Thanks to recent advances in generative AI, we are able to prompt large language models (LLMs) to produce texts which are fluent and grammatical. In addition, it has been shown that we can elicit attempts at grammatical error correction (GEC) from LLMs when prompted with ungrammatical input sentences. We evaluate how well LLMs can perform at GEC by measuring their performance on established benchmark datasets. We go beyond previous studies, which only examined GPT* models on a selection of English GEC datasets, by evaluating seven open-source and three commercial LLMs on four established GEC benchmarks. We investigate model performance and report results against individual error types. Our results indicate that LLMs do not always outperform supervised English GEC models except in specific contexts -- namely commercial LLMs on benchmarks annotated with fluency corrections as opposed to minimal edits. We find that several open-source models outperform commercial ones on minimal edit benchmarks, and that in some settings zero-shot prompting is just as competitive as few-shot prompting.
With large language models (LLMs) poised to become embedded in our daily lives, questions are starting to be raised about the dataset(s) they learned from. These questions range from potential bias or misinformation LLMs could retain from their training data to questions of copyright and fair use of human-generated text. However, while these questions emerge, developers of the recent state-of-the-art LLMs become increasingly reluctant to disclose details on their training corpus. We here introduce the task of document-level membership inference for real-world LLMs, i.e. inferring whether the LLM has seen a given document during training or not. First, we propose a procedure for the development and evaluation of document-level membership inference for LLMs by leveraging commonly used data sources for training and the model release date. We then propose a practical, black-box method to predict document-level membership and instantiate it on OpenLLaMA-7B with both books and academic papers. We show our methodology to perform very well, reaching an impressive AUC of 0.856 for books and 0.678 for papers. We then show our approach to outperform the sentence-level membership inference attacks used in the privacy literature for the document-level membership task. We finally evaluate whether smaller models might be less sensitive to document-level inference and show OpenLLaMA-3B to be approximately as sensitive as OpenLLaMA-7B to our approach. Taken together, our results show that accurate document-level membership can be inferred for LLMs, increasing the transparency of technology poised to change our lives.
The recent release of very large language models such as PaLM and GPT-4 has made an unprecedented impact in the popular media and public consciousness, giving rise to a mixture of excitement and fear as to their capabilities and potential uses, and shining a light on natural language processing research which had not previously received so much attention. The developments offer great promise for education technology, and in this paper we look specifically at the potential for incorporating large language models in AI-driven language teaching and assessment systems. We consider several research areas and also discuss the risks and ethical considerations surrounding generative AI in education technology for language learners. Overall we find that larger language models offer improvements over previous models in text generation, opening up routes toward content generation which had not previously been plausible. For text generation they must be prompted carefully and their outputs may need to be reshaped before they are ready for use. For automated grading and grammatical error correction, tasks whose progress is checked on well-known benchmarks, early investigations indicate that large language models on their own do not improve on state-of-the-art results according to standard evaluation metrics. For grading it appears that linguistic features established in the literature should still be used for best performance, and for error correction it may be that the models can offer alternative feedback styles which are not measured sensitively with existing methods. In all cases, there is work to be done to experiment with the inclusion of large language models in education technology for language learners, in order to properly understand and report on their capacities and limitations, and to ensure that foreseeable risks such as misinformation and harmful bias are mitigated.
State-of-the-art neural models can now reach human performance levels across various natural language understanding tasks. However, despite this impressive performance, models are known to learn from annotation artefacts at the expense of the underlying task. While interpretability methods can identify influential features for each prediction, there are no guarantees that these features are responsible for the model decisions. Instead, we introduce a model-agnostic logical framework to determine the specific information in an input responsible for each model decision. This method creates interpretable Natural Language Inference (NLI) models that maintain their predictive power. We achieve this by generating facts that decompose complex NLI observations into individual logical atoms. Our model makes predictions for each atom and uses logical rules to decide the class of the observation based on the predictions for each atom. We apply our method to the highly challenging ANLI dataset, where our framework improves the performance of both a DeBERTa-base and BERT baseline. Our method performs best on the most challenging examples, achieving a new state-of-the-art for the ANLI round 3 test set. We outperform every baseline in a reduced-data setting, and despite using no annotations for the generated facts, our model predictions for individual facts align with human expectations.
Applying knowledge distillation encourages a student model to behave more like a teacher model, largely retaining the performance of the teacher model, even though the student model may have substantially fewer parameters. However, while distillation helps student models behave more like teacher models in-distribution, this is not necessarily the case out-of-distribution. To address this, we use a language model to create task-specific unlabeled data that mimics the data in targeted out-of-distribution domains. We use this generated data for knowledge distillation on the task of Natural Language Inference (NLI), encouraging the student models to behave more like the teacher models for these examples. Our domain-targeted augmentation is highly effective, and outperforms previous robustness methods when evaluating out-of-distribution performance on MNLI. Surprisingly, this method also improves performance on out-of-distribution domains that the data was not generated for. We additionally introduce Distilled Minority Upsampling (DMU), a method for identifying and upsampling minority examples during the distillation. DMU is complementary to the domain-targeted augmentation, and substantially improves performance on SNLI-hard. Finally, we show out-of-distribution improvements on HANS from both of our methods, despite augmenting the training data with fewer than 5k examples.
Long-sequence transformers are designed to improve the representation of longer texts by language models and their performance on downstream document-level tasks. However, not much is understood about the quality of token-level predictions in long-form models. We investigate the performance of such architectures in the context of document classification with unsupervised rationale extraction. We find standard soft attention methods to perform significantly worse when combined with the Longformer language model. We propose a compositional soft attention architecture that applies RoBERTa sentence-wise to extract plausible rationales at the token-level. We find this method to significantly outperform Longformer-driven baselines on sentiment classification datasets, while also exhibiting significantly lower runtimes.
Past studies on the ICD coding problem focus on predicting clinical codes primarily based on the discharge summary. This covers only a small fraction of the notes generated during each hospital stay and leaves potential for improving performance by analysing all the available clinical notes. We propose a hierarchical transformer architecture that uses text across the entire sequence of clinical notes in each hospital stay for ICD coding, and incorporates embeddings for text metadata such as their position, time, and type of note. While using all clinical notes increases the quantity of data substantially, superconvergence can be used to reduce training costs. We evaluate the model on the MIMIC-III dataset. Our model exceeds the prior state-of-the-art when using only discharge summaries as input, and achieves further performance improvements when all clinical notes are used as input.
We extend a current sequence-tagging approach to Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) by introducing specialised tags for spelling correction and morphological inflection using the SymSpell and LemmInflect algorithms. Our approach improves generalisation: the proposed new tagset allows a smaller number of tags to correct a larger range of errors. Our results show a performance improvement both overall and in the targeted error categories. We further show that ensembles trained with our new tagset outperform those trained with the baseline tagset on the public BEA benchmark.
Targeted studies testing knowledge of subject-verb agreement (SVA) indicate that pre-trained language models encode syntactic information. We assert that if models robustly encode subject-verb agreement, they should be able to identify when agreement is correct and when it is incorrect. To that end, we propose grammatical error detection as a diagnostic probe to evaluate token-level contextual representations for their knowledge of SVA. We evaluate contextual representations at each layer from five pre-trained English language models: BERT, XLNet, GPT-2, RoBERTa, and ELECTRA. We leverage public annotated training data from both English second language learners and Wikipedia edits, and report results on manually crafted stimuli for subject-verb agreement. We find that masked language models linearly encode information relevant to the detection of SVA errors, while the autoregressive models perform on par with our baseline. However, we also observe a divergence in performance when probes are trained on different training sets, and when they are evaluated on different syntactic constructions, suggesting the information pertaining to SVA error detection is not robustly encoded.
Current Natural Language Inference (NLI) models achieve impressive results, sometimes outperforming humans when evaluating on in-distribution test sets. However, as these models are known to learn from annotation artefacts and dataset biases, it is unclear to what extent the models are learning the task of NLI instead of learning from shallow heuristics in their training data. We address this issue by introducing a logical reasoning framework for NLI, creating highly transparent model decisions that are based on logical rules. Unlike prior work, we show that the improved interpretability can be achieved without decreasing the predictive accuracy. We almost fully retain performance on SNLI while identifying the exact hypothesis spans that are responsible for each model prediction. Using the e-SNLI human explanations, we also verify that our model makes sensible decisions at a span level, despite not using any span-level labels during training. We can further improve model performance and the span-level decisions by using the e-SNLI explanations during training. Finally, our model outperforms its baseline in a reduced data setting. When training with only 100 examples, in-distribution performance improves by 18%, while out-of-distribution performance improves on SNLI-hard, MNLI-mismatched, MNLI-matched and SICK by 11%, 26%, 22%, and 21% respectively.