Natural language explanations represent a proxy for evaluating explanation-based and multi-step Natural Language Inference (NLI) models. However, assessing the validity of explanations for NLI is challenging as it typically involves the crowd-sourcing of apposite datasets, a process that is time-consuming and prone to logical errors. To address existing limitations, this paper investigates the verification and refinement of natural language explanations through the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Theorem Provers (TPs). Specifically, we present a neuro-symbolic framework, named Explanation-Refiner, that integrates TPs with LLMs to generate and formalise explanatory sentences and suggest potential inference strategies for NLI. In turn, the TP is employed to provide formal guarantees on the logical validity of the explanations and to generate feedback for subsequent improvements. We demonstrate how Explanation-Refiner can be jointly used to evaluate explanatory reasoning, autoformalisation, and error correction mechanisms of state-of-the-art LLMs as well as to automatically enhance the quality of explanations of variable complexity in different domains.
Natural language inference (NLI), also known as Recognizing Textual Entailment (RTE), is an important aspect of natural language understanding. Most research now uses machine learning and deep learning to perform this task on specific datasets, meaning their solution is not explainable nor explicit. To address the need for an explainable approach to RTE, we propose a novel pipeline that is based on translating text into an Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graph. For this we use a pre-trained AMR parser. We then translate the AMR graph into propositional logic and use a SAT solver for automated reasoning. In text, often commonsense suggests that an entailment (or contradiction) relationship holds between a premise and a claim, but because different wordings are used, this is not identified from their logical representations. To address this, we introduce relaxation methods to allow replacement or forgetting of some propositions. Our experimental results show this pipeline performs well on four RTE datasets.
Designing preference elicitation (PE) methodologies that can quickly ascertain a user's top item preferences in a cold-start setting is a key challenge for building effective and personalized conversational recommendation (ConvRec) systems. While large language models (LLMs) enable fully natural language (NL) PE dialogues, we hypothesize that monolithic LLM NL-PE approaches lack the multi-turn, decision-theoretic reasoning required to effectively balance the exploration and exploitation of user preferences towards an arbitrary item set. In contrast, traditional Bayesian optimization PE methods define theoretically optimal PE strategies, but cannot generate arbitrary NL queries or reason over content in NL item descriptions -- requiring users to express preferences via ratings or comparisons of unfamiliar items. To overcome the limitations of both approaches, we formulate NL-PE in a Bayesian Optimization (BO) framework that seeks to actively elicit NL feedback to identify the best recommendation. Key challenges in generalizing BO to deal with natural language feedback include determining: (a) how to leverage LLMs to model the likelihood of NL preference feedback as a function of item utilities, and (b) how to design an acquisition function for NL BO that can elicit preferences in the infinite space of language. We demonstrate our framework in a novel NL-PE algorithm, PEBOL, which uses: 1) Natural Language Inference (NLI) between user preference utterances and NL item descriptions to maintain Bayesian preference beliefs, and 2) BO strategies such as Thompson Sampling (TS) and Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) to steer LLM query generation. We numerically evaluate our methods in controlled simulations, finding that after 10 turns of dialogue, PEBOL can achieve an MRR@10 of up to 0.27 compared to the best monolithic LLM baseline's MRR@10 of 0.17, despite relying on earlier and smaller LLMs.
The NLI4CT task at SemEval-2024 emphasizes the development of robust models for Natural Language Inference on Clinical Trial Reports (CTRs) using large language models (LLMs). This edition introduces interventions specifically targeting the numerical, vocabulary, and semantic aspects of CTRs. Our proposed system harnesses the capabilities of the state-of-the-art Mistral model, complemented by an auxiliary model, to focus on the intricate input space of the NLI4CT dataset. Through the incorporation of numerical and acronym-based perturbations to the data, we train a robust system capable of handling both semantic-altering and numerical contradiction interventions. Our analysis on the dataset sheds light on the challenging sections of the CTRs for reasoning.
We introduce 'FactCheck Editor', an advanced text editor designed to automate fact-checking and correct factual inaccuracies. Given the widespread issue of misinformation, often a result of unintentional mistakes by content creators, our tool aims to address this challenge. It supports over 90 languages and utilizes transformer models to assist humans in the labor-intensive process of fact verification. This demonstration showcases a complete workflow that detects text claims in need of verification, generates relevant search engine queries, and retrieves appropriate documents from the web. It employs Natural Language Inference (NLI) to predict the veracity of claims and uses LLMs to summarize the evidence and suggest textual revisions to correct any errors in the text. Additionally, the effectiveness of models used in claim detection and veracity assessment is evaluated across multiple languages.
Ensuring the safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial to generating responses consistent with human values. Despite their ability to recognize and avoid harmful queries, LLMs are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks, where carefully crafted prompts seduce them to produce toxic content. One category of jailbreak attacks is reformulating the task as an optimization by eliciting the LLM to generate affirmative responses. However, such optimization objective has its own limitations, such as the restriction on the predefined objectionable behaviors, leading to suboptimal attack performance. In this study, we first uncover the reason why vanilla target loss is not optimal, then we explore and enhance the loss objective and introduce the DSN (Don't Say No) attack, which achieves successful attack by suppressing refusal. Another challenge in studying jailbreak attacks is the evaluation, as it is difficult to directly and accurately assess the harmfulness of the responses. The existing evaluation such as refusal keyword matching reveals numerous false positive and false negative instances. To overcome this challenge, we propose an Ensemble Evaluation pipeline that novelly incorporates Natural Language Inference (NLI) contradiction assessment and two external LLM evaluators. Extensive experiments demonstrate the potential of the DSN and effectiveness of Ensemble Evaluation compared to baseline methods.
Summarizing comparative opinions about entities (e.g., hotels, phones) from a set of source reviews, often referred to as contrastive summarization, can considerably aid users in decision making. However, reliably measuring the contrastiveness of the output summaries without relying on human evaluations remains an open problem. Prior work has proposed token-overlap based metrics, Distinctiveness Score, to measure contrast which does not take into account the sensitivity to meaning-preserving lexical variations. In this work, we propose an automated evaluation metric CASPR to better measure contrast between a pair of summaries. Our metric is based on a simple and light-weight method that leverages natural language inference (NLI) task to measure contrast by segmenting reviews into single-claim sentences and carefully aggregating NLI scores between them to come up with a summary-level score. We compare CASPR with Distinctiveness Score and a simple yet powerful baseline based on BERTScore. Our results on a prior dataset CoCoTRIP demonstrate that CASPR can more reliably capture the contrastiveness of the summary pairs compared to the baselines.
We introduce a new area of study in the field of educational Natural Language Processing: Automated Long Answer Grading (ALAG). Distinguishing itself from Automated Short Answer Grading (ASAG) and Automated Essay Grading (AEG), ALAG presents unique challenges due to the complexity and multifaceted nature of fact-based long answers. To study ALAG, we introduce RiceChem, a dataset derived from a college chemistry course, featuring real student responses to long-answer questions with an average word count notably higher than typical ASAG datasets. We propose a novel approach to ALAG by formulating it as a rubric entailment problem, employing natural language inference models to verify whether each criterion, represented by a rubric item, is addressed in the student's response. This formulation enables the effective use of MNLI for transfer learning, significantly improving the performance of models on the RiceChem dataset. We demonstrate the importance of rubric-based formulation in ALAG, showcasing its superiority over traditional score-based approaches in capturing the nuances of student responses. We also investigate the performance of models in cold start scenarios, providing valuable insights into the practical deployment considerations in educational settings. Lastly, we benchmark state-of-the-art open-sourced Large Language Models (LLMs) on RiceChem and compare their results to GPT models, highlighting the increased complexity of ALAG compared to ASAG. Despite leveraging the benefits of a rubric-based approach and transfer learning from MNLI, the lower performance of LLMs on RiceChem underscores the significant difficulty posed by the ALAG task. With this work, we offer a fresh perspective on grading long, fact-based answers and introduce a new dataset to stimulate further research in this important area. Code: \url{https://github.com/luffycodes/Automated-Long-Answer-Grading}.
In this paper, we introduce "Marking", a novel grading task that enhances automated grading systems by performing an in-depth analysis of student responses and providing students with visual highlights. Unlike traditional systems that provide binary scores, "marking" identifies and categorizes segments of the student response as correct, incorrect, or irrelevant and detects omissions from gold answers. We introduce a new dataset meticulously curated by Subject Matter Experts specifically for this task. We frame "Marking" as an extension of the Natural Language Inference (NLI) task, which is extensively explored in the field of Natural Language Processing. The gold answer and the student response play the roles of premise and hypothesis in NLI, respectively. We subsequently train language models to identify entailment, contradiction, and neutrality from student response, akin to NLI, and with the added dimension of identifying omissions from gold answers. Our experimental setup involves the use of transformer models, specifically BERT and RoBERTa, and an intelligent training step using the e-SNLI dataset. We present extensive baseline results highlighting the complexity of the "Marking" task, which sets a clear trajectory for the upcoming study. Our work not only opens up new avenues for research in AI-powered educational assessment tools, but also provides a valuable benchmark for the AI in education community to engage with and improve upon in the future. The code and dataset can be found at https://github.com/luffycodes/marking.
The robustness of Transformer-based Natural Language Inference encoders is frequently compromised as they tend to rely more on dataset biases than on the intended task-relevant features. Recent studies have attempted to mitigate this by reducing the weight of biased samples during the training process. However, these debiasing methods primarily focus on identifying which samples are biased without explicitly determining the biased components within each case. This limitation restricts those methods' capability in out-of-distribution inference. To address this issue, we aim to train models to adopt the logic humans use in explaining causality. We propose a simple, comprehensive, and interpretable method: Explanation based Bias Decoupling Regularization (EBD-Reg). EBD-Reg employs human explanations as criteria, guiding the encoder to establish a tripartite parallel supervision of Distinguishing, Decoupling and Aligning. This method enables encoders to identify and focus on keywords that represent the task-relevant features during inference, while discarding the residual elements acting as biases. Empirical evidence underscores that EBD-Reg effectively guides various Transformer-based encoders to decouple biases through a human-centric lens, significantly surpassing other methods in terms of out-of-distribution inference capabilities.
Large language models have been shown to behave inconsistently in response to meaning-preserving paraphrastic inputs. At the same time, researchers evaluate the knowledge and reasoning abilities of these models with test evaluations that do not disaggregate the effect of paraphrastic variability on performance. We propose a metric for evaluating the paraphrastic consistency of natural language reasoning models based on the probability of a model achieving the same correctness on two paraphrases of the same problem. We mathematically connect this metric to the proportion of a model's variance in correctness attributable to paraphrasing. To estimate paraphrastic consistency, we collect ParaNLU, a dataset of 7,782 human-written and validated paraphrased reasoning problems constructed on top of existing benchmark datasets for defeasible and abductive natural language inference. Using ParaNLU, we measure the paraphrastic consistency of several model classes and show that consistency dramatically increases with pretraining but not finetuning. All models tested exhibited room for improvement in paraphrastic consistency.
Safe and reliable natural language inference is critical for extracting insights from clinical trial reports but poses challenges due to biases in large pre-trained language models. This paper presents a novel data augmentation technique to improve model robustness for biomedical natural language inference in clinical trials. By generating synthetic examples through semantic perturbations and domain-specific vocabulary replacement and adding a new task for numerical and quantitative reasoning, we introduce greater diversity and reduce shortcut learning. Our approach, combined with multi-task learning and the DeBERTa architecture, achieved significant performance gains on the NLI4CT 2024 benchmark compared to the original language models. Ablation studies validate the contribution of each augmentation method in improving robustness. Our best-performing model ranked 12th in terms of faithfulness and 8th in terms of consistency, respectively, out of the 32 participants.
This paper introduces novel methodologies for the Natural Language Inference for Clinical Trials (NLI4CT) task. We present TLDR (T5-generated clinical-Language summaries for DeBERTa Report Analysis) which incorporates T5-model generated premise summaries for improved entailment and contradiction analysis in clinical NLI tasks. This approach overcomes the challenges posed by small context windows and lengthy premises, leading to a substantial improvement in Macro F1 scores: a 0.184 increase over truncated premises. Our comprehensive experimental evaluation, including detailed error analysis and ablations, confirms the superiority of TLDR in achieving consistency and faithfulness in predictions against semantically altered inputs.
The task of scientific Natural Language Inference (NLI) involves predicting the semantic relation between two sentences extracted from research articles. This task was recently proposed along with a new dataset called SciNLI derived from papers published in the computational linguistics domain. In this paper, we aim to introduce diversity in the scientific NLI task and present MSciNLI, a dataset containing 132,320 sentence pairs extracted from five new scientific domains. The availability of multiple domains makes it possible to study domain shift for scientific NLI. We establish strong baselines on MSciNLI by fine-tuning Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) and prompting Large Language Models (LLMs). The highest Macro F1 scores of PLM and LLM baselines are 77.21% and 51.77%, respectively, illustrating that MSciNLI is challenging for both types of models. Furthermore, we show that domain shift degrades the performance of scientific NLI models which demonstrates the diverse characteristics of different domains in our dataset. Finally, we use both scientific NLI datasets in an intermediate task transfer learning setting and show that they can improve the performance of downstream tasks in the scientific domain. We make our dataset and code available on Github.
This research explores the integration of language models and unsupervised anomaly detection in medical imaging, addressing two key questions: (1) Can language models enhance the interpretability of anomaly detection maps? and (2) Can anomaly maps improve the generalizability of language models in open-set anomaly detection tasks? To investigate these questions, we introduce a new dataset for multi-image visual question-answering on brain magnetic resonance images encompassing multiple conditions. We propose KQ-Former (Knowledge Querying Transformer), which is designed to optimally align visual and textual information in limited-sample contexts. Our model achieves a 60.81% accuracy on closed questions, covering disease classification and severity across 15 different classes. For open questions, KQ-Former demonstrates a 70% improvement over the baseline with a BLEU-4 score of 0.41, and achieves the highest entailment ratios (up to 71.9%) and lowest contradiction ratios (down to 10.0%) among various natural language inference models. Furthermore, integrating anomaly maps results in an 18% accuracy increase in detecting open-set anomalies, thereby enhancing the language model's generalizability to previously unseen medical conditions. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/compai-lab/miccai-2024-junli?tab=readme-ov-file
XNLI is a popular Natural Language Inference (NLI) benchmark widely used to evaluate cross-lingual Natural Language Understanding (NLU) capabilities across languages. In this paper, we expand XNLI to include Basque, a low-resource language that can greatly benefit from transfer-learning approaches. The new dataset, dubbed XNLIeu, has been developed by first machine-translating the English XNLI corpus into Basque, followed by a manual post-edition step. We have conducted a series of experiments using mono- and multilingual LLMs to assess a) the effect of professional post-edition on the MT system; b) the best cross-lingual strategy for NLI in Basque; and c) whether the choice of the best cross-lingual strategy is influenced by the fact that the dataset is built by translation. The results show that post-edition is necessary and that the translate-train cross-lingual strategy obtains better results overall, although the gain is lower when tested in a dataset that has been built natively from scratch. Our code and datasets are publicly available under open licenses.
Contemporary deep learning models effectively handle languages with diverse morphology despite not being directly integrated into them. Morphology and word order are closely linked, with the latter incorporated into transformer-based models through positional encodings. This prompts a fundamental inquiry: Is there a correlation between the morphological complexity of a language and the utilization of positional encoding in pre-trained language models? In pursuit of an answer, we present the first study addressing this question, encompassing 22 languages and 5 downstream tasks. Our findings reveal that the importance of positional encoding diminishes with increasing morphological complexity in languages. Our study motivates the need for a deeper understanding of positional encoding, augmenting them to better reflect the different languages under consideration.
Large Language models (LLMs) have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks across multiple domains, yet they are prone to shortcut learning and factual inconsistencies. This research investigates LLMs' robustness, consistency, and faithful reasoning when performing Natural Language Inference (NLI) on breast cancer Clinical Trial Reports (CTRs) in the context of SemEval 2024 Task 2: Safe Biomedical Natural Language Inference for Clinical Trials. We examine the reasoning capabilities of LLMs and their adeptness at logical problem-solving. A comparative analysis is conducted on pre-trained language models (PLMs), GPT-3.5, and Gemini Pro under zero-shot settings using Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework, integrating various reasoning chains. The evaluation yields an F1 score of 0.69, consistency of 0.71, and a faithfulness score of 0.90 on the test dataset.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are at the forefront of NLP achievements but fall short in dealing with shortcut learning, factual inconsistency, and vulnerability to adversarial inputs.These shortcomings are especially critical in medical contexts, where they can misrepresent actual model capabilities. Addressing this, we present SemEval-2024 Task 2: Safe Biomedical Natural Language Inference for ClinicalTrials. Our contributions include the refined NLI4CT-P dataset (i.e., Natural Language Inference for Clinical Trials - Perturbed), designed to challenge LLMs with interventional and causal reasoning tasks, along with a comprehensive evaluation of methods and results for participant submissions. A total of 106 participants registered for the task contributing to over 1200 individual submissions and 25 system overview papers. This initiative aims to advance the robustness and applicability of NLI models in healthcare, ensuring safer and more dependable AI assistance in clinical decision-making. We anticipate that the dataset, models, and outcomes of this task can support future research in the field of biomedical NLI. The dataset, competition leaderboard, and website are publicly available.
For a viewpoint-diverse news recommender, identifying whether two news articles express the same viewpoint is essential. One way to determine "same or different" viewpoint is stance detection. In this paper, we investigate the robustness of operationalization choices for few-shot stance detection, with special attention to modelling stance across different topics. Our experiments test pre-registered hypotheses on stance detection. Specifically, we compare two stance task definitions (Pro/Con versus Same Side Stance), two LLM architectures (bi-encoding versus cross-encoding), and adding Natural Language Inference knowledge, with pre-trained RoBERTa models trained with shots of 100 examples from 7 different stance detection datasets. Some of our hypotheses and claims from earlier work can be confirmed, while others give more inconsistent results. The effect of the Same Side Stance definition on performance differs per dataset and is influenced by other modelling choices. We found no relationship between the number of training topics in the training shots and performance. In general, cross-encoding out-performs bi-encoding, and adding NLI training to our models gives considerable improvement, but these results are not consistent across all datasets. Our results indicate that it is essential to include multiple datasets and systematic modelling experiments when aiming to find robust modelling choices for the concept `stance'.