Canada

Evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) quality is difficult. This is especially true in the case of MDS for biomedical literature reviews, where models must synthesize contradicting evidence reported across different documents. Prior work has shown that rather than performing the task, models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. Better automated evaluation metrics are needed, but few resources exist to assess metrics when they are proposed. Therefore, we introduce a dataset of human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to encourage and support the development of better automated evaluation methods for literature review MDS. We take advantage of community submissions to the Multi-document Summarization for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task to compile a diverse and representative sample of generated summaries. We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries, to other automated metrics including several we propose in this work, and to aspects of human-assessed summary quality. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.

&lt;iframe src=&quot;https://app.sli.do/event/pk54NpNnxuhWHUa3vSMXH2/embed/polls/0e9bc9ca-a913-465e-9281-1e3f472771d2&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;

ACL 2023

Automated Metrics for Medical Multi-Document Summarization Disagree with Human Evaluations

automated literature review

summarization evaluation

multi-document summarization

Evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) quality is difficult. This is especially true in the case of MDS for biomedical literature reviews, where models must synthesize contradicting evidence reported across different documents. Prior work has shown that rather than performing the task, models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. Better automated evaluation metrics are needed, but few resources exist to assess metrics when they are proposed. Therefore, we introduce a dataset of human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to encourage and support the development of better automated evaluation methods for literature review MDS. We take advantage of community submissions to the Multi-document Summarization for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task to compile a diverse and representative sample of generated summaries. We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries, to other automated metrics including several we propose in this work, and to aspects of human-assessed summary quality. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.

<iframe src="https://app.sli.do/event/pk54NpNnxuhWHUa3vSMXH2/embed/polls/0e9bc9ca-a913-465e-9281-1e3f472771d2" width="300" height="400"></iframe>

poster

### Welcome to ACL 2023, the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics! 
<br>The conference will be held in Toronto, Canada, July 9-14, 2023.<br><br>
Following the succession of the recent conferences in our field, ACL 2023 will adopt a hybrid format.
While the impact of Covid has considerably diminished in terms of traveling, obtaining visas to Canada
entails a very long process. Moreover, the global economic conditions pose challenges for many individuals to travel to conferences. Recognizing these circumstances, we know many participants may not be
able to attend the conference in person. Therefore, we are committed to providing a great virtual platform
so everyone has the opportunity to interact with other participants and enjoy the conference. Based on the
current registered participants, approxiately 30% have chosen to attend the conference virtually. Whether
you join us in person or virtually, we sincerely hope everyone has a remarkable conference experience.<br>
This General Chair’s message is where I express my gratitude to the many individuals who have made
enormous contributions to the conference over the past year.

Read [**ACL 2023 General Chair's message**](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WobYM7norbG4dI48s75HfJoD89qgX5a_F-6U8AteLSA/edit?usp=sharing/) in full.

##### **[Conference Handbook](https://2023.aclweb.org/downloads/acl2023-handbook.pdf)**
<br><br><br><br>

The Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) is the premier international scientific and professional society for people working on computational problems involving human language, a field often referred to as either computational linguistics or natural language processing.

We present PaRTE, a collection of 1,126 pairs of Recognizing Textual Entailment (RTE) examples to evaluate whether models are robust to paraphrasing. We posit that if RTE models understand language, their predictions should be consistent across inputs that share the same meaning. We use the evaluation set to determine if RTE models' predictions change when examples are paraphrased. In our experiments, contemporary models change their predictions on 8-16% of paraphrased examples, indicating that there is still room for improvement.

<iframe src="https://app.sli.do/event/pk54NpNnxuhWHUa3vSMXH2/embed/polls/0fe64542-8a01-43d0-aa9f-84052bfb10b1" width="300" height="400"></iframe>

Evaluating Paraphrastic Robustness in Textual Entailment Models

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in following natural language instructions to solve unseen tasks. However, it remains unclear whether models truly understand task definitions and whether the human-written definitions are optimal. In this paper, we systematically study the role of task definitions in instruction learning. We first conduct an ablation analysis informed by human annotations to understand which parts of a task definition are most important, and find that model performance only drops substantially when removing contents describing the task output, in particular label information. Next, we propose an automatic algorithm to compress task definitions to a minimal supporting set of tokens, and find that 60\% of tokens can be removed while maintaining or even improving model performance. Based on these results, we propose two strategies to help models better leverage task instructions: (1) providing only key information for tasks in a common structured format, and (2) adding a meta-tuning stage to help the model better understand the definitions. With these two strategies, we achieve a 4.2 Rouge-L improvement over 119 unseen test tasks.

<iframe src="https://app.sli.do/event/pk54NpNnxuhWHUa3vSMXH2/embed/polls/982af804-3b12-4f08-95bf-e2c17bf8d011" width="300" height="400"></iframe>

Did You Read the Instructions? Rethinking the Effectiveness of Task Definitions in Instruction Learning

When people think of everyday things like an egg, they typically have a mental image associated with it. This allows them to correctly judge, for example, that "the yolk surrounds the shell" is a false statement. Do language models similarly have a coherent picture of such everyday things? To investigate this, we propose a benchmark dataset consisting of 100 everyday things, their parts, and the relationships between these parts, expressed as 11,720 "X relation Y?" true/false questions. Using these questions as probes, we observe that state-of-the-art pre-trained language models (LMs) like GPT-3 and Macaw have fragments of knowledge about these everyday things, but do not have fully coherent "parts mental models" (54-59% accurate, 19-43% conditional constraint violation). We propose an extension where we add a constraint satisfaction layer on top of the LM's raw predictions to apply commonsense constraints. As well as removing inconsistencies, we find that this also significantly improves accuracy (by 16-20%), suggesting how the incoherence of the LM's pictures of everyday things can be significantly reduced.

<iframe src="https://app.sli.do/event/pk54NpNnxuhWHUa3vSMXH2/embed/polls/15f28102-47dc-4840-ad93-d72f3dff5de4" width="300" height="400"></iframe>

Do language models have coherent mental models of everyday things?

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-3 have emerged as general-purpose language models capable of addressing many natural language generation or understanding tasks. On the task of Machine Translation (MT), multiple works have investigated few-shot prompting mechanisms to elicit better translations from LLMs. However, there has been relatively little investigation on how such translations differ qualitatively from the translations generated by standard Neural Machine Translation (NMT) models. In this work, we investigate these differences in terms of the literalness of translations produced by the two systems. Using literalness measures involving word alignment and monotonicity, we find that translations out of English (E-X) from GPTs tend to be less literal, while exhibiting similar or better scores on MT quality metrics. We demonstrate that this finding is borne out in human evaluations as well. We then show that these differences are especially pronounced when translating sentences that contain idiomatic expressions.

Do GPTs Produce Less Literal Translations?

Neural QCFG is a grammar-based sequence-to-sequence model with strong inductive biases on hierarchical structures. It excels in interpretability and generalization but suffers from expensive inference. In this paper, we study two low-rank variants of Neural QCFG for faster inference with different trade-offs between efficiency and expressiveness. Furthermore, utilizing the symbolic interface provided by the grammar, we introduce two soft constraints over tree hierarchy and source coverage. We experiment with various datasets and find that our models outperform vanilla Neural QCFG in most settings.

<iframe src="https://app.sli.do/event/pk54NpNnxuhWHUa3vSMXH2/embed/polls/44d3110a-8e84-4821-9d73-aceed752247c" width="300" height="400"></iframe>

Improving Grammar-based Sequence-to-Sequence Modeling with Decomposition and Constraints

Token dropping is a recently-proposed strategy to speed up the pretraining of masked language models, such as BERT, by skipping the computation of a subset of the input tokens at several middle layers. It can effectively reduce the training time without degrading much performance on downstream tasks. However, we empirically find that token dropping is prone to a semantic loss problem and falls short in handling semantic-intense tasks. Motivated by this, we propose a simple yet effective semantic-consistent learning method (ScTD) to improve the token dropping. ScTD aims to encourage the model to learn how to preserve the semantic information in the representation space. Extensive experiments on 12 tasks show that, with the help of our ScTD, token dropping can achieve consistent and significant performance gains across all task types and model sizes. More encouragingly, ScTD saves up to 57% of pretraining time and brings up to +1.56% average improvement over the vanilla token dropping.

<iframe src="https://app.sli.do/event/pk54NpNnxuhWHUa3vSMXH2/embed/polls/646785ef-a691-434e-8904-77d3a099ab19" width="300" height="400"></iframe>

Revisiting Token Dropping Strategy in Efficient BERT Pretraining

Fact verification aims to automatically judge the veracity of a claim according to several pieces of evidence. Due to the manual construction of datasets, spurious correlations between claim patterns and its veracity (i.e., biases) inevitably exist. Recent studies show that models usually learn such biases instead of understanding the semantic relationship between the claim and evidence. Existing debiasing works can be roughly divided into data-augmentation-based and weight-regularization-based pipeline, where the former is inflexible and the latter relies on the uncertain output on the training stage. Unlike previous works, we propose a novel method from a counterfactual view, namely CLEVER, which is augmentation-free and mitigates biases on the inference stage. Specifically, we train a claim-evidence fusion model and a claim-only model independently. Then, we obtain the final prediction via subtracting output of the claim-only model from output of the claim-evidence fusion model, which counteracts biases in two outputs so that the unbiased part is highlighted. Comprehensive experiments on several datasets have demonstrated the effectiveness of CLEVER.

<iframe src="https://app.sli.do/event/532fnPQGAZvefKDC1fZsuL/embed/polls/2519e0ea-4028-45cb-bcc3-cb23abe30546" width="300" height="400"></iframe>

Counterfactual Debiasing for Fact Verification

Language models (LMs) are pretrained on diverse data sources---news, discussion forums, books, online encyclopedias. A significant portion of this data includes facts and opinions which, on one hand, celebrate democracy and diversity of ideas, and on the other hand are inherently socially biased. Our work develops new methods to (1) measure media biases in LMs trained on such corpora, along social and economic axes, and (2) measure the fairness of downstream NLP models trained on top of politically biased LMs. We focus on hate speech and misinformation detection, aiming to empirically quantify the effects of political (social, economic) biases in pretraining data on the fairness of high-stakes social-oriented tasks. Our findings reveal that pretrained LMs do have political leanings which reinforce the polarization present in pretraining corpora, propagating social biases into hate speech predictions and media biases into misinformation detectors. We discuss the implications of our findings for NLP research and propose future directions to mitigate unfairness.

<iframe src="https://app.sli.do/event/532fnPQGAZvefKDC1fZsuL/embed/polls/45895f18-0222-4f96-a94a-1a1ae6eb09b7" width="300" height="400"></iframe>

From Pretraining Data to Language Models to Downstream Tasks: Tracking the Trails of Political Biases Leading to Unfair NLP Models

User simulators are agents designed to imitate human users; recent advances have found that Task-oriented Dialogue (ToD) systems optimized toward a user simulator could better satisfy the need of human users. However, this might result in a sub-optimal ToD system if it is tailored to only one \textit{ad hoc} user simulator, since human users can behave differently. In this paper, we propose a framework called MUST to optimize ToD systems via leveraging Multiple User SimulaTors. The main challenges of implementing MUST fall in 1) how to adaptively determine which user simulator to interact with the ToD system at each optimization step, since the ToD system might be over-fitted to some specific user simulators, and simultaneously under-fitted to some others; 2) how to avoid catastrophic forgetting of the adaption for a simulator that is not selected for several consecutive optimization steps.To tackle these challenges, we formulate MUST as a Multi-armed bandits (MAB) problem and provide a method called MUST$_{\mathrm{adaptive}}$ that balances \textit{i}) the \textit{boosting adaption} for adaptive interactions between different user simulators and the ToD system and\textit{ii}) the \textit{uniform adaption} to avoid the catastrophic forgetting issue.With both automatic evaluations and human evaluations, our experimental results on MultiWOZ show that the dialogue system trained by MUST achieves a better performance than those trained by a single user simulator. It also has a better generalization ability when testing with unseen user simulators.

<iframe src="https://app.sli.do/event/532fnPQGAZvefKDC1fZsuL/embed/polls/8a6b9f60-373d-40e9-86b7-025065db126d" width="300" height="400"></iframe>

One Cannot Stand for Everyone! Leveraging Multiple User Simulators\\ to train Task-oriented Dialogue Systems

Long-form question answering systems provide rich information by presenting paragraph-level answers, often containing optional background or auxiliary information. While such comprehensive answers are helpful, not all information is required to answer the question (e.g. users with domain knowledge do not need an explanation of background). Can we provide a concise version of the answer by summarizing it, while still addressing the question? We conduct a user study on summarized answers generated from state-of-the-art models and our newly proposed extract-and-decontextualize approach. We find a large proportion of long-form answers (over 90%) in the ELI5 domain can be adequately summarized by at least one system, while complex and implicit answers are challenging to compress. We observe that decontextualization improves the quality of the extractive summary, exemplifying its potential in the summarization task. To promote future work, we provide an extractive summarization dataset covering 1K long-form answers and our user study annotations. Together, we present the first study on summarizing long-form answers, taking a step forward for QA agents that can provide answers at multiple granularities.

<iframe src="https://app.sli.do/event/532fnPQGAZvefKDC1fZsuL/embed/polls/78962a9e-8d78-4edf-b726-37954b80c784" width="300" height="400"></iframe>

Downloads

Next from ACL 2023

Evaluating Paraphrastic Robustness in Textual Entailment Models

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES