Recent trends in natural language processing research and annotation tasks affirm a paradigm shift from the traditional reliance on a single ground truth to a focus on individual perspectives, particularly in subjective tasks. In scenarios where annotation tasks are meant to encompass diversity, models that solely rely on the majority class labels may inadvertently disregard valuable minority perspectives. This oversight could result in the omission of crucial information and, in a broader context, risk disrupting the balance within larger ecosystems. As the landscape of annotator modeling unfolds with diverse representation techniques, it becomes imperative to investigate their effectiveness with the fine-grained features of the datasets in view. This study systematically explores various annotator modeling techniques and compares their performance across seven corpora. From our findings, we show that the commonly used user token model consistently outperforms more complex models. We introduce a composite embedding approach and show distinct differences in which model performs best as a function of the agreement with a given dataset. Our findings shed light on the relationship between corpus statistics and annotator modeling performance, which informs future work on corpus construction and perspectivist NLP.
This paper addresses debiasing in news editing and evaluates the effectiveness of conversational Large Language Models in this task. We designed an evaluation checklist tailored to news editors' perspectives, obtained generated texts from three popular conversational models using a subset of a publicly available dataset in media bias, and evaluated the texts according to the designed checklist. Furthermore, we examined the models as evaluator for checking the quality of debiased model outputs. Our findings indicate that none of the LLMs are perfect in debiasing. Notably, some models, including ChatGPT, introduced unnecessary changes that may impact the author's style and create misinformation. Lastly, we show that the models do not perform as proficiently as domain experts in evaluating the quality of debiased outputs.
Recent language models have been improved by the addition of external memory. Nearest neighbor language models retrieve similar contexts to assist in word prediction. The addition of locality levels allows a model to learn how to weight neighbors based on their relative location to the current text in source documents, and have been shown to further improve model performance. Nearest neighbor models have been explored for controllable generation but have not examined the use of locality levels. We present a novel approach for this purpose and evaluate it using automatic and human evaluation on politeness, formality, supportiveness, and toxicity textual data. We find that our model is successfully able to control style and provides a better fluency-style trade-off than previous work.
The potential to provide patients with faster information access while allowing medical specialists to concentrate on critical tasks makes medical domain dialog agents appealing. However, the integration of large-language models (LLMs) into these agents presents certain limitations that may result in serious consequences. This paper investigates the challenges and risks of using GPT-3-based models for medical question-answering (MedQA). We perform several evaluations contextualized in terms of standard medical principles. We provide a procedure for manually designing patient queries to stress-test high-risk limitations of LLMs in MedQA systems. Our analysis reveals that LLMs fail to respond adequately to these queries, generating erroneous medical information, unsafe recommendations, and content that may be considered offensive.
When searching for products, the opinions of others play an important role in making informed decisions. Subjective experiences about a product can be a valuable source of information. This is also true in sales conversations, where a customer and a sales assistant exchange facts and opinions about products. However, training an AI for such conversations is complicated by the fact that language models do not possess authentic opinions for their lack of real-world experience. We address this problem by leveraging product reviews as a rich source of product opinions to ground conversational AI in true subjective narratives. With OpinionConv, we develop the first conversational AI for simulating sales conversations. To validate the generated conversations, we conduct several user studies showing that the generated opinions are perceived as realistic. Our assessors also confirm the importance of opinions as an informative basis for decision-making.
The class imbalance problem can cause machine learning models to produce an undesirable performance on the minority class as well as the whole dataset. Using data augmentation techniques to increase the number of samples is one way to tackle this problem. We introduce a novel counterfactual data augmentation by verb replacement for the identification of medical claims. In addition, we investigate the impact of this method and compare it with 3 other data augmentation techniques, showing that the proposed method can result in a significant (relative) improvement in the minority class.
Check-worthiness detection is the task of identifying claims, worthy to be investigated by fact-checkers. Resource scarcity for non-world languages and model learning costs remain major challenges for the creation of models supporting multilingual check-worthiness detection. This paper proposes cross-training adapters on a subset of world languages, combined by adapter fusion, to detect claims emerging globally in multiple languages. (1) With a vast number of annotators available for world languages and the storage-efficient adapter models, this approach is more cost efficient. Models can be updated more frequently and thus stay up-to-date. (2) Adapter fusion provides insights and allows for interpretation regarding the influence of each adapter model on a particular language. The proposed solution often outperformed the top multilingual approaches in our benchmark tasks.
Instead of using a single ground truth for language processing tasks, several recent studies have examined how to represent and predict the labels of the set of annotators. However, often little or no information about annotators is known, or the set of annotators is small. In this work, we examine a corpus of social media posts about conflict from a set of 13k annotators and 210k judgements of social norms. We provide a novel experimental setup that applies personalization methods to the modeling of annotators and compare their effectiveness for predicting the perception of social norms. We further provide an analysis of performance across subsets of social situations that vary by the closeness of the relationship between parties in conflict, and assess where personalization helps the most.
We review the state of research on empathy in natural language processing and identify the following issues: (1) empathy definitions are absent or abstract, which (2) leads to low construct validity and reproducibility. Moreover, (3) emotional empathy is overemphasized, skewing our focus to a narrow subset of simplified tasks. We believe these issues hinder research progress and argue that current directions will benefit from a clear conceptualization that includes operationalizing cognitive empathy components. Our main objectives are to provide insight and guidance on empathy conceptualization for NLP research objectives and to encourage researchers to pursue the overlooked opportunities in this area, highly relevant, e.g., for clinical and educational sectors.