To effectively use large language models (LLMs) for real-world queries, it is imperative that they generalize to the long-tail distribution, i.e. rare examples where models exhibit low confidence. In this work, we take the first step towards evaluating LLMs in the long-tail distribution of inferential knowledge. We exemplify long-tail evaluation on the Natural Language Inference task. First, we introduce Logic-Induced-Knowledge-Search (LINK), a systematic long-tail data generation framework, to obtain factually-correct yet long-tail inferential statements. LINK uses variable-wise prompting grounded on symbolic rules to seek low-confidence statements while ensuring factual correctness. We then use LINK to curate Logic-Induced-Long-Tail (LINT), a large-scale long-tail inferential knowledge dataset that contains 108K statements spanning four domains. We evaluate popular LLMs on LINT; we find that state-of-the-art LLMs show significant performance drop (21% relative drop for GPT4) on long-tail data as compared to on head distribution data, and smaller models show even more generalization weakness. These results further underscore the necessity of long-tail evaluation in developing generalizable LLMs.

When seeking information from unfamiliar documents, users frequently pose questions that cannot be answered by the documents. While existing large language models (LLMs) identify these unanswerable questions, they do not assist users in reformulating their questions, thereby reducing their overall utility. We curate CouldAsk, an evaluation benchmark composed of existing and new datasets for document-grounded question answering, specifically designed to study reformulating unanswerable questions. We evaluate state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs on CouldAsk. The results demonstrate the limited capabilities of these models in reformulating questions. Specifically, GPT-4 and Llama2-7B successfully reformulate questions only 26% and 12% of the time, respectively. Error analysis shows that 62% of the unsuccessful reformulations stem from the models merely rephrasing the questions or even generating identical questions. We publicly release the benchmark and the code to reproduce the experiments.

Claim: This work is not advocating the use of LLMs for paper (meta-)reviewing. Instead, wepresent a comparative analysis to identify and distinguish LLM activities from human activities. Two research goals: i) Enable better recognition of instances when someone implicitly uses LLMs for reviewing activities; ii) Increase community awareness that LLMs, and AI in general, are currently inadequate for performing tasks that require a high level of expertise and nuanced judgment.This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload?This study focuses on the topic of LLMs as NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLMs in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with “deficiency” labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) “LLMs as Reviewers”, how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) “LLMs as Metareviewers”, how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

The increasing availability of real-world conversation data offers exciting opportunities for researchers to study user-chatbot interactions. However, the sheer volume of this data makes manually examining individual conversations impractical. To overcome this challenge, we introduce WildVis, an interactive tool that enables fast, versatile, and large-scale conversation analysis. WildVis provides search and visualization capabilities in the text and embedding spaces based on a list of criteria. To manage million-scale datasets, we implemented optimizations including search index construction, embedding precomputation and compression, and caching to ensure responsive user interactions within seconds. We demonstrate WildVis’ utility through three case studies: facilitating chatbot misuse research, visualizing and comparing topic distributions across datasets, and characterizing user-specific conversation patterns. WildVis is open-source and designed to be extendable, supporting additional datasets and customized search and visualization functionalities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive generation capabilities, but they suffer from hallucinations when solely relying on their internal knowledge, especially when answering questions that require less commonly known information. Retrievalaugmented LLMs have emerged as a potential solution to ground LLMs in external knowledge. Nonetheless, recent approaches have primarily emphasized retrieval from unstructured text corpora, owing to its seamless integration into prompts. When using structured data such as knowledge graphs, most methods simplify it into natural text, neglecting the underlying structures. Moreover, a significant gap in the current landscape is the absence of a realistic benchmark for evaluating the effectiveness of grounding LLMs on heterogeneous knowledge sources (e.g., knowledge base and text). To fill this gap, we have curated a comprehensive dataset that poses two unique challenges: (1) Two-hop multi-source questions that require retrieving information from both open-domain structured and unstructured knowledge sources; retrieving information from structured knowledge sources is a critical component in correctly answering the questions. (2) Generation of symbolic queries (e.g., SPARQL for Wikidata) is a key requirement, which adds another layer of challenge. Our dataset is created using a combination of automatic generation through predefined reasoning chains and human annotation. We also introduce a novel approach that leverages multiple retrieval tools, including text passage retrieval and symbolic language-assisted retrieval. Our model outperforms previous approaches by a significant margin, demonstrating its effectiveness in addressing the above-mentioned reasoning challenges.

Task-Oriented Parsing (TOP) enables conversational assistants to interpret user commands expressed in natural language, transforming them into structured outputs that combine elements of both natural language and intent/slot tags. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance in synthesizing computer programs based on a natural-language prompt, mitigating the gap between natural language and structured programs. Our paper focuses on harnessing the capabilities of LLMs for semantic parsing tasks, addressing the following three key research questions: 1) How can LLMs be effectively utilized for semantic parsing tasks? 2) What defines an effective prompt? and 3) How can LLM overcome the length constraint and streamline prompt design by including all examples as prompts? We introduce k Nearest Neighbor In-Context Learning (kNN-ICL), which simplifies prompt engineering by allowing it to be built on top of any design strategy while providing access to all demo examples. Extensive experiments show that: 1) Simple ICL without kNN search can achieve a comparable performance with strong supervised models on the TOP tasks, and 2) kNN-ICL significantly improves the comprehension of complex requests by seamlessly integrating ICL with a nearest-neighbor approach. Notably, this enhancement is achieved without the need for additional data or specialized prompts.

Language technologies that accurately model the dynamics of events must perform commonsense reasoning. Existing work evaluating commonsense reasoning focuses on making inferences about common, everyday situations. To instead investigate the ability to model unusual, unexpected, and unlikely situations, we explore the task of uncommonsense abductive reasoning. Given a piece of context with an unexpected outcome, this task requires reasoning abductively to generate an explanation that makes the unexpected outcome more likely in the context. To this end, we curate and release a new English language corpus called UNcommonsense. We characterize the performance differences between human explainers and the best-performing large language models, finding that model-enhanced human-written explanations achieve the highest quality by trading off between specificity and diversity. Finally, we experiment with several imitation learning algorithms to train open and accessible language models on this task. When compared with the vanilla supervised fine-tuning approach, these methods consistently reduce lose rates on both common and uncommonsense abductive reasoning judged by human evaluators.

Abductive reasoning aims to find plausible explanations for an event. This style of reasoning is critical for commonsense tasks where there are often multiple plausible explanations. Existing approaches for abductive reasoning in natural language processing (NLP) often rely on manually generated annotations for supervision; however, such annotations can be subjective and biased. Instead of using direct supervision, this work proposes an approach for abductive commonsense reasoning that exploits the fact that only a subset of explanations is correct for a given context. The method uses posterior regularization to enforce a mutual exclusion constraint, encouraging the model to learn the distinction between fluent explanations and plausible ones. We evaluate our approach on a diverse set of abductive reasoning datasets; experimental results show that our approach outperforms or is comparable to directly applying pretrained language models in a zero-shot manner and other knowledge-augmented zero-shot methods.

Teaching machines to reason over texts has been a long-standing goal of natural language processing (NLP). To this end, researchers have designed a diverse set of complex reasoning tasks that involve compositional reasoning, knowledge retrieval, grounding, commonsense reasoning, etc. A standard choice for building systems that perform a desired type of reasoning is to fine-tune a pretrained language model (LM) on specific downstream tasks. However, recent research has demonstrated that such a straightforward approach is often brittle. For example, Elazar et al. (2021) and Branco et al. (2021) show that, on question-answering (QA) tasks, similar performance can be achieved with questions removed from the inputs. Min et al. (2019), Chen and Durrett (2019), and Tang et al. (2021) show that models trained on multi-hop QA do not generalize to answer single-hop questions. The reasoning capabilities of these models thus remain at a surface level, i.e., exploiting data patterns. Consequently, augmenting LMs with techniques that make them robust and effective becomes an active research area. We will start the tutorial by providing an overview of complex reasoning tasks where the standard application of pretrained language models fails. This tutorial then reviews recent promising directions for tackling these tasks. Specifically, we focus on the following groups of approaches that explicitly consider problem structures: (1) knowledge-augmented methods, where the knowledge is either incorporated during fine-tuning or pretraining; (2) few-shot prompting methods, which effectively guide the models to follow instructions; (3) neuro-symbolic methods, which produce explicit intermediate representations; and, (4) rationale-based methods, one of the most popular forms of the neuro-symbolic methods, which highlight subsets of input as explanations for individual model predictions.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at processing and generating text and code. However, LLMs have had limited applicability in grounded task-oriented dialogue as they are difficult to steer toward task objectives and fail to handle novel grounding. We present a modular and interpretable grounded dialogue system that addresses these shortcomings by composing LLMs with a symbolic planner and grounded code execution. Our system, consists of a reader and planner: the reader leverages an LLM to convert partner utterances into executable code, calling functions that perform grounding. The translated code’s output is stored to track dialogue state, while a symbolic planner determines the next appropriate response. We evaluate our system’s performance on the demanding OneCommon dialogue task, involving collaborative reference resolution on abstract images of scattered dots. Our system substantially outperforms the previous state-of-the-art, including improving task success in human evaluations from 56% to 69% in the most challenging setting.

Explainable multi-hop question answering (QA) not only predicts answers but also identifies rationales, i. e. subsets of input sentences used to derive the answers. Existing methods rely on supervision for both answers and rationales. This problem has been extensively studied under the supervised setting, where both answer and rationale annotations are given. Because rationale annotations are expensive to collect and not always available, recent efforts have been devoted to developing methods that do not rely on supervision for rationales. However, such methods have limited capacities in modeling interactions between sentences, let alone reasoning across multiple documents. This work proposes a principled, probabilistic approach for training explainable multi-hop QA systems without rationale supervision. Our approach performs multi-hop reasoning by explicitly modeling rationales as sets, enabling the model to capture interactions between documents and sentences within a document. Experimental results show that our approach is more accurate at selecting rationales than the previous methods, while maintaining similar accuracy in predicting answers.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at processing and generating both text and code. However, LLMs have had limited applicability in grounded task-oriented dialogue as they are difficult to steer toward task objectives and fail to handle novel grounding. We present a modular and interpretable grounded dialogue system that addresses these shortcomings by composing LLMs with a symbolic planner and grounded code execution. Our system consists of a reader and planner: the reader leverages an LLM to convert partner utterances into executable code, calling functions that perform grounding. The translated code’s output is stored to track dialogue state, while a symbolic planner determines the next appropriate response. We evaluate our system’s performance on the demanding OneCommon dialogue task, involving collaborative reference resolution on abstract images of scattered dots. Our system substantially outperforms the previous state-of-the-art, including improving task success in human evaluations from 56% to 69% in the most challenging setting.

Task-oriented parsing (TOP) aims to convert natural language into machine-readable representations of specific tasks, such as setting an alarm. A popular approach to TOP is to apply seq2seq models to generate linearized parse trees. A more recent line of work argues that pretrained seq2seq2 models are better at generating outputs that are themselves natural language, so they replace linearized parse trees with canonical natural-language paraphrases that can then be easily translated into parse trees, resulting in so-called naturalized parsers. In this work we continue to explore naturalized semantic parsing by presenting a general reduction of TOP to abstractive question answering that overcomes some limitations of canonical paraphrasing. Experimental results show that our QA-based technique outperforms state-of-the-art methods in full-data settings while achieving dramatic improvements in few-shot settings.

Multimodal sentiment analysis has attracted increasing attention and lots of models have been proposed. However, the performance of the state-of-the-art models decreases sharply when they are deployed in the real world. We find that the main reason is that real-world applications can only access the text outputs by the automatic speech recognition (ASR) models, which may be with errors because of the limitation of model capacity. Through further analysis of the ASR outputs, we find that in some cases the sentiment words, the key sentiment elements in the textual modality, are recognized as other words, which makes the sentiment of the text change and hurts the performance of multimodal sentiment analysis models directly. To address this problem, we propose the sentiment word aware multimodal refinement model (SWRM), which can dynamically refine the erroneous sentiment words by leveraging multimodal sentiment clues. Specifically, we first use the sentiment word position detection module to obtain the most possible position of the sentiment word in the text and then utilize the multimodal sentiment word refinement module to dynamically refine the sentiment word embeddings. The refined embeddings are taken as the textual inputs of the multimodal feature fusion module to predict the sentiment labels. We conduct extensive experiments on the real-world datasets including MOSI-Speechbrain, MOSI-IBM, and MOSI-iFlytek and the results demonstrate the effectiveness of our model, which surpasses the current state-of-the-art models on three datasets. Furthermore, our approach can be adapted for other multimodal feature fusion models easily.

The non-autoregressive models have boosted the efficiency of neural machine translation through parallelized decoding at the cost of effectiveness, when comparing with the autoregressive counterparts. In this paper, we claim that the syntactic and semantic structures among natural language are critical for non-autoregressive machine translation and can further improve the performance. However, these structures are rarely considered in the existing non-autoregressive models. Inspired by this intuition, we propose to incorporate the explicit syntactic and semantic structure of languages into a non-autoregressive Transformer, for the task of neural machine translation. Moreover, we also consider the intermediate latent alignment within target sentences to better learn the long-term token dependencies. Experimental results on two real-world datasets (i.e., WMT14 En-De and WMT16 En- Ro) show that our model achieves a significantly faster speed, as well as keeps the translation quality when compared with several state-of-the-art non-autoregressive models.

Few-shot table-to-text generation is a task of composing fluent and faithful sentences to convey table content using limited data. Despite many efforts having been made towards generating impressive fluent sentences by fine-tuning powerful pre-trained language models, the faithfulness of generated content still needs to be improved. To this end, this paper proposes a novel approach Attend, Memorize and Generate (called AMG), inspired by the text generation process of humans. In particular, AMG (1) attends over the multi-granularity of context using a novel strategy based on table slot level and traditional token-by-token level attention to exploit both the table structure and natural linguistic information; (2) dynamically memorizes the table slot allocation states; and (3) generates faithful sentences according to both the context and memory allocation states. Comprehensive experiments with human evaluation on three domains (i.e., humans, songs, and books) of the Wiki dataset show that our model can generate higher qualified texts when compared with several state-of-the-art baselines, in both fluency and faithfulness.

Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC), which requires a machine to answer questions given the relevant documents, is an important way to test machines’ ability to understand human language. Multiple-choice MRC is one of the most studied tasks in MRC due to the convenience of evaluation and the flexibility of answer format. Post-hoc interpretation aims to explain a trained model and reveal how the model arrives at the prediction. One of the most important interpretation forms is to attribute model decisions to input features. Based on post-hoc interpretation methods, we assess attributions of paragraphs in multiple-choice MRC and improve the model by punishing the illogical attributions. Our method can improve model performance without any external information and model structure change. Furthermore, we also analyze how and why such a self-training method works.