Comparing Human-Centered Language Modeling: Is it Better to Model Groups, Individual Traits, or Both?

Natural language processing has made progress in incorporating human context into its models, but whether it is more effective to use group-wise attributes (e.g., over-45-year-olds) or model individuals remains open. Group attributes are technically easier but coarse: not all 45-year-olds write the same way. In contrast, modeling individuals captures the complexity of each person's identity. It allows for a more personalized representation, but we may have to model an infinite number of users and require data that may be impossible to get. We compare modeling human context via group attributes, individual users, and combined approaches. Combining group and individual features significantly benefits user-level regression tasks like age estimation or personality assessment from a user's documents. Modeling individual users significantly improves the performance of single document-level classification tasks like stance and topic detection. We also find that individual-user modeling does well even without user's historical data.

Know Your Audience: Do LLMs Adapt to Different Age and Education Levels?

Large language models (LLMs) offer a range of new possibilities, including adapting the text to different audiences and their reading needs. But how well do they adapt? We evaluate the readability of answers generated by four state-of-the-art LLMs (commercial and open-source) to science questions when prompted to target different age groups and education levels. To assess the adaptability of LLMs to diverse audiences, we compare the readability scores of the generated responses against the recommended comprehension level of each age and education group. We find large variations in the readability of the answers by different LLMs. Our results suggest LLM answers need to be better adapted to the intended audience demographics to be more comprehensible. They underline the importance of enhancing the adaptability of LLMs in education settings to cater to diverse age and education levels. Overall, current LLMs have set readability ranges and do not adapt well to different audiences, even when prompted. That limits their potential for educational purposes.

How to Use Large Language Models for Text Coding: The Case of Fatherhood Roles in Public Policy Documents

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 and GPT-4 have opened up new opportunities for text analysis in political science. They promise automation with better results and less programming. In this study, we evaluate LLMs on three original coding tasks of non-English political science texts, and we provide a detailed description of a general workflow for using LLMs for text coding in political science research. Our use case offers a practical guide for researchers looking to incorporate LLMs into their research on text analysis. We find that, when provided with detailed label definitions and coding examples, an LLM can be as good as or even better than a human annotator while being much faster (up to hundreds of times), considerably cheaper (costing up to 60% less than human coding), and much easier to scale to large amounts of text. Overall, LLMs present a viable option for most text coding projects.

Explaining Speech Classification Models via Word-Level Audio Segments and Paralinguistic Features

Recent advances in eXplainable AI (XAI) have provided new insights into how models for vision, language, and tabular data operate. However, few approaches exist for understanding speech models. Existing work focuses on a few spoken language understanding (SLU) tasks, and explanations are difficult to interpret for most users. We introduce a new approach to explain speech classification models. We generate easy-to-interpret explanations via input perturbation on two information levels. 1) Word-level explanations reveal how each word-related audio segment impacts the outcome. 2) Paralinguistic features (e.g., prosody and background noise) answer the counterfactual: ``What would the model prediction be if we edited the audio signal in this way?'' We validate our approach by explaining two state-of-the-art SLU models on two speech classification tasks in English and Italian. Our findings demonstrate that the explanations are faithful to the model's inner workings and plausible to humans. Our method and findings pave the way for future research on interpreting speech models.

XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models

Without proper safeguards, large language models will readily follow malicious instructions and generate toxic content. This motivates safety efforts such as red-teaming and large-scale feedback learning, which aim to make models both helpful and harmless. However, there is a tension between these two objectives, since harmlessness requires models to refuse complying with unsafe prompts, and thus not be helpful. Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that some models may have struck a poor balance, so that even clearly safe prompts are refused if they use similar language to unsafe prompts or mention sensitive topics. In this paper, we introduce a new test suite called XSTest to identify such eXaggerated Safety behaviours in a structured and systematic way. In its current form, XSTest comprises 200 safe prompts across ten prompt types that well-calibrated models should not refuse to comply with. We describe XSTest's creation and composition, and use the test suite to highlight systematic failure modes in a recently-released state-of-the-art language model.

Leveraging Label Variation in Large Language Models for Zero-Shot Text Classification

The zero-shot learning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) make them ideal for text classification without annotation or supervised training. Many studies have shown impressive results across multiple tasks. While tasks, data, and results differ widely, their similarities to human annotation can aid us in tackling new tasks with minimal expenses. We evaluate using 5 state-of-the-art LLMs as "annotators" on 5 different tasks (age, gender, topic, sentiment prediction, and hate speech detection), across 4 languages: English, French, German, and Spanish. No single model excels at all tasks, across languages, or across all labels within a task. However, aggregation techniques designed for human annotators perform substantially better than any one individual model. Overall, though, LLMs do not rival even simple supervised models, so they do not (yet) replace the need for human annotation. We also discuss the tradeoffs between speed, accuracy, cost, and bias when it comes to aggregated model labeling versus human annotation.

The Ecological Fallacy in Annotation: Modelling Human Label Variation goes beyond Sociodemographics

Many NLP tasks exhibit human label variation, where different annotators give different labels to the same texts. This variation is known to depend, at least in part, on the sociodemographics of annotators. Recent research aims to model individual annotator behaviour rather than predicting aggregated labels, and we would expect that sociodemographic information is useful for these models. On the other hand, the ecological fallacy states that aggregate group behaviour, such as the behaviour of the average female annotator, does not necessarily explain individual behaviour. To account for sociodemographics in models of individual annotator behaviour, we introduce group-specific layers to multi-annotator models. In a series of experiments for toxic content detection, we find that explicitly accounting for sociodemographic attributes in this way does not significantly improve model performance. This result shows that individual annotation behaviour depends on much more than just sociodemographics.

What about em? How Commercial Machine Translation Fails to Handle (Neo-)Pronouns

As 3rd-person pronoun usage shifts to include novel forms, e.g., neopronouns, we need more research on identity-inclusive NLP. Exclusion is particularly harmful in one of the most popular NLP applications, machine translation (MT). Wrong pronoun translations can discriminate against marginalized groups, e.g., non-binary individuals (Dev et al., 2021). In this ``reality check'', we study how three commercial MT systems translate 3rd-person pronouns. Concretely, we compare the translations of gendered vs. gender-neutral pronouns from English to five other languages (Danish, Farsi, French, German, Italian), and vice versa, from Danish to English. Our error analysis shows that the presence of a gender-neutral pronoun often leads to grammatical and semantic translation errors. Similarly, gender neutrality is often not preserved. By surveying the opinions of affected native speakers from diverse languages, we provide recommendations to address the issue in future MT research.

Missing Information, Unresponsive Authors, Experimental Flaws: The Impossibility of Assessing the Reproducibility of Previous Human Evaluations in NLP

We report our efforts in identifying a set of previous human evaluations in NLP that would be suitable for a coordinated study examining what makes human evaluations in NLP more/less reproducible. We present our results and findings, which include that just 13\% of papers had (i) sufficiently low barriers to reproduction, and (ii) enough obtainable information, to be considered for reproduction, and that all but one of the experiments we selected for reproduction was discovered to have flaws that made the meaningfulness of conducting a reproduction questionable. As a result, we had to change our coordinated study design from a reproduce approach to a standardise-then-reproduce-twice approach. Our overall (negative) finding that the great majority of human evaluations in NLP is not repeatable and/or not reproducible and/or too flawed to justify reproduction, paints a dire picture, but presents an opportunity for a rethink about how to design and report human evaluations in NLP.

Leveraging Social Interactions to Detect Misinformation on Social Media

Detecting misinformation threads is crucial to guarantee a healthy environment on social media. We address the problem using the data set created during the COVID-19 pandemic. It contains cascades of tweets discussing information weakly labeled as reliable or unreliable, based on a previous evaluation of the information source. The models identifying unreliable threads usually rely on textual features. But reliability is not just what is said, but by whom and to whom. We additionally leverage on network information. Following the homophily principle, we hypothesize that users who interact are generally interested in similar topics and spreading similar kind of news, which in turn is generally reliable or not. We test several methods to learn representations of the social interactions within the cascades, combining them with deep neural language models in a Multi-Input (MI) framework. Keeping track of the sequence of the interactions during the time, we improve over previous state-of-the-art models.