In our era of rapid technological advancement, the research landscape for writing assistants has become increasingly fragmented across various research communities. We seek to address this challenge by proposing a design space as a structured way to examine and explore the multidimensional space of intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Through a large community collaboration, we explore five aspects of writing assistants: task, user, technology, interaction, and ecosystem. Within each aspect, we define dimensions (i.e., fundamental components of an aspect) and codes (i.e., potential options for each dimension) by systematically reviewing 115 papers. Our design space aims to offer researchers and designers a practical tool to navigate, comprehend, and compare the various possibilities of writing assistants, and aid in the envisioning and design of new writing assistants.
Cross-view geo-localization aims at localizing a ground-level query image by matching it to its corresponding geo-referenced aerial view. In real-world scenarios, the task requires accommodating diverse ground images captured by users with varying orientations and reduced field of views (FoVs). However, existing learning pipelines are orientation-specific or FoV-specific, demanding separate model training for different ground view variations. Such models heavily depend on the North-aligned spatial correspondence and predefined FoVs in the training data, compromising their robustness across different settings. To tackle this challenge, we propose ConGeo, a single- and cross-modal Contrastive method for Geo-localization: it enhances robustness and consistency in feature representations to improve a model's invariance to orientation and its resilience to FoV variations, by enforcing proximity between ground view variations of the same location. As a generic learning objective for cross-view geo-localization, when integrated into state-of-the-art pipelines, ConGeo significantly boosts the performance of three base models on four geo-localization benchmarks for diverse ground view variations and outperforms competing methods that train separate models for each ground view variation.
Event commonsense reasoning requires the ability to reason about the relationship between events, as well as infer implicit context underlying that relationship. However, data scarcity makes it challenging for language models to learn to generate commonsense inferences for contexts and questions involving interactions between complex events. To address this demand, we present COM2 (COMplex COMmonsense), a new dataset created by sampling multi-hop logical queries (e.g., the joint effect or cause of both event A and B, or the effect of the effect of event C) from an existing commonsense knowledge graph (CSKG), and verbalizing them using handcrafted rules and large language models into multiple-choice and text generation questions. Our experiments show that language models trained on COM2 exhibit significant improvements in complex reasoning ability, resulting in enhanced zero-shot performance in both in-domain and out-of-domain tasks for question answering and generative commonsense reasoning, without expensive human annotations.
Model editing has emerged as a cost-effective strategy to update knowledge stored in language models. However, model editing can have unintended consequences after edits are applied: information unrelated to the edits can also be changed, and other general behaviors of the model can be wrongly altered. In this work, we investigate how model editing methods unexpectedly amplify model biases post-edit. We introduce a novel benchmark dataset, Seesaw-CF, for measuring bias-related harms of model editing and conduct the first in-depth investigation of how different weight-editing methods impact model bias. Specifically, we focus on biases with respect to demographic attributes such as race, geographic origin, and gender, as well as qualitative flaws in long-form texts generated by edited language models. We find that edited models exhibit, to various degrees, more biased behavior as they become less confident in attributes for Asian, African, and South American subjects. Furthermore, edited models amplify sexism and xenophobia in text generations while remaining seemingly coherent and logical. Finally, editing facts about place of birth, country of citizenship, or gender have particularly negative effects on the model's knowledge about unrelated features like field of work.
Inferring contextually-relevant and diverse commonsense to understand narratives remains challenging for knowledge models. In this work, we develop a series of knowledge models, DiffuCOMET, that leverage diffusion to learn to reconstruct the implicit semantic connections between narrative contexts and relevant commonsense knowledge. Across multiple diffusion steps, our method progressively refines a representation of commonsense facts that is anchored to a narrative, producing contextually-relevant and diverse commonsense inferences for an input context. To evaluate DiffuCOMET, we introduce new metrics for commonsense inference that more closely measure knowledge diversity and contextual relevance. Our results on two different benchmarks, ComFact and WebNLG+, show that knowledge generated by DiffuCOMET achieves a better trade-off between commonsense diversity, contextual relevance and alignment to known gold references, compared to baseline knowledge models.
Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform better when asked to reason step-by-step before answering a question. However, it is unclear to what degree the model's final answer is faithful to the stated reasoning steps. In this paper, we perform a causal mediation analysis on twelve LLMs to examine how intermediate reasoning steps generated by the LLM influence the final outcome and find that LLMs do not reliably use their intermediate reasoning steps when generating an answer. To address this issue, we introduce FRODO, a framework to tailor small-sized LMs to generate correct reasoning steps and robustly reason over these steps. FRODO consists of an inference module that learns to generate correct reasoning steps using an implicit causal reward function and a reasoning module that learns to faithfully reason over these intermediate inferences using a counterfactual and causal preference objective. Our experiments show that FRODO significantly outperforms four competitive baselines. Furthermore, FRODO improves the robustness and generalization ability of the reasoning LM, yielding higher performance on out-of-distribution test sets. Finally, we find that FRODO's rationales are more faithful to its final answer predictions than standard supervised fine-tuning.
Asking questions about visual environments is a crucial way for intelligent agents to understand rich multi-faceted scenes, raising the importance of Visual Question Generation (VQG) systems. Apart from being grounded to the image, existing VQG systems can use textual constraints, such as expected answers or knowledge triplets, to generate focused questions. These constraints allow VQG systems to specify the question content or leverage external commonsense knowledge that can not be obtained from the image content only. However, generating focused questions using textual constraints while enforcing a high relevance to the image content remains a challenge, as VQG systems often ignore one or both forms of grounding. In this work, we propose Contrastive Visual Question Generation (ConVQG), a method using a dual contrastive objective to discriminate questions generated using both modalities from those based on a single one. Experiments on both knowledge-aware and standard VQG benchmarks demonstrate that ConVQG outperforms the state-of-the-art methods and generates image-grounded, text-guided, and knowledge-rich questions. Our human evaluation results also show preference for ConVQG questions compared to non-contrastive baselines.
Skill Extraction involves identifying skills and qualifications mentioned in documents such as job postings and resumes. The task is commonly tackled by training supervised models using a sequence labeling approach with BIO tags. However, the reliance on manually annotated data limits the generalizability of such approaches. Moreover, the common BIO setting limits the ability of the models to capture complex skill patterns and handle ambiguous mentions. In this paper, we explore the use of in-context learning to overcome these challenges, on a benchmark of 6 uniformized skill extraction datasets. Our approach leverages the few-shot learning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to identify and extract skills from sentences. We show that LLMs, despite not being on par with traditional supervised models in terms of performance, can better handle syntactically complex skill mentions in skill extraction tasks.
Recent approaches in skill matching, employing synthetic training data for classification or similarity model training, have shown promising results, reducing the need for time-consuming and expensive annotations. However, previous synthetic datasets have limitations, such as featuring only one skill per sentence and generally comprising short sentences. In this paper, we introduce JobSkape, a framework to generate synthetic data that tackles these limitations, specifically designed to enhance skill-to-taxonomy matching. Within this framework, we create SkillSkape, a comprehensive open-source synthetic dataset of job postings tailored for skill-matching tasks. We introduce several offline metrics that show that our dataset resembles real-world data. Additionally, we present a multi-step pipeline for skill extraction and matching tasks using large language models (LLMs), benchmarking against known supervised methodologies. We outline that the downstream evaluation results on real-world data can beat baselines, underscoring its efficacy and adaptability.
To achieve faithful reasoning that aligns with human expectations, large language models (LLMs) need to ground their reasoning to real-world knowledge (e.g., web facts, math and physical rules). Tools help LLMs access this external knowledge, but there remains challenges for fine-tuning LLM agents (e.g., Toolformer) to invoke tools in multi-step reasoning problems, where inter-connected tool calls require holistic and efficient tool usage planning. In this work, we propose a new method for LLMs to better leverage tools in multi-step reasoning. Our method, Chain-of-Abstraction (CoA), trains LLMs to first decode reasoning chains with abstract placeholders, and then call domain tools to reify each reasoning chain by filling in specific knowledge. This planning with abstract chains enables LLMs to learn more general reasoning strategies, which are robust to shifts of domain knowledge (e.g., math results) relevant to different reasoning questions. It also allows LLMs to perform decoding and calling of external tools in parallel, which avoids the inference delay caused by waiting for tool responses. In mathematical reasoning and Wiki QA domains, we show that our method consistently outperforms previous chain-of-thought and tool-augmented baselines on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution test sets, with an average ~6% absolute QA accuracy improvement. LLM agents trained with our method also show more efficient tool use, with inference speed being on average ~1.4x faster than baseline tool-augmented LLMs.