Is It JUST Semantics? A Case Study of Discourse Particle Understanding in LLMs

Discourse particles are crucial elements that subtly shape the meaning of text. These words, often polyfunctional, give rise to nuanced and often quite disparate semantic/discourse effects, as exemplified by the diverse uses of the particle "just" (e.g., exclusive, temporal, emphatic). This work investigates the capacity of LLMs to distinguish the fine-grained senses of English "just", a well-studied example in formal semantics, using data meticulously created and labeled by expert linguists. Our findings reveal that while LLMs exhibit some ability to differentiate between broader categories, they struggle to fully capture more subtle nuances, highlighting a gap in their understanding of discourse particles.

Elaborative Simplification as Implicit Questions Under Discussion

Automated text simplification, a technique useful for making text more accessible to people such as children and emergent bilinguals, is often thought of as a monolingual translation task from complex sentences to simplified sentences using encoder-decoder models. This view fails to account for elaborative simplification, where new information is added into the simplified text. This paper proposes to view elaborative simplification through the lens of the Question Under Discussion (QUD) framework, providing a robust way to investigate what writers elaborate upon, how they elaborate, and how elaborations fit into the discourse context by viewing elaborations as explicit answers to implicit questions. We introduce ElabQUD, consisting of 1.3K elaborations accompanied with implicit QUDs, to study these phenomena. We show that explicitly modeling QUD (via question generation) not only provides essential understanding of elaborative simplification and how the elaborations connect with the rest of the discourse, but also substantially improves the quality of elaboration generation.

Evaluating Factuality in Text Simplification

Automated simplification models aim to make input texts more readable. Such methods have the potential to make complex information accessible to a wider audience, e.g., providing access to recent medical literature which might otherwise be impenetrable for a lay reader. However, such models risk introducing errors into automatically simplified texts, for instance by inserting statements unsupported by the corresponding original text, or by omitting key information. Providing more readable but inaccurate versions of texts may in many cases be worse than providing no such access at all. The problem of factual accuracy (and the lack thereof) has received heightened attention in the context of summarization models, but the factuality of automatically simplified texts has not been investigated. We introduce a taxonomy of errors that we use to analyze both references drawn from standard simplification datasets and state-of-the-art model outputs. We find that errors often appear in both that are not captured by existing evaluation metrics, motivating a need for research into ensuring the factual accuracy of automated simplification models.