In collaborative goal-oriented settings, the participants are not only interested in achieving a successful outcome, but do also implicitly negotiate the effort they put into the interaction (by adapting to each other). In this work, we propose a challenging interactive reference game that requires two players to coordinate on vision and language observations. The learning signal in this game is a score (given after playing) that takes into account the achieved goal and the players' assumed efforts during the interaction. We show that a standard Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) setup achieves a high success rate when bootstrapped with heuristic partner behaviors that implement insights from the analysis of human-human interactions. And we find that a pairing of neural partners indeed reduces the measured joint effort when playing together repeatedly. However, we observe that in comparison to a reasonable heuristic pairing there is still room for improvement -- which invites further research in the direction of cost-sharing in collaborative interactions.
Incremental models that process sentences one token at a time will sometimes encounter points where more than one interpretation is possible. Causal models are forced to output one interpretation and continue, whereas models that can revise may edit their previous output as the ambiguity is resolved. In this work, we look at how restart-incremental Transformers build and update internal states, in an effort to shed light on what processes cause revisions not viable in autoregressive models. We propose an interpretable way to analyse the incremental states, showing that their sequential structure encodes information on the garden path effect and its resolution. Our method brings insights on various bidirectional encoders for contextualised meaning representation and dependency parsing, contributing to show their advantage over causal models when it comes to revisions.
Albrecht and Stone (2018) state that modeling of changing behaviors remains an open problem "due to the essentially unconstrained nature of what other agents may do". In this work we evaluate the adaptability of neural artificial agents towards assumed partner behaviors in a collaborative reference game. In this game success is achieved when a knowledgeable Guide can verbally lead a Follower to the selection of a specific puzzle piece among several distractors. We frame this language grounding and coordination task as a reinforcement learning problem and measure to which extent a common reinforcement training algorithm (PPO) is able to produce neural agents (the Guides) that perform well with various heuristic Follower behaviors that vary along the dimensions of confidence and autonomy. We experiment with a learning signal that in addition to the goal condition also respects an assumed communicative effort. Our results indicate that this novel ingredient leads to communicative strategies that are less verbose (staying silent in some of the steps) and that with respect to that the Guide's strategies indeed adapt to the partner's level of confidence and autonomy.
Clarification requests are a mechanism to help solve communication problems, e.g. due to ambiguity or underspecification, in instruction-following interactions. Despite their importance, even skilful models struggle with producing or interpreting such repair acts. In this work, we test three hypotheses concerning the effects of action taking as an auxiliary task in modelling iCR policies. Contrary to initial expectations, we conclude that its contribution to learning an iCR policy is limited, but some information can still be extracted from prediction uncertainty. We present further evidence that even well-motivated, Transformer-based models fail to learn good policies for when to ask Instruction CRs (iCRs), while the task of determining what to ask about can be more successfully modelled. Considering the implications of these findings, we further discuss the shortcomings of the data-driven paradigm for learning meta-communication acts.
In NLP, incremental processors produce output in instalments, based on incoming prefixes of the linguistic input. Some tokens trigger revisions, causing edits to the output hypothesis, but little is known about why models revise when they revise. A policy that detects the time steps where revisions should happen can improve efficiency. Still, retrieving a suitable signal to train a revision policy is an open problem, since it is not naturally available in datasets. In this work, we investigate the appropriateness of regressions and skips in human reading eye-tracking data as signals to inform revision policies in incremental sequence labelling. Using generalised mixed-effects models, we find that the probability of regressions and skips by humans can potentially serve as useful predictors for revisions in BiLSTMs and Transformer models, with consistent results for various languages.
Natural Language Processing prides itself to be an empirically-minded, if not outright empiricist field, and yet lately it seems to get itself into essentialist debates on issues of meaning and measurement ("Do Large Language Models Understand Language, And If So, How Much?"). This is not by accident: Here, as everywhere, the evidence underspecifies the understanding. As a remedy, this paper sketches the outlines of a model of understanding, which can ground questions of the adequacy of current methods of measurement of model quality. The paper makes three claims: A) That different language use situation types have different characteristics, B) That language understanding is a multifaceted phenomenon, bringing together individualistic and social processes, and C) That the choice of Understanding Indicator marks the limits of benchmarking, and the beginnings of considerations of the ethics of NLP use.
Recent conditional language models are able to continue any kind of text source in an often seemingly fluent way. This fact encouraged research in the area of open-domain conversational systems that are based on powerful language models and aim to imitate an interlocutor by generating appropriate contributions to a written dialogue. From a linguistic perspective, however, the complexity of contributing to a conversation is high. In this survey, we interpret Grice's maxims of cooperative conversation from the perspective of this specific research area and systematize the literature under the aspect of what makes a contribution appropriate: A neural conversation model has to be fluent, informative, consistent, coherent, and follow social norms. In order to ensure these qualities, recent approaches try to tame the underlying language models at various intervention points, such as data, training regime or decoding. Sorted by these categories and intervention points, we discuss promising attempts and suggest novel ways for future research.
Incremental dialogue model components produce a sequence of output prefixes based on incoming input. Mistakes can occur due to local ambiguities or to wrong hypotheses, making the ability to revise past outputs a desirable property that can be governed by a policy. In this work, we formalise and characterise edits and revisions in incremental sequence labelling and propose metrics to evaluate revision policies. We then apply our methodology to profile the incremental behaviour of three Transformer-based encoders in various tasks, paving the road for better revision policies.
Instruction Clarification Requests are a mechanism to solve communication problems, which is very functional in instruction-following interactions. Recent work has argued that the CoDraw dataset is a valuable source of naturally occurring iCRs. Beyond identifying when iCRs should be made, dialogue models should also be able to generate them with suitable form and content. In this work, we introduce CoDraw-iCR (v2), which extends the existing iCR identifiers fine-grained information grounded in the underlying dialogue game items and possible actions. Our annotation can serve to model and evaluate repair capabilities of dialogue agents.
NLP tasks are typically defined extensionally through datasets containing example instantiations (e.g., pairs of image i and text t), but motivated intensionally through capabilities invoked in verbal descriptions of the task (e.g., "t is a description of i, for which the content of i needs to be recognised and understood"). We present Pento-DIARef, a diagnostic dataset in a visual domain of puzzle pieces where referring expressions are generated by a well-known symbolic algorithm (the "Incremental Algorithm"), which itself is motivated by appeal to a hypothesised capability (eliminating distractors through application of Gricean maxims). Our question then is whether the extensional description (the dataset) is sufficient for a neural model to pick up the underlying regularity and exhibit this capability given the simple task definition of producing expressions from visual inputs. We find that a model supported by a vision detection step and a targeted data generation scheme achieves an almost perfect BLEU@1 score and sentence accuracy, whereas simpler baselines do not.