This is an internal, incomplete preview of a proposed change to the ACL Anthology.
For efficiency reasons, we generate only three BibTeX files per volume, and the preview may be incomplete in other ways, or contain mistakes.
Do not treat this content as an official publication.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) show the potential of using LLMs as evaluators for assessing the quality of text generations from LLMs. However, applying LLM evaluators naively to compare different systems can lead to unreliable results due to the inaccuracy and intrinsic bias of LLM evaluators. In order to mitigate this problem, we propose two calibration methods, Bayesian Win-Rate Sampling (BWRS) and Bayesian Dawid-Skene, both of which leverage Bayesian inference to more accurately infer the true win rate of generative language models. We empirically validate our methods on six datasets covering story generation, summarization, and instruction following tasks. We show that both our methods are effective in improving the accuracy of win rate estimation using LLMs as evaluators, offering a promising direction for reliable automatic text quality evaluation.
We introduce FinDVer, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the explainable claim verification capabilities of LLMs in the context of understanding and analyzing long, hybrid-content financial documents. FinDVer contains 4,000 expert-annotated examples across four subsets, each focusing on a type of scenario that frequently arises in real-world financial domains. We assess a broad spectrum of 25 LLMs under long-context and RAG settings. Our results show that even the current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4o) significantly lags behind human experts. Our detailed findings and insights highlight the strengths and limitations of existing LLMs in this new task. We believe FinDVer can serve as a valuable benchmark for evaluating LLM capabilities in claim verification over complex, expert-domain documents.
Scientific literature is typically dense, requiring significant background knowledge and deep comprehension for effective engagement. We introduce SciDQA, a new dataset for reading comprehension that challenges language models to deeply understand scientific articles, consisting of 2,937 QA pairs. Unlike other scientific QA datasets, SciDQA sources questions from peer reviews by domain experts and answers by paper authors, ensuring a thorough examination of the literature. We enhance the dataset’s quality through a process that carefully decontextualizes the content, tracks the source document across different versions, and incorporates a bibliography for multi-document question-answering. Questions in SciDQA necessitate reasoning across figures, tables, equations, appendices, and supplementary materials, and require multi-document reasoning. We evaluate several open-source and proprietary LLMs across various configurations to explore their capabilities in generating relevant and factual responses, as opposed to simple review memorization. Our comprehensive evaluation, based on metrics for surface-level and semantic similarity, highlights notable performance discrepancies. SciDQA represents a rigorously curated, naturally derived scientific QA dataset, designed to facilitate research on complex reasoning within the domain of question answering for scientific texts.
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on a variety of natural language understanding tasks. However, existing benchmarks are inadequate in measuring the complex logical reasoning capabilities of a model. We present FOLIO, a human-annotated, logically complex and diverse dataset for reasoning in natural language (NL), equipped with first-order logic (FOL) annotations. FOLIO consists of 1,430 examples (unique conclusions), each paired with one of 487 sets of premises used to deductively reason for the validity of each conclusion. The logical correctness of the premises and conclusions is ensured by their FOL annotations, which are automatically verified by an FOL inference engine. In addition to the main NL reasoning task, NL-FOL pairs in FOLIO constitute a new NL-FOL translation dataset. Our experiments on FOLIO systematically evaluate the FOL reasoning ability of supervised fine-tuning on medium-sized language models. For both NL reasoning and NL-FOL translation, we benchmark multiple state-of-the-art language models. Our results show that a subset of FOLIO remains a challenge for one of the most capable Large Language Model (LLM) publicly available, GPT-4.
As long-context large language models (LLMs) are attracting increasing attention for their ability to handle context windows exceeding 128k tokens, the need for effective evaluation methods for these models becomes critical.Existing evaluation methods, however, fall short: needle-in-a-haystack (NIAH) and its variants are overly simplistic, while creating realistic benchmarks is prohibitively expensive due to extensive human annotation requirements. To bridge this gap, we propose TAIL, an automatic toolkit for creating realistic evaluation benchmarks and assessing the performance of long-context LLMs.With TAIL, users can customize the building of a long-context, document-grounded QA benchmark and obtain visualized performance metrics of evaluated models.TAIL has the advantage of requiring minimal human annotation and generating natural questions based on user-provided long-context documents. We apply TAIL to construct a benchmark encompassing multiple expert domains, such as finance, law, patent, and scientific literature. We then evaluate four state-of-the-art long-context LLMs using this benchmark. Results show that all LLMs experience varyingdegrees of performance degradation as contextlengths increase.
Table data is pervasive in various industries, and its comprehension and manipulation demand significant time and effort for users seeking to extract relevant information. Consequently, an increasing number of studies have been directed towards table-to-text generation tasks. However, most existing methods are benchmarked solely on a limited number of datasets with varying configurations, leading to a lack of unified, standardized, fair, and comprehensive comparison between methods. This paper presents OpenT2T, the first open-source toolkit for table-to-text generation, designed to reproduce existing large language models (LLMs) for performance comparison and expedite the development of new models.We have implemented and compared a wide range of LLMs under zero- and few-shot settings on 9 table-to-text generation datasets, covering data insight generation, table summarization, and free-form table question answering. Additionally, we maintain a public leaderboard to provide insights for future work into how to choose appropriate table-to-text generation systems for real-world scenarios.
Recently, large language models (LLMs) have evolved into interactive agents, proficient in planning, tool use, and task execution across various tasks. However, without agent-tuning, open-source models like LLaMA2 currently struggle to match the efficiency of larger models such as GPT-4 in scientific applications due to a lack of agent tuning datasets. In response, we introduce MIMIR, a streamlined platform that leverages large LLMs to generate agent-tuning data for fine-tuning smaller, specialized models. By employing a role-playing methodology, MIMIR enables larger models to simulate various roles and create interaction data, which can then be used to fine-tune open-source models like LLaMA2. This approach ensures that even smaller models can effectively serve as agents in scientific tasks. Integrating these features into an end-to-end platform, MIMIR facilitates everything from the uploading of scientific data to one-click agent fine-tuning. MIMIR is publicly released and actively maintained at https://github. com/gersteinlab/MIMIR, along with a demo video for quick-start, calling for broader development.
We introduce OMG-QA, a new resource for question answering that is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of question answering systems that perform retrieval augmented generation (RAG) in scenarios that demand reasoning on multi-modal, multi-document contexts. These systems, given a user query, must retrieve relevant contexts from the web, which may include non-textual information, and then reason and synthesize these contents to generate a detailed, coherent answer. Unlike existing open-domain QA datasets, OMG-QA requires systems to navigate and integrate diverse modalities and a broad pool of information sources, making it uniquely challenging. We conduct a thorough evaluation and analysis of a diverse set of QA systems, featuring various retrieval frameworks, document retrievers, document indexing approaches, evidence retrieval methods, and LLMs tasked with both information retrieval and generation. Our findings reveal significant limitations in existing approaches using RAG or LLM agents to address open questions that require long-form answers supported by multi-modal evidence. We believe that OMG-QA will be a valuable resource for developing QA systems that are better equipped to handle open-domain, multi-modal information-seeking tasks.
Recently, large language models (LLMs), especially those that are pretrained on code, have demonstrated strong capabilities in generating programs from natural language inputs. Despite promising results, there is a notable lack of a comprehensive evaluation of these models’ language-to-code generation capabilities. Existing studies often focus on specific tasks, model architectures, or learning paradigms, leading to a fragmented understanding of the overall landscape. In this work, we present L2CEval, a systematic evaluation of the language-to-code generation capabilities of LLMs on 7 tasks across the domain spectrum of semantic parsing, math reasoning, and Python programming, analyzing the factors that potentially affect their performance, such as model size, pretraining data, instruction tuning, and different prompting methods. In addition, we assess confidence calibration, and conduct human evaluations to identify typical failures across different tasks and models. L2CEval offers a comprehensive understanding of the capabilities and limitations of LLMs in language-to-code generation. We release the evaluation framework1 and all model outputs, hoping to lay the groundwork for further future research. All future evaluations (e.g., LLaMA-3, StarCoder2, etc) will be updated on the project website: https://l2c-eval.github.io/.
Recently, large language models (LLMs), especially those that are pretrained on code, have demonstrated strong capabilities in generating programs from natural language inputs. Despite promising results, there is a notable lack of a comprehensive evaluation of these models’ language-to-code generation capabilities. Existing studies often focus on specific tasks, model architectures, or learning paradigms, leading to a fragmented understanding of the overall landscape. In this work, we present L2CEval, a systematic evaluation of the language-to-code generation capabilities of LLMs on 7 tasks across the domain spectrum of semantic parsing, math reasoning, and Python programming, analyzing the factors that potentially affect their performance, such as model size, pretraining data, instruction tuning, and different prompting methods. In addition, we assess confidence calibration, and conduct human evaluations to identify typical failures across different tasks and models. L2CEval offers a comprehensive understanding of the capabilities and limitations of LLMs in language-to-code generation. We release the evaluation framework1 and all model outputs, hoping to lay the groundwork for further future research. All future evaluations (e.g., LLaMA-3, StarCoder2, etc) will be updated on the project website: https://l2c-eval.github.io/.
Using large language models (LMs) for query or document expansion can improve generalization in information retrieval. However, it is unknown whether these techniques are universally beneficial or only effective in specific settings, such as for particular retrieval models, dataset domains, or query types. To answer this, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of LM-based expansion. We find that there exists a strong negative correlation between retriever performance and gains from expansion: expansion improves scores for weaker models, but generally harms stronger models. We show this trend holds across a set of eleven expansion techniques, twelve datasets with diverse distribution shifts, and twenty-four retrieval models. Through qualitative error analysis, we hypothesize that although expansions provide extra information (potentially improving recall), they add additional noise that makes it difficult to discern between the top relevant documents (thus introducing false positives). Our results suggest the following recipe: use expansions for weaker models or when the target dataset significantly differs from training corpus in format; otherwise, avoid expansions to keep the relevance signal clear.
While large language models (LLMs) can already achieve strong performance on standard generic summarization benchmarks, their performance on more complex summarization task settings is less studied. Therefore, we benchmark LLMs on instruction controllable text summarization, where the model input consists of both a source article and a natural language requirement for desired summary characteristics. To this end, we curate an evaluation-only dataset for this task setting and conduct human evaluations of five LLM-based systems to assess their instruction-following capabilities in controllable summarization. We then benchmark LLM-based automatic evaluation for this task with 4 different evaluation protocols and 11 LLMs, resulting in 40 evaluation methods. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs, since (1) all LLMs evaluated still make factual and other types of errors in their summaries; (2) no LLM-based evaluation methods can achieve a strong alignment with human annotators when judging the quality of candidate summaries; (3) different LLMs show large performance gaps in summary generation and evaluation capabilities. We make our collected benchmark InstruSum publicly available to facilitate future research in this direction.
This study introduces a new long-form database question answering dataset designed to evaluate how Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with a SQL interpreter. The task necessitates LLMs to strategically generate multiple SQL queries to retrieve sufficient data from a database, to reason with the acquired context, and to synthesize them into a comprehensive analytical narrative. Our findings highlight that this task poses great challenges even for the state-of-the-art **GPT-4** model. We propose and evaluate two interaction strategies, and provide a fine-grained analysis of the individual stages within the interaction. A key discovery is the identification of two primary bottlenecks hindering effective interaction: the capacity for planning and the ability to generate multiple SQL queries. To address the challenge of accurately assessing answer quality, we introduce a multi-agent evaluation framework that simulates the academic peer-review process, enhancing the precision and reliability of our evaluations. This framework allows for a more nuanced understanding of the strengths and limitations of current LLMs in complex retrieval and reasoning tasks.
Large language models (LLMs), despite their remarkable progress across various general domains, encounter significant barriers in medicine and healthcare. This field faces unique challenges such as domain-specific terminologies and reasoning over specialized knowledge. To address these issues, we propose MedAgents, a novel multi-disciplinary collaboration framework for the medical domain. MedAgents leverages LLM-based agents in a role-playing setting that participate in a collaborative multi-round discussion, thereby enhancing LLM proficiency and reasoning capabilities. This training-free framework encompasses five critical steps: gathering domain experts, proposing individual analyses, summarising these analyses into a report, iterating over discussions until a consensus is reached, and ultimately making a decision. Our work focuses on the zero-shot setting, which is applicable in real-world scenarios. Experimental results on nine datasets (MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and six subtasks from MMLU) establish that our proposed MedAgents framework excels at mining and harnessing the medical expertise within LLMs, as well as extending its reasoning abilities. Our code can be found at https://github.com/gersteinlab/MedAgents.
Evaluating multilingual summarization evaluation metrics, i.e., meta-evaluation, is challenging because of the difficulty of human annotation collection. Therefore, we investigate an efficient multilingual meta-evaluation framework that uses machine translation systems to transform a monolingual meta-evaluation dataset into multilingual versions. To this end, we introduce a statistical test to verify the transformed dataset quality by checking the meta-evaluation result consistency on the original dataset and back-translated dataset. With this quality verification method, we transform an existing English summarization meta-evaluation dataset, RoSE, into 30 languages, and conduct a multilingual meta-evaluation of several representative automatic evaluation metrics. In our meta-evaluation, we find that metric performance varies in different languages and neural metrics generally outperform classical text-matching-based metrics in non-English languages. Moreover, we identify a two-stage evaluation method with superior performance, which first translates multilingual texts into English and then performs evaluation. We make the transformed datasets publicly available to facilitate future research.
Data contamination has garnered increased attention in the era of Large language models (LLMs) due to the reliance on extensive internet-derived training corpora. The issue of training corpus overlap with evaluation benchmarks—referred to as contamination—has been the focus of significant recent research. This body of work aims to identify contamination, understand its impacts, and explore mitigation strategies from diverse perspectives. However, comprehensive studies that provide a clear pathway from foundational concepts to advanced insights are lacking in this nascent field. Therefore, we present the first survey in the field of data contamination. We begin by examining the effects of data contamination across various stages and forms. We then provide a detailed analysis of current contamination detection methods, categorizing them to highlight their focus, assumptions, strengths, and limitations. We also discuss mitigation strategies, offering a clear guide for future research. This survey serves as a succinct overview of the most recent advancements in data contamination research, providing a straightforward guide for the benefit of future research endeavors.
To enhance Large Language Models’ (LLMs) reliability, calibration is essential—the model’s confidence scores should align with the likelihood of its responses being correct. However, traditional calibration methods typically rely on a binary true/false assessment of response correctness, unsuitable for long-form generations where an answer can be partially correct. Addressing this gap, we introduce a unified calibration framework, in which both the correctness of the LLMs’ responses and their associated confidence levels are treated as distributions across a range of scores. We develop three metrics for assessing LLM calibration and propose confidence elicitation methods based on self-consistency and self-evaluation. Our experiments demonstrate that larger models don’t necessarily guarantee better calibration, that various calibration metrics complement each other, and that self-consistency methods excel in factoid datasets. We also find that calibration can be enhanced through techniques such as fine-tuning, scaling the temperature. Finally, we illustrate one application of long-form calibration through selective answering in long-form responses, optimizing correctness within a constrained API budget.
Existing evaluation benchmarks for foundation models in understanding scientific literature predominantly focus on single-document, text-only tasks. Such benchmarks often do not adequately represent the complexity of research workflows, which typically also involve interpreting non-textual data, such as figures and tables, and gathering information across multiple documents and related literature. To address this gap, we introduce M3SciQA, a multi-modal, multi-document scientific question answering benchmark designed for a more comprehensive evaluation of foundation models. M3Sci QA consists of 1452 expert-annotated questions spanning 70 natural language processing paper clusters, where each cluster represents a primary paper along with all its cited documents, mirroring the workflow of comprehending a single paper by requiring multi-modal and multi-document data. With M3SciQA, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 18 frontier foundation models. Our results indicate that current foundation models still significantly underperform compared to human experts in multi-modal information retrieval and in reasoning across multiple scientific documents. Additionally, we explore the implications of these findings for the future advancement of applying foundation models in multi-modal scientific literature analysis.
Existing methods on understanding the capabilities of LLMs in logical reasoning rely on binary entailment classification or synthetically derived rationales, which are not sufficient for properly assessing model’s capabilities. We present P-FOLIO, a human-annotated dataset consisting of diverse and complex reasoning chains for a set of realistic logical reasoning stories also written by humans. P-FOLIO is collected with an annotation protocol that facilitates humans to annotate well-structured natural language proofs for first-order logic reasoning problems in a step-by-step manner. The number of reasoning steps in P-FOLIO span from 0 to 20. We further use P-FOLIO to evaluate and improve large-language-model (LLM) reasoning capabilities. We evaluate LLM reasoning capabilities at a fine granularity via single-step inference rule classification, with more diverse inference rules of more diverse and higher levels of complexities than previous works. Given that a single model-generated reasoning chain could take a completely different path than the human-annotated one, we sample multiple reasoning chains from a model and use pass@k metrics for evaluating the quality of model-generated reasoning chains. We show that human-written reasoning chains significantly boost the logical reasoning capabilities of LLMs via many-shot prompting and fine-tuning. Furthermore, fine-tuning Llam3-7B on P-FOLIO improves the model performance by 10% or more on three other out-of-domain logical reasoning datasets.
Recent studies have found that summaries generated by large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. Therefore, we study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved. To this end, we use LLMs as both oracle summary generators for standard supervised fine-tuning and oracle summary evaluators for efficient contrastive learning that leverages the LLMs’ supervision signals. We conduct comprehensive experiments with source news articles and find that (1) summarization models trained under the LLM-as-reference setting achieve significant performance improvement in both LLM and human evaluations; (2) contrastive learning outperforms standard supervised fine-tuning under both low and high resource settings. Our experimental results also enable a meta-analysis of LLMs’ summary evaluation capacities under a challenging setting, showing that LLMs are not well-aligned with human evaluators. Particularly, our expert human evaluation reveals remaining nuanced performance gaps between LLMs and our fine-tuned models, which LLMs fail to capture. Thus, we call for further studies into both the potential and challenges of using LLMs in summarization model development.
Recent observations have underscored a disparity between the inflated benchmark scores and the actual performance of LLMs, raising concerns about potential contamination of evaluation benchmarks. This issue is especially critical for closed-source models and certain open-source models where training data transparency is lacking. In this paper we study data contamination by proposing two methods tailored for both open-source and proprietary LLMs. We first introduce a retrieval-based system to explore potential overlaps between evaluation benchmarks and pretraining corpora. We further present a novel investigation protocol named Testset Slot Guessing (TS-Guessing), applicable to both open and proprietary models. This approach entails masking a wrong answer in a multiple-choice question and prompting the model to fill in the gap. Additionally, it involves obscuring an unlikely word in an evaluation example and asking the model to produce it. We find that certain commercial LLMs could surprisingly guess the missing option in various test sets. Specifically, in the MMLU benchmark, ChatGPT and GPT-4 demonstrated an exact match rate of 52% and 57%, respectively, in guessing the missing options in benchmark test data. We hope these results underscore the need for more robust evaluation methodologies and benchmarks in the field.
Despite the remarkable capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4, producing complex, structured tabular data remains challenging. Our study assesses LLMs’ proficiency in structuring tables and introduces a novel fine-tuning method, cognizant of data structures, to bolster their performance. We unveil Struc-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark featuring prominent LLMs (GPT-NeoX-20B, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Vicuna), which spans text tables, HTML, and LaTeX formats. Our proposed FormatCoT aids in crafting format-specific instructions from the intended outputs to populate this benchmark. Addressing the gap in task-centered evaluation, we propose two innovative metrics, P-Score (Prompting Score) and H-Score (Heuristical Score), to more accurately gauge LLM performance. Our experiments show that applying our structure-aware fine-tuning to LLaMA-7B leads to substantial performance gains, outshining its LLM counterparts across most measures. In-depth error analysis and creating an ability map across six dimensions, coverage, formatting, reasoning, comprehension, pragmatics, and hallucination, highlight areas for future enhancements and suggest forthcoming research trajectories. Our code and models can be found at https://github.com/gersteinlab/Struc-Bench.
Diffusion models have emerged as a powerful paradigm for generation, obtaining strong performance in various continuous domains. However, applying continuous diffusion models to natural language remains challenging due to its discrete nature and the need for a large number of diffusion steps to generate text, making diffusion-based generation expensive.In this work, we propose Text-to-text Self-conditioned Simplex Diffusion (TESS), a text diffusion model that is fully non-autoregressive, employs a new form of self-conditioning, and applies the diffusion process on the logit simplex space rather than the learned embedding space.Through extensive experiments on natural language understanding and generation tasks including summarization, text simplification, paraphrase generation, and question generation, we demonstrate that TESS outperforms state-of-the-art non-autoregressive models, requires fewer diffusion steps with minimal drop in performance, and is competitive with pretrained autoregressive sequence-to-sequence models.
Text summarization and simplification are among the most widely used applications of AI. However, such models are often prone to hallucination, which can result from training models on unaligned data. One efficient approach to address this issue is Loss Truncation (Kang and Hashimoto, 2020), an approach to modify the standard log loss to adaptively remove noisy examples during training. However, we find that LT alone yields a considerable number of hallucinated entities on various datasets. We study the behavior of the underlying losses between factual and non-factual examples, to understand and refine the performance of LT. We demonstrate that LT’s performance is limited when the underlying assumption that noisy targets have higher NLL loss is not satisfied, and find that word-level NLL among entities provides better signal for distinguishing factuality. We then leverage this to propose a fine-grained NLL loss and fine-grained data cleaning strategies, and observe improvements in hallucination reduction across some datasets. Our work is available at https://github.com/yale-nlp/Simplification-Projects.
Long-form Table Question Answering (LFTQA) requires systems to generate paragraph long and complex answers to questions over tabular data. While Large language models based systems have made significant progress, it often hallucinates, especially when the task involves complex reasoning over tables. To tackle this issue, we propose a new LLM-based framework, TaPERA, for LFTQA tasks. Our framework uses a modular approach that decomposes the whole process into three sub-modules: 1) QA-based Content Planner that iteratively decomposes the input question into sub-questions; 2) Execution-based Table Reasoner that produces executable Python program for each sub-question; and 3) Answer Generator that generates long-form answer grounded on the program output. Human evaluation results on the FeTaQA and QTSumm datasets indicate that our framework significantly improves strong baselines on both accuracy and truthfulness, as our modular framework is better at table reasoning, and the long-form answer is always consistent with the program output. Our modular design further provides transparency as users are able to interact with our framework by manually changing the content plans.
We introduce FinanceMath, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' capabilities in solving knowledge-intensive math reasoning problems. Compared to prior works, this study features three core advancements. First, FinanceMath includes 1,200 problems with a hybrid of textual and tabular content. These problems require college-level knowledge in the finance domain for effective resolution. Second, we provide expert-annotated, detailed solution references in Python program format, ensuring a high-quality benchmark for LLM assessment. We also construct a finance-domain knowledge bank and investigate various knowledge integration strategies. Finally, we evaluate a wide spectrum of 44 LLMs with both Chain-of-Thought and Program-of-Thought prompting methods. Our experimental results reveal that the current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4o) achieves only 60.9% accuracy using CoT prompting, leaving substantial room for improvement. Moreover, while augmenting LLMs with external knowledge can improve model performance (e.g., from 47.5% to 54.5% for Gemini-1.5-Pro), their accuracy remains significantly lower than the estimated human expert performance of 92%. We believe that FinanceMath can advance future research in the area of domain-specific knowledge retrieval and integration, particularly within the context of solving reasoning-intensive tasks.
While large language models have achieved remarkable performance on various code generation benchmarks, there have been growing concerns regarding potential contamination of these benchmarks as they may be leaked into pretraining and finetuning data. While recent work has investigated contamination in natural language generation and understanding tasks, there has been less extensive research into how data contamination impacts the evaluation of code generation, which is critical for understanding the robustness and reliability of LLMs in programming contexts. In this work, we perform a comprehensive study of data contamination of popular code generation benchmarks, and precisely quantify their overlap with pretraining corpus through both surface-level and semantic-level matching. In our experiments, we show that there are substantial overlap between popular code generation benchmarks and open training corpus, and models perform significantly better on the subset of the benchmarks where similar solutions are seen during training. We also conduct extensive analysis on the factors that affect model memorization and generalization, such as model size, problem difficulty, and question length. We release all resulting files from our matching pipeline for future research.
Language models (LMs) have become ubiquitous in both NLP research and in commercial product offerings. As their commercial importance has surged, the most powerful models have become closed off, gated behind proprietary interfaces, with important details of their training data, architectures, and development undisclosed. Given the importance of these details in scientifically studying these models, including their biases and potential risks, we believe it is essential for the research community to have access to powerful, truly open LMs. To this end, we have built OLMo, a competitive, truly Open Language Model, to enable the scientific study of language models. Unlike most prior efforts that have only released model weights and inference code, we release OLMo alongside open training data and training and evaluation code. We hope this release will empower the open research community and inspire a new wave of innovation.
Recent LLMs have demonstrated remarkable performance in solving exam-like math word problems. However, the degree to which these numerical reasoning skills are effective in real-world scenarios, particularly in expert domains, is still largely unexplored. This paper introduces DocMath-Eval, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the numerical reasoning capabilities of LLMs in the context of understanding and analyzing specialized documents containing both text and tables. We conduct an extensive evaluation of 48 LLMs with Chain-of-Thought and Program-of-Thought prompting methods, aiming to comprehensively assess the capabilities and limitations of existing LLMs in DocMath-Eval. We found that even the current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4o) still significantly lags behind human experts in solving complex numerical reasoning problems grounded in long contexts. We believe that DocMath-Eval can serve as a valuable benchmark for evaluating LLMs' capabilities in solving challenging numerical reasoning problems within expert domains.
The integration of multi-document pre-training objectives into language models has resulted in remarkable improvements in multi-document downstream tasks. In this work, we propose extending this idea by pre-training a generic multi-document model from a novel cross-document question answering pre-training objective. To that end, given a set (or cluster) of topically-related documents, we systematically generate semantically-oriented questions from a salient sentence in one document and challenge the model, during pre-training, to answer these questions while “peeking” into other topically-related documents. In a similar manner, the model is also challenged to recover the sentence from which the question was generated, again while leveraging cross-document information. This novel multi-document QA formulation directs the model to better recover cross-text informational relations, and introduces a natural augmentation that artificially increases the pre-training data. Further, unlike prior multi-document models that focus on either classification or summarization tasks, our pre-training objective formulation enables the model to perform tasks that involve both short text generation (e.g., QA) and long text generation (e.g., summarization).Following this scheme, we pre-train our model - termed QAmden - and evaluate its performance across several multi-document tasks, including multi-document QA, summarization, and query-focused summarization, yielding improvements of up to 7%, and significantly outperforms zero-shot GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.
There are a growing number of table pre-training methods proposed for reasoning over tabular data (e.g., question answering, fact checking, and faithful text generation). However, most existing methods are benchmarked solely on a limited number of datasets, varying in configuration, which leads to a lack of unified, standardized, fair, and comprehensive comparison between methods. This paper presents OpenRT, the first open-source framework for reasoning over tabular data, to reproduce existing table pre-training models for performance comparison and develop new models quickly. We implemented and compared six table pre-training models on four question answering, one fact checking, and one faithful text generation datasets. Moreover, to enable the community to easily construct new table reasoning datasets, we developed TaRAT, an annotation tool which supports multi-person collaborative annotations for various kinds of table reasoning tasks. The researchers are able to deploy the newly-constructed dataset to OpenRT and compare the performances of different baseline systems.
Real-world applications of neural language models often involve running many different models over the same corpus. The high computational cost of these runs has led to interest in techniques that can reuse the contextualized embeddings produced in previous runs to speed training and inference of future ones. We refer to this approach as embedding recycling (ER). While multiple ER techniques have been proposed, their practical effectiveness is still unknown because existing evaluations consider very few models and do not adequately account for overhead costs. We perform an extensive evaluation of ER across eight different models (17 to 900 million parameters) and fourteen tasks in English. We show how a simple ER technique that caches activations from an intermediate layer of a pretrained model, and learns task-specific adapters on the later layers, is broadly effective. For the best-performing baseline in our experiments (DeBERTa-v2 XL), adding a precomputed cache results in a 90% speedup during training and 87-91% speedup for inference, with negligible impact on accuracy. Our analysis reveals important areas of future work.
Text simplification has emerged as an increasingly useful application of AI for bridging the communication gap in specialized fields such as medicine, where the lexicon is often dominated by technical jargon and complex constructs. Despite notable progress, methods in medical simplification sometimes result in the generated text having lower quality and diversity. In this work, we explore ways to further improve the readability of text simplification in the medical domain. We propose (1) a new unlikelihood loss that encourages generation of simpler terms and (2) a reranked beam search decoding method that optimizes for simplicity, which achieve better performance on readability metrics on three datasets. This study’s findings offer promising avenues for improving text simplification in the medical field.
Multi-document summarization (MDS) assumes a set of topic-related documents are provided as input. In practice, this document set is not always available; it would need to be retrieved given an information need, i.e. a question or topic statement, a setting we dub “open-domain’ MDS. We study this more challenging setting by formalizing the task and bootstrapping it using existing datasets, retrievers and summarizers. Via extensive automatic and human evaluation, we determine: (1) state-of-the-art summarizers suffer large reductions in performance when applied to open-domain MDS, (2) additional training in the open-domain setting can reduce this sensitivity to imperfect retrieval, and (3) summarizers are insensitive to the retrieval of duplicate documents and the order of retrieved documents, but highly sensitive to other errors, like the retrieval of irrelevant documents. Based on our results, we provide practical guidelines to enable future work on open-domain MDS, e.g. how to choose the number of retrieved documents to summarize. Our results suggest that new retrieval and summarization methods and annotated resources for training and evaluation are necessary for further progress in the open-domain setting.
In-context learning (ICL) has emerged as a new approach to various natural language processing tasks, utilizing large language models (LLMs) to make predictions based on context that has been supplemented with a few examples or task-specific instructions. In this paper, we aim to extend this method to question answering tasks that utilize structured knowledge sources, and improve Text-to-SQL systems by exploring various prompt design strategies for employing LLMs. We conduct a systematic investigation into different demonstration selection methods and optimal instruction formats for prompting LLMs in the Text-to-SQL task. Our approach involves leveraging the syntactic structure of an example’s SQL query to retrieve demonstrations, and we demonstrate that pursuing both diversity and similarity in demonstration selection leads to enhanced performance. Furthermore, we show that LLMs benefit from database-related knowledge augmentations. Our most effective strategy outperforms the state-of-the-art system by 2.5 points (Execution Accuracy) and the best fine-tuned system by 5.1 points on the Spider dataset. These results highlight the effectiveness of our approach in adapting LLMs to the Text-to-SQL task, and we present an analysis of the factors contributing to the success of our strategy.
People primarily consult tables to conduct data analysis or answer specific questions. Text generation systems that can provide accurate table summaries tailored to users’ information needs can facilitate more efficient access to relevant data insights. Motivated by this, we define a new query-focused table summarization task, where text generation models have to perform human-like reasoning and analysis over the given table to generate a tailored summary. We introduce a new benchmark named QTSumm for this task, which contains 7,111 human-annotated query-summary pairs over 2,934 tables covering diverse topics. We investigate a set of strong baselines on QTSumm, including text generation, table-to-text generation, and large language models. Experimental results and manual analysis reveal that the new task presents significant challenges in table-to-text generation for future research. Moreover, we propose a new approach named ReFactor, to retrieve and reason over query-relevant information from tabular data to generate several natural language facts. Experimental results demonstrate that ReFactor can bring effective improvements to baselines by concatenating the generated facts to the model input. Our data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/yale-nlp/QTSumm.
Many real-world applications (e.g., note taking, search) require extracting a sentence or paragraph from a document and showing that snippet to a human outside of the source document. Yet, users may find snippets difficult to understand as they lack context from the original document. In this work, we use language models to rewrite snippets from scientific documents to be read on their own. First, we define the requirements and challenges for this user-facing decontextualization task, such as clarifying where edits occur and handling references to other documents. Second, we propose a framework that decomposes the task into three stages: question generation, question answering, and rewriting. Using this framework, we collect gold decontextualizations from experienced scientific article readers. We then conduct a range of experiments across state-of-the-art commercial and open-source language models to identify how to best provide missing-but-relevant information to models for our task. Finally, we develop QaDecontext, a simple prompting strategy inspired by our framework that improves over end-to-end prompting. We conclude with analysis that finds, while rewriting is easy, question generation and answering remain challenging for today’s models.
Learned representations of scientific documents can serve as valuable input features for downstream tasks without further fine-tuning. However, existing benchmarks for evaluating these representations fail to capture the diversity of relevant tasks. In response, we introduce SciRepEval, the first comprehensive benchmark for training and evaluating scientific document representations. It includes 24 challenging and realistic tasks, 8 of which are new, across four formats: classification, regression, ranking and search. We then use this benchmark to study and improve the generalization ability of scientific document representation models. We show how state-of-the-art models like SPECTER and SciNCL struggle to generalize across the task formats, and that simple multi-task training fails to improve them. However, a new approach that learns multiple embeddings per document, each tailored to a different format, can improve performance. We experiment with task-format-specific control codes and adapters and find they outperform the existing single-embedding state-of-the-art by over 2 points absolute. We release the resulting family of multi-format models, called SPECTER2, for the community to use and build on.
Tabular data is prevalent across various industries, necessitating significant time and effort for users to understand and manipulate for their information-seeking purposes. The advancements in large language models (LLMs) have shown enormous potential to improve user efficiency. However, the adoption of LLMs in real-world applications for table information seeking remains underexplored. In this paper, we investigate the table-to-text capabilities of different LLMs using four datasets within two real-world information seeking scenarios. These include the LogicNLG and our newly-constructed LoTNLG datasets for data insight generation, along with the FeTaQA and our newly-constructed F2WTQ datasets for query-based generation. We structure our investigation around three research questions, evaluating the performance of LLMs in table-to-text generation, automated evaluation, and feedback generation, respectively. Experimental results indicate that the current high-performing LLM, specifically GPT-4, can effectively serve as a table-to-text generator, evaluator, and feedback generator, facilitating users’ information seeking purposes in real-world scenarios. However, a significant performance gap still exists between other open-sourced LLMs (e.g., Vicuna and LLaMA-2) and GPT-4 models. Our data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/yale-nlp/LLM-T2T.
While human evaluation remains best practice for accurately judging the faithfulness of automatically-generated summaries, few solutions exist to address the increased difficulty and workload when evaluating long-form summaries. Through a survey of 162 papers on long-form summarization, we first shed light on current human evaluation practices surrounding long-form summaries. We find that 73% of these papers do not perform any human evaluation on model-generated summaries, while other works face new difficulties that manifest when dealing with long documents (e.g., low inter-annotator agreement). Motivated by our survey, we present LongEval, a set of guidelines for human evaluation of faithfulness in long-form summaries that addresses the following challenges: (1) How can we achieve high inter-annotator agreement on faithfulness scores? (2) How can we minimize annotator workload while maintaining accurate faithfulness scores? and (3) Do humans benefit from automated alignment between summary and source snippets? We deploy LongEval in annotation studies on two long-form summarization datasets in different domains (SQuALITY and PubMed), and we find that switching to a finer granularity of judgment (e.g., clause-level) reduces inter-annotator variance in faithfulness scores (e.g., std-dev from 18.5 to 6.8). We also show that scores from a partial annotation of fine-grained units highly correlates with scores from a full annotation workload (0.89 Kendall’s tau using 50% judgements). We release our human judgments, annotation templates, and software as a Python library for future research.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of medical research, accurate and concise summarization of clinical studies is crucial to support evidence-based practice. This paper presents a novel approach to clinical studies summarization, leveraging reinforcement learning to enhance factual consistency and align with human annotator preferences. Our work focuses on two tasks: Conclusion Generation and Review Generation. We train a CONFIT summarization model that outperforms GPT-3 and previous state-of-the-art models on the same datasets and collects expert and crowd-worker annotations to evaluate the quality and factual consistency of the generated summaries. These annotations enable us to measure the correlation of various automatic metrics, including modern factual evaluation metrics like QAFactEval, with human-assessed factual consistency. By employing top-correlated metrics as objectives for a reinforcement learning model, we demonstrate improved factuality in generated summaries that are preferred by human annotators.
Citation context analysis (CCA) is an important task in natural language processing that studies how and why scholars discuss each others’ work. Despite decades of study, computational methods for CCA have largely relied on overly-simplistic assumptions of how authors cite, which ignore several important phenomena. For instance, scholarly papers often contain rich discussions of cited work that span multiple sentences and express multiple intents concurrently. Yet, recent work in CCA is often approached as a single-sentence, single-label classification task, and thus many datasets used to develop modern computational approaches fail to capture this interesting discourse. To address this research gap, we highlight three understudied phenomena for CCA and release MULTICITE, a new dataset of 12.6K citation contexts from 1.2K computational linguistics papers that fully models these phenomena. Not only is it the largest collection of expert-annotated citation contexts to-date, MULTICITE contains multi-sentence, multi-label citation contexts annotated through-out entire full paper texts. We demonstrate how MULTICITE can enable the development of new computational methods on three important CCA tasks. We release our code and dataset at https://github.com/allenai/multicite.
Long-context question answering (QA) tasks require reasoning over a long document or multiple documents. Addressing these tasks often benefits from identifying a set of evidence spans (e.g., sentences), which provide supporting evidence for answering the question. In this work, we propose a novel method for equipping long-context QA models with an additional sequence-level objective for better identification of the supporting evidence. We achieve this via an additional contrastive supervision signal in finetuning, where the model is encouraged to explicitly discriminate supporting evidence sentences from negative ones by maximizing question-evidence similarity. The proposed additional loss exhibits consistent improvements on three different strong long-context transformer models, across two challenging question answering benchmarks – HotpotQA and QAsper.
We present a new scientific document similarity model based on matching fine-grained aspects of texts. To train our model, we exploit a naturally-occurring source of supervision: sentences in the full-text of papers that cite multiple papers together (co-citations). Such co-citations not only reflect close paper relatedness, but also provide textual descriptions of how the co-cited papers are related. This novel form of textual supervision is used for learning to match aspects across papers. We develop multi-vector representations where vectors correspond to sentence-level aspects of documents, and present two methods for aspect matching: (1) A fast method that only matches single aspects, and (2) a method that makes sparse multiple matches with an Optimal Transport mechanism that computes an Earth Mover’s Distance between aspects. Our approach improves performance on document similarity tasks in four datasets. Further, our fast single-match method achieves competitive results, paving the way for applying fine-grained similarity to large scientific corpora.
Automated scientific fact checking is difficult due to the complexity of scientific language and a lack of significant amounts of training data, as annotation requires domain expertise. To address this challenge, we propose scientific claim generation, the task of generating one or more atomic and verifiable claims from scientific sentences, and demonstrate its usefulness in zero-shot fact checking for biomedical claims. We propose CLAIMGEN-BART, a new supervised method for generating claims supported by the literature, as well as KBIN, a novel method for generating claim negations. Additionally, we adapt an existing unsupervised entity-centric method of claim generation to biomedical claims, which we call CLAIMGEN-ENTITY. Experiments on zero-shot fact checking demonstrate that both CLAIMGEN-ENTITY and CLAIMGEN-BART, coupled with KBIN, achieve up to 90% performance of fully supervised models trained on manually annotated claims and evidence. A rigorous evaluation study demonstrates significant improvement in generated claim and negation quality over existing baselines
We introduce PRIMERA, a pre-trained model for multi-document representation with a focus on summarization that reduces the need for dataset-specific architectures and large amounts of fine-tuning labeled data. PRIMERA uses our newly proposed pre-training objective designed to teach the model to connect and aggregate information across documents. It also uses efficient encoder-decoder transformers to simplify the processing of concatenated input documents. With extensive experiments on 6 multi-document summarization datasets from 3 different domains on zero-shot, few-shot and full-supervised settings, PRIMERA outperforms current state-of-the-art dataset-specific and pre-trained models on most of these settings with large margins.
Automated methods have been widely used to identify and analyze mental health conditions (e.g., depression) from various sources of information, including social media. Yet, deployment of such models in real-world healthcare applications faces challenges including poor out-of-domain generalization and lack of trust in black box models. In this work, we propose approaches for depression detection that are constrained to different degrees by the presence of symptoms described in PHQ9, a questionnaire used by clinicians in the depression screening process. In dataset-transfer experiments on three social media datasets, we find that grounding the model in PHQ9’s symptoms substantially improves its ability to generalize to out-of-distribution data compared to a standard BERT-based approach. Furthermore, this approach can still perform competitively on in-domain data. These results and our qualitative analyses suggest that grounding model predictions in clinically-relevant symptoms can improve generalizability while producing a model that is easier to inspect.
The ability to efficiently learn from little-to-no data is critical to applying NLP to tasks where data collection is costly or otherwise difficult. This is a challenging setting both academically and practically—particularly because training neutral models typically require large amount of labeled data. More recently, advances in pretraining on unlabelled data have brought up the potential of better zero-shot or few-shot learning (Devlin et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020). In particular, over the past year, a great deal of research has been conducted to better learn from limited data using large-scale language models. In this tutorial, we aim at bringing interested NLP researchers up to speed about the recent and ongoing techniques for zero- and few-shot learning with pretrained language models. Additionally, our goal is to reveal new research opportunities to the audience, which will hopefully bring us closer to address existing challenges in this domain.
The scientific claim verification task requires an NLP system to label scientific documents which Support or Refute an input claim, and to select evidentiary sentences (or rationales) justifying each predicted label. In this work, we present MultiVerS, which predicts a fact-checking label and identifies rationales in a multitask fashion based on a shared encoding of the claim and full document context. This approach accomplishes two key modeling goals. First, it ensures that all relevant contextual information is incorporated into each labeling decision. Second, it enables the model to learn from instances annotated with a document-level fact-checking label, but lacking sentence-level rationales. This allows MultiVerS to perform weakly-supervised domain adaptation by training on scientific documents labeled using high-precision heuristics. Our approach outperforms two competitive baselines on three scientific claim verification datasets, with particularly strong performance in zero / few-shot domain adaptation experiments. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/dwadden/multivers.
While research on scientific claim verification has led to the development of powerful systems that appear to approach human performance, these approaches have yet to be tested in a realistic setting against large corpora of scientific literature. Moving to this open-domain evaluation setting, however, poses unique challenges; in particular, it is infeasible to exhaustively annotate all evidence documents. In this work, we present SciFact-Open, a new test collection designed to evaluate the performance of scientific claim verification systems on a corpus of 500K research abstracts. Drawing upon pooling techniques from information retrieval, we collect evidence for scientific claims by pooling and annotating the top predictions of four state-of-the-art scientific claim verification models. We find that systems developed on smaller corpora struggle to generalize to SciFact-Open, exhibiting performance drops of at least 15 F1. In addition, analysis of the evidence in SciFact-Open reveals interesting phenomena likely to appear when claim verification systems are deployed in practice, e.g., cases where the evidence supports only a special case of the claim. Our dataset is available at https://github.com/dwadden/scifact-open.
Pretrained contextualized language models such as BERT and T5 have established a new state-of-the-art for ad-hoc search. However, it is not yet well understood why these methods are so effective, what makes some variants more effective than others, and what pitfalls they may have. We present a new comprehensive framework for Analyzing the Behavior of Neural IR ModeLs (ABNIRML), which includes new types of diagnostic probes that allow us to test several characteristics—such as writing styles, factuality, sensitivity to paraphrasing and word order—that are not addressed by previous techniques. To demonstrate the value of the framework, we conduct an extensive empirical study that yields insights into the factors that contribute to the neural model’s gains, and identify potential unintended biases the models exhibit. Some of our results confirm conventional wisdom, for example, that recent neural ranking models rely less on exact term overlap with the query, and instead leverage richer linguistic information, evidenced by their higher sensitivity to word and sentence order. Other results are more surprising, such as that some models (e.g., T5 and ColBERT) are biased towards factually correct (rather than simply relevant) texts. Further, some characteristics vary even for the same base language model, and other characteristics can appear due to random variations during model training.1
With the ever-increasing pace of research and high volume of scholarly communication, scholars face a daunting task. Not only must they keep up with the growing literature in their own and related fields, scholars increasingly also need to rebut pseudo-science and disinformation. These needs have motivated an increasing focus on computational methods for enhancing search, summarization, and analysis of scholarly documents. However, the various strands of research on scholarly document processing remain fragmented. To reach out to the broader NLP and AI/ML community, pool distributed efforts in this area, and enable shared access to published research, we held the 3rd Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing (SDP) at COLING as a hybrid event (https://sdproc.org/2022/). The SDP workshop consisted of a research track, three invited talks and five Shared Tasks: 1) MSLR22: Multi-Document Summarization for Literature Reviews, 2) DAGPap22: Detecting automatically generated scientific papers, 3) SV-Ident 2022: Survey Variable Identification in Social Science Publications, 4) SKGG: Scholarly Knowledge Graph Generation, 5) MuP 2022: Multi Perspective Scientific Document Summarization. The program was geared towards NLP, information retrieval, and data mining for scholarly documents, with an emphasis on identifying and providing solutions to open challenges.
We present the main findings of MuP 2022 shared task, the first shared task on multi-perspective scientific document summarization. The task provides a testbed representing challenges for summarization of scientific documents, and facilitates development of better models to leverage summaries generated from multiple perspectives. We received 139 total submissions from 9 teams. We evaluated submissions both by automated metrics (i.e., Rouge) and human judgments on faithfulness, coverage, and readability which provided a more nuanced view of the differences between the systems. While we observe encouraging results from the participating teams, we conclude that there is still significant room left for improving summarization leveraging multiple references. Our dataset is available at https://github.com/allenai/mup.
Despite the progress made in recent years in addressing natural language understanding (NLU) challenges, the majority of this progress remains to be concentrated on resource-rich languages like English. This work focuses on Persian language, one of the widely spoken languages in the world, and yet there are few NLU datasets available for this language. The availability of high-quality evaluation datasets is a necessity for reliable assessment of the progress on different NLU tasks and domains. We introduce ParsiNLU, the first benchmark in Persian language that includes a range of language understanding tasks—reading comprehension, textual entailment, and so on. These datasets are collected in a multitude of ways, often involving manual annotations by native speakers. This results in over 14.5k new instances across 6 distinct NLU tasks. Additionally, we present the first results on state-of-the-art monolingual and multilingual pre-trained language models on this benchmark and compare them with human performance, which provides valuable insights into our ability to tackle natural language understanding challenges in Persian. We hope ParsiNLU fosters further research and advances in Persian language understanding.1
Readers of academic research papers often read with the goal of answering specific questions. Question Answering systems that can answer those questions can make consumption of the content much more efficient. However, building such tools requires data that reflect the difficulty of the task arising from complex reasoning about claims made in multiple parts of a paper. In contrast, existing information-seeking question answering datasets usually contain questions about generic factoid-type information. We therefore present Qasper, a dataset of 5049 questions over 1585 Natural Language Processing papers. Each question is written by an NLP practitioner who read only the title and abstract of the corresponding paper, and the question seeks information present in the full text. The questions are then answered by a separate set of NLP practitioners who also provide supporting evidence to answers. We find that existing models that do well on other QA tasks do not perform well on answering these questions, underperforming humans by at least 27 F1 points when answering them from entire papers, motivating further research in document-grounded, information-seeking QA, which our dataset is designed to facilitate.
In this tutorial, we aim at bringing interested NLP researchers up to speed about the recent and ongoing techniques for document-level representation learning. Additionally, our goal is to reveal new research opportunities to the audience, which will hopefully bring us closer to address existing challenges in this domain.
We introduce a new pretraining approach geared for multi-document language modeling, incorporating two key ideas into the masked language modeling self-supervised objective. First, instead of considering documents in isolation, we pretrain over sets of multiple related documents, encouraging the model to learn cross-document relationships. Second, we improve over recent long-range transformers by introducing dynamic global attention that has access to the entire input to predict masked tokens. We release CDLM (Cross-Document Language Model), a new general language model for multi-document setting that can be easily applied to downstream tasks. Our extensive analysis shows that both ideas are essential for the success of CDLM, and work in synergy to set new state-of-the-art results for several multi-text tasks.
With the ever-increasing pace of research and high volume of scholarly communication, scholars face a daunting task. Not only must they keep up with the growing literature in their own and related fields, scholars increasingly also need to rebut pseudo-science and disinformation. These needs have motivated an increasing focus on computational methods for enhancing search, summarization, and analysis of scholarly documents. However, the various strands of research on scholarly document processing remain fragmented. To reach out to the broader NLP and AI/ML community, pool distributed efforts in this area, and enable shared access to published research, we held the 2nd Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing (SDP) at NAACL 2021 as a virtual event (https://sdproc.org/2021/). The SDP workshop consisted of a research track, three invited talks, and three Shared Tasks (LongSumm 2021, SCIVER, and 3C). The program was geared towards the application of NLP, information retrieval, and data mining for scholarly documents, with an emphasis on identifying and providing solutions to open challenges.
This paper presents our methods for the LongSumm 2020: Shared Task on Generating Long Summaries for Scientific Documents, where the task is to generatelong summaries given a set of scientific papers provided by the organizers. We explore 3 main approaches for this task: 1. An extractive approach using a BERT-based summarization model; 2. A two stage model that additionally includes an abstraction step using BART; and 3. A new multi-tasking approach on incorporating document structure into the summarizer. We found that our new multi-tasking approach outperforms the two other methods by large margins. Among 9 participants in the shared task, our best model ranks top according to Rouge-1 score (53.11%) while staying competitive in terms of Rouge-2.
Representation learning is a critical ingredient for natural language processing systems. Recent Transformer language models like BERT learn powerful textual representations, but these models are targeted towards token- and sentence-level training objectives and do not leverage information on inter-document relatedness, which limits their document-level representation power. For applications on scientific documents, such as classification and recommendation, accurate embeddings of documents are a necessity. We propose SPECTER, a new method to generate document-level embedding of scientific papers based on pretraining a Transformer language model on a powerful signal of document-level relatedness: the citation graph. Unlike existing pretrained language models, Specter can be easily applied to downstream applications without task-specific fine-tuning. Additionally, to encourage further research on document-level models, we introduce SciDocs, a new evaluation benchmark consisting of seven document-level tasks ranging from citation prediction, to document classification and recommendation. We show that Specter outperforms a variety of competitive baselines on the benchmark.
Dietary supplements are used by a large portion of the population, but information on their pharmacologic interactions is incomplete. To address this challenge, we present SUPP.AI, an application for browsing evidence of supplement-drug interactions (SDIs) extracted from the biomedical literature. We train a model to automatically extract supplement information and identify such interactions from the scientific literature. To address the lack of labeled data for SDI identification, we use labels of the closely related task of identifying drug-drug interactions (DDIs) for supervision. We fine-tune the contextualized word representations of the RoBERTa language model using labeled DDI data, and apply the fine-tuned model to identify supplement interactions. We extract 195k evidence sentences from 22M articles (P=0.82, R=0.58, F1=0.68) for 60k interactions. We create the SUPP.AI application for users to search evidence sentences extracted by our model. SUPP.AI is an attempt to close the information gap on dietary supplements by making up-to-date evidence on SDIs more discoverable for researchers, clinicians, and consumers. An informational video on how to use SUPP.AI is available at: https://youtu.be/dR0ucKdORwc
We introduce TLDR generation, a new form of extreme summarization, for scientific papers. TLDR generation involves high source compression and requires expert background knowledge and understanding of complex domain-specific language. To facilitate study on this task, we introduce SCITLDR, a new multi-target dataset of 5.4K TLDRs over 3.2K papers. SCITLDR contains both author-written and expert-derived TLDRs, where the latter are collected using a novel annotation protocol that produces high-quality summaries while minimizing annotation burden. We propose CATTS, a simple yet effective learning strategy for generating TLDRs that exploits titles as an auxiliary training signal. CATTS improves upon strong baselines under both automated metrics and human evaluations. Data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/allenai/scitldr.
With worldwide concerns surrounding the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), there is a rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the virus. Clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers need to be able to search these articles effectively. In this work, we present a zero-shot ranking algorithm that adapts to COVID-related scientific literature. Our approach filters training data from another collection down to medical-related queries, uses a neural re-ranking model pre-trained on scientific text (SciBERT), and filters the target document collection. This approach ranks top among zero-shot methods on the TREC COVID Round 1 leaderboard, and exhibits a P@5 of 0.80 and an nDCG@10 of 0.68 when evaluated on both Round 1 and 2 judgments. Despite not relying on TREC-COVID data, our method outperforms models that do. As one of the first search methods to thoroughly evaluate COVID-19 search, we hope that this serves as a strong baseline and helps in the global crisis.
We introduce scientific claim verification, a new task to select abstracts from the research literature containing evidence that SUPPORTS or REFUTES a given scientific claim, and to identify rationales justifying each decision. To study this task, we construct SciFact, a dataset of 1.4K expert-written scientific claims paired with evidence-containing abstracts annotated with labels and rationales. We develop baseline models for SciFact, and demonstrate that simple domain adaptation techniques substantially improve performance compared to models trained on Wikipedia or political news. We show that our system is able to verify claims related to COVID-19 by identifying evidence from the CORD-19 corpus. Our experiments indicate that SciFact will provide a challenging testbed for the development of new systems designed to retrieve and reason over corpora containing specialized domain knowledge. Data and code for this new task are publicly available at https://github.com/allenai/scifact. A leaderboard and COVID-19 fact-checking demo are available at https://scifact.apps.allenai.org.
Identifying the intent of a citation in scientific papers (e.g., background information, use of methods, comparing results) is critical for machine reading of individual publications and automated analysis of the scientific literature. We propose structural scaffolds, a multitask model to incorporate structural information of scientific papers into citations for effective classification of citation intents. Our model achieves a new state-of-the-art on an existing ACL anthology dataset (ACL-ARC) with a 13.3% absolute increase in F1 score, without relying on external linguistic resources or hand-engineered features as done in existing methods. In addition, we introduce a new dataset of citation intents (SciCite) which is more than five times larger and covers multiple scientific domains compared with existing datasets. Our code and data are available at: https://github.com/allenai/scicite.
Obtaining large-scale annotated data for NLP tasks in the scientific domain is challenging and expensive. We release SciBERT, a pretrained language model based on BERT (Devlin et. al., 2018) to address the lack of high-quality, large-scale labeled scientific data. SciBERT leverages unsupervised pretraining on a large multi-domain corpus of scientific publications to improve performance on downstream scientific NLP tasks. We evaluate on a suite of tasks including sequence tagging, sentence classification and dependency parsing, with datasets from a variety of scientific domains. We demonstrate statistically significant improvements over BERT and achieve new state-of-the-art results on several of these tasks. The code and pretrained models are available at https://github.com/allenai/scibert/.
As a step toward better document-level understanding, we explore classification of a sequence of sentences into their corresponding categories, a task that requires understanding sentences in context of the document. Recent successful models for this task have used hierarchical models to contextualize sentence representations, and Conditional Random Fields (CRFs) to incorporate dependencies between subsequent labels. In this work, we show that pretrained language models, BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) in particular, can be used for this task to capture contextual dependencies without the need for hierarchical encoding nor a CRF. Specifically, we construct a joint sentence representation that allows BERT Transformer layers to directly utilize contextual information from all words in all sentences. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art results on four datasets, including a new dataset of structured scientific abstracts.
Neural abstractive summarization models have led to promising results in summarizing relatively short documents. We propose the first model for abstractive summarization of single, longer-form documents (e.g., research papers). Our approach consists of a new hierarchical encoder that models the discourse structure of a document, and an attentive discourse-aware decoder to generate the summary. Empirical results on two large-scale datasets of scientific papers show that our model significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models.
Mental health is a significant and growing public health concern. As language usage can be leveraged to obtain crucial insights into mental health conditions, there is a need for large-scale, labeled, mental health-related datasets of users who have been diagnosed with one or more of such conditions. In this paper, we investigate the creation of high-precision patterns to identify self-reported diagnoses of nine different mental health conditions, and obtain high-quality labeled data without the need for manual labelling. We introduce the SMHD (Self-reported Mental Health Diagnoses) dataset and make it available. SMHD is a novel large dataset of social media posts from users with one or multiple mental health conditions along with matched control users. We examine distinctions in users’ language, as measured by linguistic and psychological variables. We further explore text classification methods to identify individuals with mental conditions through their language.
Self-reported diagnosis statements have been widely employed in studying language related to mental health in social media. However, existing research has largely ignored the temporality of mental health diagnoses. In this work, we introduce RSDD-Time: a new dataset of 598 manually annotated self-reported depression diagnosis posts from Reddit that include temporal information about the diagnosis. Annotations include whether a mental health condition is present and how recently the diagnosis happened. Furthermore, we include exact temporal spans that relate to the date of diagnosis. This information is valuable for various computational methods to examine mental health through social media because one’s mental health state is not static. We also test several baseline classification and extraction approaches, which suggest that extracting temporal information from self-reported diagnosis statements is challenging.
In recent years, online communities have formed around suicide and self-harm prevention. While these communities offer support in moment of crisis, they can also normalize harmful behavior, discourage professional treatment, and instigate suicidal ideation. In this work, we focus on how interaction with others in such a community affects the mental state of users who are seeking support. We first build a dataset of conversation threads between users in a distressed state and community members offering support. We then show how to construct a classifier to predict whether distressed users are helped or harmed by the interactions in the thread, and we achieve a macro-F1 score of up to 0.69.
SemEval 2018 Task 7 focuses on relation extraction and classification in scientific literature. In this work, we present our tree-based LSTM network for this shared task. Our approach placed 9th (of 28) for subtask 1.1 (relation classification), and 5th (of 20) for subtask 1.2 (relation classification with noisy entities). We also provide an ablation study of features included as input to the network.
Clinical TempEval 2017 (SemEval 2017 Task 12) addresses the task of cross-domain temporal extraction from clinical text. We present a system for this task that uses supervised learning for the extraction of temporal expression and event spans with corresponding attributes and narrative container relations. Approaches include conditional random fields and decision tree ensembles, using lexical, syntactic, semantic, distributional, and rule-based features. Our system received best or second best scores in TIMEX3 span, EVENT span, and CONTAINS relation extraction.
Users suffering from mental health conditions often turn to online resources for support, including specialized online support communities or general communities such as Twitter and Reddit. In this work, we present a framework for supporting and studying users in both types of communities. We propose methods for identifying posts in support communities that may indicate a risk of self-harm, and demonstrate that our approach outperforms strong previously proposed methods for identifying such posts. Self-harm is closely related to depression, which makes identifying depressed users on general forums a crucial related task. We introduce a large-scale general forum dataset consisting of users with self-reported depression diagnoses matched with control users. We show how our method can be applied to effectively identify depressed users from their use of language alone. We demonstrate that our method outperforms strong baselines on this general forum dataset.
Evaluation of text summarization approaches have been mostly based on metrics that measure similarities of system generated summaries with a set of human written gold-standard summaries. The most widely used metric in summarization evaluation has been the ROUGE family. ROUGE solely relies on lexical overlaps between the terms and phrases in the sentences; therefore, in cases of terminology variations and paraphrasing, ROUGE is not as effective. Scientific article summarization is one such case that is different from general domain summarization (e.g. newswire data). We provide an extensive analysis of ROUGE’s effectiveness as an evaluation metric for scientific summarization; we show that, contrary to the common belief, ROUGE is not much reliable in evaluating scientific summaries. We furthermore show how different variants of ROUGE result in very different correlations with the manual Pyramid scores. Finally, we propose an alternative metric for summarization evaluation which is based on the content relevance between a system generated summary and the corresponding human written summaries. We call our metric SERA (Summarization Evaluation by Relevance Analysis). Unlike ROUGE, SERA consistently achieves high correlations with manual scores which shows its effectiveness in evaluation of scientific article summarization.