HARE: Explainable Hate Speech Detection with Step-by-Step Reasoning

With the proliferation of social media, accurate detection of hate speech has become critical to ensure safety online. To combat nuanced forms of hate speech, it is important to identify and thoroughly explain hate speech to help users understand its harmful effects. Recent benchmarks have attempted to tackle this issue by training generative models on free-text annotations of implications in hateful text. However, we find significant reasoning gaps in the existing annotations schemes, which may hinder the supervision of detection models. In this paper, we introduce a hate speech detection framework, HARE, which harnesses the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to fill these gaps in explanations of hate speech, thus enabling effective supervision of detection models. Experiments on SBIC and Implicit Hate benchmarks show that our method, using model-generated data, consistently outperforms baselines, using existing free-text human annotations. Analysis demonstrates that our method enhances the explanation quality of trained models and improves generalization to unseen datasets. Our code is available at https://github.com/joonkeekim/hare-hate-speech.git.

Detrimental Contexts in Open-Domain Question Answering

For knowledge intensive NLP tasks, it has been widely accepted that accessing more information is a contributing factor to improvements in the model's end-to-end performance. However, counter-intuitively, too much context can have a negative impact on the model when evaluated on common question answering (QA) datasets. In this paper, we analyze how passages can have a detrimental effect on retrieve-then-read architectures used in question answering. Our empirical evidence indicates that the current read architecture does not fully leverage the retrieved passages and significantly degrades its performance when using the whole passages compared to utilizing subsets of them. Our findings demonstrate that model accuracy can be improved by 10% on two popular QA datasets by filtering out detrimental passages. Additionally, these outcomes are attained by utilizing existing retrieval methods without further training or data. We further highlight the challenges associated with identifying the detrimental passages. First, even with the correct context, the model can make an incorrect prediction, posing a challenge in determining which passages are most influential. Second, evaluation typically considers lexical matching, which is not robust to variations of correct answers. Despite these limitations, our experimental results underscore the pivotal role of identifying and removing these detrimental passages for the context-efficient retrieve-then-read pipeline. Code and data are available at https://github.com/xfactlab/emnlp2023-damaging-retrieval

Knowledge Corpus Error in Question Answering

Recent works in open-domain question answering (QA) have explored generating context passages from large language models (LLMs), replacing the traditional retrieval step in the QA pipeline. However, it is not well understood why generated passages can be more effective than retrieved ones. This study revisits the conventional formulation of QA and introduces the concept of knowledge corpus error. This error arises when the knowledge corpus used for retrieval is only a subset of the entire string space, potentially excluding more helpful passages that exist outside the corpus. LLMs may mitigate this shortcoming by generating passages in a larger space. We come up with an experiment of paraphrasing human-annotated gold context using LLMs to observe knowledge corpus error empirically. Our results across three QA benchmarks reveal an increased performance (10% - 13%) when using paraphrased passage, indicating a signal for the existence of knowledge corpus error. Our code is available at https://github.com/xfactlab/emnlp2023-knowledge-corpus-error

Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models

Recently, using a powerful proprietary Large Language Model (LLM) (e.g., GPT-4) as an evaluator for long-form responses has become the de facto standard. However, for practitioners with large-scale evaluation tasks and custom criteria in consideration (e.g., child-readability), using proprietary LLMs as an evaluator is unreliable due to the closed-source nature, uncontrolled versioning, and prohibitive costs. In this work, we propose Prometheus, a fully open-source LLM that is on par with GPT-4's evaluation capabilities when the appropriate reference materials (reference answer, score rubric) are accompanied. We first construct the Feedback Collection, a new dataset that consists of 1K fine-grained score rubrics, 20K instructions, and 100K responses and language feedback generated by GPT-4. Using the Feedback Collection, we train Prometheus, a 13B evaluator LLM that can assess any given long-form text based on customized score rubric provided by the user. Experimental results show that Prometheus scores a Pearson correlation of 0.897 with human evaluators when evaluating with 45 customized score rubrics, which is on par with GPT-4 (0.882), and greatly outperforms ChatGPT (0.392). Furthermore, measuring correlation with GPT-4 with 1222 customized score rubrics across four benchmarks (MT Bench, Vicuna Bench, Feedback Bench, Flask Eval) shows similar trends, bolstering Prometheus's capability as an evaluator LLM. Lastly, Prometheus achieves the highest accuracy on two human preference benchmarks (HHH Alignment & MT Bench Human Judgment) compared to open-sourced reward models explicitly trained on human preference datasets, highlighting its potential as an universal reward model. We open-source our code, dataset, and model at https://github.com/kaistAI/Prometheus.

VisAlign: Dataset for Measuring the Degree of Alignment between AI and Humans in Visual Perception

AI alignment refers to models acting towards human-intended goals, preferences, or ethical principles. Given that most large-scale deep learning models act as black boxes and cannot be manually controlled, analyzing the similarity between models and humans can be a proxy measure for ensuring AI safety. In this paper, we focus on the models' visual perception alignment with humans, further referred to as AI-human visual alignment. Specifically, we propose a new dataset for measuring AI-human visual alignment in terms of image classification, a fundamental task in machine perception. In order to evaluate AI-human visual alignment, a dataset should encompass samples with various scenarios that may arise in the real world and have gold human perception labels. Our dataset consists of three groups of samples, namely Must-Act (i.e., Must-Classify), Must-Abstain, and Uncertain, based on the quantity and clarity of visual information in an image and further divided into eight categories. All samples have a gold human perception label; even Uncertain (severely blurry) sample labels were obtained via crowd-sourcing. The validity of our dataset is verified by sampling theory, statistical theories related to survey design, and experts in the related fields. Using our dataset, we analyze the visual alignment and reliability of five popular visual perception models and seven abstention methods. Our code and data is available at \url{https://github.com/jiyounglee-0523/VisAlign}.

FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets

Evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) is challenging because aligning to human values requires the composition of multiple skills and the required set of skills varies depending on the instruction. Recent studies have evaluated the performance of LLMs in two ways, (1) automatic evaluation on several independent benchmarks and (2) human or machined-based evaluation giving an overall score to the response. However, both settings are coarse-grained evaluations, not considering the nature of user instructions that require instance-wise skill composition, which limits the interpretation of the true capabilities of LLMs. In this paper, we introduce FLASK (Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment SKill Sets), a fine-grained evaluation protocol that can be used for both model-based and human-based evaluation which decomposes coarse-level scoring to an instance-wise skill set-level. Specifically, we define 12 fine-grained skills needed for LLMs to follow open-ended user instructions and construct an evaluation set by allocating a set of skills for each instance. Additionally, by annotating the target domains and difficulty level for each instance, FLASK provides a holistic view with a comprehensive analysis of a model's performance depending on skill, domain, and difficulty. Through using FLASK, we compare multiple open-sourced and proprietary LLMs and observe highly-correlated findings between model-based and human-based evaluations. FLASK enables developers to more accurately measure the model performance and how it can be improved by analyzing factors that make LLMs proficient in particular skills. For practitioners, FLASK can be used to recommend suitable models for particular situations through comprehensive comparison among various LLMs. We release the evaluation data and code implementation at https://github.com/kaistAI/FLASK.

Can Large Language Models Infer and Disagree Like Humans?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown stellar achievements in solving a broad range of tasks. When generating text, it is common to sample tokens from these models: whether LLMs closely align with the human disagreement distribution has not been well-studied, especially within the scope of Natural Language Inference (NLI). In this paper, we evaluate the performance and alignment of LLM distribution with humans using two different techniques: Monte Carlo Reconstruction (MCR) and Log Probability Reconstruction (LPR). As a result, we show LLMs exhibit limited ability in solving NLI tasks and simultaneously fail to capture human disagreement distribution, raising concerns about their natural language understanding (NLU) ability and their representativeness of human users.

FactKG: Fact Verification via Reasoning on Knowledge Graphs

In real world applications, knowledge graphs (KG) are widely used in various domains (e.g. medical applications and dialogue agents). However, for fact verification, KGs have not been adequately utilized as a knowledge source. KGs can be a valuable knowledge source in fact verification due to their reliability and broad applicability. A KG consists of nodes and edges which makes it clear how concepts are linked together, allowing machines to reason over chains of topics. However, there are many challenges in understanding how these machine-readable concepts map to information in text. To enable the community to better use KGs, we introduce a new dataset, FactKG: Fact Verification via Reasoning on Knowledge Graphs. It consists of 108k natural language claims with five types of reasoning: One-hop, Conjunction, Existence, Multi-hop, and Negation. Furthermore, FactKG contains various linguistic patterns, including colloquial style claims as well as written style claims to increase practicality. Lastly, we develop a baseline approach and analyze FactKG over these reasoning types. We believe FactKG can advance both reliability and practicality in KG-based fact verification.

Disentangling Structure and Style: Political Bias Detection in News by Inducing Document Hierarchy

We address an important gap in detection of political bias in news articles. Previous works that perform supervised document classification can be biased towards the writing style of each news outlet, leading to overfitting and limited generalizability. Our approach overcomes this limitation by considering both the sentence-level semantics and the document-level rhetorical structure, resulting in a more robust and style-agnostic approach to detecting political bias in news articles. We introduce a novel multi-head hierarchical attention model that effectively encodes the structure of long documents through a diverse ensemble of attention heads. While journalism follows a formalized rhetorical structure, the writing style may vary by news outlet. We demonstrate that our method overcomes this domain dependency and outperforms previous approaches for robustness and accuracy. Further analysis demonstrates the ability of our model to capture the discourse structures commonly used in the journalism domain.