Add to Chrome
Add to Firefox
Add to EdgeSihao Chen
Beyond Relevance: Evaluate and Improve Retrievers on Perspective Awareness
May 04, 2024
The task of Information Retrieval (IR) requires a system to identify relevant documents based on users' information needs. In real-world scenarios, retrievers are expected to not only rely on the semantic relevance between the documents and the queries but also recognize the nuanced intents or perspectives behind a user query. For example, when asked to verify a claim, a retrieval system is expected to identify evidence from both supporting vs. contradicting perspectives, for the downstream system to make a fair judgment call. In this work, we study whether retrievers can recognize and respond to different perspectives of the queries -- beyond finding relevant documents for a claim, can retrievers distinguish supporting vs. opposing documents? We reform and extend six existing tasks to create a benchmark for retrieval, where we have diverse perspectives described in free-form text, besides root, neutral queries. We show that current retrievers covered in our experiments have limited awareness of subtly different perspectives in queries and can also be biased toward certain perspectives. Motivated by the observation, we further explore the potential to leverage geometric features of retriever representation space to improve the perspective awareness of retrievers in a zero-shot manner. We demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of our projection-based methods on the same set of tasks. Further analysis also shows how perspective awareness improves performance on various downstream tasks, with 4.2% higher accuracy on AmbigQA and 29.9% more correlation with designated viewpoints on essay writing, compared to non-perspective-aware baselines.
Minimal Evidence Group Identification for Claim Verification
Apr 24, 2024Claim verification in real-world settings (e.g. against a large collection of candidate evidences retrieved from the web) typically requires identifying and aggregating a complete set of evidence pieces that collectively provide full support to the claim. The problem becomes particularly challenging when there exists distinct sets of evidence that could be used to verify the claim from different perspectives. In this paper, we formally define and study the problem of identifying such minimal evidence groups (MEGs) for claim verification. We show that MEG identification can be reduced from Set Cover problem, based on entailment inference of whether a given evidence group provides full/partial support to a claim. Our proposed approach achieves 18.4% and 34.8% absolute improvements on the WiCE and SciFact datasets over LLM prompting. Finally, we demonstrate the benefits of MEGs in downstream applications such as claim generation.
Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models
Mar 30, 2024Conceptual reasoning, the ability to reason in abstract and high-level perspectives, is key to generalization in human cognition. However, limited study has been done on large language models' capability to perform conceptual reasoning. In this work, we bridge this gap and propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions and generate solutions in a verifiable symbolic space. Using this framework as an analytical tool, we show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks compared to direct inference methods. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making. We propose two techniques to add trustworthy induction signals by generating familiar questions with similar underlying reasoning paths and asking models to perform self-refinement. Experiments show that our proposed techniques improve models' conceptual reasoning performance by 8% to 11%, achieving a more robust reasoning system that relies less on inductive biases.
The Language Barrier: Dissecting Safety Challenges of LLMs in Multilingual Contexts
Jan 23, 2024As the influence of large language models (LLMs) spans across global communities, their safety challenges in multilingual settings become paramount for alignment research. This paper examines the variations in safety challenges faced by LLMs across different languages and discusses approaches to alleviating such concerns. By comparing how state-of-the-art LLMs respond to the same set of malicious prompts written in higher- vs. lower-resource languages, we observe that (1) LLMs tend to generate unsafe responses much more often when a malicious prompt is written in a lower-resource language, and (2) LLMs tend to generate more irrelevant responses to malicious prompts in lower-resource languages. To understand where the discrepancy can be attributed, we study the effect of instruction tuning with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) or supervised finetuning (SFT) on the HH-RLHF dataset. Surprisingly, while training with high-resource languages improves model alignment, training in lower-resource languages yields minimal improvement. This suggests that the bottleneck of cross-lingual alignment is rooted in the pretraining stage. Our findings highlight the challenges in cross-lingual LLM safety, and we hope they inform future research in this direction.
Dense X Retrieval: What Retrieval Granularity Should We Use?
Dec 12, 2023Dense retrieval has become a prominent method to obtain relevant context or world knowledge in open-domain NLP tasks. When we use a learned dense retriever on a retrieval corpus at inference time, an often-overlooked design choice is the retrieval unit in which the corpus is indexed, e.g. document, passage, or sentence. We discover that the retrieval unit choice significantly impacts the performance of both retrieval and downstream tasks. Distinct from the typical approach of using passages or sentences, we introduce a novel retrieval unit, proposition, for dense retrieval. Propositions are defined as atomic expressions within text, each encapsulating a distinct factoid and presented in a concise, self-contained natural language format. We conduct an empirical comparison of different retrieval granularity. Our results reveal that proposition-based retrieval significantly outperforms traditional passage or sentence-based methods in dense retrieval. Moreover, retrieval by proposition also enhances the performance of downstream QA tasks, since the retrieved texts are more condensed with question-relevant information, reducing the need for lengthy input tokens and minimizing the inclusion of extraneous, irrelevant information.
Sub-Sentence Encoder: Contrastive Learning of Propositional Semantic Representations
Nov 07, 2023
We introduce sub-sentence encoder, a contrastively-learned contextual embedding model for fine-grained semantic representation of text. In contrast to the standard practice with sentence embeddings, where the meaning of an entire sequence of text is encoded into a fixed-length vector, the sub-sentence encoder learns to produce distinct contextual embeddings corresponding to different atomic propositions, i.e. atomic units of meaning expressed within a text sequence. The sub-sentence embeddings are contrastively learned to recognize (inferred) semantic equivalence between propositions across different text sequences. Our experiments show the effectiveness of sub-sentence encoders in applications, such as retrieving supporting facts for fine-grained text attribution or recognizing the conditional semantic similarity between texts. In practice, we demonstrate that sub-sentence encoders keep the same level of inference cost and space complexity compared to sentence encoders.
The Trickle-down Impact of Reward (In-)consistency on RLHF
Sep 28, 2023
Standard practice within Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) involves optimizing against a Reward Model (RM), which itself is trained to reflect human preferences for desirable generations. A notable subject that is understudied is the (in-)consistency of RMs -- whether they can recognize the semantic changes to different prompts and appropriately adapt their reward assignments -- and their impact on the downstream RLHF model. In this paper, we visit a series of research questions relevant to RM inconsistency: (1) How can we measure the consistency of reward models? (2) How consistent are the existing RMs and how can we improve them? (3) In what ways does reward inconsistency influence the chatbots resulting from the RLHF model training? We propose Contrast Instructions -- a benchmarking strategy for the consistency of RM. Each example in Contrast Instructions features a pair of lexically similar instructions with different ground truth responses. A consistent RM is expected to rank the corresponding instruction and response higher than other combinations. We observe that current RMs trained with the standard ranking objective fail miserably on Contrast Instructions compared to average humans. To show that RM consistency can be improved efficiently without using extra training budget, we propose two techniques ConvexDA and RewardFusion, which enhance reward consistency through extrapolation during the RM training and inference stage, respectively. We show that RLHF models trained with a more consistent RM yield more useful responses, suggesting that reward inconsistency exhibits a trickle-down effect on the downstream RLHF process.
ExpertQA: Expert-Curated Questions and Attributed Answers
Sep 14, 2023
As language models are adapted by a more sophisticated and diverse set of users, the importance of guaranteeing that they provide factually correct information supported by verifiable sources is critical across fields of study & professions. This is especially the case for high-stakes fields, such as medicine and law, where the risk of propagating false information is high and can lead to undesirable societal consequences. Previous work studying factuality and attribution has not focused on analyzing these characteristics of language model outputs in domain-specific scenarios. In this work, we present an evaluation study analyzing various axes of factuality and attribution provided in responses from a few systems, by bringing domain experts in the loop. Specifically, we first collect expert-curated questions from 484 participants across 32 fields of study, and then ask the same experts to evaluate generated responses to their own questions. We also ask experts to revise answers produced by language models, which leads to ExpertQA, a high-quality long-form QA dataset with 2177 questions spanning 32 fields, along with verified answers and attributions for claims in the answers.
Interpretable by Design Visual Question Answering
May 24, 2023
Model interpretability has long been a hard problem for the AI community especially in the multimodal setting, where vision and language need to be aligned and reasoned at the same time. In this paper, we specifically focus on the problem of Visual Question Answering (VQA). While previous researches try to probe into the network structures of black-box multimodal models, we propose to tackle the problem from a different angle -- to treat interpretability as an explicit additional goal. Given an image and question, we argue that an interpretable VQA model should be able to tell what conclusions it can get from which part of the image, and show how each statement help to arrive at an answer. We introduce InterVQA: Interpretable-by-design VQA, where we design an explicit intermediate dynamic reasoning structure for VQA problems and enforce symbolic reasoning that only use the structure for final answer prediction to take place. InterVQA produces high-quality explicit intermediate reasoning steps, while maintaining similar to the state-of-the-art (sota) end-task performance.
Towards Corpus-Scale Discovery of Selection Biases in News Coverage: Comparing What Sources Say About Entities as a Start
Apr 06, 2023
News sources undergo the process of selecting newsworthy information when covering a certain topic. The process inevitably exhibits selection biases, i.e. news sources' typical patterns of choosing what information to include in news coverage, due to their agenda differences. To understand the magnitude and implications of selection biases, one must first discover (1) on what topics do sources typically have diverging definitions of "newsworthy" information, and (2) do the content selection patterns correlate with certain attributes of the news sources, e.g. ideological leaning, etc. The goal of the paper is to investigate and discuss the challenges of building scalable NLP systems for discovering patterns of media selection biases directly from news content in massive-scale news corpora, without relying on labeled data. To facilitate research in this domain, we propose and study a conceptual framework, where we compare how sources typically mention certain controversial entities, and use such as indicators for the sources' content selection preferences. We empirically show the capabilities of the framework through a case study on NELA-2020, a corpus of 1.8M news articles in English from 519 news sources worldwide. We demonstrate an unsupervised representation learning method to capture the selection preferences for how sources typically mention controversial entities. Our experiments show that that distributional divergence of such representations, when studied collectively across entities and news sources, serve as good indicators for an individual source's ideological leaning. We hope our findings will provide insights for future research on media selection biases.