AdaSent: Efficient Domain-Adapted Sentence Embeddings for Few-Shot Classification

Recent work has found that few-shot sentence classification based on pre-trained Sentence Encoders (SEs) is efficient, robust, and effective. In this work, we investigate strategies for domain-specialization in the context of few-shot sentence classification with SEs. We first establish that unsupervised Domain-Adaptive Pre-Training (DAPT) of a base Pre-trained Language Model (PLM) (i.e., not an SE) substantially improves the accuracy of few-shot sentence classification by up to 8.4 points. However, applying DAPT on SEs, on the one hand, disrupts the effects of their (general-domain) Sentence Embedding Pre-Training (SEPT). On the other hand, applying general-domain SEPT on top of a domain-adapted base PLM (i.e., after DAPT) is effective but inefficient, since the computationally expensive SEPT needs to be executed on top of a DAPT-ed PLM of each domain. As a solution, we propose AdaSent, which decouples SEPT from DAPT by training a SEPT adapter on the base PLM. The adapter can be inserted into DAPT-ed PLMs from any domain. We demonstrate AdaSent's effectiveness in extensive experiments on 17 different few-shot sentence classification datasets. AdaSent matches or surpasses the performance of full SEPT on DAPT-ed PLM, while substantially reducing the training costs. The code for AdaSent is available.

Learning From Free-Text Human Feedback -- Collect New Datasets Or Extend Existing Ones?

Learning from free-text human feedback is essential for dialog systems, but annotated data is scarce and usually covers only a small fraction of error types known in conversational AI. Instead of collecting and annotating new datasets from scratch, recent advances in synthetic dialog generation could be used to augment existing dialog datasets with the necessary annotations. However, to assess the feasibility of such an effort, it is important to know the types and frequency of free-text human feedback included in these datasets. In this work, we investigate this question for a variety of commonly used dialog datasets, including MultiWoZ, SGD, BABI, PersonaChat, Wizards-of-Wikipedia, and the human-bot split of the Self-Feeding Chatbot. Using our observations, we derive new taxonomies for the annotation of free-text human feedback in dialogs and investigate the impact of including such data in response generation for three SOTA language generation models, including GPT-2, LLAMA, and Flan-T5. Our findings provide new insights into the composition of the datasets examined, including error types, user response types, and the relations between them.

Model Merging by Uncertainty-Based Gradient Matching

Models trained on different datasets can be merged by a weighted-averaging of their parameters, but why does it work and when can it fail? Here, we connect the inaccuracy of weighted-averaging to mismatches in the gradients and propose a new uncertainty-based scheme to improve the performance by reducing the mismatch. The connection also reveals implicit assumptions in other schemes such as averaging, task arithmetic, and Fisher-weighted averaging. Our new method gives consistent improvements for large language models and vision transformers, both in terms of performance and robustness to hyperparameters.

Measuring Pointwise $\mathcal{V}$-Usable Information In-Context-ly

In-context learning (ICL) is a new learning paradigm that has gained popularity along with the development of large language models. In this work, we adapt a recently proposed hardness metric, pointwise $\mathcal{V}$-usable information (PVI), to an in-context version (in-context PVI). Compared to the original PVI, in-context PVI is more efficient in that it requires only a few exemplars and does not require fine-tuning. We conducted a comprehensive empirical analysis to evaluate the reliability of in-context PVI. Our findings indicate that in-context PVI estimates exhibit similar characteristics to the original PVI. Specific to the in-context setting, we show that in-context PVI estimates remain consistent across different exemplar selections and numbers of shots. The variance of in-context PVI estimates across different exemplar selections is insignificant, which suggests that in-context PVI are stable. Furthermore, we demonstrate how in-context PVI can be employed to identify challenging instances. Our work highlights the potential of in-context PVI and provides new insights into the capabilities of ICL.

Are Multilingual LLMs Culturally-Diverse Reasoners? An Investigation into Multicultural Proverbs and Sayings

Large language models (LLMs) are highly adept at question answering and reasoning tasks, but when reasoning in situational context, human expectations vary depending on the relevant cultural common ground. As human languages are associated with diverse cultures, LLMs should also be culturally-diverse reasoners. In this paper, we study the ability of a wide range of state-of-the-art multilingual LLMs (mLLMs) to reason with proverbs and sayings in a conversational context. Our experiments reveal that: (1) mLLMs 'knows' limited proverbs and memorizing proverbs does not mean understanding them within a conversational context; (2) mLLMs struggle to reason with figurative proverbs and sayings, and when asked to select the wrong answer (instead of asking it to select the correct answer); and (3) there is a "culture gap" in mLLMs when reasoning about proverbs and sayings translated from other languages. We construct and release our evaluation dataset MAPS (MulticultrAl Proverbs and Sayings) for proverb understanding with conversational context for six different languages.

Bridging Topic, Domain, and Language Shifts: An Evaluation of Comprehensive Out-of-Distribution Scenarios

Language models (LMs) excel in in-distribution (ID) scenarios where train and test data are independent and identically distributed. However, their performance often degrades in real-world applications like argument mining. Such degradation happens when new topics emerge, or other text domains and languages become relevant. To assess LMs' generalization abilities in such out-of-distribution (OOD) scenarios, we simulate such distribution shifts by deliberately withholding specific instances for testing, as from the social media domain or the topic Solar Energy. Unlike prior studies focusing on specific shifts and metrics in isolation, we comprehensively analyze OOD generalization. We define three metrics to pinpoint generalization flaws and propose eleven classification tasks covering topic, domain, and language shifts. Overall, we find superior performance of prompt-based fine-tuning, notably when train and test splits primarily differ semantically. Simultaneously, in-context learning is more effective than prompt-based or vanilla fine-tuning for tasks when training data embodies heavy discrepancies in label distribution compared to testing data. This reveals a crucial drawback of gradient-based learning: it biases LMs regarding such structural obstacles.

CATfOOD: Counterfactual Augmented Training for Improving Out-of-Domain Performance and Calibration

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities at scale, particularly at generating text conditioned on a prompt. In our work, we investigate the use of LLMs to augment training data of small language models~(SLMs) with automatically generated counterfactual~(CF) instances -- i.e. minimally altered inputs -- in order to improve out-of-domain~(OOD) performance of SLMs in the extractive question answering~(QA) setup. We show that, across various LLM generators, such data augmentation consistently enhances OOD performance and improves model calibration for both confidence-based and rationale-augmented calibrator models. Furthermore, these performance improvements correlate with higher diversity of CF instances in terms of their surface form and semantic content. Finally, we show that CF augmented models which are easier to calibrate also exhibit much lower entropy when assigning importance, indicating that rationale-augmented calibrators prefer concise explanations.

How (Not) to Use Sociodemographic Information for Subjective NLP Tasks

Annotators' sociodemographic backgrounds (i.e., the individual compositions of their gender, age, educational background, etc.) have a strong impact on their decisions when working on subjective NLP tasks, such as hate speech detection. Often, heterogeneous backgrounds result in high disagreements. To model this variation, recent work has explored sociodemographic prompting, a technique, which steers the output of prompt-based models towards answers that humans with specific sociodemographic profiles would give. However, the available NLP literature disagrees on the efficacy of this technique -- it remains unclear, for which tasks and scenarios it can help and evaluations are limited to specific tasks only. We address this research gap by presenting the largest and most comprehensive study of sociodemographic prompting today. Concretely, we evaluate several prompt formulations across seven datasets and six instruction-tuned model families. We find that (1) while sociodemographic prompting can be beneficial for improving zero-shot learning in subjective NLP tasks, (2) its outcomes largely vary for different model types, sizes, and datasets, (3) are subject to large variance with regards to prompt formulations. Thus, sociodemographic prompting is not a reliable proxy for traditional data annotation with a sociodemographically heterogeneous group of annotators. Instead, we propose (4) to use it for identifying ambiguous instances resulting in more informed annotation efforts.

Are Emergent Abilities in Large Language Models just In-Context Learning?

Large language models have exhibited emergent abilities, demonstrating exceptional performance across diverse tasks for which they were not explicitly trained, including those that require complex reasoning abilities. The emergence of such abilities carries profound implications for the future direction of research in NLP, especially as the deployment of such models becomes more prevalent. However, one key challenge is that the evaluation of these abilities is often confounded by competencies that arise in models through alternative prompting techniques, such as in-context learning and instruction following, which also emerge as the models are scaled up. In this study, we provide the first comprehensive examination of these emergent abilities while accounting for various potentially biasing factors that can influence the evaluation of models. We conduct rigorous tests on a set of 18 models, encompassing a parameter range from 60 million to 175 billion parameters, across a comprehensive set of 22 tasks. Through an extensive series of over 1,000 experiments, we provide compelling evidence that emergent abilities can primarily be ascribed to in-context learning. We find no evidence for the emergence of reasoning abilities, thus providing valuable insights into the underlying mechanisms driving the observed abilities and thus alleviating safety concerns regarding their use.