Screening prioritisation in medical systematic reviews aims to rank the set of documents retrieved by complex Boolean queries. The goal is to prioritise the most important documents so that subsequent review steps can be carried out more efficiently and effectively. The current state of the art uses the final title of the review to rank documents using BERT-based neural neural rankers. However, the final title is only formulated at the end of the review process, which makes this approach impractical as it relies on ex post facto information. At the time of screening, only a rough working title is available, with which the BERT-based ranker achieves is significantly worse than the final title. In this paper, we explore alternative sources of queries for screening prioritisation, such as the Boolean query used to retrieve the set of documents to be screened, and queries generated by instruction-based generative large language models such as ChatGPT and Alpaca. Our best approach is not only practical based on the information available at screening time, but is similar in effectiveness with the final title.
Generative text-to-image models such as Stable Diffusion allow users to generate images based on a textual description, the prompt. Changing the prompt is still the primary means for the user to change a generated image as desired. However, changing the image by reformulating the prompt remains a difficult process of trial and error, which has led to the emergence of prompt engineering as a new field of research. We propose and analyze methods to change the embedding of a prompt directly instead of the prompt text. It allows for more fine-grained and targeted control that takes into account user intentions. Our approach treats the generative text-to-image model as a continuous function and passes gradients between the image space and the prompt embedding space. By addressing different user interaction problems, we can apply this idea in three scenarios: (1) Optimization of a metric defined in image space that could measure, for example, image style. (2) Assistance of users in creative tasks by enabling them to navigate the image space along a selection of directions of "near" prompt embeddings. (3) Changing the embedding of the prompt to include information that the user has seen in a particular seed but finds difficult to describe in the prompt. Our experiments demonstrate the feasibility of the described methods.
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.
Noticing the urgent need to provide tools for fast and user-friendly qualitative analysis of large-scale textual corpora of the modern NLP, we propose to turn to the mature and well-tested methods from the domain of Information Retrieval (IR) - a research field with a long history of tackling TB-scale document collections. We discuss how Pyserini - a widely used toolkit for reproducible IR research can be integrated with the Hugging Face ecosystem of open-source AI libraries and artifacts. We leverage the existing functionalities of both platforms while proposing novel features further facilitating their integration. Our goal is to give NLP researchers tools that will allow them to develop retrieval-based instrumentation for their data analytics needs with ease and agility. We include a Jupyter Notebook-based walk through the core interoperability features, available on GitHub at https://github.com/huggingface/gaia. We then demonstrate how the ideas we present can be operationalized to create a powerful tool for qualitative data analysis in NLP. We present GAIA Search - a search engine built following previously laid out principles, giving access to four popular large-scale text collections. GAIA serves a dual purpose of illustrating the potential of methodologies we discuss but also as a standalone qualitative analysis tool that can be leveraged by NLP researchers aiming to understand datasets prior to using them in training. GAIA is hosted live on Hugging Face Spaces - https://huggingface.co/spaces/spacerini/gaia.
We integrate ir_datasets, ir_measures, and PyTerrier with TIRA in the Information Retrieval Experiment Platform (TIREx) to promote more standardized, reproducible, scalable, and even blinded retrieval experiments. Standardization is achieved when a retrieval approach implements PyTerrier's interfaces and the input and output of an experiment are compatible with ir_datasets and ir_measures. However, none of this is a must for reproducibility and scalability, as TIRA can run any dockerized software locally or remotely in a cloud-native execution environment. Version control and caching ensure efficient (re)execution. TIRA allows for blind evaluation when an experiment runs on a remote server or cloud not under the control of the experimenter. The test data and ground truth are then hidden from public access, and the retrieval software has to process them in a sandbox that prevents data leaks. We currently host an instance of TIREx with 15 corpora (1.9 billion documents) on which 32 shared retrieval tasks are based. Using Docker images of 50 standard retrieval approaches, we automatically evaluated all approaches on all tasks (50 $\cdot$ 32 = 1,600~runs) in less than a week on a midsize cluster (1,620 CPU cores and 24 GPUs). This instance of TIREx is open for submissions and will be integrated with the IR Anthology, as well as released open source.
Online discussion moderators must make ad-hoc decisions about whether the contributions of discussion participants are appropriate or should be removed to maintain civility. Existing research on offensive language and the resulting tools cover only one aspect among many involved in such decisions. The question of what is considered appropriate in a controversial discussion has not yet been systematically addressed. In this paper, we operationalize appropriate language in argumentation for the first time. In particular, we model appropriateness through the absence of flaws, grounded in research on argument quality assessment, especially in aspects from rhetoric. From these, we derive a new taxonomy of 14 dimensions that determine inappropriate language in online discussions. Building on three argument quality corpora, we then create a corpus of 2191 arguments annotated for the 14 dimensions. Empirical analyses support that the taxonomy covers the concept of appropriateness comprehensively, showing several plausible correlations with argument quality dimensions. Moreover, results of baseline approaches to assessing appropriateness suggest that all dimensions can be modeled computationally on the corpus.
This paper evaluates the viability of using fixed language models for training text classification networks on low-end hardware. We combine language models with a CNN architecture and put together a comprehensive benchmark with 8 datasets covering single-label and multi-label classification of topic, sentiment, and genre. Our observations are distilled into a list of trade-offs, concluding that there are scenarios, where not fine-tuning a language model yields competitive effectiveness at faster training, requiring only a quarter of the memory compared to fine-tuning.
When asked, current large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist us with relevance judgments. Many researchers think this would not lead to credible IR research. In this perspective paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to assist human experts along with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human-machine collaboration spectrum that allows categorizing different relevance judgment strategies, based on how much the human relies on the machine. For the extreme point of "fully automated assessment", we further include a pilot experiment on whether LLM-based relevance judgments correlate with judgments from trained human assessors. We conclude the paper by providing two opposing perspectives - for and against the use of LLMs for automatic relevance judgments - and a compromise perspective, informed by our analyses of the literature, our preliminary experimental evidence, and our experience as IR researchers. We hope to start a constructive discussion within the community to avoid a stale-mate during review, where work is dammed if is uses LLMs for evaluation and dammed if it doesn't.
The Archive Query Log (AQL) is a previously unused, comprehensive query log collected at the Internet Archive over the last 25 years. Its first version includes 356 million queries, 166 million search result pages, and 1.7 billion search results across 550 search providers. Although many query logs have been studied in the literature, the search providers that own them generally do not publish their logs to protect user privacy and vital business data. Of the few query logs publicly available, none combines size, scope, and diversity. The AQL is the first to do so, enabling research on new retrieval models and (diachronic) search engine analyses. Provided in a privacy-preserving manner, it promotes open research as well as more transparency and accountability in the search industry.