Identifying the difference between two versions of the same article is useful to update knowledge bases and to understand how articles evolve. Paired texts occur naturally in diverse situations: reporters write similar news stories and maintainers of authoritative websites must keep their information up to date. We propose representing factual changes between paired documents as question-answer pairs, where the answer to the same question differs between two versions. We find that question-answer pairs can flexibly and concisely capture the updated contents. Provided with paired documents, annotators identify questions that are answered by one passage but answered differently or cannot be answered by the other. We release DiffQG which consists of 759 QA pairs and 1153 examples of paired passages with no factual change. These questions are intended to be both unambiguous and information-seeking and involve complex edits, pushing beyond the capabilities of current question generation and factual change detection systems. Our dataset summarizes the changes between two versions of the document as questions and answers, studying automatic update summarization in a novel way.

Language models (LMs) are typically trained once on a large-scale corpus and used for years without being updated. However, in a dynamic world, new entities constantly arise. We propose a framework to analyze what LMs can infer about new entities that did not exist when the LMs were pretrained. We derive a dataset of entities indexed by their origination date and paired with their English Wikipedia articles, from which we can find sentences about each entity. We evaluate LMs’ perplexity on masked spans within these sentences. We show that models more informed about the entities, such as those with access to a textual definition of them, achieve lower perplexity on this benchmark. Our experimental results demonstrate that making inferences about new entities remains difficult for LMs. Given its wide coverage on entity knowledge and temporal indexing, our dataset can be used to evaluate LMs and techniques designed to modify or extend their knowledge. Our automatic data collection pipeline can be easily used to continually update our benchmark.

Question answering models can use rich knowledge sources — up to one hundred retrieved passages and parametric knowledge in the large-scale language model (LM). Prior work assumes information in such knowledge sources is consistent with each other, paying little attention to how models blend information stored in their LM parameters with that from retrieved evidence documents. In this paper, we simulate knowledge conflicts (i.e., where parametric knowledge suggests one answer and different passages suggest different answers) and examine model behaviors. We find retrieval performance heavily impacts which sources models rely on, and current models mostly rely on non-parametric knowledgein their best-performing settings. We discover a troubling trend that contradictions among knowledge sources affect model confidence only marginally. To address this issue, we present a new calibration study, where models are discouraged from presenting any single answer when presented with multiple conflicting answer candidates in retrieved evidences.

Answers to the same question may change depending on the extra-linguistic contexts (when and where the question was asked). To study this challenge, we introduce SituatedQA, an open-retrieval QA dataset where systems must produce the correct answer to a question given the temporal or geographical context. To construct SituatedQA, we first identify such questions in existing QA datasets. We find that a significant proportion of information seeking questions have context-dependent answers (e.g. roughly 16.5% of NQ-Open). For such context-dependent questions, we then crowdsource alternative contexts and their corresponding answers. Our study shows that existing models struggle with producing answers that are frequently updated or from uncommon locations. We further quantify how existing models, which are trained on data collected in the past, fail to generalize to answering questions asked in the present, even when provided with an updated evidence corpus (a roughly 15 point drop in accuracy). Our analysis suggests that open-retrieval QA benchmarks should incorporate extra-linguistic context to stay relevant globally and in the future. Our data, code, and datasheet are available at https://situatedqa.github.io/.

In this paper we provide a systematic comparison of existing and new document-level neural machine translation solutions. As part of this comparison, we introduce and evaluate a document-level variant of the recently proposed Star Transformer architecture. In addition to using the traditional metric BLEU, we report the accuracy of the models in handling anaphoric pronoun translation as well as coherence and cohesion using contrastive test sets. Finally, we report the results of human evaluation in terms of Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) and analyse the correlation of the results obtained by the automatic metrics with human judgments.