The Impact of Word Splitting on the Semantic Content of Contextualized Word Representations

When deriving contextualized word representations from language models, a decision needs to be made on how to obtain one for out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words that are segmented into subwords. What is the best way to represent these words with a single vector, and are these representations of worse quality than those of in-vocabulary words? We carry out an intrinsic evaluation of embeddings from different models on semantic similarity tasks involving OOV words. Our analysis reveals, among other interesting findings, that the quality of representations of words that are split is often, but not always, worse than that of the embeddings of known words. Their similarity values, however, must be interpreted with caution.

Automatic Analysis of Substantiation in Scientific Peer Reviews

With the increasing amount of problematic peer reviews in top AI conferences, the community is urgently in need of automatic quality control measures. In this paper, we restrict our attention to substantiation -- one popular quality aspect indicating whether the claims in a review are sufficiently supported by evidence -- and provide a solution automatizing this evaluation process. To achieve this goal, we first formulate the problem as claim-evidence pair extraction in scientific peer reviews, and collect SubstanReview, the first annotated dataset for this task. SubstanReview consists of 550 reviews from NLP conferences annotated by domain experts. On the basis of this dataset, we train an argument mining system to automatically analyze the level of substantiation in peer reviews. We also perform data analysis on the SubstanReview dataset to obtain meaningful insights on peer reviewing quality in NLP conferences over recent years.

The Curious Decline of Linguistic Diversity: Training Language Models on Synthetic Text

This study investigates the consequences of training large language models (LLMs) on synthetic data generated by their predecessors, an increasingly prevalent practice aimed at addressing the limited supply of human-generated training data. Diverging from the usual emphasis on performance metrics, we focus on the impact of this training methodology on linguistic diversity, especially when conducted recursively over time. To assess this, we developed a set of novel metrics targeting lexical, syntactic, and semantic diversity, applying them in recursive fine-tuning experiments across various natural language generation tasks. Our findings reveal a marked decrease in the diversity of the models' outputs through successive iterations. This trend underscores the potential risks of training LLMs on predecessor-generated text, particularly concerning the preservation of linguistic richness. Our study highlights the need for careful consideration of the long-term effects of such training approaches on the linguistic capabilities of LLMs.

MAFALDA: A Benchmark and Comprehensive Study of Fallacy Detection and Classification

Fallacies can be used to spread disinformation, fake news, and propaganda, underlining the importance of their detection. Automated detection and classification of fallacies, however, remain challenging, mainly because of the innate subjectivity of the task and the need for a comprehensive, unified approach in existing research. Addressing these limitations, our study introduces a novel taxonomy of fallacies that aligns and refines previous classifications, a new annotation scheme tailored for subjective NLP tasks, and a new evaluation method designed to handle subjectivity, adapted to precision, recall, and F1-Score metrics. Using our annotation scheme, the paper introduces MAFALDA (Multi-level Annotated FALlacy DAtaset), a gold standard dataset. MAFALDA is based on examples from various previously existing fallacy datasets under our unified taxonomy across three levels of granularity. We then evaluate several language models under a zero-shot learning setting using MAFALDA to assess their fallacy detection and classification capability. Our comprehensive evaluation not only benchmarks the performance of these models but also provides valuable insights into their strengths and limitations in addressing fallacious reasoning.

When to generate hedges in peer-tutoring interactions

This paper explores the application of machine learning techniques to predict where hedging occurs in peer-tutoring interactions. The study uses a naturalistic face-to-face dataset annotated for natural language turns, conversational strategies, tutoring strategies, and nonverbal behaviours. These elements are processed into a vector representation of the previous turns, which serves as input to several machine learning models. Results show that embedding layers, that capture the semantic information of the previous turns, significantly improves the model's performance. Additionally, the study provides insights into the importance of various features, such as interpersonal rapport and nonverbal behaviours, in predicting hedges by using Shapley values for feature explanation. We discover that the eye gaze of both the tutor and the tutee has a significant impact on hedge prediction. We further validate this observation through a follow-up ablation study.

How About Kind of Generating Hedges using End-to-End Neural Models?

Hedging is a strategy for softening the impact of a statement in conversation. In reducing the strength of an expression, it may help to avoid embarrassment (more technically, ``face threat'') to one's listener. For this reason, it is often found in contexts of instruction, such as tutoring. In this work, we develop a model of hedge generation based on i) fine-tuning state-of-the-art language models trained on human-human tutoring data, followed by ii) reranking to select the candidate that best matches the expected hedging strategy within a candidate pool using a hedge classifier. We apply this method to a natural peer-tutoring corpus containing a significant number of disfluencies, repetitions, and repairs. The results show that generation in this noisy environment is feasible with reranking. By conducting an error analysis for both approaches, we reveal the challenges faced by systems attempting to accomplish both social and task-oriented goals in conversation.

"You might think about slightly revising the title": identifying hedges in peer-tutoring interactions

Hedges play an important role in the management of conversational interaction. In peer tutoring, they are notably used by tutors in dyads (pairs of interlocutors) experiencing low rapport to tone down the impact of instructions and negative feedback. Pursuing the objective of building a tutoring agent that manages rapport with students in order to improve learning, we used a multimodal peer-tutoring dataset to construct a computational framework for identifying hedges. We compared approaches relying on pre-trained resources with others that integrate insights from the social science literature. Our best performance involved a hybrid approach that outperforms the existing baseline while being easier to interpret. We employ a model explainability tool to explore the features that characterize hedges in peer-tutoring conversations, and we identify some novel features, and the benefits of such a hybrid model approach.

Fillers in Spoken Language Understanding: Computational and Psycholinguistic Perspectives

Disfluencies (i.e. interruptions in the regular flow of speech), are ubiquitous to spoken discourse. Fillers ("uh", "um") are disfluencies that occur the most frequently compared to other kinds of disfluencies. Yet, to the best of our knowledge, there isn't a resource that brings together the research perspectives influencing Spoken Language Understanding (SLU) on these speech events. This aim of this article is to synthesise a breadth of perspectives in a holistic way; i.e. from considering underlying (psycho)linguistic theory, to their annotation and consideration in Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) and SLU systems, to lastly, their study from a generation standpoint. This article aims to present the perspectives in an approachable way to the SLU and Conversational AI community, and discuss moving forward, what we believe are the trends and challenges in each area.

Questioning the Validity of Summarization Datasets and Improving Their Factual Consistency

The topic of summarization evaluation has recently attracted a surge of attention due to the rapid development of abstractive summarization systems. However, the formulation of the task is rather ambiguous, neither the linguistic nor the natural language processing community has succeeded in giving a mutually agreed-upon definition. Due to this lack of well-defined formulation, a large number of popular abstractive summarization datasets are constructed in a manner that neither guarantees validity nor meets one of the most essential criteria of summarization: factual consistency. In this paper, we address this issue by combining state-of-the-art factual consistency models to identify the problematic instances present in popular summarization datasets. We release SummFC, a filtered summarization dataset with improved factual consistency, and demonstrate that models trained on this dataset achieve improved performance in nearly all quality aspects. We argue that our dataset should become a valid benchmark for developing and evaluating summarization systems.

Of Human Criteria and Automatic Metrics: A Benchmark of the Evaluation of Story Generation

Research on Automatic Story Generation (ASG) relies heavily on human and automatic evaluation. However, there is no consensus on which human evaluation criteria to use, and no analysis of how well automatic criteria correlate with them. In this paper, we propose to re-evaluate ASG evaluation. We introduce a set of 6 orthogonal and comprehensive human criteria, carefully motivated by the social sciences literature. We also present HANNA, an annotated dataset of 1,056 stories produced by 10 different ASG systems. HANNA allows us to quantitatively evaluate the correlations of 72 automatic metrics with human criteria. Our analysis highlights the weaknesses of current metrics for ASG and allows us to formulate practical recommendations for ASG evaluation.