Understanding Retrieval Augmentation for Long-Form Question Answering

We present a study of retrieval-augmented language models (LMs) on long-form question answering. We analyze how retrieval augmentation impacts different LMs, by comparing answers generated from models while using the same evidence documents, and how differing quality of retrieval document set impacts the answers generated from the same LM. We study various attributes of generated answers (e.g., fluency, length, variance) with an emphasis on the attribution of generated long-form answers to in-context evidence documents. We collect human annotations of answer attribution and evaluate methods for automatically judging attribution. Our study provides new insights on how retrieval augmentation impacts long, knowledge-rich text generation of LMs. We further identify attribution patterns for long text generation and analyze the main culprits of attribution errors. Together, our analysis reveals how retrieval augmentation impacts long knowledge-rich text generation and provide directions for future work.

Continually Improving Extractive QA via Human Feedback

We study continually improving an extractive question answering (QA) system via human user feedback. We design and deploy an iterative approach, where information-seeking users ask questions, receive model-predicted answers, and provide feedback. We conduct experiments involving thousands of user interactions under diverse setups to broaden the understanding of learning from feedback over time. Our experiments show effective improvement from user feedback of extractive QA models over time across different data regimes, including significant potential for domain adaptation.

Rich Knowledge Sources Bring Complex Knowledge Conflicts: Recalibrating Models to Reflect Conflicting Evidence

Question answering models can use rich knowledge sources -- up to one hundred retrieved passages and parametric knowledge in the large-scale language model (LM). Prior work assumes information in such knowledge sources is consistent with each other, paying little attention to how models blend information stored in their LM parameters with that from retrieved evidence documents. In this paper, we simulate knowledge conflicts (i.e., where parametric knowledge suggests one answer and different passages suggest different answers) and examine model behaviors. We find retrieval performance heavily impacts which sources models rely on, and current models mostly rely on non-parametric knowledge in their best-performing settings. We discover a troubling trend that contradictions among knowledge sources affect model confidence only marginally. To address this issue, we present a new calibration study, where models are discouraged from presenting any single answer when presented with multiple conflicting answer candidates in retrieved evidences.

Predict and Use Latent Patterns for Short-Text Conversation

Many neural network models nowadays have achieved promising performances in Chit-chat settings. The majority of them rely on an encoder for understanding the post and a decoder for generating the response. Without given assigned semantics, the models lack the fine-grained control over responses as the semantic mapping between posts and responses is hidden on the fly within the end-to-end manners. Some previous works utilize sampled latent words as a controllable semantic form to drive the generated response around the work, but few works attempt to use more complex semantic forms to guide the generation. In this paper, we propose to use more detailed semantic forms, including latent responses and part-of-speech sequences sampled from the corresponding distributions, as the controllable semantics to guide the generation. Our experimental results show that the richer semantics are not only able to provide informative and diverse responses, but also increase the overall performance of response quality, including fluency and coherence.