The capabilities and use cases of automatic natural language processing (NLP) have grown significantly over the last few years. While much work has been devoted to understanding how humans deal with discourse connectives, this phenomenon is understudied in computational systems. Therefore, it is important to put NLP models under the microscope and examine whether they can adequately comprehend, process, and reason within the complexity of natural language. In this chapter, we introduce the main mechanisms behind automatic sentence processing systems step by step and then focus on evaluating discourse connective processing. We assess nine popular systems in their ability to understand English discourse connectives and analyze how context and language understanding tasks affect their connective comprehension. The results show that NLP systems do not process all discourse connectives equally well and that the computational processing complexity of different connective kinds is not always consistently in line with the presumed complexity order found in human processing. In addition, while humans are more inclined to be influenced during the reading procedure but not necessarily in the final comprehension performance, discourse connectives have a significant impact on the final accuracy of NLP systems. The richer knowledge of connectives a system learns, the more negative effect inappropriate connectives have on it. This suggests that the correct explicitation of discourse connectives is important for computational natural language processing.
Tabular data is one of the most commonly used types of data in machine learning. Despite recent advances in neural nets (NNs) for tabular data, there is still an active discussion on whether or not NNs generally outperform gradient-boosted decision trees (GBDTs) on tabular data, with several recent works arguing either that GBDTs consistently outperform NNs on tabular data, or vice versa. In this work, we take a step back and question the importance of this debate. To this end, we conduct the largest tabular data analysis to date, comparing 19 algorithms across 176 datasets, and we find that the 'NN vs. GBDT' debate is overemphasized: for a surprisingly high number of datasets, either the performance difference between GBDTs and NNs is negligible, or light hyperparameter tuning on a GBDT is more important than choosing between NNs and GBDTs. Next, we analyze dozens of metafeatures to determine what \emph{properties} of a dataset make NNs or GBDTs better-suited to perform well. For example, we find that GBDTs are much better than NNs at handling skewed or heavy-tailed feature distributions and other forms of dataset irregularities. Our insights act as a guide for practitioners to determine which techniques may work best on their dataset. Finally, with the goal of accelerating tabular data research, we release the TabZilla Benchmark Suite: a collection of the 36 'hardest' of the datasets we study. Our benchmark suite, codebase, and all raw results are available at //github.com/naszilla/tabzilla.
Both standalone language models (LMs) as well as LMs within downstream-task systems have been shown to generate statements which are factually untrue. This problem is especially severe for low-resource languages, where training data is scarce and of worse quality than for high-resource languages. In this opinion piece, we argue that LMs in their current state will never be fully trustworthy in critical settings and suggest a possible novel strategy to handle this issue: by building LMs such that can cite their sources - i.e., point a user to the parts of their training data that back up their outputs. We first discuss which current NLP tasks would or would not benefit from such models. We then highlight the expected benefits such models would bring, e.g., quick verifiability of statements. We end by outlining the individual tasks that would need to be solved on the way to developing LMs with the ability to cite. We hope to start a discussion about the field's current approach to building LMs, especially for low-resource languages, and the role of the training data in explaining model generations.
Abstractive text summarization has garnered increased interest as of late, in part due to the proliferation of large language models (LLMs). One of the most pressing problems related to generation of abstractive summaries is the need to reduce "hallucinations," information that was not included in the document being summarized, and which may be wholly incorrect. Due to this need, a wide array of metrics estimating consistency with the text being summarized have been proposed. We examine in particular a suite of unsupervised metrics for summary consistency, and measure their correlations with each other and with human evaluation scores in the wiki_bio_gpt3_hallucination dataset. We then compare these evaluations to models made from a simple linear ensemble of these metrics. We find that LLM-based methods outperform other unsupervised metrics for hallucination detection. We also find that ensemble methods can improve these scores even further, provided that the metrics in the ensemble have sufficiently similar and uncorrelated error rates. Finally, we present an ensemble method for LLM-based evaluations that we show improves over this previous SOTA.
Semantic Change Detection (SCD) of words is an important task for various NLP applications that must make time-sensitive predictions. Some words are used over time in novel ways to express new meanings, and these new meanings establish themselves as novel senses of existing words. On the other hand, Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) methods associate ambiguous words with sense ids, depending on the context in which they occur. Given this relationship between WSD and SCD, we explore the possibility of predicting whether a target word has its meaning changed between two corpora collected at different time steps, by comparing the distributions of senses of that word in each corpora. For this purpose, we use pretrained static sense embeddings to automatically annotate each occurrence of the target word in a corpus with a sense id. Next, we compute the distribution of sense ids of a target word in a given corpus. Finally, we use different divergence or distance measures to quantify the semantic change of the target word across the two given corpora. Our experimental results on SemEval 2020 Task 1 dataset show that word sense distributions can be accurately used to predict semantic changes of words in English, German, Swedish and Latin.
Training on large-scale graphs has achieved remarkable results in graph representation learning, but its cost and storage have attracted increasing concerns. Existing graph condensation methods primarily focus on optimizing the feature matrices of condensed graphs while overlooking the impact of the structure information from the original graphs. To investigate the impact of the structure information, we conduct analysis from the spectral domain and empirically identify substantial Laplacian Energy Distribution (LED) shifts in previous works. Such shifts lead to poor performance in cross-architecture generalization and specific tasks, including anomaly detection and link prediction. In this paper, we propose a novel Structure-broadcasting Graph Dataset Distillation (SGDD) scheme for broadcasting the original structure information to the generation of the synthetic one, which explicitly prevents overlooking the original structure information. Theoretically, the synthetic graphs by SGDD are expected to have smaller LED shifts than previous works, leading to superior performance in both cross-architecture settings and specific tasks. We validate the proposed SGDD across 9 datasets and achieve state-of-the-art results on all of them: for example, on the YelpChi dataset, our approach maintains 98.6% test accuracy of training on the original graph dataset with 1,000 times saving on the scale of the graph. Moreover, we empirically evaluate there exist 17.6% ~ 31.4% reductions in LED shift crossing 9 datasets. Extensive experiments and analysis verify the effectiveness and necessity of the proposed designs. The code is available in the GitHub repository: //github.com/RingBDStack/SGDD.
Large language models (LLMs) have gained enormous attention from both academia and industry, due to their exceptional ability in language generation and extremely powerful generalization. However, current LLMs still output unreliable content in practical reasoning tasks due to their inherent issues (e.g., hallucination). To better disentangle this problem, in this paper, we conduct an in-depth investigation to systematically explore the capability of LLMs in logical reasoning. More in detail, we first investigate the deficiency of LLMs in logical reasoning on different tasks, including event relation extraction and deductive reasoning. Our study demonstrates that LLMs are not good reasoners in solving tasks with rigorous reasoning and will produce counterfactual answers, which require us to iteratively refine. Therefore, we comprehensively explore different strategies to endow LLMs with logical reasoning ability, and thus enable them to generate more logically consistent answers across different scenarios. Based on our approach, we also contribute a synthesized dataset (LLM-LR) involving multi-hop reasoning for evaluation and pre-training. Extensive quantitative and qualitative analyses on different tasks also validate the effectiveness and necessity of teaching LLMs with logic and provide insights for solving practical tasks with LLMs in future work.
Explainability methods are used to benchmark the extent to which model predictions align with human rationales i.e., are 'right for the right reasons'. Previous work has failed to acknowledge, however, that what counts as a rationale is sometimes subjective. This paper presents what we think is a first of its kind, a collection of human rationale annotations augmented with the annotators demographic information. We cover three datasets spanning sentiment analysis and common-sense reasoning, and six demographic groups (balanced across age and ethnicity). Such data enables us to ask both what demographics our predictions align with and whose reasoning patterns our models' rationales align with. We find systematic inter-group annotator disagreement and show how 16 Transformer-based models align better with rationales provided by certain demographic groups: We find that models are biased towards aligning best with older and/or white annotators. We zoom in on the effects of model size and model distillation, finding -- contrary to our expectations -- negative correlations between model size and rationale agreement as well as no evidence that either model size or model distillation improves fairness.
Feature attribution methods are popular in interpretable machine learning. These methods compute the attribution of each input feature to represent its importance, but there is no consensus on the definition of "attribution", leading to many competing methods with little systematic evaluation, complicated in particular by the lack of ground truth attribution. To address this, we propose a dataset modification procedure to induce such ground truth. Using this procedure, we evaluate three common methods: saliency maps, rationales, and attentions. We identify several deficiencies and add new perspectives to the growing body of evidence questioning the correctness and reliability of these methods applied on datasets in the wild. We further discuss possible avenues for remedy and recommend new attribution methods to be tested against ground truth before deployment. The code is available at \url{//github.com/YilunZhou/feature-attribution-evaluation}.
Recently, a considerable literature has grown up around the theme of Graph Convolutional Network (GCN). How to effectively leverage the rich structural information in complex graphs, such as knowledge graphs with heterogeneous types of entities and relations, is a primary open challenge in the field. Most GCN methods are either restricted to graphs with a homogeneous type of edges (e.g., citation links only), or focusing on representation learning for nodes only instead of jointly propagating and updating the embeddings of both nodes and edges for target-driven objectives. This paper addresses these limitations by proposing a novel framework, namely the Knowledge Embedding based Graph Convolutional Network (KE-GCN), which combines the power of GCNs in graph-based belief propagation and the strengths of advanced knowledge embedding (a.k.a. knowledge graph embedding) methods, and goes beyond. Our theoretical analysis shows that KE-GCN offers an elegant unification of several well-known GCN methods as specific cases, with a new perspective of graph convolution. Experimental results on benchmark datasets show the advantageous performance of KE-GCN over strong baseline methods in the tasks of knowledge graph alignment and entity classification.
Non-convex optimization is ubiquitous in modern machine learning. Researchers devise non-convex objective functions and optimize them using off-the-shelf optimizers such as stochastic gradient descent and its variants, which leverage the local geometry and update iteratively. Even though solving non-convex functions is NP-hard in the worst case, the optimization quality in practice is often not an issue -- optimizers are largely believed to find approximate global minima. Researchers hypothesize a unified explanation for this intriguing phenomenon: most of the local minima of the practically-used objectives are approximately global minima. We rigorously formalize it for concrete instances of machine learning problems.