While demographic factors like age and gender change the way people talk, and in particular, the way people talk to machines, there is little investigation into how large pre-trained language models (LMs) can adapt to these changes. To remedy this gap, we consider how demographic factors in LM language skills can be measured to determine compatibility with a target demographic. We suggest clinical techniques from Speech Language Pathology, which has norms for acquisition of language skills in humans. We conduct evaluation with a domain expert (i.e., a clinically licensed speech language pathologist), and also propose automated techniques to complement clinical evaluation at scale. Empirically, we focus on age, finding LM capability varies widely depending on task: GPT-3.5 mimics the ability of humans ranging from age 6-15 at tasks requiring inference, and simultaneously, outperforms a typical 21 year old at memorization. GPT-3.5 also has trouble with social language use, exhibiting less than 50% of the tested pragmatic skills. Findings affirm the importance of considering demographic alignment and conversational goals when using LMs as public-facing tools. Code, data, and a package will be available.

The ingrained principles of fairness in a dialogue system’s decision-making process and generated responses are crucial for user engagement, satisfaction, and task achievement. Absence of equitable and inclusive principles can hinder the formation of common ground, which in turn negatively impacts the overall performance of the system. For example, misusing pronouns in a user interaction may cause ambiguity about the intended subject. Yet, there is no comprehensive study of equitable text generation in dialogue. Aptly, in this work, we use theories of computational learning to study this problem. We provide formal definitions of equity in text generation, and further, prove formal connections between learning human-likeness and learning equity: algorithms for improving equity ultimately reduce to algorithms for improving human-likeness (on augmented data). With this insight, we also formulate reasonable conditions under which text generation algorithms can learn to generate equitable text without any modifications to the biased training data on which they learn. To exemplify our theory in practice, we look at a group of algorithms for the GuessWhat?! visual dialogue game and, using this example, test our theory empirically. Our theory accurately predicts relative-performance of multiple algorithms in generating equitable text as measured by both human and automated evaluation.

Investigating cooperativity of interlocutors is central in studying pragmatics of dialogue. Models of conversation that only assume cooperative agents fail to explain the dynamics of strategic conversations. Thus, we investigate the ability of agents to identify non-cooperative interlocutors while completing a concurrent visual-dialogue task. Within this novel setting, we study the optimality of communication strategies for achieving this multi-task objective. We use the tools of learning theory to develop a theoretical model for identifying non-cooperative interlocutors and apply this theory to analyze different communication strategies. We also introduce a corpus of non-cooperative conversations about images in the GuessWhat?! dataset proposed by De Vries et al. (2017). We use reinforcement learning to implement multiple communication strategies in this context and find that empirical results validate our theory.

Discourse analysis allows us to attain inferences of a text document that extend beyond the sentence-level. The current performance of discourse models is very low on texts outside of the training distribution’s coverage, diminishing the practical utility of existing models. There is need for a measure that can inform us to what extent our model generalizes from the training to the test sample when these samples may be drawn from distinct distributions. While this can be estimated via distribution shift, we argue that this does not directly correlate with change in the observed error of a classifier (i.e. error-gap). Thus, we propose to use a statistic from the theoretical domain adaptation literature which can be directly tied to error-gap. We study the bias of this statistic as an estimator of error-gap both theoretically and through a large-scale empirical study of over 2400 experiments on 6 discourse datasets from domains including, but not limited to: news, biomedical texts, TED talks, Reddit posts, and fiction. Our results not only motivate our proposal and help us to understand its limitations, but also provide insight on the properties of discourse models and datasets which improve performance in domain adaptation. For instance, we find that non-news datasets are slightly easier to transfer to than news datasets when the training and test sets are very different. Our code and an associated Python package are available to allow practitioners to make more informed model and dataset choices.

Algorithms for text-generation in dialogue can be misguided. For example, in task-oriented settings, reinforcement learning that optimizes only task-success can lead to abysmal lexical diversity. We hypothesize this is due to poor theoretical understanding of the objectives in text-generation and their relation to the learning process (i.e., model training). To this end, we propose a new theoretical framework for learning to generate text in dialogue. Compared to existing theories of learning, our framework allows for analysis of the multi-faceted goals inherent to text-generation. We use our framework to develop theoretical guarantees for learners that adapt to unseen data. As an example, we apply our theory to study data-shift within a cooperative learning algorithm proposed for the GuessWhat?! visual dialogue game. From this insight, we propose a new algorithm, and empirically, we demonstrate our proposal improves both task-success and human-likeness of the generated text. Finally, we show statistics from our theory are empirically predictive of multiple qualities of the generated dialogue, suggesting our theory is useful for model-selection when human evaluations are not available.