ACL 2024 论文列表

While the recent Chain-of-Thought (CoT) technique enhances the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) with the theory of mind, it might still struggle in handling logical reasoning that relies much on symbolic expressions and rigid deducing rules. To strengthen the logical reasoning capability of LLMs, we propose a novel Symbolic Chain-of-Thought, namely SymbCoT, a fully LLM-based framework that integrates symbolic expressions and logic rules with CoT prompting. Technically, building upon an LLM, SymbCoT 1) first translates the natural language context into the symbolic format, and then 2) derives a step-by-step plan to solve the problem with symbolic logical rules, 3) followed by a verifier to check the translation and reasoning chain. Via thorough evaluations on 5 standard datasets with both First-Order Logic and Constraint Optimization symbolic expressions, SymbCoT shows striking improvements over the CoT method consistently, meanwhile refreshing the current state-of-the-art performances. We further demonstrate that our system advances in more faithful, flexible, and explainable logical reasoning. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt at combining symbolic expressions and rules into CoT for logical reasoning with LLMs. Code is open at https://github.com/Aiden0526/SymbCoT.

Chart-to-summary generation can help explore data, communicate insights, and help the visually impaired people. Multi-modal generative models have been used to produce fluent summaries, but they can suffer from factual and perceptual errors. In this work we present CHATS-CRITIC, a reference-free chart summarization metric for scoring faithfulness. CHATS-CRITIC is composed of an image-to-text model to recover the table from a chart, and a tabular entailment model applied to score the summary sentence by sentence. We find that CHATS-CRITIC evaluates the summary quality according to human ratings better than reference-based metrics, either learned or n-gram based, and can be further used to fix candidate summaries by removing not supported sentences. We then introduce CHATS-PI, a chart-to-summary pipeline that leverages CHATS-CRITIC during inference to fix and rank sampled candidates from any chart-summarization model. We evaluate CHATS-PI and CHATS-CRITIC using human raters, establishing state-of-the-art results on two popular chart-to-summary datasets.

Existing literature that integrates CLIP into federated learning (FL) largely ignores the inherent group unfairness within CLIP and its ethical implications on FL applications. Furthermore, such CLIP bias may be amplified in FL, due to the unique issue of data heterogeneity across clients. However, in identity-sensitive FL applications, model fairness (i.e., group fairness) is imperative for model development. Therefore, this work explores a critical question ignored by the existing literature: how can we build a fair FL framework using biased pre-trained VLMs (e.g., CLIP)? To address this problem, we propose a fairness-aware adaptation framework tailored for VLM (e.g., CLIP) in the context of FL, named Fair Federated Deep Visiual Prompting or FF-DVP. As implied by its name, trains a fair FL model with fairness-aware deep visual prompting (DVP). Moreover, incorporates modality-fused classification heads to learn client-specific knowledge and fairness constraints. These modules explicitly addresses a unique bias in FL, namely the bias triggered by data heterogeneity. We show that can be readily extended to prevailing parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods (e.g., adapter or LoRA) for debiasing. To the best of our knowledge, is the first to leverage biased VLMs for building fair FL frameworks. Extensive results on human face attribute recognition (FAR) applications suggest that effectively improves model fairness and training convergence, outperforming state-of-the-art baselines.

Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to be unreliable on fact-based answers.To address this problem, NLP researchers have proposed a range of techniques to estimate LLM’s confidence over facts. However, due to the lack of a systematic comparison, it is not clear how the different methods compare to one other.To fill this gap, we present a rigorous survey and empirical comparison of estimators of factual confidence.We define an experimental framework allowing for fair comparison, covering both fact-verification and QA. Our experiments across a series of LLMs indicate that trained hidden-state probes provide the most reliable confidence estimates; albeit at the expense of requiring access to weights and supervision data. We also conduct a deeper assessment of the methods, in which we measure the consistency of model behavior under meaning-preserving variations in the input. We find that the factual confidence of LLMs is often unstable across semantically equivalent inputs, suggesting there is much room for improvement for the stability of models’ parametric knowledge.

Plain language summarization with LLMs can be useful for improving textual accessibility of technical content. But how factual are these summaries in a high-stakes domain like medicine? This paper presents FactPICO, a factuality benchmark for plain language summarization of medical texts describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are the basis of evidence-based medicine and can directly inform patient treatment. FactPICO consists of 345 plain language summaries of RCT abstracts generated from three LLMs (i.e., GPT-4, Llama-2, and Alpaca), with fine-grained evaluation and natural language rationales from experts. We assess the factuality of critical elements of RCTs in those summaries: Populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes (PICO), as well as the reported findings concerning these. We also evaluate the correctness of the extra information (e.g., explanations) added by LLMs. Using FactPICO, we benchmark a range of existing factuality metrics, including the newly devised ones based on LLMs. We find that plain language summarization of medical evidence is still challenging, especially when balancing between simplicity and factuality, and that existing metrics correlate poorly with expert judgments on the instance level.

For a LLM to be trustworthy, its confidence level should be well-calibrated with its actual performance. While it is now common sense that LLM performances are greatly impacted by prompts, the confidence calibration in prompting LLMs has yet to be thoroughly explored.In this paper, we explore how different prompting strategies influence LLM confidence calibration and how it could be improved. We conduct extensive experiments on six prompting methods in the question-answering context and we observe that, while these methods help improve the expected LLM calibration, they also trigger LLMs to be over-confident when responding to some instances.Inspired by human cognition, we propose Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) prompting, which improves the LLM calibration in two steps. First, FaR elicits the known “facts” that are relevant to the input prompt from the LLM. And then it asks the model to “reflect” over them to generate the final answer.Experiments show that FaR prompting achieves significantly better calibration; it lowers the Expected Calibration Error by 23.5% on our multi-purpose QA tasks. Notably, FaR prompting even elicits the capability of verbally expressing concerns in less confident scenarios, which helps trigger retrieval augmentation for solving these harder instances.

Large language models (LLMs) are notorious for hallucinating, i.e., producing erroneous claims in their output. Such hallucinations can be dangerous, as occasional factual inaccuracies in the generated text might be obscured by the rest of the output being generally factually correct, making it extremely hard for the users to spot them. Current services that leverage LLMs usually do not provide any means for detecting unreliable generations. Here, we aim to bridge this gap. In particular, we propose a novel fact-checking and hallucination detection pipeline based on token-level uncertainty quantification. Uncertainty scores leverage information encapsulated in the output of a neural network or its layers to detect unreliable predictions, and we show that they can be used to fact-check the atomic claims in the LLM output. Moreover, we present a novel token-level uncertainty quantification method that removes the impact of uncertainty about what claim to generate on the current step and what surface form to use. Our method Claim Conditioned Probability (CCP) measures only the uncertainty of a particular claim value expressed by the model. Experiments on the task of biography generation demonstrate strong improvements for CCP compared to the baselines for seven different LLMs and four languages. Human evaluation reveals that the fact-checking pipeline based on uncertainty quantification is competitive with a fact-checking tool that leverages external knowledge.

Taxonomy Expansion, which relies on modeling concepts and concept relations, can be formulated as a set representation learning task. The generalization of set, fuzzy set, incorporates uncertainty and measures the information within a semantic concept, making it suitable for concept modeling. Existing works usually model sets as vectors or geometric objects such as boxes, which are not closed under set operations. In this work, we propose a sound and efficient formulation of set representation learning based on its volume approximation as a fuzzy set. The resulting embedding framework, Fuzzy Set Embedding, satisfies all set operations and compactly approximates the underlying fuzzy set, hence preserving information while being efficient to learn, relying on minimum neural architecture. We empirically demonstrate the power of FUSE on the task of taxonomy expansion, where FUSE achieves remarkable improvements up to 23% compared with existing baselines. Our work marks the first attempt to understand and efficiently compute the embeddings of fuzzy sets.

Structured entailment tree can exhibit the reasoning chains from knowledge facts to predicted answers, which is important for constructing an explainable question answering system. Existing works mainly include directly generating the entire tree and stepwise generating the proof steps. The stepwise methods can exploit combinatoriality and generalize to longer steps, but they have large fact search spaces and error accumulation problems resulting in the generation of invalid steps. In this paper, inspired by the Dual Process Theory in cognitive science, we propose FRVA, a Fact-Retrieval and Verification Augmented bidirectional entailment tree generation method that contains two systems. Specifically, System 1 makes intuitive judgments through the fact retrieval module and filters irrelevant facts to reduce the search space. System 2 designs a deductive-abductive bidirectional reasoning module, and we construct cross-verification and multi-view contrastive learning to make the generated proof steps closer to the target hypothesis. We enhance the reliability of the stepwise proofs to mitigate error propagation. Experiment results on EntailmentBank show that FRVA outperforms previous models and achieves state-of-the-art performance in fact selection and structural correctness.

This paper presents FoFo, a pioneering benchmark for evaluating large language models’ (LLMs) ability to follow complex, domain-specific formats, a crucial yet under-examined capability for their application as AI agents. Despite LLMs’ advancements, existing benchmarks fail to assess their format-following proficiency adequately. FoFo fills this gap with a diverse range of real-world formats and instructions, developed through an AI-Human collaborative method. Our evaluation across both open-source (e.g., Llama 2, WizardLM) and closed-source (e.g., GPT-4, PALM2, Gemini) LLMs highlights three key findings: open-source models significantly lag behind closed-source ones in format adherence; LLMs’ format-following performance is independent of their content generation quality; and LLMs’ format proficiency varies across different domains. These insights suggest the need for specialized tuning for format-following skills and highlight FoFo’s role in guiding the selection of domain-specific AI agents. FoFo will be publicly released, contributing a critical tool for advancing LLM evaluation and application.

Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) have shown impressive results in various Natural Language Generation (NLG) tasks, such as powering chatbots and generating stories. However, an ethical concern arises due to their potential to produce verbatim copies of paragraphs from their training data. This is problematic as PLMs are trained on corpora constructed by human authors. As such, there is a pressing need for research to promote the generation of original content by these models. In this study, we introduce a unique “self-plagiarism” contrastive decoding strategy, aimed at boosting the originality of text produced by PLMs. Our method entails modifying prompts in LLMs to develop an amateur model and a professional model. Specifically, the amateur model is urged to plagiarize using three plagiarism templates we have designed, while the professional model maintains its standard language model status. This strategy employs prompts to stimulate the model’s capacity to identify non-original candidate token combinations and subsequently impose penalties. The application of this strategy is integrated prior to the model’s final layer, ensuring smooth integration with most existing PLMs (T5, GPT, LLaMA) without necessitating further adjustments. Implementing our strategy, we noted a significant decline in non-original sequences comprised of more than three words in the academic AASC dataset and the story-based ROCStories dataset. Source code and scripts will be released after the paper’s acceptance and publication.

Most existing image captioning evaluation metrics focus on assigning a single numerical score to a caption by comparing it with reference captions. However, these methods do not provide an explanation for the assigned score. Moreover, reference captions are expensive to acquire. In this paper, we propose FLEUR, an explainable reference-free metric to introduce explainability into image captioning evaluation metrics. By leveraging a large multimodal model, FLEUR can evaluate the caption against the image without the need for reference captions, and provide the explanation for the assigned score. We introduce score smoothing to align as closely as possible with human judgment and to be robust to user-defined grading criteria. FLEUR achieves high correlations with human judgment across various image captioning evaluation benchmarks and reaches state-of-the-art results on Flickr8k-CF, COMPOSITE, and Pascal-50S within the domain of reference-free evaluation metrics. Our source code and results are publicly available at: https://github.com/Yebin46/FLEUR.

Recent advancements in text summarization, particularly with the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), have shown remarkable performance. However, a notable challenge persists as a substantial number of automatically-generated summaries exhibit factual inconsistencies, such as hallucinations. In response to this issue, various approaches for the evaluation of consistency for summarization have emerged. Yet, these newly-introduced metrics face several limitations, including lack of interpretability, focus on short document summaries (e.g., news articles), and computational impracticality, especially for LLM-based metrics. To address these shortcomings, we propose Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction (FENICE), a more interpretable and efficient factuality-oriented metric. FENICE leverages an NLI-based alignment between information in the source document and a set of atomic facts, referred to as claims, extracted from the summary. Our metric sets a new state of the art on AGGREFACT, the de-facto benchmark for factuality evaluation. Moreover, we extend our evaluation to a more challenging setting by conducting a human annotation process of long-form summarization. In the hope of fostering research in summarization factuality evaluation, we release the code of our metric and our factuality annotations of long-form summarization at https://github.com/Babelscape/FENICE.

Large language models (LLMs) garner significant attention for their unprecedented performance, leading to an increasing number of researches evaluating LLMs. However, these evaluation benchmarks are limited to assessing the instruction-following capabilities, overlooking the fundamental abilities that emerge during the pre-training stage. Previous subjective evaluation methods mainly reply on scoring by API models. However, in the absence of references, large models have shown limited ability to discern subtle differences. To bridge the gap, we propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. The tasks in F-Eval include multi-choice objective tasks, open-ended objective tasks, reference-based subjective tasks and reference-free subjective tasks. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models. We conduct evaluations on 13 advanced LLMs. Results show that our evaluation methods show higher correlation coefficients and larger distinction than other evaluators. Additionally, we discuss the influence of different model sizes, dimensions, and normalization methods. We anticipate that F-Eval will facilitate the study of LLMs’ fundamental abilities.

Deep learning-based Natural Language Processing (NLP) models are vulnerable to adversarial attacks, where small perturbations can cause a model to misclassify. Adversarial Training (AT) is often used to increase model robustness. However, we have discovered an intriguing phenomenon: deliberately or accidentally miscalibrating models masks gradients in a way that interferes with adversarial attack search methods, giving rise to an apparent increase in robustness. We show that this observed gain in robustness is an illusion of robustness (IOR), and demonstrate how an adversary can perform various forms of test-time temperature calibration to nullify the aforementioned interference and allow the adversarial attack to find adversarial examples. Hence, we urge the NLP community to incorporate test-time temperature scaling into their robustness evaluations to ensure that any observed gains are genuine. Finally, we show how the temperature can be scaled during training to improve genuine robustness.

Advancing representation learning in specialized fields like medicine remains challenging due to the scarcity of expert annotations for text and images. To tackle this issue, we present a novel two-stage framework designed to extract high-quality factual statements from free-text radiology reports in order to improve the representations of text encoders and, consequently, their performance on various downstream tasks.In the first stage, we propose a Fact Extractor that leverages large language models (LLMs) to identify factual statements from well-curated domain-specific datasets. In the second stage, we introduce a Fact Encoder (CXRFE) based on a BERT model fine-tuned with objective functions designed to improve its representations using the extracted factual data. Our framework also includes a new embedding-based metric (CXRFEScore) for evaluating chest X-ray text generation systems, leveraging both stages of our approach. Extensive evaluations show that our fact extractor and encoder outperform current state-of-the-art methods in tasks such as sentence ranking, natural language inference, and label extraction from radiology reports. Additionally, our metric proves to be more robust and effective than existing metrics commonly used in the radiology report generation literature. The code of this project is available at https://github.com/PabloMessina/CXR-Fact-Encoder.

This paper investigates the use of large language models (LLMs) for extracting sample lists of polymer nanocomposites (PNCs) from full-length materials science research papers. The challenge lies in the complex nature of PNC samples, which have numerous attributes scattered throughout the text. The complexity of annotating detailed information on PNCs limits the availability of data, making conventional document-level relation extraction techniques impractical due to the challenge in creating comprehensive named entity span annotations.To address this, we introduce a new benchmark and an evaluation technique for this task and explore different prompting strategies in a zero-shot manner. We also incorporate self-consistency to improve the performance. Our findings show that even advanced LLMs struggle to extract all of the samples from an article. Finally, we analyze the errors encountered in this process, categorizing them into three main challenges, and discuss potential strategies for future research to overcome them.

Transformer based Large Language Models (LLMs) often impose limitations on the length of the text input to ensure the generation of fluent and relevant responses due to the quadratic complexity. These constraints restrict their applicability in long text scenarios. In this paper, we propose a novel semantic compression method that enables generalization to texts that are 6-8 times longer without incurring significant computational costs or requiring fine-tuning. Our proposed framework draws inspiration from source coding in information theory and employs a pre-trained model to reduce the semantic redundancy of long inputs before passing them to the LLMs for downstream tasks. Experimental results demonstrate that our method effectively extends the context window of LLMs across a range of tasks including question answering, summarization, few-shot learning, and information retrieval. Furthermore, the proposed semantic compression method exhibits consistent fluency in text generation while reducing the associated computational overhead.

Computational argumentation has become an essential tool in various domains, including law, public policy, and artificial intelligence. It is an emerging research field in natural language processing that attracts increasing attention. Research on computational argumentation mainly involves two types of tasks: argument mining and argument generation. As large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in understanding context and generating natural language, it is worthwhile to evaluate the performance of LLMs on diverse computational argumentation tasks. This work aims to embark on an assessment of LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Flan models, and LLaMA2 models, in both zero-shot and few-shot settings. We organize existing tasks into six main categories and standardize the format of fourteen openly available datasets. In addition, we present a new benchmark dataset on counter speech generation that aims to holistically evaluate the end-to-end performance of LLMs on argument mining and argument generation. Extensive experiments show that LLMs exhibit commendable performance across most of the datasets, demonstrating their capabilities in the field of argumentation. Our analysis offers valuable suggestions for evaluating computational argumentation and its integration with LLMs in future research endeavors.