Mexico

Eliciting feedback from end users of NLP models can be beneficial for improving models. However, how should we present model responses to users so they are most amenable to be corrected from user feedback? Further, what properties do users value to understand and trust responses? We answer these questions by analyzing the effect of rationales (or explanations) generated by QA models to support their answers. We specifically consider decomposed QA models that first extract an intermediate rationale based on a context and a question and then use solely this rationale to answer the question. A rationale outlines the approach followed by the model to answer the question. Our work considers various formats of these rationales that vary according to well-defined properties of interest. We sample rationales from language models using few-shot prompting for two datasets, and then perform two user studies. First, we present users with incorrect answers and corresponding rationales in various formats and ask them to provide natural language feedback to revise the rationale. We then measure the effectiveness of this feedback in patching these rationales through in-context learning. The second study evaluates how well different rationale formats enable users to understand and trust model answers, when they are correct. We find that rationale formats significantly affect how easy it is (1) for users to give feedback for rationales, and (2) for models to subsequently execute this feedback. In addition, formats with attributions to the context and in-depth reasoning significantly enhance user-reported understanding and trust of model outputs.

NAACL 2024

What if you said that differently?: How Explanation Formats Affect Human Feedback Efficacy and User Perception

feedback

explanations

question answering

poster

## Welcome to 2024 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics!
This year, the conference is in Mexico City. NAACL was actually already planned for Mexico City in 2021, but due to the pandemic the entire conference was moved online. This year, finally, we get to go! So it is my sincere pleasure to welcome you to Mexico City, whether in person or virtually. Having the conference in Mexico City is a good opportunity to emphasize that NAACL is our flagship conference for ACL members not only in North America but also in Central and South America, even though NAACL has been bearing “North” in its name. At this year’s conference, we have a theme to match, with a theme track on the Languages of Latin America to showcase the linguistic diversity of the region.
 
The opportunity to present at NAACL should not depend on a researcher’s travel budget, or their family status. This is why it is so important to make virtual participation at NAACL as good an experience as possible – but we want to also provide a good experience for in-person participants. As a community, we are still working out the best way to do that. This year at NAACL, we are trying out a big virtual poster session ahead of the conference, with the hope that this will make make for a lively and interactive experience. At the same time, we are reducing virtual oral presentations, which seem to be particularly tricky to make to work well. A big thanks to the NAACL program chairs and to Luciana Benotti for all their ideas and work to improve the virtual experience. And participants, virtual as well as in-person: Please let us know what worked for you and what didn’t, so we can continue to improve hybrid conferences. 
 
I have been lucky to work with many amazing people. Without their insight, dedication and patience, and without the many hours of work they put in, NAACL would not have been possible. A huge thank you to the program chairs Helena Gomez, Kevin Duh, and Steve Bethard – you are the best! 
 
Finally, I would like to thank all authors, invited speakers and panelists, area chairs and reviewers, the volunteers organizing and chairing sessions, and all attendees, in-person and virtual. Thank you for helping us make NAACL 2024 come to life. 
 
Welcome and hope you all enjoy the conference! 
Katrin Erk 
The University of Texas at Austin 
NAACL-2024 General Chair 
*You can read the full Welcome message in the [Conference Handbook (downloadable)](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H1NvW0VASQjkSCYgw3mr-3l4yYDSxz6B/view?usp=sharing)*

To access the event page you need to register [**here.**](http://acl.swoogo.com/naacl2024) 
Your access to the event page is limited based on your registration type. If you registered for workshops only, you will gain access to full workshops content on the day of the workshops program.

Please register!

2024 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

In-context learning has emerged as a groundbreaking ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) and revolutionized various fields by providing a few task-relevant demonstrations in the prompt. However, trustworthy issues with LLM's response, such as hallucination, have also been actively discussed. Existing works have been devoted to quantifying the uncertainty in LLM's response, but they often overlook the complex nature of LLMs and the uniqueness of in-context learning. In this work, we delve into the predictive uncertainty of LLMs associated with in-context learning, highlighting that such uncertainties may stem from both the provided demonstrations (aleatoric uncertainty) and ambiguities tied to the model's configurations (epistemic uncertainty). We propose a novel formulation and corresponding estimation method to quantify both types of uncertainties. The proposed method offers an unsupervised way to understand the prediction of in-context learning in a plug-and-play fashion. Extensive experiments are conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the decomposition. The code and data are available at: https://github.com/lingchen0331/UQ_ICL.

Uncertainty Quantification for In-Context Learning of Large Language Models

Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) are known to contain various kinds of knowledge. One method to infer relational knowledge is through the use of cloze-style prompts, where a model is tasked to predict missing subjects or objects. Typically, designing these prompts is a tedious task because small differences in syntax or semantics can have a substantial impact on knowledge retrieval performance. Simultaneously, evaluating the impact of either prompt syntax or information is challenging due to their interdependence. We designed CONPARE-LAMA – a dedicated probe, consisting of 34 million distinct prompts that facilitate comparison across minimal paraphrases. These paraphrases follow a unified meta-template enabling the controlled variation of syntax and semantics across arbitrary relations. CONPARE-LAMA enables insights into the independent impact of either syntactical form or semantic information of paraphrases on the knowledge retrieval performance of PLMs. Extensive knowledge retrieval experiments using our probe reveal that prompts following clausal syntax have several desirable properties in comparison to appositive syntax: i) they are more useful when querying PLMs with a combination of supplementary information, ii) knowledge is more consistently recalled across different combinations of supplementary information, and iii) they decrease response uncertainty when retrieving known facts. In addition, range information can boost knowledge retrieval performance more than domain information, even though domain information is more reliably helpful across syntactic forms.

Dissecting Paraphrases: The Impact of Prompt Syntax and supplementary Information on Knowledge Retrieval from Pretrained Language Models

Retrieval-augmented language models pose a promising alternative to standard language modeling. During pretraining, these models search in a corpus of documents for contextually relevant information that could aid the language modeling objective. We introduce an 'ideal retrieval' methodology to study these models in a fully controllable setting. We conduct an extensive evaluation to examine how retrieval augmentation affects the behavior of the underlying language model. Among other things, we observe that these models: (i) save substantially less world knowledge in their weights, (ii) are better at understanding local context and inter-word dependencies, but (iii) are worse at comprehending global context.

More room for language: Investigating the effect of retrieval on language models

In-context learning (ICL) is now a common method for teaching large language models (LLMs) new tasks: given labeled examples in the input context, the LLM learns to perform the task without weight updates. Do models guided via ICL infer the underlying structure of the task defined by the context, or do they rely on superficial heuristics that only generalize to identically distributed examples? We address this question using transformations tasks and an NLI task that assess sensitivity to syntax—a requirement for robust language understanding. We further investigate whether out-of-distribution generalization can be improved via chain-of-thought prompting, where the model is provided with a sequence of intermediate computation steps that illustrate how the task ought to be performed. In experiments with models from the GPT, PaLM, and Llama~2 families, we find large variance across LMs. The variance is explained more by the composition of the pre-training corpus and supervision methods than by model size; in particular, models pre-trained on code generalize better, and benefit more from chain-of-thought prompting.

In-context Learning Generalizes, But Not Always Robustly: The Case of Syntax

A primary criticism towards language models (LMs) is their inscrutability. This paper presents evidence that, despite their size and complexity, LMs sometimes exploit a simple vector arithmetic style mechanism to solve some relational tasks using regularities encoded in the hidden space of the model (e.g., Poland:Warsaw::China:Beijing). We investigate a range of language model sizes (from 124M parameters to 176B parameters) in an in-context learning setting, and find that for a variety of tasks (involving capital cities, uppercasing, and past-tensing) a key part of the mechanism reduces to a simple additive update typically applied by the feedforward (FFN) networks. We further show that this mechanism is specific to tasks that require retrieval from pretraining memory, rather than retrieval from local context. Our results contribute to a growing body of work on the interpretability of LMs, and offer reason to be optimistic that, despite the massive and non-linear nature of the models, the strategies they ultimately use to solve tasks can sometimes reduce to familiar and even intuitive algorithms.

Language Models Implement Simple Word2Vec-style Vector Arithmetic

*Do larger and more performant models resolve NLP's longstanding robustness issues?* We investigate this question using over 20 models of different sizes spanning different architectural choices and pretraining objectives. We conduct evaluations using (a) out-of-domain and challenge test sets, (b) behavioral testing with CheckLists, (c) contrast sets, and (d) adversarial inputs. Our analysis reveals that not all out-of-domain tests provide insight into robustness. Evaluating with CheckLists and contrast sets shows significant gaps in model performance; merely scaling models does not make them adequately robust. Finally, we point out that current approaches for adversarial evaluations of models are themselves problematic: they can be easily thwarted, and in their current forms, do not represent a sufficiently deep probe of model robustness. We conclude that not only is the question of robustness in NLP as yet unresolved, but even some of the approaches to measure robustness need to be reassessed.

Whispers of Doubt Amidst Echoes of Triumph in NLP Robustness

In-context learning (ICL) has become one of the most popular learning paradigms. While there is a growing body of literature focusing on prompt engineering, there is a lack of systematic analysis comparing the effects of prompt techniques across different models and tasks. To address this, we present a comprehensive prompt analysis based on sensitivity. Our analysis reveals that sensitivity is an unsupervised proxy for model performance, as it exhibits a strong negative correlation with accuracy. We use gradient-based saliency scores to empirically demonstrate how different prompts affect the relevance of input tokens to the output, resulting in different levels of sensitivity. Furthermore, we introduce sensitivity-aware decoding which incorporates sensitivity estimation as a penalty term in the standard greedy decoding. We show that this approach is particularly helpful when information in the input is scarce. Our work provides a fresh perspective on the analysis of prompts, and contributes to a better understanding of the mechanism of ICL.

How are Prompts Different in Terms of Sensitivity?

Recent work has compared neural network representations via similarity-based analyses to improve model interpretation. The quality of a similarity measure is typically evaluated by its success in assigning a high score to representations that are expected to be matched. However, existing similarity measures perform mediocrely on standard benchmarks. In this work, we develop a new similarity measure, dubbed ContraSim, based on contrastive learning. In contrast to common closed-form similarity measures, ContraSim learns a parameterized measure by using both similar and dissimilar examples. We perform an extensive experimental evaluation of our method, with both language and vision models, on the standard layer prediction benchmark and two new benchmarks that we introduce: the multilingual benchmark and the image--caption benchmark. In all cases, ContraSim achieves much higher accuracy than previous similarity measures, even when presented with challenging examples. Finally, ContraSim is more suitable for the analysis of neural networks, revealing new insights not captured by previous measures.

ContraSim – Analyzing Neural Representations Based on Contrastive Learning

Bias amplification is a phenomenon in which models exacerbate biases or stereotypes present in the training data. In this paper, we study bias amplification in the text-to-image domain using Stable Diffusion by comparing gender ratios in training vs. generated images. We find that the model appears to amplify gender-occupation biases found in the training data (LAION) considerably. However, we discover that amplification can be largely attributed to discrepancies between training captions and model prompts. For example, an inherent difference is that captions from the training data often contain explicit gender information while our prompts do not, which leads to a distribution shift and consequently inflates bias measures. Once we account for distributional differences between texts used for training and generation when evaluating amplification, we observe that amplification decreases drastically. Our findings illustrate the challenges of comparing biases in models and their training data, as well as evaluation more broadly, and highlight how confounding factors can impact analyses.

The Bias Amplification Paradox in Text-to-Image Generation

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable adaptability to diverse tasks, by leveraging context prompts containing instructions, or minimal input-output examples. However, recent work revealed they also exhibit *label bias*---an undesirable preference toward predicting certain answers over others. Still, detecting and measuring this bias reliably and at scale has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we evaluate different approaches to quantifying label bias in a model's predictions, conducting a comprehensive investigation across 279 classification tasks and ten LLMs. Our investigation reveals substantial label bias in models both before and after debiasing attempts, as well as highlights the importance of outcomes-based evaluation metrics, which were not previously used in this regard. We further propose a novel label bias calibration method tailored for few-shot prompting, which outperforms recent calibration approaches for both improving performance and mitigating label bias. Our results emphasize that label bias in the predictions of LLMs remains a barrier to their reliability.

Premium content

What if you said that differently?: How Explanation Formats Affect Human Feedback Efficacy and User Perception

Downloads

Next from NAACL 2024

Uncertainty Quantification for In-Context Learning of Large Language Models

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES