Despite their high predictive accuracies, current machine learning systems often exhibit systematic biases stemming from annotation artifacts or insufficient support for certain classes in the dataset. Recent work proposes automatic methods for identifying and explaining systematic biases using keywords. We introduce DISCERN, a framework for interpreting systematic biases in text classifiers using language explanations. DISCERN iteratively generates precise natural language descriptions of systematic errors by employing an interactive loop between two large language models. Finally, we use the descriptions to improve classifiers by augmenting classifier training sets with synthetically generated instances or annotated examples via active learning. On three text-classification datasets, we demonstrate that language explanations from our framework induce consistent performance improvements that go beyond what is achievable with exemplars of systematic bias. Finally, in human evaluations, we show that users can interpret systematic biases more effectively (by over 25% relative) and efficiently when described through language explanations as opposed to cluster exemplars.

While much research has explored enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in the last few years, there is a gap in understanding the alignment of these models with social values and norms. We introduce the task of judging social acceptance. Social acceptance requires models to judge and rationalize the acceptability of people’s actions in social situations. For example, is it socially acceptable for a neighbor to ask others in the community to keep their pets indoors at night? We find that LLMs’ understanding of social acceptance is often misaligned with human consensus. To alleviate this, we introduce SocialGaze, a multi-step prompting framework, in which a language model verbalizes a social situation from multiple perspectives before forming a judgment. Our experiments demonstrate that the SocialGaze approach improves the alignment with human judgments by up to 11 F1 points with the GPT-3.5 model. We also identify biases and correlations in LLMs in assigning blame that is related to features such as the gender (males are significantly more likely to be judged unfairly) and age (LLMs are more aligned with humans for older narrators).

A hallmark of human intelligence is the ability to learn new concepts purely from language. Several recent approaches have explored training machine learning models via natural language supervision. However, these approaches fall short in leveraging linguistic quantifiers (such as ‘always’ or ‘rarely’) and mimicking humans in compositionally learning complex tasks. Here, we present LaSQuE, a method that can learn zero-shot classifiers from language explanations by using three new strategies - (1) modeling the semantics of linguistic quantifiers in explanations (including exploiting ordinal strength relationships, such as ‘always’ > ‘likely’), (2) aggregating information from multiple explanations using an attention-based mechanism, and (3) model training via curriculum learning. With these strategies, LaSQuE outperforms prior work, showing an absolute gain of up to 7% in generalizing to unseen real-world classification tasks.

Collecting labeled data for Named Entity Recognition (NER) tasks is challenging due to the high cost of manual annotations. Instead, researchers have proposed few-shot self-training and rule-augmentation techniques to minimize the reliance on large datasets. However, inductive biases and restricted logical language lexicon, respectively, can limit the ability of these models to perform well. In this work, we propose CoAug, a co-augmentation framework that allows us to improve few-shot models and rule-augmentation models by bootstrapping predictions from each model. By leveraging rules and neural model predictions to train our models, we complement the benefits of each and achieve the best of both worlds. In our experiments, we show that our best CoAug model can outperform strong weak-supervision-based NER models at least by 6.5 F1 points.

Hallucination is a well-known phenomenon in text generated by large language models (LLMs). The existence of hallucinatory responses is found in almost all application scenarios e.g., summarization, question-answering (QA) etc. For applications requiring high reliability (e.g., customer-facing assistants), the potential existence of hallucination in LLM-generated text is a critical problem. The amount of hallucination can be reduced by leveraging information retrieval to provide relevant background information to the LLM. However, LLMs can still generate hallucinatory content for various reasons (e.g., prioritizing its parametric knowledge over the context, failure to capture the relevant information from the context, etc.). Detecting hallucinations through automated methods is thus paramount. To facilitate research in this direction, we introduce a sophisticated dataset, DelucionQA, that captures hallucinations made by retrieval-augmented LLMs for a domain-specific QA task. Furthermore, we propose a set of hallucination detection methods to serve as baselines for future works from the research community. Analysis and case study are also provided to share valuable insights on hallucination phenomena in the target scenario.

Recent approaches have explored language- guided classifiers capable of classifying examples from novel tasks when provided with task-specific natural language explanations, instructions or prompts (Sanh et al., 2022; R. Menon et al., 2022). While these classifiers can generalize in zero-shot settings, their task performance often varies substantially between different language explanations in unpredictable ways (Lu et al., 2022; Gonen et al., 2022). Also, current approaches fail to leverage unlabeled examples that may be available in many scenarios. Here, we introduce TALC, a framework that uses data programming to adapt a language-guided classifier for a new task during inference when provided with explanations from multiple teachers and unlabeled test examples. Our results show that TALC consistently outperforms a competitive baseline from prior work by an impressive 9.3% (relative improvement). Further, we demonstrate the robustness of TALC to variations in the quality and quantity of provided explanations, highlighting its potential in scenarios where learning from multiple teachers or a crowd is involved. Our code is available at: https://github.com/WeiKangda/TALC.git.

Generalized quantifiers (e.g., few, most) are used to indicate the proportions predicates satisfy (for example, some apples are red). One way to interpret quantifier semantics is to explicitly bind these satisfactions with percentage scopes (e.g., 30%-40% of apples are red). This approach can be helpful for tasks like logic formalization and surface-form quantitative reasoning (Gordon and Schubert, 2010; Roy et al., 2015). However, it remains unclear if recent foundation models (Bommasani et al., 2021) possess this ability due to the absence of direct training signals. To explore this, we introduce QuRe, a crowd-sourced dataset of human-annotated generalized quantifiers in Wikipedia sentences featuring percentage-equipped predicates. We explore quantifier comprehension using PRESQUE, a framework that combines natural language inference and the Rational Speech Acts framework. Experimental results on the HVD dataset (Herbelot and Vecchi, 2015) and QuRe demonstrate PRESQUE’s superiority over a literal listener baseline, showing a 20% relative improvement in F1 in predicting percentage scopes for quantifiers, even with no additional training.

Understanding the internal reasoning behind the predictions of machine learning systems is increasingly vital, given their rising adoption and acceptance. While previous approaches, such as LIME generate algorithmic explanations by attributing importance to input features for individual examples, recent research indicates that practitioners prefer examining language explanations that explain sub-groups of examples (Lakkaraju et al., 2022). In this paper, we introduce MaNtLE, a model-agnostic natural language explainer that analyzes a set of classifier predictions and generates faithful natural language explanations of classifier rationale for structured classification tasks. MaNtLE uses multi-task training on thousands of synthetic classification tasks to generate faithful explanations. Our experiments indicate that, on average, MaNtLE-generated explanations are at least 11% more faithful compared to LIME and Anchors explanations across three tasks. Human evaluations demonstrate that users can better predict model behavior using explanations from MaNtLE compared to other techniques.

Supervised learning has traditionally focused on inductive learning by observing labeled examples of a task. In contrast, a hallmark of human intelligence is the ability to learn new concepts purely from language. Here, we explore training zero-shot classifiers for structured data purely from language. For this, we introduce CLUES, a benchmark for Classifier Learning Using natural language ExplanationS, consisting of a range of classification tasks over structured data along with natural language supervision in the form of explanations. CLUES consists of 36 real-world and 144 synthetic classification tasks. It contains crowdsourced explanations describing real-world tasks from multiple teachers and programmatically generated explanations for the synthetic tasks. To model the influence of explanations in classifying an example, we develop ExEnt, an entailment-based model that learns classifiers using explanations. ExEnt generalizes up to 18% better (relative) on novel tasks than a baseline that does not use explanations. We delineate key challenges for automated learning from explanations, addressing which can lead to progress on CLUES in the future. Code and datasets are available at: https://clues-benchmark.github.io.

Recently, pre-trained language models (LMs) have achieved strong performance when fine-tuned on difficult benchmarks like SuperGLUE. However, performance can suffer when there are very few labeled examples available for fine-tuning. Pattern Exploiting Training (PET) is a recent approach that leverages patterns for few-shot learning. However, PET uses task-specific unlabeled data. In this paper, we focus on few-shot learning without any unlabeled data and introduce ADAPET, which modifies PET’s objective to provide denser supervision during fine-tuning. As a result, ADAPET outperforms PET on SuperGLUE without any task-specific unlabeled data.