Text simplification aims to make technical texts more accessible to laypeople but often results in deletion of information and vagueness. This work proposes InfoLossQA, a framework to characterize and recover simplification-induced information loss in form of question-and-answer (QA) pairs. Building on the theory of Questions Under Discussion, the QA pairs are designed to help readers deepen their knowledge of a text. First, we collect a dataset of 1,000 linguist-curated QA pairs derived from 104 LLM simplifications of English medical study abstracts. Our analyses of this data reveal that information loss occurs frequently, and that the QA pairs give a high-level overview of what information was lost. Second, we devise two methods for this task: end-to-end prompting of open-source and commercial language models, and a natural language inference pipeline. With a novel evaluation framework considering the correctness of QA pairs and their linguistic suitability, our expert evaluation reveals that models struggle to reliably identify information loss and applying similar standards as humans at what constitutes information loss.

Factual knowledge encoded in Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) enriches their representations and justifies their use as knowledge bases. Previous work has focused on probing PLMs for factual knowledge by measuring how often they can correctly predict an _object_ entity given a subject and a relation, and improving fact retrieval by optimizing the prompts used for querying PLMs. In this work, we consider a complementary aspect, namely the coherency of factual knowledge in PLMs, i.e., how often can PLMs predict the _subject_ entity given its initial prediction of the object entity. This goes beyond evaluating how much PLMs know, and focuses on the internal state of knowledge inside them. Our results indicate that PLMs have low coherency using manually written, optimized and paraphrased prompts, but including an evidence paragraph leads to substantial improvement. This shows that PLMs fail to model inverse relations and need further enhancements to be able to handle retrieving facts from their parameters in a coherent manner, and to be considered as knowledge bases.

As NLP models become more complex, understanding their decisions becomes more crucial. Counterfactuals (CFs), where minimal changes to inputs flip a model’s prediction, offer a way to explain these models. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in NLP tasks, their efficacy in generating high-quality CFs remains uncertain. This work fills this gap by investigating how well LLMs generate CFs for three tasks. We conduct a comprehensive comparison of several common LLMs, and evaluate their CFs, assessing both intrinsic metrics, and the impact of these CFs on data augmentation. Moreover, we analyze differences between human and LLM-generated CFs, providing insights for future research directions. Our results show that LLMs generate fluent CFs, but struggle to keep the induced changes minimal. Generating CFs for Sentiment Analysis (SA) is less challenging than NLI and Hate Speech (HS) where LLMs show weaknesses in generating CFs that flip the original label. This also reflects on the data augmentation performance, where we observe a large gap between augmenting with human and LLM CFs. Furthermore, we evaluate LLMs’ ability to assess CFs in a mislabelled data setting, and show that they have a strong bias towards agreeing with the provided labels. GPT4 is more robust against this bias, but it shows strong preference to its own generations. Our analysis suggests that safety training is causing GPT4 to prefer its generations, since these generations do not contain harmful content. Our findings reveal several limitations and point to potential future work directions.

Counterfactual text generation aims to minimally change a text, such that it is classified differently. Assessing progress in method development for counterfactual text generation is hindered by a non-uniform usage of data sets and metrics in related work. We propose CEval, a benchmark for comparing counterfactual text generation methods. CEval unifies counterfactual and text quality metrics, includes common counterfactual datasets with human annotations, standard baselines (MICE, GDBA, CREST) and the open-source language model LLAMA-2. Our experiments found no perfect method for generating counterfactual text. Methods that excel at counterfactual metrics often produce lower-quality text while LLMs with simple prompts generate high-quality text but struggle with counterfactual criteria. By making CEval available as an open-source Python library, we encourage the community to contribute additional methods and maintain consistent evaluation in future work.

Recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) can be largely attributed to the advent of pre-trained language models such as BERT and RoBERTa. While these models demonstrate remarkable performance on general datasets, they can struggle in specialized domains such as medicine, where unique domain-specific terminologies, domain-specific abbreviations, and varying document structures are common. This paper explores strategies for adapting these models to domain-specific requirements, primarily through continuous pre-training on domain-specific data. We pre-trained several German medical language models on 2.4B tokens derived from translated public English medical data and 3B tokens of German clinical data. The resulting models were evaluated on various German downstream tasks, including named entity recognition (NER), multi-label classification, and extractive question answering. Our results suggest that models augmented by clinical and translation-based pre-training typically outperform general domain models in medical contexts. We conclude that continuous pre-training has demonstrated the ability to match or even exceed the performance of clinical models trained from scratch. Furthermore, pre-training on clinical data or leveraging translated texts have proven to be reliable methods for domain adaptation in medical NLP tasks.

Recent trends in natural language processing research and annotation tasks affirm a paradigm shift from the traditional reliance on a single ground truth to a focus on individual perspectives, particularly in subjective tasks. In scenarios where annotation tasks are meant to encompass diversity, models that solely rely on the majority class labels may inadvertently disregard valuable minority perspectives. This oversight could result in the omission of crucial information and, in a broader context, risk disrupting the balance within larger ecosystems. As the landscape of annotator modeling unfolds with diverse representation techniques, it becomes imperative to investigate their effectiveness with the fine-grained features of the datasets in view. This study systematically explores various annotator modeling techniques and compares their performance across seven corpora. From our findings, we show that the commonly used user token model consistently outperforms more complex models. We introduce a composite embedding approach and show distinct differences in which model performs best as a function of the agreement with a given dataset. Our findings shed light on the relationship between corpus statistics and annotator modeling performance, which informs future work on corpus construction and perspectivist NLP.

Valuable datasets that contain sensitive information are not shared due to privacy and copyright concerns. This hinders progress in many areas and prevents the use of machine learning solutions to solve relevant tasks. One possible solution is sharing models that are trained on such datasets. However, this is also associated with potential privacy risks due to data extraction attacks. In this work, we propose a solution based on sharing parts of the model’s parameters, and using a proxy dataset for complimentary knowledge transfer. Our experiments show encouraging results, and reduced risk to potential training data identification attacks. We present a viable solution to sharing knowledge with data-disadvantaged parties, that do not have the resources to produce high-quality data, with reduced privacy risks to the sharing parties. We make our code publicly available.

Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) are trained on vast unlabeled data, rich in world knowledge. This fact has sparked the interest of the community in quantifying the amount of factual knowledge present in PLMs, as this explains their performance on downstream tasks, and potentially justifies their use as knowledge bases. In this work, we survey methods and datasets that are used to probe PLMs for factual knowledge. Our contributions are: (1) We propose a categorization scheme for factual probing methods that is based on how their inputs, outputs and the probed PLMs are adapted; (2) We provide an overview of the datasets used for factual probing; (3) We synthesize insights about knowledge retention and prompt optimization in PLMs, analyze obstacles to adopting PLMs as knowledge bases and outline directions for future work.

Automatically summarizing radiology reports into a concise impression can reduce the manual burden of clinicians and improve the consistency of reporting. Previous work aimed to enhance content selection and factuality through guided abstractive summarization. However, two key issues persist. First, current methods heavily rely on domain-specific resources to extract the guidance signal, limiting their transferability to domains and languages where those resources are unavailable. Second, while automatic metrics like ROUGE show progress, we lack a good understanding of the errors and failure modes in this task. To bridge these gaps, we first propose a domain-agnostic guidance signal in form of variable-length extractive summaries. Our empirical results on two English benchmarks demonstrate that this guidance signal improves upon unguided summarization while being competitive with domain-specific methods. Additionally, we run an expert evaluation of four systems according to a taxonomy of 11 fine-grained errors. We find that the most pressing differences between automatic summaries and those of radiologists relate to content selection including omissions (up to 52%) and additions (up to 57%). We hypothesize that latent reporting factors and corpus-level inconsistencies may limit models to reliably learn content selection from the available data, presenting promising directions for future work.

Automatic text simplification can help patients to better understand their own clinical notes. A major hurdle for the development of clinical text simplification methods is the lack of high quality resources. We report ongoing efforts in creating a parallel dataset of professionally simplified clinical notes. Currently, this corpus consists of 851 document-level simplifications of German pathology reports. We highlight characteristics of this dataset and establish first baselines for paragraph-level simplification.