Recognizing if LLM output can be grounded in evidence is central to many tasks in NLP: retrieval-augmented generation, summarization, document-grounded dialogue, and more. Current approaches to this kind of fact-checking are based on verifying each piece of a model generation against potential evidence using an LLM. However, this process can be very computationally expensive, requiring many calls to a model to check a single response. In this work, we show how to build small fact-checking models that have GPT-4-level performance but for 400x lower cost. We do this by constructing synthetic training data with GPT-4, which involves creating realistic yet challenging instances of factual errors via a structured generation procedure. Training on this data teaches models to check each fact in the claim and recognize synthesis of information across sentences. For evaluation, we unify datasets from recent work on fact-checking and grounding LLM generations into a new benchmark, LLM-AggreFact. Our best system MiniCheck-FT5 (770M parameters) outperforms all systems of comparable size and reaches GPT-4 accuracy. We release LLM-AggreFact, code for data synthesis, and models.

LLMs and RAG systems are now capable of handling millions of input tokens or more. However, evaluating the output quality of such systems on long-context tasks remains challenging, as tasks like Needle-in-a-Haystack lack complexity. In this work, we argue that summarization can play a central role in such evaluation. We design a procedure to synthesize Haystacks of documents, ensuring that specific insights repeat across documents. The “Summary of a Haystack” (SummHay) task then requires a system to process the Haystack and generate, given a query, a summary that identifies the relevant insights and precisely cites the source documents. Since we have precise knowledge of what insights should appear in a haystack summary and what documents should be cited, we implement a highly reproducible automatic evaluation that can score summaries on two aspects – Coverage and Citation. We generate Haystacks in two domains (conversation, news), and perform a large-scale evaluation of 10 LLMs and corresponding 50 RAG systems. Our findings indicate that SummHay is an open challenge for current systems, as even systems provided with an Oracle signal of document relevance lag our estimate of human performance (56%) by 10+ points on a Joint Score. Without a retriever, long-context LLMs like GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus score below 20% on SummHay. We show SummHay can also be used to study enterprise RAG systems and position bias in long-context models. We hope future systems can equal and surpass human performance on SummHay.

Prompt leakage poses a compelling security and privacy threat in LLM applications. Leakage of system prompts may compromise intellectual property, and act as adversarial reconnaissance for an attacker. A systematic evaluation of prompt leakage threats and mitigation strategies is lacking, especially for multi-turn LLM interactions. In this paper, we systematically investigate LLM vulnerabilities against prompt leakage for 10 closed- and open-source LLMs, across four domains. We design a unique threat model which leverages the LLM sycophancy effect and elevates the average attack success rate (ASR) from 17.7% to 86.2% in a multi-turn setting. Our standardized setup further allows dissecting leakage of specific prompt contents such as task instructions and knowledge documents. We measure the mitigation effect of 7 black-box defense strategies, along with finetuning an open-source model to defend against leakage attempts. We present different combination of defenses against our threat model, including a cost analysis. Our study highlights key takeaways for building secure LLM applications and provides directions for research in multi-turn LLM interactions.

Previous research in multi-document news summarization has typically concentrated on collating information that all sources agree upon. However, the summarization of diverse information dispersed across multiple articles about an event remains underexplored. In this paper, we propose a new task of summarizing diverse information encountered in multiple news articles encompassing the same event. To facilitate this task, we outlined a data collection schema for identifying diverse information and curated a dataset named DiverseSumm. The dataset includes 245 news stories, with each story comprising 10 news articles and paired with a human-validated reference. Next, to enable consistent automatic evaluation, we conducted a comprehensive analysis to pinpoint the position and verbosity biases when utilizing Large Language Model (LLM)-based metrics for evaluating the coverage and faithfulness of summaries. Through correlation analyses, we outline the best practices for effectively using automatic LLM-based metrics on the DiverseSumm dataset. Finally, we study how LLMs summarize multiple news articles by analyzing which type of diverse information LLMs are capable of identifying. Our analyses suggest that despite the extraordinary capabilities of LLMs in single-document summarization, the proposed task remains a complex challenge for them mainly due to their limited coverage, with GPT-4 only able to cover under 40% of the diverse information on average.

In this tutorial, we focus on text-to-text generation, a class of natural language generation (NLG) tasks, that takes a piece of text as input and then generates a revision that is improved according to some specific criteria (e.g., readability or linguistic styles), while largely retaining the original meaning and the length of the text. This includes many useful applications, such as text simplification, paraphrase generation, style transfer, etc. In contrast to text summarization and open-ended text completion (e.g., story), the text-to-text generation tasks we discuss in this tutorial are more constrained in terms of semantic consistency and targeted language styles. This level of control makes these tasks ideal testbeds for studying the ability of models to generate text that is both semantically adequate and stylistically appropriate. Moreover, these tasks are interesting from a technical standpoint, as they require complex combinations of lexical and syntactical transformations, stylistic control, and adherence to factual knowledge, – all at once. With a special focus on text simplification and revision, this tutorial aims to provide an overview of the state-of-the-art natural language generation research from four major aspects – Data, Models, Human-AI Collaboration, and Evaluation – and to discuss and showcase a few significant and recent advances: (1) the use of non-retrogressive approaches; (2) the shift from fine-tuning to prompting with large language models; (3) the development of new learnable metric and fine-grained human evaluation framework; (4) a growing body of studies and datasets on non-English languages; (5) the rise of HCI+NLP+Accessibility interdisciplinary research to create real-world writing assistant systems.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in following natural language instructions to solve unseen tasks. However, it remains unclear whether models truly understand task definitions and whether the human-written definitions are optimal. In this paper, we systematically study the role of task definitions in instruction learning. We first conduct an ablation analysis informed by human annotations to understand which parts of a task definition are most important, and find that model performance only drops substantially when removing contents describing the task output, in particular label information. Next, we propose an automatic algorithm to compress task definitions to a minimal supporting set of tokens, and find that 60% of tokens can be removed while maintaining or even improving model performance. Based on these results, we propose two strategies to help models better leverage task instructions: (1) providing only key information for tasks in a common structured format, and (2) adding a meta-tuning stage to help the model better understand the definitions. With these two strategies, we achieve a 4.2 Rouge-L improvement over 119 unseen test tasks.

Text simplification research has mostly focused on sentence-level simplification, even though many desirable edits - such as adding relevant background information or reordering content - may require document-level context. Prior work has also predominantly framed simplification as a single-step, input-to-output task, only implicitly modeling the fine-grained, span-level edits that elucidate the simplification process. To address both gaps, we introduce the SWiPE dataset, which reconstructs the document-level editing process from English Wikipedia (EW) articles to paired Simple Wikipedia (SEW) articles. In contrast to prior work, SWiPE leverages the entire revision history when pairing pages in order to better identify simplification edits. We work with Wikipedia editors to annotate 5,000 EW-SEW document pairs, labeling more than 40,000 edits with proposed 19 categories. To scale our efforts, we propose several models to automatically label edits, achieving an F-1 score of up to 70.9, indicating that this is a tractable but challenging NLU task. Finally, we categorize the edits produced by several simplification models and find that SWiPE-trained models generate more complex edits while reducing unwanted edits.

The propensity of abstractive summarization models to make factual errors has been studied extensively, including design of metrics to detect factual errors and annotation of errors in current systems’ outputs. However, the ever-evolving nature of summarization systems, metrics, and annotated benchmarks makes factuality evaluation a moving target, and drawing clear comparisons among metrics has become increasingly difficult. In this work, we aggregate factuality error annotations from nine existing datasets and stratify them according to the underlying summarization model. We compare performance of state-of-the-art factuality metrics, including recent ChatGPT-based metrics, on this stratified benchmark and show that their performance varies significantly across different types of summarization models. Critically, our analysis shows that much of the recent improvement in the factuality detection space has been on summaries from older (pre-Transformer) models instead of more relevant recent summarization models. We further perform a finer-grained analysis per error-type and find similar performance variance across error types for different factuality metrics. Our results show that no one metric is superior in all settings or for all error types, and we provide recommendations for best practices given these insights.

Making big purchases requires consumers to research or consult a salesperson to gain domain expertise. However, existing conversational recommender systems (CRS) often overlook users’ lack of background knowledge, focusing solely on gathering preferences. In this work, we define a new problem space for conversational agents that aim to provide both product recommendations and educational value through mixed-type mixed-initiative dialog. We introduce SalesOps, a framework that facilitates the simulation and evaluation of such systems by leveraging recent advancements in large language models (LLMs). We build SalesBot and ShopperBot, a pair of LLM-powered agents that can simulate either side of the framework. A comprehensive human study compares SalesBot against professional salespeople, revealing that although SalesBot approaches professional performance in terms of fluency and informativeness, it lags behind in recommendation quality. We emphasize the distinct limitations both face in providing truthful information, highlighting the challenges of ensuring faithfulness in the CRS context. We release our code and make all data available.

With the recent appearance of LLMs in practical settings, having methods that can effectively detect factual inconsistencies is crucial to reduce the propagation of misinformation and improve trust in model outputs. When testing on existing factual consistency benchmarks, we find that a few large language models (LLMs) perform competitively on classification benchmarks for factual inconsistency detection compared to traditional non-LLM methods. However, a closer analysis reveals issues with existing evaluation benchmarks, affecting evaluation precision. To address this, we propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. This new benchmark is 20 times more cost-effective per sample than previous benchmarks and highly reproducible, as we estimate inter-annotator agreement at about 0.9. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance, highlighting the gaps in LLMs’ ability to reason about facts and detect inconsistencies when they occur.

This paper presents INTELMO, an easy-to-use library to help model developers adopt user-faced interactive interfaces and articles from real-time RSS sources for their language models. The library categorizes common NLP tasks and provides default style patterns, streamlining the process of creating interfaces with minimal code modifications while ensuring an intuitive user experience. Moreover, INTELMO employs a multi-granular hierarchical abstraction to provide developers with fine-grained and flexible control over user interfaces. INTELMO is under active development, with document available at https://intelmo.github.io.

Precisely assessing the progress in natural language generation (NLG) tasks is challenging, and human evaluation to establish a preference in a model’s output over another is often necessary.However, human evaluation is usually costly, difficult to reproduce, and non-reusable.In this paper, we propose a new and simple automatic evaluation method for NLG called Near-Negative Distinction (NND) that repurposes prior human annotations into NND tests.In an NND test, an NLG model must place a higher likelihood on a high-quality output candidate than on a near-negative candidate with a known error.Model performance is established by the number of NND tests a model passes, as well as the distribution over task-specific errors the model fails on.Through experiments on three NLG tasks (question generation, question answering, and summarization), we show that NND achieves a higher correlation with human judgments than standard NLG evaluation metrics. We then illustrate NND evaluation in four practical scenarios, for example performing fine-grain model analysis, or studying model training dynamics. Our findings suggest that NND can give a second life to human annotations and provide low-cost NLG evaluation.

Question generation (QGen) models are often evaluated with standardized NLG metrics that are based on n-gram overlap. In this paper, we measure whether these metric improvements translate to gains in a practical setting, focusing on the use case of helping teachers automate the generation of reading comprehension quizzes. In our study, teachers building a quiz receive question suggestions, which they can either accept or refuse with a reason. Even though we find that recent progress in QGen leads to a significant increase in question acceptance rates, there is still large room for improvement, with the best model having only 68.4% of its questions accepted by the ten teachers who participated in our study. We then leverage the annotations we collected to analyze standard NLG metrics and find that model performance has reached projected upper-bounds, suggesting new automatic metrics are needed to guide QGen research forward.

Asking good questions is an essential ability for both human and machine intelligence. However, existing neural question generation approaches mainly focus on short factoid type of answers. In this paper, we introduce a neural question generator, MixQG, to bridge this gap. We combine nine question answering datasets with diverse answer types, including yes/no, multiple-choice, extractive, and abstractive answers, to train a single generative model. We show with empirical results that our model outperforms existing work in both seen and unseen domains, and can generate questions with different cognitive levels when conditioned on different answer types. We run a human evaluation study to assess the quality of generated questions and find that MixQG outperforms the next best model by 10%. Our code and model checkpoints will be released and integrated with the HuggingFace library to facilitate various downstream applications.

There are many potential benefits to news readers accessing diverse sources. Modern news aggregators do the hard work of organizing the news, offering readers a plethora of source options, but choosing which source to read remains challenging.We propose a new framework to assist readers in identifying source differences and gaining an understanding of news coverage diversity.The framework is based on the generation of Discord Questions: questions with a diverse answer pool, explicitly illustrating source differences.To assemble a prototype of the framework, we focus on two components: (1) discord question generation, the task of generating questions answered differently by sources, for which we propose an automatic scoring method, and create a model that improves performance from current question generation (QG) methods by 5%, (2) answer consolidation, the task of grouping answers to a question that are semantically similar, for which we collect data and repurpose a method that achieves 81% balanced accuracy on our realistic test set.We illustrate the framework’s feasibility through a prototype interface. Even though model performance at discord QG still lags human performance by more than 15%, generated questions are judged to be more interesting than factoid questions and can reveal differences in the level of detail, sentiment, and reasoning of sources in news coverage. Code is available at https://github.com/Salesforce/discord_questions.

In the summarization domain, a key requirement for summaries is to be factually consistent with the input document. Previous work has found that natural language inference (NLI) models do not perform competitively when applied to inconsistency detection. In this work, we revisit the use of NLI for inconsistency detection, finding that past work suffered from a mismatch in input granularity between NLI datasets (sentence-level), and inconsistency detection (document level). We provide a highly effective and light-weight method called SummaCConv that enables NLI models to be successfully used for this task by segmenting documents into sentence units and aggregating scores between pairs of sentences. We furthermore introduce a new benchmark called SummaC (Summary Consistency) which consists of six large inconsistency detection datasets. On this dataset, SummaCConv obtains state-of-the-art results with a balanced accuracy of 74.4%, a 5% improvement compared with prior work.

This work presents Keep it Simple (KiS), a new approach to unsupervised text simplification which learns to balance a reward across three properties: fluency, salience and simplicity. We train the model with a novel algorithm to optimize the reward (k-SCST), in which the model proposes several candidate simplifications, computes each candidate’s reward, and encourages candidates that outperform the mean reward. Finally, we propose a realistic text comprehension task as an evaluation method for text simplification. When tested on the English news domain, the KiS model outperforms strong supervised baselines by more than 4 SARI points, and can help people complete a comprehension task an average of 18% faster while retaining accuracy, when compared to the original text.

The Shuffle Test is the most common task to evaluate whether NLP models can measure coherence in text. Most recent work uses direct supervision on the task; we show that by simply finetuning a RoBERTa model, we can achieve a near perfect accuracy of 97.8%, a state-of-the-art. We argue that this outstanding performance is unlikely to lead to a good model of text coherence, and suggest that the Shuffle Test should be approached in a Zero-Shot setting: models should be evaluated without being trained on the task itself. We evaluate common models in this setting, such as Generative and Bi-directional Transformers, and find that larger architectures achieve high-performance out-of-the-box. Finally, we suggest the k-Block Shuffle Test, a modification of the original by increasing the size of blocks shuffled. Even though human reader performance remains high (around 95% accuracy), model performance drops from 94% to 78% as block size increases, creating a conceptually simple challenge to benchmark NLP models.

Recent progress in Natural Language Understanding (NLU) has seen the latest models outperform human performance on many standard tasks. These impressive results have led the community to introspect on dataset limitations, and iterate on more nuanced challenges. In this paper, we introduce the task of HeadLine Grouping (HLG) and a corresponding dataset (HLGD) consisting of 20,056 pairs of news headlines, each labeled with a binary judgement as to whether the pair belongs within the same group. On HLGD, human annotators achieve high performance of around 0.9 F-1, while current state-of-the art Transformer models only reach 0.75 F-1, opening the path for further improvements. We further propose a novel unsupervised Headline Generator Swap model for the task of HeadLine Grouping that achieves within 3 F-1 of the best supervised model. Finally, we analyze high-performing models with consistency tests, and find that models are not consistent in their predictions, revealing modeling limits of current architectures.

This work presents a new approach to unsupervised abstractive summarization based on maximizing a combination of coverage and fluency for a given length constraint. It introduces a novel method that encourages the inclusion of key terms from the original document into the summary: key terms are masked out of the original document and must be filled in by a coverage model using the current generated summary. A novel unsupervised training procedure leverages this coverage model along with a fluency model to generate and score summaries. When tested on popular news summarization datasets, the method outperforms previous unsupervised methods by more than 2 R-1 points, and approaches results of competitive supervised methods. Our model attains higher levels of abstraction with copied passages roughly two times shorter than prior work, and learns to compress and merge sentences without supervision.

This work describes an automatic news chatbot that draws content from a diverse set of news articles and creates conversations with a user about the news. Key components of the system include the automatic organization of news articles into topical chatrooms, integration of automatically generated questions into the conversation, and a novel method for choosing which questions to present which avoids repetitive suggestions. We describe the algorithmic framework and present the results of a usability study that shows that news readers using the system successfully engage in multi-turn conversations about specific news stories.

We propose a method to aggregate and organize a large, multi-source dataset of news articles into a collection of major stories, and automatically name and visualize these stories in a working system. The approach is able to run online, as new articles are added, processing 4 million news articles from 20 news sources, and extracting 80000 major stories, some of which span several years. The visual interface consists of lanes of timelines, each annotated with information that is deemed important for the story, including extracted quotations. The working system allows a user to search and navigate 8 years of story information.