradicting evidence reported across different documents. Prior work has shown that rather than performing the task, models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. Better automated evaluation metrics are needed, but few resources exist to assess metrics when they are proposed. Therefore, we introduce a dataset of human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to encourage and support the development of better automated evaluation methods for literature review MDS. We take advantage of community submissions to the Multi-document Summarization for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task to compile a diverse and representative sample of generated summaries. We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries, to other automated metrics including several we propose in this work, and to aspects of human-assessed summary quality. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.

Although multi-document summarisation (MDS) of the biomedical literature is a highly valuable task that has recently attracted substantial interest, evaluation of the quality of biomedical summaries lacks consistency and transparency. In this paper, we examine the summaries generated by two current models in order to understand the deficiencies of existing evaluation approaches in the context of the challenges that arise in the MDS task. Based on this analysis, we propose a new approach to human evaluation and identify several challenges that must be overcome to develop effective biomedical MDS systems.

Though recently there have been an increased interest in how pre-trained language models encode different linguistic features, there is still a lack of systematic comparison between languages with different morphology and syntax. In this paper, using BERT as an example of a pre-trained model, we compare how three typologically different languages (English, Korean, and Russian) encode morphology and syntax features across different layers. In particular, we contrast languages which differ in a particular aspect, such as flexibility of word order, head directionality, morphological type, presence of grammatical gender, and morphological richness, across four different tasks.

We present M3 (Multi-level dataset for Multi-document summarisation of Medical studies), a benchmark dataset for evaluating the quality of summarisation systems in the biomedical domain. The dataset contains sets of multiple input documents and target summaries of three levels of complexity: documents, sentences, and propositions. The dataset also includes several levels of annotation, including biomedical entities, direction, and strength of relations between them, and the discourse relationships between the input documents (“contradiction” or “agreement”). We showcase usage scenarios of the dataset by testing 10 generic and domain-specific summarisation models in a zero-shot setting, and introduce a probing task based on counterfactuals to test if models are aware of the direction and strength of the conclusions generated from input studies.

Negation is poorly captured by current language models, although the extent of this problem is not widely understood. We introduce a natural language inference (NLI) test suite to enable probing the capabilities of NLP methods, with the aim of understanding sub-clausal negation. The test suite contains premise–hypothesis pairs where the premise contains sub-clausal negation and the hypothesis is constructed by making minimal modifications to the premise in order to reflect different possible interpretations. Aside from adopting standard NLI labels, our test suite is systematically constructed under a rigorous linguistic framework. It includes annotation of negation types and constructions grounded in linguistic theory, as well as the operations used to construct hypotheses. This facilitates fine-grained analysis of model performance. We conduct experiments using pre-trained language models to demonstrate that our test suite is more challenging than existing benchmarks focused on negation, and show how our annotation supports a deeper understanding of the current NLI capabilities in terms of negation and quantification.

In this paper we report the experiments performed for the submission to the Multidocument summarisation for Literature Review (MSLR) Shared Task. In particular, we adopt Primera model to the biomedical domain by placing global attention on important biomedical entities in several ways. We analyse the outputs of 23 resulting models and report some patterns related to the presence of additional global attention, number of training steps and the inputs configuration.

Efficient discovery and exploration of biomedical literature has grown in importance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and topic-based methods such as latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) are a useful tool for this purpose. In this study we compare traditional topic models based on word tokens with topic models based on medical concepts, and propose several ways to improve topic coherence and specificity.