CV-Probes: Studying the interplay of lexical and world knowledge in visually grounded verb understanding

This study investigates the ability of various vision-language (VL) models to ground context-dependent and non-context-dependent verb phrases. To do that, we introduce the CV-Probes dataset, designed explicitly for studying context understanding, containing image-caption pairs with context-dependent verbs (e.g., "beg") and non-context-dependent verbs (e.g., "sit"). We employ the MM-SHAP evaluation to assess the contribution of verb tokens towards model predictions. Our results indicate that VL models struggle to ground context-dependent verb phrases effectively. These findings highlight the challenges in training VL models to integrate context accurately, suggesting a need for improved methodologies in VL model training and evaluation.

Summarizing long regulatory documents with a multi-step pipeline

Due to their length and complexity, long regulatory texts are challenging to summarize. To address this, a multi-step extractive-abstractive architecture is proposed to handle lengthy regulatory documents more effectively. In this paper, we show that the effectiveness of a two-step architecture for summarizing long regulatory texts varies significantly depending on the model used. Specifically, the two-step architecture improves the performance of decoder-only models. For abstractive encoder-decoder models with short context lengths, the effectiveness of an extractive step varies, whereas for long-context encoder-decoder models, the extractive step worsens their performance. This research also highlights the challenges of evaluating generated texts, as evidenced by the differing results from human and automated evaluations. Most notably, human evaluations favoured language models pretrained on legal text, while automated metrics rank general-purpose language models higher. The results underscore the importance of selecting the appropriate summarization strategy based on model architecture and context length.

Automatic Metrics in Natural Language Generation: A Survey of Current Evaluation Practices

Automatic metrics are extensively used to evaluate natural language processing systems. However, there has been increasing focus on how they are used and reported by practitioners within the field. In this paper, we have conducted a survey on the use of automatic metrics, focusing particularly on natural language generation (NLG) tasks. We inspect which metrics are used as well as why they are chosen and how their use is reported. Our findings from this survey reveal significant shortcomings, including inappropriate metric usage, lack of implementation details and missing correlations with human judgements. We conclude with recommendations that we believe authors should follow to enable more rigour within the field.

Context-aware Visual Storytelling with Visual Prefix Tuning and Contrastive Learning

Visual storytelling systems generate multi-sentence stories from image sequences. In this task, capturing contextual information and bridging visual variation bring additional challenges. We propose a simple yet effective framework that leverages the generalization capabilities of pretrained foundation models, only training a lightweight vision-language mapping network to connect modalities, while incorporating context to enhance coherence. We introduce a multimodal contrastive objective that also improves visual relevance and story informativeness. Extensive experimental results, across both automatic metrics and human evaluations, demonstrate that the stories generated by our framework are diverse, coherent, informative, and interesting.

How and where does CLIP process negation?

Various benchmarks have been proposed to test linguistic understanding in pre-trained vision \& language (VL) models. Here we build on the existence task from the VALSE benchmark (Parcalabescu et al, 2022) which we use to test models' understanding of negation, a particularly interesting issue for multimodal models. However, while such VL benchmarks are useful for measuring model performance, they do not reveal anything about the internal processes through which these models arrive at their outputs in such visio-linguistic tasks. We take inspiration from the growing literature on model interpretability to explain the behaviour of VL models on the understanding of negation. Specifically, we approach these questions through an in-depth analysis of the text encoder in CLIP (Radford et al, 2021), a highly influential VL model. We localise parts of the encoder that process negation and analyse the role of attention heads in this task. Our contributions are threefold. We demonstrate how methods from the language model interpretability literature (such as causal tracing) can be translated to multimodal models and tasks; we provide concrete insights into how CLIP processes negation on the VALSE existence task; and we highlight inherent limitations in the VALSE dataset as a benchmark for linguistic understanding.

LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLM-generated judgments instead of human judgments. In the absence of a comparison against human data, this raises concerns about the validity of these evaluations; in case they are conducted with proprietary models, this also raises concerns over reproducibility. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show that each LLM exhibits a large variance across datasets in its correlation to human judgments. We conclude that LLMs are not yet ready to systematically replace human judges in NLP.

A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models as Soft Reasoners: The Case of Syllogistic Inferences

The reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming a central focus of study in NLP. In this paper, we consider the case of syllogistic reasoning, an area of deductive reasoning studied extensively in logic and cognitive psychology. Previous research has shown that pre-trained LLMs exhibit reasoning biases, such as $\textit{content effects}$, avoid answering that $\textit{no conclusion follows}$, display human-like difficulties, and struggle with multi-step reasoning. We contribute to this research line by systematically investigating the effects of chain-of-thought reasoning, in-context learning (ICL), and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on syllogistic reasoning, considering syllogisms with conclusions that support or violate world knowledge, as well as ones with multiple premises. Crucially, we go beyond the standard focus on accuracy, with an in-depth analysis of the conclusions generated by the models. Our results suggest that the behavior of pre-trained LLMs can be explained by heuristics studied in cognitive science and that both ICL and SFT improve model performance on valid inferences, although only the latter mitigates most reasoning biases without harming model consistency.

ViLMA: A Zero-Shot Benchmark for Linguistic and Temporal Grounding in Video-Language Models

With the ever-increasing popularity of pretrained Video-Language Models (VidLMs), there is a pressing need to develop robust evaluation methodologies that delve deeper into their visio-linguistic capabilities. To address this challenge, we present ViLMA (Video Language Model Assessment), a task-agnostic benchmark that places the assessment of fine-grained capabilities of these models on a firm footing. Task-based evaluations, while valuable, fail to capture the complexities and specific temporal aspects of moving images that VidLMs need to process. Through carefully curated counterfactuals, ViLMA offers a controlled evaluation suite that sheds light on the true potential of these models, as well as their performance gaps compared to human-level understanding. ViLMA also includes proficiency tests, which assess basic capabilities deemed essential to solving the main counterfactual tests. We show that current VidLMs' grounding abilities are no better than those of vision-language models which use static images. This is especially striking once the performance on proficiency tests is factored in. Our benchmark serves as a catalyst for future research on VidLMs, helping to highlight areas that still need to be explored.

FTFT: efficient and robust Fine-Tuning by transFerring Training dynamics

Despite the massive success of fine-tuning large Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) on a wide range of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, they remain susceptible to out-of-distribution (OOD) and adversarial inputs. Data map (DM) is a simple yet effective dual-model approach that enhances the robustness of fine-tuned PLMs, which involves fine-tuning a model on the original training set (i.e. reference model), selecting a specified fraction of important training examples according to the training dynamics of the reference model, and fine-tuning the same model on these selected examples (i.e. main model). However, it suffers from the drawback of requiring fine-tuning the same model twice, which is computationally expensive for large models. In this paper, we first show that 1) training dynamics are highly transferable across different model sizes and different pre-training methods, and that 2) main models fine-tuned using DM learn faster than when using conventional Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM). Building on these observations, we propose a novel fine-tuning approach based on the DM method: Fine-Tuning by transFerring Training dynamics (FTFT). Compared with DM, FTFT uses more efficient reference models and then fine-tunes more capable main models for fewer steps. Our experiments show that FTFT achieves better generalization robustness than ERM while spending less than half of the training cost.

The Scenario Refiner: Grounding subjects in images at the morphological level

Derivationally related words, such as "runner" and "running", exhibit semantic differences which also elicit different visual scenarios. In this paper, we ask whether Vision and Language (V\&L) models capture such distinctions at the morphological level, using a a new methodology and dataset. We compare the results from V\&L models to human judgements and find that models' predictions differ from those of human participants, in particular displaying a grammatical bias. We further investigate whether the human-model misalignment is related to model architecture. Our methodology, developed on one specific morphological contrast, can be further extended for testing models on capturing other nuanced language features.