A key consideration when training an LLM is whether the target language is more or less resourced, for example English compared to Welsh, or Python compared to Excel. Typical training data for programming languages consists of real program demonstrations coupled with explanatory human-written comments. In this work we present a novel approach to the creation of such data for low resource programming languages, which lack naturally occurring data. Our process generates synthetic, textbook-quality demonstrations of how to use library functions, which we show makes for good model finetuning data. We demonstrate in an example domain of Excel Formulas. First, we collate language documentation, then we use this to augment a powerful teacher model which generates synthetic training data, and finally finetune student models on the demonstrations. Our technique improves student performance on 2 question-answering datasets: WikiTQ and TAT-QA. We also show advantages of finetuning over standard RAG approaches, which can offer only modest improvement due to the unfamiliarity of the target domain to student models.

Real dialogues with AI assistants for solving table questions-answering tasks often follow dynamic, unpredictable paths due to imperfect information provided by the user or in the data, which must be caught and handled. Developing datasets which capture such user-AI interactions is difficult and time-consuming. In this work, we develop a novel framework for synthetically generating controlled, multi-turn conversations between a user and AI assistant for the task of table-based question answering (TableQA), which can be generated from an existing dataset with fully specified TableQA examples for any target domain. Each conversation aims to solve a table-based reasoning question through collaborative effort, modeling one of two real-world scenarios: (1) an AI-initiated clarification, or (2) a user-initiated correction. Critically, we employ a strong teacher LLM to verify our synthetic conversations by functional correctness, ensuring high quality. Finally, we demonstrate synthetic datasets generated from TableQA tasks as benchmarks of frontier LLMs. We find that even larger models struggle to effectively issue clarification questions and accurately integrate user feedback for corrections, demonstrating important areas for future research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are claimed to be capable of Natural Language Inference (NLI), necessary for applied tasks like question answering and summarization. We present a series of behavioral studies on several LLM families (LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM) which probe their behavior using controlled experiments. We establish two biases originating from pretraining which predict much of their behavior, and show that these are major sources of hallucination in generative LLMs. First, memorization at the level of sentences: we show that, regardless of the premise, models falsely label NLI test samples as entailing when the hypothesis is attested in training data, and that entities are used as “indices’ to access the memorized data. Second, statistical patterns of usage learned at the level of corpora: we further show a similar effect when the premise predicate is less frequent than that of the hypothesis in the training data, a bias following from previous studies. We demonstrate that LLMs perform significantly worse on NLI test samples which do not conform to these biases than those which do, and we offer these as valuable controls for future LLM evaluation.

Language provides speakers with a rich system of modality for expressing thoughts about events, without being committed to their actual occurrence. Modality is commonly used in the political news domain, where both actual and possible courses of events are discussed. NLP systems struggle with these semantic phenomena, often incorrectly extracting events which did not happen, which can lead to issues in downstream applications. We present an open-domain, lexicon-based event extraction system that captures various types of modality. This information is valuable for Question Answering, Knowledge Graph construction and Fact-checking tasks, and our evaluation shows that the system is sufficiently strong to be used in downstream applications.

Drawing inferences between open-domain natural language predicates is a necessity for true language understanding. There has been much progress in unsupervised learning of entailment graphs for this purpose. We make three contributions: (1) we reinterpret the Distributional Inclusion Hypothesis to model entailment between predicates of different valencies, like DEFEAT(Biden, Trump) entails WIN(Biden); (2) we actualize this theory by learning unsupervised Multivalent Entailment Graphs of open-domain predicates; and (3) we demonstrate the capabilities of these graphs on a novel question answering task. We show that directional entailment is more helpful for inference than non-directional similarity on questions of fine-grained semantics. We also show that drawing on evidence across valencies answers more questions than by using only the same valency evidence.

We present a semi-supervised model which learns the semantics of negation purely through analysis of syntactic structure. Linguistic theory posits that the semantics of negation can be understood purely syntactically, though recent research relies on combining a variety of features including part-of-speech tags, word embeddings, and semantic representations to achieve high task performance. Our simplified model returns to syntactic theory and achieves state-of-the-art performance on the task of Negation Scope Detection while demonstrating the tight relationship between the syntax and semantics of negation.