Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have been reshaping Natural Language Processing (NLP) task in several domains. Their use in the field of Human Resources (HR) has still room for expansions and could be beneficial for several time consuming tasks. Examples such as time-off submissions, medical claims filing, and access requests are noteworthy, but they are by no means the sole instances. However the aforementioned developments must grapple with the pivotal challenge of constructing a high-quality training dataset. On one hand, most conversation datasets are solving problems for customers not employees. On the other hand, gathering conversations with HR could raise privacy concerns. To solve it, we introduce HR-Multiwoz, a fully-labeled dataset of 550 conversations spanning 10 HR domains. Our work has the following contributions:(1) It is the first labeled open-sourced conversation dataset in the HR domain for NLP research. (2) It provides a detailed recipe for the data generation procedure along with data analysis and human evaluations. The data generation pipeline is transferrable and can be easily adapted for labeled conversation data generation in other domains. (3) The proposed data-collection pipeline is mostly based on LLMs with minimal human involvement for annotation, which is time and cost-efficient.

The recent growth of black-box machine-learning methods in data analysis has increased the demand for explanation methods and tools to understand their behaviour and assist human-ML model cooperation. In this paper, we demonstrate ContrXT, a novel approach that uses natural language explanations to help users to comprehend how a back-box model works. ContrXT provides time contrastive (t-contrast) explanations by computing the differences in the classification logic of two different trained models and then reasoning on their symbolic representations through Binary Decision Diagrams. ContrXT is publicly available at ContrXT.ai as a python pip package.

The recent dominance of machine learning-based natural language processing methods has fostered the culture of overemphasizing model accuracies rather than studying the reasons behind their errors. Interpretability, however, is a critical requirement for many downstream AI and NLP applications, e.g., in finance, healthcare, and autonomous driving. This study, instead of proposing any “new model”, investigates the error patterns of some widely acknowledged sentiment analysis methods in the finance domain. We discover that (1) those methods belonging to the same clusters are prone to similar error patterns, and (2) there are six types of linguistic features that are pervasive in the common errors. These findings provide important clues and practical considerations for improving sentiment analysis models for financial applications.