Do Zombies Understand? A Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Exploration of Machine Cognition

Recent advances in LLMs have sparked a debate on whether they understand text. In this position paper, we argue that opponents in this debate hold different definitions for understanding, and particularly differ in their view on the role of consciousness. To substantiate this claim, we propose a thought experiment involving an open-source chatbot $Z$ which excels on every possible benchmark, seemingly without subjective experience. We ask whether $Z$ is capable of understanding, and show that different schools of thought within seminal AI research seem to answer this question differently, uncovering their terminological disagreement. Moving forward, we propose two distinct working definitions for understanding which explicitly acknowledge the question of consciousness, and draw connections with a rich literature in philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

Leveraging Collection-Wide Similarities for Unsupervised Document Structure Extraction

Document collections of various domains, e.g., legal, medical, or financial, often share some underlying collection-wide structure, which captures information that can aid both human users and structure-aware models. We propose to identify the typical structure of document within a collection, which requires to capture recurring topics across the collection, while abstracting over arbitrary header paraphrases, and ground each topic to respective document locations. These requirements pose several challenges: headers that mark recurring topics frequently differ in phrasing, certain section headers are unique to individual documents and do not reflect the typical structure, and the order of topics can vary between documents. Subsequently, we develop an unsupervised graph-based method which leverages both inter- and intra-document similarities, to extract the underlying collection-wide structure. Our evaluations on three diverse domains in both English and Hebrew indicate that our method extracts meaningful collection-wide structure, and we hope that future work will leverage our method for multi-document applications and structure-aware models.

K-QA: A Real-World Medical Q&A Benchmark

Ensuring the accuracy of responses provided by large language models (LLMs) is crucial, particularly in clinical settings where incorrect information may directly impact patient health. To address this challenge, we construct K-QA, a dataset containing 1,212 patient questions originating from real-world conversations held on K Health (an AI-driven clinical platform). We employ a panel of in-house physicians to answer and manually decompose a subset of K-QA into self-contained statements. Additionally, we formulate two NLI-based evaluation metrics approximating recall and precision: (1) comprehensiveness, measuring the percentage of essential clinical information in the generated answer and (2) hallucination rate, measuring the number of statements from the physician-curated response contradicted by the LLM answer. Finally, we use K-QA along with these metrics to evaluate several state-of-the-art models, as well as the effect of in-context learning and medically-oriented augmented retrieval schemes developed by the authors. Our findings indicate that in-context learning improves the comprehensiveness of the models, and augmented retrieval is effective in reducing hallucinations. We make K-QA available to to the community to spur research into medically accurate NLP applications.

State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to the development of various evaluation benchmarks. These benchmarks typically rely on a single instruction template for evaluating all LLMs on a specific task. In this paper, we comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances, involving 20 different LLMs and 39 tasks from 3 benchmarks. To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead. We discuss tailored evaluation metrics for specific use cases (e.g., LLM developers vs. developers interested in a specific downstream task), ensuring a more reliable and meaningful assessment of LLM capabilities. We then implement these criteria and conduct evaluations of multiple models, providing insights into the true strengths and limitations of current LLMs.

Exploring the Impact of Training Data Distribution and Subword Tokenization on Gender Bias in Machine Translation

We study the effect of tokenization on gender bias in machine translation, an aspect that has been largely overlooked in previous works. Specifically, we focus on the interactions between the frequency of gendered profession names in training data, their representation in the subword tokenizer's vocabulary, and gender bias. We observe that female and non-stereotypical gender inflections of profession names (e.g., Spanish "doctora" for "female doctor") tend to be split into multiple subword tokens. Our results indicate that the imbalance of gender forms in the model's training corpus is a major factor contributing to gender bias and has a greater impact than subword splitting. We show that analyzing subword splits provides good estimates of gender-form imbalance in the training data and can be used even when the corpus is not publicly available. We also demonstrate that fine-tuning just the token embedding layer can decrease the gap in gender prediction accuracy between female and male forms without impairing the translation quality.

Instructed to Bias: Instruction-Tuned Language Models Exhibit Emergent Cognitive Bias

Recent studies show that instruction tuning and learning from human feedback improve the abilities of large language models (LMs) dramatically. While these tuning methods can make models generate high-quality text, we conjecture that more implicit cognitive biases may arise in these fine-tuned models. Our work provides evidence that these fine-tuned models exhibit biases that were absent or less pronounced in their pretrained predecessors. We examine the extent of this phenomenon in three cognitive biases - the decoy effect, the certainty effect, and the belief bias - all of which are known to influence human decision-making and reasoning. Our findings highlight the presence of these biases in various models, especially those that have undergone instruction tuning, such as Flan-T5, GPT3.5, and GPT4. This research constitutes a step toward comprehending cognitive biases in instruction-tuned LMs, which is crucial for the development of more reliable and unbiased language models.

Are Layout-Infused Language Models Robust to Layout Distribution Shifts? A Case Study with Scientific Documents

Recent work has shown that infusing layout features into language models (LMs) improves processing of visually-rich documents such as scientific papers. Layout-infused LMs are often evaluated on documents with familiar layout features (e.g., papers from the same publisher), but in practice models encounter documents with unfamiliar distributions of layout features, such as new combinations of text sizes and styles, or new spatial configurations of textual elements. In this work we test whether layout-infused LMs are robust to layout distribution shifts. As a case study we use the task of scientific document structure recovery, segmenting a scientific paper into its structural categories (e.g., "title", "caption", "reference"). To emulate distribution shifts that occur in practice we re-partition the GROTOAP2 dataset. We find that under layout distribution shifts model performance degrades by up to 20 F1. Simple training strategies, such as increasing training diversity, can reduce this degradation by over 35% relative F1; however, models fail to reach in-distribution performance in any tested out-of-distribution conditions. This work highlights the need to consider layout distribution shifts during model evaluation, and presents a methodology for conducting such evaluations.

Comparing Humans and Models on a Similar Scale: Towards Cognitive Gender Bias Evaluation in Coreference Resolution

Spurious correlations were found to be an important factor explaining model performance in various NLP tasks (e.g., gender or racial artifacts), often considered to be ''shortcuts'' to the actual task. However, humans tend to similarly make quick (and sometimes wrong) predictions based on societal and cognitive presuppositions. In this work we address the question: can we quantify the extent to which model biases reflect human behaviour? Answering this question will help shed light on model performance and provide meaningful comparisons against humans. We approach this question through the lens of the dual-process theory for human decision-making. This theory differentiates between an automatic unconscious (and sometimes biased) ''fast system'' and a ''slow system'', which when triggered may revisit earlier automatic reactions. We make several observations from two crowdsourcing experiments of gender bias in coreference resolution, using self-paced reading to study the ''fast'' system, and question answering to study the ''slow'' system under a constrained time setting. On real-world data humans make $\sim$3\% more gender-biased decisions compared to models, while on synthetic data models are $\sim$12\% more biased.

Schema-Driven Information Extraction from Heterogeneous Tables

In this paper, we explore the question of whether language models (LLMs) can support cost-efficient information extraction from complex tables. We introduce schema-driven information extraction, a new task that uses LLMs to transform tabular data into structured records following a human-authored schema. To assess various LLM's capabilities on this task, we develop a benchmark composed of tables from three diverse domains: machine learning papers, chemistry tables, and webpages. Accompanying the benchmark, we present InstrucTE, a table extraction method based on instruction-tuned LLMs. This method necessitates only a human-constructed extraction schema, and incorporates an error-recovery strategy. Notably, InstrucTE demonstrates competitive performance without task-specific labels, achieving an F1 score ranging from 72.3 to 95.7. Moreover, we validate the feasibility of distilling more compact table extraction models to minimize extraction costs and reduce API reliance. This study paves the way for the future development of instruction-following models for cost-efficient table extraction.

The Perfect Victim: Computational Analysis of Judicial Attitudes towards Victims of Sexual Violence

We develop computational models to analyze court statements in order to assess judicial attitudes toward victims of sexual violence in the Israeli court system. The study examines the resonance of "rape myths" in the criminal justice system's response to sex crimes, in particular in judicial assessment of victim's credibility. We begin by formulating an ontology for evaluating judicial attitudes toward victim's credibility, with eight ordinal labels and binary categorizations. Second, we curate a manually annotated dataset for judicial assessments of victim's credibility in the Hebrew language, as well as a model that can extract credibility labels from court cases. The dataset consists of 855 verdict decision documents in sexual assault cases from 1990-2021, annotated with the help of legal experts and trained law students. The model uses a combined approach of syntactic and latent structures to find sentences that convey the judge's attitude towards the victim and classify them according to the credibility label set. Our ontology, data, and models will be made available upon request, in the hope they spur future progress in this judicial important task.