Prior work shows that program-aided reasoning, in which large language models (LLMs) are combined with programs written in programming languages such as Python, can significantly improve accuracy on various reasoning tasks. However, while accuracy is essential, it is also important for such reasoners to “know what they know”, which can be quantified through the calibration of the model. In this paper, we compare the calibration of Program Aided Language Models (PAL) and text-based Chain-of-thought (COT) prompting techniques over 5 datasets and 2 model types - LLaMA models and OpenAI models. Our results indicate that PAL leads to improved calibration in 75% of the instances. Our analysis uncovers that prompting styles that produce lesser diversity in generations also have more calibrated results, and thus we also experiment with inducing lower generation diversity using temperature scaling and find that for certain temperatures, PAL is not only more accurate but is also more calibrated than COT. Overall, we demonstrate that, in the majority of cases, program-aided reasoners better know what they know than text-based counterparts.

Recent advances in large language models have prompted researchers to examine their abilities across a variety of linguistic tasks, but little has been done to investigate how models handle the interactions in meaning across words and larger syntactic forms—i.e. phenomena at the intersection of syntax and semantics. We present the semantic notion of agentivity as a case study for probing such interactions. We created a novel evaluation dataset by utilitizing the unique linguistic properties of a subset of optionally transitive English verbs. This dataset was used to prompt varying sizes of three model classes to see if they are sensitive to agentivity at the lexical level, and if they can appropriately employ these word-level priors given a specific syntactic context. Overall, GPT-3 text-davinci-003 performs extremely well across all experiments, outperforming all other models tested by far. In fact, the results are even better correlated with human judgements than both syntactic and semantic corpus statistics. This suggests that LMs may potentially serve as more useful tools for linguistic annotation, theory testing, and discovery than select corpora for certain tasks.

Idioms are common in everyday language, but often pose a challenge to translators because their meanings do not follow from the meanings of their parts. Despite significant advances, machine translation systems still struggle to translate idiomatic expressions. We provide a simple characterization of idiomatic translation and related issues. This allows us to conduct a synthetic experiment revealing a tipping point at which transformer-based machine translation models correctly default to idiomatic translations. To expand multilingual resources, we compile a dataset of ~4k natural sentences containing idiomatic expressions in French, Finnish, and Japanese. To improve translation of natural idioms, we introduce two straightforward yet effective techniques: the strategic upweighting of training loss on potentially idiomatic sentences, and using retrieval-augmented models. This not only improves the accuracy of a strong pretrained MT model on idiomatic sentences by up to 13% in absolute accuracy, but also holds potential benefits for non-idiomatic sentences.

Natural language generation has witnessed significant advancements due to the training of large language models on vast internet-scale datasets. Despite these advancements, there exists a critical challenge: These models can inadvertently generate content that is toxic, inaccurate, and unhelpful, and existing automatic evaluation metrics often fall short of identifying these shortcomings. As models become more capable, human feedback is an invaluable signal for evaluating and improving models. This survey aims to provide an overview of recent research that has leveraged human feedback to improve natural language generation. First, we introduce a taxonomy distilled from existing research to categorize and organize the varied forms of feedback. Next, we discuss how feedback can be described by its format and objective, and cover the two approaches proposed to use feedback (either for training or decoding): directly using feedback or training feedback models. We also discuss existing datasets for human-feedback data collection, and concerns surrounding feedback collection. Finally, we provide an overview of the nascent field of AI feedback, which uses large language models to make judgments based on a set of principles and minimize the need for human intervention. We also release a website of this survey at feedback-gap-survey.info.

Figurative language permeates human communication, but at the same time is relatively understudied in NLP. Datasets have been created in English to accelerate progress towards measuring and improving figurative language processing in language models (LMs). However, the use of figurative language is an expression of our cultural and societal experiences, making it difficult for these phrases to be universally applicable. In this work, we create a figurative language inference dataset, {pasted macro ‘DATASETNAME’}, for seven diverse languages associated with a variety of cultures: Hindi, Indonesian, Javanese, Kannada, Sundanese, Swahili and Yoruba. Our dataset reveals that each language relies on cultural and regional concepts for figurative expressions, with the highest overlap between languages originating from the same region. We assess multilingual LMs’ abilities to interpret figurative language in zero-shot and few-shot settings. All languages exhibit a significant deficiency compared to English, with variations in performance reflecting the availability of pre-training and fine-tuning data, emphasizing the need for LMs to be exposed to a broader range of linguistic and cultural variation during training. Data and code is released at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Multilingual-Fig-QA-7B03/

Although proper handling of discourse significantly contributes to the quality of machine translation (MT), these improvements are not adequately measured in common translation quality metrics. Recent works in context-aware MT attempt to target a small set of discourse phenomena during evaluation, however not in a fully systematic way. In this paper, we develop the Multilingual Discourse-Aware (MuDA) benchmark, a series of taggers that identify and evaluate model performance on discourse phenomena in any given dataset. The choice of phenomena is inspired by a novel methodology to systematically identify translations that require context. This methodology confirms the difficulty of previously studied phenomena while uncovering others which were not previously addressed. We find that commonly studied context-aware MT models make only marginal improvements over context-agnostic models, which suggests these models do not handle these ambiguities effectively. We release code and data for 14 language pairs to encourage the MT community to focus on accurately capturing discourse phenomena. Code available at https://github.com/neulab/contextual-mt

We introduce EUREKA, an ensemble-based approach for performing automatic euphemism detection. We (1) identify and correct potentially mislabelled rows in the dataset, (2) curate an expanded corpus called EuphAug, (3) leverage model representations of Potentially Euphemistic Terms (PETs), and (4) explore using representations of semantically close sentences to aid in classification. Using our augmented dataset and kNN-based methods, EUREKA was able to achieve state-of-the-art results on the public leaderboard of the Euphemism Detection Shared Task, ranking first with a macro F1 score of 0.881.

Figurative and metaphorical language are commonplace in discourse, and figurative expressions play an important role in communication and cognition. However, figurative language has been a relatively under-studied area in NLP, and it remains an open question to what extent modern language models can interpret nonliteral phrases. To address this question, we introduce Fig-QA, a Winograd-style nonliteral language understanding task consisting of correctly interpreting paired figurative phrases with divergent meanings. We evaluate the performance of several state-of-the-art language models on this task, and find that although language models achieve performance significantly over chance, they still fall short of human performance, particularly in zero- or few-shot settings. This suggests that further work is needed to improve the nonliteral reasoning capabilities of language models.

Compositionality, the phenomenon where the meaning of a phrase can be derived from its constituent parts, is a hallmark of human language. At the same time, many phrases are non-compositional, carrying a meaning beyond that of each part in isolation. Representing both of these types of phrases is critical for language understanding, but it is an open question whether modern language models (LMs) learn to do so; in this work we examine this question. We first formulate a problem of predicting the LM-internal representations of longer phrases given those of their constituents. We find that the representation of a parent phrase can be predicted with some accuracy given an affine transformation of its children. While we would expect the predictive accuracy to correlate with human judgments of semantic compositionality, we find this is largely not the case, indicating that LMs may not accurately distinguish between compositional and non-compositional phrases. We perform a variety of analyses, shedding light on when different varieties of LMs do and do not generate compositional representations, and discuss implications for future modeling work.

Though approximately 50% of medical school graduates today are women, female physicians tend to be underrepresented in senior positions, make less money than their male counterparts and receive fewer promotions. There is a growing body of literature demonstrating gender bias in various forms of evaluation in medicine, but this work was mainly conducted by looking for specific words using fixed dictionaries such as LIWC and focused on global assessments of performance such as recommendation letters. We use a dataset of written and quantitative assessments of medical student performance on individual shifts of work, collected across multiple institutions, to investigate the extent to which gender bias exists in a day-to-day context for medical students. We investigate differences in the narrative comments given to male and female students by both male or female faculty assessors, using a fine-tuned BERT model. This allows us to examine whether groups are written about in systematically different ways, without relying on hand-crafted wordlists or topic models. We compare these results to results from the traditional LIWC method and find that, although we find no evidence of group-level gender bias in this dataset, terms related to family and children are used more in feedback given to women.