Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools which have been both dominant and commonplace in the field of Artificial Intelligence. Yet, LLMs have a tendency to devolve into toxic degeneration, wherein otherwise safe and unproblematic models begin generating toxic content. For the sake of social responsibility and inspired by the biological mechanisms of inhibition control, we introduce the paradigm of Education for Societal Norms (ESN). By collecting and labeling examples as acceptable and unacceptable (in this case toxic and non-toxic), and including a corresponding acceptable rewrite with every unacceptable example, we introduce a new mechanism for LLM detoxification. We annotate a dataset of 2,850 entries and use it to fine-tune a model, which we call a Model with Inhibition Control (MICo). Evaluating this model on toxicity detection capability, rewrite detoxification, meaning preservation, and overall toxicity reduction, we discover significant improvements over the baseline model. In our experiments we show that overall toxicity of this model is more than 60% reduced, with over 75% reduction in severe toxicity.

Language models, pre-trained on large amounts of unmoderated content, have been shown to contain societal biases. Mitigating such biases typically requires access to model parameters and training schemas. In this work, we address bias mitigation at inference time, such that it can be applied to any black-box model. To this end, we propose a belief generation and augmentation framework, BELIEVE, that demonstrates effective bias mitigation for natural language generation by augmenting input prompts with automatically generated instruction-based beliefs. Our framework eases the bottleneck required for manually crafting these instruction-based beliefs, by extending a recently proposed iterative in-context learning framework to automatically generate beliefs via a language model. We assess the impact of this system on fairness, and demonstrate effective bias mitigation on pretrained and instruction-tuned models for both sentiment and regard with respect to multiple protected classes including race, gender, and political ideology.

Social commonsense contains many human biases due to social and cultural influence (Sap et al., 2020; Emelin et al., 2020). We focus on identifying cultural biases in data, specifically causal assumptions and commonsense implications, that strongly influence model decisions for a variety of tasks designed for social impact. This enables us to examine data for bias by making explicit the causal (if-then, inferential) relations in social commonsense knowledge used for decision making, furthering interpretable commonsense reasoning from a dataset perspective. We apply our methods on 2 social tasks: emotion detection and perceived value detection. We identify influential social commonsense knowledge to explain model behavior in the following ways. First, we augment large-scale language models with social knowledge and show improvements for the tasks, indicating the implicit assumptions a model requires to be successful on each dataset. Second, we identify influential events in the datasets by using social knowledge to cluster data and demonstrate the influence that these events have on model behavior via leave-K-out experiments. This allows us to gain a dataset-level understanding of the events and causal commonsense relationships that strongly influence predictions. We then analyze these relationships to detect influential cultural bias in each dataset. Finally, we use our influential event identification for detecting mislabeled examples and improve training and performance through their removal. We support our findings with manual analysis.

Prompting inputs with natural language task descriptions has emerged as a popular mechanism to elicit reasonably accurate outputs from large-scale generative language models with little to no in-context supervision. This also helps gain insight into how well language models capture the semantics of a wide range of downstream tasks purely from self-supervised pre-training on massive corpora of unlabeled text. Such models have naturally also been exposed to a lot of undesirable content like racist and sexist language and there is only some work on awareness of models along these dimensions. In this paper, we define and comprehensively evaluate how well such language models capture the semantics of four tasks for bias: diagnosis, identification, extraction and rephrasing. We define three broad classes of task descriptions for these tasks: statement, question, and completion, with numerous lexical variants within each class. We study the efficacy of prompting for each task using these classes and the null task description across several decoding methods and few-shot examples. Our analyses indicate that language models are capable of performing these tasks to widely varying degrees across different bias dimensions, such as gender and political affiliation. We believe our work is an important step towards unbiased language models by quantifying the limits of current self-supervision objectives at accomplishing such sociologically challenging tasks.

We examine the effect of domain-specific external knowledge variations on deep large scale language model performance. Recent work in enhancing BERT with external knowledge has been very popular, resulting in models such as ERNIE (Zhang et al., 2019a). Using the ERNIE architecture, we provide a detailed analysis on the types of knowledge that result in a performance increase on the Natural Language Inference (NLI) task, specifically on the Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference Corpus (MNLI). While ERNIE uses general TransE embeddings, we instead train domain-specific knowledge embeddings and insert this knowledge via an information fusion layer in the ERNIE architecture, allowing us to directly control and analyze knowledge input. Using several different knowledge training objectives, sources of knowledge, and knowledge ablations, we find a strong correlation between knowledge and classification labels within the same polarity, illustrating that knowledge polarity is an important feature in predicting entailment. We also perform classification change analysis across different knowledge variations to illustrate the importance of selecting appropriate knowledge input regarding content and polarity, and show representative examples of these changes.

Recent commonsense-reasoning tasks are typically discriminative in nature, where a model answers a multiple-choice question for a certain context. Discriminative tasks are limiting because they fail to adequately evaluate the model’s ability to reason and explain predictions with underlying commonsense knowledge. They also allow such models to use reasoning shortcuts and not be “right for the right reasons”. In this work, we present ExplaGraphs, a new generative and structured commonsense-reasoning task (and an associated dataset) of explanation graph generation for stance prediction. Specifically, given a belief and an argument, a model has to predict if the argument supports or counters the belief and also generate a commonsense-augmented graph that serves as non-trivial, complete, and unambiguous explanation for the predicted stance. We collect explanation graphs through a novel Create-Verify-And-Refine graph collection framework that improves the graph quality (up to 90%) via multiple rounds of verification and refinement. A significant 79% of our graphs contain external commonsense nodes with diverse structures and reasoning depths. Next, we propose a multi-level evaluation framework, consisting of automatic metrics and human evaluation, that check for the structural and semantic correctness of the generated graphs and their degree of match with ground-truth graphs. Finally, we present several structured, commonsense-augmented, and text generation models as strong starting points for this explanation graph generation task, and observe that there is a large gap with human performance, thereby encouraging future work for this new challenging task.

Integrating external knowledge into commonsense reasoning tasks has shown progress in resolving some, but not all, knowledge gaps in these tasks. For knowledge integration to yield peak performance, it is critical to select a knowledge graph (KG) that is well-aligned with the given task’s objective. We present an approach to assess how well a candidate KG can correctly identify and accurately fill in gaps of reasoning for a task, which we call KG-to-task match. We show this KG-to-task match in 3 phases: knowledge-task identification, knowledge-task alignment, and knowledge-task integration. We also analyze our transformer-based KG-to-task models via commonsense probes to measure how much knowledge is captured in these models before and after KG integration. Empirically, we investigate KG matches for the SocialIQA (SIQA) (Sap et al., 2019b), Physical IQA (PIQA) (Bisk et al., 2020), and MCScript2.0 (Ostermann et al., 2019) datasets with 3 diverse KGs: ATOMIC (Sap et al., 2019a), ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017), and an automatically constructed instructional KG based on WikiHow (Koupaee and Wang, 2018). With our methods we are able to demonstrate that ATOMIC, an event-inference focused KG, is the best match for SIQA and MCScript2.0, and that the taxonomic ConceptNet and WikiHow-based KGs are the best match for PIQA across all 3 analysis phases. We verify our methods and findings with human evaluation.

Many modern messaging systems allow fast and synchronous textual communication among many users. The resulting sequence of messages hides a more complicated structure in which independent sub-conversations are interwoven with one another. This poses a challenge for any task aiming to understand the content of the chat logs or gather information from them. The ability to disentangle these conversations is then tantamount to the success of many downstream tasks such as summarization and question answering. Structured information accompanying the text such as user turn, user mentions, timestamps, is used as a cue by the participants themselves who need to follow the conversation and has been shown to be important for disentanglement. DAG-LSTMs, a generalization of Tree-LSTMs that can handle directed acyclic dependencies, are a natural way to incorporate such information and its non-sequential nature. In this paper, we apply DAG-LSTMs to the conversation disentanglement task. We perform our experiments on the Ubuntu IRC dataset. We show that the novel model we propose achieves state of the art status on the task of recovering reply-to relations and it is competitive on other disentanglement metrics.

Automatic fact checking is an important task motivated by the need for detecting and preventing the spread of misinformation across the web. The recently released FEVER challenge provides a benchmark task that assesses systems’ capability for both the retrieval of required evidence and the identification of authentic claims. Previous approaches share a similar pipeline training paradigm that decomposes the task into three subtasks, with each component built and trained separately. Although achieving acceptable scores, these methods induce difficulty for practical application development due to unnecessary complexity and expensive computation. In this paper, we explore the potential of simplifying the system design and reducing training computation by proposing a joint training setup in which a single sequence matching model is trained with compounded labels that give supervision for both sentence selection and claim verification subtasks, eliminating the duplicate computation that occurs when models are designed and trained separately. Empirical results on FEVER indicate that our method: (1) outperforms the typical multi-task learning approach, and (2) gets comparable results to top performing systems with a much simpler training setup and less training computation (in terms of the amount of data consumed and the number of model parameters), facilitating future works on the automatic fact checking task and its practical usage.

Reading comprehension QA tasks have seen a recent surge in popularity, yet most works have focused on fact-finding extractive QA. We instead focus on a more challenging multi-hop generative task (NarrativeQA), which requires the model to reason, gather, and synthesize disjoint pieces of information within the context to generate an answer. This type of multi-step reasoning also often requires understanding implicit relations, which humans resolve via external, background commonsense knowledge. We first present a strong generative baseline that uses a multi-attention mechanism to perform multiple hops of reasoning and a pointer-generator decoder to synthesize the answer. This model performs substantially better than previous generative models, and is competitive with current state-of-the-art span prediction models. We next introduce a novel system for selecting grounded multi-hop relational commonsense information from ConceptNet via a pointwise mutual information and term-frequency based scoring function. Finally, we effectively use this extracted commonsense information to fill in gaps of reasoning between context hops, using a selectively-gated attention mechanism. This boosts the model’s performance significantly (also verified via human evaluation), establishing a new state-of-the-art for the task. We also show that our background knowledge enhancements are generalizable and improve performance on QAngaroo-WikiHop, another multi-hop reasoning dataset.