Although many studies have investigated and reduced hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) for single-document tasks, research on hallucination in multi-document summarization (MDS) tasks remains largely unexplored. Specifically, it is unclear how the challenges arising from handling multiple documents (e.g., repetition and diversity of information) affect models outputs. In this work, we investigate how hallucinations manifest in LLMs when summarizing topic-specific information from a set of documents. Since no benchmarks exist for investigating hallucinations in MDS, we leverage existing news and conversation datasets, annotated with topic-specific insights, to create two novel multi-document benchmarks. When evaluating 5 LLMs on our benchmarks, we observe that on average, up to 75% of the content in LLM-generated summary is hallucinated, with hallucinations more likely to occur towards the end of the summaries. Moreover, when summarizing non-existent topic-related information, GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4o still generate summaries about 79.45% and 44% of the time, raising concerns about their tendency to fabricate content. To better understand the characteristics of these hallucinations, we conduct a human evaluation of 700+ insights and discover that most errors stem from either failing to follow instructions or producing overly generic insights. Motivated by these observations, we investigate the efficacy of simple post-hoc baselines in mitigating hallucinations but find them only moderately effective. Our results underscore the need for more effective approaches that systematically mitigate hallucinations in MDS.

Utilizing large language models (LLMs) to rank a set of items has become a common approach in recommendation and retrieval systems. Typically, these systems focus on ordering a substantial number of documents in a monotonic order based on a given query. However, real-world scenarios often present a different challenge: ranking a comparatively smaller set of items, but according to a variety of diverse and occasionally conflicting conditions. In this paper, we define and explore the task of multi-conditional ranking by introducing MCRank, a benchmark tailored for assessing multi-conditional ranking across various item types and conditions. Our analysis of LLMs using MCRank indicates a significant decrease in performance as the number and complexity of items and conditions grow. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel decomposed reasoning method, consisting of EXtracting and Sorting the conditions, and then Iteratively Ranking the items (EXSIR). Our extensive experiments show that this decomposed reasoning method enhances LLMs’ performance significantly, achieving up to a 14.4% improvement over existing LLMs. We also provide a detailed analysis of LLMs performance across various condition categories, and examine the effectiveness of decomposition step. Furthermore, we compare our method with existing approaches such as Chain-of-Thought and existing ranking models, demonstrating the superiority of our approach and complexity of MCR task. We will make our dataset and code publicly available.

Advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have the potential to transform HR processes, from recruitment to employee management. While recent breakthroughs in NLP have generated significant interest in its industrial applications, a comprehensive overview of how NLP can be applied across HR activities is still lacking. This paper discovers opportunities for researchers and practitioners to harness NLP’s transformative potential in this domain. We analyze key fundamental tasks such as information extraction and text classification, and their roles in downstream applications like recommendation and language generation, while also discussing ethical concerns. Additionally, we identify gaps in current research and encourage future work to explore holistic approaches for achieving broader objectives in this field.

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer the potential to automate hiring by matching job descriptions with candidate resumes, streamlining recruitment processes, and reducing operational costs. However, biases inherent in these models may lead to unfair hiring practices, reinforcing societal prejudices and undermining workplace diversity. This study examines the performance and fairness of LLMs in job-resume matching tasks within the English language and U.S. context. It evaluates how factors such as gender, race, and educational background influence model decisions, providing critical insights into the fairness and reliability of LLMs in HR applications.Our findings indicate that while recent models have reduced biases related to explicit attributes like gender and race, implicit biases concerning educational background remain significant. These results highlight the need for ongoing evaluation and the development of advanced bias mitigation strategies to ensure equitable hiring practices when using LLMs in industry settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in summary evaluation tasks, yet they face challenges such as high computational costs and the Lost-in-the-Middle problem where important information in the middle of long documents is often overlooked. To address these issues, this paper introduces a novel approach, Extract-then-Evaluate, which involves extracting key sentences from a long source document and then evaluating the summary by prompting LLMs. The results reveal that the proposed method not only significantly reduces evaluation costs but also exhibits a higher correlation with human evaluations. Furthermore, we provide practical recommendations for optimal document length and sentence extraction methods, contributing to the development of cost-effective yet more accurate methods for LLM-based text generation evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various NLP tasks. However, previous works have shown these models are sensitive towards prompt wording, and few-shot demonstrations and their order, posing challenges to fair assessment of these models. As these models become more powerful, it becomes imperative to understand and address these limitations. In this paper, we focus on LLMs robustness on the task of multiple-choice questions—commonly adopted task to study reasoning and fact-retrieving capability of LLMs. Investigating the sensitivity of LLMs towards the order of options in multiple-choice questions, we demonstrate a considerable performance gap of approximately 13% to 85% in LLMs on different benchmarks, when answer options are reordered, even when using demonstrations in a few-shot setting. Through a detailed analysis, we conjecture that this sensitivity arises when LLMs are uncertain about the prediction between the top-2/3 choices, and specific options placements may favor certain prediction between those top choices depending on the question caused by positional bias. We also identify patterns in top-2 choices that amplify or mitigate the model’s bias toward option placement. We found that for amplifying bias, the optimal strategy involves positioning the top two choices as the first and last options. Conversely, to mitigate bias, we recommend placing these choices among the adjacent options. To validate our conjecture, we conduct various experiments and adopt two approaches to calibrate LLMs’ predictions, leading to up to 8 percentage points improvement across different models and benchmarks.

Large language models (LLMs) are proficient at generating fluent text with minimal task-specific supervision. However, their ability to generate rationales for knowledge-intensive tasks (KITs) remains under-explored. Generating rationales for KIT solutions, such as commonsense multiple-choice QA, requires external knowledge to support predictions and refute alternate options. In this work, we consider the task of generating retrieval-augmented rationalization of KIT model predictions via external knowledge guidance within a few-shot setting. Surprisingly, crowd-workers preferred LLM-generated rationales over existing crowd-sourced rationales, generated in a similar knowledge-guided setting, on aspects such as factuality, sufficiency, and convincingness. However, fine-grained evaluation of such rationales highlights the need for further improvements in conciseness, novelty, and domain invariance. Additionally, through an expert-sourced study evaluating the reliability of the rationales, we demonstrate that humans’ trust in LLM-generated rationales erodes when communicated faithfully, i.e., without taking model prediction accuracy into account. We find that even instrumenting simple guardrails can be effective for reliable rationalization.

We present MEGAnno, a novel exploratory annotation framework designed for NLP researchers and practitioners. Unlike existing labeling tools that focus on data labeling only, our framework aims to support a broader, iterative ML workflow including data exploration and model development. With MEGAnno’s API, users can programmatically explore the data through sophisticated search and automated suggestion functions and incrementally update task schema as their project evolve. Combined with our widget, the users can interactively sort, filter, and assign labels to multiple items simultaneously in the same notebook where the rest of the NLP project resides. We demonstrate MEGAnno’s flexible, exploratory, efficient, and seamless labeling experience through a sentiment analysis use case.

Many people read online reviews to learn about real-world entities of their interest. However, majority of reviews only describes general experiences and opinions of the customers, and may not reveal facts that are specific to the entity being reviewed. In this work, we focus on a novel task of mining from a review corpus sentences that are unique for each entity. We refer to this task as Salient Fact Extraction. Salient facts are extremely scarce due to their very nature. Consequently, collecting labeled examples for training supervised models is tedious and cost-prohibitive. To alleviate this scarcity problem, we develop an unsupervised method, ZL-Distiller, which leverages contextual language representations of the reviews and their distributional patterns to identify salient sentences about entities. Our experiments on multiple domains (hotels, products, and restaurants) show that ZL-Distiller achieves state-of-the-art performance and further boosts the performance of other supervised/unsupervised algorithms for the task. Furthermore, we show that salient sentences mined by ZL-Distiller provide unique and detailed information about entities, which benefit downstream NLP applications including question answering and summarization.

Entity set expansion (ESE) aims at obtaining a more complete set of entities given a textual corpus and a seed set of entities of a concept. Although it is a critical task in many NLP applications, existing benchmarks are limited to well-formed text (e.g., Wikipedia) and well-defined concepts (e.g., countries and diseases). Furthermore, only a small number of predictions are evaluated compared to the actual size of an entity set. A rigorous assessment of ESE methods warrants more comprehensive benchmarks and evaluation. In this paper, we consider user-generated text to understand the generalizability of ESE methods. We develop new benchmarks and propose more rigorous evaluation metrics for assessing the performance of ESE methods. Additionally, we identify phenomena such as non-named entities, multifaceted entities, vague concepts that are more prevalent in user-generated text than well-formed text, and use them to profile ESE methods. We observe that the strong performance of state-of-the-art ESE methods does not generalize well to user-generated text. We conduct comprehensive empirical analysis and draw insights from the findings.

Recently, active learning (AL) methods have been used to effectively fine-tune pre-trained language models for various NLP tasks such as sentiment analysis and document classification. However, given the task of fine-tuning language models, understanding the impact of different aspects on AL methods such as labeling cost, sample acquisition latency, and the diversity of the datasets necessitates a deeper investigation. This paper examines the performance of existing AL methods within a low-resource, interactive labeling setting. We observe that existing methods often underperform in such a setting while exhibiting higher latency and a lack of generalizability. To overcome these challenges, we propose a novel active learning method TYROUGE that employs a hybrid sampling strategy to minimize labeling cost and acquisition latency while providing a framework for adapting to dataset diversity via user guidance. Through our experiments, we observe that compared to SOTA methods, TYROUGE reduces the labeling cost by up to 43% and the acquisition latency by as much as 11X, while achieving comparable accuracy. Finally, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of TYROUGE by exploring the impact of dataset characteristics.