-
Unpacking DPO and PPO: Disentangling Best Practices for Learning from Preference Feedback
Authors:
Hamish Ivison,
Yizhong Wang,
Jiacheng Liu,
Zeqiu Wu,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Nathan Lambert,
Noah A. Smith,
Yejin Choi,
Hannaneh Hajishirzi
Abstract:
Learning from preference feedback has emerged as an essential step for improving the generation quality and performance of modern language models (LMs). Despite its widespread use, the way preference-based learning is applied varies wildly, with differing data, learning algorithms, and evaluations used, making disentangling the impact of each aspect difficult. In this work, we identify four core a…
▽ More
Learning from preference feedback has emerged as an essential step for improving the generation quality and performance of modern language models (LMs). Despite its widespread use, the way preference-based learning is applied varies wildly, with differing data, learning algorithms, and evaluations used, making disentangling the impact of each aspect difficult. In this work, we identify four core aspects of preference-based learning: preference data, learning algorithm, reward model, and policy training prompts, systematically investigate the impact of these components on downstream model performance, and suggest a recipe for strong learning for preference feedback. Our findings indicate that all aspects are important for performance, with better preference data leading to the largest improvements, followed by the choice of learning algorithm, the use of improved reward models, and finally the use of additional unlabeled prompts for policy training. Notably, PPO outperforms DPO by up to 2.5% in math and 1.2% in general domains. High-quality preference data leads to improvements of up to 8% in instruction following and truthfulness. Despite significant gains of up to 5% in mathematical evaluation when scaling up reward models, we surprisingly observe marginal improvements in other categories.
We publicly release the code used for training (https://github.com/hamishivi/EasyLM) and evaluating (https://github.com/allenai/open-instruct) our models, along with the models and datasets themselves (https://huggingface.co/collections/allenai/tulu-v25-suite-66676520fd578080e126f618).
△ Less
Submitted 13 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild
Authors:
Bill Yuchen Lin,
Yuntian Deng,
Khyathi Chandu,
Faeze Brahman,
Abhilasha Ravichander,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Nouha Dziri,
Ronan Le Bras,
Yejin Choi
Abstract:
We introduce WildBench, an automated evaluation framework designed to benchmark large language models (LLMs) using challenging, real-world user queries. WildBench consists of 1,024 tasks carefully selected from over one million human-chatbot conversation logs. For automated evaluation with WildBench, we have developed two metrics, WB-Reward and WB-Score, which are computable using advanced LLMs su…
▽ More
We introduce WildBench, an automated evaluation framework designed to benchmark large language models (LLMs) using challenging, real-world user queries. WildBench consists of 1,024 tasks carefully selected from over one million human-chatbot conversation logs. For automated evaluation with WildBench, we have developed two metrics, WB-Reward and WB-Score, which are computable using advanced LLMs such as GPT-4-turbo. WildBench evaluation uses task-specific checklists to evaluate model outputs systematically and provides structured explanations that justify the scores and comparisons, resulting in more reliable and interpretable automatic judgments. WB-Reward employs fine-grained pairwise comparisons between model responses, generating five potential outcomes: much better, slightly better, slightly worse, much worse, or a tie. Unlike previous evaluations that employed a single baseline model, we selected three baseline models at varying performance levels to ensure a comprehensive pairwise evaluation. Additionally, we propose a simple method to mitigate length bias, by converting outcomes of ``slightly better/worse'' to ``tie'' if the winner response exceeds the loser one by more than $K$ characters. WB-Score evaluates the quality of model outputs individually, making it a fast and cost-efficient evaluation metric. WildBench results demonstrate a strong correlation with the human-voted Elo ratings from Chatbot Arena on hard tasks. Specifically, WB-Reward achieves a Pearson correlation of 0.98 with top-ranking models. Additionally, WB-Score reaches 0.95, surpassing both ArenaHard's 0.91 and AlpacaEval2.0's 0.89 for length-controlled win rates, as well as the 0.87 for regular win rates.
△ Less
Submitted 7 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Superlatives in Context: Explicit and Implicit Domain Restrictions for Superlative Frames
Authors:
Valentina Pyatkin,
Bonnie Webber,
Ido Dagan,
Reut Tsarfaty
Abstract:
Superlatives are used to single out elements with a maximal/minimal property. Semantically, superlatives perform a set comparison: something (or some things) has the min/max property out of a set. As such, superlatives provide an ideal phenomenon for studying implicit phenomena and discourse restrictions. While this comparison set is often not explicitly defined, its (implicit) restrictions can be…
▽ More
Superlatives are used to single out elements with a maximal/minimal property. Semantically, superlatives perform a set comparison: something (or some things) has the min/max property out of a set. As such, superlatives provide an ideal phenomenon for studying implicit phenomena and discourse restrictions. While this comparison set is often not explicitly defined, its (implicit) restrictions can be inferred from the discourse context the expression appears in. In this work we provide an extensive computational study on the semantics of superlatives. We propose a unified account of superlative semantics which allows us to derive a broad-coverage annotation schema. Using this unified schema we annotated a multi-domain dataset of superlatives and their semantic interpretations. We specifically focus on interpreting implicit or ambiguous superlative expressions, by analyzing how the discourse context restricts the set of interpretations. In a set of experiments we then analyze how well models perform at variations of predicting superlative semantics, with and without context. We show that the fine-grained semantics of superlatives in context can be challenging for contemporary models, including GPT-4.
△ Less
Submitted 31 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling
Authors:
Nathan Lambert,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Jacob Morrison,
LJ Miranda,
Bill Yuchen Lin,
Khyathi Chandu,
Nouha Dziri,
Sachin Kumar,
Tom Zick,
Yejin Choi,
Noah A. Smith,
Hannaneh Hajishirzi
Abstract:
Reward models (RMs) are at the crux of successfully using RLHF to align pretrained models to human preferences, yet there has been relatively little study that focuses on evaluation of those models. Evaluating reward models presents an opportunity to understand the opaque technologies used for alignment of language models and which values are embedded in them. Resources for reward model training a…
▽ More
Reward models (RMs) are at the crux of successfully using RLHF to align pretrained models to human preferences, yet there has been relatively little study that focuses on evaluation of those models. Evaluating reward models presents an opportunity to understand the opaque technologies used for alignment of language models and which values are embedded in them. Resources for reward model training and understanding are sparse in the nascent open-source community around them. To enhance scientific understanding of reward models, we present RewardBench, a benchmark dataset and code-base for evaluation. The RewardBench dataset is a collection of prompt-chosen-rejected trios spanning chat, reasoning, and safety, to benchmark how reward models perform on challenging, structured and out-of-distribution queries. We create specific comparison datasets for RMs that have subtle, but verifiable reasons (e.g. bugs, incorrect facts) why one answer should be preferred to another. On the RewardBench leaderboard, we evaluate reward models trained with a variety of methods, such as the direct MLE training of classifiers and the implicit reward modeling of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). We present many findings on propensity for refusals, reasoning limitations, and instruction following shortcomings of various reward models towards a better understanding of the RLHF process.
△ Less
Submitted 8 June, 2024; v1 submitted 20 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models
Authors:
Paul Röttger,
Valentin Hofmann,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Musashi Hinck,
Hannah Rose Kirk,
Hinrich Schütze,
Dirk Hovy
Abstract:
Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificial…
▽ More
Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
△ Less
Submitted 5 June, 2024; v1 submitted 26 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Models
Authors:
Dirk Groeneveld,
Iz Beltagy,
Pete Walsh,
Akshita Bhagia,
Rodney Kinney,
Oyvind Tafjord,
Ananya Harsh Jha,
Hamish Ivison,
Ian Magnusson,
Yizhong Wang,
Shane Arora,
David Atkinson,
Russell Authur,
Khyathi Raghavi Chandu,
Arman Cohan,
Jennifer Dumas,
Yanai Elazar,
Yuling Gu,
Jack Hessel,
Tushar Khot,
William Merrill,
Jacob Morrison,
Niklas Muennighoff,
Aakanksha Naik,
Crystal Nam
, et al. (18 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Language models (LMs) have become ubiquitous in both NLP research and in commercial product offerings. As their commercial importance has surged, the most powerful models have become closed off, gated behind proprietary interfaces, with important details of their training data, architectures, and development undisclosed. Given the importance of these details in scientifically studying these models…
▽ More
Language models (LMs) have become ubiquitous in both NLP research and in commercial product offerings. As their commercial importance has surged, the most powerful models have become closed off, gated behind proprietary interfaces, with important details of their training data, architectures, and development undisclosed. Given the importance of these details in scientifically studying these models, including their biases and potential risks, we believe it is essential for the research community to have access to powerful, truly open LMs. To this end, we have built OLMo, a competitive, truly Open Language Model, to enable the scientific study of language models. Unlike most prior efforts that have only released model weights and inference code, we release OLMo alongside open training data and training and evaluation code. We hope this release will empower the open research community and inspire a new wave of innovation.
△ Less
Submitted 7 June, 2024; v1 submitted 1 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Promptly Predicting Structures: The Return of Inference
Authors:
Maitrey Mehta,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Vivek Srikumar
Abstract:
Prompt-based methods have been used extensively across NLP to build zero- and few-shot label predictors. Many NLP tasks are naturally structured: that is, their outputs consist of multiple labels which constrain each other. Annotating data for such tasks can be cumbersome. Can the promise of the prompt-based paradigm be extended to such structured outputs? In this paper, we present a framework for…
▽ More
Prompt-based methods have been used extensively across NLP to build zero- and few-shot label predictors. Many NLP tasks are naturally structured: that is, their outputs consist of multiple labels which constrain each other. Annotating data for such tasks can be cumbersome. Can the promise of the prompt-based paradigm be extended to such structured outputs? In this paper, we present a framework for constructing zero- and few-shot linguistic structure predictors. Our key insight is that we can use structural constraints -- and combinatorial inference derived from them -- to filter out inconsistent structures predicted by large language models. We instantiated this framework on two structured prediction tasks, and five datasets. Across all cases, our results show that enforcing consistency not only constructs structurally valid outputs, but also improves performance over the unconstrained variants.
△ Less
Submitted 29 March, 2024; v1 submitted 12 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Camels in a Changing Climate: Enhancing LM Adaptation with Tulu 2
Authors:
Hamish Ivison,
Yizhong Wang,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Nathan Lambert,
Matthew Peters,
Pradeep Dasigi,
Joel Jang,
David Wadden,
Noah A. Smith,
Iz Beltagy,
Hannaneh Hajishirzi
Abstract:
Since the release of TÜLU [Wang et al., 2023b], open resources for instruction tuning have developed quickly, from better base models to new finetuning techniques. We test and incorporate a number of these advances into TÜLU, resulting in TÜLU 2, a suite of improved TÜLU models for advancing the understanding and best practices of adapting pretrained language models to downstream tasks and user pr…
▽ More
Since the release of TÜLU [Wang et al., 2023b], open resources for instruction tuning have developed quickly, from better base models to new finetuning techniques. We test and incorporate a number of these advances into TÜLU, resulting in TÜLU 2, a suite of improved TÜLU models for advancing the understanding and best practices of adapting pretrained language models to downstream tasks and user preferences. Concretely, we release: (1) TÜLU-V2-mix, an improved collection of high-quality instruction datasets; (2) TÜLU 2, LLAMA-2 models finetuned on the V2 mixture; (3) TÜLU 2+DPO, TÜLU 2 models trained with direct preference optimization (DPO), including the largest DPO-trained model to date (TÜLU 2+DPO 70B); (4) CODE TÜLU 2, CODE LLAMA models finetuned on our V2 mix that outperform CODE LLAMA and its instruction-tuned variant, CODE LLAMA-Instruct. Our evaluation from multiple perspectives shows that the TÜLU 2 suite achieves state-of-the-art performance among open models and matches or exceeds the performance of GPT-3.5-turbo-0301 on several benchmarks. We release all the checkpoints, data, training and evaluation code to facilitate future open efforts on adapting large language models.
△ Less
Submitted 19 November, 2023; v1 submitted 17 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
"You Are An Expert Linguistic Annotator": Limits of LLMs as Analyzers of Abstract Meaning Representation
Authors:
Allyson Ettinger,
Jena D. Hwang,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Chandra Bhagavatula,
Yejin Choi
Abstract:
Large language models (LLMs) show amazing proficiency and fluency in the use of language. Does this mean that they have also acquired insightful linguistic knowledge about the language, to an extent that they can serve as an "expert linguistic annotator"? In this paper, we examine the successes and limitations of the GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 models in analysis of sentence meaning structure, focus…
▽ More
Large language models (LLMs) show amazing proficiency and fluency in the use of language. Does this mean that they have also acquired insightful linguistic knowledge about the language, to an extent that they can serve as an "expert linguistic annotator"? In this paper, we examine the successes and limitations of the GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 models in analysis of sentence meaning structure, focusing on the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR; Banarescu et al. 2013) parsing formalism, which provides rich graphical representations of sentence meaning structure while abstracting away from surface forms. We compare models' analysis of this semantic structure across two settings: 1) direct production of AMR parses based on zero- and few-shot prompts, and 2) indirect partial reconstruction of AMR via metalinguistic natural language queries (e.g., "Identify the primary event of this sentence, and the predicate corresponding to that event."). Across these settings, we find that models can reliably reproduce the basic format of AMR, and can often capture core event, argument, and modifier structure -- however, model outputs are prone to frequent and major errors, and holistic analysis of parse acceptability shows that even with few-shot demonstrations, models have virtually 0% success in producing fully accurate parses. Eliciting natural language responses produces similar patterns of errors. Overall, our findings indicate that these models out-of-the-box can capture aspects of semantic structure, but there remain key limitations in their ability to support fully accurate semantic analyses or parses.
△ Less
Submitted 11 December, 2023; v1 submitted 26 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
What Makes it Ok to Set a Fire? Iterative Self-distillation of Contexts and Rationales for Disambiguating Defeasible Social and Moral Situations
Authors:
Kavel Rao,
Liwei Jiang,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Yuling Gu,
Niket Tandon,
Nouha Dziri,
Faeze Brahman,
Yejin Choi
Abstract:
Moral or ethical judgments rely heavily on the specific contexts in which they occur. Understanding varying shades of defeasible contextualizations (i.e., additional information that strengthens or attenuates the moral acceptability of an action) is critical to accurately represent the subtlety and intricacy of grounded human moral judgment in real-life scenarios.
We introduce defeasible moral r…
▽ More
Moral or ethical judgments rely heavily on the specific contexts in which they occur. Understanding varying shades of defeasible contextualizations (i.e., additional information that strengthens or attenuates the moral acceptability of an action) is critical to accurately represent the subtlety and intricacy of grounded human moral judgment in real-life scenarios.
We introduce defeasible moral reasoning: a task to provide grounded contexts that make an action more or less morally acceptable, along with commonsense rationales that justify the reasoning. To elicit high-quality task data, we take an iterative self-distillation approach that starts from a small amount of unstructured seed knowledge from GPT-3 and then alternates between (1) self-distillation from student models; (2) targeted filtering with a critic model trained by human judgment (to boost validity) and NLI (to boost diversity); (3) self-imitation learning (to amplify the desired data quality). This process yields a student model that produces defeasible contexts with improved validity, diversity, and defeasibility. From this model we distill a high-quality dataset, δ-Rules-of-Thumb, of 1.2M entries of contextualizations and rationales for 115K defeasible moral actions rated highly by human annotators 85.9% to 99.8% of the time. Using δ-RoT we obtain a final student model that wins over all intermediate student models by a notable margin.
△ Less
Submitted 1 November, 2023; v1 submitted 23 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Phenomenal Yet Puzzling: Testing Inductive Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models with Hypothesis Refinement
Authors:
Linlu Qiu,
Liwei Jiang,
Ximing Lu,
Melanie Sclar,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Chandra Bhagavatula,
Bailin Wang,
Yoon Kim,
Yejin Choi,
Nouha Dziri,
Xiang Ren
Abstract:
The ability to derive underlying principles from a handful of observations and then generalize to novel situations -- known as inductive reasoning -- is central to human intelligence. Prior work suggests that language models (LMs) often fall short on inductive reasoning, despite achieving impressive success on research benchmarks. In this work, we conduct a systematic study of the inductive reason…
▽ More
The ability to derive underlying principles from a handful of observations and then generalize to novel situations -- known as inductive reasoning -- is central to human intelligence. Prior work suggests that language models (LMs) often fall short on inductive reasoning, despite achieving impressive success on research benchmarks. In this work, we conduct a systematic study of the inductive reasoning capabilities of LMs through iterative hypothesis refinement, a technique that more closely mirrors the human inductive process than standard input-output prompting. Iterative hypothesis refinement employs a three-step process: proposing, selecting, and refining hypotheses in the form of textual rules. By examining the intermediate rules, we observe that LMs are phenomenal hypothesis proposers (i.e., generating candidate rules), and when coupled with a (task-specific) symbolic interpreter that is able to systematically filter the proposed set of rules, this hybrid approach achieves strong results across inductive reasoning benchmarks that require inducing causal relations, language-like instructions, and symbolic concepts. However, they also behave as puzzling inductive reasoners, showing notable performance gaps between rule induction (i.e., identifying plausible rules) and rule application (i.e., applying proposed rules to instances), suggesting that LMs are proposing hypotheses without being able to actually apply the rules. Through empirical and human analyses, we further reveal several discrepancies between the inductive reasoning processes of LMs and humans, shedding light on both the potentials and limitations of using LMs in inductive reasoning tasks.
△ Less
Submitted 22 May, 2024; v1 submitted 12 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Duties
Authors:
Taylor Sorensen,
Liwei Jiang,
Jena Hwang,
Sydney Levine,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Peter West,
Nouha Dziri,
Ximing Lu,
Kavel Rao,
Chandra Bhagavatula,
Maarten Sap,
John Tasioulas,
Yejin Choi
Abstract:
Human values are crucial to human decision-making. Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another (e.g., when considering lying to a friend to protect their feelings, how does one balance honesty with friendship?). As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out these potentially irreducible value conflicts. To improve A…
▽ More
Human values are crucial to human decision-making. Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another (e.g., when considering lying to a friend to protect their feelings, how does one balance honesty with friendship?). As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out these potentially irreducible value conflicts. To improve AI systems to better reflect value pluralism, the first-order challenge is to explore the extent to which AI systems can model pluralistic human values, rights, and duties as well as their interaction.
We introduce ValuePrism, a large-scale dataset of 218k values, rights, and duties connected to 31k human-written situations. ValuePrism's contextualized values are generated by GPT-4 and deemed high-quality by human annotators 91% of the time. We conduct a large-scale study with annotators across diverse social and demographic backgrounds to try to understand whose values are represented.
With ValuePrism, we build Kaleido, an open, light-weight, and structured language-based multi-task model that generates, explains, and assesses the relevance and valence (i.e., support or oppose) of human values, rights, and duties within a specific context. Humans prefer the sets of values output by our system over the teacher GPT-4, finding them more accurate and with broader coverage. In addition, we demonstrate that Kaleido can help explain variability in human decision-making by outputting contrasting values. Finally, we show that Kaleido's representations transfer to other philosophical frameworks and datasets, confirming the benefit of an explicit, modular, and interpretable approach to value pluralism. We hope that our work will serve as a step to making more explicit the implicit values behind human decision-making and to steering AI systems to make decisions that are more in accordance with them.
△ Less
Submitted 2 April, 2024; v1 submitted 1 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
-
PlaSma: Making Small Language Models Better Procedural Knowledge Models for (Counterfactual) Planning
Authors:
Faeze Brahman,
Chandra Bhagavatula,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Jena D. Hwang,
Xiang Lorraine Li,
Hirona J. Arai,
Soumya Sanyal,
Keisuke Sakaguchi,
Xiang Ren,
Yejin Choi
Abstract:
Procedural planning, which entails decomposing a high-level goal into a sequence of temporally ordered steps, is an important yet intricate task for machines. It involves integrating common-sense knowledge to reason about complex contextualized situations that are often counterfactual, e.g. "scheduling a doctor's appointment without a phone". While current approaches show encouraging results using…
▽ More
Procedural planning, which entails decomposing a high-level goal into a sequence of temporally ordered steps, is an important yet intricate task for machines. It involves integrating common-sense knowledge to reason about complex contextualized situations that are often counterfactual, e.g. "scheduling a doctor's appointment without a phone". While current approaches show encouraging results using large language models (LLMs), they are hindered by drawbacks such as costly API calls and reproducibility issues. In this paper, we advocate planning using smaller language models. We present PlaSma, a novel two-pronged approach to endow small language models with procedural knowledge and (counterfactual) planning capabilities. More concretely, we develop symbolic procedural knowledge distillation to enhance the implicit knowledge in small language models and an inference-time algorithm to facilitate more structured and accurate reasoning. In addition, we introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Planning, that requires a revision of a plan to cope with a counterfactual situation. In both the original and counterfactual setting, we show that orders-of-magnitude smaller models (770M-11B parameters) can compete and often surpass their larger teacher models' capabilities.
△ Less
Submitted 26 July, 2023; v1 submitted 30 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Revisiting Sentence Union Generation as a Testbed for Text Consolidation
Authors:
Eran Hirsch,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Ruben Wolhandler,
Avi Caciularu,
Asi Shefer,
Ido Dagan
Abstract:
Tasks involving text generation based on multiple input texts, such as multi-document summarization, long-form question answering and contemporary dialogue applications, challenge models for their ability to properly consolidate partly-overlapping multi-text information. However, these tasks entangle the consolidation phase with the often subjective and ill-defined content selection requirement, i…
▽ More
Tasks involving text generation based on multiple input texts, such as multi-document summarization, long-form question answering and contemporary dialogue applications, challenge models for their ability to properly consolidate partly-overlapping multi-text information. However, these tasks entangle the consolidation phase with the often subjective and ill-defined content selection requirement, impeding proper assessment of models' consolidation capabilities. In this paper, we suggest revisiting the sentence union generation task as an effective well-defined testbed for assessing text consolidation capabilities, decoupling the consolidation challenge from subjective content selection. To support research on this task, we present refined annotation methodology and tools for crowdsourcing sentence union, create the largest union dataset to date and provide an analysis of its rich coverage of various consolidation aspects. We then propose a comprehensive evaluation protocol for union generation, including both human and automatic evaluation. Finally, as baselines, we evaluate state-of-the-art language models on the task, along with a detailed analysis of their capacity to address multi-text consolidation challenges and their limitations.
△ Less
Submitted 24 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Description-Based Text Similarity
Authors:
Shauli Ravfogel,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Amir DN Cohen,
Avshalom Manevich,
Yoav Goldberg
Abstract:
Identifying texts with a given semantics is central for many information seeking scenarios. Similarity search over vector embeddings appear to be central to this ability, yet the similarity reflected in current text embeddings is corpus-driven, and is inconsistent and sub-optimal for many use cases. What, then, is a good notion of similarity for effective retrieval of text?
We identify the need…
▽ More
Identifying texts with a given semantics is central for many information seeking scenarios. Similarity search over vector embeddings appear to be central to this ability, yet the similarity reflected in current text embeddings is corpus-driven, and is inconsistent and sub-optimal for many use cases. What, then, is a good notion of similarity for effective retrieval of text?
We identify the need to search for texts based on abstract descriptions of their content, and the corresponding notion of \emph{description based similarity}. We demonstrate the inadequacy of current text embeddings and propose an alternative model that significantly improves when used in standard nearest neighbor search. The model is trained using positive and negative pairs sourced through prompting a LLM, demonstrating how data from LLMs can be used for creating new capabilities not immediately possible using the original model.
△ Less
Submitted 26 April, 2024; v1 submitted 21 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Design Choices for Crowdsourcing Implicit Discourse Relations: Revealing the Biases Introduced by Task Design
Authors:
Valentina Pyatkin,
Frances Yung,
Merel C. J. Scholman,
Reut Tsarfaty,
Ido Dagan,
Vera Demberg
Abstract:
Disagreement in natural language annotation has mostly been studied from a perspective of biases introduced by the annotators and the annotation frameworks. Here, we propose to analyze another source of bias: task design bias, which has a particularly strong impact on crowdsourced linguistic annotations where natural language is used to elicit the interpretation of laymen annotators. For this purp…
▽ More
Disagreement in natural language annotation has mostly been studied from a perspective of biases introduced by the annotators and the annotation frameworks. Here, we propose to analyze another source of bias: task design bias, which has a particularly strong impact on crowdsourced linguistic annotations where natural language is used to elicit the interpretation of laymen annotators. For this purpose we look at implicit discourse relation annotation, a task that has repeatedly been shown to be difficult due to the relations' ambiguity. We compare the annotations of 1,200 discourse relations obtained using two distinct annotation tasks and quantify the biases of both methods across four different domains. Both methods are natural language annotation tasks designed for crowdsourcing. We show that the task design can push annotators towards certain relations and that some discourse relations senses can be better elicited with one or the other annotation approach. We also conclude that this type of bias should be taken into account when training and testing models.
△ Less
Submitted 3 April, 2023;
originally announced April 2023.
-
ClarifyDelphi: Reinforced Clarification Questions with Defeasibility Rewards for Social and Moral Situations
Authors:
Valentina Pyatkin,
Jena D. Hwang,
Vivek Srikumar,
Ximing Lu,
Liwei Jiang,
Yejin Choi,
Chandra Bhagavatula
Abstract:
Context is everything, even in commonsense moral reasoning. Changing contexts can flip the moral judgment of an action; "Lying to a friend" is wrong in general, but may be morally acceptable if it is intended to protect their life.
We present ClarifyDelphi, an interactive system that learns to ask clarification questions (e.g., why did you lie to your friend?) in order to elicit additional salie…
▽ More
Context is everything, even in commonsense moral reasoning. Changing contexts can flip the moral judgment of an action; "Lying to a friend" is wrong in general, but may be morally acceptable if it is intended to protect their life.
We present ClarifyDelphi, an interactive system that learns to ask clarification questions (e.g., why did you lie to your friend?) in order to elicit additional salient contexts of a social or moral situation. We posit that questions whose potential answers lead to diverging moral judgments are the most informative. Thus, we propose a reinforcement learning framework with a defeasibility reward that aims to maximize the divergence between moral judgments of hypothetical answers to a question. Human evaluation demonstrates that our system generates more relevant, informative and defeasible questions compared to competitive baselines. Our work is ultimately inspired by studies in cognitive science that have investigated the flexibility in moral cognition (i.e., the diverse contexts in which moral rules can be bent), and we hope that research in this direction can assist both cognitive and computational investigations of moral judgments.
△ Less
Submitted 30 May, 2023; v1 submitted 20 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
-
Just-DREAM-about-it: Figurative Language Understanding with DREAM-FLUTE
Authors:
Yuling Gu,
Yao Fu,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Ian Magnusson,
Bhavana Dalvi Mishra,
Peter Clark
Abstract:
Figurative language (e.g., "he flew like the wind") is challenging to understand, as it is hard to tell what implicit information is being conveyed from the surface form alone. We hypothesize that to perform this task well, the reader needs to mentally elaborate the scene being described to identify a sensible meaning of the language. We present DREAM-FLUTE, a figurative language understanding sys…
▽ More
Figurative language (e.g., "he flew like the wind") is challenging to understand, as it is hard to tell what implicit information is being conveyed from the surface form alone. We hypothesize that to perform this task well, the reader needs to mentally elaborate the scene being described to identify a sensible meaning of the language. We present DREAM-FLUTE, a figurative language understanding system that does this, first forming a "mental model" of situations described in a premise and hypothesis before making an entailment/contradiction decision and generating an explanation. DREAM-FLUTE uses an existing scene elaboration model, DREAM, for constructing its "mental model." In the FigLang2022 Shared Task evaluation, DREAM-FLUTE achieved (joint) first place (Acc@60=63.3%), and can perform even better with ensemble techniques, demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach. More generally, this work suggests that adding a reflective component to pretrained language models can improve their performance beyond standard fine-tuning (3.3% improvement in Acc@60).
△ Less
Submitted 28 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
-
QASem Parsing: Text-to-text Modeling of QA-based Semantics
Authors:
Ayal Klein,
Eran Hirsch,
Ron Eliav,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Avi Caciularu,
Ido Dagan
Abstract:
Several recent works have suggested to represent semantic relations with questions and answers, decomposing textual information into separate interrogative natural language statements. In this paper, we consider three QA-based semantic tasks - namely, QA-SRL, QANom and QADiscourse, each targeting a certain type of predication - and propose to regard them as jointly providing a comprehensive repres…
▽ More
Several recent works have suggested to represent semantic relations with questions and answers, decomposing textual information into separate interrogative natural language statements. In this paper, we consider three QA-based semantic tasks - namely, QA-SRL, QANom and QADiscourse, each targeting a certain type of predication - and propose to regard them as jointly providing a comprehensive representation of textual information. To promote this goal, we investigate how to best utilize the power of sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) pre-trained language models, within the unique setup of semi-structured outputs, consisting of an unordered set of question-answer pairs. We examine different input and output linearization strategies, and assess the effect of multitask learning and of simple data augmentation techniques in the setting of imbalanced training data. Consequently, we release the first unified QASem parsing tool, practical for downstream applications who can benefit from an explicit, QA-based account of information units in a text.
△ Less
Submitted 14 February, 2023; v1 submitted 23 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Asking It All: Generating Contextualized Questions for any Semantic Role
Authors:
Valentina Pyatkin,
Paul Roit,
Julian Michael,
Reut Tsarfaty,
Yoav Goldberg,
Ido Dagan
Abstract:
Asking questions about a situation is an inherent step towards understanding it. To this end, we introduce the task of role question generation, which, given a predicate mention and a passage, requires producing a set of questions asking about all possible semantic roles of the predicate. We develop a two-stage model for this task, which first produces a context-independent question prototype for…
▽ More
Asking questions about a situation is an inherent step towards understanding it. To this end, we introduce the task of role question generation, which, given a predicate mention and a passage, requires producing a set of questions asking about all possible semantic roles of the predicate. We develop a two-stage model for this task, which first produces a context-independent question prototype for each role and then revises it to be contextually appropriate for the passage. Unlike most existing approaches to question generation, our approach does not require conditioning on existing answers in the text. Instead, we condition on the type of information to inquire about, regardless of whether the answer appears explicitly in the text, could be inferred from it, or should be sought elsewhere. Our evaluation demonstrates that we generate diverse and well-formed questions for a large, broad-coverage ontology of predicates and roles.
△ Less
Submitted 10 September, 2021;
originally announced September 2021.
-
Draw Me a Flower: Processing and Grounding Abstraction in Natural Language
Authors:
Royi Lachmy,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Avshalom Manevich,
Reut Tsarfaty
Abstract:
Abstraction is a core tenet of human cognition and communication. When composing natural language instructions, humans naturally evoke abstraction to convey complex procedures in an efficient and concise way. Yet, interpreting and grounding abstraction expressed in NL has not yet been systematically studied in NLP, with no accepted benchmarks specifically eliciting abstraction in NL. In this work,…
▽ More
Abstraction is a core tenet of human cognition and communication. When composing natural language instructions, humans naturally evoke abstraction to convey complex procedures in an efficient and concise way. Yet, interpreting and grounding abstraction expressed in NL has not yet been systematically studied in NLP, with no accepted benchmarks specifically eliciting abstraction in NL. In this work, we set the foundation for a systematic study of processing and grounding abstraction in NLP. First, we deliver a novel abstraction elicitation method and present Hexagons, a 2D instruction-following game. Using Hexagons we collected over 4k naturally-occurring visually-grounded instructions rich with diverse types of abstractions. From these data, we derive an instruction-to-execution task and assess different types of neural models. Our results show that contemporary models and modeling practices are substantially inferior to human performance, and that models' performance is inversely correlated with the level of abstraction, showing less satisfying performance on higher levels of abstraction. These findings are consistent across models and setups, confirming that abstraction is a challenging phenomenon deserving further attention and study in NLP/AI research.
△ Less
Submitted 30 September, 2022; v1 submitted 27 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
The Possible, the Plausible, and the Desirable: Event-Based Modality Detection for Language Processing
Authors:
Valentina Pyatkin,
Shoval Sadde,
Aynat Rubinstein,
Paul Portner,
Reut Tsarfaty
Abstract:
Modality is the linguistic ability to describe events with added information such as how desirable, plausible, or feasible they are. Modality is important for many NLP downstream tasks such as the detection of hedging, uncertainty, speculation, and more. Previous studies that address modality detection in NLP often restrict modal expressions to a closed syntactic class, and the modal sense labels…
▽ More
Modality is the linguistic ability to describe events with added information such as how desirable, plausible, or feasible they are. Modality is important for many NLP downstream tasks such as the detection of hedging, uncertainty, speculation, and more. Previous studies that address modality detection in NLP often restrict modal expressions to a closed syntactic class, and the modal sense labels are vastly different across different studies, lacking an accepted standard. Furthermore, these senses are often analyzed independently of the events that they modify. This work builds on the theoretical foundations of the Georgetown Gradable Modal Expressions (GME) work by Rubinstein et al. (2013) to propose an event-based modality detection task where modal expressions can be words of any syntactic class and sense labels are drawn from a comprehensive taxonomy which harmonizes the modal concepts contributed by the different studies. We present experiments on the GME corpus aiming to detect and classify fine-grained modal concepts and associate them with their modified events. We show that detecting and classifying modal expressions is not only feasible, but also improves the detection of modal events in their own right.
△ Less
Submitted 15 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
QADiscourse -- Discourse Relations as QA Pairs: Representation, Crowdsourcing and Baselines
Authors:
Valentina Pyatkin,
Ayal Klein,
Reut Tsarfaty,
Ido Dagan
Abstract:
Discourse relations describe how two propositions relate to one another, and identifying them automatically is an integral part of natural language understanding. However, annotating discourse relations typically requires expert annotators. Recently, different semantic aspects of a sentence have been represented and crowd-sourced via question-and-answer (QA) pairs. This paper proposes a novel repr…
▽ More
Discourse relations describe how two propositions relate to one another, and identifying them automatically is an integral part of natural language understanding. However, annotating discourse relations typically requires expert annotators. Recently, different semantic aspects of a sentence have been represented and crowd-sourced via question-and-answer (QA) pairs. This paper proposes a novel representation of discourse relations as QA pairs, which in turn allows us to crowd-source wide-coverage data annotated with discourse relations, via an intuitively appealing interface for composing such questions and answers. Based on our proposed representation, we collect a novel and wide-coverage QADiscourse dataset, and present baseline algorithms for predicting QADiscourse relations.
△ Less
Submitted 6 October, 2020;
originally announced October 2020.
-
On Finding Maximum Cardinality Subset of Vectors with a Constraint on Normalized Squared Length of Vectors Sum
Authors:
Anton V. Eremeev,
Alexander V. Kelmanov,
Artem V. Pyatkin,
Igor A. Ziegler
Abstract:
In this paper, we consider the problem of finding a maximum cardinality subset of vectors, given a constraint on the normalized squared length of vectors sum. This problem is closely related to Problem 1 from (Eremeev, Kel'manov, Pyatkin, 2016). The main difference consists in swapping the constraint with the optimization criterion.
We prove that the problem is NP-hard even in terms of finding a…
▽ More
In this paper, we consider the problem of finding a maximum cardinality subset of vectors, given a constraint on the normalized squared length of vectors sum. This problem is closely related to Problem 1 from (Eremeev, Kel'manov, Pyatkin, 2016). The main difference consists in swapping the constraint with the optimization criterion.
We prove that the problem is NP-hard even in terms of finding a feasible solution. An exact algorithm for solving this problem is proposed. The algorithm has a pseudo-polynomial time complexity in the special case of the problem, where the dimension of the space is bounded from above by a constant and the input data are integer. A computational experiment is carried out, where the proposed algorithm is compared to COINBONMIN solver, applied to a mixed integer quadratic programming formulation of the problem. The results of the experiment indicate superiority of the proposed algorithm when the dimension of Euclidean space is low, while the COINBONMIN has an advantage for larger dimensions.
△ Less
Submitted 19 July, 2017;
originally announced July 2017.
-
A fixed-parameter algorithm for a routing open shop problem: unit processing times, few machines and locations
Authors:
René van Bevern,
Artem V. Pyatkin
Abstract:
The open shop problem is to find a minimum makespan schedule to process each job $J_i$ on each machine $M_q$ for $p_{iq}$ time such that, at any time, each machine processes at most one job and each job is processed by at most one machine. We study a problem variant in which the jobs are located in the vertices of an edge-weighted graph. The weights determine the time needed for the machines to tr…
▽ More
The open shop problem is to find a minimum makespan schedule to process each job $J_i$ on each machine $M_q$ for $p_{iq}$ time such that, at any time, each machine processes at most one job and each job is processed by at most one machine. We study a problem variant in which the jobs are located in the vertices of an edge-weighted graph. The weights determine the time needed for the machines to travel between jobs in different vertices. We show that the problem with $m$ machines and $n$ unit-time jobs in $g$ vertices is solvable in $2^{O(gm^2\log gm)}+O(mn\log n)$ time.
△ Less
Submitted 25 April, 2017; v1 submitted 3 March, 2016;
originally announced March 2016.
