Merging Facts, Crafting Fallacies: Evaluating the Contradictory Nature of Aggregated Factual Claims in Long-Form Generations

Long-form generations from large language models (LLMs) contains a mix of factual and non-factual claims, making evaluating factuality difficult. To evaluate factual precision of long-form generations in a more fine-grained way, prior works propose to decompose long-form generations into multiple verifiable facts and verify those facts independently. The factuality of the generation is the proportion of verifiable facts among all the facts. Such methods assume that combining factual claims forms a factual paragraph. This paper shows that the assumption can be violated due to entity ambiguity. We show that LLMs can generate paragraphs that contain verifiable facts, but the facts are combined to form a non-factual paragraph due to entity ambiguity. We further reveal that existing factual precision metrics, including FActScore and citation recall, cannot properly evaluate the factuality of these non-factual paragraphs. To address this, we introduce an enhanced metric, D-FActScore, specifically designed for content with ambiguous entities. We evaluate the D-FActScores of people biographies generated with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). We show that D-FActScore can better assess the factuality of paragraphs with entity ambiguity than FActScore. We also find that four widely used open-source LLMs tend to mix information of distinct entities to form non-factual paragraphs.

Advancing Large Language Models to Capture Varied Speaking Styles and Respond Properly in Spoken Conversations

In spoken dialogue, even if two current turns are the same sentence, their responses might still differ when they are spoken in different styles. The spoken styles, containing paralinguistic and prosodic information, mark the most significant difference between text and speech modality. When using text-only LLMs to model spoken dialogue, text-only LLMs cannot give different responses based on the speaking style of the current turn. In this paper, we focus on enabling LLMs to listen to the speaking styles and respond properly. Our goal is to teach the LLM that "even if the sentences are identical if they are spoken in different styles, their corresponding responses might be different". Since there is no suitable dataset for achieving this goal, we collect a speech-to-speech dataset, StyleTalk, with the following desired characteristics: when two current speeches have the same content but are spoken in different styles, their responses will be different. To teach LLMs to understand and respond properly to the speaking styles, we propose the Spoken-LLM framework that can model the linguistic content and the speaking styles. We train Spoken-LLM using the StyleTalk dataset and devise a two-stage training pipeline to help the Spoken-LLM better learn the speaking styles. Based on extensive experiments, we show that Spoken-LLM outperforms text-only baselines and prior speech LLMs methods.

REBORN: Reinforcement-Learned Boundary Segmentation with Iterative Training for Unsupervised ASR

Unsupervised automatic speech recognition (ASR) aims to learn the mapping between the speech signal and its corresponding textual transcription without the supervision of paired speech-text data. A word/phoneme in the speech signal is represented by a segment of speech signal with variable length and unknown boundary, and this segmental structure makes learning the mapping between speech and text challenging, especially without paired data. In this paper, we propose REBORN, Reinforcement-Learned Boundary Segmentation with Iterative Training for Unsupervised ASR. REBORN alternates between (1) training a segmentation model that predicts the boundaries of the segmental structures in speech signals and (2) training the phoneme prediction model, whose input is a segmental structure segmented by the segmentation model, to predict a phoneme transcription. Since supervised data for training the segmentation model is not available, we use reinforcement learning to train the segmentation model to favor segmentations that yield phoneme sequence predictions with a lower perplexity. We conduct extensive experiments and find that under the same setting, REBORN outperforms all prior unsupervised ASR models on LibriSpeech, TIMIT, and five non-English languages in Multilingual LibriSpeech. We comprehensively analyze why the boundaries learned by REBORN improve the unsupervised ASR performance.

Over-Reasoning and Redundant Calculation of Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) can solve problems step-by-step. While this chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning boosts LLMs' performance, it is unclear if LLMs \textit{know} when to use CoT and whether those CoT are always necessary to answer the question. This paper shows that LLMs tend to generate redundant calculations and reasoning on a manually constructed math QA dataset, GSM8K-Zero. GSM8K-Zero is constructed such that the questions can be answered without any calculations, but LLMs, including Llama-2 models and Claude-2, tend to generate lengthy and unnecessary calculations to answer the questions. We also conduct experiments to explain why LLMs generate redundant calculations and reasonings. GSM8K-Zero is publicly available at https://github.com/d223302/Over-Reasoning-of-LLMs and https://huggingface.co/datasets/dcml0714/GSM8K-Zero.

A Closer Look into Automatic Evaluation Using Large Language Models

Using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate text quality has recently gained popularity. Some prior works explore the idea of using LLMs for evaluation, while they differ in some details of the evaluation process. In this paper, we analyze LLM evaluation (Chiang and Lee, 2023) and G-Eval (Liu et al., 2023), and we discuss how those details in the evaluation process change how well the ratings given by LLMs correlate with human ratings. We find that the auto Chain-of-Thought (CoT) used in G-Eval does not always make G-Eval more aligned with human ratings. We also show that forcing the LLM to output only a numeric rating, as in G-Eval, is suboptimal. Last, we reveal that asking the LLM to explain its own ratings consistently improves the correlation between the ChatGPT and human ratings and pushes state-of-the-art (SoTA) correlations on two meta-evaluation datasets.

Revealing the Blind Spot of Sentence Encoder Evaluation by HEROS

Existing sentence textual similarity benchmark datasets only use a single number to summarize how similar the sentence encoder's decision is to humans'. However, it is unclear what kind of sentence pairs a sentence encoder (SE) would consider similar. Moreover, existing SE benchmarks mainly consider sentence pairs with low lexical overlap, so it is unclear how the SEs behave when two sentences have high lexical overlap. We introduce a high-quality SE diagnostic dataset, HEROS. HEROS is constructed by transforming an original sentence into a new sentence based on certain rules to form a \textit{minimal pair}, and the minimal pair has high lexical overlaps. The rules include replacing a word with a synonym, an antonym, a typo, a random word, and converting the original sentence into its negation. Different rules yield different subsets of HEROS. By systematically comparing the performance of over 60 supervised and unsupervised SEs on HEROS, we reveal that most unsupervised sentence encoders are insensitive to negation. We find the datasets used to train the SE are the main determinants of what kind of sentence pairs an SE considers similar. We also show that even if two SEs have similar performance on STS benchmarks, they can have very different behavior on HEROS. Our result reveals the blind spot of traditional STS benchmarks when evaluating SEs.

Why We Should Report the Details in Subjective Evaluation of TTS More Rigorously

This paper emphasizes the importance of reporting experiment details in subjective evaluations and demonstrates how such details can significantly impact evaluation results in the field of speech synthesis. Through an analysis of 80 papers presented at INTERSPEECH 2022, we find a lack of thorough reporting on critical details such as evaluator recruitment and filtering, instructions and payments, and the geographic and linguistic backgrounds of evaluators. To illustrate the effect of these details on evaluation outcomes, we conducted mean opinion score (MOS) tests on three well-known TTS systems under different evaluation settings and we obtain at least three distinct rankings of TTS models. We urge the community to report experiment details in subjective evaluations to improve the reliability and interpretability of experimental results.

Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?

Human evaluation is indispensable and inevitable for assessing the quality of texts generated by machine learning models or written by humans. However, human evaluation is very difficult to reproduce and its quality is notoriously unstable, hindering fair comparisons among different natural language processing (NLP) models and algorithms. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. In this paper, we explore if such an ability of the LLMs can be used as an alternative to human evaluation. We present the LLMs with the exact same instructions, samples to be evaluated, and questions used to conduct human evaluation, and then ask the LLMs to generate responses to those questions; we dub this LLM evaluation. We use human evaluation and LLM evaluation to evaluate the texts in two NLP tasks: open-ended story generation and adversarial attacks. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation: the texts rated higher by human experts are also rated higher by the LLMs. We also find that the results of LLM evaluation are stable over different formatting of the task instructions and the sampling algorithm used to generate the answer. We are the first to show the potential of using LLMs to assess the quality of texts and discuss the limitations and ethical considerations of LLM evaluation.

How Far Are We from Real Synonym Substitution Attacks?

In this paper, we explore the following question: how far are we from real synonym substitution attacks (SSAs). We approach this question by examining how SSAs replace words in the original sentence and show that there are still unresolved obstacles that make current SSAs generate invalid adversarial samples. We reveal that four widely used word substitution methods generate a large fraction of invalid substitution words that are ungrammatical or do not preserve the original sentence's semantics. Next, we show that the semantic and grammatical constraints used in SSAs for detecting invalid word replacements are highly insufficient in detecting invalid adversarial samples. Our work is an important stepping stone to constructing better SSAs in the future.