Search for: All records

Automatic discourse processing is bottlenecked by data: current discourse formalisms pose highly demanding annotation tasks involving large taxonomies of discourse relations, making them inaccessible to lay annotators. This work instead adopts the linguistic framework of Questions Under Discussion (QUD) for discourse analysis and seeks to derive QUD structures automatically. QUD views each sentence as an answer to a question triggered in prior context; thus, we characterize relationships between sentences as free-form questions, in contrast to exhaustive fine-grained taxonomies. We develop the first-of-its-kind QUD parser that derives a dependency structure of questions over full documents, trained using a large, crowdsourced question-answering dataset DCQA (Ko et al., 2022). Human evaluation results show that QUD dependency parsing is possible for language models trained with this crowdsourced, generalizable annotation scheme. We illustrate how our QUD structure is distinct from RST trees, and demonstrate the utility of QUD analysis in the context of document simplification. Our findings show that QUD parsing is an appealing alternative for automatic discourse processing. 

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable successes in zero- and few-shot performance on various downstream tasks, paving the way for applications in high-stakes domains. In this study, we systematically examine the capabilities and limitations of LLMs, specifically GPT-3.5 and ChatGPT, in performing zero-shot medical evidence summarization across six clinical domains. We conduct both automatic and human evaluations, covering several dimensions of summary quality. Our study demonstrates that automatic metrics often do not strongly correlate with the quality of summaries. Furthermore, informed by our human evaluations, we define a terminology of error types for medical evidence summarization. Our findings reveal that LLMs could be susceptible to generating factually inconsistent summaries and making overly convincing or uncertain statements, leading to potential harm due to misinformation. Moreover, we find that models struggle to identify the salient information and are more error-prone when summarizing over longer textual contexts.

 

Despite recent progress in abstractive summarization, models often generate summaries with factual errors. Numerous approaches to detect these errors have been proposed, the most popular of which are question answering (QA)-based factuality metrics. These have been shown to work well at predicting summary-level factuality and have potential to localize errors within summaries, but this latter capability has not been systematically evaluated in past research. In this paper, we conduct the first such analysis and find that, contrary to our expectations, QA-based frameworks fail to correctly identify error spans in generated summaries and are outperformed by trivial exact match baselines. Our analysis reveals a major reason for such poor localization: questions generated by the QG module often inherit errors from non-factual summaries which are then propagated further into downstream modules. Moreover, even human-in-the-loop question generation cannot easily offset these problems. Our experiments conclusively show that there exist fundamental issues with localization using the QA framework which cannot be fixed solely by stronger QA and QG models. 

Progress in summarizing long texts is inhibited by the lack of appropriate evaluation frameworks. A long summary that appropriately covers the facets of that text must also present a coherent narrative, but current automatic and human evaluation methods fail to identify gaps in coherence. In this work, we introduce SNaC, a narrative coherence evaluation framework for fine-grained annotations of long summaries. We develop a taxonomy of coherence errors in generated narrative summaries and collect span-level annotations for 6.6k sentences across 150 book and movie summaries. Our work provides the first characterization of coherence errors generated by state-of-the-art summarization models and a protocol for eliciting coherence judgments from crowdworkers. Furthermore, we show that the collected annotations allow us to benchmark past work in coherence modeling and train a strong classifier for automatically localizing coherence errors in generated summaries. Finally, our SNaC framework can support future work in long document summarization and coherence evaluation, including improved summarization modeling and post-hoc summary correction. 

A growing swath of NLP research is tackling problems related to generating long text, including tasks such as open-ended story generation, summarization, dialogue, and more. However, we currently lack appropriate tools to evaluate these long outputs of generation models: classic automatic metrics such as ROUGE have been shown to perform poorly, and newer learned metrics do not necessarily work well for all tasks and domains of text. Human rating and error analysis remains a crucial component for any evaluation of long text generation. In this paper, we introduce FALTE, a web-based annotation toolkit designed to address this shortcoming. Our tool allows researchers to collect fine-grained judgments of text quality from crowdworkers using an error taxonomy specific to the downstream task. Using the task interface, annotators can select and assign error labels to text span selections in an incremental paragraph-level annotation workflow. The latter functionality is designed to simplify the document-level task into smaller units and reduce cognitive load on the annotators. Our tool has previously been used to run a large-scale annotation study that evaluates the coherence of long generated summaries, demonstrating its utility. 

While there has been substantial progress in text comprehension through simple factoid question answering, more holistic comprehension of a discourse still presents a major challenge (Dunietz et al., 2020). Someone critically reflecting on a text as they read it will pose curiosity-driven, often open-ended questions, which reflect deep understanding of the content and require complex reasoning to answer (Ko et al., 2020; Westera et al., 2020). A key challenge in building and evaluating models for this type of discourse comprehension is the lack of annotated data, especially since collecting answers to such questions requires high cognitive load for annotators. This paper presents a novel paradigm that enables scalable data collection targeting the comprehension of news documents, viewing these questions through the lens of discourse. The resulting corpus, DCQA (Discourse Comprehension by Question Answering), captures both discourse and semantic links between sentences in the form of free-form, open-ended questions. On an evaluation set that we annotated on questions from Ko et al. (2020), we show that DCQA provides valuable supervision for answering open-ended questions. We additionally design pre-training methods utilizing existing question-answering resources, and use synthetic data to accommodate unanswerable questions. 

We propose a new technique based on program synthesis for automatically generating visualizations from natural language queries. Our method parses the natural language query into a refinement type specification using the intents-and-slots paradigm and leverages type-directed synthesis to generate a set of visualization programs that are most likely to meet the user's intent. Our refinement type system captures useful hints present in the natural language query and allows the synthesis algorithm to reject visualizations that violate well-established design guidelines for the input data set. We have implemented our ideas in a tool called Graphy and evaluated it on NLVCorpus, which consists of 3 popular datasets and over 700 real-world natural language queries. Our experiments show that Graphy significantly outperforms state-of-the-art natural language based visualization tools, including transformer and rule-based ones. 

Does prompting a large language model (LLM) like GPT-3 with explanations improve in-context learning? We study this question on two NLP tasks that involve reasoning over text, namely question answering and natural language inference. We test the performance of four LLMs on three textual reasoning datasets using prompts that include explanations in multiple different styles. For these tasks, we find that including explanations in the prompts for OPT, GPT-3 (davinci), and InstructGPT (text-davinci-001) only yields small to moderate accuracy improvements over standard few-show learning. However, text-davinci-002 is able to benefit more substantially. We further show that explanations generated by the LLMs may not entail the models' predictions nor be factually grounded in the input, even on simple tasks with extractive explanations. However, these flawed explanations can still be useful as a way to verify LLMs' predictions post-hoc. Through analysis in our three settings, we show that explanations judged by humans to be good---logically consistent with the input and the prediction---more likely cooccur with accurate predictions. Following these observations, we train calibrators using automatically extracted scores that assess the reliability of explanations, allowing us to improve performance post-hoc across all of our datasets.