In recent years, several machine learning models have been proposed. They are trained with a language modelling objective on large-scale text-only data. With such pretraining, they can achieve impressive results on many Natural Language Understanding and Generation tasks. However, many facets of meaning cannot be learned by ``listening to the radio" only. In the literature, many Vision+Language (V+L) tasks have been defined with the aim of creating models that can ground symbols in the visual modality. In this work, we provide a systematic literature review of several tasks and models proposed in the V+L field. We rely on Wittgenstein's idea of `language games' to categorise such tasks into 3 different families: 1) discriminative games, 2) generative games, and 3) interactive games. Our analysis of the literature provides evidence that future work should be focusing on interactive games where communication in Natural Language is important to resolve ambiguities about object referents and action plans and that physical embodiment is essential to understand the semantics of situations and events. Overall, these represent key requirements for developing grounded meanings in neural models.
Interactive and embodied tasks pose at least two fundamental challenges to existing Vision & Language (VL) models, including 1) grounding language in trajectories of actions and observations, and 2) referential disambiguation. To tackle these challenges, we propose an Embodied MultiModal Agent (EMMA): a unified encoder-decoder model that reasons over images and trajectories, and casts action prediction as multimodal text generation. By unifying all tasks as text generation, EMMA learns a language of actions which facilitates transfer across tasks. Different to previous modular approaches with independently trained components, we use a single multitask model where each task contributes to goal completion. EMMA performs on par with similar models on several VL benchmarks and sets a new state-of-the-art performance (36.81% success rate) on the Dialog-guided Task Completion (DTC), a benchmark to evaluate dialog-guided agents in the Alexa Arena
The ability to handle miscommunication is crucial to robust and faithful conversational AI. People usually deal with miscommunication immediately as they detect it, using highly systematic interactional mechanisms called repair. One important type of repair is Third Position Repair (TPR) whereby a speaker is initially misunderstood but then corrects the misunderstanding as it becomes apparent after the addressee's erroneous response. Here, we collect and publicly release Repair-QA, the first large dataset of TPRs in a conversational question answering (QA) setting. The data is comprised of the TPR turns, corresponding dialogue contexts, and candidate repairs of the original turn for execution of TPRs. We demonstrate the usefulness of the data by training and evaluating strong baseline models for executing TPRs. For stand-alone TPR execution, we perform both automatic and human evaluations on a fine-tuned T5 model, as well as OpenAI's GPT-3 LLMs. Additionally, we extrinsically evaluate the LLMs' TPR processing capabilities in the downstream conversational QA task. The results indicate poor out-of-the-box performance on TPR's by the GPT-3 models, which then significantly improves when exposed to Repair-QA.
Recent model editing techniques promise to mitigate the problem of memorizing false or outdated associations during LLM training. However, we show that these techniques can introduce large unwanted side effects which are not detected by existing specificity benchmarks. We extend the existing CounterFact benchmark to include a dynamic component and dub our benchmark CounterFact+. Additionally, we extend the metrics used for measuring specificity by a principled KL divergence-based metric. We use this improved benchmark to evaluate recent model editing techniques and find that they suffer from low specificity. Our findings highlight the need for improved specificity benchmarks that identify and prevent unwanted side effects.
Advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to remarkable capabilities, yet their inner mechanisms remain largely unknown. To understand these models, we need to unravel the functions of individual neurons and their contribution to the network. This paper introduces a novel automated approach designed to scale interpretability techniques across a vast array of neurons within LLMs, to make them more interpretable and ultimately safe. Conventional methods require examination of examples with strong neuron activation and manual identification of patterns to decipher the concepts a neuron responds to. We propose Neuron to Graph (N2G), an innovative tool that automatically extracts a neuron's behaviour from the dataset it was trained on and translates it into an interpretable graph. N2G uses truncation and saliency methods to emphasise only the most pertinent tokens to a neuron while enriching dataset examples with diverse samples to better encompass the full spectrum of neuron behaviour. These graphs can be visualised to aid researchers' manual interpretation, and can generate token activations on text for automatic validation by comparison with the neuron's ground truth activations, which we use to show that the model is better at predicting neuron activation than two baseline methods. We also demonstrate how the generated graph representations can be flexibly used to facilitate further automation of interpretability research, by searching for neurons with particular properties, or programmatically comparing neurons to each other to identify similar neurons. Our method easily scales to build graph representations for all neurons in a 6-layer Transformer model using a single Tesla T4 GPU, allowing for wide usability. We release the code and instructions for use at https://github.com/alexjfoote/Neuron2Graph.
Large language models are known to produce output which sounds fluent and convincing, but is also often wrong, e.g. "unfaithful" with respect to a rationale as retrieved from a knowledge base. In this paper, we show that task-based systems which exhibit certain advanced linguistic dialog behaviors, such as lexical alignment (repeating what the user said), are in fact preferred and trusted more, whereas other phenomena, such as pronouns and ellipsis are dis-preferred. We use open-domain question answering systems as our test-bed for task based dialog generation and compare several open- and closed-book models. Our results highlight the danger of systems that appear to be trustworthy by parroting user input while providing an unfaithful response.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have successfully been applied to code generation tasks, raising the question of how well these models understand programming. Typical programming languages have invariances and equivariances in their semantics that human programmers intuitively understand and exploit, such as the (near) invariance to the renaming of identifiers. We show that LLMs not only fail to properly generate correct Python code when default function names are swapped, but some of them even become more confident in their incorrect predictions as the model size increases, an instance of the recently discovered phenomenon of Inverse Scaling, which runs contrary to the commonly observed trend of increasing prediction quality with increasing model size. Our findings indicate that, despite their astonishing typical-case performance, LLMs still lack a deep, abstract understanding of the content they manipulate, making them unsuitable for tasks that statistically deviate from their training data, and that mere scaling is not enough to achieve such capability.
There are two competing approaches for modelling annotator disagreement: distributional soft-labelling approaches (which aim to capture the level of disagreement) or modelling perspectives of individual annotators or groups thereof. We adapt a multi-task architecture -- which has previously shown success in modelling perspectives -- to evaluate its performance on the SEMEVAL Task 11. We do so by combining both approaches, i.e. predicting individual annotator perspectives as an interim step towards predicting annotator disagreement. Despite its previous success, we found that a multi-task approach performed poorly on datasets which contained distinct annotator opinions, suggesting that this approach may not always be suitable when modelling perspectives. Furthermore, our results explain that while strongly perspectivist approaches might not achieve state-of-the-art performance according to evaluation metrics used by distributional approaches, our approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of individual perspectives present in the data. We argue that perspectivist approaches are preferable because they enable decision makers to amplify minority views, and that it is important to re-evaluate metrics to reflect this goal.
* To appear in the Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on
Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2023). Association for Computational
Recent video+language datasets cover domains where the interaction is highly structured, such as instructional videos, or where the interaction is scripted, such as TV shows. Both of these properties can lead to spurious cues to be exploited by models rather than learning to ground language. In this paper, we present GrOunded footbAlL commentaries (GOAL), a novel dataset of football (or `soccer') highlights videos with transcribed live commentaries in English. As the course of a game is unpredictable, so are commentaries, which makes them a unique resource to investigate dynamic language grounding. We also provide state-of-the-art baselines for the following tasks: frame reordering, moment retrieval, live commentary retrieval and play-by-play live commentary generation. Results show that SOTA models perform reasonably well in most tasks. We discuss the implications of these results and suggest new tasks for which GOAL can be used. Our codebase is available at: https://gitlab.com/grounded-sport-convai/goal-baselines.
* Preprint formatted using the ACM Multimedia template (8 pages +
Pretrained language models (PLMs) for data-to-text (D2T) generation can use human-readable data labels such as column headings, keys, or relation names to generalize to out-of-domain examples. However, the models are well-known in producing semantically inaccurate outputs if these labels are ambiguous or incomplete, which is often the case in D2T datasets. In this paper, we expose this issue on the task of descibing a relation between two entities. For our experiments, we collect a novel dataset for verbalizing a diverse set of 1,522 unique relations from three large-scale knowledge graphs (Wikidata, DBPedia, YAGO). We find that although PLMs for D2T generation expectedly fail on unclear cases, models trained with a large variety of relation labels are surprisingly robust in verbalizing novel, unseen relations. We argue that using data with a diverse set of clear and meaningful labels is key to training D2T generation systems capable of generalizing to novel domains.