While many hallucination detection techniques have been evaluated on English text, their effectiveness in multilingual contexts remains unknown. This paper assesses how well various factual hallucination detection metrics (lexical metrics like ROUGE and Named Entity Overlap, and Natural Language Inference (NLI)-based metrics) identify hallucinations in generated biographical summaries across languages. We compare how well automatic metrics correlate to each other and whether they agree with human judgments of factuality. Our analysis reveals that while the lexical metrics are ineffective, NLI-based metrics perform well, correlating with human annotations in many settings and often outperforming supervised models. However, NLI metrics are still limited, as they do not detect single-fact hallucinations well and fail for lower-resource languages. Therefore, our findings highlight the gaps in exisiting hallucination detection methods for non-English languages and motivate future research to develop more robust multilingual detection methods for LLM hallucinations.
Recent advances in training large language models (LLMs) using massive amounts of solely textual data lead to strong generalization across many domains and tasks, including document-specific tasks. Opposed to that there is a trend to train multi-modal transformer architectures tailored for document understanding that are designed specifically to fuse textual inputs with the corresponding document layout. This involves a separate fine-tuning step for which additional training data is required. At present, no document transformers with comparable generalization to LLMs are available That raises the question which type of model is to be preferred for document understanding tasks. In this paper we investigate the possibility to use purely text-based LLMs for document-specific tasks by using layout enrichment. We explore drop-in modifications and rule-based methods to enrich purely textual LLM prompts with layout information. In our experiments we investigate the effects on the commercial ChatGPT model and the open-source LLM Solar. We demonstrate that using our approach both LLMs show improved performance on various standard document benchmarks. In addition, we study the impact of noisy OCR and layout errors, as well as the limitations of LLMs when it comes to utilizing document layout. Our results indicate that layout enrichment can improve the performance of purely text-based LLMs for document understanding by up to 15% compared to just using plain document text. In conclusion, this approach should be considered for the best model choice between text-based LLM or multi-modal document transformers.
Commonsense knowledge graph completion is a new challenge for commonsense knowledge graph construction and application. In contrast to factual knowledge graphs such as Freebase and YAGO, commonsense knowledge graphs (CSKGs; e.g., ConceptNet) utilize free-form text to represent named entities, short phrases, and events as their nodes. Such a loose structure results in large and sparse CSKGs, which makes the semantic understanding of these nodes more critical for learning rich commonsense knowledge graph embedding. While current methods leverage semantic similarities to increase the graph density, the semantic plausibility of the nodes and their relations are under-explored. Previous works adopt conceptual abstraction to improve the consistency of modeling (event) plausibility, but they are not scalable enough and still suffer from data sparsity. In this paper, we propose to adopt textual entailment to find implicit entailment relations between CSKG nodes, to effectively densify the subgraph connecting nodes within the same conceptual class, which indicates a similar level of plausibility. Each node in CSKG finds its top entailed nodes using a finetuned transformer over natural language inference (NLI) tasks, which sufficiently capture textual entailment signals. The entailment relation between these nodes are further utilized to: 1) build new connections between source triplets and entailed nodes to densify the sparse CSKGs; 2) enrich the generalization ability of node representations by comparing the node embeddings with a contrastive loss. Experiments on two standard CSKGs demonstrate that our proposed framework EntailE can improve the performance of CSKG completion tasks under both transductive and inductive settings.
Pretrained language models are long known to be subpar in capturing sentence and document-level semantics. Though heavily investigated, transferring perturbation-based methods from unsupervised visual representation learning to NLP remains an unsolved problem. This is largely due to the discreteness of subword units brought by tokenization of language models, limiting small perturbations of inputs to form semantics-preserved positive pairs. In this work, we conceptualize the learning of sentence-level textual semantics as a visual representation learning process. Drawing from cognitive and linguistic sciences, we introduce an unsupervised visual sentence representation learning framework, employing visually-grounded text perturbation methods like typos and word order shuffling, resonating with human cognitive patterns, and enabling perturbation to texts to be perceived as continuous. Our approach is further bolstered by large-scale unsupervised topical alignment training and natural language inference supervision, achieving comparable performance in semantic textual similarity (STS) to existing state-of-the-art NLP methods. Additionally, we unveil our method's inherent zero-shot cross-lingual transferability and a unique leapfrogging pattern across languages during iterative training. To our knowledge, this is the first representation learning method devoid of traditional language models for understanding sentence and document semantics, marking a stride closer to human-like textual comprehension. Our code is available at https://github.com/gowitheflow-1998/Pixel-Linguist
The increasing use of complex and opaque black box models requires the adoption of interpretable measures, one such option is extractive rationalizing models, which serve as a more interpretable alternative. These models, also known as Explain-Then-Predict models, employ an explainer model to extract rationales and subsequently condition the predictor with the extracted information. Their primary objective is to provide precise and faithful explanations, represented by the extracted rationales. In this paper, we take a semi-supervised approach to optimize for the plausibility of extracted rationales. We adopt a pre-trained natural language inference (NLI) model and further fine-tune it on a small set of supervised rationales ($10\%$). The NLI predictor is leveraged as a source of supervisory signals to the explainer via entailment alignment. We show that, by enforcing the alignment agreement between the explanation and answer in a question-answering task, the performance can be improved without access to ground truth labels. We evaluate our approach on the ERASER dataset and show that our approach achieves comparable results with supervised extractive models and outperforms unsupervised approaches by $> 100\%$.
We introduce FaBERT, a Persian BERT-base model pre-trained on the HmBlogs corpus, encompassing both informal and formal Persian texts. FaBERT is designed to excel in traditional Natural Language Understanding (NLU) tasks, addressing the intricacies of diverse sentence structures and linguistic styles prevalent in the Persian language. In our comprehensive evaluation of FaBERT on 12 datasets in various downstream tasks, encompassing Sentiment Analysis (SA), Named Entity Recognition (NER), Natural Language Inference (NLI), Question Answering (QA), and Question Paraphrasing (QP), it consistently demonstrated improved performance, all achieved within a compact model size. The findings highlight the importance of utilizing diverse and cleaned corpora, such as HmBlogs, to enhance the performance of language models like BERT in Persian Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications. FaBERT is openly accessible at https://huggingface.co/sbunlp/fabert
The self-rationalising capabilities of LLMs are appealing because the generated explanations can give insights into the plausibility of the predictions. However, how faithful the explanations are to the predictions is questionable, raising the need to explore the patterns behind them further. To this end, we propose a hypothesis-driven statistical framework. We use a Bayesian network to implement a hypothesis about how a task (in our example, natural language inference) is solved, and its internal states are translated into natural language with templates. Those explanations are then compared to LLM-generated free-text explanations using automatic and human evaluations. This allows us to judge how similar the LLM's and the Bayesian network's decision processes are. We demonstrate the usage of our framework with an example hypothesis and two realisations in Bayesian networks. The resulting models do not exhibit a strong similarity to GPT-3.5. We discuss the implications of this as well as the framework's potential to approximate LLM decisions better in future work.
Efficiently fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) for specific tasks presents a considerable challenge in natural language processing. Traditional methods, like prompt or prefix tuning, typically rely on arbitrary tokens for training, leading to prolonged training times and generalized token use across various class labels. To address these issues, this paper introduces L-Tuning, an efficient fine-tuning approach designed for classification tasks within the Natural Language Inference (NLI) framework. Diverging from conventional methods, L-Tuning focuses on the fine-tuning of label tokens processed through a pre-trained LLM, thereby harnessing its pre-existing semantic knowledge. This technique not only improves the fine-tuning accuracy and efficiency but also facilitates the generation of distinct label embeddings for each class, enhancing the model's training nuance. Our experimental results indicate a significant improvement in training efficiency and classification accuracy with L-Tuning compared to traditional approaches, marking a promising advancement in fine-tuning LLMs for complex language tasks.
Emotion classification in text is a challenging task due to the processes involved when interpreting a textual description of a potential emotion stimulus. In addition, the set of emotion categories is highly domain-specific. For instance, literature analysis might require the use of aesthetic emotions (e.g., finding something beautiful), and social media analysis could benefit from fine-grained sets (e.g., separating anger from annoyance) than only those that represent basic categories as they have been proposed by Paul Ekman (anger, disgust, fear, joy, surprise, sadness). This renders the task an interesting field for zero-shot classifications, in which the label set is not known at model development time. Unfortunately, most resources for emotion analysis are English, and therefore, most studies on emotion analysis have been performed in English, including those that involve prompting language models for text labels. This leaves us with a research gap that we address in this paper: In which language should we prompt for emotion labels on non-English texts? This is particularly of interest when we have access to a multilingual large language model, because we could request labels with English prompts even for non-English data. Our experiments with natural language inference-based language models show that it is consistently better to use English prompts even if the data is in a different language.
Black-box hard-label adversarial attack on text is a practical and challenging task, as the text data space is inherently discrete and non-differentiable, and only the predicted label is accessible. Research on this problem is still in the embryonic stage and only a few methods are available. Nevertheless, existing methods rely on the complex heuristic algorithm or unreliable gradient estimation strategy, which probably fall into the local optimum and inevitably consume numerous queries, thus are difficult to craft satisfactory adversarial examples with high semantic similarity and low perturbation rate in a limited query budget. To alleviate above issues, we propose a simple yet effective framework to generate high quality textual adversarial examples under the black-box hard-label attack scenarios, named HQA-Attack. Specifically, after initializing an adversarial example randomly, HQA-attack first constantly substitutes original words back as many as possible, thus shrinking the perturbation rate. Then it leverages the synonym set of the remaining changed words to further optimize the adversarial example with the direction which can improve the semantic similarity and satisfy the adversarial condition simultaneously. In addition, during the optimizing procedure, it searches a transition synonym word for each changed word, thus avoiding traversing the whole synonym set and reducing the query number to some extent. Extensive experimental results on five text classification datasets, three natural language inference datasets and two real-world APIs have shown that the proposed HQA-Attack method outperforms other strong baselines significantly.
An increasing amount of research in Natural Language Inference (NLI) focuses on the application and evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) and their reasoning capabilities. Despite their success, however, LLMs are still prone to factual errors and inconsistencies in their explanations, offering limited control and interpretability for inference in complex domains. In this paper, we focus on ethical NLI, investigating how hybrid neuro-symbolic techniques can enhance the logical validity and alignment of ethical explanations produced by LLMs. Specifically, we present an abductive-deductive framework named Logic-Explainer, which integrates LLMs with an external backward-chaining solver to refine step-wise natural language explanations and jointly verify their correctness, reduce incompleteness and minimise redundancy. An extensive empirical analysis demonstrates that Logic-Explainer can improve explanations generated via in-context learning methods and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) on challenging ethical NLI tasks, while, at the same time, producing formal proofs describing and supporting models' reasoning. As ethical NLI requires commonsense reasoning to identify underlying moral violations, our results suggest the effectiveness of neuro-symbolic methods for multi-step NLI more broadly, opening new opportunities to enhance the logical consistency, reliability, and alignment of LLMs.
Traditionally, Machine Translation (MT) Evaluation has been treated as a regression problem -- producing an absolute translation-quality score. This approach has two limitations: i) the scores lack interpretability, and human annotators struggle with giving consistent scores; ii) most scoring methods are based on (reference, translation) pairs, limiting their applicability in real-world scenarios where references are absent. In practice, we often care about whether a new MT system is better or worse than some competitors. In addition, reference-free MT evaluation is increasingly practical and necessary. Unfortunately, these two practical considerations have yet to be jointly explored. In this work, we formulate the reference-free MT evaluation into a pairwise ranking problem. Given the source sentence and a pair of translations, our system predicts which translation is better. In addition to proposing this new formulation, we further show that this new paradigm can demonstrate superior correlation with human judgments by merely using indirect supervision from natural language inference and weak supervision from our synthetic data. In the context of reference-free evaluation, MT-Ranker, trained without any human annotations, achieves state-of-the-art results on the WMT Shared Metrics Task benchmarks DARR20, MQM20, and MQM21. On a more challenging benchmark, ACES, which contains fine-grained evaluation criteria such as addition, omission, and mistranslation errors, MT-Ranker marks state-of-the-art against reference-free as well as reference-based baselines.
Text simplification aims to make technical texts more accessible to laypeople but often results in deletion of information and vagueness. This work proposes InfoLossQA, a framework to characterize and recover simplification-induced information loss in form of question-and-answer (QA) pairs. Building on the theory of Question Under Discussion, the QA pairs are designed to help readers deepen their knowledge of a text. We conduct a range of experiments with this framework. First, we collect a dataset of 1,000 linguist-curated QA pairs derived from 104 LLM simplifications of scientific abstracts of medical studies. Our analyses of this data reveal that information loss occurs frequently, and that the QA pairs give a high-level overview of what information was lost. Second, we devise two methods for this task: end-to-end prompting of open-source and commercial language models, and a natural language inference pipeline. With a novel evaluation framework considering the correctness of QA pairs and their linguistic suitability, our expert evaluation reveals that models struggle to reliably identify information loss and applying similar standards as humans at what constitutes information loss.
Knowledge base population seeks to expand knowledge graphs with facts that are typically extracted from a text corpus. Recently, language models pretrained on large corpora have been shown to contain factual knowledge that can be retrieved using cloze-style strategies. Such approach enables zero-shot recall of facts, showing competitive results in object prediction compared to supervised baselines. However, prompt-based fact retrieval can be brittle and heavily depend on the prompts and context used, which may produce results that are unintended or hallucinatory.We propose to use textual entailment to validate facts extracted from language models through cloze statements. Our results show that triple validation based on textual entailment improves language model predictions in different training regimes. Furthermore, we show that entailment-based triple validation is also effective to validate candidate facts extracted from other sources including existing knowledge graphs and text passages where named entities are recognized.
Recent studies of the emergent capabilities of transformer-based Natural Language Understanding (NLU) models have indicated that they have an understanding of lexical and compositional semantics. We provide evidence that suggests these claims should be taken with a grain of salt: we find that state-of-the-art Natural Language Inference (NLI) models are sensitive towards minor semantics preserving surface-form variations, which lead to sizable inconsistent model decisions during inference. Notably, this behaviour differs from valid and in-depth comprehension of compositional semantics, however does neither emerge when evaluating model accuracy on standard benchmarks nor when probing for syntactic, monotonic, and logically robust reasoning. We propose a novel framework to measure the extent of semantic sensitivity. To this end, we evaluate NLI models on adversarially generated examples containing minor semantics-preserving surface-form input noise. This is achieved using conditional text generation, with the explicit condition that the NLI model predicts the relationship between the original and adversarial inputs as a symmetric equivalence entailment. We systematically study the effects of the phenomenon across NLI models for $\textbf{in-}$ and $\textbf{out-of-}$ domain settings. Our experiments show that semantic sensitivity causes performance degradations of $12.92\%$ and $23.71\%$ average over $\textbf{in-}$ and $\textbf{out-of-}$ domain settings, respectively. We further perform ablation studies, analysing this phenomenon across models, datasets, and variations in inference and show that semantic sensitivity can lead to major inconsistency within model predictions.
Accurately typing entity mentions from text segments is a fundamental task for various natural language processing applications. Many previous approaches rely on massive human-annotated data to perform entity typing. Nevertheless, collecting such data in highly specialized science and engineering domains (e.g., software engineering and security) can be time-consuming and costly, without mentioning the domain gaps between training and inference data if the model needs to be applied to confidential datasets. In this paper, we study the task of seed-guided fine-grained entity typing in science and engineering domains, which takes the name and a few seed entities for each entity type as the only supervision and aims to classify new entity mentions into both seen and unseen types (i.e., those without seed entities). To solve this problem, we propose SEType which first enriches the weak supervision by finding more entities for each seen type from an unlabeled corpus using the contextualized representations of pre-trained language models. It then matches the enriched entities to unlabeled text to get pseudo-labeled samples and trains a textual entailment model that can make inferences for both seen and unseen types. Extensive experiments on two datasets covering four domains demonstrate the effectiveness of SEType in comparison with various baselines.
The deployment of large language models (LLMs) within the healthcare sector has sparked both enthusiasm and apprehension. These models exhibit the remarkable capability to provide proficient responses to free-text queries, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of professional medical knowledge. This comprehensive survey delves into the functionalities of existing LLMs designed for healthcare applications, elucidating the trajectory of their development, starting from traditional Pretrained Language Models (PLMs) to the present state of LLMs in healthcare sector. First, we explore the potential of LLMs to amplify the efficiency and effectiveness of diverse healthcare applications, particularly focusing on clinical language understanding tasks. These tasks encompass a wide spectrum, ranging from named entity recognition and relation extraction to natural language inference, multi-modal medical applications, document classification, and question-answering. Additionally, we conduct an extensive comparison of the most recent state-of-the-art LLMs in the healthcare domain, while also assessing the utilization of various open-source LLMs and highlighting their significance in healthcare applications. Furthermore, we present the essential performance metrics employed to evaluate LLMs in the biomedical domain, shedding light on their effectiveness and limitations. Finally, we summarize the prominent challenges and constraints faced by large language models in the healthcare sector, offering a holistic perspective on their potential benefits and shortcomings. This review provides a comprehensive exploration of the current landscape of LLMs in healthcare, addressing their role in transforming medical applications and the areas that warrant further research and development.
Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at many tasks and will even explain their reasoning, so-called self-explanations. However, convincing and wrong self-explanations can lead to unsupported confidence in LLMs, thus increasing risk. Therefore, it's important to measure if self-explanations truly reflect the model's behavior. Such a measure is called interpretability-faithfulness and is challenging to perform since the ground truth is inaccessible, and many LLMs only have an inference API. To address this, we propose employing self-consistency checks to measure faithfulness. For example, if an LLM says a set of words is important for making a prediction, then it should not be able to make its prediction without these words. While self-consistency checks are a common approach to faithfulness, they have not previously been successfully applied to LLM self-explanations for counterfactual, feature attribution, and redaction explanations. Our results demonstrate that faithfulness is explanation, model, and task-dependent, showing self-explanations should not be trusted in general. For example, with sentiment classification, counterfactuals are more faithful for Llama2, feature attribution for Mistral, and redaction for Falcon 40B.
While valuable datasets such as PersonaChat provide a foundation for training persona-grounded dialogue agents, they lack diversity in conversational and narrative settings, primarily existing in the "real" world. To develop dialogue agents with unique personas, models are trained to converse given a specific persona, but hand-crafting these persona can be time-consuming, thus methods exist to automatically extract persona information from existing character-specific dialogue. However, these persona-extraction models are also trained on datasets derived from PersonaChat and struggle to provide high-quality persona information from conversational settings that do not take place in the real world, such as the fantasy-focused dataset, LIGHT. Creating new data to train models on a specific setting is human-intensive, thus prohibitively expensive. To address both these issues, we introduce a natural language inference method for post-hoc adapting a trained persona extraction model to a new setting. We draw inspiration from the literature of dialog natural language inference (NLI), and devise NLI-reranking methods to extract structured persona information from dialogue. Compared to existing persona extraction models, our method returns higher-quality extracted persona and requires less human annotation.
Model editing is a technique that edits the large language models (LLMs) with updated knowledge to alleviate hallucinations without resource-intensive retraining. While current model editing methods can effectively modify a model's behavior within a specific area of interest, they often overlook the potential unintended side effects on the general abilities of LLMs such as reasoning, natural language inference, and question answering. In this paper, we raise concerns that model editing's improvements on factuality may come at the cost of a significant degradation of the model's general abilities. We systematically analyze the side effects by evaluating four popular editing methods on three LLMs across eight representative tasks. Our extensive empirical experiments show that it is challenging for current editing methods to simultaneously improve factuality of LLMs and maintain their general abilities. Our analysis reveals that the side effects are caused by model editing altering the original model weights excessively, leading to overfitting to the edited facts. To mitigate this, a method named RECT is proposed to regularize the edit update weights by imposing constraints on their complexity based on the RElative Change in weighT. Evaluation results show that RECT can significantly mitigate the side effects of editing while still maintaining over 94% editing performance.