DiSCo Meets LLMs: A Unified Approach for Sparse Retrieval and Contextual Distillation in Conversational Search

Conversational Search (CS) is the task of retrieving relevant documents from a corpus within a conversational context, combining retrieval with conversational context modeling. With the explosion of Large Language Models (LLMs), the CS field has seen major improvements with LLMs rewriting user queries, accounting for conversational context. However, engaging LLMs at inference time harms efficiency. Current methods address this by distilling embeddings from human-rewritten queries to learn the context modeling task. Yet, these approaches predominantly focus on context modeling, and only treat the contrastive component of the retrieval task within a distillation-independent loss term. To address these limitations, we propose a new distillation method, as a relaxation of the previous objective, unifying retrieval and context modeling. We relax the existing training objectives by distilling similarity scores between conversations and documents, rather than relying solely on representation learning. Our proposed distillation objective allows for more freedom in the representation space and leverages the contrastive nature of document relevance. Through experiments on Learned Sparse Retrieval (LSR) across 5 CS datasets, our approach demonstrates substantial improvements in both in-domain and out-of-domain retrieval performance, outperforming state-of-the-art with gains of up to 6 points in recall for out-of-domain datasets. Additionally, through the relaxation of the objective, we propose a multi-teacher distillation, using multiple LLMs as teachers, yielding additional gains, and outperforming the teachers themselves in in-domain experiments. Finally, analysis of the sparsity of the models reveals that our distillation allows for better control over the sparsity of the trained models.

Table Question Answering for Low-resourced Indic Languages

TableQA is the task of answering questions over tables of structured information, returning individual cells or tables as output. TableQA research has focused primarily on high-resource languages, leaving medium- and low-resource languages with little progress due to scarcity of annotated data and neural models. We address this gap by introducing a fully automatic large-scale tableQA data generation process for low-resource languages with limited budget. We incorporate our data generation method on two Indic languages, Bengali and Hindi, which have no tableQA datasets or models. TableQA models trained on our large-scale datasets outperform state-of-the-art LLMs. We further study the trained models on different aspects, including mathematical reasoning capabilities and zero-shot cross-lingual transfer. Our work is the first on low-resource tableQA focusing on scalable data generation and evaluation procedures. Our proposed data generation method can be applied to any low-resource language with a web presence. We release datasets, models, and code (https://github.com/kolk/Low-Resource-TableQA-Indic-languages).

Corpus-informed Retrieval Augmented Generation of Clarifying Questions

This study aims to develop models that generate corpus informed clarifying questions for web search, in a way that ensures the questions align with the available information in the retrieval corpus. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Retrieval Augmented Language Models (RAG) in this process, emphasising their ability to (i) jointly model the user query and retrieval corpus to pinpoint the uncertainty and ask for clarifications end-to-end and (ii) model more evidence documents, which can be used towards increasing the breadth of the questions asked. However, we observe that in current datasets search intents are largely unsupported by the corpus, which is problematic both for training and evaluation. This causes question generation models to ``hallucinate'', ie. suggest intents that are not in the corpus, which can have detrimental effects in performance. To address this, we propose dataset augmentation methods that align the ground truth clarifications with the retrieval corpus. Additionally, we explore techniques to enhance the relevance of the evidence pool during inference, but find that identifying ground truth intents within the corpus remains challenging. Our analysis suggests that this challenge is partly due to the bias of current datasets towards clarification taxonomies and calls for data that can support generating corpus-informed clarifications.

A Comparative Analysis of Faithfulness Metrics and Humans in Citation Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) often generate content with unsupported or unverifiable content, known as "hallucinations." To address this, retrieval-augmented LLMs are employed to include citations in their content, grounding the content in verifiable sources. Despite such developments, manually assessing how well a citation supports the associated statement remains a major challenge. Previous studies tackle this challenge by leveraging faithfulness metrics to estimate citation support automatically. However, they limit this citation support estimation to a binary classification scenario, neglecting fine-grained citation support in practical scenarios. To investigate the effectiveness of faithfulness metrics in fine-grained scenarios, we propose a comparative evaluation framework that assesses the metric effectiveness in distinguishing citations between three-category support levels: full, partial, and no support. Our framework employs correlation analysis, classification evaluation, and retrieval evaluation to measure the alignment between metric scores and human judgments comprehensively. Our results indicate no single metric consistently excels across all evaluations, highlighting the complexity of accurately evaluating fine-grained support levels. Particularly, we find that the best-performing metrics struggle to distinguish partial support from full or no support. Based on these findings, we provide practical recommendations for developing more effective metrics.

Beyond Relevant Documents: A Knowledge-Intensive Approach for Query-Focused Summarization using Large Language Models

Query-focused summarization (QFS) is a fundamental task in natural language processing with broad applications, including search engines and report generation. However, traditional approaches assume the availability of relevant documents, which may not always hold in practical scenarios, especially in highly specialized topics. To address this limitation, we propose a novel knowledge-intensive approach that reframes QFS as a knowledge-intensive task setup. This approach comprises two main components: a retrieval module and a summarization controller. The retrieval module efficiently retrieves potentially relevant documents from a large-scale knowledge corpus based on the given textual query, eliminating the dependence on pre-existing document sets. The summarization controller seamlessly integrates a powerful large language model (LLM)-based summarizer with a carefully tailored prompt, ensuring the generated summary is comprehensive and relevant to the query. To assess the effectiveness of our approach, we create a new dataset, along with human-annotated relevance labels, to facilitate comprehensive evaluation covering both retrieval and summarization performance. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superior performance of our approach, particularly its ability to generate accurate summaries without relying on the availability of relevant documents initially. This underscores our method's versatility and practical applicability across diverse query scenarios.

Generative Retrieval with Few-shot Indexing

Existing generative retrieval (GR) approaches rely on training-based indexing, i.e., fine-tuning a model to memorise the associations between a query and the document identifier (docid) of a relevant document. Training-based indexing has three limitations: high training overhead, under-utilization of the pre-trained knowledge of large language models (LLMs), and challenges in adapting to a dynamic document corpus. To address the above issues, we propose a novel few-shot indexing-based GR framework (Few-Shot GR). It has a novel few-shot indexing process, where we prompt an LLM to generate docids for all documents in a corpus, ultimately creating a docid bank for the entire corpus. During retrieval, we feed a query to the same LLM and constrain it to generate a docid within the docid bank created during indexing, and then map the generated docid back to its corresponding document. Few-Shot GR relies solely on prompting an LLM without requiring any training, making it more efficient. Moreover, we devise few-shot indexing with one-to-many mapping to further enhance Few-Shot GR. Experiments show that Few-Shot GR achieves superior performance to state-of-the-art GR methods that require heavy training.

A Novel Evaluation Framework for Image2Text Generation

Evaluating the quality of automatically generated image descriptions is challenging, requiring metrics that capture various aspects such as grammaticality, coverage, correctness, and truthfulness. While human evaluation offers valuable insights, its cost and time-consuming nature pose limitations. Existing automated metrics like BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR, and CIDEr aim to bridge this gap but often show weak correlations with human judgment. We address this challenge by introducing a novel evaluation framework rooted in a modern large language model (LLM), such as GPT-4 or Gemini, capable of image generation. In our proposed framework, we begin by feeding an input image into a designated image captioning model, chosen for evaluation, to generate a textual description. Using this description, an LLM then creates a new image. By extracting features from both the original and LLM-created images, we measure their similarity using a designated similarity metric. A high similarity score suggests that the image captioning model has accurately generated textual descriptions, while a low similarity score indicates discrepancies, revealing potential shortcomings in the model's performance. Human-annotated reference captions are not required in our proposed evaluation framework, which serves as a valuable tool for evaluating the effectiveness of image captioning models. Its efficacy is confirmed through human evaluation.

Optimizing Numerical Estimation and Operational Efficiency in the Legal Domain through Large Language Models

The legal landscape encompasses a wide array of lawsuit types, presenting lawyers with challenges in delivering timely and accurate information to clients, particularly concerning critical aspects like potential imprisonment duration or financial repercussions. Compounded by the scarcity of legal experts, there's an urgent need to enhance the efficiency of traditional legal workflows. Recent advances in deep learning, especially Large Language Models (LLMs), offer promising solutions to this challenge. Leveraging LLMs' mathematical reasoning capabilities, we propose a novel approach integrating LLM-based methodologies with specially designed prompts to address precision requirements in legal Artificial Intelligence (LegalAI) applications. The proposed work seeks to bridge the gap between traditional legal practices and modern technological advancements, paving the way for a more accessible, efficient, and equitable legal system. To validate this method, we introduce a curated dataset tailored to precision-oriented LegalAI tasks, serving as a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based approaches. Extensive experimentation confirms the efficacy of our methodology in generating accurate numerical estimates within the legal domain, emphasizing the role of LLMs in streamlining legal processes and meeting the evolving demands of LegalAI.

Leveraging Graph Structures to Detect Hallucinations in Large Language Models

Large language models are extensively applied across a wide range of tasks, such as customer support, content creation, educational tutoring, and providing financial guidance. However, a well-known drawback is their predisposition to generate hallucinations. This damages the trustworthiness of the information these models provide, impacting decision-making and user confidence. We propose a method to detect hallucinations by looking at the structure of the latent space and finding associations within hallucinated and non-hallucinated generations. We create a graph structure that connects generations that lie closely in the embedding space. Moreover, we employ a Graph Attention Network which utilizes message passing to aggregate information from neighboring nodes and assigns varying degrees of importance to each neighbor based on their relevance. Our findings show that 1) there exists a structure in the latent space that differentiates between hallucinated and non-hallucinated generations, 2) Graph Attention Networks can learn this structure and generalize it to unseen generations, and 3) the robustness of our method is enhanced when incorporating contrastive learning. When evaluated against evidence-based benchmarks, our model performs similarly without access to search-based methods.

Towards Fine-Grained Citation Evaluation in Generated Text: A Comparative Analysis of Faithfulness Metrics

Large language models (LLMs) often produce unsupported or unverifiable information, known as "hallucinations." To mitigate this, retrieval-augmented LLMs incorporate citations, grounding the content in verifiable sources. Despite such developments, manually assessing how well a citation supports the associated statement remains a major challenge. Previous studies use faithfulness metrics to estimate citation support automatically but are limited to binary classification, overlooking fine-grained citation support in practical scenarios. To investigate the effectiveness of faithfulness metrics in fine-grained scenarios, we propose a comparative evaluation framework that assesses the metric effectiveness in distinguishinging citations between three-category support levels: full, partial, and no support. Our framework employs correlation analysis, classification evaluation, and retrieval evaluation to measure the alignment between metric scores and human judgments comprehensively. Our results show no single metric consistently excels across all evaluations, revealing the complexity of assessing fine-grained support. Based on the findings, we provide practical recommendations for developing more effective metrics.