Datasets:

yifeihu

/

ACL-23-Paper-OCR-Markdown

like 13

tang-etal-2023-hybrid

Hybrid Transducer and Attention based Encoder-Decoder Modeling for Speech-to-Text Tasks

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.695

Transducer and Attention based Encoder-Decoder (AED) are two widely used frameworks for speech-to-text tasks. They are designed for different purposes and each has its own benefits and drawbacks for speech-to-text tasks. In order to leverage strengths of both modeling methods, we propose a solution by combining Transducer and Attention based Encoder-Decoder (TAED) for speech-to-text tasks. The new method leverages AED{'}s strength in non-monotonic sequence to sequence learning while retaining Transducer{'}s streaming property. In the proposed framework, Transducer and AED share the same speech encoder. The predictor in Transducer is replaced by the decoder in the AED model, and the outputs of the decoder are conditioned on the speech inputs instead of outputs from an unconditioned language model. The proposed solution ensures that the model is optimized by covering all possible read/write scenarios and creates a matched environment for streaming applications. We evaluate the proposed approach on the MuST-C dataset and the findings demonstrate that TAED performs significantly better than Transducer for offline automatic speech recognition (ASR) and speech-to-text translation (ST) tasks. In the streaming case, TAED outperforms Transducer in the ASR task and one ST direction while comparable results are achieved in another translation direction.

# Hybrid Transducer And Attention Based Encoder-Decoder Modeling For Speech-To-Text Tasks Yun Tang⋆, Anna Y. Sun⋆, Hirofumi Inaguma⋆**, Xinyue Chen**♢∗ , Ning Dong⋆, Xutai Ma⋆, Paden D. Tomasello⋆**, Juan Pino**⋆ Meta AI⋆, Carnegie Mellon University♢ yuntang.email@gmail.com, hirofumii@meta.com ## Abstract Transducer and Attention based EncoderDecoder (AED) are two widely used frameworks for speech-to-text tasks. They are designed for different purposes and each has its own benefits and drawbacks for speech-totext tasks. In order to leverage strengths of both modeling methods, we propose a solution by combining Transducer and Attention based Encoder-Decoder (TAED) for speech-totext tasks. The new method leverages AED's strength in non-monotonic sequence to sequence learning while retaining Transducer's streaming property. In the proposed framework, Transducer and AED share the same speech encoder. The predictor in Transducer is replaced by the decoder in the AED model, and the outputs of the decoder are conditioned on the speech inputs instead of outputs from an unconditioned language model. The proposed solution ensures that the model is optimized by covering all possible read/write scenarios and creates a matched environment for streaming applications. We evaluate the proposed approach on the MUST-C dataset and the findings demonstrate that TAED performs significantly better than Transducer for offline automatic speech recognition (ASR) and speech-to-text translation (ST) tasks. In the streaming case, TAED outperforms Transducer in the ASR task and one ST direction while comparable results are achieved in another translation direction. 1 ## 1 Introduction Neural based end-to-end frameworks have achieved remarkable success in speech-to-text tasks, such as automatic speech recognition (ASR) and speech-totext translation (ST) (Li, 2021). These frameworks include Attention based Encoder-Decoder modeling (AED) (Bahdanau et al., 2014), connectionist temporal classification (CTC) (Graves et al., 2006) and Transducer (Graves, 2012) etc. They are designed with different purposes and have quite different behaviors, even though all of them could be used to solve the mapping problem from a speech input sequence to a text output sequence. AED handles the sequence-to-sequence learning by allowing the decoder to attend to parts of the source sequence. It provides a powerful and general solution that is not bound to the input/output modalities, lengths, or sequence orders. Hence, it is widely used for ASR (Chorowski et al., 2015; Chan et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2020; Gulati et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021), and ST (Berard et al., 2016; Weiss et al., 2017; Li et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2022). CTC and its variant Transducer are designed to handle monotonic alignment between the speech input sequence and text output sequence. A hard alignment is generated between speech features and target text tokens during decoding, in which every output token is associated or synchronized with an input speech feature. CTC and Transducer have many desired properties for ASR. For example, they fit into streaming applications naturally, and the input-synchronous decoding can help alleviate over-generation or under-generation issues within AED. Sainath et al. (2019); Chiu et al. (2019) show that Transducer achieves better WER than AED in long utterance recognition, while AED outperforms Transducer in the short utterance case. On the other hand, CTC and Transducer are shown to be suboptimal in dealing with non-monotonic sequence mapping (Chuang et al., 2021), though some initial attempts show encouraging progress (Xue et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). In this work, we propose a hybrid Transducer and AED model (TAED), which integrates both AED and Transducer models into one framework to leverage strengths from both modeling methods. In TAED, we share the speech encoder between 12441 AED and Transducer. The predictor in Transducer is replaced with the decoder in AED. The AED decoder output assists the Transducer's joiner to predict the output tokens. Transducer and AED models are treated equally and optimized jointly during training, while only Transducer's joiner outputs are used during inference. We extend the TAED model to streaming applications under the chunk-based synchronization scheme, which guarantees full coverage of read/write choices in the training set and removes the training and inference discrepancy. The relationship between streaming latency and AED alignment is studied, and a simple, fast AED alignment is proposed to achieve low latency with small quality degradation. The new approach is evaluated in ASR and ST tasks for offline and streaming settings. The results show the new method helps to achieve new state-of-the-art results on offline evaluation. The corresponding streaming extension also improves the quality significantly under a similar latency budget. To summarize, our contributions are below: 1. TAED, the hybrid of Transducer and AED modeling, is proposed for speech-to-text tasks 2. A chunk-based streaming synchronization scheme is adopted to remove the training and inference discrepancy for streaming applications 3. A simple, fast AED alignment is employed to balance TAED latency and quality 4. The proposed method achieves SOTA results on both offline and streaming settings for ASR and ST tasks ## 2 Preliminary Formally, we denote a speech-to-text task training sample as a (x, y) pair. x = x1:T and y = y1:U are the speech input features and target text tokens, respectively. T and U are the corresponding sequence lengths. yu ∈ V and V is the target vocabulary. The objective function is to minimize the negative log likelihood log p(y|x, θ) over the training set $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{aed}}=-\sum_{(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})}\log p(y_{u}|y_{1:u-1},x_{1:T}).\quad(1)$$ In the streaming setting, the model generates predictions at timestamps denoted by a = (t1, · · · , tu, · · · , tU ), rather than waiting to the end of an utterance, where tu ≤ tu+1 and 0 < tu ≤ T. We call the prediction timestamp sequence as an alignment a between speech x1:T and token labels y1:U . AU T = {a} denotes all alignments between x1:T and y1:U . The streaming model parameter θs is optimized through $$\operatorname*{min}_{\theta_{\mathrm{s}}}\sum_{(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})}\sum_{a\in{\mathcal{A}}_{T}^{U}}\sum_{u=1}^{U}-\log p(y_{u}|y_{1:u-1},x_{1:t_{u}}).\,\,\,(2)$$ The offline modeling can be considered a special case of streaming modeling, i.e., the alignment is unique with all tu = T. The following two subsections briefly describe two modeling methods used in our hybrid approach. ## 2.1 Attention Based Encoder Decoder AED consists of an encoder, a decoder, and attention modules, which connect corresponding layers in the encoder and decoder as demonstrated in Figure 1(a). The encoder generates the context representation h1:T from input x1:T 2. The decoder state s lu is estimated based on previous states and encoder outputs $$s_{u}^{l}=f_{\theta_{\rm dec}}(h_{1:T},s_{1:u-1}^{l},y_{u-1}),\tag{3}$$ where $f_{\theta_{\rm dec}}$ is the neural network parameterized with θdec and l ∈ [1, L] is the layer index. When the AED is extended to the streaming applications (Raffel et al., 2017; Arivazhagan et al., 2019), a critical question has been raised: how do we decide the write/read strategy for the decoder? Assuming the AED model is Transformer based, and tokens y1:u−1 have been decoded before timestep t during inference. The next AED decoder state s lu(t) is associated with partial speech encoder outputs h1:t as well as a partial alignment a′ ∈ Au−1 tbetween h1:t and y1:u−1. The computation of a Transformer decoder layer (Vaswani et al., 2017) includes a self-attention module and a cross-attention module. The self-attention module models the relevant information from previous decoder states $$\hat{s}_{a^{\prime}}^{l}=[s_{1}^{l}(t_{1}),\cdots,s_{u-1}^{l}(t_{u-1})],\tag{4}$$ where tu−1 is the prediction timestamp for token u − 1 in alignment a′. The cross-attention module 2A down-sampling module might be applied in the speech encoder. For simplicity, we still use T as the encoder output sequence length.  extracts information from the encoder outputs h1:t. The decoder state computation is modified as $$s_{u}^{l}(t)=f_{\theta_{\mathrm{dec}}}(h_{1:t},\hat{s}_{a^{\prime}}^{l},y_{u-1}).$$ To cover all read/write paths during training, we need to enumerate all possible alignments at every timestep given the output token sequence y1:U . The alignment numbers would be O( T′!(T′−U)! U!) and it is prohibitively expensive. In AED based methods, such as Monotonic Infinite Lookback Attention (MILk) (Arivazhagan et al., 2019) and Monotonic Multihead Attention (MMA) (Ma et al., 2020b), an estimation of context vector is used to avoid enumerating alignments. In Cross Attention Augmented Transducer (CAAT) (Liu et al., 2021), the self-attention modules in the joiner are dropped to decouple y1:u−1 and h1:t. ## 2.2 Transducer A Transducer has three main components. A speech encoder θenc forms the context speech representation h1:T from speech input x1:T , a predictor θpred models the linguistic information conditioned on previous target tokens, and a joiner θjoiner merges acoustic and linguistic representations to predict outputs for every speech input feature, as shown in 1(b). The encoder and predictor are usually modeled with a recurrent neural network (RNN) (Graves, 2012) or Transformer (Zhang et al., 2020) architecture. The joiner module is a feed-forward network which expands input from speech encoder ht and predictor output s L u to a T × U matrix with component z(*t, u*): $$({\boldsymbol{5}})$$ A linear projection Wout ∈ Rd*×|V∪*∅|is applied to z(*t, u*) to obtain logits for every output token k *∈ V ∪* ∅. A blank token ∅ is generated if there is no good match between non-blank tokens and current ht. The RNN-T loss is optimized using the forward-backward algorithm: $$\alpha_{t,u}=\text{LA}\Big{(}\alpha_{t,u-1}+\log p\big{(}y_{u}|z(t,u-1)\big{)},\tag{7}$$ $$\alpha_{t-1,u}+\log p\big{(}\varnothing|z(t,u)\big{)}\Big{)},$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{rnn}-t}=-\alpha_{T,U}-\log p(\varnothing|T,U),\tag{8}$$ where $\text{LA}(x,y)=\log(\exp^{x}+\exp^{y})$ and $\alpha_{0,\phi}$ is initialized as 0. Transducer is well suited to the streaming task since it can learn read/write policy from data implicitly, i.e., a blank token indicates a read operation and a non-blank token indicates a write operation. ## 3 Methods In this study, we choose the TransformerTransducer (T-T) (Zhang et al., 2020) as the backbone in the proposed TAED system. For the streaming setting, the speech encoder is based on the chunkwise implementation (Chiu and Raffel, 2017; Chen et al., 2020), which receives and computes new speech input data by chunk size N instead of one frame each time. ## 3.1 Taed TAED combines both Transducer and AED into one model, as illustrated in Figure 1(c). The speech Transformer encoder is shared between Transducer and AED models. The predictor in Transducer is replaced by the AED decoder. Outputs of the new predictor are results of both speech encoder $$z(t,u)=f_{\theta_{\mathrm{joiner}}}(h_{t},s_{u}^{L}).$$ $$(6)$$ $12\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}$. $$(t,u)=f_{\theta_{\mathrm{incident}}}$$ $u=3$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\Box$$\ outputs and predicted tokens, hence they are more informative for the joiner. Transducer and AED models are optimized together with two criteria, RNN-T loss for the Transducer's joiner outputs and cross entropy loss for the AED decoder outputs. The overall loss L*taed* is summation of two losses $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{tead}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{rnn-t}}+{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{aed}}.$$ The model is evaluated based on the outputs from the Transducer's joiner. ## 3.2 Transducer Optimization With Chunkbased Rnn-T Synchronization Scheme When we attempt to extend TAED to the streaming scenario, we encounter the same streaming read/write issue discussed in §2.1. In order to avoid enumerating exponential increased alignments, we adopt a different approach and modify the inference logic to match the training and inference conditions. In the conventional streaming decoder inference, when the new speech encoder output htis available, the new decoder state s lu(t) is estimated via h1:t and previous computed decoder states sˆ l a′, which are based on h1:t′ and t′ ≤ t, as shown in Eq. (5). In the proposed solution, we update all previous decoder states given speech encoder outputs h1:t, and sˆ l a′ is replaced by sˆ l a(t) , $$\hat{s}^{l}_{a(t)}=[s^{l}_{1}(t),\cdots,s^{l}_{u-1}(t)],\tag{10}$$ where a(t) stands for a special alignment where all tokens are aligned to timestamp tu = t. There are two reasons behind this modification. First, we expect the state representation would be more accurate if all decoder states are updated when more speech data is available. Second, the modification helps to reduce the huge number of alignments between y1:U and h1:tto one during training, i.e., a(t). Compared with the conventional AED training, it only increases the decoder forward computation by T times. The computation is further reduced when the chunk-based encoder is used. Given two decoder states s lu(t) and s lu(δ(t)), where δ(t) is the last frame index of the chunk which frame t belongs to and t ≤ δ(t), s lu(δ(t)) is more informative than s lu(t) since the former is exposed to more speech input. During inference, s lu(t) and s lu(δ(t)) are available at the same time when the speech chunk data is available. Therefore, we replace all s lu(t) with corresponding s lu(δ(t)) for both inference and training. If N is the number of speech encoder output frames from one chunk of speech input, chunk-based computation helps to reduce the decoder computation cost by N times during training, since we only need to update the decoder states every N frames instead of every frame. In summary, the computation of s lu(t) is modified from Eq. (5) as below $\mu$. $$s_{u}^{l}(t)=f_{\theta_{\mathrm{dec}}}(h_{1:\delta(t)},\hat{s}_{a}^{l}(\delta(t)),\hat{y}u{-}1),\tag{11}$$ and the joiner output z(*t, u*) in Eq. (6) is updated as $$z(t,u)=f_{\theta_{\rm johner}}(h_{t},s_{u}^{L}(t)).\tag{12}$$ $\bullet$**hased RNN T synchronization is do ## The Chunk-Based Rnn-T Synchronization Is Depicted In Figure 2. The Number Of Speech Encoder Output Frames In One Chunk Is 4. Z(*T, U*)S In The First Chunk (Cyan) Are Calculated With S L U(3) And The Second Chunk (Violet) Is Based On S L U(7). When The Chunk Size N Is Longer Than The Utterance Length T, The Chunk-Based Taed Streaming Training Is The Same As The Offline Training With Similar Computation Cost As Transducer. 3.3 Aed Optimization With Fast Alignment Besides optimizing the model with the RNN-T loss aforementioned, we also include another auxiliary loss Laed for the AED model, as shown in Eq. (9). A straightforward approach is to optimize the AED modules as an offline AED model as Eq. (1). However, an offline AED model could lead to high latency if it is used for streaming applications. Hence, we also introduce a simple "streaming"-mode AED training by creating an even alignment a e of the target tokens against the speech encoder outputs, i.e., t eu = ⌊u ∗ T′/U⌋, where ⌊x⌋ is the floor operation on x. Furthermore, we can manipulate the alignment pace with an alignment speedup factor λ > 0, and the new alignment a λis with timestep t λ u = max(T, ⌊ u∗T′ U∗λ⌋). When λ > 1.0, the streaming AED model is trained with a fast alignment and is encouraged to predict new tokens with less speech data. On the other hand, if λ < 1U , then t λ u = T and it is equivalent to the offline training. The auxiliary AED task is optimized via $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{aed}}=-\sum_{\text{(x,y)}}\sum_{u}\log p(y_{u}|y_{1:u-1},h_{1:t_{u}^{\lambda}}).\tag{13}$$ Note an accurate alignment is not required in this approach, which could be difficult to obtain in translation-related applications. ## 3.4 Blank Penalty During Inference The ratio between the number of input speech frames and the number of target tokens could be varied due to many factors, such as different speech ratios or target language units. In the meantime, the prediction of a blank token ∅ indicates a read operation, and a non-blank token represents a write operation, as discussed in §2.2. During inference, a blank penalty τ is introduced to adjust the target token fertility rate by penalizing the blank token ∅ emission probability. It acts as word insertion penalty used in ASR (Takeda et al., 1998): $$\hat{e}(t,u)[i_{\varnothing}]=e(t,u)[i_{\varnothing}]-\tau,\tag{14}$$ > $\mathrm{QFTMAX}_2(W^\mathrm{out}z(t,u)$ where e(*t, u*) = LOGSOFTMAXu(Woutz(*t, u*)) and i∅ is the index for the blank token ∅. ## 4 Comparison Of Streaming Algorithms When to read new input and write new output is a fundamental question for the streaming algorithm. Based on the choices of streaming read/write policies, they can roughly be separated into two families: pre-fixed and adaptive. The pre-fixed policy, such as Wait-k (Ma et al., 2019), adopts a fixed scheme to read new input and write new output. On the other hand, the adaptive algorithms choose read/write policies dynamically based on the input speech data presented. The adaptive algorithms could be further separated into two categories based on input and output synchronization. The first category of adaptive streaming algorithms is based on the AED framework, including hard monotonic attention (HMA) (Raffel et al., 2017), MILk (Arivazhagan et al., 2019), MoChA (Chiu and Raffel, 2017), MMA (Ma et al., 2020b) and continuous integrate-and-fire (CIF) (Dong and Xu, 2020; Chang and yi Lee, 2022). Those methods extract acoustic information from the encoder outputs via attention between the encoder and decoder. The acoustic information is fused with linguistic information, which is estimated from the decoded token history, within the decoder. There is no explicit alignment between the input and output sequence; in other words, the outputs are **asynchronized** for the inputs. As discussed in §2.1, AED models don't fit the streaming application easily, and approximations have been taken during training. For example, the alignmentdependent context vector extracted via attention between the encoder and decoder is usually replaced by a context vector expectation from alignments. It differs from inference, which is based on a specific alignment path sampled during decoding. Hence a training and inference discrepancy is inevitable, potentially hurting the streaming performance. The second category of adaptive streaming methods is with **synchronized** inputs and outputs, in which every output token is associated with a speech input frame. This includes CTC, Transducer, CAAT, and the proposed TAED. They combine acoustic and linguistic information within the joiner if linguistic modeling is applied. Specific read/write decisions are not required during training. This considers all alignments and is optimized via CTC loss or RNN-T loss. Hence, there is no training and inference discrepancy. The detailed comparison of different methods is listed in Table 1. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Experimental Setup Data Experiments are conducted on two MUSTC (Gangi et al., 2019) language pairs: English to German (EN→DE) and English to Spanish (EN→ES). Sequence level knowledge distillation (Kim and Rush, 2016) is applied to boost the ST quality (Liu et al., 2021). The English portion of data in the EN→ES direction is used for English ASR development and evaluation. The models are developed on the dev set, and the final results are reported on the tst-COMMON set. We also report LIBRISPEECH (Panayotov et al., 2015) ASR results in Appendix C for convenient comparison with other ASR systems. Evaluation The ASR quality is measured with word error rate (WER), and the ST quality is reported by case-sensitive detokenized BLEU, which is based on the default SACREBLEU options (Post, | Method | Synchronization | Merge Module | R/W decision | Training/Inference | |---------------------------------|-------------------|-------------------|----------------|---------------------------| | CIF (Dong and Xu, 2020) | Async | Decoder | h≤j | sampling+scaling/sampling | | HMA (Raffel et al., 2017) | Async | Decoder | hj , s≤i | expectation/sampling | | MILk (Arivazhagan et al., 2019) | Async | Decoder | h≤j , s<i | expectation/sampling | | MMA (Ma et al., 2020b) | Async | Decoder | h≤j , s<i | expectation/sampling | | CTC (Graves et al., 2006) | Sync | None | hj | all paths/sampling | | Transducer (Graves, 2012) | Sync | Joiner | hj , sk<i | all paths/sampling | | CAAT (Liu et al., 2021) | Sync | Joiner | h≤j , s<i | all paths/sampling | | TAED (this work) | Sync | Predictor, Joiner | h≤j , s<i | all paths/sampling | 2018) 3. Latency is measured with Average Lagging (AL) (Ma et al., 2019) using SimualEval (Ma et al., 2020a). Model configuration Input speech is represented as 80-dimensional log mel-filterbank coefficients computed every 10ms with a 25ms window. Global channel mean and variance normalization is applied. The SpecAugment (Park et al., 2019) data augmentation with the LB policy is applied in all experiments. The target vocabulary consists of 1000 "unigram" subword units learned by SentencePiece (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) with full character coverage of all training text data. We choose the Transformer-Transducer (TT) (Zhang et al., 2020) as our Transducer baseline model. The speech encoder starts with two casual convolution layers with a kernel size of three and a stride size of two. The input speech features are down-sampled by four and then processed by 16 chunk-wise Transformer layers with relative positional embedding (Shaw et al., 2018). For the streaming case, the speech encoder can access speech data in all chunks before and one chunk ahead of the current timestep (Wu et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). We sweep over chunk size from 160ms to 640ms. For the offline model, we simply set a chunk size larger than any utterance to be processed as discussed in §3.2. There are two Transformer layers in the predictor module. The Transformer layers in both the speech encoder and predictor have an input embedding size of 512, 8 attention heads, and middle layer dimension 2048. The joiner module is a feed-forward neural network as T-T (Zhang et al., 2020). The TAED follows the same configuration as the T-T baseline, except the predictor module is replaced by an AED decoder with extra attention modules to connect the outputs from the speech encoder. The total number of pa- | Model | BLEU (↑) | | |----------------------------|------------|------| | EN→DE | EN→ES | | | AED (Wang et al., 2020) | 22.7 | 27.2 | | AED (Inaguma et al., 2020) | 22.9 | 28.0 | | CAAT (Liu et al., 2021) | 23.1 | 27.6 | | Transducer | 24.9 | 28.0 | | TAED | 25.7 | 29.6 | rameters is approximately 59M for both Transducer and TAED configurations. Hyper-parameter setting The model is pretrained with the ASR task using the T-T architecture. The trained speech encoder is used to initialize the TAED models and the T-T based ST model. The models are fine-tuned up to 300k updates using 16 A100 GPUs. The batch size is 16k speech frames per GPU. It takes approximately one day to train the offline model and three days for the streaming model due to the overhead of the lookahead chunk and chunk-based synchronization scheme. Early stopping is adopted if the training makes no progress for 20 epochs. The RAdam optimizer (Liu et al., 2020) with a learning rate 3e-4 is employed in all experiments. Label smoothing and dropout rate are both set to 0.1. We choose blank penalty τ by grid search within [0, 4.0] with step=0.5 on the dev set. The models are trained with FAIRSEQ (Wang et al., 2020). The best ten checkpoints are averaged for inference with greedy search (beam size=1). ## 5.2 Offline Results The results for the offline models are listed in Table 2 and Table 3. In Table 2, our models are compared with systems reported using MUSTC data only. The first two rows are based on the AED framework, and the third one is the results from CAAT, which is the backbone in the  Table 3: Comparison of offline ASR on the MUST-C dev and tst-COMMON sets. IWSLT2021 (Anastasopoulos et al., 2021) and IWSLT2022 (Anastasopoulos et al., 2022) streaming winning systems. Our Transducer baseline achieves competitive results and is comparable with the three systems listed above. The quality improves by 0.8 to 1.6 BLEU after we switch to the proposed TAED framework. Table 3 demonstrates the corresponding ASR quality, and TAED achieves 14% relative WER reduction compared with the Transducer baseline on the tst-COMMON set. The results indicate Transducer can achieve competitive results with the AED based model in the ST task. A predictor conditioned with speech encoder outputs could provide a more accurate representation for the joiner. The TAED can take advantage of both the Transducer and AED and achieve better results. In the next experiment, we compare the impact of the AED task weight for the offline model. In Eq. (9), the RNN-T loss and AED cross entropy loss are added to form the overall loss during training. In Table 4, we vary the AED task weight during training from 0.0 to 2.0. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th columns correspond to the AED task weight, ASR WER, and ST BLEU in the "EN→ES" direction, respectively. AED weight 0.0 indicates only RNN-T loss is used while AED weight = 1.0 is equivalent to the proposed mothed in Eq. (9). Without extra guidance from the AED task (AED weight=0.0), the models still outperform the Transducer models in both ASR and ST tasks, though the gain is halved. When the AED task is introduced during training, i.e., AED weight is above 0, we get comparable results for three AED weights: 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. This demonstrates that the AED guidance is essential, and the task weight is not very sensitive for the final results. In the following streaming experiments, we follow Eq. (9) without changing the AED task weight. ## 5.3 Streaming Results We first study the impact of the AED alignment speedup factor described in §3.3 in Table 5 and Ta- | Model | AED wts. | WER (↓) | BLEU (↑) | |------------|------------|-----------|------------| | Transducer | - | 12.7 | 28.0 | | 0.0 | 11.9 | 28.9 | | | 0.5 | 10.9 | 30.1 | | | TAED | 1.0 | 10.9 | 29.6 | | 2.0 | 10.8 | 30.2 | |  ble 6. In those experiments, the chunk size is set to 320ms. The ASR results are presented in Table 5. The first row indicates the alignment speedup factor λ. "Full" means the AED model is trained as an offline ST model. "1.0" stands for the alignment created by evenly distributing tokens along the time axis. The streaming TAED model trained with the offline AED model ("Full") achieves 12.7 WER with a large latency. We examine the decoding and find the model tends to generate the first non-blank token near the end of the input utterance. The joiner learns to wait to generate reliable outputs at the end of utterances and tends to ignore the direct speech encoder outputs. When the fast AED alignment is adopted, i.e., λ ≥ 1.0, the latency is reduced significantly from almost 6 seconds to less than 1 second. The larger λ is, the smaller AL is. One surprising finding is that both WER and latency become smaller when λ increases. The WER improves from 14.7 to 12.5 when λ increases from 1.0 to 1.2, slightly better than the TAED trained with the offline AED module. We hypothesize that the joiner might achieve better results if it gets a synchronized signal from both the speech encoder and AED decoder outputs. When λ is small, i.e., 1.0, AED decoder output might be lagged behind the speech encoder output when they are used to predict the next token. A similar observation is also found in ST as demonstrated in Table 6 that the fast AED alignment helps to reduce TAED latency, though the best BLEU are achieved when the offline AED module is used. Compared to TAED models trained with offline AED module, the latency is reduced from 4+ seconds to less than 1.2 seconds for both translation directions, at the expense of BLEU score decreasing from 0.9 (EN→ES) to 1.8 (EN→DE). In the following experiments, we compare the quality v.s. latency for TAED and Transducer. We  Table 5: Comparison of AED alignment speedup factor impact for the streaming ASR performance on the MUST-C EN tst-COMMON set.  Table 6: Comparison of AED alignment speedup factor impact for the streaming ST performance on the MUSTC tst-COMMON set. We set chunk size to 320ms for both EN→ES and EN→DE. build models with different latency by changing the chunk size from 160, 320, and 480 to 640 ms. We present the WER v.s. AL curve in Figure 3. The dash lines are the WERs from the offline models, and the solid lines are for the streaming models. The figure shows that the proposed TAED models achieve better WER than the corresponding Transducer model, varied from 1.2 to 2.1 absolute WER reduction, with similar latency values. The BLEU v.s. AL curves for ST are demonstrated in Figure 4 and Figure 5 for EN→ES and EN→DE directions, respectively. Besides the results from Transducer and TAED, we also include CAAT results from Liu et al. (2021) for convenient comparison. First, TAED consistently outperforms Transducer at different operation points in the EN→ES direction and is on par with Transducer in the EN→DE direction. We expect the TAED model outperforms the Transducer model for the EN→DE direction when more latency budget is given since the offline TAED model is clearly better than the corresponding offline Transducer model. Second, CAAT performs better at the extremely low latency region (∼ 1 second AL), and TAED starts to excel CAAT when AL is beyond 1.1 seconds for EN→ES and 1.3 seconds for EN→DE. TAED achieves higher BLEU scores than the offline CAAT model when the latency is more than 1.4 seconds for both directions. The detailed results are included in Appendix B. ## 6 Related Work Given the advantages and weaknesses of AED and CTC/ Transducer, many works have been done to    combine those methods together. Transducer with attention (Prabhavalkar et al., 2017), which is a Transducer variant, also feeds the encoder outputs to the predictor. Our method is different in two aspects. First, we treat the TAED as a combination of two different models: Transducer and AED. They are optimized with equal weights during training, while Transducer with attention is optimized with RNN-T loss only. It is critical to achieve competitive results as shown in Table 4. Second, our method also includes a streaming solution while Transducer with attention can only be applied to the offline modeling. Another solution is to combine those two methods through a two-pass approach (Watanabe et al., 2017; Sainath et al., 2019; Moriya et al., 2021). The first pass obtains a set of complete hypotheses using beam search. The second pass model rescores these hypotheses by combining likelihood scores from both models and returns the result with the highest score. An improvement along this line of research replaces the two-pass decoding with single-pass decoding, which integrates scores from CTC/Transducer with AED during the beam search (Watanabe et al., 2017; Yan et al., 2022). However, sophisticated decoding algorithms are required due to the synchronization difference between two methods. They also lead to high computation cost and latency (Yan et al., 2022). Furthermore, the two-pass approach doesn't fit streaming applications naturally. Heuristics methods such as triggered decoding are employed (Moritz et al., 2019; Moriya et al., 2021). In our proposed solution, two models are tightly integrated with native streaming support, and TAED predictions are synergistic results from two models. ## 7 Conclusion In this work, we propose a new framework to integrate Transducer and AED models into one model. The new approach ensures that the optimization covers all read/write paths and removes the discrepancy between training and evaluation for streaming applications. TAED achieves better results than the popular AED and Transducer modelings in ASR and ST offline tasks. Under the streaming scenario, the TAED model consistently outperforms the Transducer baseline in both the EN ASR task and EN→ES ST task while achieving comparable results in the EN→DE direction. It also excels the SOTA streaming ST system (CAAT) in medium and large latency regions. ## 8 Limitations The TAED model has slightly more parameters than the corresponding Transducer model due to the attention modules to connect the speech encoder and AED decoder. They have similar training time for the offline models. However, the optimization of the streaming model would require more GPU memory and computation time due to the chunk-based RNN-T synchronization scheme described in §2.1. In our experiments, the streaming TAED model takes about three times more training time than the offline model on the 16 A100 GPU cards, each having 40GB of GPU memory. In this work, we evaluate our streaming ST algorithms on two translation directions: EN→ES and EN→DE. The word ordering for English and Spanish languages are based on Subject-VerbObject (SVO) while German is Subject-ObjectVerb (SOV). The experiments validate the streaming algorithms on both different word ordering pair and similar word ordering pair. Our future work will extend to other source languages besides English and more language directions. ## References Antonios Anastasopoulos, Loïc Barrault, Luisa Bentivogli, Marcely Zanon Boito, Ondˇrej Bojar, Roldano Cattoni, Anna Currey, Georgiana Dinu, Kevin Duh, Maha Elbayad, et al. 2022. Findings of the IWSLT 2022 evaluation campaign. In *International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation*. Antonios Anastasopoulos, Ondrej Bojar, Jacob Bremerman, Roldano Cattoni, Maha Elbayad, Marcello Federico, Xutai Ma, Satoshi Nakamura, Matteo Negri, Jan Niehues, Juan Miguel Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Sebastian Stüker, Katsuhito Sudoh, Marco Turchi, Alexander H. Waibel, Changhan Wang, and Matthew Wiesner. 2021. Findings of the IWSLT 2021 evaluation campaign. In *International Workshop on Spoken* Language Translation. N. Arivazhagan, Colin Cherry, Wolfgang Macherey, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Semih Yavuz, Ruoming Pang, Wei Li, and Colin Raffel. 2019. Monotonic infinite lookback attention for simultaneous machine translation. In ACL. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In *ICLR*. A. Berard, O. Pietquin, C. Servan, and L. Besacier. 2016. Listen and translate: A proof of concept for end-toend speech-to-text translation. In *NIPS*. William Chan, Navdeep Jaitly, Quoc V. Le, and Oriol Vinyals. 2015. Listen, attend and spell. *ArXiv*, abs/1508.01211. Chih-Chiang Chang and Hung yi Lee. 2022. Exploring continuous integrate-and-fire for adaptive simultaneous speech translation. In *Interspeech*. Xie Chen, Yu Wu, Zhenghao Wang, Shujie Liu, and Jinyu Li. 2020. Developing real-time streaming transformer transducer for speech recognition on largescale dataset. In *ICASSP*, pages 5904–5908. Chung-Cheng Chiu, Wei Han, Yu Zhang, Ruoming Pang, Sergey Kishchenko, Patrick Nguyen, Arun Narayanan, Hank Liao, Shuyuan Zhang, Anjuli Kannan, Rohit Prabhavalkar, Z. Chen, Tara N. Sainath, and Yonghui Wu. 2019. A comparison of end-to-end models for long-form speech recognition. In *ASRU*. Chung-Cheng Chiu and Colin Raffel. 2017. Monotonic chunkwise attention. In *ICLR*. Kyunghyun Cho and Masha Esipova. 2016. Can neural machine translation do simultaneous translation? ArXiv, abs/1606.02012. J. Chorowski, D. Bahdanau, D. Serdyuk, K. Cho, and Y. Bengio. 2015. Attention-based models for speech recognition. In *NIPS*. Shun-Po Chuang, Yung-Sung Chuang, Chih-Chiang Chang, and Hung yi Lee. 2021. Investigating the reordering capability in CTC-based non-autoregressive end-to-end speech translation. In *Findings of ACL*. Linhao Dong and Bo Xu. 2020. CIF: Continuous integrate-and-fire for end-to-end speech recognition. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6079–6083. Mattia Antonino Di Gangi, Roldano Cattoni, Luisa Bentivogli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2019. MuST-C: a multilingual speech translation corpus. In *NAACL-HLT*. Alex Graves. 2012. Sequence transduction with recurrent neural networks. *ArXiv*, abs/1211.3711. Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino J. Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks. In *Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine* learning. Anmol Gulati, James Qin, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Niki Parmar, Yu Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Wei Han, Shibo Wang, Zhengdong Zhang, Yonghui Wu, and Ruoming Pang. 2020. Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition. In *Interspeech*. H. Inaguma, S. Kiyono, K. Duh, S. Karita, N. Soplin, T. Hayashi, and S. Watanabe. 2020. ESPnet-ST: Allin-one speech translation toolkit. In ACL. Yoon Kim and Alexander M. Rush. 2016. Sequencelevel knowledge distillation. In *Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*. T. Kudo and J. Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. In *EMNLP*. Jinyu Li. 2021. Recent advances in end-to-end automatic speech recognition. *APSIPA Transactions on* Signal and Information Processing. Xian Li, Changhan Wang, Yun Tang, C. Tran, Yuqing Tang, Juan Miguel Pino, Alexei Baevski, Alexis Conneau, and Michael Auli. 2021. Multilingual speech translation from efficient finetuning of pretrained models. In *ACL/IJCNLP*. Dan Liu, Mengge Du, Xiaoxi Li, Ya Li, and Enhong Chen. 2021. Cross attention augmented transducer networks for simultaneous translation. In *EMNLP*. Liyuan Liu, Haoming Jiang, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Jiawei Han. 2020. On the variance of the adaptive learning rate and beyond. In *ICLR*. Mingbo Ma, Liang Huang, Hao Xiong, Renjie Zheng, Kaibo Liu, Baigong Zheng, Chuanqiang Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hairong Liu, Xing Li, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2019. STACL: Simultaneous translation with implicit anticipation and controllable latency using prefix-to-prefix framework. In ACL. Xutai Ma, Mohammad Javad Dousti, Changhan Wang, Jiatao Gu, and Juan Pino. 2020a. SIMULEVAL: An evaluation toolkit for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xutai Ma, Juan Pino, James Cross, Liezl Puzon, and Jiatao Gu. 2020b. Monotonic multihead attention. In ICLR. Niko Moritz, Takaaki Hori, and Jonathan Le Roux. 2019. Triggered attention for end-to-end speech recognition. In *ICASSP*. Takafumi Moriya, Tomohiro Tanaka, Takanori Ashihara, Tsubasa Ochiai, Hiroshi Sato, Atsushi Ando, Ryo Masumura, Marc Delcroix, and Taichi Asami. 2021. Streaming end-to-end speech recognition for hybrid RNN-T/attention architecture. In *Interspeech*. Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, D. Povey, and S. Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: An asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In *ICASSP*. Sara Papi, Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2022. Over-generation cannot be rewarded: Length-adaptive average lagging for simultaneous speech translation. *ArXiv*, abs/2206.05807. D. Park, W. Chan, Y. Zhang, C. Chiu, B. Zoph, E. Cubuk, and Q. Le. 2019. SpecAugment: A simple data augmentation method for automatic speech recognition. In *Interspeech*. Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers. Rohit Prabhavalkar, Kanishka Rao, Tara N. Sainath, Bo Li, Leif M. Johnson, and Navdeep Jaitly. 2017. A comparison of sequence-to-sequence models for speech recognition. In *Interspeech*. Colin Raffel, Minh-Thang Luong, Peter J. Liu, Ron J. Weiss, and Douglas Eck. 2017. Online and lineartime attention by enforcing monotonic alignments. In *ICML*. Tara N. Sainath, Ruoming Pang, David Rybach, Yanzhang He, Rohit Prabhavalkar, Wei Li, Mirkó Visontai, Qiao Liang, Trevor Strohman, Yonghui Wu, Ian McGraw, and Chung-Cheng Chiu. 2019. Twopass end-to-end speech recognition. In *Interspeech*. Peter Shaw, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Ashish Vaswani. 2018. Self-attention with relative position representations. In *North American Chapter of the Association for* Computational Linguistics. Yangyang Shi, Yongqiang Wang, Chunyang Wu, Ching feng Yeh, Julian Chan, Frank Zhang, Duc Le, and Michael L. Seltzer. 2020. Emformer: Efficient memory transformer based acoustic model for low latency streaming speech recognition. In *ICASSP*. K. Takeda, Atsunori Ogawa, and Fumitada Itakura. 1998. Estimating entropy of a language from optimal word insertion penalty. In *ICSLP*. Yun Tang, Hongyu Gong, Ning Dong, Changhan Wang, Wei-Ning Hsu, Jiatao Gu, Alexei Baevski, Xian Li, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Michael Auli, and Juan Miguel Pino. 2022. Unified speech-text pretraining for speech translation and recognition. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Yun Tang, Juan Miguel Pino, Changhan Wang, Xutai Ma, and Dmitriy Genzel. 2021. A general multi-task learning framework to leverage text data for speech to text tasks. In *ICASSP*. Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *NIPS*. Changhan Wang, Yun Tang, Xutai Ma, Anne Wu, Dmytro Okhonko, and Juan Miguel Pino. 2020. Fairseq S2T: Fast speech-to-text modeling with fairseq. In *AACL*. Peidong Wang, Eric Sun, Jian Xue, Yu Wu, Long Zhou, Yashesh Gaur, Shujie Liu, and Jinyu Li. 2022. LAMASSU: Streaming language-agnostic multilingual speech recognition and translation using neural transducers. *ArXiv*, abs/2211.02809. Shinji Watanabe, Takaaki Hori, Suyoun Kim, John R. Hershey, and Tomoki Hayashi. 2017. Hybrid CTC/attention architecture for end-to-end speech recognition. *IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing*, 11:1240–1253. R. Weiss, J. Chorowski, N. Jaitly, Y. Wu, and Z. Chen. 2017. Sequence-to-sequence models can directly translate foreign speech. In *Interspeech*. Chunyang Wu, Yongqiang Wang, Yangyang Shi, Ching feng Yeh, and Frank Zhang. 2020. Streaming transformer-based acoustic models using selfattention with augmented memory. In *Interspeech*. Jian Xue, Peidong Wang, Jinyu Li, Matt Post, and Yashesh Gaur. 2022. Large-scale streaming end-toend speech translation with neural transducers. In Interspeech. Brian Yan, Siddharth Dalmia, Yosuke Higuchi, Graham Neubig, Florian Metze, Alan W. Black, and Shinji Watanabe. 2022. CTC alignments improve autoregressive translation. *ArXiv*, abs/2210.05200. Qian Zhang, Han Lu, Hasim Sak, Anshuman Tripathi, Erik McDermott, Stephen Koo, and Shankar Kumar. 2020. Transformer transducer: A streamable speech recognition model with transformer encoders and rnn-t loss. In *ICASSP*, pages 7829–7833. | MUST-C | hours | #W(m) | |----------|---------|---------| | EN-DE | 408 | 4.2 | | EN-ES | 504 | 5.2 | Table 7: Data statistics for MUST-C training dataset. "\#W(m)" stands for "number of words (million)". Table 8: Transducer WER v.s. latency for different chunk sizes. | CS(ms) | WER | AL | LAAL | AP | DAL | |----------|-------|------|--------|------|-------| | 160 | 16.20 | 809 | 856 | 0.63 | 1177 | | 320 | 13.79 | 868 | 914 | 0.65 | 1254 | | 480 | 13.68 | 1063 | 1102 | 0.70 | 1485 | | 640 | 13.14 | 1317 | 1350 | 0.71 | 1755 | Table 9: TAED WER v.s. latency for different chunk sizes(λ = 1.4). | CS(ms) | WER | AL | LAAL | AP | DAL | |----------|-------|------|--------|------|-------| | 160 | 13.97 | 787 | 829 | 0.63 | 1146 | | 320 | 12.71 | 907 | 947 | 0.65 | 1284 | | 480 | 11.75 | 1061 | 1097 | 0.69 | 1482 | | 640 | 11.59 | 1293 | 1323 | 0.74 | 1742 | CS(ms) BLEU AL LAAL AP DAL 160 25.7 1170 1379 0.70 1669 320 26.7 1137 1357 0.73 1679 480 27.3 1205 1433 0.74 1784 640 27.7 1356 1578 0.77 1951 ## A Statistics Of The Mu**St-C Dataset** We conduct experiments on the MUST-C (Gangi et al., 2019). The ASR experiments are based on the English portion of data in the EN→ES direction. The ST experiments are conducted in two translation directions: EN→ES and EN→DE. The detailed training data statistics are presented in Table 7. The second column is the total number of hours for the speech training data. The third column is the number of (source) words. ## B Detailed Streaming Results The detailed streaming experimental results are presented in this section. We report different latency metrics from SimulEval toolkit (Ma et al., 2020a), including Average Lagging (AL) (Ma et al., 2019), Average Proportion (AP) (Cho and Esipova, 2016), Differentiable Average Lagging (DAL) (Arivazhagan et al., 2019), and Length Adaptive Average Lagging (LAAL) (Papi et al., 2022). AL, DAL and LAAL are reported with million seconds. We report the evaluation results based on different chunk size, varied from 160, 320, 480 and 640 million seconds, from Table 8 to Table 13. "CS" in those tables stands for chunk size. Streaming ASR results are reported as WER (Table 8 and Table 9). BLUE scores are reported for two translation directions in Table 10, Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13. ## C Librispeech Asr Results The model configure is the same as **MuST-C** experiments in §5.1. The models are trained with 16 A100 GPUs with batch size 20k speech frames per GPU for 300k updates. SpecAugment (Park Table 10: Transducer BLEU v.s. latency for different chunk sizes (EN→ES). CS(ms) BLEU AL LAAL AP DAL 160 26.19 1000 1224 0.71 1623 320 27.61 1120 1351 0.74 1795 480 27.50 1244 1477 0.77 1930 640 28.35 1473 1693 0.79 2188 Table 11: TAED BLEU v.s. latency for different chunk sizes (EN→ES)(λ = 1.4). CS(ms) BLEU AL LAAL AP DAL 160 20.76 1282 1412 0.68 1618 320 21.80 1252 1389 0.70 1612 480 22.52 1306 1447 0.72 1717 640 23.32 1498 1630 0.75 1925 Table 13: TAED BLEU v.s. latency for different chunk sizes (EN→DE)(λ = 1.2). Table 12: Transducer BLEU v.s. latency for different chunk sizes (EN→DE). CS(ms) BLEU AL LAAL AP DAL 160 21.57 1263 1411 0.72 1823 320 22.63 1354 1530 0.74 2007 480 23.48 1369 1554 0.77 2088 640 23.47 1903 2024 0.82 2597 | model | test | dev | | | |-----------------|--------|-------|-------|------| | clean | other | clean | other | | | Transducer(ofl) | 3.2 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 8.2 | | Transducer(str) | 4.4 | 11.2 | 4.0 | 11.3 | | TAED(ofl) | 3.1 | 7.4 | 2.9 | 7.4 | | TAED(str) | 4.2 | 10.4 | 4.1 | 10.8 | et al., 2019) is without time warping and dropout set to 0.1. We save the checkpoints every 2500 updates and the best 10 checkpoints are averaged for the greedy search based inference. The model are trained on the 960 hours **Librispeech** (Panayotov et al., 2015) training set and evaluated on 4 test/dev sets. In Table 14, the streaming models ("str") are trained with chunk size equals to 320ms with one right look-ahead chunk. TAED obtains similar WERs in two clean (easy) datasets and reduces WER varied by 0.5 to 0.8 in two other (hard) datasets. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section 8 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? section 8 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? abstract and section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** We conduct experiments on MuST-C dataset and the algorithm is implemented on the top of fairseq as described in section 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? section 5 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Both of data (MuST-C) and software (fairseq) are open sourced and widely used by other researchers for speech translation study. ✗ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Both of data (MuST-C) and software (fairseq) are open sourced and widely used by other researchers for speech translation study. Our work is falling into the same category. ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? It was discussed in the MuST-C paper. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? section 5 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. In appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? section 5 ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? section 5 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? section 5 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? section 5 ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

jiang-etal-2023-improving

Improving Domain Generalization for Prompt-Aware Essay Scoring via Disentangled Representation Learning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.696

Automated Essay Scoring (AES) aims to score essays written in response to specific prompts. Many AES models have been proposed, but most of them are either prompt-specific or prompt-adaptive and cannot generalize well on {``}unseen{''} prompts. This work focuses on improving the generalization ability of AES models from the perspective of domain generalization, where the data of target prompts cannot be accessed during training. Specifically, we propose a prompt-aware neural AES model to extract comprehensive representation for essay scoring, including both prompt-invariant and prompt-specific features. To improve the generalization of representation, we further propose a novel disentangled representation learning framework. In this framework, a contrastive norm-angular alignment strategy and a counterfactual self-training strategy are designed to disentangle the prompt-invariant information and prompt-specific information in representation. Extensive experimental results on datasets of both ASAP and TOEFL11 demonstrate the effectiveness of our method under the domain generalization setting.

# Improving Domain Generalization For Prompt-Aware Essay Scoring Via Disentangled Representation Learning ## Zhiwei Jiang∗†, Tianyi Gao∗**, Yafeng Yin, Meng Liu, Hua Yu,** Zifeng Cheng, Qing Gu State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China jzw@nju.edu.cn, mf21330021@smail.nju.edu.cn, yafeng@nju.edu.cn {mf1933061,huayu.yh,chengzf}@smail.nju.edu.cn, guq@nju.edu.cn ## Abstract Automated Essay Scoring (AES) aims to score essays written in response to specific prompts. Many AES models have been proposed, but most of them are either prompt-specific or prompt-adaptive and cannot generalize well on "unseen" prompts. This work focuses on improving the generalization ability of AES models from the perspective of domain generalization, where the data of target prompts cannot be accessed during training. Specifically, we propose a prompt-aware neural AES model to extract comprehensive representation for essay scoring, including both promptinvariant and prompt-specific features. To improve the generalization of representation, we further propose a novel disentangled representation learning framework. In this framework, a contrastive norm-angular alignment strategy and a counterfactual self-training strategy are designed to disentangle the prompt-invariant information and prompt-specific information in representation. Extensive experimental results on datasets of both ASAP and TOEFL11 demonstrate the effectiveness of our method under the domain generalization setting. ## 1 Introduction Automated Essay Scoring (AES), which aims to score essays written for specific prompts, is helpful in reducing the burden of scoring staff in various writing tests (Ke and Ng, 2019). Over the past few years, supervised deep learning has achieved remarkable success on the prompt-specific AES task (Taghipour and Ng, 2016; Farag et al., 2018; Tay et al., 2018), which assumes that the training and test data are from the same prompt. However, in many real-world scenarios, the training and test data often come from different prompts, which leads to a performance degradation of promptspecific AES model on the out-of-distribution tar- * Both authors contributed equally to this research. † Corresponding author.  get prompt (Dong and Zhang, 2016; Cozma et al., 2018). Many researchers have tried to adapt the AES model from source prompts to the target prompt, with limited labeled data (Cozma et al., 2018; Cao et al., 2020) or only unlabeled data (Jin et al., 2018) in target prompt. Despite their success, they need to access the data of target prompts during training and may fail to work when the target prompt is unavailable during training. To this end, in this paper, we focus on the prompt generalization setting. As shown in Figure 1, we aim to train the AES model only based on source prompts and enable it to generalize well on "unseen" prompt(s). Existing prompt-generalized AES methods are relatively few, mainly including the generic method based on non-content handcrafted features (Yigal et al., 2010) and the prompt-agnostic method based on non prompt-specific hybrid features (Ridley et al., 2020). These methods discard the promptspecific content features to alleviate the negative impact brought by domain shift, whereas they cannot score essays comprehensively. To achieve more comprehensive essay scoring, 12456 we consider extracting features from perspectives of both prompt-invariant essay quality and promptspecific prompt adherence. Therefore, we propose a prompt-aware neural AES model, which can extract the essay quality features based on an essay encoder such as the pre-trained BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and extract the prompt adherence features based on a text matching module. Although this AES model can be directly trained with data of source prompts, there are still two problems hindering its generalization on unseen prompts. (1) The essay quality features extracted by encoder such as BERT may encode both quality and content information and they are entangled in the features. How to disentangle independent quality information from features is the first problem. (2) Both prompt adherence features and essay quality features are extracted based on essay. Thus, from the view of causality (Pearl, 2009), the essay is a confounder of both features, leading to a spurious correlation between prompt adherence and essay quality. For example, the model may learn a correlation that high-quality essays often have good prompt adherence, whereas this correlation is spurious since an essay may have different adherence but unchanged quality under different prompts. Then, how to disentangle the spurious correlation to make these two kinds of features independently contribute to the final score is the second problem. To address the above problems, we propose a disentangled representation learning framework. For the first problem, we design a contrastive normangular alignment strategy, which addresses the quality-content disentanglement by reflecting quality with norm and reflecting content with angular direction. For the second problem, we design a counterfactual self-training strategy, which addresses the quality-adherence disentanglement by self-training with quality-invariant and adherencevariant counterfactual data. The contributions of this paper are as follows: - We propose a prompt-aware neural network model for comprehensive essay scoring under the prompt generalization setting. - We propose a novel disentangled representation learning framework to further improve the generalization ability of the AES model. - Extensive experiments are conducted on two public datasets, and the results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. ## 2 Related Work Automated Essay Scoring Research on automated essay scoring has spanned the last 50 years (Ke and Ng, 2019; Klebanov and Madnani, 2020). From the perspective of essay representation, existing AES methods can be categorized into the early handcrafted features based methods (Page, 1994; Foltz et al., 1999; Persing et al., 2010; Somasundaran et al., 2014; Persing and Ng, 2014), recent neural network based methods (Dong and Zhang, 2016; Tay et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2021), and hybrid features based methods (Uto et al., 2020a; Shibata and Uto, 2022). These methods can be further grouped into three scoring paradigms: prompt specific (Taghipour and Ng, 2016; Farag et al., 2018; Tay et al., 2018), prompt adaptation (Cozma et al., 2018; Cao et al., 2020; Jin et al., 2018; Ridley et al., 2021), and prompt generalization (Yigal et al., 2010; Ridley et al., 2020). While promptspecific methods can achieve good performance, prompt-adaptive and prompt-generalized methods can reduce the annotation labor in target prompts. Domain Generalization Domain generalization (DG) has been intensively studied in recent years (Wang et al., 2022). Existing DG methods can be categorized into three groups: (1) data augmentation (Zhao et al., 2020; Reich et al., 2022) which generates diverse samples to help generalization, (2) representation learning (Shen et al., 2021; Bui et al., 2021) which tries to learn domaininvariant representation or disentangle the features into domain-shared and domain-specific parts for better generalization, and (3) learning strategy (Segù et al., 2023; Lake, 2019) which tries to learn general knowledge by ensemble learning or metalearning. This work considers improving generalization in terms of both data augmentation and representation learning. Disentangled Representation Learning Disentangled representation learning has recently been used in many NLP tasks, such as style transfer (John et al., 2019; Nangi et al., 2021), machine reading comprehension (Wu et al., 2022), and negation and uncertainty modeling (Vasilakes et al., 2022). Most of these methods disentangle the underlying explanatory factors by separating features into several independent low-dimensional spaces, where commonly-used techniques include adversarial loss (John et al., 2019), information measure (Cheng et al., 2020), and counterfactual reasoning (Nangi et al., 2021). This work tries two types of representation disentanglements: one disentangles two factors respectively with norm and angular direction, while the other disentangles the spurious correlation based on counterfactual reasoning. ## 3 Proposed Method 3.1 Task Definition The prompt-generalized AES task can be defined as follows: given K source prompts (i.e., domains) PS = {P1,P2*, ...,*PK} as the training set, where the i-th prompt Pi has Nilabeled instances {x i j , yij} Ni j=1. Each instance x i j is a text pair (e i j , pij ) and y i j is the holistic score of essay e i j under the prompt p i j , where p i j is the prompt text of the i-th source prompt Pi. The objective is to learn a model from multiple source prompts that can be generalized to the target unseen prompt PT with unknown distribution. ## 3.2 Overview We propose a Prompt-Aware Neural Network (PANN) model for essay scoring, and a Disentangled Representation Learning (DRL) framework to improve its generalization on unseen prompts. Specifically, PANN takes both essays and prompts as inputs and extracts both prompt-invariant essay quality features and prompt-specific prompt adherence features for comprehensive essay scoring. DRL is designed in a pre-training and fine-tuning paradigm. In the pre-training stage, a contrastive norm-angular alignment strategy is designed to pretrain the essay quality features, aiming at disentangling the quality information and content information in features. In the fine-tuning stage, a counterfactual self-training strategy is employed to fine-tune the whole PANN, aiming at disentangling the spurious correlation between essay quality features and prompt adherence features. Finally, the fully-trained PANN is used for essay scoring on target unseen prompts. ## 3.3 Model Architecture Of Pann Our PANN contains three main components: the Essay Quality network (**EQ-net**) which only takes essay as input and is expected to extract promptinvariant essay quality features, the Prompt Adherence network (**PA-net**) which takes both essay and prompt as inputs and is expected to extract prompt-specific prompt adherence features, and the Essay Scoring Predictor (ESP) which combines  both kinds of features to predict a holistic score. The architecture of PANN is illustrated in Figure 2. For EQ-net, we employ a Transformer-based neural network fϕ(·) to extract features vi of an input essay ei, where vi = fϕ(ei; ϕ) refers to the essay quality features and ϕ indicates the network parameters. This module is not limited to a specific architecture and can be various existing AES encoders. Here, we initialize EQ-net with the pretrained BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), which has been proven to be effective and to have good generalization in various NLP tasks, including essay scoring (Mayfield and Black, 2020; Uto et al., 2020a). For PA-net, we design an interaction-based text matching model fθ(·) to extract features ui of an input prompt-essay pair (pi, ei), where ui = fϑ(pi, ei; ϑ) refers to the prompt adherence features and ϑ indicates the network parameters. Since such interaction-based text matching model can focus only on the word-level similarities between essays and prompts, it can avoid encoding informa-  tion related to the essay quality, such as syntax and coherence, thus making the features more specific to prompt adherence. More details of PA-net are given in Appendix A. For ESP, we feed the combined features to several fully-connected (FC) layers followed by a linear layer with sigmoid activation for essay score prediction: $${\hat{y}}_{i}=s i g m o i d(W_{s}\times\sigma([v_{i}\oplus u_{i}])+b_{s})$$ where ⊕ represents the concatenation of vectors and σ(·) refers to the FC transformations. ## 3.4 Disentangled Representation Learning In PANN, we design two sub-networks (i.e., PA-net and EQ-net), and expect them to capture the information of prompt adherence and essay quality respectively. However, the EQ-net may encode both prompt-invariant quality information and promptrelated content information, and the content information often shifts across prompts, which may hinder the generalization of EQ-net. Besides, both PAnet and EQ-net take essay as input, which makes the essay become a confounder of prompt adherence features and essay quality features, leading to a spurious correlation between them. In DRL, we correspondingly design two strategies to address these representation entanglements. ## 3.4.1 Quality-Content Disentanglement We propose a Contrastive Norm-Angular Alignment (CNAA) strategy to disentangle the quality and content information in essay quality features. This strategy is designed based on the **norm invariant** and **angular shift** assumption, which assumes that the quality and content information can be disentangled by aligning features in terms of norm and angle respectively. **For norm invariant**, we expect that essays of similar quality can be distributed with similar norms and that these norms may be invariant across prompts. **For angular shift**, we expect that essays of similar content (i.e., prompt) can be distributed with similar angles but these angles should shift across prompts. Data Augmentation. To prepare data for contrastive norm-angular alignment, as shown in Figure 3(a), we first extract all high-score and lowscore essays from the training set to form the original data Do. Two thresholds δh and δl are used for essay filtering. For each essay ei ∈ Do, apart from its score yi, we assign extra quality label qi and content label cito it, where qi ∈ {0, 1} denotes quality type (i.e., qi = 0 when yi ≥ δh and qi = 1 when yi ≤ δl) and ci ∈ {1*, ..., K*} denotes content type (i.e., the prompt-ID). Therefore, the original data can be denoted as Do = {(ei, yi, qi, ci)} No i=1. We further construct derived data Dd by synthesizing four kinds of essays based on text concatenation, as shown in Figure 3(a). For each synthesized essay e0k = ei ⊕ ej (or ei ⊕ pj where pj can be viewed as a special essay), we decide its score y0k by randomly reducing the score max(yi, yj ) by a ∼ N (*µ, σ*) and randomly select a promptID ci or cj as its content label c0k . Two reasons motivate us to randomly select a score lower than max(yi, yj ) for a synthesized essay. First, concatenating two essays may reduce the quality (e.g., coherence and organization) of the higher-score one. Second, concatenating two essays from different prompts may reduce essay's prompt adherence to both prompts. The essays with high score or low score are selected to form the derived data Dd = {(e0i , y0i , q0i , c0i )} Nd i=1. Norm-Invariant & Angular-Shift Alignment. We implement the norm-angular alignment based on pairwise contrastive learning, which includes norm-invariant quality alignment and angular-shift content alignment. Specifically, we sample essay pairs (ei, ej ) from augmented data, where eiis sampled from Do and ej is sampled from Do ∪ Dd. Given a pair of essays 12459  (ei, ej ), we can first get their essay quality features (vi, vj ) based on EQ-net. Then, as shown in Figure 3(b), we can align features in perspective of quality information based on the Norm-Invariant Alignment (NIA) loss: where m1 denotes the margin between two quality $$\begin{array}{ll}\|v_{i}\|-\|v_{j}\|,&\mbox{if$q_{i}=q_{j}$;}\\ \max\left(0,m_{1}-\|v_{i}\|-\|v_{j}\|\right),&\mbox{if$q_{i}\neq q_{j}$,}\end{array}\tag{2}$$ denotes the margin between two qualities $${\mathcal{L}}_{N I A}=\left\{\begin{array}{l}{{}}\\ {{}}\end{array}\right.$$ types. Simultaneously, as shown in Figure 3(c), we can align features in perspective of content information based on the Angular-Shift Alignment (ASA) loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{A S A}=\left\{\begin{array}{l}{{}}\\ {{}}\end{array}\right.$$ $$\begin{array}{ll}1-cos(v_{i},v_{j}),&\mbox{if$c_{i}=c_{j}$;}\\ \max\,(0,cos(v_{i},v_{j})-m_{2}),&\mbox{if$c_{i}\neq c_{j}$,}\end{array}\tag{3}$$ where m2 denotes the margin between any two content types (i.e., prompts). Finally, the overall loss of this strategy is: $${\mathcal{L}}_{C N A A}={\mathcal{L}}_{N I A}+{\mathcal{L}}_{A S A}$$ ## 3.4.2 Quality-Adherence Disentanglement We propose a Counterfactual Self-Training (CST) strategy to disentangle the spurious correlation between essay quality features and prompt adherence features. While we do not call upon the mathematical machinery of causality (Pearl, 2009), we draw inspiration from the underlying philosophy to construct counterfactual data, where we try to ask and answer: "What would the final score have been if the essay had a different prompt adherence, while its essay quality remained the same?" As shown in Figure 4, with the counterfactual data, PANN can be fine-tuned based on our desinged pre-score guided self-training. Counterfactual Data Construction. Due to the disentangled structure of PA-net and EQ-net, we can easily change the prompt adherence features by controlling the input of PA-net while maintaining the essay quality features unchanged. As shown in Figure 4(a), for each instance (pi, ei, ei, yi) with the input form of PANN (i.e., first two inputs pi and ei for PA-net while the third input ei for EQ-net), we can generate three counterfactual instances (pi, pe 20 i , ei, ye 20 i ), (pi, pe 30 i , ei, ye 30 i ), and (pi, pe 50 i , ei, ye 50 i ), where pi is constructed by randomly replacing 50% tokens of pi with random tokens, pe z i is constructed by randomly replacing z% tokens of pi with random tokens, and ye z i is the pre-score of the text pair (pi, pe z i ). Here we make an empirical guess for these pre-scores to highlight their differences in the degree of matching, where ye 20 i = yi × 1.1, ye 30 i = yi × 1, and ye 50 i = yi × 0.9. Pre-Score Guided Self-Training. Unlike conventional self-training strategies that directly predict the pseudo-labels for unlabeled data, we combine both the pre-score and the predicted pseudoscore of each counterfactual instance as its final score. In this way, the prior knowledge we provide in the pre-scores and the model's knowledge encoded in the pseudo-scores can be well merged. Specifically, we first warm up PANN on the original training set for several epochs based on the MSE (Mean Squared Error) loss function: $$(4)$$ $${\mathcal{L}}_{A E S}=-{\frac{1}{m}}\sum_{i=1}^{m}{(y_{i}-{\hat{y}}_{i})}^{2},\qquad\quad({\bf{5}})$$ $$(6)$$ where yi and yˆi denote the ground-truth and the predicted score of essay ei respectively. Then, we employ the trained PANN to infer a pseudo-score yˆi for each counterfactual instance (pi, pei, ei, yei), and calculate its score y0i : $$y_{i}^{\prime}=\alpha\widetilde{y}_{i}+(1-\alpha)\hat{y}_{i},$$ 0i = αyei + (1 − α)ˆyi, (6) where α is a tradeoff parameter. Finally, we continue to train PANN on the combination of the original training set and these counterfactual instances. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Datasets And Experiment Settings We use two public datasets for the experiments of prompt-generalized essay scoring. The first is the ASAP (Automated Student Assessment Prize) dataset1, which contains 12,978 essays from eight prompts of different genres (i.e., ARG, RES, and NAR) scored in various ranges. The second is the TOEFL11 (Blanchard et al., 2013), which contains 12,100 essays sampled from eight prompts and scored by three levels (low/medium/high). These two datasets are widely used by current studies on AES (Dong and Zhang, 2016; Jin et al., 2018; Nguyen and Litman, 2018). The detailed statistics of these two datasets are listed in Table 1. For prompt-generalized essay scoring, we design experiments on two datasets using prompt-wise leave-one-out validation. One prompt is used as test set, while the remaining seven prompt are randomly divided into training set and validation set by a ratio of 4 to 1. The model achieving the best performance on validation set is used for testing. To measure the performance of essay scoring, we adopt the widely-used Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) (Dong and Zhang, 2016; Jin et al., 2018). To reduce randomness, under each case, 5 runs are performed, and the average results are reported. ## 4.2 Implementation Details In our PANN model, for PA-net, the number of kernels is set to 8. The µk of eight kernels is uniformly selected from [−1, 1] with equal interval, while the kernel width σk is set to 0.1. For EQ-net, the essay encoder is initialized with the weights of the 'uncased BERT-based model'2. For the essay scoring predictor, the number of FC layers is set to 2. For the data augmentation in CNAA strategy, the µ and σ of random score reduction is set to 0.4 and 1 respectively. For the ASAP dataset, we select thresholds δl and δh with grid search (δl ∈ [0.2, 0.5] and δh ∈ [0.6, 0.9]) and finally set δl = 0.3 and δh = 0.8. For the TOEFL11 dataset, we directly use the three-level interval division defined by the dataset, without the need to set specific δl and δh values. For score merging in CST strategy, the tradeoff parameter α is set to 0.8. For model training, the Adam optimizer is adopted, and the learning rate is set to 5 × 10−5. For the training of AES models, the ground-truth 1https://www.kaggle.com/c/asap-aes/data 2https://huggingface.co/BERT-base-uncased | Dataset | Prompt | #Essay | Genre | Avg Len | Range | |-----------|----------|----------|---------|-----------|---------| | 1 | 1,783 | ARG | 350 | 2-12 | | | 2 | 1,800 | ARG | 350 | 1-6 | | | 3 | 1,726 | RES | 150 | 0-3 | | | 4 | 1,772 | RES | 150 | 0-3 | | | 5 | 1,805 | RES | 150 | 0-4 | | | 6 | 1,800 | RES | 150 | 0-4 | | | 7 | 1,569 | NAR | 250 | 0-30 | | | 8 | 723 | NAR | 650 | 0-60 | | | ASAP | 1 | 1656 | ARG | 332 | l/m/h | | 2 | 1562 | ARG | 331 | l/m/h | | | 3 | 1396 | ARG | 283 | l/m/h | | | 4 | 1509 | ARG | 302 | l/m/h | | | 5 | 1648 | ARG | 349 | l/m/h | | | 6 | 960 | ARG | 203 | l/m/h | | | 7 | 1686 | ARG | 335 | l/m/h | | | 8 | 1683 | ARG | 340 | l/m/h | | | TOEFL11 | | | | | | scores of essays are rescaled into [0, 1]. For the results evaluation, the predicted scores are rescaled to the original score range of the corresponding prompts. Our model is implemented in PyTorch1.4 and trained on 1 NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPU. The number of parameters in our model is 112.52M. The computational budget for running PANN and PANN+DRL with one epoch is 0.036 and 0.059 GPU hours, respectively. ## 4.3 Comparison With Other Methods We compare our method with the following methods under prompt-generalized setting, including three types of methods: handcrafted features based, neural network based, and hybrid. - **BLRR** (Phandi et al., 2015) and **RankSVM** (Jin et al., 2018) are based on handcrafted features, where correlated Bayesian linear regression and rankSVM are used for prediction respectively. - Neural AES models: **2L-LSTM** (Alikaniotis et al., 2016), **HCNN** (Dong and Zhang, 2016), CNN-LSTM-MoT (Taghipour and Ng, 2016), and CNN-LSTM-Att (Dong et al., 2017). - **BERT** has recently been used for AES (Mayfield and Black, 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Uto et al., 2020b), which is also used to initialize our EQnet. **BERT-Dual** indicates the **BERT** with essayprompt text pair as dual input. - **PAES** (Ridley et al., 2020) is a promptgeneralized hybrid model, but it needs to use the available target-prompt essays to normalize feature values of the entire test set. We denote the ratio of | Dataset | Method | Target Unseen Prompt | | | | | | | | | |------------------|----------|------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | Avg. | | | | BLRR | 0.472 | 0.45 | 0.325 | 0.507 | 0.663 | 0.563 | 0.492 | 0.257 | 0.466 | | | RankSVM† | 0.737 | 0.467 | 0.464 | 0.511 | 0.669 | 0.529 | 0.586 | 0.408 | 0.546 | | | PAES-Target40% † | 0.798 | 0.628 | 0.659 | 0.653 | 0.756 | 0.626 | 0.724 | 0.64 | 0.686 | | | PAES-Target20% † | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | 0.650 | | | 2L-LSTM | 0.432 | 0.390 | 0.473 | 0.647 | 0.622 | 0.494 | 0.495 | 0.337 | 0.486 | | | HCNN | 0.479 | 0.403 | 0.532 | 0.576 | 0.604 | 0.543 | 0.349 | 0.433 | 0.490 | | | CNN-LSTM | 0.473 | 0.367 | 0.506 | 0.620 | 0.609 | 0.485 | 0.454 | 0.313 | 0.478 | | | CNN-LSTM-ATT | 0.418 | 0.314 | 0.473 | 0.589 | 0.556 | 0.566 | 0.517 | 0.330 | 0.470 | | | BERT | 0.609 | 0.499 | 0.666 | 0.681 | 0.724 | 0.637 | 0.699 | 0.537 | 0.632 | | | BERT-Dual | 0.270 | 0.484 | 0.578 | 0.529 | 0.542 | 0.671 | 0.232 | 0.586 | 0.487 | | | PANN (Ours) | 0.762 | 0.686 | 0.637 | 0.673 | 0.778 | 0.664 | 0.742 | 0.677 | 0.702 | | | ASAP | BLRR | 0.273 | 0.388 | 0.462 | 0.441 | 0.413 | 0.398 | 0.388 | 0.406 | 0.396 | | RankSVM | 0.575 | 0.524 | 0.645 | 0.607 | 0.548 | 0.558 | 0.56 | 0.549 | 0.571 | | | 2L-LSTM | 0.483 | 0.348 | 0.500 | 0.483 | 0.508 | 0.565 | 0.451 | 0.469 | 0.476 | | | HCNN | 0.457 | 0.509 | 0.619 | 0.463 | 0.569 | 0.587 | 0.480 | 0.558 | 0.530 | | | CNN-LSTM | 0.510 | 0.530 | 0.606 | 0.557 | 0.586 | 0.582 | 0.458 | 0.549 | 0.547 | | | CNN-LSTM-ATT | 0.525 | 0.503 | 0.612 | 0.555 | 0.634 | 0.612 | 0.501 | 0.511 | 0.557 | | | BERT | 0.592 | 0.645 | 0.656 | 0.593 | 0.662 | 0.685 | 0.633 | 0.613 | 0.635 | | | BERT-Dual | 0.683 | 0.658 | 0.706 | 0.685 | 0.672 | 0.680 | 0.661 | 0.673 | 0.677 | | | PANN (Ours) | 0.701 | 0.662 | 0.722 | 0.686 | 0.697 | 0.705 | 0.700 | 0.685 | 0.695 | | | TOEFL11 | | | | | | | | | | | target data it uses for feature normalization. The results are listed in Table 2. As shown, our PANN model can outperform most baseline methods by a large margin and achieve the best overall performance on both datasets (i.e., 0.702 on ASAP and 0.695 on TOEFL11). This indicates that our method is effective for prompt-generalized essay scoring. Besides, *BERT* performs good and stably on both datasets, but *BERT-Dual* performs significantly different on two datasets (i.e., 0.487 on ASAP and 0.677 on TOEFL11). This may be because, compared with *BERT*, which only takes essays as input, *BERT-Dual* takes both prompt and essay as its inputs, making its performance easily affected by the prompt-specific information. While all eight prompts of TOEFL11 are of the same genre (i.e., argumentative essay) and their prompt are of the same template, ASAP contains three genres and the templates of different prompts vary a lot. This may make *BERT-Dual* easier to generalize well on TOEFL11, but harder to generalize on ASAP. This also indicates that prompt-specific information is useful for essay scoring, but is easily entangled with the prompt-invariant information and thus affects the generalizability. By observing other baseline methods, we can find that the neural models without pre-training perform significantly worse than *BERT*. The handcrafted features based methods (e.g. *RankSVM*) perform stably on both datasets and can outperform many neural AES models. *PAES-Target*40% achieves good performance on ASAP, but it needs 40% of essays from the target prompt for feature normalization and cannot work well when only a handful of target prompt essays are given. ## 4.4 Ablation Study We then explore the effect of the components (i.e., PA-net and EQ-net) and the disentangled representation learning framework (i.e., NIA, ASA, and CST) on the performance of PANN, by adding each of them one by one. As shown in Table 3, the performance of combining the two components (i.e., PA-net+EQ-net) is better than the individual performance of either PA-net or EQ-net. This indicates that both PA-net and EQ-net can provide useful information for essay scoring. By observing the disentangled representation learning framework, we can find that the performance of EQ-net is improved when EQ-net is pre-trained with NIA and ASA together (i.e., 0.632 to 0.664 on ASAP and 0.635 to 0.666 on TOEFL11). But when EQ-net is pre-trained only with one of them, the performance is degraded on TOEFL11. Similar phenomenon can be observed for PA-net+EQ-net. This may be because these two losses need to be used simultaneously to disentangle quality and content information. Besides, CST strategy also needs to be used together with CNAA strategy to achieve better performance. In summary, all components and disentanglement strategies contribute to the final performance of PANN.  Dataset Model Setting **Target Unseen Prompt** P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Avg. PA-net 0.719 0.370 0.484 0.408 0.709 0.650 0.635 0.523 0.562 EQ-net 0.609 0.499 **0.666** 0.681 0.724 0.637 0.699 0.537 0.632 + NIA 0.618 0.599 0.596 0.677 0.751 0.653 0.645 0.586 0.641 + ASA 0.565 0.587 0.658 0.682 0.763 0.659 0.608 0.555 0.635 + **NIA&ASA** 0.646 0.616 0.651 **0.706** 0.727 **0.668** 0.692 0.607 0.664 PA-net + **EQ-net** 0.698 0.592 0.616 0.645 0.731 0.610 0.576 0.579 0.631 + NIA 0.705 0.623 0.623 0.652 0.734 0.625 0.588 0.588 0.642 + ASA 0.694 0.597 0.598 0.622 0.725 0.609 0.552 0.607 0.626 + **NIA&ASA 0.772** 0.657 0.630 0.697 0.776 0.651 0.707 **0.691** 0.698 + CST 0.727 0.580 0.630 0.658 0.758 0.606 0.624 0.610 0.649 + **NIA&ASA&CST** 0.762 **0.686** 0.637 0.673 **0.778** 0.664 **0.742** 0.677 **0.702** PA-net 0.500 0.294 0.543 0.488 0.474 0.429 0.475 0.463 0.458 EQ-net 0.592 0.645 0.656 0.593 0.662 0.685 0.633 0.613 0.635 + NIA 0.684 0.377 0.655 0.676 0.574 0.580 0.526 0.563 0.579 + ASA 0.661 0.289 0.657 0.680 0.605 0.659 0.580 0.447 0.572 + **NIA&ASA** 0.633 0.658 0.688 0.700 0.677 0.680 0.647 0.643 0.666 PA-net + **EQ-net** 0.650 0.636 0.678 0.635 0.654 0.628 0.682 0.631 0.649 + NIA 0.642 0.649 0.676 0.658 0.675 0.576 0.647 0.614 0.642 + ASA 0.547 0.645 0.668 0.666 0.678 0.484 0.612 0.624 0.616 + **NIA&ASA** 0.685 0.661 0.682 **0.705 0.717** 0.666 0.671 0.654 0.680 + CST 0.558 0.596 0.688 0.652 0.580 **0.715** 0.606 0.640 0.629 + **NIA&ASA&CST 0.701 0.662 0.722** 0.686 0.697 0.705 **0.700 0.685 0.695**  ## 4.5 Further Analysis We further analyze the effects of more designs and factors on the performance of our method. Effect of Data Augmentation We first analyze whether the data augmentation in CNAA strategy can boost the generalization ability of our method by plotting performance with and without using data augmentation. As shown in Figure 5(a), we can find that both PANN and EQ-net can benefit from data augmentation on most prompts of both datasets, especially on P3 of the ASAP dataset (left figure) and P5 of the TOEFL11 dataset (right figure). Effect of PA-net We are also interested in whether PA-net can independently influence the final score prediction. For each target unseen prompt on ASAP, we select all high-scoring essays and predict their scores under their original prompt and another prompt. As shown in Figure 5(b), PANN predicts a lower average score for high-scoring essays under an unmatched prompt. While EQ-net output unchanged features under both settings, PAnet can be aware of the change in prompt. Effect of Data Size We then analyze the effect of data size on performance by selecting one prompt as test set and adding remaining prompts for training one by one. Experiments are conducted on TOEFL11, since it contains essays of the same genre (i.e., ARG). As shown in Figure 5(c), the prediction performance of our PANN is on the rise with the growth of the data size, while BERT shows a trend of first rising and then falling. This indicates that our representation disentanglement strategies can deal well with the entangled information brought by the growth of prompts, so that the model can benefit from the data growth. Feature Visualization To further analyze the learned latent space of CNAA strategy, we visualize the distributions of essay quality features with (a) Entangled EQ-features: score (left), prompt (right)  t-SNE in Figure 6. For better comparison, we show feature distributions of EQ-net with and without using CNAA strategy. From Figure 6(a), we can find that scores of three levels are relatively well separated (left), but essays of different prompts are not completely separated, especially the essays with medium and low score (right). In contrast, as shown in Figure 6(b), when using our CNAA strategy, scores can be separated well according to different norms, and prompts can be separated well according to different angular directions. ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we focus on the prompt-generalized AES task. We propose the prompt-aware neural network model PANN to comprehensively evaluate the essays in terms of both prompt adherence and writing quality. To improve its generalization, we further propose a disentangled representation learning framework, including two representation disentanglement strategies. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method for prompt-generalized essay scoring. ## Limitations A major limitation of our work may be that our disentangled representation learning framework adopts some heuristic assumptions and designs in data augmentation and counterfactual data construction, and it remains to be seen whether they are applicable to other datasets and other languages. In particular, for the data augmentation of CNAA strategy, we assume that more data can be synthesized by text concatenation and we heuristically decide the quality and content label of synthesized data by some random strategies. Besides, for the counterfactual data generation, we mainly generate counterfactual samples and scores heuristically through our intuition and experience, rather than building a generation model based on counterfactual reasoning. Considering that some researchers have already developed some counterfactual data generation models for NLP tasks such as neural dialogue generation (Zhu et al., 2020), we are interested in whether it is possible and better to build a counterfactual data generation model for our method. ## Acknowledgements This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 61972192, 62172208, 61906085, 41972111. This work is partially supported by Collaborative Innovation Center of Novel Software Technology and Industrialization. ## References Dimitrios Alikaniotis, Helen Yannakoudakis, and Marek Rei. 2016. Automatic text scoring using neural networks. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 715–725. Daniel Blanchard, Joel Tetreault, Derrick Higgins, Aoife Cahill, and Martin Chodorow. 2013. Toefl11: A corpus of non-native english. *Ets Research Report*, 2013(2):i–15. Manh-Ha Bui, Toan Tran, Anh Tran, and Dinh Phung. 2021. Exploiting domain-specific features to enhance domain generalization. In *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 21189–21201. Curran Associates, Inc. Yue Cao, Hanqi Jin, Xiaojun Wan, and Zhiwei Yu. 2020. Domain-adaptive neural automated essay scoring. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2020, Virtual Event, China, July 25-30, 2020, pages 1011–1020. ACM. Pengyu Cheng, Martin Renqiang Min, Dinghan Shen, Christopher Malon, Yizhe Zhang, Yitong Li, and Lawrence Carin. 2020. Improving disentangled text representation learning with information-theoretic guidance. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 7530–7541, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Madalina Cozma, Andrei M. Butnaru, and Radu Tudor Ionescu. 2018. Automated essay scoring with string kernels and word embeddings. In *Proceedings of the* 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 503–509. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4171–4186. Fei Dong and Yue Zhang. 2016. Automatic features for essay scoring - an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1072–1077. Fei Dong, Yue Zhang, and Jie Yang. 2017. Attentionbased recurrent convolutional neural network for automatic essay scoring. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 153–162. Youmna Farag, Helen Yannakoudakis, and Ted Briscoe. 2018. Neural automated essay scoring and coherence modeling for adversarially crafted input. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2018, pages 263–271. Peter W. Foltz, Darrell Laham, and Thomas K Landauer. 1999. Automated essay scoring: Applications to educational technology. In *Proceedings of* EdMedia + Innovate Learning 1999, pages 939–944, Seattle, WA USA. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Zhiwei Jiang, Meng Liu, Yafeng Yin, Hua Yu, Zifeng Cheng, and Qing Gu. 2021. Learning from graph propagation via ordinal distillation for one-shot automated essay scoring. In *WWW '21: The Web Conference 2021, Virtual Event / Ljubljana, Slovenia, April* 19-23, 2021, pages 2347–2356. ACM / IW3C2. Cancan Jin, Ben He, Kai Hui, and Le Sun. 2018. TDNN: A two-stage deep neural network for prompt-independent automated essay scoring. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1088– 1097. Vineet John, Lili Mou, Hareesh Bahuleyan, and Olga Vechtomova. 2019. Disentangled representation learning for non-parallel text style transfer. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 424–434, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zixuan Ke and Vincent Ng. 2019. Automated essay scoring: A survey of the state of the art. In *Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, pages 6300–6308. Beata Beigman Klebanov and Nitin Madnani. 2020. Automated evaluation of writing - 50 years and counting. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7796– 7810. Association for Computational Linguistics. Brenden M Lake. 2019. Compositional generalization through meta sequence-to-sequence learning. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. Elijah Mayfield and Alan W. Black. 2020. Should you fine-tune BERT for automated essay scoring? In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, BEA@ACL 2020, Online, July 10, 2020, pages 151– 162. Sharmila Reddy Nangi, Niyati Chhaya, Sopan Khosla, Nikhil Kaushik, and Harshit Nyati. 2021. Counterfactuals to control latent disentangled text representations for style transfer. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 40–48, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Huy V Nguyen and Diane J Litman. 2018. Argument mining for improving the automated scoring of persuasive essays. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Ellis Batten Page. 1994. Computer grading of student prose, using modern concepts and software. Journal of Experimental Education, 62(2):127–142. Judea Pearl. 2009. *Causality*. Cambridge university press. Isaac Persing, Alan Davis, and Vincent Ng. 2010. Modeling organization in student essays. In *Proceedings* of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 229–239. Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. 2014. Modeling prompt adherence in student essays. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1534–1543. Peter Phandi, Kian Ming Adam Chai, and Hwee Tou Ng. 2015. Flexible domain adaptation for automated essay scoring using correlated linear regression. In *Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 431–439. Aaron Reich, Jiaao Chen, Aastha Agrawal, Yanzhe Zhang, and Diyi Yang. 2022. Leveraging expert guided adversarial augmentation for improving generalization in named entity recognition. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 1947–1955, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robert Ridley, Liang He, Xin-Yu Dai, Shujian Huang, and Jiajun Chen. 2021. Automated cross-prompt scoring of essay traits. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, ThirtyThird Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9,* 2021, pages 13745–13753. AAAI Press. Robert Ridley, Liang He, Xinyu Dai, Shujian Huang, and Jiajun Chen. 2020. Prompt agnostic essay scorer: A domain generalization approach to cross-prompt automated essay scoring. *CoRR*, abs/2008.01441. Mattia Segù, Alessio Tonioni, and Federico Tombari. 2023. Batch normalization embeddings for deep domain generalization. *Pattern Recognit.*, 135:109115. Yilin Shen, Yen-Chang Hsu, Avik Ray, and Hongxia Jin. 2021. Enhancing the generalization for intent classification and out-of-domain detection in SLU. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2443–2453, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Takumi Shibata and Masaki Uto. 2022. Analytic automated essay scoring based on deep neural networks integrating multidimensional item response theory. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2917–2926, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Swapna Somasundaran, Jill Burstein, and Martin Chodorow. 2014. Lexical chaining for measuring discourse coherence quality in test-taker essays. In Proceedings of the 25th International conference on computational linguistics, pages 950–961. Kaveh Taghipour and Hwee Tou Ng. 2016. A neural approach to automated essay scoring. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing, pages 1882–1891. Yi Tay, Minh C. Phan, Luu Anh Tuan, and Siu Cheung Hui. 2018. Skipflow: Incorporating neural coherence features for end-to-end automatic text scoring. In *Proceedings of the 32nd Conference on Artificial* Intelligence(AAAI-18), pages 5948–5955. Masaki Uto, Yikuan Xie, and Maomi Ueno. 2020a. Neural automated essay scoring incorporating handcrafted features. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 6077–6088, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Masaki Uto, Yikuan Xie, and Maomi Ueno. 2020b. Neural automated essay scoring incorporating handcrafted features. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2020, Barcelona, Spain (Online), December 8-13, 2020, pages 6077–6088. Jake Vasilakes, Chrysoula Zerva, Makoto Miwa, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2022. Learning disentangled representations of negation and uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8380–8397, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jindong Wang, Cuiling Lan, Chang Liu, Yidong Ouyang, Tao Qin, Wang Lu, Yiqiang Chen, Wenjun Zeng, and Philip Yu. 2022. Generalizing to unseen domains: A survey on domain generalization. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. Linjuan Wu, Shaojuan Wu, Xiaowang Zhang, Deyi Xiong, Shizhan Chen, Zhiqiang Zhuang, and Zhiyong Feng. 2022. Learning disentangled semantic representations for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 991–1000, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chenyan Xiong, Zhuyun Dai, Jamie Callan, Zhiyuan Liu, and Russell Power. 2017. End-to-end neural ad-hoc ranking with kernel pooling. In Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, pages 55–64. Liu Yang, Qingyao Ai, Jiafeng Guo, and W Bruce Croft. 2016. anmm: Ranking short answer texts with attention-based neural matching model. In *Proceedings of the 25th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management*, pages 287–296. Attali Yigal, Bridgeman Brent, and Trapani Catherine. 2010. Performance of a generic approach in automated essay scoring. *Journal of Technology Learning & Assessment*, 10(3):17. Long Zhao, Ting Liu, Xi Peng, and Dimitris Metaxas. 2020. Maximum-entropy adversarial data augmentation for improved generalization and robustness. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 14435–14447. Curran Associates, Inc. Qingfu Zhu, Wei-Nan Zhang, Ting Liu, and William Yang Wang. 2020. Counterfactual offpolicy training for neural dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3438–3448, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Details Of Pa-Net PA-net aims to generate a prompt adherence feature vector u for an input prompt p = {w 1 p, w2 p, ·, wm p } and essay e = {w 1 e, w2 e, ·, wn e } pair. As shown in Figure 2, PA-net achieves this goal via three main operations: PE matching matrix construction, kernel pooling, and prompt attention. PE matching matrix refers to a matrix which represents the semantic matching information of word pairs from a prompt and essay pair. To construct the PE matching matrix, PA-net first uses an embedding layer to map each word w iinto an L-dimension word embedding t i: w i ⇒ t i. Then, a matching layer is used to construct a PE matching matrix M ∈ Rm×n based on the mapped prompt p = {t 1p, t2p, · · · , tm p } and essay e = {t 1 e, t2 e, · · · , tn e }. Each element Mi,j is the semantic similarity between a prompt word t ip and an essay word t je, which is measured by cosine similarity (Yang et al., 2016): $$M_{i,j}=\cos{(t_{p}^{i},t_{e}^{j})}.$$ Kernel pooling (Xiong et al., 2017) is an operation used to convert a vector u to a value φ(u) by applying a kernel function on vector u. For the row Mi of a PE matching matrix corresponding to the i-th prompt word, PA-net applies K kernels on Mito pooling and maps it into a K-dimensional feature vectors φ(Mi): $$\phi(M_{i})=\{\phi_{1}(M_{i}),\phi_{2}(M_{i}),\cdots,\phi_{K}(M_{i})\}.$$ The effect of kernel function φ depends on the kernel used. To measure the matching degree of prompt word w ip with all the essay words, we use the RBF kernel: $$\phi_{k}(M_{i})=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\exp\left(-\frac{(M_{i j}-\mu_{k})^{2}}{2\sigma_{k}^{2}}\right)$$ where µk and σk represent the mean and width of the kernel. We can infer from the equation that the more word pairs with similarities Mij ∈ Mi close to the mean µk, the higher the value of φk(Mi) can reach. Compared to exact matching which is equivalent to term frequency, the RBF kernel function defines a soft term frequency (soft-TF), which allows words that related but not exactly matched contribute to the final matching result. Prompt attention is an attention mechanism which converts m K-dimensional soft-TF vectors  φ(Mi) into a K-dimensional prompt adherence feature vector vp. Other pooling functions (e.g., average, min, and max pooling) that treat all words in the prompt with equal importance, are used as simultaneously. In practice, we find that only part of the key words in the prompt should be paid attention when measuring the prompt adherence of essays. Therefore, it is necessary to quantify the contributions of each word in the prompt. Unlike the general attention mechanism (Dong et al., 2017), prompt attention generates the attention weights based on the word embedding of prompt words, and apply the attention weights to the combination of soft-TF vectors. Given a prompt p = {t 1p, t2p, · · · , tm p }, the attention weight αi for soft-TF can be defined as: $$\alpha_{i}=\frac{\exp\left(u_{i}^{\top}u_{p}\right)}{\sum_{j=1}^{m}\exp\left(u_{j}^{\top}u_{p}\right)},$$ $$u_{i}=t a n h(W_{p}\cdot t_{p}^{i}+b_{p})$$ where up is a context vector, uiis the hidden state of the i-th word in the prompt, Wp and bp are the weight matrix and the bias vector respectively. Formally, the prompt adherence feature vector vp is a weighted sum of soft-TF vectors φ(Mi) as: $$v_{p}=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_{i}\phi(M_{i}).$$ ## B Effect Of Hyper-Parameters For the hyper-parameter search, we use grid search to search for the best values and select the value that performs the best on the validation set. For example, we study the effect of the tradeoff parameter α by varying it from 0.2 to 1 with a step of 0.2. We take the experiments on the TOEFL11 dataset as an example and report the average performance of all eight prompts. As shown in Figure 7(a), the overall fluctuation of the line is not dramatic, and | Setting | δl = 0.2 | δl = 0.3 | δl = 0.4 | δl = 0.5 | |-----------|------------|------------|------------|------------| | δh = 0.9 | δh = 0.8 | δh = 0.7 | δh = 0.6 | | | QWK | 0.695 | 0.762 | 0.723 | 0.687 | Table 4: Effect of the thresholds δl and δh. the maximum difference is within 0.02. The best performance is achieved at α = 0.8. This indicates that our method is robust to this parameter, and our guessed pre-score needs a larger weight than the predicted score, which implies that our guessed prescore can provide more counterfactual information for the improvement of prompt generalization. We then explore the effect of training epochs. As shown in Figure 7(b), we select P6 of the TOEFL11 dataset as the test prompt and list the performance of five randomly-initilized models. We can see that all models can coverage in about 5 epochs on the validation set. Therefore, in our experiments, we only run each model for 5 epochs and select the epoch with best performance on the validation set for testing. For each case, we run the experiments five times and report the average results. Finally, we explore the effect of the thresholds δl and δh. We define δl ∈ [0, 1], δh ∈ [0, 1], and δh > δl. Thus, the score range of essays can be divided into three intervals: [0, δl], (δl, δh), and [δh, 1]. Since the score range of the TOEFL11 dataset is naturally divided into three intervals, we only set thresholds for the ASAP dataset. To observe the effect of interval changes on performance more clearly, we consider choosing the values of thresholds δl and δh symmetrically. As shown in Table 4, we select P1 of the ASAP dataset as the test prompt and list four different interval divisions. We can see that the combination of δl = 0.3 and δh = 0.8 achieves the best performance, while other more extreme divisions resulted in poorer performance. This may be because extreme divisions lead to an insufficient or excessive number of essays with low or high scores, resulting in insufficient training or inadequate discrimination between high-score and low-score essays, respectively. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? The Limitations section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? The Limitations section ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 4.1 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? 4.1 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? 4.1 ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? These two datasets are widely used for essay scoring and does not have these problems. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 4.1 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 4.1 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 4.2 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 4.2, Appendix B ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4.3, 4.4, Appendix B ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 4.2 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

tedeschi-etal-2023-whats

What{'}s the Meaning of Superhuman Performance in Today{'}s {NLU}?

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.697

In the last five years, there has been a significant focus in Natural Language Processing (NLP) on developing larger Pretrained Language Models (PLMs) and introducing benchmarks such as SuperGLUE and SQuAD to measure their abilities in language understanding, reasoning, and reading comprehension. These PLMs have achieved impressive results on these benchmarks, even surpassing human performance in some cases. This has led to claims of superhuman capabilities and the provocative idea that certain tasks have been solved. In this position paper, we take a critical look at these claims and ask whether PLMs truly have superhuman abilities and what the current benchmarks are really evaluating. We show that these benchmarks have serious limitations affecting the comparison between humans and PLMs and provide recommendations for fairer and more transparent benchmarks.

# What'S The Meaning Of Superhuman Performance In Today'S Nlu? Simone Tedeschi1,2, Johan Bos3, Thierry Declerck4**, Jan Hajicˇ** 5, Daniel Hershcovich6, Eduard H. Hovy7,8, Alexander Koller9**, Simon Krek**10,11, Steven Schockaert12, Rico Sennrich13,14, Ekaterina Shutova15**, Roberto Navigli**2 1Babelscape 2Sapienza University of Rome 3University of Groningen 4German Research Center for AI (DFKI) 5Charles University 6University of Copenhagen 7University of Melbourne 8Carnegie Mellon University 9Saarland University 10Jožef Stefan Institute 11University of Ljubljana 12Cardiff University 13University of Zurich 14University of Edinburgh 15University of Amsterdam {tedeschi, navigli}@diag.uniroma1.it, johan.bos@rug.nl declerck@dfki.de hajic@ufal.mff.cuni.cz dh@di.ku.dk hovy@cmu.edu koller@coli.uni-saarland.de simon.krek@ijs.si schockaerts1@cardiff.ac.uk sennrich@cl.uzh.ch e.shutova@uva.nl ## Abstract  In the last five years, there has been a significant focus in Natural Language Processing (NLP) on developing larger Pretrained Language Models (PLMs) and introducing benchmarks such as SuperGLUE and SQuAD to measure their abilities in language understanding, reasoning, and reading comprehension. These PLMs have achieved impressive results on these benchmarks, even surpassing human performance in some cases. This has led to claims of superhuman capabilities and the provocative idea that certain tasks have been solved. In this position paper, we take a critical look at these claims and ask whether PLMs truly have superhuman abilities and what the current benchmarks are really evaluating. We show that these benchmarks have serious limitations affecting the comparison between humans and PLMs and provide recommendations for fairer and more transparent benchmarks. ## 1 Introduction In recent years, research in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) has been driven by a frantic race to reach the top spot in popular benchmarks (Wang et al., 2018, 2019; Lai et al., 2017; Rajpurkar et al., 2018; Reddy et al., 2019). Typically the race takes the shape of a rapid cycle of parameter tuning updates by several teams, communicating their results using a shared leaderboard. Not infrequently, systems achieve better-than-human performance on several tasks (see Figure 1). Yet what does this level of performance really mean for NLP? The impressive capabilities of ChatGPT make this question even more urgent. It is relatively easy to outperform humans with simple procedural tasks like arithmetic and extreme memory-intensive tasks involving vast amounts of data. But most tasks involving natural language typically require knowledge and inference. Do high-performing NLP algorithms really have (super)human capabilities? Or are the metrics that deliver these scores suspect? Given the impact of claiming superhuman performance, it is important for researchers to understand exactly what is going on. As many in NLP have experienced, the false sense of accomplishment of superhuman performance often leads to an abrupt disappointment when a supposedly superb system is applied to realistic data in a real-world situation. By propounding unrealistic claims, NLP researchers harm themselves and the field as a whole. 12471 Some problems result from the metrics used to assess systems, which are invariably automated, and the data these metrics employ, which may be skewed in various ways. The metrics might give incomplete or biased reports of performance, or simply not apply in certain situations. Other problems arise from the 'boundary parameters' that shape the task, which are usually not adequately reflected in the evaluation metric, very seldom in the kinds of automated metrics used in leaderboards. Specifically, the correctness of a task setup and its dataset instances should not be taken for granted. Also, humans and machines are often evaluated under different conditions, such as the level and type of knowledge provided to perform the task and the test items used to compute performance. Yet other problems result from the nature of leaderboard-based evaluation. Despite the obvious benefit of driving development through competition with little human effort, these evaluations typically do not foster understanding. Teams driven by a rapid evaluation turnaround cycle in a competitive mode tend to focus more on quantitative results than on error analyses which aim at improving awareness of their problem. As currently set up, benchmarks and comparisons do not incentivize a deeper understanding of the systems' performance, nor do they foster research geared towards producing automatic explanations: it is one thing to produce a numerical system performance score, but quite another to rate the adequacy and understandability of an explanation. In this paper, we explore the interpretation of the superhuman performance and the utility of leaderboards, discuss how human performance is actually computed in a range of tasks, and how requirements differ for humans and automatic systems across tasks. We hope to encourage leaderboard creators to be more circumspect when setting up their challenges and provide clear 'boundary conditions' and descriptions of the limitations of their evaluations. ## 2 Popular Leaderboards Are Saturated Leaderboard-based evaluation has become a popular practice in NLP1(Wang et al., 2018, 2019; Lai et al., 2017; Rajpurkar et al., 2018; Reddy et al., 2019). The goal of these leaderboards is to encourage the development of systems capable of solving certain tasks and to measure their progress by comparing the best systems against humans. Their great success has led many researchers to focus on just the proposed tasks, resulting in a rapid saturation of the scores which, in many tasks, are equal to or greater than those obtained by humans. As a consequence, many have attributed superhuman performance to such systems, and some tasks have been deemed solved. However, while systems in some areas of AI are compared with the best possible humans, e.g. IBM Deep Blue vs. Garry Kasparov in chess2 or IBM Watson vs. Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter in the *Jeopardy!* quiz show3, NLP researchers often naively or vaguely estimate the "human baseline", assuming it is a uniform and accepted term of comparison, an established level that systems need to simply beat. In this section we provide a broad overview of existing NLP benchmarks, with a particular focus on NLU leaderboards where human baselines are outperformed by systems, and then show that the construction of such benchmarks is fraught with inconsistencies. The SuperGLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2019) is a well-known framework for evaluating research towards general-purpose language understanding models for English. It is a collection of 10 language understanding tasks built on existing public datasets, together with private test data, an evaluation server, and a single-number performance metric. In many tasks, humans are outperformed by the best-scoring systems, often by a large margin, ranking 8th in the current overall leaderboard. Likewise, the SuperGLUE predecessor, i.e. GLUE (Wang et al., 2018), was built to measure advances in NLU, and the systems' scores quickly saturated the benchmark, thereby sliding the human baseline down to the 23rd position in the ranking. The RACE benchmark (Lai et al., 2017) was designed specifically for evaluating NLP models on a set of challenging reading comprehension tasks, such as Question Answering (QA) and text summarization. It consists of a large dataset of more than 28,000 multiple-choice questions, which are drawn from middle and high school problems extracted from English examinations in China. These questions cover a wide range of topics and require the ability to reason, understand context, and make inferences based on the provided text. Human baselines rank 21st on the public leaderboard, with a gap of almost 20 points compared to the bestscoring system. Similarly, the SQuAD2.0 benchmark (Rajpurkar et al., 2018) is another popular collection of reading comprehension questions and answers based on Wikipedia articles. The questions are created by crowdworkers and the answers are a portion of text from the corresponding article. The peculiar difference of this benchmark compared to SQuAD1.1 (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) is that some of the questions may not have answers, hence systems are required to learn to abstain as well. Again, the human baseline is placed in low positions of the ranking, reaching just the 30th place. Another notable, related benchmark is CoQA (Reddy et al., 2019), a large-scale dataset focused on Conversational QA systems. In this task, humans rank 7th, with a gap of 2 points from the top system. Quite different results are observed when moving to a cross-lingual scenario or when systems are required to perform mathematical and logical reasoning. In particular, XTREME (Hu et al., 2020) is a benchmark for cross-lingual transfer evaluation that covers dozens of languages spanning 12 language families, and includes 9 tasks that require reasoning about different levels of syntax or semantics. In this case, the human baselines beat the systems in all tasks, with an overall score 8 points higher than that of the best-performing system. XTREME has been succeeded by XTREME-R (Ruder et al., 2021), a more challenging multilingual benchmark that covers 14 language families and includes 10 tasks, and similar results have been observed. Furthermore, when systems are evaluated over MathQA (Amini et al., 2019) inputs, i.e. mathematical questions in the form of natural language, systems perform poorly compared to humans. Indeed, humans achieve an accuracy of 87% while systems only reach 54.2%. Since systems are still far from human-level performance in these benchmarks, they are out of the scope of our study. However, the highlighted gaps should encourage further research in these areas. An alternative view on system evaluation is presented by the adversarial evaluation framework (Nie et al., 2020; Kiela et al., 2021), where the evaluation is performed through an iterative "humanand-model-in-the-loop" annotation process. Humans are asked to inspect the model output and produce adversarial examples that target specific model weaknesses. The evaluation target is thus a moving goalpost, as opposed to the static targets of most other benchmarks, which saturate quickly. The Dynabench benchmark (Kiela et al., 2021) embraces this approach, incorporating tasks such as NLI, QA, sentiment analysis and hate speech detection. It provides a platform for the annotators to examine model output and create adversarial examples. At the time of writing, most of the tasks within Dynabench do not report human performance, however. Exceptions include the adversarial visual QA task (Sheng et al., 2021), where the proposed adversarial examples are solved by other humans and agreement is computed in terms of accuracy. Model performance in this setting falls far below the human performance. Using more challenging examples for model evaluation, and possibly subsequent re-training, is an appealing approach, likely to strengthen the models with respect to the aspects that the examples target. The caveat is, however, that special care needs to be taken to avoid loss of generality. The annotation of adversarial examples directly depends on the behavior of the model (or set of models) under consideration; the addition of a large number of adversarial examples will likely change the data distribution by potentially overemphasizing rare events; finally, the annotators may focus on a small number of properties of the model, thus "overfitting" the models. Although there are many other popular NLP benchmarks to be investigated, e.g. XGLUE (Liang et al., 2020) and SentiBench (Ribeiro et al., 2016), we limit our review to those benchmarks in which human performance is provided and that can therefore help us answer the main question of this paper concerning the meaning of superhuman performance. ## 3 Human Baselines Are Not Reliable As discussed above, many NLU benchmarks are saturated (cf. Figure 1). Here we dive deeper into some of them, identify the reasons for their quick saturation, and discuss whether it is fair to claim superhuman performance of state-of-the-art models. In particular, we study SuperGLUE (Wang et al., 2019) and SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016, 2018), as the representatives for general language understanding and reading comprehension, respectively. ## 3.1 Superglue For each of the ten tasks in SuperGLUE, human performance is provided and systems are compared against it. Specifically, for four of these tasks – Word in Context (WiC, Pilehvar and CamachoCollados, 2019), Multi-Sentence Reading Comprehension (MultiRC, Khashabi et al., 2018), Recognizing Textual Entailment (RTE, Nangia and Bowman, 2019), Reading Comprehension with Commonsense Knowledge (ReCoRD, Zhang et al., 2018) - human performance is computed by the authors of the corresponding papers, while for the remaining tasks4 humans are evaluated by the creators of the SuperGLUE benchmark. WiC For this lexical-semantic task, four sets of 100 instances with an overlap of 50 instances between two of the annotators were randomly sampled from the test set. Each set was then assigned to an annotator, resulting in a total of 300 annotated instances. The annotators were not lexicographers and were not provided with sense distinctions to resemble the more difficult scenario for unsupervised models (cf. Appendix C). A final score of 80% was then obtained by averaging the individual scores achieved by the humans on the 4 sets (between 79% and 82%). MultiRC In the Multi-Sentence Reading Comprehension task, four native-speaker annotators tagged the entire test set of 166 instances. Human performance was obtained by combining the individual predictions of the different annotators via majority voting. RTE To establish the human performance on the RTE task, annotators were hired through the Hybrid data collection platform. Each annotator first completed a short training procedure, during which they were provided with task-specific guidelines and annotated 20 random examples from the dev set. Only annotators with ≥ 65% accuracy qualified for the main task. 500 examples were randomly taken from the test set and, for each instance, the final label was obtained by combining 5 different annotations via majority voting, reporting a final accuracy of 93.6%. The average pay rate was $17/hr for the main task, and $7.6/hr for training. ReCoRD For the Reading Comprehension with Commonsense Knowledge task, 2,257 crowdworkers were hired through the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform (AMT). For first-time workers, the HIT5assignments were accompanied with guidelines. Crowdworkers were required to have ≥ 50 HITs with a 95% HIT acceptance rate and to be located in the USA, Canada, or UK. The average pay rate was $3.6/hr. Other SuperGLUE Tasks For the six remaining tasks, the SuperGLUE authors hired crowdworkers through AMT: the annotators first completed a short training phase where 30 random development set examples were provided for each task. Only workers who completed 5 HITs during training with performance at, or above, the median across all workers were admitted to the main task. Human performance was estimated on a random set of 100 test samples from each task, by applying majority voting on the annotations of 5 workers. During both phases, workers had access to task-specific guidelines, with a pay rate of $23.75/hr. ## 3.2 Squad In SQuAD1.1 (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), the researchers obtained ≥ 3 answers from human workers for each question in the dev and test sets, and estimated human performance by using only one of the answers as the "human prediction" and the remaining answers as "ground truth" for comparison. Specifically, workers were shown the questions and relevant paragraphs of an article and were asked to select the shortest paragraph span that answered the question. They were advised to complete 5 questions in 2 minutes with a $9/hr pay rate. In SQuAD2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018), instead, the authors collected multiple answers for each question (i.e. 4.8 answers, on average) and selected the final human prediction by majority voting. The answers were collected by providing annotators with a paragraph and its associated questions - unanswerable and answerable ones shuffled together - and asking them either to highlight the answer in the paragraph or to mark the question as unanswerable. They were asked to spend one minute per question with a $10.50/hr pay rate. | Model | BoolQ | CB | COPA | MultiRC | ReCoRD | RTE | WiC | WSC | AX-g | AX-b | |-----------------|---------|------|--------|-----------|----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|--------| | VEGA V2 | 90.5 | 98.6 | 99.4 | 88.2 | 94.4 | 96.0 | 77.4 | 98.6 | 100.0 | -0.4 | | ST-MOE-32B | 92.4 | 96.9 | 99.2 | 89.6 | 95.1 | 93.5 | 77.7 | 96.6 | 96.1 | 72.3 | | TURING NLR V5 | 92.0 | 95.9 | 98.2 | 88.4 | 96.4 | 94.1 | 77.1 | 97.3 | 93.3 | 67.8 | | ERNIE 3.0 | 91.0 | 98.6 | 97.4 | 88.6 | 94.7 | 92.6 | 77.4 | 97.3 | 92.7 | 68.6 | | PALM 540B | 91.9 | 94.4 | 99.0 | 88.7 | 94.2 | 94.1 | 77.4 | 95.9 | 95.5 | 72.9 | | HUMAN BASELINES | 89.0 | 95.8 | 100.0 | 81.8 | 91.7 | 93.6 | 80.0 | 100.0 | 99.3 | 76.6 | ## 3.3 Issues Comparing the performance of the five best systems against humans on SuperGLUE (Table 1), it is immediately apparent that the machines outperform humans on 6 out of 10 tasks, and often by a large margin (e.g. 7.8 F1 points on MultiRC). Similarly, best systems substantially outperform humans on SQuAD1.1 and SQuAD2.0, with a margin of 8.3 and 4.1 points in exact match accuracy, respectively. Interestingly, (zero-shot) ChatGPT performs poorly compared to both human baselines and best-performing (fine-tuned) systems. Indeed, compared to the scores reported in Table 1, it achieves just 86.8 on BoolQ, 89.3 on CB, 58.0 on COPA, 85.2 on RTE and 64.6 on WiC as measured by Qin et al. (2023) and Kocon et al. ´ (2023). Additionally, Kocon et al. ´ (2023) also showed that ChatGPT performs 20% worse than state-of-theart systems on the SQuAD2.0 benchmark, and demonstrated that it is, on average, 25% worse than specialized ML systems on a wide array of tasks. Hence it is not relevant for our study as its performance is still far from human-level. What does appear relevant, instead, are the extremely high, often superhuman, scores achieved by specialized systems. Nevertheless, notwithstanding such scores, in the above-mentioned benchmarks multiple factors make human-tosystem comparisons unfair because they limit human performance while facilitating systems. We list them in the remainder of this section. Apples and oranges The most glaring problem is that, on almost all SuperGLUE tasks, humans and systems are evaluated on different test sets (i.e. on a small subset vs. the full test set). Specifically, in the WiC and RTE tasks, humans are assessed on 21.4% and 16.6% of the test set (i.e. 300 out of 1400 and 500 out of 3000 instances), respectively. Similarly, in the other SuperGLUE tasks humans are evaluated on a subset of 100 instances per task, which - in the worst case of the BoolQ dataset – amounts to just 3% of the test set. We provide more details in Appendix B. Human evaluation metrics Different metrics are used to assess humans across tasks. While most of the tasks employ majority voting, WiC merely averages the scores achieved by humans on 4 small distinct subsets. In SQuAD1.1, humans are evaluated by comparing the tags of an arbitrary annotator against those of two other "ground truth" annotators, thereby likely underestimating the final score. Heterogeneous and unknown pay rates Pay rates varied considerably across the various tasks, ranging from undeclared pay rates to $23.75/hr. Low and mediocre wages, as in ReCoRD and SQuAD, may have contributed to suboptimal human performance: the $3.6/hr pay rate on ReCoRD could be one of the reasons for the large gap between systems and humans, while the unknown pay rate for MultiRC might explain the 18.2% human error rate on this binary classification task. Ground-truth data quality We identified several errors and ambiguous instances in the goldstandard datasets, some of which we report in Table 2. Importantly, we note that, while systems can find spurious correlations between training and evaluation instances, and therefore provide the correct answer without clear evidence, humans cannot find such correlations, or otherwise may genuinely disagree on what the correct answer is. We elaborate on this point in Appendix A, by analyzing several examples per task, as well as in Appendix C, where we report the results of an ad hoc study concerning the WiC dataset. Information about annotators and instructions Details of the annotator pool (e.g. the number of annotators, their background and nationality, etc.) are often omitted. Similarly, the absence of training instructions and task guidelines raises questions about the quality of the training phase, if any. BoolQ Passage: *Shower gel - Shower gels for men may contain the ingredient menthol, which gives a cooling and stimulating sensation on* the skin, and some men's shower gels are also designed specifically for use on hair and body. Shower gels contain milder surfactant bases than shampoos, and some also contain gentle conditioning agents in the formula. This means that shower gels can also double as an effective and perfectly acceptable substitute to shampoo, even if they are not labelled as a hair and body wash. Washing hair with shower gel should give approximately the same result as using a moisturising shampoo. Question: *is it bad to wash your hair with shower gel* **Answer:** TRUE CB Premise: A: I do too, so she couldn't possibly turn them out like some of these popular writers, B: Huh-uh. A: but oh, her books are just incredible. I don't think they've ever made a movie, do you? Hypothesis: *they've ever made a movie* **Entailment:** FALSE MultiRC Paragraph: *What causes a change in motion? The application of a force. Any time an object changes motion, a force has been* applied. [. . . ] It depends on the strength of the force. It also depends on the objects mass. Think about some simple tasks you may regularly do. You may pick up a baseball. This requires only a very small force. Question: *What factors cause changes in motion of a moving object?* **Candidate Answers**: *Shape of the object* (FALSE), Mass of the object (TRUE), *The object's mass* (FALSE), *. . .* RTE**Premise:** *In most Pacific countries there are very few women in parliament.* Hypothesis: *Women are poorly represented in parliament.* **Entailment:** TRUE WiC**Context 1:** The senator received severe criticism *from his opponent.* Context 2: The politician received a lot of public criticism *for his controversial stance on the issue.* **Sense Match:** FALSE ## 4 Setups Favor Misleading Comparisons Summarizing the above observations, we find four main sources of human-to-system comparison error. These correspond to the following key aspects of the evaluation process: system performance, the evaluation data, the measurement process, and humans themselves. We discuss each in turn. ## 4.1 Systems: Right For The Wrong Reasons Across a variety of tasks, Søgaard et al. (2021) report that random train-test splits consistently overestimate model performance: randomization at the sentence level reduces discrepancies between training and test sets as sentences from the same documents occur in both. Non-random standard splits also bring the danger of inadvertent, communitywide overfitting (Gorman and Bedrick, 2019) 6. In natural language inference (NLI), multiple authors have found that BERT achieves what looks like near-human accuracy by exploiting idiosyncrasies of the data: they are "right for the wrong reasons" (McCoy et al., 2019; Niven and Kao, 2019). Here much of BERT's success is attributed to its ability to learn syntactic and lexical cues for inference, which happen to be mostly correct on the original test data. However, these cues do not actually support such inferences on adversarial datasets, taking BERT's accuracy to chance level or below. Poliak et al. (2018) report an even more extreme case of being "right for the wrong reason": several NLI datasets support what they call hypothesisonly models, which perform surprisingly well without exposure to the premise (Gururangan et al., 2018), e.g. outperforming the majority-class baseline. Poliak et al. (2018) attribute this to statistical irregularities in the data (often single words indicating negation), caused by obvious annotation strategies chosen by crowdworkers who were not stimulated enough to come up with more creative ways to produce contradictions or entailments. Along the same lines, Parmar et al. (2023) recently identified instruction bias in 14 NLU benchmarks. Specifically, they found that this phenomenon is evident in most of these datasets, showing that ∼73% of instruction examples, on average, share a few clear bias patterns, and that models often fail to generalize beyond such patterns. ## 4.2 Data: Monolithicity Obscures Details A further cause of systematic performance overestimation is that test sets include instances with varied, often unfathomable, levels of difficulty, so the exact reported accuracy will be a weighted average that depends directly on the mixture of easy and hard instances in the test data. The composition of train-test splits can thus make a big difference (Swayamdipta et al., 2020). In QA, Lewis et al. (2021) investigated the traintest splits of several popular datasets. They found that there can be substantial overlap between the answers and even the questions of the training and test sets. The evaluation results differed greatly between seen and unseen questions and answers; for instance, the exact-match accuracy of BART as a closed-book QA system on WebQuestions dropped from 76% to below 2% when neither the question nor the answer were ever seen during training. In semantic parsing, seq2seq models such as BART and T5 are very accurate when evaluated in-domain on broad-coverage parsing tasks, e.g. Bevilacqua et al. (2021a). Yao and Koller (2022) report that their accuracy drops to close to zero on test subsets that require them to generalize to language that is structurally more complex than the training data. This is corroborated when constructing hard sets, i.e. train-test splits based on compositional generalization, forcing the accuracy of seq2seq models below 20% (Bogin et al., 2022). ## 4.3 Measurement: Automation Is Limiting A third key limitation of current evaluations, and especially existing leaderboards, is that they assume that the performance of a model can be measured automatically. While this has not been discussed very much in NLU, in other communities it has long been recognized that automatic evaluations are imperfect proxies of human judgments (Novikova et al., 2017). Machine translation papers report BLEU scores because they are drastically cheaper to calculate than the cost to collect human judgments about the fluency and adequacy of text; but one system that outperforms another on BLEU is not necessarily judged better by humans (CallisonBurch et al., 2006; Popel et al., 2020). While recent automatic metrics correlate better with human judgments (Kocmi et al., 2021), automatic evaluation has consistently been found problematic when comparing top-performing systems (Ma et al., 2019). Similarly, Byron et al. (2009) recommend crowdsourced evaluations to counter the inadequacy of automated evaluation for NLG. The deeper issue with our reliance on automated evaluations is that they constrain the tasks on which we can evaluate systems. New shared tasks and datasets are specifically designed to make automated evaluations possible. However, many skills that show competent language use cannot easily be approximated by automatic measures (Dunietz et al., 2020): there are entire facets of language competence that are systematically out of scope for the tasks we design. One might argue that these are the most interesting parts of the actual mastery of language. Therefore, human-level performance on automatically-evaluated tasks does not equate to human-level performance on real language use. ## 4.4 Humans: They Often Disagree The final and possibly most problematic issue with system evaluation lies in the creation of the evaluation data itself. Common evaluation methodology assumes that there exists a single ground-truth for evaluation. This is a great oversimplification. We argue that evaluation should be conducted with reference to different groups of annotators to go beyond a one-dimensional performance score, to reflect multiple possible 'truths'. A great deal depends on how annotators are instructed to produce the data. It is well-known that human annotation quality may suffer from errors resulting from lack of attention given to the task, both by annotators themselves and by the annotation managers, often resulting from the need to drive annotation costs down (Mishra and Gorana, 2021). Importantly, however, human label variation does not always reflect poor annotation. Label variation can also result from stimulus characteristics or the context in which annotation occurs, including factors like the identity of the annotators, their background, and world knowledge. Plank (2022) identifies three main reasons for human label variation, namely annotator disagreement, subjectivity (multiple possible perspectives) and underspecfication (multiple plausible answers). While subjectivity (e.g., due to cultural differences) is a clear issue in tasks like hate speech detection (Davani et al., 2021), inherent disagreements, ambiguous sentence meaning, underspecification in guidelines and annotator behavior have been identified not only in fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation tasks (Navigli, 2009), but even in NLI (Pavlick and Kwiatkowski, 2019; Zhang and de Marneffe, 2021; Jiang and de Marneffe, 2022). While the standard approach for training and evaluating NLP systems is to use a single gold label for each example, a growing body of work deals with multiple labels by varying model training in various ways: different aggregation methods (Paun et al., 2018), training on the distributional labels (Potts et al., 2020), learning from agreement signals (Plank et al., 2014), or modeling the annotators (Geva et al., 2019; Sap et al., 2022; Gordon et al., 2022). Recently, Basile et al. (2021) proposed extending this approach to evaluation. Fully benefiting from this extension requires releasing annotator characteristics labels (Prabhakaran et al., 2021), including socio-demographic information, and carefully documenting the annotation process (Gebru et al., 2018; Bender and Friedman, 2018; Geiger et al., 2020). Annotator disagreement often results from differences across individuals - not just in NLP but also in fields such as cognitive science (Levinson, 2012) and psycholinguistics (Kidd et al., 2018). This phenomenon is often underestimated, since experiments tend to focus on a homogeneous sub-sample of the human population (Henrich et al., 2010). Annotators have different natural biases (Reidsma and op den Akker, 2008), and models often learn annotator-specific signals that are not generalizable (Geva et al., 2019), including opinion, personality (Sap et al., 2022) and culture (Hershcovich et al., 2022), but also different interpretation of guidelines (Hansen and Søgaard, 2021; Parmar et al., 2022). To deal with subjectivity, Rottger et al. (2022) recently introduced two contrasting data annotation paradigms: the descriptive and prescriptive ones. While the former encourages annotator subjectivity by capturing and modelling different beliefs, the latter, instead, discourages it and enforces annotators to encode one specific belief, formulated in the annotation guidelines. Depending on the downstream application of the dataset, one paradigm can be more suitable than the other, but neither paradigm is inherently superior. However, dataset annotators should explicitly aim for one of the two paradigms to facilitate the intended downstream use of their dataset, and to document, for the benefit of others, how exactly their dataset was annotated. In conclusion, without more attention to the "science of annotation", the methodological laxity in today's dataset creation will continue to foster inaccurate estimations of human performance. ## 5 Humans Can Explain Their Answers When performing language tasks, humans are capable of explaining why they provided a given answer. Thus, when models are claimed to attain human-level language understanding, we can reasonably expect to be able to elicit explanations from them. This has proven highly challenging, however, which casts further doubts on such claims. Why do we need explanations? At the level of an individual problem instance, explanations can help users assess whether to trust a given answer. At the level of a system, they help regulators and the general public to assess whether, or in what contexts, a system is safe to use, e.g. by uncovering unwanted biases or by revealing that the system relies on outdated knowledge. In the context of this paper, explanations can help NLP researchers understand the behaviour of their systems, e.g. to make sure that models are right for the right reasons (McCoy et al., 2019; Niven and Kao, 2019), or to uncover some of the shortcuts that the model may have learned (Geirhos et al., 2020), as discussed in §4.1. Indeed, the absence of explanations can lead researchers astray. For example, in a prize-winning paper, Kaushik and Lipton (2018) analysed several state-of-the-art QA systems and found that they simply classified the best matching answer using their pre-stored knowledge about each question candidate, without performing any 'reading'. None of the papers in which these QA systems were introduced had considered this possibility. What are the challenges? While the importance of explanations is well-understood, progress has been hampered by various issues. One issue is that the evaluation of system-generated explanations is hard to automate (§4.3). Another issue is that it is not always clear what form the explanations should take. For tasks such as sentiment classification, it may be sufficient to highlight which words from the input text have mostly affected a given prediction. However, for NLI and QA, providing informative explanations can be challenging, even for humans. This can be observed by inspecting datasets that include human explanations (Camburu et al., 2018; Rajani et al., 2019; Aggarwal et al., 2021). Finally, system-generated explanations are typically not faithful, i.e. they do not necessarily reflect the process used by the model. For instance, Camburu et al. (2020) found that models can generate contradictory explanations for a given input. ## 6 Recommendations Based on the findings of the previous sections, we argue that current claims regarding superhuman performance are not adequately grounded, leading to unjustified hype. Here we provide a set of recommendations aimed at making comparisons between humans and machines fairer and more reliable. Do not favor machines against humans Various actions can be taken to set a level playing field between humans and machines, so as to provide a more realistic sense of their actual performance: 1. **Avoid using the same documents for training and evaluation** (§4.1): in fact, using the same documents inherently reduces discrepancies across splits (Gorman and Bedrick, 2019), encouraging models to learn specific idiosyncrasies that appear in both (McCoy et al., 2019). 2. **Balance easy and hard test set items** (§4.2), so as to report accuracies and enable analyses based on their difficulty level. 3. **Occasionally refresh test sets** (§2), as suggested by recent trends in adversarial evaluation (Kiela et al., 2021). 4. **Complement automatic evaluations with** human judgements (§4.3), so as to compare systems with humans on facets of language use that cannot be evaluated automatically. 5. **Adequately train and motivate humans** (§3.3), aiming to increase the quality of human annotations through a solid training process and higher pay, in a sense mimicking the effort taken in improving systems. Make human performance evaluation transparent and reproducible We suggest carrying out an effort similar to systems' reproducibility for evaluating humans as well, including: 1. **Document the annotator pool composition** (§3.3), by explicitly answering the following questions: how many annotators were hired? Following what process? What is their cultural background, nationality, languages and areas of expertise? What is their hourly pay rate? 2. **Specify the annotation process** (§3.3 and §4.4): it is important to state how many annotators were assigned to each instance, the training process they underwent, the guidelines they received (and how such guidelines were fine-tuned), and the metrics used to compute the overall human performance (averaging individual scores, majority voting, etc.). 3. **Provide individual annotations** (§4.4): this allows recalculation of overall human performance whenever new metrics are tried, identifying the best metrics, calculating the scores of the best and worst annotators, the gap between the two, and the correlation between metrics and individual annotators - all aspects that the annotation community has long advocated. Importantly, the availability of individual answers, combined with the annotators' profiles, opens the door to deeper investigations about why and when humans disagree. Increase annotation accountability Multiple measures can be implemented to make both systems and benchmarks more reliable, transparent and informative: 1. **Include explanations in your benchmark** (§5): requiring annotators to provide the rationale behind their choices implicitly enforces them to devote more attention to the annotation task, thus yielding higher-quality and more consistent annotations. Moreover, annotators' explanations can be used to study subjectivity, and discover (and mark) ambiguous instances. 2. **Let systems produce explanations** (§5): before claiming superhuman performance, it is important that, similarly to humans, systems can explain the inferences behind their predictions. This is key both for increasing systems' credibility and for discovering their limitations. However, it is not impossible that a system will produce the right answer with the wrong explanation, or vice versa. For this reason, we believe that a system must be able to provide explanations that support its answers without knowing that answer a priori, inferring the answer based on its knowledge. ## 7 Conclusions We have discussed the distressing tendency of many NLP researchers to claim superhuman performance for their systems, and outlined why such claims are not (yet) grounded. We identified problems with evaluation data, evaluation measures and methodology, system understandability, and the human creation of data, all of which contribute to our conclusion. As a final remark, with this paper we hope to make the reader more suspicious and rigorous when claims about "superhuman" performance are made, and, more importantly, to incentivize benchmark creators to address current limitations and design more solid and transparent benchmarks that will advance our scientific understanding of NLP systems and humans. ## 8 Limitations In this paper, we have unearthed a variety of problems present in current evaluation benchmarks that favor systems over humans, or that simply make such comparisons unfair. We conclude that there is no real evidence to claim that today's language models possess superhuman performance. However, without empirical results obtained under the right setups, we cannot even claim the opposite, namely that humans are still better than systems. We leave such demonstrations for future work. Additionally, while a good portion of the NLP research effort is devoted to natural language generation (NLG) tasks (which includes MT), here we provide only some pointers to NLG/MT. Indeed, as discussed in Section 4.3, these problems exist in the NLG universe as well, but, due to space constraints, we limit our analysis to NLU tasks. ## Acknowledgments This work grew out of a brainstorming session held at the Rome Workshop on Ten Years of BabelNet in July 2022.7 We gratefully acknowledge the support of the ERC Consolidator Grant MOUSSE No. 726487 under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, and the support of the PNRR MUR project PE0000013-FAIR. This work has been carried out while Simone Tedeschi was enrolled in the Italian National Doctorate on Artificial Intelligence run by Sapienza University of Rome. The contribution of Jan Hajic has been supported by the LUSyD project No. ˇ GX20-16819X, funded by the Czech Science Foundation, and has used resources provided by the LRI LINDAT/CLARIAH-CZ, project LM2023062 funded by the MŠMT CR. The DFKI contribution to this work is supported by the LT-BRIDGE project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No. 952194. Rico Sennrich was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no. 176727). ## References Shourya Aggarwal, Divyanshu Mandowara, Vishwajeet Agrawal, Dinesh Khandelwal, Parag Singla, and Dinesh Garg. 2021. Explanations for CommonsenseQA: New Dataset and Models. In *Proceedings* of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3050–3065, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. MathQA: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2357–2367, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. BT Sue Atkins and Michael Rundell. 2008. The Oxford guide to practical lexicography. Oxford University Press. Valerio Basile, Michael Fell, Tommaso Fornaciari, Dirk Hovy, Silviu Paun, Barbara Plank, Massimo Poesio, and Alexandra Uma. 2021. We need to consider disagreement in evaluation. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Benchmarking: Past, Present and Future, pages 15–21, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Emily M. Bender and Batya Friedman. 2018. Data statements for natural language processing: Toward mitigating system bias and enabling better science. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:587–604. Michele Bevilacqua, Rexhina Blloshmi, and Roberto Navigli. 2021a. One SPRING to rule them both: Symmetric AMR semantic parsing and generation without a complex pipeline. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-21), volume 35, pages 12564–12573. AAAI Press. Michele Bevilacqua, Tommaso Pasini, Alessandro Raganato, and Roberto Navigli. 2021b. Recent trends in word sense disambiguation: A survey. In *Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21*, pages 4330– 4338. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Survey Track. Ben Bogin, Shivanshu Gupta, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Unobserved local structures make compositional generalization hard. In *Proceedings of* EMNLP. Donna Byron, Alexander Koller, Kristina Striegnitz, Justine Cassell, Robert Dale, Johanna Moore, and Jon Oberlander. 2009. Report on the First NLG Challenge on Generating Instructions in Virtual Environments (GIVE). In *Proceedings of the 12th European* Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG 2009), pages 165–173, Athens, Greece. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chris Callison-Burch, Miles Osborne, and Philipp Koehn. 2006. Re-evaluating the role of Bleu in machine translation research. In *11th Conference of* the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 249–256, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Oana-Maria Camburu, Tim Rocktäschel, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Phil Blunsom. 2018. e-snli: Natural language inference with natural language explanations. In S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31, pages 9539–9549. Curran Associates, Inc. Oana-Maria Camburu, Brendan Shillingford, Pasquale Minervini, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Phil Blunsom. 2020. Make up your mind! adversarial generation of inconsistent natural language explanations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4157– 4165, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Mark Díaz, and Vinodkumar Prabhakaran. 2021. Dealing with disagreements: Looking beyond the majority vote in subjective annotations. Jesse Dunietz, Greg Burnham, Akash Bharadwaj, Owen Rambow, Jennifer Chu-Carroll, and Dave Ferrucci. 2020. To test machine comprehension, start by defining comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7839–7859, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal III Daumé, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Datasheets for datasets. arxiv. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09010*. R Stuart Geiger, Kevin Yu, Yanlai Yang, Mindy Dai, Jie Qiu, Rebekah Tang, and Jenny Huang. 2020. Garbage in, garbage out? Do machine learning application papers in social computing report where human-labeled training data comes from? In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency*, pages 325–336. Robert Geirhos, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, Claudio Michaelis, Richard Zemel, Wieland Brendel, Matthias Bethge, and Felix A Wichmann. 2020. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(11):665–673. Mor Geva, Yoav Goldberg, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. Are we modeling the task or the annotator? an investigation of annotator bias in natural language understanding datasets. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1161–1166, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mitchell L Gordon, Michelle S Lam, Joon Sung Park, Kayur Patel, Jeff Hancock, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and Michael S Bernstein. 2022. Jury learning: Integrating dissenting voices into machine learning models. In *CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing* Systems, pages 1–19. Kyle Gorman and Steven Bedrick. 2019. We need to talk about standard splits. In *Proceedings of the 57th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2786–2791, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel R. Bowman, and Noah A. Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. *CoRR*, abs/1803.02324. Victor Petrén Bach Hansen and Anders Søgaard. 2021. Guideline bias in Wizard-of-Oz dialogues. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Benchmarking: Past, Present and Future, pages 8–14, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Joseph Henrich, Steven J Heine, and Ara Norenzayan. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? *Behavioral* and brain sciences, 33(2-3):61–83. Daniel Hershcovich, Stella Frank, Heather Lent, Miryam de Lhoneux, Mostafa Abdou, Stephanie Brandl, Emanuele Bugliarello, Laura Cabello Piqueras, Ilias Chalkidis, Ruixiang Cui, Constanza Fierro, Katerina Margatina, Phillip Rust, and Anders Søgaard. 2022. Challenges and strategies in crosscultural NLP. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6997–7013, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan Firat, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. XTREME: A massively multilingual multitask benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4411–4421. PMLR. Nan-Jiang Jiang and Marie-Catherine de Marneffe. 2022. Investigating reasons for disagreement in natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03392. Divyansh Kaushik and Zachary C. Lipton. 2018. How much reading does reading comprehension require? a critical investigation of popular benchmarks. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 5010– 5015, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel Khashabi, Snigdha Chaturvedi, Michael Roth, Shyam Upadhyay, and Dan Roth. 2018. Looking beyond the surface: A challenge set for reading comprehension over multiple sentences. In *Proceedings* of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 252–262, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Evan Kidd, Seamus Donnelly, and Morten H Christiansen. 2018. Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. *Trends in cognitive sciences*, 22(2):154–169. Douwe Kiela, Max Bartolo, Yixin Nie, Divyansh Kaushik, Atticus Geiger, Zhengxuan Wu, Bertie Vidgen, Grusha Prasad, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, Zhiyi Ma, Tristan Thrush, Sebastian Riedel, Zeerak Waseem, Pontus Stenetorp, Robin Jia, Mohit Bansal, Christopher Potts, and Adina Williams. 2021. Dynabench: Rethinking benchmarking in NLP. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4110–4124, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jan-Christoph Klie, Bonnie Webber, and Iryna Gurevych. 2022. Annotation Error Detection: Analyzing the Past and Present for a More Coherent Future. *Computational Linguistics*, pages 1–42. Tom Kocmi, Christian Federmann, Roman Grundkiewicz, Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt, Hitokazu Matsushita, and Arul Menezes. 2021. To ship or not to ship: An extensive evaluation of automatic metrics for machine translation. In *Proceedings of the Sixth* Conference on Machine Translation, pages 478–494, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jan Kocon, Igor Cichecki, Oliwier Kaszyca, Mateusz ´ Kochanek, Dominika Szydło, Joanna Baran, Julita Bielaniewicz, Marcin Gruza, Arkadiusz Janz, Kamil Kanclerz, Anna Kocon, Bartłomiej Koptyra, Wik- ´ toria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz, Piotr Miłkowski, Marcin Oleksy, Maciej Piasecki, Łukasz Radlinski, ´ Konrad Wojtasik, Stanisław Wo´zniak, and Przemysław Kazienko. 2023. Chatgpt: Jack of all trades, master of none. Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. RACE: Large-scale ReAding comprehension dataset from examinations. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 785– 794, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Samuel Läubli, Sheila Castilho, Graham Neubig, Rico Sennrich, Qinlan Shen, and Antonio Toral. 2020. A Set of Recommendations for Assessing Human– Machine Parity in Language Translation. *Journal of* Artifial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 67:653–672. Stephen C Levinson. 2012. The original sin of cognitive science. *Topics in cognitive science*, 4(3):396–403. Patrick Lewis, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. Question and answer test-train overlap in opendomain question answering datasets. In *Proceedings* of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1000–1008, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yaobo Liang, Nan Duan, Yeyun Gong, Ning Wu, Fenfei Guo, Weizhen Qi, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Daxin Jiang, Guihong Cao, Xiaodong Fan, Ruofei Zhang, Rahul Agrawal, Edward Cui, Sining Wei, Taroon Bharti, Ying Qiao, Jiun-Hung Chen, Winnie Wu, Shuguang Liu, Fan Yang, Daniel Campos, Rangan Majumder, and Ming Zhou. 2020. XGLUE: A new benchmark datasetfor cross-lingual pre-training, understanding and generation. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6008–6018, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qingsong Ma, Johnny Wei, Ondˇrej Bojar, and Yvette Graham. 2019. Results of the WMT19 metrics shared task: Segment-level and strong MT systems pose big challenges. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1), pages 62–90, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Federico Martelli, Najla Kalach, Gabriele Tola, and Roberto Navigli. 2021. SemEval-2021 task 2: Multilingual and cross-lingual word-in-context disambiguation (MCL-WiC). In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2021), pages 24–36, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In *Proceedings of* the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3428–3448, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Abhilash Mishra and Yash Gorana. 2021. Who decides if AI is fair? the labels problem in algorithmic auditing. Nikita Nangia and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Human vs. muppet: A conservative estimate of human performance on the GLUE benchmark. In *Proceedings of* the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4566–4575, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Roberto Navigli. 2009. Word sense disambiguation: A survey. *ACM Comput. Surv.*, 41(2):10:1–10:69. Yixin Nie, Adina Williams, Emily Dinan, Mohit Bansal, Jason Weston, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Adversarial NLI: A new benchmark for natural language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4885–4901, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Timothy Niven and Hung-Yu Kao. 2019. Probing neural network comprehension of natural language arguments. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4658–4664, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jekaterina Novikova, Ondˇrej Dušek, Amanda Cercas Curry, and Verena Rieser. 2017. Why we need new evaluation metrics for NLG. In *Proceedings of* the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2241–2252, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mihir Parmar, Swaroop Mishra, Mor Geva, and Chitta Baral. 2022. Don't blame the annotator: Bias already starts in the annotation instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00415. Mihir Parmar, Swaroop Mishra, Mor Geva, and Chitta Baral. 2023. Don't blame the annotator: Bias already starts in the annotation instructions. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1779–1789, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Silviu Paun, Bob Carpenter, Jon Chamberlain, Dirk Hovy, Udo Kruschwitz, and Massimo Poesio. 2018. Comparing Bayesian models of annotation. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 6:571–585. Ellie Pavlick and Tom Kwiatkowski. 2019. Inherent disagreements in human textual inferences. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 7:677–694. Mohammad Taher Pilehvar and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2019. WiC: the word-in-context dataset for evaluating context-sensitive meaning representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1267–1273, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Barbara Plank. 2022. The 'problem' of human label variation: On ground truth in data, modeling and evaluation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02570*. Barbara Plank, Dirk Hovy, and Anders Søgaard. 2014. Learning part-of-speech taggers with inter-annotator agreement loss. In *Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, pages 742–751, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics. Adam Poliak, Jason Naradowsky, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Hypothesis only baselines in natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics*, pages 180–191, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Martin Popel, Marketa Tomkova, Jakub Tomek, Łukasz Kaiser, Jakob Uszkoreit, Ondˇrej Bojar, and Zdenekˇ Žabokrtský. 2020. Transforming machine translation: a deep learning system reaches news translation quality comparable to human professionals. Nature Communications, 11(1):4381. Christopher Potts, Zhengxuan Wu, Atticus Geiger, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. DynaSent: A dynamic benchmark for sentiment analysis. Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, and Mark Diaz. 2021. On releasing annotator-level labels and information in datasets. In Proceedings of the Joint 15th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW) and 3rd Designing Meaning Representations (DMR) Workshop, pages 133–138, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Explain yourself! leveraging language models for commonsense reasoning. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4932–4942, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for SQuAD. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 784–789, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383–2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Siva Reddy, Danqi Chen, and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. CoQA: A conversational question answering challenge. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 7:249–266. Dennis Reidsma and Rieks op den Akker. 2008. Exploiting 'subjective' annotations. In Coling 2008: Proceedings of the workshop on Human Judgements in Computational Linguistics, pages 8–16, Manchester, UK. Coling 2008 Organizing Committee. Filipe N Ribeiro, Matheus Araújo, Pollyanna Gonçalves, Marcos André Gonçalves, and Fabrício Benevenuto. 2016. Sentibench-a benchmark comparison of stateof-the-practice sentiment analysis methods. EPJ Data Science, 5(1):1–29. Pedro Rodriguez, Joe Barrow, Alexander Miserlis Hoyle, John P. Lalor, Robin Jia, and Jordan BoydGraber. 2021. Evaluation examples are not equally informative: How should that change NLP leaderboards? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4486–4503, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Paul Rottger, Bertie Vidgen, Dirk Hovy, and Janet Pierrehumbert. 2022. Two contrasting data annotation paradigms for subjective NLP tasks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 175–190, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sebastian Ruder, Noah Constant, Jan Botha, Aditya Siddhant, Orhan Firat, Jinlan Fu, Pengfei Liu, Junjie Hu, Dan Garrette, Graham Neubig, and Melvin Johnson. 2021. XTREME-R: Towards more challenging and nuanced multilingual evaluation. In *Proceedings* of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10215–10245, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maarten Sap, Swabha Swayamdipta, Laura Vianna, Xuhui Zhou, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2022. Annotators with attitudes: How annotator beliefs and identities bias toxic language detection. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5884–5906, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sasha Sheng, Amanpreet Singh, Vedanuj Goswami, Jose Alberto Lopez Magana, Wojciech Galuba, Devi Parikh, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. Human-adversarial visual question answering. Anders Søgaard, Sebastian Ebert, Jasmijn Bastings, and Katja Filippova. 2021. We need to talk about random splits. In *Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the* European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1823–1832, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Swabha Swayamdipta, Roy Schwartz, Nicholas Lourie, Yizhong Wang, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Dataset cartography: Mapping and diagnosing datasets with training dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9275–9293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In *Proceedings of the* 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353–355, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuekun Yao and Alexander Koller. 2022. Structural generalization is hard for sequence-to-sequence models. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*. Sheng Zhang, Xiaodong Liu, Jingjing Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Kevin Duh, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Record: Bridging the gap between human and machine commonsense reading comprehension. Xinliang Frederick Zhang and Marie-Catherine de Marneffe. 2021. Identifying inherent disagreement in natural language inference. In *Proceedings* of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4908–4915, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Ground Truth Data Quality In Table 2, we reported one problematic example for each of the most crucial tasks in the SuperGLUE benchmark. Here we comment on those examples and provide additional problematic cases which we identified by manually inspecting the datasets. Some of these cases appear recurrently. BoolQ The example in Table 2 is blatantly wrong, as it explicitly says that shower gel is an *effective* and perfectly acceptable substitute to shampoo, hence the label should be FALSE. We provide more errors in Table 3. Specifically, we believe that some of these examples are wrongly annotated, ambiguous, or highly misleading. In the first example, from the premise, it seems that some scientists and ornithologists differentiate between doves and pigeons, so the answer might be subjective, and therefore ambiguous. In the second example, instead, it seems there is no evidence that a red back spider bite can kill a human being, but the answer is TRUE. Similarly to the first case, in the third example the premise states that *in most prisons* possession of mobile phones is not allowed, thus Passage: *Columbidae - The distinction between "doves" and "pigeons" is not consistent. In modern everyday speech, as opposed* to scientific usage or formal usage, "dove" frequently indicates a pigeon that is white or nearly white. However, some people use the terms "dove" and "pigeon" interchangeably. In contrast, in scientific and ornithological practice, "dove" tends to be used for smaller species and "pigeon" for larger ones, but this is in no way consistently applied. Historically, the common names for these birds involve a great deal of variation between the terms. The species most commonly referred to as "pigeon" is the species known by scientists as the rock dove, one subspecies of which, the domestic pigeon, is common in many cities as the feral pigeon. Question: *is there a difference between doves and pigeons* **Answer:** FALSE Passage: *Redback spider - The redback is one of the few spider species that can be seriously harmful to humans, and its liking for* habitats in built structures has led it to being responsible for a large number of serious spider bites in Australia. Predominantly neurotoxic to vertebrates, the venom gives rise to the syndrome of latrodectism in humans; this starts with pain around the bite site, which typically becomes severe and progresses up the bitten limb and persists for over 24 hours. Sweating in localised patches of skin occasionally occurs and is highly indicative of latrodectism. Generalised symptoms of nausea, vomiting, headache, and agitation may also occur and indicate severe envenomation. An antivenom has been available since 1956. There have been no deaths directly due to redback bites since its introduction, however Isbister et al. have suggested patients for whom antivenom is considered should be fully informed "there is considerable weight of evidence to suggest it is no better than placebo", and in light of a risk of anaphylaxis and serum sickness, "routine use of the antivenom is therefore not recommended". As of the 2013 (updated 2014) edition of the Snakebite & Spiderbite Clinical Management Guidelines from NSW HEALTH (latest available in 2017), Red-back spider bites were considered not life-threatening but capable of causing severe pain and systemic symptoms that could continue for hours to days. Question: *can a red back spider bite kill you* **Answer:** TRUE Passage: Mobile phones in prison - In most prisons, inmates are forbidden from possessing mobile phones due to their ability to communicate with the outside world and other security issues. Mobile phones are one of the most smuggled items into prisons. They provide inmates the ability to make and receive unauthorized phone calls, send email and text messages, use social media, and follow news pertaining to their case, among other forbidden uses. Question: *are you allowed to have your phone in prison* **Answer:** FALSE Passage: *Vena amoris - Vena amoris is a Latin name meaning, literally, "vein of love". Traditional belief established that this vein* ran directly from the fourth finger of the left hand to the heart. This theory has been cited in western cultures as one of the reasons the engagement ring and/or wedding ring was placed on the fourth finger, or "ring finger". This traditional belief is factually inaccurate as all the fingers in the hand have a similar vein structure. Question: *is it true that the ring finger is connected to the heart* **Answer:** FALSE Passage: *Substitute (association football) - Most competitions only allow each team to make a maximum of three substitutions* during a game and a fourth substitute during extra time, although more substitutions are often permitted in non-competitive fixtures such as friendlies. A fourth substitution in extra time was first implemented in recent tournaments, including the 2016 Summer Olympic Games, the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup and the 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup final. A fourth substitute in extra time has been approved for use in the elimination rounds at the 2018 FIFA World Cup, the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League. Each team nominates a number of players (typically between five and seven, depending on the competition) who may be used as substitutes; these players typically sit in the technical area with the coaches, and are said to be "on the bench". When the substitute enters the field of play it is said they have come on or have been brought on, while the player they are substituting is coming off or being brought off. Question: *can a player be substituted twice in football* **Answer:** TRUE Table 3: Additional problematic instances we have found in the BoolQ dataset. the answer might change depending on the prison. In the fourth example, the fact that all the fingers have a similar vein structure does not mean that the ring finger is not connected to the heart, on the contrary, this reinforces the hypothesis. Finally, while two or more players can be substituted in a football game, the same player cannot be substituted twice. CommitmentBank In the CB example reported in Table 2 we have that A does not know whether they've ever made a movie and, indeed, asks if B thinks they have. Therefore, we cannot conclude that *the movie was never made*, and the answer should be NEUTRAL. By inspecting the dataset, we discovered that its instances follow standard patterns that can be easily learned by machines, but, at the same time, confuse humans. Indeed, most of the time, the entailment is TRUE when a fragment of the hypothesis appears (as an exact match) in the premise (see the second and third examples in Table 5). To the contrary, the entailment is FALSE when the same text fragment appears negated either in the premise or in the hypothesis, e.g. preceded by *don't* think or similar, standard constructs (see the first, fourth and fifth examples in Table 5). However, as argued before, the mere fact of not thinking that a thing is true does not necessarily imply that thing is not true. MultiRC Regarding the MultiRC example of Table 2, in this case, the error is in the candidate answers. Specifically, two candidate answers are Paragraph: Amateur tennis star Guy Haines wants to divorce his vulgar and unfaithful wife Miriam , so he can marry the elegant and beautiful Anne Morton , daughter of a senator . While on a train to meet Miriam , Haines meets Bruno Anthony , a forward stranger who recognizes Guy from gossip items in the newspapers that detail his marital problems . During lunch in Bruno's compartment , Bruno tells Guy about his idea for the perfect " Criss-cross " murder : he will kill Miriam and in exchange , Guy will kill Bruno's father . Since both are strangers , otherwise unconnected , there is no identifiable motive for the crimes , Bruno contends , hence no suspicion . Guy hurriedly leaves the compartment but leaves Bruno thinking he has agreed to the deal . Guy accidentally leaves his cigarette lighter behind , a gift from Anne to Guy , Which Bruno pockets . Bruno heads to Guy's hometown of Metcalf and follows Miriam and her two beaux to an amusement park , where he briefly illuminates her face with Guy's lighter , then strangles her to death . Guy's problems begin when his alibi an inebriated college professor on the same train as Guy can not remember their meeting . But they increase exponentially when Bruno makes repeated appearances into Guy's life as he seeks to remind Guy that he is now obliged to kill Bruno's father , according to the bargain he thinks they struck on the train . Bruno sends Guy the keys to his house , a map to his father's room , and a pistol . Soon after , Bruno appears at a party at Senator Morton's house and hobnobs with the guests , much to Guy's apprehension and Anne's increasing suspicion. Question: *Who are the two that Guty and Bruno are planning to murder?* **Candidate Answers**: *Bruno's father* (TRUE), Guy's father (FALSE), *Bruno's wife* (FALSE), *Miriam and Bruno's father* (TRUE), *Guy's wife* (TRUE), *. . .* Paragraph: Albert Bandura OC (/baen'dU@r@/; born December 4, 1925) is a psychologist who is the David Starr Jordan Professor Emeritus of Social Science in Psychology at Stanford University. For almost six decades, he has been responsible for contributions to the field of education and to many fields of psychology, including social cognitive theory, therapy and personality psychology, and was also influential in the transition between behaviorism and cognitive psychology. He is known as the originator of social learning theory and the theoretical construct of self-efficacy, and is also responsible for the influential 1961 Bobo doll experiment. Social learning theory is how people learn through observing others. An example of social learning theory would be the students imitating the teacher. Self-efficacy is "The belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations." To paraphrase, self-efficiacy is believing in yourself to take action. The Bobo Doll Experiment was how Albert Bandura studied aggression and non-aggression in children. A 2002 survey ranked Bandura as the fourth most-frequently cited psychologist of all time, behind B. F. Skinner, Sigmund Freud, and Jean Piaget, and as the most cited living one. Bandura is widely described as the greatest living psychologist, and as one of the most influential psychologists of all time. In 1974 Bandura was elected to be the Eighty-Second President of the American Psychological Association (APA). He was one of the youngest president-elects in the history of the APA at the age of 48. Bandura served as a member of the APA Board of Scientific Affairs from 1968 to 1970 and is well known as a member of the editorial board of nine psychology journals including the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology from 1963 to 1972. At the age of 82, Bandura was awarded the Grawemeyer Award for psychology. Question: *In what year was Bandura awarded the Grawemeyer Award for psychology.* **Candidate Answers**: *2010* (FALSE), 2007 (TRUE), *2000* (FALSE), *2002* (TRUE) Paragraph: (CNN) - German art collector Cornelius Gurlitt, whose nearly priceless collection was confiscated because it was suspected to contain pieces looted by the Nazis, died Tuesday and left the masterpieces to a Swiss museum. One day after Gurlitt's death at the age of 81, the Museum of Fine Arts Bern announced that Gurlitt had named it his unrestricted and unfettered sole ¨ heir.The news came as a surprise, the museum said Wednesday, because Gurlitt had never had any connection to it. The museum's ¨ directors are delighted at the news, they said in a statement, but also recognize that there are outstanding legal and ethical questions surrounding the collection. Gurlitt had undergone major heart surgery and was hospitalized for many weeks, his representative said in a statement. Gurlitt grabbed the attention of the art world when German prosecutors seized more than 1,200 paintings from his Munich apartment in 2012, including works by Picasso and Matisse. The collection was confiscated as part of an investigation into tax fraud, but then it was thought that some of the paintings may have been works that were looted by the Nazis. Just last month, part of the collection was returned to Gurlitt as part of a deal with Germany's cultural authorities and the Bavarian Justice Ministry. Under the agreement, works owned by Gurlitt that were not under suspicion were returned to him. Those suspected of being stolen were to be held securely while a task force investigates their provenance - and will be returned to their original Jewish owners or their descendants if a claim is proven. Gurlitt's representative said that with the art collector's death, the investigation into the collection ceases. The court that was handling the investigation proceedings will now function as an estate court in the case. Question: *How old was the art collector Cornelius Gurlitt when he died?* **Candidate Answers**: *At the age of 81* (TRUE), 80 (FALSE), *80 years old* (TRUE), 81 (FALSE) Table 4: Additional problematic instances in the Multi-Sentence Reading Comprehension (MultiRC) dataset. equivalent, i.e. *Mass of the object* and The object's mass, but they are labeled differently, namely with TRUE and FALSE tags, respectively. In Table 4 we provide additional errors for this task. Specifically, in the first example, the question explicitly asks "Who are the two that Guty and Bruno are planning to murder?", but the possible answers are i) *Miriam and Bruno's father*, ii) *Bruno's father* and iii) *Guy's wife*. Although, by design, MultiRC creators explicitly state that multiple answers can be correct, answers are judged independently, so it would not be valid to form a correct answer by combining ii) and iii). These cases are very frequent in MultiRC and might have negatively affected human performance. Furthermore, typos in the questions and/or paragraphs (i.e. *Guty*, in this case) might have further limited their scores. In the second example, the ground truth answers are "2002" and Premise: A: Your turn. B: Okay. Uh, I don't think they should abolish it. Hypothesis: *they should abolish it* Entailment: FALSE Premise: *The lunch trade had mostly disappeared so he wasn't* hard to spot. He was at a window table but he was ignoring the river, being deep in conversation with a middle-aged man wearing a suit and a short sheepskin car coat with matching brown suede shoes. Even from this distance you could guess the guy's tailor was based in Dublin. Hypothesis: *the guy's tailor was based in Dublin* Entailment: TRUE Premise: B: and, you know, they just love kittens. A: Yeah. B: They just are fascinated. A: Oh, yeah. B: So she doesn't know that this is a cat yet. Hypothesis: *this is a cat* Entailment: TRUE Premise: *A: Well, actually, uh, A: I don't think I'm in the, uh,* majority in Texas Hypothesis: *she is in the majority in Texas* Entailment: FALSE Premise: B: Because too often, there can be extremism that hurts from any direction, regardless of whatever you're arguing or concerned about. A: Yeah. Right. Yeah, I know, you're right, they would lobby that and I see that, and that's why, you know, I'm like, okay, what's my role in this thing" you know, what's my part, B: Yeah. A: because I don't think the system is going to get fixed. Hypothesis: *the system is going to get fixed.* Entailment: FALSE Table 5: Additional problematic instances we have found in the CommitmentBank (CB) dataset. "2007". However, while "2007" can be inferred by adding 82 years (i.e. the age at which Albert Bandura received the Grawemeyer award) to his birth date (i.e. 1925), "2002" is a wrong answer. Indeed, the paragraph says that "*A 2002 survey* ranked Bandura as the fourth most-frequently cited psychologist of all time", but there is no evidence that he received the award in 2002. Finally, in the third example, from the paragraph, it is clear that the German art collector Cornelius Gurlitt passed away at the age of 81. However, there are three errors in the possible answers for this entry. First, "*At the age of 81*" and "81" are labeled as TRUE and FALSE, respectively. Second, "80 years old" is labeled as TRUE, hence contradicting the first answer. Finally, "80" is labeled as FALSE further contradicting the penultimate answer. RTE In the RTE example (Table 2), the specific premise regarding *Pacific countries* is not sufficient to entail the general hypothesis, thus the answer should be FALSE. We provide more examples in Table 6. In particular, in some of them, we believe that the label is incorrect (examples 1, 3 and 5), or at least highly misleading, while in some others we Premise: Compuware claims that Allan Tortorice and Jim Hildner were among several former employees who revealed trade secrets after they moved to IBM. Hypothesis: *Trade secrets were stolen.* Entailment: FALSE Premise: It has been observed that in those countries of the world where capital punishment is still in operation, the crime rate, especially murder, is distinctively low in comparison to countries where capital punishment has been discarded. Hypothesis: *Capital punishment is a deterrent to crime.* Entailment: TRUE Premise: *A farmer who was in contact with cows suffering from* BSE - the so-called mad cow disease - has died from what is regarded as the human form of the disease. Hypothesis: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is another name for the "mad cow disease" Entailment: TRUE Premise: *The girl was found in Drummondville.* Hypothesis: *Drummondville contains the girl.* Entailment: FALSE Premise: The official visit of the Argentine minister marks a further step in the normalisation of UK-Argentine relations. Hypothesis: *Relations between Argentina and Great Britain are* growing more cooperative. Entailment: FALSE Table 6: Some problematic instances we have found in the Recognizing Textual Entailment (RTE) dataset. Context 1: I tried to make a call, but the line *was dead.* Context 2: *A dedicated line.* Sense Match: TRUE Context 1: The author gives a depressing picture *of life in Poland.* Context 2: He had no clear picture *of himself or his world.* Sense Match: FALSE Context 1: *Instant replay caused too long a delay.* Context 2: The delay *before the echo of a sound.* Sense Match: FALSE Context 1: Stop *a car.* Context 2: Stop *the thief.* Sense Match: TRUE Context 1: Fall *asleep.* Context 2: She fell *to pieces after she lost her work.* Sense Match: TRUE Table 7: Additional problematic instances we have found in the Word-in-Context (WiC) dataset. think that not enough information is provided to entail the hypothesis (examples 2 and 4). WiC In the WiC example provided in Table 2, the word *criticism* is used with the same meaning in the two contexts, namely *disapproval expressed* by pointing out faults or shortcomings according to WordNet. We provide additional ambiguous or wrongly annotated examples in Table 7. By inspecting the WiC dataset, it is immediately apparent that, in many negative examples, the semantic gap between the meanings of the same lemma in the two contexts is very narrow. Although such cases are difficult even for machines, we posit that for humans (especially if sense distinctions are not provided and annotators are not lexicographers, as in WiC) they are way more difficult. SQuAD For the SQuAD dataset, studies about errors in the annotations have already been performed by Rodriguez et al. (2021) through automatic error detection methods. Specifically, they annotated SQuAD items by discriminability, difficulty, and Item Response Theory (IRT) prediction errors, and discovered that items with negative discriminability, or where IRT's prediction is wrong, have a much higher rate of annotation error, i.e. they are often "flawed" or "wrong". We believe that tools for error detection (Klie et al., 2022) should play a key role in the improvement of existing benchmarks and in the creation of new ones. Finally, still related to the topic of wronglyannotated or ambiguous instances in the datasets, Nangia and Bowman (2019) performed an interesting study on the GLUE benchmark. In order to investigate the effect of these instances, they looked at human performance when there is 5-way annotator agreement. Using unanimous agreement has the effect of filtering out examples for which: i) the annotation guidelines supplied do not provide clear advice, and ii) humans understand the expectations of the task but find the example genuinely difficult or uncertain. They discovered that this widened the gap between humans and systems by more than 3 points on average, hence confirming the hypothesis that humans were often penalized by unclear guidelines or other factors. Even more interestingly, they found that in some tasks, when systems are evaluated on the unanimous subsets they obtain lower scores compared to those obtained on the entire test sets containing wrong or ambiguous instances, hence suggesting that systems had learned specific idiosyncrasies appearing in both training and test sets (Section 4.1). ## B Apples And Oranges In Section 3.3, the first issue that we pointed out was that, on almost all SuperGLUE tasks, humans and machines are evaluated on different test sets (i.e. on a small subset vs. the full test set). Here, we provide more details (see Table 8). Specifically, it can be observed that only 3 out of 10 tasks are fully annotated by humans, while for the remaining 7 tasks only a small portion is annotated, ranging from 3% to 40% of the full dataset size. | Task | H | S | % | |---------|-------|-------|---------| | AX-b | 100 | 1104 | 9.05% | | AX-g | 100 | 356 | 28.08% | | BoolQ | 100 | 3245 | 3.08% | | CB | 100 | 250 | 40.00% | | COPA | 100 | 500 | 20.00% | | MultiRC | 166 | 166 | 100.00% | | RTE | 500 | 3000 | 16.67% | | ReCoRD | 10000 | 10000 | 100.00% | | WSC | 146 | 146 | 100.00% | | WiC | 300 | 1400 | 21.42% | ## C The Copenhagen Experiment In this Section, we report on an experiment that was conducted in Copenhagen at the Danish Language Technology Conference in 20228. The main goal was to verify the claim that contextual sentence examples from open lexical resources, such as those used to create the WiC dataset, i.e. WordNet, VerbNet and Wiktionary, "constitute a reliable base for the construction of the dataset, as they are curated in a way to be clearly distinguishable across different senses of the word" (Pilehvar and CamachoCollados, 2019). Based on this assumption, "the [WiC dataset] annotators were not provided with knowledge from any external lexical resource", and were asked to label each instance solely based on whether they thought the two occurrences of the word referred to the same meaning or not. We repeated the above annotation task by asking 25 conference participants to provide "true" (T) and "false" (F) answers for the six instances in Table 9. The results show a high degree of disagreement, suggesting that the above claim is not always valid, especially when subtle sense distinctions are involved. We posit that the presence of a certain amount of intrinsically debatable items hampers fair comparisons between humans and systems. Indeed, in WSD evaluation tasks, where the granularity of senses is a key concern (Bevilacqua et al., 2021b), we advocate that the starting point for the task design should consist either of the warning made by many lexicographers that "there is very little agreement about what word senses are or how broad their scope should be, and no definitive way | WiC | Target | Context-1 | Context-2 | F | T | |-------|-------------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----|-----| | T | line (N) | I tried to make a call, but the line was dead. | A dedicated line. | 14 | 11 | | F | love (N) | A mother's love is not easily shaken. | The theater was her first love. | 16 | 9 | | F | work (V) | This dough does not work easily. | Work the phones. | 16 | 9 | | T | fall (V) | Fall asleep. | She fell to pieces after she lost her work. | 17 | 7 | | F | picture (N) | The author gives a depressing picture of life in Poland. | He had no clear picture of himself or his world. | 7 | 18 | | F | take (V) | Do you take sugar in your coffee? | A reading was taken of the earth's tremors. | 21 | 4 | of knowing when one sense ends and another begins" (Atkins and Rundell, 2008), or the one from the famous lexicographer, James Murray, that "the best any lexicographer could hope for would be that readers would feel, on scanning a multisense dictionary entry, that this is not an unreasonable way of exhibiting the facts". With large corpora and the latest advances in language modeling, we now have the possibility to measure differences between contexts in which words are used, and we need not and should not rely on made-up sentences from the times when corpora were not available at all. This is corroborated, for instance, by the inter-tagger agreement and the systems' results of the multilingual version of the WiC task, where sentences come from real text and dictionary definitions are used as a help for annotators (Martelli et al., 2021). ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 8 A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3 And Appendix ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Sections 2, 3, 4, and Appendix B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Sections 2 and 3 B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Sections 2 and 3 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Sections 2, 3, and Appendix ## C ✗ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left blank. C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? No response. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? No response. C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? No response. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? No response. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

shen-etal-2023-promptner

{P}rompt{NER}: Prompt Locating and Typing for Named Entity Recognition

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.698

Prompt learning is a new paradigm for utilizing pre-trained language models and has achieved great success in many tasks. To adopt prompt learning in the NER task, two kinds of methods have been explored from a pair of symmetric perspectives, populating the template by enumerating spans to predict their entity types or constructing type-specific prompts to locate entities. However, these methods not only require a multi-round prompting manner with a high time overhead and computational cost, but also require elaborate prompt templates, that are difficult to apply in practical scenarios. In this paper, we unify entity locating and entity typing into prompt learning, and design a dual-slot multi-prompt template with the position slot and type slot to prompt locating and typing respectively. Multiple prompts can be input to the model simultaneously, and then the model extracts all entities by parallel predictions on the slots. To assign labels for the slots during training, we design a dynamic template filling mechanism that uses the extended bipartite graph matching between prompts and the ground-truth entities. We conduct experiments in various settings, including resource-rich flat and nested NER datasets and low-resource in-domain and cross-domain datasets. Experimental results show that the proposed model achieves a significant performance improvement, especially in the cross-domain few-shot setting, which outperforms the state-of-the-art model by +7.7{\%} on average.

# Promptner: Prompt Locating And Typing For Named Entity Recognition Yongliang Shen1, Zeqi Tan1, Shuhui Wu1**, Wenqi Zhang**1, Rongsheng Zhang2, Yadong Xi2, Weiming Lu1†**, Yueting Zhuang**1 1College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University 2Fuxi AI Lab, NetEase Inc. {syl, luwm}@zju.edu.cn ## Abstract Prompt learning is a new paradigm for utilizing pre-trained language models and has achieved great success in many tasks. To adopt prompt learning in the NER task, two kinds of methods have been explored from a pair of symmetric perspectives, populating the template by enumerating spans to predict their entity types or constructing type-specific prompts to locate entities. However, these methods not only require a multi-round prompting manner with a high time overhead and computational cost, but also require elaborate prompt templates, that are difficult to apply in practical scenarios. In this paper, we unify entity locating and entity typing into prompt learning, and design a dual-slot multi-prompt template with the position slot and type slot to prompt locating and typing respectively. Multiple prompts can be input to the model simultaneously, and then the model extracts all entities by parallel predictions on the slots. To assign labels for the slots during training, we design a dynamic template filling mechanism that uses the extended bipartite graph matching between prompts and the ground-truth entities. We conduct experiments in various settings, including resource-rich flat and nested NER datasets and low-resource indomain and cross-domain datasets. Experimental results show that the proposed model achieves a significant performance improvement, especially in the cross-domain few-shot setting, which outperforms the state-of-the-art model by +7.7% on average1. ## 1 Introduction Named entity recognition (NER) is a fundamental task in natural language processing that aims to identify specific types of entities in free text, such as person, location, and organization. Traditional sequence labeling methods (Ma and Hovy,  Figure 1: A comparison of the type-oriented (a) and span-oriented (b) prompt learning with the proposed PromptNER (c). C, N and M denote the number of entity types, words and prompts, respectively. 2016) have difficulty coping with nested entities, and recent works have transformed NER into other paradigms such as reading comprehension (Li et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2022), set prediction (Tan et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2022a) and sequence generation (Paolini et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022). However, low-resource and cross-domain problems in practical scenarios still pose a great challenge to NER models. Recently prompt learning (Liu et al., 2021a,b; Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021) has received a lot of interest because of its excellent performance and data efficiency, and has been adopted in many classification and generation tasks (Gao et al., 2021; Schick and Schütze, 2021b; Ding et al., 2021a; Wu et al., 2022b). Prompt learning converts downstream tasks into language modeling tasks, where cloze questions are constructed as prompts to guide pre-trained language models to fill in the blanks. However, named entity recogni12492 tion is a token-level tagging task, and it is difficult to apply prompt-based learning on NER directly (Liu et al., 2021a). Cui et al. (2021) proposes the template-based method, which constructs prompts for each potential entity span and then separately predicts their entity types. For example, given an input *"Jobs was born in San Francisco"*, Cui et al. (2021) enumerates each span to populate [X] of the template "[X] *is a* [MASK] *entity"*, and then determines the type of the filled span based on the prediction on the [MASK] slot. In contrast to entity typing over the enumerated spans, some methods (Li et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022) design prompt templates from a symmetric perspective. They construct prompts for each entity type and then guide the model to locate specific types of entities. For example, Liu et al. (2022) constructs the prompt "What is the location?" for the LOC type, and then predicts all LOC entities in the sentence, e.g., *"San* Francisco". We group these two types of methods into span-oriented and type-oriented prompt learning. As shown in Figure 1, they construct prompts based on the entity span or entity type, and then perform entity typing or entity locating. However, both groups of methods require multiple rounds of prompting. For an input with N words and C pre-fixed types, type-oriented and span-oriented prompt learning require C and N(N − 1)/2 predictions, respectively. Moreover, each round of prediction is independent of the other, ignoring the latent relationships between different entities. Different from the above methods that either perform multiple rounds of entity typing or entity locating through prompting, in this paper, we propose a prompt learning method for NER (**PromptNER**) that unifies entity locating and entity typing into one-round prompt learning. Specifically, we design the position slot [P] and the type slot [T] in the prompt template, which are used for prompting entity locating and typing accordingly. This manner is enumeration-free for entity span or entity type, and can locate and classify all entities in parallel, which improves the inference efficiency of the model. Since the correspondence between prompts and entities cannot be specified in advance, we need to assign labels to the slots in the prompts during training. Inspired by Carion et al. (2020), we treat the label assignment process as a linear assignment problem and perform bipartite graph match problem between the prompts and the entities. We further extend the traditional bipartite graph matching and design a one-to-many dynamic template filling mechanism so that an entity can be predicted by multiple prompts, which can improve the utilization of prompts. To summarize, our main contributions are as follows: - We unify entity locating and entity typing for NER in prompt learning by filling both position and type slots in the dual-slot multiprompt template. Our model eliminates the need to enumerate entity types or entity spans and can predict all entities in one round. - For the model training, we design a dynamic template filling mechanism to assign labels for the position and type slots by an extended bipartite graph matching. - We conduct experiments in a variety of settings, and we achieve significant performance improvements on both standard flat and nested NER datasets. In the cross-domain few-shot setting, our model outperforms the previous state-of-the-art models by +7.7% on average. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Named Entity Recognition Named Entity Recognition (NER) is a basic task of information extraction (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003; Wadden et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2021b; Tan et al., 2022). Current named entity recognition methods can be divided into four categories, including tagging-based, span-based, hypergraph-based, and generative-based methods. Traditional tagging-based methods (Ma and Hovy, 2016) predict a label for each word, which is difficult to cope with nested entities. Some works propose various strategies for improvement. For example, Alex et al. (2007) and Ju et al. (2018) use cascading or stacked tagging layers, and Wang et al. (2020) designs the tagging scheme with a pyramid structure. The span-based methods (Sohrab and Miwa, 2018) model NER as a classification task for spans directly, with the inherent ability to recognize nested entities. Due to the high cost of exhausting all spans, Zheng et al. (2019) and Shen et al. (2021a) propose boundary-aware and boundary-regression strategies based on span classification, respectively. Some other methods (Yu et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022) perform classification on inter-word dependencies or interactions, which are essentially span classification, and can also be considered as span-based methods. The generativebased methods (Yan et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022) are more general. They model the NER task as a sequence generation task that can unify the prediction of flat and nested entities. In addition, some works focus on the NER task in practical settings, including the few-shot NER (Ding et al., 2021b) and the cross-domain NER (Liu et al., 2021c). For example, Chen et al. (2021) and Zhou et al. (2022) design data augmentation methods augment labeled data on low-resource domains. Some works (Ziyadi et al., 2020; Wiseman and Stratos, 2019) use the instance learning to perform a nearest neighbor search based on entity instances or token instances, and others (Ding et al., 2021b; Huang et al., 2021) use prototype networks at the token level or span level to handle such low-resource settings. ## 2.2 Prompt Learning Prompt learning constructs prompts by injecting the input into a designed template, and converts the downstream task into a fill-in-the-blank task, then allows the language model to predict the slots in the prompts and eventually deduce the final output. Due to the data efficiency, prompt learning is currently widely used for many classification and generation tasks (Shin et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021; Schick and Schütze, 2021b,a; Ding et al., 2021a). Some works investigate prompt learning on the extraction tasks. Cui et al. (2021) first applies prompt learning to NER. It proposes a straightforward way to construct separate prompts in the form of "[X] *is a* [MASK] *entity"* by enumerating all spans. The model then classifies the entities by filling the [MASK] slot. Since these methods need to construct templates and perform multiple rounds of inference, Ma et al. (2022) proposes a template-free prompt learning method using the mutual prediction of words with the same entity type. However, it requires constructing sets of words of the same entity type, which is difficult in low-resource scenarios. Lee et al. (2022) introduces demonstrationbased learning in low-resource scenarios, they concatenate demonstrations in the prompts, including entity-oriented demonstrations and instanceoriented demonstrations. Another class of querybased methods (Li et al., 2020; Mengge et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022) can also be categorized as prompt learning. In contrast to the above methods, they construct a type-related prompt (query), e.g. "Who is the person ?", and then lets the model locate all PER entities in the input. Different from all of the above, we unify entity locating and entity typing in prompt learning, and predict all entities in one round using a dual-slot multi-prompt template. ## 3 Method In this section, we first introduce the task formulation in § 3.1, and then describe our method. The overview of the PromptNER is shown in Figure 2, and we will introduce the prompt construction in § 3.2 and the model inference in § 3.3, including the encoder and the entity decoding module. The training of the model requires assigning labels to the slots of the prompt, and we will introduce the dynamic template filling mechanism in § 3.4. ## 3.1 Task Formulation Following Cui et al. (2021) and Lee et al. (2022), we transform the NER task into a fill-in-the-blank task. Given a sentence X of length N, we fill a fixed number M of prompts and X into a predefined template to construct the complete input sequence T . The model then fills the position slots [P] and type slots [T] of all prompts and decodes the named entities in the sentence. ## 3.2 Prompt Construction Different from the previous methods, we unify entity locating and entity typing into one-round prompt learning. Therefore, we have two improvements in prompt construction. First, each prompt has two slots, entity position slot and entity type slot, which are used for entity locating and entity typing respectively. Second, our model fills slots for a predefined number of prompts simultaneously and extracts all entities in a parallel manner. Specifically, the constructed input sequence consists of two parts: M prompts and the input sentence X. By default, each prompt has only two tokens: a position slot [P] and a type slot [T]. For a sentence X =*"Jobs was born in San Francisco"*, the default dual-slot multi-prompt input sequence can be represented as: $T=\{[\text{P}_{i}]\text{is a}[\text{T}_{i}]\text{entity}\}_{i=1,2,...,\mathcal{M}}$ [CLS] _Jobs was born in San Francisco._ where " [Pi] is a [Ti] *entity* " is the i-th prompt, [Pi] and [Ti] denote its position and type slots and M denotes the number of prompts. Following 12494  Lester et al. (2021); Gao et al. (2021), we also experiment with soft templates by replacing concrete contextual words with learnable tokens. In § 5.3 we compare the performance of the model using different templates. ## 3.3 Prompt Locating And Typing With the input sequence T filled with the sentence X and M prompts, the model decodes the entities by filling the position slots [Pi]i=1,2,··· ,M and type slots [Ti]i=1,2,··· ,M of M prompts. Encoder We first use BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) to encode the input sequence T : ## Ht = Bert (T ) Note that in order to encode the sentence X independent of the prompts, we block the attention of the prompts to the sentence by a prompt-agnostic attention mask, which has a lower left submatrix of size n × k as a full −inf matrix, where k is the length of the prompt sequence. Then by indexing on the corresponding position of HT, we can obtain the encoding of the sentence X and the encodings of the two types of slots, denoted as HX, HP and HT, where HP , HT ∈ RM×hand HX ∈ R n×hand h is the hidden size. To enhance the interaction of different prompts, we designed extra prompt interaction layers. Each interaction layer contains self-attention between slots with the same type (the key, query and value are the encodings of slots) and cross-attention from sentence to prompt slots (the query is the encodings of slots while the key and value are the sentence encodings). Thus the final encodings of position and type slots (δ ∈ {*P, T*}) are computed as follows: $${\hat{\mathbf{H}}}^{\delta}=\mathrm{PromptInteraction}\left(\mathbf{H}^{\delta}+\mathbf{E}_{i d},\mathbf{H}^{X}\right)$$ where Eid ∈ RM×h denote the learnable identity embeddings of M prompts, which can bind position slot and type slot within the same prompt. Entity Decoding Now we can decode the corresponding entity for each prompt by prompt locating and prompt typing, i.e., filling the position slot and type slot of the prompt. For the i-th prompt, we put its type slot Hˆ T i through a classifier and get the probabilities of different entity types as: $\text{ifher}\left(\hat{\mathbf{H}}\right)$ ## P T I = Classifier Hˆ T I where the classifier is a linear layer followed by the softmax function. For prompt locating, we need to determine whether the j-th word is the start or end word of the predicted entity by the i-th prompt. We first feed the position slot Hˆ P into a linear layer, and then add it with the word representation HX of each position to get the fusion representations HF . We then perform binary classification to obtain the probability of the j-th word being the left boundary of the predicted entity for the i-th prompt: $$\begin{array}{l}{{\mathbf{H}^{F}=\mathbf{W}_{1}\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{P}+\mathbf{W}_{2}\mathbf{H}^{X}}}\\ {{\mathbf{p}_{i j}^{l}=\mathrm{Sigmoid}\left(\mathbf{W}_{3}\mathbf{H}_{i j}^{F}\right)}}\end{array}$$ where W1,W2,W3 ∈ R h×hare learnable weights. In the same way, we can compute the probability p r ij of the j-th word being the right boundary. Then the probabilities of the entities predicted by the M prompts can be denoted as Yˆ = {Yˆi}M i=1, where Yˆi = (p l i , p r i , p t i ) 2. Inference During inference, we can get the left boundary, right boundary and type of the entity corresponding to the i-th prompt as argmax p l i , argmax p r i , argmax p t i . When two prompts yield identical entities, we keep only one; for conflicting candidates, such as entities with the same location but inconsistent types, we keep the entity with the highest probability. ## 3.4 Dynamic Template Filling Since the correspondence between prompts and entities is unknown, we cannot assign labels to the slots in advance. To solve it, we treat slot filling as a linear assignment problem3, where any entity can be filled to any prompt, incurring a cost, and we need to get the correspondence between the prompts and the entities with minimum overall cost. We propose a dynamic template filling mechanism to perform bipartite graph matching between prompts and the entities. Let us denote the gold entities as Y = {(li, ri, ti)} K i=1, where K denotes the number of entities and li, ri, ti are the boundary indices and type for the i-th entity. We pad Y with ∅ to ensure that it has the same number M as the prompts. Then the permutation of the prompts corresponding to the optimal match is: $$\sigma^{\star}=\operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\sigma\in\mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{M})}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{M}}C o s t_{m a t c h}\left(\mathbf{Y}_{i},{\hat{\mathbf{Y}}}_{\sigma(i)}\right)$$ where S(M) is the set of all M-length permutations and Cost*match* Yi, Yˆσ(i) is the pairwise match cost between the i-th entity and the prediction by the σ(i)-th prompt, we define it as −1{ti̸=∅} hp t σ(i) (ti) + p l σ(i) (li) + p r σ(i) (ri) i, where 1{·} denotes an indicator function. Traditional bipartite graph matching is one-toone, with each gold entity matching only one prompt, which leads to many prompts being matched to ∅, thus reducing the training efficiency. To improve the utilization of prompts, we extend the one-to-one bipartite graph matching to one-tomany, which ensures that a single gold entity can be ``` 2 p α i = [p α i0, p α i1, . . . , p α iN ], where α ∈ {l, r} 3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assignment_ problem ``` matched by multiple prompts. To perform one-tomany matching, we simply repeat the gold entities to augment Y under a predefined upper limit U. In our experiments, we take U = 0.9M. We use the Hungarian algorithm (Kuhn, 1955) to solve Equation 3.4 for the optimal matching σ ⋆at minimum cost. Then the losses for prompt locating (L2) and typing (L1) are computed as follows: typing ($\mathcal{L}_1$) are computed as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_1=-\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{M}}\log\mathbf{p}_{\sigma^\star(i)}^t\left(t_i\right)$$ $\mathcal{L}_2=-\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{M}}t_{i\neq\varnothing}\left[\log\mathbf{p}_{\sigma^\star(i)}^l\left(l_i\right)+\log\mathbf{p}_{\sigma^\star(i)}^r\left(r_i\right)\right]$ and the final loss is the weighted sum $\mathcal{L}=\lambda_1\mathcal{L}_1+\lambda_2\mathcal{L}_2$. λ2L2. By default we set λ1 = 1 and λ2 = 2. ## 4 Experiments To verify the effectiveness of PromptNER in various settings, we conduct extensive experiments in flat and nested NER (§ 4.3) and low-resource NER, including in-domain few-shot setting (§ 4.4) and cross-domain few-shot setting (§ 4.5). ## 4.1 Implementation Details If not marked, we use BERT-large (Devlin et al., 2019) as the backbone of the model. We use reserved tokens and sparse tokens of BERT, e.g. [unused1]-[unused100], as position and type slots. The model has a hidden size h = 1024 and I = 3 prompt interaction layers. Since the maximum number of entities per sentence does not exceed 50, we uniformly set the number of prompts M = 50. In the dynamic template filling mechanism, we set the upper limit of the expanded labels U = 0.9M = 45 for extended bipartite graph matching. For all datasets, we train PromptNER for 50-100 epochs and use the Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015), with a linear warmup and linear decay learning rate schedule and a peak learning rate of 2e-5. We initialize our prompt identity embeddings Eid with the normal distribution N (0.0, 0.02). ## 4.2 Warmup Training Before employing PromptNER in the low-resource scenario, we use the open Wikipedia data to warm up the training for entity locating. PromptNER needs to elicit the language model to locate entities, while the pre-trained language model does not learn entity localization during pre-training. Therefore | Model | ACE04 | ACE05 | CoNLL03 | | | | | | | |---------------------------------------|---------|---------|-----------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Pr. | Rec. | F1 | Pr. | Rec. | F1 | Pr. | Rec. | F1 | | | Biaffine (Yu et al., 2020) | 87.30 | 86.00 | 86.70 | 85.20 | 85.60 | 85.40 | 93.70 | 93.30 | 93.50 | | MRC (Li et al., 2020) | 85.05 | 86.32 | 85.98 | 87.16 | 86.59 | 86.88 | 92.33 | 94.61 | 93.04 | | BARTNER (Yan et al., 2021) | 87.27 | 86.41 | 86.84 | 83.16 | 86.38 | 84.74 | 92.61 | 93.87 | 93.24 | | Seq2Set (Tan et al., 2021) | 88.46 | 86.10 | 87.26 | 87.48 | 86.63 | 87.05 | - | - | - | | Triaffine (Yuan et al., 2022) | 87.13 | 87.68 | 87.40 | 86.70 | 86.94 | 86.82 | - | - | - | | UIE (Lu et al., 2022) | - | - | 86.89 | - | - | 85.78 | - | - | 92.99 | | W2NER (Li et al., 2022) | 87.33 | 87.71 | 87.52 | 85.03 | 88.62 | 86.79 | 92.71 | 93.44 | 93.07 | | BuParser(Yang and Tu, 2022) | 86.60 | 87.28 | 86.94 | 84.61 | 86.43 | 85.53 | - | - | - | | LLCP (Lou et al., 2022) | 87.39 | 88.40 | 87.90 | 85.97 | 87.87 | 86.91 | - | - | - | | PIQN (Shen et al., 2022) | 88.48 | 87.81 | 88.14 | 86.27 | 88.60 | 87.42 | 93.29 | 92.46 | 92.87 | | BS [BERT-large] (Zhu and Li, 2022) | - | - | 87.85 | - | - | 87.82 | - | - | 93.08 | | BS [RoBERTa-large] (Zhu and Li, 2022) | - | - | 88.52 | - | - | 88.14 | - | - | 93.77 | | PromptNER [BERT-large] | 87.58 | 88.76 | 88.16 | 86.07 | 88.38 | 87.21 | 92.48 | 92.33 | 92.41 | | PromptNER [RoBERTa-large] | 88.64 | 88.79 | 88.72 | 88.15 | 88.38 | 88.26 | 92.96 | 93.18 | 93.08 | PromptNER needs to learn the prompt locating ability initially by Wiki warmup training. We choose accessible Wikipedia as our warm-up training data. Wikipedia contains a wealth of entity knowledge (Yamada et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022) that is useful for entity-related tasks such as named entity recognition, relation extraction, entity linking, etc. We call entity-related hyperlinks in Wikipedia as wiki anchors. These anchors only have position annotations and lack type information, and we use these partially annotated noisy data to warm up the localization ability of PromptNER. Specifically, we fix the weight of BERT, train 3 epochs with a learning rate of 1e-5 on the constructed wiki anchor data, and optimize the model only on the entity locating loss to warm up the entity decoding module. In low-resource scenarios (in-domain fewshot setting in § 4.4 and cross-domain few-shot setting in § 4.5), we initialize PromptNER with the warmed-up weights. ## 4.3 Standard Flat And Nested Ner Setting Datasets We adopt three widely used datasets to evaluate the performance of the model in the standard NER setting, including one flat NER dataset: CoNLL03 (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) and two nested NER datasets: ACE04 (Doddington et al., 2004) and ACE05 (Walker et al., 2006). For ACE04 and ACE05, we use the splits of Lu and Roth (2015); Muis and Lu (2017) and the preprocessing protocol of Shibuya and Hovy (2020). Please refer to Appendix A.1 for detailed statistics on nested entities about ACE04 and ACE05. For CoNLL03, we follow Lample et al. (2016); Yu et al. (2020); Jin et al. (2023) to train the model on the concatenation of the train and dev sets. Baselines We select recent competitive models as our baseline, including span-based (Yuan et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022), generation-based (Tan et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022), MRCbased (Li et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2022; Jin et al., 2022), and parsing-based (Yu et al., 2020; Zhu and Li, 2022; Lou et al., 2022; Yang and Tu, 2022). These methods adopt different pre-trained language models as the encoder, thus in the experimental results, we provide the performance of PromptNER on BERT-large and RoBERTa-large. Results Table 1 illustrates the performance of PromptNER as well as baselines on the flat and nested NER datasets. We observe that PromptNER outperforms most of the recent competitive baselines. When using RoBERTa-large as the encoder, PromptNER outperforms previous state-of-the-art models on the nested NER datasets, achieving F1-scores of 88.72% and 88.26% on ACE04 and ACE05 with +0.20% and +0.12% improvements. And on the flat NER dataset CoNLL03, PromptNER achieves comparable performance compared to the strong baselines. We also evaluate the performance of entity locating and entity typing separately on ACE04, please refer to Appendix A.2. ## 4.4 In-Domain Few-Shot Ner Setting Datasets and Baselines Following Cui et al. (2021), we construct a dataset with low-resource scenarios based on CoNLL03. We limit the number of entities of specific types by downsampling and meet the low-resource requirement on these types. | Models | ORG | PER | LOC⋆ | MISC⋆ Overall | | |-------------|-------|-------|--------|-----------------|-------| | BERTTagger | 75.32 | 76.25 | 61.55 | 59.35 | 68.12 | | TemplateNER | 72.61 | 84.49 | 71.98 | 73.37 | 75.59 | | PromptNER | 76.96 | 88.11 | 82.69 | 62.89 | 79.75 | Table 2: Results in the in-domain few-shot NER setting. ⋆indicates the low-resource entity type. Specifically, we set LOC and MISC as low-resource types and PER and ORG as resource-rich types. We downsample the CoNLL03 training set to obtain 4,001 training samples, including 100 MISC, 100 LOC, 2496 PER, and 3763 ORG entities. We use this dataset to evaluate the performance of PromptNER under the in-domain few-shot NER setting. We choose BERTTagger (Devlin et al., 2019) and the low-resource friendly model TemplateNER (Cui et al., 2021) as our baselines. Results As shown in Table 2, we achieve significant performance improvements on both low and rich resource types compared to BERTTagger. In particular, we achieve an average +12.34% improvement on low-resource types. Prompt design is the key to prompt learning (Liu et al., 2021a), and our method adaptively learns them by the dynamic template filling mechanism which can achieve better performance in low resource scenarios. Compared to TemplateNER, PromptNER performs better in the low-resource LOC type and overall, and slightly weaker in MISC type. We believe that entities of type MISC are more diverse and it is hard for PromptNER to learn a clear decision boundary from a small number of support instances. ## 4.5 Cross-Domain Few-Shot Ner Setting Datasets and Baselines In practical scenarios, we can transfer the model from the resource-rich domain to enhance the performance of the lowresource domain. In this setting, the entity types of the target domain are different from the source domain, and only a small amount of labeled data is available for training. To simulate the crossdomain few-shot setting, we set the source domain as the resource-rich CoNLL03 dataset, and randomly sample some training instances from the MIT movie, MIT restaurant, and ATIS datasets as the training data for the target domain. Specifically, we randomly sample a fixed number of instances for each entity type (10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500 instances per entity type for MIT movie and MIT restaurant, and 10, 20, 50 instances per entity type for ATIS). If the number of instances of a type is less than the fixed number, we use all instances for training. We select several competitive methods with the same experimental setup as our baselines, including NeighborTagger (Wiseman and Stratos, 2019), Example-based (Ziyadi et al., 2020), MPNSP (Huang et al., 2021), BERTTagger (Devlin et al., 2019), and TemplateNER (Cui et al., 2021). Results Table 3 shows the performance of PromptNER in the cross-domain few-shot setting, along with some strong baselines. We observe that PromptNER achieves the best performance on all settings of fixed support instances for the three datasets. At the extreme 10-shot setting, PromptNER outperforms TemplateNER by +13.2%, +3%, and +14.2% on the MIT Movie, MIT Restaurant, and ATIS datasets, respectively. Overall, compared to the previous state-of-the-art model, PromptNER achieves a +7.7% improvement on average in all cross-domain few-shot settings. This shows that PromptNER can transfer the generalized knowledge learned in the resource-rich domain to the low-resource domain. Furthermore, PromptNER can decouple entity locating and typing via position and type slots, which is especially suitable for cross-domain scenarios with syntactic consistency and semantic inconsistency. ## 5 Analysis 5.1 Ablation Study We conduct ablation experiments on ACE04 to analyze the effect of different modules of PromptNER. The experimental results are shown in Table 4, without the three practices, there is a different degradation of model performance. If we assign labels to slots simply by entity order or use one-to-one bipartite graph matching, the model performance decreases by 3.43% and 4.11%, respectively. We conclude that a one-to-many dynamic templatefilling mechanism is important as it allows prompts fit to related entities adaptively. The one-to-many manner ensures that an entity can be predicted by multiple prompts, improving the model prediction tolerance. When encoding the input sequence, it is also important to keep the sentence encoding to be prompt agnostic, resulting in a +0.42% performance improvement. 5.2 Analysis of M and I We further investigate the effect of the number of prompts and the number of prompt interaction lay- | Methods | MIT Movie | MIT Restaurant | ATIS | Avg. | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------|-------------|------------------|--------|--------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | 10 | 20 | 50 | 100 | 200 | 500 | 10 | 20 | 50 | 100 | 200 | 500 | 10 | 20 | 50 | | | | NeighborTagger | 3.1 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 8.6 | 4.1 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 5.5 | 8.1 | 2.4 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 4.8 | | Example-based | 40.1 | 39.5 | 40.2 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 39.5 | 25.2 | 26.1 | 26.8 | 26.2 | 25.7 | 25.1 | 22.9 | 16.5 | 22.2 | 30.4 | | MP-NSP | 36.4 | 36.8 | 38.0 | 38.2 | 35.4 | 38.3 | 46.1 | 48.2 | 49.6 | 49.6 | 50.0 | 50.1 | 71.2 | 74.8 | 76.0 | 49.2 | | BERTTagger | 28.3 | 45.2 | 50.0 | 52.4 | 60.7 | 76.8 | 27.2 | 40.9 | 56.3 | 57.4 | 58.6 | 75.3 | 53.9 | 78.5 | 92.2 | 56.9 | | TemplateNER | 42.4 | 54.2 | 59.6 | 65.3 | 69.6 | 80.3 | 53.1 | 60.3 | 64.1 | 67.3 | 72.2 | 75.7 | 77.3 | 88.9 | 93.5 | 68.3 | | PromptNER | 55.6 | 68.2 | 76.5 | 80.4 | 82.9 | 84.5 | 56.1 | 62.6 | 69.3 | 71.3 | 74.4 | 77.4 | 91.5 | 94.3 | 95.5 | 76.0 | | Model | Pr. | Rec. | F1 | |---------------------------|-------|--------|-------| | DEFAULT | 87.58 | 88.76 | 88.16 | | w/o Dyn. Template Filling | 86.19 | 83.32 | 84.73 | | w/o Extended Labels | 84.46 | 83.65 | 84.05 | | w/o Prompt-agnostic Mask | 87.59 | 87.90 | 87.74 | ers on PromptNER. From Figure 3, we can observe that the number of prompts is more appropriate between 50 and 60. Too few would make it difficult to cover all entities, and too many would exceed the maximum length of the encoding and impair the model performance. In addition, as the number of interaction layers increases, we can observe a significant performance improvement in Figure 3. This suggests that the interaction between prompts can model the connection between entities. Considering the size and efficiency of the model, we choose M=50, I=3 as the default setting.  Figure 3: F1-scores under different number of prompts ## 5.3 Analysis Of Prompt Templates Templates are important for prompt learning (Gao et al., 2021; Ding et al., 2021b). In this section, we conduct experiments on ACE04 to analyze the effect of different templates, as shown in Table 5. Contrary to intuition, inserting hard or soft contextual tokens in the prompts does not improve the model performance. We argue that adding contextual tokens to our multi-prompt template significantly grows the input sequence (each additional token increases the total length by M), and the long sequence may exceed the maximum encoding length of BERT. Comparing hard and soft templates, we find that soft templates are more useful, which is consistent with Ding et al. (2021b). | Type | Template | F1 | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------|----|--------------------|--------| | Hard | {[Pi] | is | a | [Ti]}i=1,2,··· ,50 | entity | | [CLS]Jobs was born in San Francisco. | 87.96 | | | | | | Soft | {[Pi]<s>[Ti]}i=1,2,··· ,50[CLS]Jobs was born in San Francisco. | 88.05 | | | | | Default {[Pi] [Ti]}i=1,2,··· ,50 [CLS] Jobs was born in San Francisco. | 88.16 | | | | | ## 5.4 Inference Efficiency Theoretically, for a sentence with N words and C potential entity types, type-oriented (Li et al., 2020) and span-oriented (Cui et al., 2021) prompt learning need to be run C and N(N − 1)/2 times. And the generation-based methods (Yan et al., 2021) generate entity sequences in an autoregressive manner. Assuming that the length of the entity sequence is T, it takes T steps to decode all entities. In contrast, PromptNER can locate and typing the entities in parallel through dual-slot multi-prompt learning, it only needs one run to decode all the entities. Under the same experimental setup, we compare their inference efficiency on CoNLL03, as shown in Table 6. Empirically, PromptNER achieves the fastest inference efficiency compared to the baselines, with 48.23×, 1.86× and 2.39× faster than TemplateNER, MRC and BARTNER, respectively. | Model | Complexity | SpeedUp | |----------------------------|--------------|-----------| | TempNER (Cui et al., 2021) | O(N 2 ) | 1.00× | | MRC (Li et al., 2020) | O(C) | 25.86× | | BARTNER (Yan et al., 2021) | O(T) | 20.17× | | PromptNER | O(1) | 48.23× | Table 6: A comparison of inference efficiency on the test set of CoNLL03. All experiments were conducted with one NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 graphics card. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we unify entity locating and entity typing in prompt learning for NER with a dual-slot multi-prompt template. By filling position slots and type slots, our proposed model can predict all entities in one round. We also propose a dynamic template filling mechanism for label assignment, where the extended bipartite graph matching assigns labels to the slots in a one-to-many manner. We conduct extensive experiments in various settings including flat and nested NER and low-resource in-domain and cross-domain NER, and our model achieves superior performance compared to the competitive baselines. ## Limitations We discuss here the limitations of the proposed PromptNER. First, although PromptNER performs well on flat and nested NER, it cannot recognize discontinuous entities. The discontinuous entity can be divided into multiple fragments, while each position slot of PromptNER can only fill one. A simple alternative is to expand the position slots in prompts to accommodate discontinuous entities. Second, named entity recognition requires pretrained language models (PLMs) with the essential ability to sense the structure and semantics of entities, which can enhance entity locating and entity typing in lowresource scenarios. However, since PLMs prefer to learn semantic rather than structured information in the pre-training stage, PromptNER needs to be warmed up by Wiki training when applied to low-resource scenarios. Finally, since the number of prompts is determined during training, there is a limit to the number of entities that the model can recognize. If the number of entities in a sentence exceeds the pre-specified value when testing, PromptNER will perform poorly. ## Acknowledgments This work is supported by the Key Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province, China (No. 2023C01152, No. 2022C01011), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 226-2023-00060), and MOE Engineering Research Center of Digital Library. ## References Beatrice Alex, Barry Haddow, and Claire Grover. 2007. Recognising nested named entities in biomedical text. In *Biological, translational, and clinical language* processing, pages 65–72, Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. 2020. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In *Computer Vision - ECCV 2020*, pages 213–229, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Shuguang Chen, Gustavo Aguilar, Leonardo Neves, and Thamar Solorio. 2021. Data augmentation for crossdomain named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5346–5356, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Leyang Cui, Yu Wu, Jian Liu, Sen Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2021. Template-based named entity recognition using BART. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021*, pages 1835–1845, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ning Ding, Yulin Chen, Xu Han, Guangwei Xu, Pengjun Xie, Hai-Tao Zheng, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Hong-Gee Kim. 2021a. Prompt-learning for fine-grained entity typing. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2108.10604. Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021b. Few-NERD: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3198–3213, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. George Doddington, Alexis Mitchell, Mark Przybocki, Lance Ramshaw, Stephanie Strassel, and Ralph Weischedel. 2004. The automatic content extraction (ACE) program - tasks, data, and evaluation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'04), Lisbon, Portugal. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3816–3830, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiaxin Huang, Chunyuan Li, Krishan Subudhi, Damien Jose, Shobana Balakrishnan, Weizhu Chen, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Jiawei Han. 2021. Fewshot named entity recognition: An empirical baseline study. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10408–10423, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Weiqiang Jin, Biao Zhao, and Chenxing Liu. 2023. Fintech key-phrase: A new chinese financial hightech dataset accelerating expression-level information retrieval. In Database Systems for Advanced Applications, pages 425–440, Cham. Springer Nature Switzerland. Weiqiang Jin, Biao Zhao, Hang Yu, Xi Tao, Ruiping Yin, and Guizhong Liu. 2022. Improving embedded knowledge graph multi-hop question answering by introducing relational chain reasoning. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. Meizhi Ju, Makoto Miwa, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2018. A neural layered model for nested named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1446–1459, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021. Harold W Kuhn. 1955. The hungarian method for the assignment problem. *Naval research logistics quarterly*, 2(1-2):83–97. Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 260–270, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dong-Ho Lee, Akshen Kadakia, Kangmin Tan, Mahak Agarwal, Xinyu Feng, Takashi Shibuya, Ryosuke Mitani, Toshiyuki Sekiya, Jay Pujara, and Xiang Ren. 2022. Good examples make a faster learner: Simple demonstration-based learning for low-resource NER. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2687–2700, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045–3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jingye Li, Hao Fei, Jiang Liu, Shengqiong Wu, Meishan Zhang, Chong Teng, Donghong Ji, and Fei Li. 2022. Unified named entity recognition as word-word relation classification. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 36, pages 10965–10973. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4582– 4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaoya Li, Jingrong Feng, Yuxian Meng, Qinghong Han, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2020. A unified MRC framework for named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics, pages 5849–5859, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andy T. Liu, Wei Xiao, Henghui Zhu, Dejiao Zhang, Shang-Wen Li, and Andrew Arnold. 2022. Qaner: Prompting question answering models for few-shot named entity recognition. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021a. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. Xiao Liu, Yanan Zheng, Zhengxiao Du, Ming Ding, Yujie Qian, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021b. Gpt understands, too. Zihan Liu, Yan Xu, Tiezheng Yu, Wenliang Dai, Ziwei Ji, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2021c. Crossner: Evaluating crossdomain named entity recognition. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(15):13452–13460. Chao Lou, Songlin Yang, and Kewei Tu. 2022. Nested named entity recognition as latent lexicalized constituency parsing. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6183–6198, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wei Lu and Dan Roth. 2015. Joint mention extraction and classification with mention hypergraphs. In *Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 857–867, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yaojie Lu, Qing Liu, Dai Dai, Xinyan Xiao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022. Unified structure generation for universal information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5755–5772, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ruotian Ma, Xin Zhou, Tao Gui, Yiding Tan, Linyang Li, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022. Templatefree prompt tuning for few-shot NER. In *Proceedings* of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5721–5732, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xuezhe Ma and Eduard Hovy. 2016. End-to-end sequence labeling via bi-directional LSTM-CNNs-CRF. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1064–1074, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xue Mengge, Bowen Yu, Zhenyu Zhang, Tingwen Liu, Yue Zhang, and Bin Wang. 2020. Coarse-to-Fine Pretraining for Named Entity Recognition. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6345–6354, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aldrian Obaja Muis and Wei Lu. 2017. Labeling gaps between words: Recognizing overlapping mentions with mention separators. In *Proceedings of the 2017* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2608–2618, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Giovanni Paolini, Ben Athiwaratkun, Jason Krone, Jie Ma, Alessandro Achille, Rishita Anubhai, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Stefano Soatto. 2021. Structured prediction as translation between augmented natural languages. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021a. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the* 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 255–269, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021b. It's not just size that matters: Small language models are also fewshot learners. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2339–2352, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yongliang Shen, Xinyin Ma, Zeqi Tan, Shuai Zhang, Wen Wang, and Weiming Lu. 2021a. Locate and label: A two-stage identifier for nested named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2782–2794, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yongliang Shen, Xinyin Ma, Yechun Tang, and Weiming Lu. 2021b. A trigger-sense memory flow framework for joint entity and relation extraction. In *Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021*, WWW '21, page 1704–1715, New York, NY, USA. ACM. Yongliang Shen, Xiaobin Wang, Zeqi Tan, Guangwei Xu, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2022. Parallel instance query network for named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 947–961, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Takashi Shibuya and Eduard Hovy. 2020. Nested named entity recognition via second-best sequence learning and decoding. *Transactions of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, 8:605–620. Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L. Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated Prompts. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4222–4235, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mohammad Golam Sohrab and Makoto Miwa. 2018. Deep exhaustive model for nested named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2843–2849, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zeqi Tan, Yongliang Shen, Xuming Hu, Wenqi Zhang, Xiaoxia Cheng, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2022. Query-based instance discrimination network for relational triple extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7677–7690, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zeqi Tan, Yongliang Shen, Shuai Zhang, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2021. A sequence-to-set network for nested named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21*, pages 3936– 3942. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track. Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142– 147. David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5784– 5789, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Christopher Walker, Stephanie Strassel, and Kazuaki Maeda. 2006. Ace 2005 multilingual training corpus. linguistic. In *Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia 57*. Jue Wang, Lidan Shou, Ke Chen, and Gang Chen. 2020. Pyramid: A layered model for nested named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 5918–5928, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinyu Wang, Yongliang Shen, Jiong Cai, Tao Wang, Xiaobin Wang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Weiming Lu, Yueting Zhuang, Kewei Tu, Wei Lu, and Yong Jiang. 2022. DAMO-NLP at SemEval-2022 task 11: A knowledge-based system for multilingual named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval2022)*, pages 1457–1468, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sam Wiseman and Karl Stratos. 2019. Label-agnostic sequence labeling by copying nearest neighbors. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5363– 5369, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shuhui Wu, Yongliang Shen, Zeqi Tan, and Weiming Lu. 2022a. Propose-and-refine: A two-stage set prediction network for nested named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the Thirty-First International* Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22, pages 4418–4424. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track. Yiquan Wu, Yifei Liu, Weiming Lu, Yating Zhang, Jun Feng, Changlong Sun, Fei Wu, and Kun Kuang. 2022b. Towards interactivity and interpretability: A rationale-based legal judgment prediction framework. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 4787–4799. Ikuya Yamada, Akari Asai, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2020. LUKE: Deep contextualized entity representations with entityaware self-attention. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6442–6454, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hang Yan, Tao Gui, Junqi Dai, Qipeng Guo, Zheng Zhang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2021. A unified generative framework for various NER subtasks. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5808–5822, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Songlin Yang and Kewei Tu. 2022. Bottom-up constituency parsing and nested named entity recognition with pointer networks. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2403–2416, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Juntao Yu, Bernd Bohnet, and Massimo Poesio. 2020. Named entity recognition as dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6470– 6476, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zheng Yuan, Chuanqi Tan, Songfang Huang, and Fei Huang. 2022. Fusing heterogeneous factors with triaffine mechanism for nested named entity recognition. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 3174–3186, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shuai Zhang, Yongliang Shen, Zeqi Tan, Yiquan Wu, and Weiming Lu. 2022. De-bias for generative extraction in unified NER task. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 808–818, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Changmeng Zheng, Yi Cai, Jingyun Xu, Ho-fung Leung, and Guandong Xu. 2019. A boundary-aware neural model for nested named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 357–366, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ran Zhou, Xin Li, Ruidan He, Lidong Bing, Erik Cambria, Luo Si, and Chunyan Miao. 2022. MELM: Data augmentation with masked entity language modeling for low-resource NER. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2251–2262, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Enwei Zhu and Jinpeng Li. 2022. Boundary smoothing for named entity recognition. In *Proceedings* of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7096–7108, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Morteza Ziyadi, Yuting Sun, Abhishek Goswami, Jade Huang, and Weizhu Chen. 2020. Example-based named entity recognition. *CoRR*, abs/2008.10570. ## A Appendix A.1 Statistics Of The Nested Ner Datasets In Table 7, we present statistics for the standard nested datasets: ACE04 and ACE05. We report the number of sentences (\#S), the number of sentences containing nested entities (\#NS), the average sentence length (AL), the number of entities (\#E), the number of nested entities (\#NE), the nesting rate (NR), and the maximum and the average number of entities (\#AE) in sentences on the two datasets. | ACE04 | ACE05 | | | | | | |---------|---------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Train | Dev | Test | Train | Dev | Test | | | #S | 6198 | 742 | 809 | 7285 | 968 | 1058 | | #NS | 2718 | 294 | 388 | 2797 | 352 | 339 | | #E | 22204 | 2514 | 3035 | 24827 | 3234 | 3041 | | #NE | 10159 | 1092 | 1417 | 10039 | 1200 | 1186 | | NR | 45.75 | 43.44 | 46.69 | 40.44 | 37.11 | 39.00 | | AL | 21.41 | 22.13 | 22.03 | 18.82 | 18.77 | 16.93 | | #ME | 28 | 22 | 20 | 28 | 23 | 20 | | #AE | 3.58 | 3.38 | 3.75 | 3.41 | 3.34 | 2.87 | ## A.2 Analysis Of Entity Locating And Typing Our work unifies entity locating and entity typing in prompt learning, and in this section we compare the performance of the model on the two subtasks with some strong baselines. Following Shen et al. (2022), we consider entity locating correct when the left and right boundaries are correctly predicted. Based on the accurately located entities, we then evaluate the performance of entity typing. Figure 8 shows the performance comparison on ACE04, PromptNER significantly outperforms the baseline for both tasks, achieving +0.59% and +0.56% improvement in entity locating and entity typing compared to Shen et al. (2022). Table 8: Analysis of entity locating and typing. | Model | Pr. | Rec. | F1 | |-----------------------------------|-------|--------|-------| | Entity Locating | | | | | Seq2set (Tan et al., 2021) | 92.75 | 90.24 | 91.48 | | Locate&label (Shen et al., 2021a) | 92.28 | 90.97 | 91.62 | | PIQN (Shen et al., 2022) | 92.56 | 91.89 | 92.23 | | PromptNER | 91.86 | 93.80 | 92.82 | | Entity Typing | | | | | Seq2set (Tan et al., 2021) | 95.36 | 86.03 | 90.46 | | Locate&label (Shen et al., 2021a) | 95.40 | 86.75 | 90.87 | | PIQN (Shen et al., 2022) | 95.59 | 87.81 | 91.53 | | PromptNER | 95.15 | 89.22 | 92.09 | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? the limitation section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? the limitation section ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? the abstract section and introduction section ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4 B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4 and Section A.2 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 4.1 and Section 5.3 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4.1 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 4.1 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

zevallos-bel-2023-hints

Hints on the data for language modeling of synthetic languages with transformers

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.699

Language Models (LM) are becoming more and more useful for providing representations upon which to train Natural Language Processing applications. However, there is now clear evidence that attention-based transformers require a critical amount of language data to produce good enough LMs. The question we have addressed in this paper is to what extent the critical amount of data varies for languages of different morphological typology, in particular those that have a rich inflectional morphology, and whether the tokenization method to preprocess the data can make a difference. These details can be important for low-resourced languages that need to plan the production of datasets. We evaluated intrinsically and extrinsically the differences of five different languages with different pretraining dataset sizes and three different tokenization methods for each. The results confirm that the size of the vocabulary due to morphological characteristics is directly correlated with both the LM perplexity and the performance of two typical downstream tasks such as NER identification and POS labeling. The experiments also provide new evidence that a canonical tokenizer can reduce perplexity by more than a half for a polysynthetic language like Quechua as well as raising F1 from 0.8 to more than 0.9 in both downstream tasks with a LM trained with only 6M tokens.

# Hints On The Data For Language Modeling Of Synthetic Languages With Transformers Rodolfo Zevallos1 **and Núria Bel**1 Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona, Spain rodolfojoel.zevallos@upf.edu, nuria.bel@upf.edu ## Abstract Language Models (LM) are becoming more and more useful for providing representations upon which to train Natural Language Processing applications. However, there is now clear evidence that attention-based transformers require a critical amount of language data to produce good enough LMs. The question we have addressed in this paper is to what extent the critical amount of data varies for languages of different morphological typology, in particular those that have a rich inflectional morphology, and whether the tokenization method to preprocess the data can make a difference. These details can be important for low-resource languages that need to plan the production of datasets. We evaluated intrinsically and extrinsically the differences of five different languages with different pretraining dataset sizes and three different tokenization methods for each. The results confirm that the size of the vocabulary due to morphological characteristics is directly correlated with both the LM perplexity and the performance of two typical downstream tasks such as NER identification and POS Tagging. The experiments also provide new evidence that a canonical tokenizer can reduce perplexity by more than a half for a polysynthetic language like Quechua as well as raising macro-F1 score from 0.8 to more than 0.9 in both downstream tasks with a LM trained with only 6M tokens.1. ## 1 Introduction Language Models (LMs) are becoming more and more useful for providing representations upon which to train different Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications. However, there is evidence that LMs trained with attention-based transformers need large quantities of pretraining language data to provide good enough representations that can be used in downstream tasks. 1Equal contribution To have very large amounts of data, multilingual LMs have been proposed as a solution. However, there is evidence (Rust et al., 2021, Bansal et al., 2021, Goyal et al., 2021) that the monolingual LMs outperformed their multilingual counterparts. As for the amount of monolingual data required, Zhang et al. (2021) experiments with English showed that the amount of data for reaching at least an 80% average over several tasks of relative performance is around 10M tokens. The question we have addressed in our research is whether the critical figures for English are the same for other languages and in particular for languages of a different morphological type. Having hints about the critical amount of data and tokenization strategies to make the most profit of the available data is of upmost importance for low-resource languages, many of them with a morphology more complex than that of English, and that need to plan the production of datasets. A LM is an assessment of the probability distribution over sequences of words given a fixed set of words with parameters estimated from data. The increase in the number of tokens of the vocabulary of particular languages due to their inflectional morphology has been demonstrated to affect the coverage of the Markovian LMs (Whittaker and Woodland, 2003). For current attention-based transformer language models (TLM), like RoBERTa that is a closed vocabulary system, the direct consequence of modeling a rich inflectional morphology should also be that the coverage of the vocabulary will be lower than that of a morphologically simpler language. For instance, Mielke et al. (2019) found that English was among the easiest languages for building a LM, while German, which is a synthetic language, was among the hardest. Polysynthetic languages like Quechua, with more than 100 inflectional suffixes, and in which up to five suffixes can be attached to a verbal stem, would have harder modeling problems that will aggravate its problems for being a low-resource language. To understand how the amount of critical pretraining data varies for different languages, we reproduced Zhang et al. (2021) experiments but for different languages of an increasing degree of morphological complexity, as measured by type-token ratio (TTR) following Kettunen (2014) and Mielke et al. (2019). The languages are: English, French, German, Turkish and Quechua. In Table 1, the TTR of these languages assessed with the 6M datasets used in our experiments shows the big differences among these languages. | Language | Type | Tokens | TTR | |------------|---------|-----------|--------| | English | 132,936 | 6,000,198 | 0.0221 | | French | 188,741 | 6,000,003 | 0.0314 | | German | 201,465 | 6,000,086 | 0.0335 | | Turkish | 262,531 | 6,000,093 | 0.0437 | | Quechua | 325,248 | 5,985,472 | 0.0543 | Table 1: Number of Tokens, Type-Tokens and TypeToken Ratio (TTR) for each language for the 6M dataset However, we reproduced the conditions of Zhang et al. (2021) but with datasets of 1M, 2M, 3M, and 6M for each language, as Quechua has no more corpus available. For all languages and datasizes we carried out an intrinsic evaluation, i.e. differences in LM perplexity and an extrinsic evaluation, i.e. to assess to what extent critical learning can be achieved with representations made with smaller datasets. We have used the representations produced by the different models to fine-tune classifiers for Name Entity Recognition (NER) and Part-of-Speech (POS) tagging. Besides, we repeated the different size experiments with three different tokenization methods, to get evidence on whether a linguistically motivated tokenizer improves both perplexity and classification results. We have compared three segmenters that produce subword tokenization: BPE (Sennrich et al., 2016), Unigram (Kudo, 2018) and DeepSpin (Peters and Martins, 2022). BPE is one of the most used tokenizers nowadays. It initially segments the text into characters and then it iteratively merges together the most frequently co-occurring symbols until finding space boundaries or reaching a previously set vocabulary limit. Unigram works by segmenting the texts into words following space boundaries to build an initial vocabulary, and trimming down each symbol to obtain a shorter vocabulary list. Differently to BPE and Unigram, DeepSpin is a supervised canonical tokenizer. Mager et al. (2020) introduced canonical segmentation as a morphological segmentation that consists of dividing words into their standardized morphemes. A canonical tokenizer attempts to recompose the character sequence that suffers some modification when concatenated or combined with other morphemes. For instance, in English 'profitable' becomes 'profitably' when combined with the adverbial morpheme 'ly'. Canonical tokenization should produce the following tokens: 'profitable' and 'ly', therefore reducing the vocabulary size considerably. The contributions of our research are two. First, an evaluation of the critical amount of data for training a performant TLM. The evaluation is done intrinsically in terms of perplexity, and extrinsically by using the produced representations to fine-tune classifiers for two downstream applications: POS tagging and NER. Second, evidence, both from the intrinsic and the extrinsic evaluations, about how much a linguistically motivated tokenization maximizes the profit of small datasets. These hints might be crucial for keeping technologically alive languages that cannot get the exorbitant amount of textual data that ensures maximal performance. Besides, it is also important to get more understanding about the capabilities of methods that could significantly differ when used for languages other than English. ## 2 Related Work Hu et al. (2020) and Warstadt et al. (2020) were the first papers addressing the amount of data necessary for training large LM. Hu et al. (2020) trained four classes of neural models and one baseline n-gram model on four datasets derived from a newswire corpus, consisting of 1M, 5M, 14M, and 42M, to assess differences in syntactic probing tasks among different architectures and pretraining corpora sizes. The main outcome of their experiments was to find out that perplexity of the LM and performance in the addressed probing tasks did not correlate; that is, LM trained with more data, and therefore lower perplexity, were not better at the probing tasks. They concluded that the architecture proved to be a more important source of differences than the size of the dataset, with the GPT-2 transformer, using BPE, achieving best results. Warstadt et al. (2020) pretrained 12 RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) models on English corpora varying in size and tokenized with BPE. These MiniBERTa models were trained with quantities of data ranging of 1M, 10M, 100M, 1B. The results showed that RoBERTa learns linguistic features with only a few million words, but that it takes billions of words for the model to prefer to use linguistic generalizations over surface ones. Using the same models, Zhang et al. (2021) explored the relation between the amount of data and the effectiveness of RoBERTa for learning grammatical features and other linguistic phenomena of English. They performed an extensive collection of tests for showing the learning curve on different tasks of the miniBERTa models pretrained with data of different size, from 1M to 1B words. Their results show that the learning for traditional NLP tasks such as POS labeling, NER identification and other higher level tasks dealing with syntax and semantics occur with less than 100M words of pretraining data. In particular, learning for POS tagging and NER is reported to happen with about 10M words, having no big further improvements after that. Pérez-Mayos et al. (2021) also used the MiniBERTas models developed by Warstadt et al. (2020) to explore the relation between the size of the pretraining data and the syntactic capabilities of RoBERTa. For all the tasks studied, the models with more training data performed better, however the performance improvement growth was also stalled after 10M for tasks like POS tagging. For languages other than English, Micheli et al. (2020) worked on French texts with CamemBERT (Martin et al., 2020) that is similar to RoBERTa but uses whole-word masking and SentencePiece tokenization (Kudo and Richardson, 2018), which uses Unigram, and different pretraining data sizes. Their results showed that 100 MB of raw text (about 10,5 M words) were sufficient to reach a similar performance than with larger datasets on a question answering task. Micallef et al. (2022) found that 46M tokens of pretraining were enough for a Maltese BERT to be comparable with a multilingual BERT adapted with vocabulary augmentation methods. Inoue et al. (2021) worked on assessing the impact of language variants, data sizes and fine-tuning tasks with Arabic pretrained TLM. They trained 8 Arabic models, named CAMeLBERT of 6.3B, 3.1B, 1.5B, and 636M words, that were evaluated on different NLP tasks including NER and POS tagging. They concluded that the amount of pretraining data had limited and inconsistent effects on the performance of the fine-tuned classifiers. However, note that the size of the datasets in these experiments were far beyond the 10M that Warstadt et al. (2020) or Micheli et al. (2020) identified as the amount from which the model seems unable to learn more. The relation of the morphological type and the robustness of language models because of the size of the vocabulary is a well known topic. A high number of words in the vocabulary is a characteristic of languages of a higher morphological complexity due to inflectional and derivational processes. For instance, Quechua, which is a polysynthetic language, typically has 3 morphemes per word and about 100 different suffixes, while English has around 1.5 morphemes per word, and about 35 suffixes. Geutner (1995) was one of the first works to afford evidence on reducing about 50% perplexity in a statistic language model by using a morpheme-based n-gram model for the task of speech recognition of German. German, in addition to inflection morphology, uses prefixes to create new verbal tokens: *ausgehen* ('to go out'), *hineingehen* ('to go in') and noun-noun composition is extremely frequent with an, in principle, unlimited number of nouns being concatenated creating new nouns. According to Geutner (1995), morphemebased n-gram models proved to get more robust probability estimates with smaller training datasets and also limited the size of the vocabulary. Mielke et al. (2019) studied whether there are typological properties that make certain languages harder to language model than others, and studied linguistic features that correlated to difficulties for creating a LM. They reported on language modeling results on 62 languages from 13 language families using Bible translations, and on the 21 languages used in the European Parliament proceedings. They conducted a correlational study of features of a language to find one that is predictive of modeling difficulty. Their results confirmed that the type inventory or vocabulary size is a statistically significant indicator of the modeling difficulty. Park et al. (2021) revisited these results and performed experiments for 92 languages also from a corpus of Bibles. Their results confirmed that number of types or size of the vocabulary of the related TTR, are statistically correlated to difficulties for language modeling. Additionally, the research was extended for assessing how different segmentation methods captured morphological segments and the impact of tokenization in the final results. The results were that subword tokenization methods outperformed character-level ones. BPE was reported to fail mitigating the problems created by languages with high TTR, while other segmenters that were informed with linguistic information did better. The gains achieved by linguistically motivated tokenization were also observed in other research areas like Machine Translation. Rust et al. (2021) empirically compared multilingual pretrained language models to their monolingual counterparts on a set of nine typologically diverse languages. They concluded that while the pretraining data size is an important factor, the tokenizer of each monolingual model plays an equally important role in the performance on downstream tasks. The results indicate that the models trained with dedicated monolingual tokenizers outperform their counterparts with multilingual tokenizers in most tasks. While the smallest performance gap is for POS tagging (at most 0.4% accuracy), performance gap for NER reaches even 1.7 difference in macro-F1 score for Arabic. Ortega et al. (2020), Chen and Fazio (2021), and Mager et al. (2022) are works comparing different tokenizers for improving translation in low-resource language pairs. Their results provided evidence that a linguistically motivated segmentation leads to significant improvements in translation quality specially in low-resource contexts. ## 3 Methodology In our experiments, we tested 20 RoBERTa models. We pretrained from scratch LM for English, German, French, Turkish and Quechua with different pretraining datasets ranging from 1M to 6M tokens, and we used three different tokenizers for each: BPE, Unigram and DeepSpin. Code and resources are available on https://github.com/IULATERM-TRL-UPF/ Hints-on-the-data-for-language-modeling ## 3.1 Pretraining 3.1.1 Pretraining Data We pretrained RoBERTa models for the mentioned five languages, following the same conditions of Warstadt et al. (2020) trained the miniBERTas models for English, but further reducing the size of datasets. The training data used in our pretraining of RoBERTa are the following. For English, a random part of the Wikipedia corpus of 2.5 billion tokens used by Devlin et al. (2019) to train BERT. For German, French and Turkish, we used parts of OSCAR corpora extracted from the Common Crawl November 2018 snapshot, automatically classified for language identification and filtered to avoid noise (Ortiz Suárez et al., 2019). The German OSCAR, with 21 billion tokens, was the one used by Scheible et al. (2020), the French OSCAR, with 32.7 billion tokens, the one that was used by Martin et al. (2020) and the Turkish OSCAR with 11.5 million documents, the one that was used by Toraman et al. (2022). Monolingual-quechua-iic2in Quechua (6 million tokens) used by Zevallos et al. (2022). This Quechua corpus is composed of a wide variety of sources, including Wikipedia (about 1 million tokens) and other resources available on the Internet, as well as educational materials and legal documents. For each language, we randomly produced training sets with a total of 1M, 2M, 3M, and 6M tokens each. ## 3.1.2 Tokenization For our experiments we compared three different tokenizers: BPE, Unigram and DeepSpin. Similar to the experiments performed by Liu et al. (2019) to train RoBERTa, we used BPE (Sennrich et al., 2016) as a baseline. Moreover, we have used the methods that have obtained the best results with languages of different types of morphology. We used Unigram (Kudo, 2018) because it is considered the best unsupervised and statistically motivated method, as it has obtained interesting results for both morphologically complex languages (e.g. Quechua) and non-complex languages (e.g. English) (Gow-Smith et al., 2022). In the case of canonical and linguistically motivated methods, we chose DeepSpin (Peters and Martins, 2022), which is the winner of SIGMORPHON 2022 (Batsuren et al., 2022), achieving very interesting results and superior to others of the same type of tokenization. Because DeepSpin is a supervised model, it is necessary to train a model for each language. The data used to train the English and French model were obtained from SIGMORPHON3 2022 itself, the German data from the experiments performed by Cotterell et al. (2016). The Turkish and Quechua training data were created by ourselves for these experiments. The Turkish raw data was obtained from Alecakir et al. (2022), and the Quechua raw data was obtained from Melgarejo et al. (2022). All models were trained with the same hyperparameters as DeepSpin-Base (Peters and Martins, 2022). In Table 2, we show the data obtained from the trained DeepSpin models of each language. | Language | Annotated words | Accuracy | |------------|-------------------|------------| | English | 458k | 0.92 | | French | 382k | 0.94 | | German | 8k | 0.83 | | Turkish | 2k | 0.75 | | Quechua | 1k | 0.72 | Table 2: Annotated dataset size and DeepSpin tokenization accuracy were considered in this study. For each language, DeepSpin was trained using an 80/10/10 split for training, validation, and testing, respectively. ## 3.1.3 Hyperparameters To replicate what Warstadt et al. (2020) did for data smaller than 10M tokens, we used the hyperparameters from their Med-Small model, which had 8 attention heads, 512 hidden size, 2048 feedforward network dimension, and 45M parameters. Note that we have also set the vocabulary size to 52,000 tokens just like most experiments in language model development with transformers. This size of 52k tokens is due to a computational limitation when processing the data. In addition, we adopted the same parameter values for dropout, attention dropout and learning rate decrease. All parameters are described in Table 3. | Description | Value | |--------------------------------|---------| | Number of attention heads | 8 | | Hidden size | 512 | | Feed-forward network dimension | 2048 | | Number of parameters | 45M | | Max Steps | 10K | | Batch Size | 512 | | Dropout | 0.1 | | Attention dropout | 0.1 | | Learning rate decrease | 5E-4 | Table 3: Common parameters for the pretraining of the 20 models used in our experiments. ## 3.2 Fine-Tuning From the pretrained RoBERTa models, and still following Zhang et al. (2021), we generated representations of the token span and trained classifiers that predict whether a given label correctly describes the input span for NER and POS. In order to obtain the best and validated results in both tasks, we performed a 10-fold macro-F1 score cross-validation. In addition, we chose to adjust some hyperparameters guided by Zhang et al. (2021): learning rate ∈ {1E-5, 2E-5, 3E-5, 4E-5} and batch size ∈ {16, 32, 48}. In POS tagging, we used a different head with a classification output for each token, all triggered by a softmax function just like Delobelle et al. (2020). Also, when a word consists of multiple tokens, the first token is used for the word tag. The xtreme4 (Conneau et al., 2018) datasets were used for the POS task and wikiann5(Rahimi et al., 2019) for the NER of English, German, French, and Turkish. For Quechua6, the dataset provided by Zevallos et al. (2022) was used for both tasks. For evaluating the NER and POS tasks, we used macro-F1 score. ## 4 Results Our research aimed on the one hand at making an evaluation of the amount of pretraining data and the role of the tokenizer measured in terms of LM perplexity. On the other hand, the POS and NER tasks were meant to assess the quality of the representations produced when used in fine-tuning downstream tasks. It is important to mention that we did not perform any normalization in the results as opposed to Warstadt et al. (2020), because we also wanted to see a comparison between languages. ## 4.1 Pretrained Models The results per language plotted in Figure 1 show that for all cases the DeepSpin tokenization method substantially improves the perplexity of all LM, but it is in the case of Turkish and Quechua that it drastically improves the perplexity from 162.47 to 94.93 and 210.14 to 102.73 respectively. English LM obtained 53.51, being the lowest perplexity in all the configurations performed in the experiments. Comparing BPE and Unigram, only English, German and French achieved better results, while Turkish and Quechua also achieved better results using Unigram. We can see that the datasize amounts that are critical for modeling English (Warstadt et al., 2020) 4https://huggingface.co/datasets/xtreme 5https://huggingface.co/datasets/wikiann 6https://github.com/Llamacha/QuBERT/tree/main/ resource     are quite different for other languages. Despite having the same training data size and using the same training hyperparameters and vocabulary limitations, the results in terms of LM perplexity are very different. The perplexity of the Turkish and Quechua language models is around twice the perplexity of the English LM with 6M with all the tokenizers. In the appendix we show all the results of the pretrained models according to type of tokenization. ## 4.2 Part-Of-Speech Tagging We evaluated POS tagging task for each language with the different training sizes and different tokenization methods. For all models, the same hyperparameters mentioned in 3.2 are used. In Table 4 and Figure 2 we can see the results for all dataset sizes for each language and the different tokenization methods. Zhang et al. (2021) found that POS labelling was one of the taks whose learning curve rises earlier and gets around 90% macro-F1 score with less than 10M of training dataset. Our results, in Table 4, show the same trend, with English, German and French getting macro-F1 score higher than 90% with a corpus of 6M and the three tokenizers. For Turkish and Quechua, BPE tokenization is the only one that cannot achieve a 90% macro-F1 score. As can be seen in the Table 4, for all languages and the 6M dataset, using the DeepSpin tokenizer delivers statistically significant improvements7 both when compared to BPE, that works better for English, German and French, and when compared to Unigram, that, as expected, works better for Turkish and Quechua. What is more interesting is that for Turkish and Quechua with DeepSpin better results are obtained with 3M words than BPE with 6M, showing the importance of the tokenizer selection for synthetic languages. Language BPE Unigram DeepSpin 1M 2M 3M 6M 1M 2M 3M 6M 1M 2M 3M 6M English 0.74 0.79 0.87 0.96 0.70 0.75 0.84 0.91 0.82 0.85 0.90 0.99 German 0.70 0.77 0.84 0.93 0.65 0.70 0.79 0.90 0.79 0.84 0.89 0.98 French 0.70 0.75 0.82 0.94 0.66 0.71 0.79 0.91 0.81 0.83 0.87 0.97 Turkish 0.58 0.64 0.71 0.85 0.63 0.69 0.75 0.90 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.95 Quechua 0.53 0.59 0.69 0.81 0.60 0.66 0.76 0.89 0.73 0.79 0.84 0.94 Table 4: Macro-F1 score results of the POS tagging task for each language, using the subset of 1M, 2M, 3M and 6M words and three different tokenization methods. Language BPE Unigram DeepSpin 1M 2M 3M 6M 1M 2M 3M 6M 1M 2M 3M 6M English 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.94 0.72 0.76 0.82 0.91 0.83 0.87 0.92 0.98 German 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.91 0.77 0.80 0.83 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.93 0.97 French 0.74 0.80 0.85 0.92 0.69 0.77 0.84 0.89 0.79 0.83 0.89 0.97 Turkish 0.53 0.58 0.65 0.80 0.61 0.67 0.74 0.85 0.70 0.76 0.85 0.92 Quechua 0.42 0.61 0.69 0.81 0.51 0.68 0.79 0.85 0.68 0.73 0.84 0.91 ## 4.3 Named Entity Recognition In Figure 2 we can see the results for all dataset sizes for each language and the different tokenization methods (figures can be found in Table 5). For NER tasks, Zhang et al. (2021) results showed that the learning curve still raised between 10M and 100M datasets before stalling. Our results show that the learning curve for NER is sharper than for POS tagging: it needs more data for all languages, but again Turkish and Quechua having more difficulties in all cases. However, when using the DeepSpin tokenizer, statistically significant improvements are achieved for each language with all datasizes. In the case of Turkish and Quechua, DeepSpin achieves the same macro-F1 score results than Unigram with the 3M dataset, and improves BPE results with the 6M dataset. ## 5 Discussion In order to clarify the amount of data necessary to achieve robust performance measured by LM perplexity, we experimented with four training data sizes: 1M, 2M, 3M and 6M tokens. We were interested in two main issues. First, in the work of Warstadt et al. (2020) it can be seen that perplexity improves dramatically when the training data size is above 10M, however low-resource languages like Quechua do not even have texts amounting 10M tokens. We were interested in finding whether there is a critical amount of data with which it is worth for low-resource languages to build a TLM. Second, we wanted to show to what extent LM perplexity and the fine-tuning of downstream tasks are influenced by the size of the data and the morphological typology of languages, and whether tokenization could mitigate these issues. From our results it is clear that in spite of being trained with the same configurations and amount of training data, there are differences among the languages we examined. Mielke et al. (2019) suggested that these differences could be due to the difference in morphological complexity between these languages. A rich inflectional morphology increases the vocabulary. As we can see in Table 6, tokenizers that try to identify the compositional characteristics of morphology can significantly reduce the vocabulary size. Therefore, the drastic improvement in the perplexity results for Quechua, with perplexity 210 with BPE and 102 with DeepSpin, is due to the fact that DeepSpin manages to reduce the vocabulary thanks to a linguistically motivated segmentation. We also wanted to get evidence about the quality of the representations obtained by our different TLM for fine-tuning downstream tasks. The results shown in Table 4 and Table 5 show that representations get better with more data, but a TLM trained with dataset of 6M tokens and a using a linguistically motivated tokenizer can deliver very | BPE | Unigram | DeepSpin | | | | | | | | | | | |----------|-----------|------------|-----|-------|------|-------|------|-------|------|-------|------|-------| | Language | 1M | 6M | 1M | 6M | 1M | 6M | | | | | | | | Voc. | TTR | Voc. | TTR | Voc. | TTR | Voc. | TTR | Voc. | TTR | Voc. | TTR | | | English | 20.3 | 0.203 | 51 | 0.084 | 30.1 | 0.301 | 51.3 | 0.085 | 14.1 | 0.141 | 16.2 | 0.027 | | French | 20.9 | 0.209 | 52 | 0.085 | 30.7 | 0.307 | 51.6 | 0.086 | 14.2 | 0.142 | 22.8 | 0.038 | | German | 21.5 | 0.215 | 52 | 0.085 | 31.4 | 0.314 | 51.6 | 0.086 | 14.7 | 0.147 | 25.2 | 0.042 | | Turkish | 21.9 | 0.219 | 52 | 0.086 | 32.1 | 0.321 | 52 | 0.086 | 15.1 | 0.151 | 28.2 | 0.047 | | Quechua | 22.1 | 0.221 | 52 | 0.086 | 33.4 | 0.334 | 52 | 0.086 | 15.3 | 0.153 | 32.2 | 0.053 | competitive results for tasks like POS tagging and NER. ## 6 Conclusions In this paper we have related the quality of TLM with the training data size. We have approached the topic from the point of view of low-resource languages that need to maximize the available data. We have demonstrated how different methods, in this case tokenizers, apply to languages other than English. We have evaluated intrinsically and extrinsically the impact of datasize and tokenization with the aim of giving some hints for the building of TLM for low-resource languages, in particular for those whose morphology processes produces large vocabularies. These hints are explaining below. ## 6.1 How Much Data Is Enough? In our experiments, all languages show a continuous reduction of perplexity when from 1M to 6M tokens, with no stagnation. Regardless of language type, the decrease in perplexity progresses as the model is trained with more data, suggesting that it can still improve more with more data. However, we provide evidence on the fact that with 6M all the languages in our experiments, but Turkish and Quechua, could reach a perplexity below 100, and macro-F1 score higher than 0.9 in the two downstream tasks. With a linguistically motivated and canonical tokenizer like DeepSpin, Turkish and Quechua could also attain these competitive results, as explained below. ## 6.2 Which Tokenizer To Use? Tokenization methods play an important role in building pretrained models (Rust et al., 2021). As seen in our experiments, canonical and linguistically motivated tokenizers achieve astonishing results compared to other types of tokenizers. The reduction by almost 50% of the perplexity of the preentangled models of Turkish and Quechua when using DeepSpin instead of BPE is impressive. Languages morphologically different from Turkish and Quechua also showed significant benefits, e.g., English, French and German showed an improvement of 15%, 31% and 24% respectively. On the other hand, it can also be seen that using DeepSpin results in significant improvements in tasks such as NER and POS tagging. Both Turkish and Quechua manage to increase the macro-F1 score by 0.1 and 0.14 respectively. English, French and German also manage to increase the macro-F1 score by 0.03 in most cases. Finally, we can say that canonical and linguistically motivated tokenization methods present statistically significant improvements when working with morphologically complex languages compared to statistically motivated methods such as BPE and Unigram. ## 7 Limitations We have limited ourselves to experimenting with only five languages due to lack of data for both the pretrained models and the DeepSpin tokenizer models. Although there are annotated data for some low-resource polysynthetic languages such as Nahuatl, Raramuri, Wixarika, Shipibo-Konibo (Mager et al., 2020) and Kunwinjku (Pimentel et al., 2021), the available data was below 1M and therefore not enough to create pretrained models for our experiments. Regarding the aforementioned limitation, DeepSpin which has proven to be a good option to mitigate the problem of high TTR languages in closed vocabulary environments is a supervised method that requires the availability of training data. As can be seen in Table 2, to achieve 90% to better accuracy DeepSpin requires around 350K annotated words. This can be a major drawback for low-resource languages, although the results with less annotated data are still competitive. We have not studied another source of differences in the vocabulary size that could be due to the texts used in pretraining. Ortiz Suárez et al. (2019) found that, in general, the OSCAR samples contain more vocabulary words than the Wikipedia ones. Additionally, the Quechua corpus we have used also consists of educational and legal texts that can increase the number of different types, compared to Wikipedia texts. On the other hand, we believe it is important to mention that for the Quechua language the training, evaluation, and testing data for NER and POS tasks were obtained from the same corpus used for training the language model. Note that, due to the scarcity of available digital and physical texts in that language, it is difficult to do it otherwise. The limited availability of texts leads to the use of the same corpus for multiple tasks, which could have implications on the evaluation of the obtained results. For instance, if the training corpus contains an unequal proportion of certain types of grammatical structures, it might negatively affect the performance of POS classifiers. Furthermore, if the corpus does not adequately reflect the linguistic variability and diversity of Quechua, the resulting models are likely to be less accurate and less generalizable. ## Ethical Considerations The datasets used in this paper for the training and evaluations of the pre-trained models, DeepSpin models, and fine-tuned models have been extracted from various previous articles and open-access repositories, therefore, we abide by the ethical rules by citing the original authors of each dataset. On the other hand, the annotated Turkish and Quechua data that were constructed by us for the development of the DeepSpin models will be presented in a forthcoming paper for public use. In addition, we encourage authors who use the resources in this article to cite the original sources. Finally, we would like to note that one of the authors of this paper has a long history of working with resource-poor synthetic languages, especially Quechua, which allows us to better understand the problems and concerns of the Quechua-speaking communities. ## Acknowledgements This research was partially funded by the project LUTEST, Project PID2019-104512GB-I00, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades and Agencia Estatal de Investigación (Spain). The first author has been supported by a FI grant of the Catalan Funding Agency for Research and Universities (AGAUR). ## References Huseyin Alecakir, Necva Bölücü, and Burcu Can. 2022. TurkishDelightNLP: A neural Turkish NLP toolkit. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: System Demonstrations, pages 17–26, Hybrid: Seattle, Washington + Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rachit Bansal, Himanshu Choudhary, Ravneet Punia, Niko Schenk, Jacob L. Dahl, and Émilie Pagé-Perron. 2021. How low is too low? A computational perspective on extremely low-resource languages. *CoRR*, abs/2105.14515. Khuyagbaatar Batsuren, Gábor Bella, Aryaman Arora, Viktor Martinovic, Kyle Gorman, Zdenek Žabokrt- ˇ ský, Amarsanaa Ganbold, Šárka Dohnalová, Magda Ševcíková, Kate ˇ ˇrina Pelegrinová, Fausto Giunchiglia, Ryan Cotterell, and Ekaterina Vylomova. 2022. The SIGMORPHON 2022 shared task on morpheme segmentation. In *Proceedings of the 19th SIGMORPHON Workshop on Computational Research in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology*, pages 103–116, Seattle, Washington. Association for Computational Linguistics. William Chen and Brett Fazio. 2021. Morphologicallyguided segmentation for translation of agglutinative low-resource languages. In *Proceedings of the 4th* Workshop on Technologies for MT of Low Resource Languages (LoResMT2021), pages 20–31, Virtual. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. Alexis Conneau, Ruty Rinott, Guillaume Lample, Adina Williams, Samuel Bowman, Holger Schwenk, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2018. Xnli: Evaluating crosslingual sentence representations. In *Proceedings of* the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2475–2485. Ryan Cotterell, Tim Vieira, and Hinrich Schütze. 2016. A joint model of orthography and morphological segmentation. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 664–669. Pieter Delobelle, Thomas Winters, and Bettina Berendt. 2020. Robbert: a Dutch roberta-based language model. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 3255–3265. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171– 4186. P. Geutner. 1995. Using morphology towards better large-vocabulary speech recognition systems. In 1995 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, volume 1, pages 445–448 vol.1. Edward Gow-Smith, Harish Tayyar Madabushi, Carolina Scarton, and Aline Villavicencio. 2022. Improving tokenisation by alternative treatment of spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.04058. Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Myle Ott, Giri Anantharaman, and Alexis Conneau. 2021. Larger-scale transformers for multilingual masked language modeling. In *Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP-2021)*, pages 29–33. Jennifer Hu, Jon Gauthier, Peng Qian, Ethan Wilcox, and Roger Levy. 2020. A systematic assessment of syntactic generalization in neural language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1725–1744, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Go Inoue, Bashar Alhafni, Nurpeiis Baimukan, Houda Bouamor, and Nizar Habash. 2021. The interplay of variant, size, and task type in Arabic pre-trained language models. In Workshop on Arabic Natural Language Processing. Kimmo Kettunen. 2014. Can type-token ratio be used to show morphological complexity of languages? *Journal of Quantitative Linguistics*, 21:223–245. Taku Kudo. 2018. Subword regularization: Improving neural network translation models with multiple subword candidates. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 66–75. Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. Sentencepiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2018: System Demonstrations, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 66–71. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Manuel Mager, Özlem Çetinoglu, and Katharina Kann. ˘ 2020. Tackling the low-resource challenge for canonical segmentation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5237–5250, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Manuel Mager, Arturo Oncevay, Elisabeth Mager, Katharina Kann, and Thang Vu. 2022. BPE vs. morphological segmentation: A case study on machine translation of four polysynthetic languages. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics:* ACL 2022, pages 961–971, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Louis Martin, Benjamin Muller, Pedro Javier Ortiz Suárez, Yoann Dupont, Laurent Romary, Éric de la Clergerie, Djamé Seddah, and Benoît Sagot. 2020. CamemBERT: a tasty French language model. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 7203– 7219, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nelsi Melgarejo, Rodolfo Zevallos, Hector Gomez, and John E. Ortega. 2022. WordNet-QU: Development of a lexical database for Quechua varieties. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 4429–4433, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Kurt Micallef, Albert Gatt, Marc Tanti, Lonneke van der Plas, and Claudia Borg. 2022. Pre-training data quality and quantity for a low-resource language: New corpus and BERT models for Maltese. In *Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Deep Learning for* Low-Resource Natural Language Processing, pages 90–101, Hybrid. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vincent Micheli, Martin d'Hoffschmidt, and François Fleuret. 2020. On the importance of pre-training data volume for compact language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7853–7858, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sabrina J. Mielke, Ryan Cotterell, Kyle Gorman, Brian Roark, and Jason Eisner. 2019. What kind of language is hard to language-model? In *Proceedings of* the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4975–4989, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. John E. Ortega, Richard Castro Mamani, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2020. Neural machine translation with a polysynthetic low resource language. *Machine* Translation, 34(4):325–346. Pedro Javier Ortiz Suárez, Benoît Sagot, and Laurent Romary. 2019. Asynchronous pipelines for processing huge corpora on medium to low-resource infrastructures. Proceedings of the Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC7) 2019. Cardiff, 22nd July 2019, pages 9 - 16, Mannheim. Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache. Hyunji Hayley Park, Katherine J. Zhang, Coleman Haley, Kenneth Steimel, Han Liu, and Lane Schwartz. 2021. Morphology matters: A multilingual language modeling analysis. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:261–276. Laura Pérez-Mayos, Miguel Ballesteros, and Leo Wanner. 2021. How much pretraining data do language models need to learn syntax? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1571–1582, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ben Peters and Andre F. T. Martins. 2022. Beyond characters: Subword-level morpheme segmentation. In Proceedings of the 19th SIGMORPHON Workshop on Computational Research in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology, pages 131–138, Seattle, Washington. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tiago Pimentel, Maria Ryskina, Sabrina J. Mielke, Shijie Wu, Eleanor Chodroff, Brian Leonard, Garrett Nicolai, Yustinus Ghanggo Ate, Salam Khalifa, Nizar Habash, Charbel El-Khaissi, Omer Goldman, Michael Gasser, William Lane, Matt Coler, Arturo Oncevay, Jaime Rafael Montoya Samame, Gema Celeste Silva Villegas, Adam Ek, Jean-Philippe Bernardy, Andrey Shcherbakov, Aziyana Bayyr-ool, Karina Sheifer, Sofya Ganieva, Matvey Plugaryov, Elena Klyachko, Ali Salehi, Andrew Krizhanovsky, Natalia Krizhanovsky, Clara Vania, Sardana Ivanova, Aelita Salchak, Christopher Straughn, Zoey Liu, Jonathan North Washington, Duygu Ataman, Witold Kieras, Marcin Woli ´ nski, Totok Suhardijanto, Niklas ´ Stoehr, Zahroh Nuriah, Shyam Ratan, Francis M. Tyers, Edoardo M. Ponti, Grant Aiton, Richard J. Hatcher, Emily Prud'hommeaux, Ritesh Kumar, Mans Hulden, Botond Barta, Dorina Lakatos, Gábor Szolnok, Judit Ács, Mohit Raj, David Yarowsky, Ryan Cotterell, Ben Ambridge, and Ekaterina Vylomova. 2021. SIGMORPHON 2021 shared task on morphological reinflection: Generalization across languages. In *Proceedings of the 18th SIGMORPHON Workshop on Computational Research in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology*, pages 229–259, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Afshin Rahimi, Yuan Li, and Trevor Cohn. 2019. Massively multilingual transfer for ner. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.00193. Phillip Rust, Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Sebastian Ruder, ´ and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. How good is your tokenizer? on the monolingual performance of multilingual language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3118–3135, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Raphael Scheible, Fabian Thomczyk, Patric Tippmann, Victor Jaravine, and Martin Boeker. 2020. Gottbert: a pure German language model. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2012.02110. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In *Proceedings of the 54th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715–1725. Cagri Toraman, Eyup Halit Yilmaz, Furkan ¸Sahinuç, and Oguzhan Ozcelik. 2022. Impact of tokenization on language models: An analysis for Turkish. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2204.08832. Alex Warstadt, Yian Zhang, Xiaocheng Li, Haokun Liu, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. Learning which features matter: RoBERTa acquires a preference for linguistic generalizations (eventually). In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 217–235, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Edward Whittaker and Philip Woodland. 2003. Language modelling for Russian and English using words and classes [computer speech and language 17 (2003) 87–104]. *Computer Speech & Language*, 17:415. Rodolfo Zevallos, John Ortega, William Chen, Richard Castro, Núria Bel, Cesar Toshio, Renzo Venturas, Hilario Aradiel, and Nelsi Melgarejo. 2022. Introducing QuBERT: A large monolingual corpus and BERT model for Southern Quechua. In *Proceedings* of the Third Workshop on Deep Learning for LowResource Natural Language Processing, pages 1–13, Hybrid. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yian Zhang, Alex Warstadt, Xiaocheng Li, and Samuel Bowman. 2021. When do you need billions of words of pretraining data? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1112–1125. ## A Appendices A.1 Model And Training Procedure: Details To train language models for each language, we followed the choices by Warstadt et al. (2020) for their RoBERTa Med-Small model with 45M parameters, based on the amount of training data (<10M). We ran all training in parallel on five servers, with each language on a separate server. All servers were equipped with an Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4 CPU (12 cores, 2.2GHz 30MB Cache 2400MHz 105W) and a Gigabyte Geforce GTX 1080 Ti TURBO 11.72GB GPU. We trained each model for 10k steps, and the training time varied depending on the amount of training data. The models trained on 1M, 2M, 3M, and 6M took 16 hours, 1 day, 2 days, and 3 days, respectively. The entire LM creation experiment took approximately 7 days. Fine-tuning the POS and NER models for Quechua took 2 days; for Turkish, it took 4 days; for French and German took 5 days each, and for English, it took 10 days. We performed each fine-tuning process using 1k steps and each fine-tuning process was carried out on the same server that was used to train the language model. ## A.2 Experiment Results The following Tables show the perplexity of the different language models trained with different tokenization methods and amount of training tokens. Table 7 shows perplexity of the language models that used Unigraman as a tokenization method, while Table 8 shows perplexity with BPE and Table 9 with DeepSpin. | Language | Tokens (Millions) | Perplexity | Language | Tokens (Millions) | Perplexity | |------------|---------------------|--------------|------------|---------------------|--------------| | English | 153.38 | English | 109.07 | | | | German | 194.62 | German | 125.83 | | | | French | 231.03 | French | 147.15 | | | | Turkish | 328.91 | Turkish | 205.83 | | | | Quechua | 375.17 | Quechua | 297.29 | | | | English | 1 | 3 | | | | | 121.14 | English | 62.15 | | | | | German | 143.33 | German | 73.21 | | | | French | 199.80 | French | 91.72 | | | | Turkish | 267.22 | Turkish | 162.47 | | | | Quechua | 335.41 | Quechua | 210.14 | | | | 2 | 6 | | | | | Table 7: Perplexity for each language and training data size using the BPE tokenization method. | Language | Tokens (Millions) | Perplexity | Language | Tokens (Millions) | Perplexity | |------------|---------------------|--------------|------------|---------------------|--------------| | English | 165.72 | English | 133.37 | | | | German | 225.13 | German | 168.11 | | | | French | 242.15 | French | 161.5 | | | | Turkish | 302.24 | Turkish | 178.61 | | | | Quechua | 343.61 | Quechua | 264.82 | | | | English | 1 | 3 | | | | | 158.91 | English | 115.82 | | | | | German | 193.06 | German | 106.62 | | | | French | 208.35 | French | 110.80 | | | | Turkish | 241.77 | Turkish | 131.09 | | | | Quechua | 301.09 | Quechua | 182.35 | | | | 2 | 6 | | | | | Table 8: Perplexity for each language and training data size using the Unigram tokenization method. | Language | Tokens (Millions) | Perplexity | Language | Tokens (Millions) | Perplexity | |------------|---------------------|--------------|------------|---------------------|--------------| | English | 141.77 | English | 85.42 | | | | German | 164.39 | German | 92.61 | | | | French | 193.16 | French | 128.19 | | | | Turkish | 227.11 | Turkish | 146.38 | | | | Quechua | 250.18 | Quechua | 164.25 | | | | English | 1 | 3 | | | | | 111.13 | English | 53.51 | | | | | German | 138.28 | German | 55.53 | | | | French | 170.03 | French | 63.28 | | | | Turkish | 191.88 | Turkish | 94.93 | | | | Quechua | 203.15 | Quechua | 102.73 | | | | 2 | 6 | | | | | Table 9: Perplexity for each language and training data size using the DeepSpin tokenization method. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We have not created any system or any dataset that can have a potential missuse. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and 1. Introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 3 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank. ✗ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? We only used very common systems whose inteded use is well-known and we have used them in a standard way. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 3 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 3 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 3 ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? We mention the search parameters in section 3 and appendices ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 3 ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** 3 ✗ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? The annotation was not the focus of the paper. ✗ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? The annotation was not the focus of the paper. ✗ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? The annotation was not the focus of the paper. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

zhu-etal-2023-neural

Neural Machine Translation Methods for Translating Text to Sign Language Glosses

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.700

State-of-the-art techniques common to low resource Machine Translation (MT) are applied to improve MT of spoken language text to Sign Language (SL) glosses. In our experiments, we improve the performance of the transformer-based models via (1) data augmentation, (2) semi-supervised Neural Machine Translation (NMT), (3) transfer learning and (4) multilingual NMT. The proposed methods are implemented progressively on two German SL corpora containing gloss annotations. Multilingual NMT combined with data augmentation appear to be the most successful setting, yielding statistically significant improvements as measured by three automatic metrics (up to over 6 points BLEU), and confirmed via human evaluation. Our best setting outperforms all previous work that report on the same test-set and is also confirmed on a corpus of the American Sign Language (ASL).

# Neural Machine Translation Methods For Translating Text To Sign Language Glosses Dele Zhu1**, Vera Czehmann**1,2 **and Eleftherios Avramidis**2 1Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany 2German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Berlin, Germany dele.zhu@gmail.com, {vera.czehmann,eleftherios.avramidis}@dfki.de ## Abstract State-of-the-art techniques common to low resource Machine Translation (MT) are applied to improve MT of spoken language text to Sign Language (SL) glosses. In our experiments, we improve the performance of the transformer-based models via (1) data augmentation, (2) semi-supervised Neural Machine Translation (NMT), (3) transfer learning and (4) multilingual NMT. The proposed methods are implemented progressively on two German SL corpora containing gloss annotations. Multilingual NMT combined with data augmentation appear to be the most successful setting, yielding statistically significant improvements as measured by three automatic metrics (up to over 6 points BLEU), and confirmed via human evaluation. Our best setting outperforms all previous work that report on the same test-set and is also confirmed on a corpus of the American Sign Language (ASL). ## 1 Introduction Sign Language Translation (SLT) aims to break the language barrier between the deaf or hard-ofhearing communities and the hearing communities. One challenging aspect of SLT is the fact that Sign Languages (SLs) are multi-channeled and non-written languages (Langer et al., 2014). Therefore, Machine Translation (MT) for SLs cannot directly take advantage of the recent developments in text-based MT. For this purpose, previous work has used written representations of the SLs. One of these representations are *glosses*, where signs are labeled by words of the corresponding spoken language, often including affixes and markers. It is known that glosses have strong limitations as a linguistic representation (Pizzuto et al., 2006). However, given the current status of SLT, we have indications that research on SL gloss translation can still be useful. For instance, translation from spoken language text to SL glosses can be useful for interpreters and educational uses (Collins  et al., 2012). Secondly, SL glosses are the only SL representation having several parallel corpora big enough to train MT, and the results may provide indications for the future treatment of other more appropriate representations. Previous research on SLT has used glosses as an intermediate step to build MT systems for translating from SLs to spoken language text (Camgoz et al., 2017, 2018; Chen et al., 2023) or from spoken language text to SLs (Stoll et al., 2020; Saunders et al., 2020a,b, 2022). In the latter case, glosses allow building the system in two steps, i.e., *text-to-gloss* translation and *glossto-video* production (Figure 1). The glosses can be given to a system for the generation of SL (avatar animations, autoencoders, GANs). Our work focuses on the first part of this pipeline, *text-to-gloss* translation, whose results are responsible for the generated sign animations. We find that prior research, despite its improvements, has still not made a big breakthrough in this direction (Rastgoo et al., 2021). SLs are Low-Resource Languages (LRLs) with regards to MT, since there is little parallel data (Coster et al., 2022). Despite the recent progress of MT for LRLs (Sennrich et al., 2016a; Zoph et al., 2016; Sennrich and Zhang, 2019; Ranathunga et al., 2021), few of these methods have been used for MT of SLs, such as data augmentation (Moryossef et al., 2021; Zhang and Duh, 2021; Angelova et al., 2022) 12523 and transfer learning (Egea Gómez et al., 2022). Other efficient techniques, *e.g.* semi-supervised NMT (Cheng et al., 2016) and multilingual NMT (Johnson et al., 2017) have not been explored. We are therefore inspired to extensively explore the effects of the relevant methods on *text-to-gloss* translation. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first work on *text-to-gloss*: - to achieve significant improvements, as compared to the baseline methods, on the two known natural SL datasets annotated with glosses (namely for the German SL: Deutsche Gebärdensprache, further abbreviated as DGS), - to perform extensive experimentation with most known LRL-related MT methods and their combinations and in particular: - to apply semi-supervised NMT by copying the monolingual data to both the source and target side, for lack of monolingual corpora with glosses, - to use transfer learning via the warm-start strategy, and - to use a multilingual NMT setting with the focus on improving the *text-to-gloss* direction. All code of this work has been open sourced.1 ## 2 Related Work The early-stage of *text-to-gloss* translation systems were built using Statistical Machine Translation (SMT; San-Segundo et al., 2012; López-Ludeña et al., 2014), in an attempt to translate spoken language into a signing 3D avatar using SL glosses as intermediate. Although the system evaluations reported good results based on limited data and automatic metrics, deaf users assessed the system conversely. Recently, with the advance of NMT, more promising systems have emerged, based on RNNs (Stoll et al., 2020) or as parts of end-to-end transformer systems (Saunders et al., 2020b, 2022), which contrary to our work do not try particular LRL-related methods. More related to our work, in terms of *text-togloss* translation using LRL-related techniques, Li et al. (2021) implement a transformer architecture equipped with an editing agent that learns to synthesize and execute editing actions on the source 1https://github.com/DFKI-SignLanguage/ text-to-gloss-sign-language-translation  sentence. Walsh et al. (2022) examine the effect of different tokenization techniques and embedding approaches such as BERT and Word2Vec on the translation performance. Egea Gómez et al. (2021) propose a syntax-aware transformer injecting syntactic information into the word embeddings. In their follow-up work, Egea Gómez et al. (2022) achieve remarkable results with a transfer learning strategy that uses various ways of aggregating linguistic features and takes advantage of a pre-trained mBART model by filtering the original embedding and slicing model weights. In our work, we improve over these transfer learning methods using the *warm-start* strategy. Data augmentation has been seen in *gloss-totext* translation (Moryossef et al., 2021; Zhang and Duh, 2021; Angelova et al., 2022; Chiruzzo et al., 2022). Empirical comparison of our efforts with all state-of-the-art systems is presented in Section 5 (Table 4). ## 3 Methods Our experiments (Figure 2) start from data preprocessing and setting the baseline. We then explore data augmentation, semi-supervised NMT, transfer learning and multilingual NMT as measured by automatic metrics. To confirm the consistency of system improvements between the best performing model and baseline, we conduct human evaluation. ## 3.1 Data Augmentation Data augmentation is a common technique used to face low resource conditions by adding synthetically generated data from various sources (Li et al., 2019). Here, we focus on the following methods: Combining preprocessing methods is based on applying different preprocessing techniques on the source sentences and pairing them with copied target glosses. The differently pre-processed versions are concatenated into a new training dataset. This technique may be beneficial in that no changes are made to the target glosses and meanwhile the datasets are enlarged, being more robust to variable appearances of the spoken language sentences. Back-translation is to obtain additional sourceside data by translating a target-language monolingual dataset with target-to-source model (Sennrich et al., 2016a). The generated source sentences are then paired with their target side into a synthetic parallel dataset. However, we lack a monolingual glosses dataset, so we use a *gloss-to-text* system to only translate the target-side glosses of the parallel corpus into spoken language text. This results in a synthetic version of the corpus, with the side of spoken language text modified. The synthetic corpus is then concatenated with the original one. Forward translation or *self-learning* (Zhang and Zong, 2016) provides synthetic parallel pairs, in which the synthetic target data are obtained by translating an additional source-language monolingual dataset with the baseline system. Tagging aims at informing the NMT model which sentences are original and which are synthetic, as the augmented data may be of lesser quality (Caswell et al., 2019). For this purpose, a special token is added in the beginning of each synthetic source sentence in the training data. ## 3.2 Semi-Supervised Nmt To a certain extent, *text-to-gloss* translation can be regarded as a monolingual rephrasing task, as there is a large overlap in vocabulary of both sides. Thus, it triggers the assumption, that instead of generating synthetic data by models, we simply copy the monolingual data to both source and target side (Currey et al., 2017). This can be regarded as semi-supervised NMT, in which the model takes advantage of the concatenation of unlabeled monolingual data and labeled parallel data (Cheng et al., 2016). In this work, we do not delve into other potential effective factors of this method, *e.g.* size and domain of the monolingual data. ## 3.3 Transfer Learning Transfer learning uses learned knowledge to improve related tasks (Pan and Yang, 2010), *i.e.*, a parent model is pre-trained on a large corpus, used to initialize the parameters of the child model on a relatively small corpus. Zoph et al. (2016) first introduced the feasibility of transfer learning for NMT. We follow two approaches which differ in whether the child language pair (SL) is included during the parent model pre-training: Model fine-tuning refers to fine-tuning a pretrained model to train a child model. Although the pre-trained model usually contains a large vocabulary, it does not guarantee a full coverage of the child language pair. To alleviate this situation, the core operation of this approach is to modify the given vocabulary file manually. We tokenize the parallel SL dataset (*i.e.*, the child language pair) with the source-side tokenizer of the pre-trained model. Then, we append the vocabulary of the SL dataset into the pre-trained vocabulary. Since the vocabulary of the fine-tuned model has to be the same size as the original one, we replace the most frequent vocabulary occurrences of the pre-trained vocabulary with entries from the SL vocabulary. Our method of fine-tuning by modifying the vocabulary is a simplification of the replacing algorithm used for Vocabulary Transformation (Kocmi and Bojar, 2020). Warm-start training addresses the problem of vocabulary mismatch between parent and child models by introducing a joint vocabulary (Nguyen and Chiang, 2017). In this case, a parent model is pre-trained, but the training data of the child language pair is included during the pre-training of the parent model (Neubig and Hu, 2018). When the pre-training converges, this model is fine-tuned by training only on the child language pair. In order to select which language pair should be chosen as a parent one, Neubig and Hu (2018) suggest that using resources from related languages helps in improving the effectiveness of transfer learning, as it benefits from a high probability of words or characters overlapping within the related languages. For this reason we will be using a parallel dataset for paraphrasing of the spoken language. ## 3.4 Multilingual Nmt Multilingual NMT handles the simultaneous translation between more than one language through a single model. We suggest multilingual NMT, considering that the amount of parallel data for our intended language direction is small but there is a larger parallel corpus for another related language direction (Johnson et al., 2017). Here we follow the case of one-to-many translation, *i.e.*, one source language to multiple target languages. Parallel corpora from the two language pairs are concatenated and a target-language-indicator token is added at the beginning of each source language sentence. A joint vocabulary across all the training data is built. In our case, the first target language refers to the SL glosses and the second target language is another spoken language. Contrary to other multilingual NMT experiments, we only focus on the performance of the *text-to-gloss* direction. An example of the combined parallel set follows: - *German-to-English*: **<2en>** Wie heißt du? → What is your name? - *German-to-DGSglosses*: **<2gloss>** im süden freundliches wetter → sued region besser ## 3.5 Evaluation Following most of the MT tasks, we use three automatic evaluation metrics including BLEU-4 (Papineni et al., 2002), ChrF (Popovic´, 2015) and TER (Snover et al., 2006), with disabled internal tokenization, as suggested by Muller et al. (2022). Paired bootstrap resampling (Koehn, 2004) was performed to indicate the systems that are significantly better than the baseline, and the ones that are tied with the best-scoring system. In order to confirm our conclusions and because the reliability of these metrics has not been confirmed for SL glosses, we conduct human evaluation. Since performing human evaluation for all system requires a lot of effort, we only collect human evaluation for the translation outputs from the best-scoring model and the baseline of every corpus, testing the hypothesis that the best-scoring system is significantly better than the baseline. Significance testing between pairs of systems is based on a one-tailed t-test, with a confidence threshold of α = 0.05. As a means of quantitative human evaluation, we use Direct Assessment (Graham et al., 2013). Alternative translations of the same source by different systems are displayed shuffled at the same screen. A signer scores each output of shuffled systems from 0 to 6 (similar to Kocmi et al., 2022). Outputs marked with 0 fail to translate any of the contents of the original sentence, whereas outputs marked with 6 show no significant mistakes in the translation. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Datasets We conduct our experiments on two parallel German SL (DGS) corpora containing gloss annotations. RWTH-PHOENIX-Weather 2014T (Camgoz et al., 2018), abbreviated as *PHOENIX*, is a parallel corpus of SL containing weather forecasts. The original language was German, translated into DGS by professional interpreters and then annotated with DGS glosses. We use the provided split of parallel train-, dev- and test-set with respective sizes of 7,096, 519 and 642 sentences. The Public DGS Corpus (Hanke et al., 2020; Konrad et al., 2020) 2, further abbreviated as DGS corpus, contains conversations and narrations on topics culturally relevant to the deaf/Deaf community. The original language was DGS, which was then annotated with DGS glosses and German translation. We use the parallel corpus in plain text as extracted by Angelova et al. (2022) 3, including the alignment of the DGS glosses to the German text by using the corresponding timestamps and prepending the gloss of the dominant hand to the non-dominant one, in case they co-occurred. We also follow the same data split into 54,325 training, 4,470 development and 5,113 test sentence pairs. Due to the big size of the test-set, for the human evaluation, we sample randomly 10% of the test sentences. The DGS corpus gloss annotation (Konrad et al., 2022) includes suffixes to indicate different word variants, types, or groups. Muller et al. (2022) note that some annotation conventions may not be relevant to SLT and may make the problem unnecessarily harder. We confirmed this via our preliminary experiments (Appendix D), which yielded very low scores (∼1 BLEU) when generating suffixes and we decided to strip all suffixes, for the following reasons. In order to be able to see the improvements of our methods we needed more generous references. Secondly, a criterion was to preserve basic lexical and syntactic information. A 2https://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/ meinedgs/ling/start_de.html 3https://github.com/dfki-signlanguage/ gloss-to-text-sign-language-translation signer, part of our group, reviewed several gloss examples and noticed that while the suffixes might indicate lexical and phonological variants, so do the corresponding words in the German text, and with having written language as source there was in theory no way to determine which variant was necessary (except training a system to learn from context which seemed excessive at this point). Finally, PHOENIX glosses had no suffixes whatsoever, so by stripping the suffixes, the automatic metrics between the two corpora are comparable. Further work should focus on the importance of the suffixes, the right granularity for every purpose and how to optimize their generation. An example of suffix stripping follows: - original: $INDEX1* SCHÖN1A ALLE2B ICH1 NICHT1* $GEST-OFFˆ - stripped: $INDEX SCHÖN ALLE ICH NICHT $GESTOFF NCSLGR is a very small American Sign Language (ASL) parallel corpus (Vogler and Neidle, 2012), which we split ourselves to 1500, 177 and 178 sentences for train, development and test set. Other corpora The German monolingual weather domain sentences (Angelova et al., 2022) and Europarl-v10 (Koehn, 2005) are used in data augmentation and semi-supervised NMT section (Sections 3.1 and 3.2) respectively. For training the parent model in transfer learning (Section 3.3), we use the parallel German paraphrasing corpus Tatoeba-Challenge (Tiedemann, 2020) for the main experiments in DGS and the synthetic text-to-gloss corpus ASLG-PC12 (Othman and Jemni, 2012) for the supplementary experiment in ASL. The German-English bilingual corpora News-commentary-v16 (Barrault et al., 2019) and Europarl-v10 are used in the section of Multilingual NMT (Section 3.4). We report the statistics of vocabulary level and sentence lexical overlap of corpora with the custom split in Appendix F. ## 4.2 Data Preprocessing For the data preprocessing, at source side, we perform lemmatization on both corpora and alphabet normalization specifically on the PHOENIX (the letters ü, ö, ä, and ß in the glosses are prenormalized by dataset creators). We then apply Byte Pair Encoding (BPE; Sennrich et al., 2016b) to decompose the words and build vocabulary. In the end, we set the lemmatized+normalized sentences with lowercased glosses of PHOENIX and lemmatized sentences with generalized glosses of the DGS corpus to train the models. We present the relevant statistics in Appendixes A and B. ## 4.3 Software All software used is open source. MT models are trained with MarianNMT 1.11.0 (JunczysDowmunt et al., 2018). We also used Sentencepiece 0.1.97 (Kudo and Richardson, 2018), Mosesscripts (Koehn et al., 2007), Subword_nmt 0.3.8 (Sennrich et al., 2016b), Hanover Tagger Lemmatization library 1.0 (Wartena, 2019), Scipy library 1.9.3 for t-test (Virtanen et al., 2020), SacreBLEU 2.2 (Post, 2018) for the automatic metrics and Streamlit 1.17 for the evaluation interface. To avoid model overfitting, we use several techniques such as early stopping (Zhang and Yu, 2005) during the model training. ## 4.4 Baselines For the training hyperparameters, we start from the settings for a transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) by the MarianNMT tutorial4. Specifically by baseline training, we take the advice of some paper that indicate in LRL MT scenarios with small data size, the model performance increases when the number of encoders/decoders are reduced compared to the original transformer architecture, e.g. one encoder and two decoders (Gu et al., 2018) and five encoders and five decoders (Chen et al., 2019; Araabi and Monz, 2020). After running extensive experiments with different combinations, which indicates we should reduce the encoder depth from 6 to 1 and the decoder depth from 6 to 2 to have the neural network fit better the small datasets. We present the baselines in Table 1. Our baseline models achieved a BLEU score of 22.78 on the PHOENIX dev set and 4.04 on the DGS dev set. ## 4.5 Effect Of Monolingual Dataset We first investigate the effect of using the additional monolingual dataset. ## 4.5.1 Data Augmentation Combining preprocessed data We collect different types of source text applied with different preprocessing methods of Section 4.2. For PHOENIX, we combine the original, the normalized, the lemmatized, and the lemmatized+normalized text with the copied target glosses. For DGS, we mix the original and lemmatized text with the corresponding target glosses into a new training dataset. Back-translation We first train simple *gloss-totext* translation models for both corpora and then they generate sets of new source sentences from the target-side glosses. The synthetic texts are paired appropriately and then mixed with the original dataset. Forward translation For PHOENIX, we use a German weather-domain monolingual dataset with the size of 1,203 to get a set of new glosses. Towards DGS, as it is a multiple-domain corpus, we obtain the new glosses by translating its source sentences with the baseline system. We summarize the detailed statistics of the augmented datasets in Appendix C. ## 4.5.2 Semi-Supervised Nmt Here, we use the German monolingual dataset Europarl-v10 with a size of 2,107,971 sentences as auxiliary data. The monolingual data are copied to both the source and target side. To fit the neural network better with a larger training dataset, the encoder-depth is increased from 1 to 6, the decoderdepth from 2 to 6, the validation frequency from 500 to 5,000 and the max batch size from 64 to 1,000, as compared to the baseline. We build up a joint vocabulary of 32,000 entries after the corresponding BPE merge operations. ## 4.6 Effect Of Bilingual Dataset Then we start investigating the impact of the additional bilingual dataset on the model performance. ## 4.6.1 Transfer Learning Model fine-tuning We take the German to English pre-trained model5from Opus (Tiedemann and Thottingal, 2020), whose vocabulary size is 65k. By applying the pre-trained tokenizer to both corpora, we get new vocabulary with size of 2,155 and 7,435 for PHOENIX and DGS corpus, respectively. We then crop the pre-trained vocabulary accordingly and merge the newly built vocabulary into it. 5https://opus.nlpl.eu/leaderboard/index. php?model=deu-eng%2Fopus-2021-02-22&pkg= Tatoeba-MT-models&scoreslang=deu-eng&test=all Warm-start training We select the Tatoeba challenge German paraphrasing dataset with a size of 4,574,760 as the parent language pair. In the first round of training, the training data contain German paraphrasing pairs and SL pairs. The parent model is trained using the Tatoeba challenge validation set. When it converges, we use this as pre-trained model to train with only the SL dataset. The child model is further trained using the SL development set for validation, until it converges too. We again build the joint vocabulary as in Section 4.5.2. During the two training phases, we reduce the validation frequency from 1,000 to 100 for a better observation. ## 4.6.2 Multilingual Nmt We set up the identical source language in this part, *i.e.*, German. Only one additional language is selected to train the multilingual NMT, *i.e.*, English. We assume that a larger auxiliary dataset could be more helpful. Therefore, we set up two groups of sub-experiments with different sizes of auxiliary datasets in this section, *i.e.*, a relatively small dataset New-commentary-v16 with the size of 398,981 ("Multi") and a larger one Europarl-v10 with the size of 1,828,521 ("Multi-big"). Vocabulary and hyperparameters follow those of Section 4.5.2. ## 4.7 Effect Of Combining Methods We run the experiments independently and separately in Section 4.5 and Section 4.6. However, we cannot refuse the assumption that additional gain could be achieved by combining some or all of the best performing methods from above sections. Explicitly, we continue our experiments as following: 1. Combine all the data augmentation techniques of Section 4.5.1 2. Tag the monolingual data in the semisupervised NMT setting of Section 4.5.2. 3. Combine multilingual NMT setting of Section 4.6.2 with combined preprocessed data and back-translation, respectively. ## 5 Results In this part, we will present the performance of the various methods on both SL datasets and offer some further analysis. Corpus System BPE Vocab Dev **Test** BLEU ChrF TER **BLEU ChrF TER** Baseline 2k 22.78 51.87 55.84 20.14 52.04 56.12 Combine 2k 24.01 52.32 53.20 21.88 51.51 54.53 Combine+Tag 2k 22.94 52.09 52.88 21.11 51.65 54.81 Back 2k 23.63 52.03 53.98 21.04 51.59 54.57 Back+Tag 2k 23.62 52.85 52.88 21.57 52.41 53.94 Forward 2k 23.03 52.56 53.71 20.40 51.54 55.63 Forward+Tag 2k 23.45 52.49 54.16 21.64 52.27 54.57 All_combined 2k 23.63 52.32 54.19 21.04 51.97 54.71 Semi 32k 26.76 55.41 51.10 22.67 53.87 53.07 Semi+Tag 32k 26.55 55.76 50.83 24.15 55.13 51.17 Fine-tune 65k 26.39 **56.84** 50.88 24.67 **55.97** 52.86 Warm 32k 27.62 56.92 **49.25** 24.89 55.46 **50.40** Multi 32k 28.34 57.29 **48.48** 24.30 55.71 51.03 Multi-big 32k **27.45** 56.52 48.77 24.97 55.75 **49.89** Multi+combine 32k 26.61 55.59 50.21 23.22 54.55 52.84 Multi-big+combine 32k 28.02 57.07 **49.31** 24.94 55.89 51.01 Multi+back 32k 28.41 **57.54** 49.39 26.32 **56.70** 51.15 Multi-big+back 32k 28.53 57.64 48.93 25.98 **56.67** 50.94 | Corpus | System | BPE Vocab | Dev | Test | |-------------|----------|-------------|-------|--------| | PHOENIX DGS | | | | | Baseline 5k 4.04 31.20 79.34 3.13 30.38 78.64 Combine 5k 3.71 29.97 80.21 2.75 29.31 80.01 Combine+Tag 5k 3.23 28.69 81.31 2.27 28.17 81.03 Back 5k 3.83 30.08 82.75 3.06 29.30 80.94 Back+Tag 5k 3.88 29.66 79.55 2.75 28.91 79.05 Forward 5k 3.51 29.14 83.03 2.81 28.24 81.13 Forward+Tag 5k 3.75 29.69 86.20 2.93 29.06 83.21 All_combine 5k 3.14 28.37 81.61 2.43 27.87 81.83 Semi 32k 5.16 33.43 76.19 4.42 31.81 76.35 Semi+Tag 32k 5.00 32.69 79.47 4.10 31.30 78.67 Fine-tune 65k 5.82 35.05 79.92 4.53 **34.14** 78.98 Warm 32k 5.87 33.42 **74.07** 4.55 31.90 74.54 Multi 32k 6.06 35.18 74.51 5.32 33.55 74.71 Multi-big 32k 6.60 35.26 73.25 **5.46** 33.49 **73.53** Multi+combine 32k 4.64 32.33 80.39 3.85 31.38 78.34 Multi-big+combine 32k 6.79 35.50 73.98 5.61 33.88 **73.94** Multi+back 32k 5.35 33.43 78.30 4.85 32.16 76.76 Multi-big+back 32k 6.82 35.57 76.37 5.78 **33.87** 76.12 ## 5.1 Automatic Evaluation The performance of the various experiments, as measured with automatic metrics can be seen in Table 1. Looking at the scores on the test sets, we can observe that: (1) Overall, the results on PHOENIX are better than on DGS corpus in all aspects. One of the reasons may be that DGS corpus is of broader domain and has a much bigger vocabulary. To support our assumption, we calculate the type-to-token ratio (Templin, 1957) for both corpora (PHOENIX: 2.2% and DGS corpus: 3.2%). (2) For PHOENIX, data augmentation has shown a significant improvement in comparison with the baseline, as measured by BLEU (+1.74) and TER (-1.59), although ChrF fails to measure a significant improvement. On the contrary, the performance on DGS corpus declines as compared to the baseline. (3) Incorporating the large-scale monolingual dataset, (semi-supervised NMT), could further improve the scores of translation systems for both SL datasets. Tagging here seems to be of big importance for PHOENIX (+1.5 BLEU). (4) Transfer learning incurs further improvement, with scores equal or better to the ones achieved with semi-supervised NMT. Here, each metric favors a different setting. ChrF indicates a significant improvement with fine tuning, TER prefers warm | System | Test | | | |------------|--------|-------|-------| | BLEU | ChrF | TER | | | Baseline | 10.50 | 30.65 | 78.95 | | Back | 9.37 | 28.25 | 78.67 | | Warm-start | 12.11 | 33.53 | 83.44 | | Multi | 12.35 | 38.33 | 78.26 | start, whereas BLEU indicates only a very small difference between the two. (5) Multilingual NMT increases the automatic scores even further. The best scoring methods, favored by two automatic metrics each, and taking into consideration the significance tests, are (a) for PHOENIX the Multi with back-translation, Multibig and Multi-big with back-translation, and (b) for DGS corpus the Multi-big, the Multi-big with backtranslation, and the Multi-big with combined preprocessing. In order to confirm the generalizability of our findings, we repeated the experiments with a very small corpus of the ASL, and the results are shown in Table 2. We observe that our best-scored method for the German SL (DGS) also gives the best performance for the ASL corpus, which is confirmed with two out of the automatic metrics. In Table 4, we compare our best model to the approaches of recent work which have run experiments on PHOENIX *text-to-gloss* translation task. One can see that our best-scoring system performs 3.13 points BLEU higher than the closest result. ## 5.2 Quantitative Human Evaluation As part of the human evaluation, an effort of approximately 40 hours for the PHOENIX test set and 20 hours for the DGS corpus was made. The results of the human evaluation (Table 3) confirm the basic hypothesis: that the best performing method of multi-NMT is statistically significantly better than the baseline. The density of the human evaluation scores of the two best scoring systems can be seen in Figure 3. One can see that more than half of the test-sentences of the best PHOENIX system are scored with a 5 or 6, whereas the corresponding percentage for the DGS corpus is only around 20%. Despite the extremely low automatic scores of the best model on the DGS corpus, it is promising that the human evaluator assigned the best score to 10% of the test sentences. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we applied several techniques, commonly used in low resource MT scenarios, for MT from spoken language text to sign language glosses. We presented an extensive experimentation including data augmentation (combination of different pre-processing methods, back- and forward-translation), semi-supervised NMT, transfer learning with two different methods and multilingual NMT with different data sizes. The experiments were based on the two known natural datasets including gloss annotation, the RWTHPHOENIX-Weather 2014T dataset and the Public DGS Corpus. Automatic metrics indicate significant improvement on the evaluation scores for both datasets when using most of the above methods, whereas the best results are achieved via a Multilingual NMT model (6.18 and 2.65 BLEU against the baseline respectively). Our best system outperforms all other state-of-the-art systems from previous work that report on the same test-set. Additionally, the best setting is confirmed with an experiment run on a corpus of the ASL. The conclusions are supported by human evaluation. ## Limitations - These methods have been performed on three SL datasets (Section 4.1) as these were the only publicly available natural SL corpora found to contain gloss annotations. Therefore, the generalization of these conclusions to other SLs is limited and should be confirmed upon availability of suitable data. - SL glosses are not an accurate representation of SLs and critical information can be missing, causing further limitations to the usability of the results (*e.g.* for SL video production) and the reliability of the automatic evaluation. However, as explained in the Introduction (Section 1), we think that given the current resource limitation, investigation of MT on glosses may be a research step to provide indications for other SL representations. - As explained in Section 4.1, stripping the gloss suffixes from the DGS corpus was done in order to allow more clear comparisons with the automatic evaluation metrics, given the low scores incurred when the suffixes were there. It is clear that suffix stripping limits the | System | Size | automatic | human | | | | |----------------------------------|--------|-------------|---------|-------|------|------| | BLEU↑ | ChrF↑ | TER↑ | Mean↑ | Std↑ | | | | PHOENIX Egea Gómez et al. (2021) | 13.13 | 46.86 | 73.33 | 2.74 | 1.64 | | | PHOENIX baseline | 20.14 | 52.04 | 56.12 | 3.85 | 1.58 | | | 642 | | | | | | | | PHOENIX Multi+back | 26.32 | 56.70 | 51.15 | 4.44 | 1.35 | | | DGS Baseline (sampled 10%) | 511 | 3.44 | 29.56 | 78.55 | 2.49 | 1.81 | | DGS Multi-big (sampled 10%) | 6.97 | 33.16 | 73.45 | 3.28 | 1.60 | | Table 3: System comparison based on the human evaluation. The **bold-faced** systems are significantly better than  the respective baselines. (a) PHOENIX Multi+back (b) DGS Multi-big | Approach | Dev | Test | |---------------------------|-------|--------| | BLEU↑ | BLEU↑ | | | Amin et al. (2021) | - | 10.42 | | Egea Gómez et al. (2021)† | - | 13.13 | | Stoll et al. (2020) | 16.34 | 15.26 | | Zhang and Duh (2021) | - | 16.43 | | Li et al. (2021) | - | 18.89 | | Saunders et al. (2020b) | 20.23 | 19.10 | | Saunders et al. (2022) | 21.93 | 20.08 | | Egea Gómez et al. (2022) | - | 20.57 | | Walsh et al. (2022) | 25.09 | 23.19 | | Our PHOENIX Multi+back | 28.41 | 26.32 | Table 4: Results comparison with recent work. (†) We compute the BLEU by ourselves, as the authors of paper only present the BLEU score in character level. representational capacity of the glosses. As stated, further work should focus on the importance of the DGS gloss suffixes, the right granularity for every purpose and how to optimize their generation from MT. - The original language direction of the DGS corpus was opposite to the one that we run our training and evaluation on. This is known to create translationese artifacts. Similar concerns have been expressed regarding the cleanliness of the PHOENIX corpus (Muller et al., 2022). Finally, whereas in MT of spoken language text, test-sets have been manually curated by professional translators for this purpose, in our experiments we use data splits, whose test set quality may not have been confirmed.  - The human evaluation part (Section 3.5) was performed with one signer, but evaluation by more people and coverage of the Deaf community would be ideal. Additionally, due to the high effort required, we could only validate the hypothesis that the best system is significantly better than the baseline. Given more evaluation capacity one could verify whether there is a significantly perceived quality difference between methods that were scored closely by the automatic metrics (*e.g.* transfer learning and multilingual MT). - The automatic metrics used have been designed for evaluating the textual output for MT of spoken languages. Whether they are applicable and reliable with regards to SLs and particularly to SL glosses has not been sufficiently analyzed and should be considered for further work. Any interpretation of the scores should consider this limitation. - Despite the big progress regarding the model trained on the DGS-corpus (Section 5.1), the BLEU scores achieved indicate very low performance, if judged from the experience on the automatic scores for text translation for spoken languages. Whereas we tried to get some information about this by looking at the distribution of scores, further investigation on whether such a system is usable with regards to particular use cases (interpretation, text-tovideo) is needed. ## Ethical Considerations In our work, we present experiments on the German Sign Language (DGS) that are part of a broader research aiming to provide equal access to language technology for sign language users. Nevertheless, the fact that the majority of the researchers in NLP are hearing people entails the risk of developments that are not in accordance with the will of the respective communities, and therefore it is required that every research step takes them in constant consideration. In our broader research we have included members of the Deaf/deaf and hard of hearing communities as part of the research team, consultants and participants in user studies and workshops and we have been in co-operation with related unions and communication centers. The fact that we are performing experiments on glosses, known to be inferior to the full linguistic capacity of the sign languages, should be seen as a methodological tool to aid further research. The Public DGS corpus is provided under a limited license for linguistic research (Schulder and Hanke, 2022), prohibiting any further commercial usage. Any further usage of relevant artifacts from our work should respect the license of the original corpus. Removal of information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content was not deemed necessary. In the Public DGS corpus, participants provided consensus, whereas the content was carefully curated. The PHOENIX corpus does not pose any relevant risk because the content (weather forecasts) does not include any personal information. All other datasets used have been published with open or public domain licenses. Since our work does not use videos of SLs, there should be no ethical concerns regarding processing of human faces. ## Acknowledgements The research reported in this paper was supported by BMBF (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research) via the project SocialWear (grant no. 01IW20002). We would like to thank Mathias Müller and Amit Moryossef for their advice with regards to DGS glosses. ## References Mohamed Amin, Hesahm Hefny, and Ammar Mohammed. 2021. Sign language gloss translation using deep learning models. *International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications*, 12(11). Galina Angelova, Eleftherios Avramidis, and Sebastian Möller. 2022. Using neural machine translation methods for sign language translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, pages 273–284, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ali Araabi and Christof Monz. 2020. Optimizing transformer for low-resource neural machine translation. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference* on Computational Linguistics, pages 3429–3435, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Loïc Barrault, Ondˇrej Bojar, Marta R. Costa-jussà, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Philipp Koehn, Shervin Malmasi, Christof Monz, Mathias Müller, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2019. Findings of the 2019 conference on machine translation (WMT19). In *Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared* Task Papers, Day 1), pages 1–61, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Necati Cihan Camgoz, Simon Hadfield, Oscar Koller, and Richard Bowden. 2017. Subunets: End-to-end hand shape and continuous sign language recognition. In *2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer* Vision (ICCV), pages 3075–3084. Necati Cihan Camgoz, Simon Hadfield, Oscar Koller, Hermann Ney, and Richard Bowden. 2018. Neural sign language translation. In *2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 7784–7793. Isaac Caswell, Ciprian Chelba, and David Grangier. 2019. Tagged back-translation. In *Proceedings of the* Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 1: Research Papers), pages 53–63, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peng-Jen Chen, Jiajun Shen, Matthew Le, Vishrav Chaudhary, Ahmed El-Kishky, Guillaume Wenzek, Myle Ott, and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. 2019. Facebook AI's WAT19 Myanmar-English translation task submission. In *Proceedings of the 6th Workshop* on Asian Translation, pages 112–122, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yutong Chen, Ronglai Zuo, Fangyun Wei, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, and Brian Mak. 2023. Two-stream network for sign language recognition and translation. Yong Cheng, Wei Xu, Zhongjun He, Wei He, Hua Wu, Maosong Sun, and Yang Liu. 2016. Semi-supervised learning for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1965–1974, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Luis Chiruzzo, Euan McGill, Santiago Egea-Gómez, and Horacio Saggion. 2022. Translating Spanish into Spanish Sign Language: Combining rules and data-driven approaches. In Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Technologies for Machine Translation of Low-Resource Languages (LoResMT 2022), pages 75–83, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics. Judith Collins, Granville Tate, and Paul Hann. 2012. A translation studies approach to glossing using ELAN. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 4:83– 91. Mathieu De Coster, Dimitar Shterionov, Mieke van Herreweghe, and Joni Dambre. 2022. Machine translation from signed to spoken languages: State of the art and challenges. *ArXiv*, abs/2202.03086. Anna Currey, Antonio Valerio Miceli Barone, and Kenneth Heafield. 2017. Copied monolingual data improves low-resource neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, pages 148–156, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Santiago Egea Gómez, Luis Chiruzzo, Euan McGill, and Horacio Saggion. 2022. Linguistically enhanced text to sign gloss machine translation. In Natural Language Processing and Information Systems: 27th International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, NLDB 2022, Valencia, Spain, June 15–17, 2022, Proceedings, page 172–183, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag. Santiago Egea Gómez, Euan McGill, and Horacio Saggion. 2021. Syntax-aware transformers for neural machine translation: The case of text to sign gloss translation. In *Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Building and Using Comparable Corpora (BUCC 2021)*, pages 18–27, Online (Virtual Mode). INCOMA Ltd. Yvette Graham, Timothy Baldwin, Alistair Moffat, and Justin Zobel. 2013. Continuous measurement scales in human evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, pages 33–41, Sofia, Bulgaria. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiatao Gu, Hany Hassan, Jacob Devlin, and Victor O.K. Li. 2018. Universal neural machine translation for extremely low resource languages. In *Proceedings* of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 344–354, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Hanke, Marc Schulder, Reiner Konrad, and Elena Jahn. 2020. Extending the Public DGS Corpus in size and depth. In Proceedings of the LREC2020 9th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Sign Language Resources in the Service of the Language Community, Technological Challenges and Application Perspectives, pages 75– 82, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Melvin Johnson, Mike Schuster, Quoc V. Le, Maxim Krikun, Yonghui Wu, Zhifeng Chen, Nikhil Thorat, Fernanda Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, Greg Corrado, Macduff Hughes, and Jeffrey Dean. 2017. Google's multilingual neural machine translation system: Enabling zero-shot translation. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 5:339–351. Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt, Roman Grundkiewicz, Tomasz Dwojak, Hieu Hoang, Kenneth Heafield, Tom Neckermann, Frank Seide, Ulrich Germann, Alham Fikri Aji, Nikolay Bogoychev, André F. T. Martins, and Alexandra Birch. 2018. Marian: Fast neural machine translation in C++. In *Proceedings of* ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 116–121, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom Kocmi, Rachel Bawden, Ondˇrej Bojar, Anton Dvorkovich, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Thamme Gowda, Yvette Graham, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Rebecca Knowles, Philipp Koehn, Christof Monz, Makoto Morishita, Masaaki Nagata, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Michal Novák, Martin Popel, and Maja Popovic. 2022. ´ Findings of the 2022 conference on machine translation (WMT22). In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 1–45, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom Kocmi and Ondˇrej Bojar. 2020. Efficiently reusing old models across languages via transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 19–28, Lisboa, Portugal. European Association for Machine Translation. Philipp Koehn. 2004. Statistical significance tests for machine translation evaluation. In *Proceedings of the* 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 388–395, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Philipp Koehn. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit X: Papers, pages 79–86, Phuket, Thailand. Philipp Koehn, Hieu Hoang, Alexandra Birch, Chris Callison-Burch, Marcello Federico, Nicola Bertoldi, Brooke Cowan, Wade Shen, Christine Moran, Richard Zens, Chris Dyer, Ondˇrej Bojar, Alexandra Constantin, and Evan Herbst. 2007. Moses: Open source toolkit for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Companion Volume Proceedings of the Demo and Poster Sessions, pages 177–180, Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Reiner Konrad, Thomas Hanke, Gabriele Langer, Dolly Blanck, Julian Bleicken, Ilona Hofmann, Olga Jeziorski, Lutz König, Susanne König, Rie Nishio, Anja Regen, Uta Salden, Sven Wagner, Satu Worseck, Oliver Böse, Elena Jahn, and Marc Schulder. 2020. MEINE DGS - annotiert. Öffentliches Korpus der Deutschen Gebärdensprache, 3. Release / MY DGS – annotated. Public Corpus of German Sign Language, 3rd release. Reiner Konrad, Thomas Hanke, Gabriele Langer, Susanne König, Lutz König, Rie Nishio, and Anja Regen. 2022. Öffentliches DGS-Korpus: Annotationskonventionen / Public DGS Corpus: Annotation conventions. Project Note AP03-2018-01, DGS-Korpus project, IDGS, Hamburg University, Hamburg, Germany. Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66–71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Gabriele Langer, Susanne König, and Silke Matthes. 2014. Compiling a Basic Vocabulary for German Sign Language (DGS) - lexicographic issues with a focus on word senses. In Proceedings of the 16th EURALEX International Congress, pages 767–786, Bolzano, Italy. EURAC research. Dongxu Li, Chenchen Xu, Liu Liu, Yiran Zhong, Rongzhao Wang, Lars Petersson, and Hongdong Li. 2021. Transcribing natural languages for the deaf via neural editing programs. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Guanlin Li, Lemao Liu, Guoping Huang, Conghui Zhu, and Tiejun Zhao. 2019. Understanding data augmentation in neural machine translation: Two perspectives towards generalization. In *Proceedings of* the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5689–5695, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. V. López-Ludeña, C. González-Morcillo, J.C. López, E. Ferreiro, J. Ferreiros, and R. San-Segundo. 2014. Methodology for developing an advanced communications system for the deaf in a new domain. Knowledge-Based Systems, 56:240–252. Amit Moryossef, Kayo Yin, Graham Neubig, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Data augmentation for sign language gloss translation. In *Proceedings of the 1st* International Workshop on Automatic Translation for Signed and Spoken Languages (AT4SSL), pages 1–11, Virtual. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. Anke Müller, Thomas Hanke, Reiner Konrad, Gabriele Langer, and Sabrina Wähl. 2020. From dictionary to corpus and back again - linking heterogeneous language resources for DGS. In Proceedings of the LREC2020 9th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Sign Language Resources in the Service of the Language Community, Technological Challenges and Application Perspectives, pages 157–164, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Mathias Muller, Zifan Jiang, Amit Moryossef, Annette Rios Gonzales, and Sarah Ebling. 2022. Considerations for meaningful sign language machine translation based on glosses. *ArXiv*, abs/2211.15464. Graham Neubig and Junjie Hu. 2018. Rapid adaptation of neural machine translation to new languages. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 875–880, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Toan Q. Nguyen and David Chiang. 2017. Transfer learning across low-resource, related languages for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 296–301, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Achraf Othman and Mohamed Jemni. 2012. Englishasl gloss parallel corpus 2012: Aslg-pc12. In 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon LREC. Sinno Jialin Pan and Qiang Yang. 2010. A survey on transfer learning. *IEEE Transactions on Knowledge* and Data Engineering, 22:1345–1359. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Elena Pizzuto, Paolo Rossini, and Tommaso Russo. 2006. Representing signed languages in written form: questions that need to be posed. In *Proceedings of* the Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages, 2006 Language Resources and Evalation Conference, pages 1–6. ELRA. Maja Popovic. 2015. ´ chrF: character n-gram F-score for automatic MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 392–395, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In *Proceedings of the Third Conference on* Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186– 191, Belgium, Brussels. Association for Computational Linguistics. Surangika Ranathunga, En-Shiun Annie Lee, Marjana Prifti Skenduli, Ravi Shekhar, Mehreen Alam, and Rishemjit Kaur. 2021. Neural machine translation for low-resource languages: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys. Razieh Rastgoo, Kourosh Kiani, Sergio Escalera, and M. Sabokrou. 2021. Sign language production: A review. *2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer* Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 3446–3456. Rubén San-Segundo, Juan Montero, Ricardo Cordoba, V. Sama, Fernando Fernández-Martínez, Luis D'Haro, Verónica López-Ludeña, D. Sánchez, and A. García. 2012. Design, development and field evaluation of a spanish into sign language translation system. *Pattern Analysis and Applications*, 15. Ben Saunders, Necati Cihan Camgöz, and R. Bowden. 2020a. Adversarial training for multi-channel sign language production. *ArXiv*, abs/2008.12405. Ben Saunders, Necati Cihan Camgöz, and R. Bowden. 2020b. Progressive transformers for end-to-end sign language production. *ArXiv*, abs/2004.14874. Ben Saunders, Necati Cihan Camgoz, and Richard Bowden. 2022. Signing at scale: Learning to co-articulate signs for large-scale photo-realistic sign language production. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition* (CVPR), pages 5141–5151. Marc Schulder and Thomas Hanke. 2022. How to be FAIR when you CARE: The DGS Corpus as a case study of open science resources for minority languages. In *Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference*, pages 164–173, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016a. Improving neural machine translation models with monolingual data. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 86–96, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016b. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715– 1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rico Sennrich and Biao Zhang. 2019. Revisiting lowresource neural machine translation: A case study. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 211– 221, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matthew Snover, Bonnie Dorr, Rich Schwartz, Linnea Micciulla, and John Makhoul. 2006. A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Technical Papers, pages 223–231, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. Stephanie Stoll, Necati Camgoz, Simon Hadfield, and Richard Bowden. 2020. Text2sign: Towards sign language production using neural machine translation and generative adversarial networks. International Journal of Computer Vision. MILDRED C. Templin. 1957. Certain Language Skills in Children: Their Development and Interrelationships, ned - new edition edition, volume 26. University of Minnesota Press. Jörg Tiedemann. 2020. The tatoeba translation challenge - realistic data sets for low resource and multilingual MT. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 1174–1182, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jörg Tiedemann and Santhosh Thottingal. 2020. OPUSMT - building open translation services for the world. In *Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of* the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 479–480, Lisboa, Portugal. European Association for Machine Translation. Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *ArXiv*, abs/1706.03762. Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nelson, Eric Jones, Robert Kern, Eric Larson, C J Carey, ˙Ilhan Polat, Yu Feng, Eric W. Moore, Jake VanderPlas, Denis Laxalde, Josef Perktold, Robert Cimrman, Ian Henriksen, E. A. Quintero, Charles R. Harris, Anne M. Archibald, Antônio H. Ribeiro, Fabian Pedregosa, Paul van Mulbregt, and SciPy 1.0 Contributors. 2020. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. *Nature Methods*, 17:261–272. Christian Vogler and Carol Neidle. 2012. A new web interface to facilitate access to corpora: development of the ASLLRP data access interface. In *Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the Representation and* Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon. Harry Walsh, Ben Saunders, and Richard Bowden. 2022. Changing the representation: Examining language representation for neural sign language production. In *Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on* Sign Language Translation and Avatar Technology: The Junction of the Visual and the Textual: Challenges and Perspectives, pages 117–124, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Christian Wartena. 2019. A probabilistic morphology model for german lemmatization. In *Conference on* Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS 2019), pages 40 - 49. Jiajun Zhang and Chengqing Zong. 2016. Exploiting source-side monolingual data in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1535–1545, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tong Zhang and Bin Yu. 2005. Boosting with early stopping: Convergence and consistency. *The Annals* of Statistics, 33(4). Xuan Zhang and Kevin Duh. 2021. Approaching sign language gloss translation as a low-resource machine translation task. In *Proceedings of the 1st* International Workshop on Automatic Translation for Signed and Spoken Languages (AT4SSL), pages 60–70, Virtual. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. Barret Zoph, Deniz Yuret, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2016. Transfer learning for low-resource neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1568–1575, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## C Statistics Of Augmented Datasets D Effect Of Dgs-Corpus Gloss Suffixes To The Automatic Evaluation E Statistics Of Additional Datasets Appendix A Statistics Of Sign Language Datasets F Vocabulary-Level And Sentence-Level Overlap For Custom Split B Effect Of Source-Side Preprocessing we ran preliminary experiments on PHOENIX with lemmatization in order to determine the baseline settings. The results of these experiments on PHOENIX appear in Table 7. One can see that lemmatization incurs considerable automatic metric improvements, with an improvement of around 0.9 BLEU score on test set. In Table 8, we demonstrate the statistics of the source side after the data preprocessing. We can see that the vocabulary size has dropped by around 23% and 25% after data preprocessing, respectively. As an appendix for Section 4.5.1, we present here the statistics of the datasets through our data augmentation methods in Table 9. We train these two multilingual NMT systems on the DGS corpus under the same configurations but they are evaluated against two different types of reference translations: the original DGS glosses and the glosses with stripped suffixes. In Table 10 we can observe the results, indicating that generating glosses with correct suffices is a much harder problem and that current automatic metrics are not optimized to measure that. The statistics of additional datasets used for data augmentation (Section 3.1), semi-supervised NMT (Section 3.2), warm-start of transfer learning (Section 3.3) and multilingual NMT (Section 3.4) are shown in Table 11. We present the statistical analysis of all sign language corpora in Table 5 and Table 6. Out-ofVocabulary (OOV) are the words that only appear in development or test set and singletons are the least frequent words appearing only once. We calculate the vocabulary overlap over the difference of the vocabulary counts and OOVs in Table 6 and Table 8 of the preprocessed datasets. The DGS vocabulary overlap is 79.61% between test and train set and 80.24% between dev and train set. The vocabulary overlap for NCSLGR is 69.50% and 70.60%, respectively. The official splits of the PHOENIX dataset (that has been used in most of the SoTA papers and related work) have a much higher vocabulary overlap, of 95.45% and 95.08% respectively. Previous work on *gloss-to-text* translation (Moryossef et al., 2021) suggested the use of lemmatization of the spoken language words as part of their data augmentation pipelines. Lemmatization of spoken language words in the *text-to-gloss* is justified by the fact that they contain inflection (*e.g.* for nouns, or verb conjugation), something that does not exist in SL glosses (Moryossef et al., 2021). Therefore | PHOENIX | Generalized DGS | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------|-------------------|--------|---------|---------|--------|--------|----------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------| | Text | Glosses | Text | Glosses | | | | | | | | | | | Train | Dev | Test | Train | Dev | Test | Train | Dev | Test | Train | Dev | Test | | | Sentences | 7, 096 | 519 | 642 | 7, 096 | 519 | 642 | 54, 325 | 4, 470 | 5, 113 | 54, 325 | 4, 470 | 5, 113 | | Vocabulary | 2, 887 | 951 | 1, 001 | 1, 085 | 393 | 411 | 20, 868 | 4, 617 | 4, 992 | 19, 521 | 4, 894 | 5, 688 | | Tot. words | 99, 081 | 6, 820 | 7, 816 | 55, 247 | 3, 748 | 4, 264 | 472, 609 | 36, 629 | 44, 452 | 301, 772 | 21, 715 | 28, 405 | | Tot. OOVs | - | 57 | 60 | - | 14 | 19 | - | 971 | 1, 080 | - | 614 | 752 | | Singletons | 1, 077 | - | - | 355 | - | - | 9, 946 | - | - | 6, 286 | - | - | Table 5: Statistics of both corpora. Table 6: Statistics of NCSLGR. | NCSLGR | | | | | | | |------------|---------|--------|--------|---------|--------|--------| | Text | Glosses | | | | | | | Train | Dev | Test | Train | Dev | Test | | | Sentences | 1, 500 | 177 | 178 | 1, 500 | 177 | 178 | | Vocabulary | 2, 796 | 745 | 754 | 2, 287 | 662 | 639 | | Tot. words | 13, 904 | 1, 860 | 1, 832 | 11, 064 | 1, 471 | 1, 449 | | Tot. OOVs | - | 219 | 230 | - | 210 | 192 | | Singletons | 1, 665 | - | - | 1, 209 | - | - | Preprocessing **Dev Test** BLEU ChrF TER BLEU ChrF TER No lemmatization 27.90 57.50 49.92 25.44 56.30 51.76 With lemmatization 28.41 57.54 49.39 26.32 56.70 51.15 Table 7: Effect of lemmatization on preliminary experiments of the PHOENIX corpus. Table 8: Statistics of preprocessed corpora. Table 9: Statistics of augmented datasets DGS gloss reference **Dev Test** BLEU-4 ChrF TER BLEU-4 **ChrF TER** Original_DGS 1.21 32.67 92.24 0.81 31.34 91.78 Generalized_DGS 6.06 35.18 74.51 5.32 33.55 74.71 Table 10: Results comparison with different DGS gloss references. | PHOENIX | Generalized DGS | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------|-------------------|--------|-------------------|---------|--------|--------|----------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------| | Text | Preprocessed text | Text | Preprocessed text | | | | | | | | | | | Train | Dev | Test | Train | Dev | Test | Train | Dev | Test | Train | Dev | Test | | | Sentences | 7, 096 | 519 | 642 | 7, 096 | 519 | 642 | 54, 325 | 4, 470 | 5, 113 | 54, 325 | 4, 470 | 5, 113 | | Vocabulary | 2, 887 | 951 | 1, 001 | 2, 216 | 793 | 836 | 20, 868 | 4, 617 | 4, 992 | 15, 170 | 3, 497 | 3, 791 | | Tot. words | 99, 081 | 6, 820 | 7, 816 | 99, 081 | 6, 820 | 7, 816 | 472, 609 | 36, 629 | 44, 452 | 472, 609 | 36, 629 | 44, 452 | | Tot. OOVs | - | 57 | 60 | - | 39 | 38 | - | 971 | 1, 080 | - | 691 | 773 | | Singletons | 1, 077 | - | - | 765 | - | - | 9, 946 | - | - | 6, 929 | - | - | | PHOENIX Text | PHOENIX Glosses | DGS Text | DGS Glosses | | | | | | |---------------------|-------------------|------------|---------------|-----------|-------------|-----------|-------------|---------| | Authentic | Synthetic | Authentic | Synthetic | Authentic | Synthetic | Authentic | Synthetic | | | Original | 7, 096 | − | 7096 | − | 54, 325 | − | 54, 325 | − | | Combining | 7, 096 | 3 ∗ 7096 | 4 ∗ 7096 | − | 54, 325 | 54, 325 | 2 ∗ 54, 325 | − | | Back-translation | 7, 096 | 7, 096 | 2 ∗ 7, 096 | − | 54, 325 | 54, 325 | 2 ∗ 54, 325 | − | | Forward-translation | 7, 096 | 1, 023 | 7, 096 | 1, 023 | 2 ∗ 54, 325 | − | 54, 325 | 54, 325 | Monolingual German weather domain sentences de 1, 203 Europarl-v10 de 2, 107, 971 | Dataset | Language (pair) | # | | |---------------------|---------------------------------|-------------|--------| | Monolingual | German weather domain sentences | de | 1, 203 | | Europarl-v10 | de | 2, 107, 971 | | | Tatoeba-Challenge | de-de | 4, 574, 760 | | | News-commentary-v16 | de-en | 398, 981 | | | Europarl-v10 | de-en | 1, 828, 521 | | | ASLG-PC12 | en-ASL | 87, 710 | | Bilingual Tatoeba-Challenge de-de 4, 574, 760 News-commentary-v16 de-en 398, 981 Europarl-v10 de-en 1, 828, 521 ASLG-PC12 en-ASL 87, 710 Table 11: Auxiliary language datasets overview. For sentence lexical overlap within the DGS corpus there are no sentences with 100% lexical overlap, 6.45% of the test sentences had approximately 90% overlap with the train set and 1.51% of the test sentences had approximately 80% overlap with the train set, whereas the sentence-level overlap between the dev set and the train set is similar. For the NCSLGR test set, the overlaps are 0, 12.23% and 4,26% and for dev set 0, 14.44% and 5.88% respectively. The sentence-level lexical overlaps of our custom splits are lower or comparable to the ones of the official PHOENIX corpus. These are 0, 11.06% and 16.04% in the test set and 0, 7.32% and 15.42% in the dev set respectively. ## G Statistics On Computational Experiments Experiments were run in a GPU computational cluster on an Nvidia RTXA-6000, using 1 GPU, 2 CPUs and 50 GB of RAM and summing approximately 100 hours of computational time. ## H Human Evaluation The human evaluator and consultant is a user of the German Sign Language (DGS) and an employed member of our research team, having consented on the use of their evaluation effort for this research. The interface used for the human evaluation can be seen in Figure 4. The evaluation rating was that outputs marked with 0 failed to translate any of the contents of the original sentence, whereas outputs marked with 6 show no significant mistakes in the translation. Insignificant mistakes or minor issues dropped the rating from 6 to a 5 or 4, some correctly translated words or phrases pushed it up from 0 to 1 or 2 or, if some information was conveyed but it was missing significant interrelations, to 3. ## ❏ Click If It Is A Bad Reference PHOENIX GERMAN SENTENCE REFERENCE 0 regen und schnee lassen an den alpen in der nacht nach im norden und nordosten fallen hier und da schauer sonst ist das klar PHOENIX GLOSS REFERENCE 0 regen schnee region verschwinden nord regen koennen region stern koennen sehen PREDICTION 1 nacht nordost schauer alpen ix region wolke klar Score for prediction 1  • o PREDICTION 2 alpen regen schnee heute nacht region regen nord nordost klar stern koennen sehen Score for prediction 2 0 . a PREDICTION 3 6  SAVE & PAUSE 8 ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations have been described as separate section after the Conclusions, as required by the ACL instructions. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Risks with regards to technological developments and their acceptance by communities using the Sign Languages are described in the Section of the "Ethical Considerations". ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 (4.1, 4.3) ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4.3 (software), Ethical considerations section (datasets) ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? discussion in Ethical considerations section ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? discussion in Ethical considerations section ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4 (4.1) ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Sections 4 And 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Sections 4 and Appendix ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Sections 3.5, 4.2, 4.3 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Sections 3.5, 5.2 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Appendix ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? We didn't create any data. Evaluator consented on the use of their evaluation effort. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. There was no data collection ✗ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? We only had one human evaluator. Further demographic and geographic characteristics are not relevant to the experiment, given the current state of research, and would unnecessarily reveal personal information of the evaluator.

he-etal-2023-revisiting

Revisiting Event Argument Extraction: Can {EAE} Models Learn Better When Being Aware of Event Co-occurrences?

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.701

Event co-occurrences have been proved effective for event extraction (EE) in previous studies, but have not been considered for event argument extraction (EAE) recently. In this paper, we try to fill this gap between EE research and EAE research, by highlighting the question that \textit{{``}Can EAE models learn better when being aware of event co-occurrences?{''}}. To answer this question, we reformulate EAE as a problem of table generation and extend a SOTA prompt-based EAE model into a non-autoregressive generation framework, called TabEAE, which is able to extract the arguments of multiple events in parallel. Under this framework, we experiment with 3 different training-inference schemes on 4 datasets (ACE05, RAMS, WikiEvents and MLEE) and discover that via training the model to extract all events in parallel, it can better distinguish the semantic boundary of each event and its ability to extract single event gets substantially improved. Experimental results show that our method achieves new state-of-the-art performance on the 4 datasets. Our code is avilable at \url{https://github.com/Stardust-hyx/TabEAE}.

# Revisiting Event Argument Extraction: Can Eae Models Learn Better When Being Aware Of Event Co-Occurrences? Yuxin He1and **Jingyue Hu**1and **Buzhou Tang**1,2,† 1Department of Computer Science, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, China 2Peng Cheng Laboratory, Shenzhen, China 21S051047@stu.hit.edu.cn tangbuzhou@gmail.com ## Abstract  Event co-occurrences have been proved effective for event extraction (EE) in previous studies, but have not been considered for event argument extraction (EAE) recently. In this paper, we try to fill this gap between EE research and EAE research, by highlighting the question that *"Can EAE models learn better* when being aware of event co-occurrences?". To answer this question, we reformulate EAE as a problem of table generation and extend a SOTA prompt-based EAE model into a nonautoregressive generation framework, called TabEAE, which is able to extract the arguments of multiple events in parallel. Under this framework, we experiment with 3 different training-inference schemes on 4 datasets (ACE05, RAMS, WikiEvents and MLEE) and discover that via training the model to extract all events in parallel, it can better distinguish the semantic boundary of each event and its ability to extract single event gets substantially improved. Experimental results show that our method achieves new state-ofthe-art performance on the 4 datasets. Our code is avilable at https://github.com/ Stardust-hyx/TabEAE. ## 1 Introduction Event argument extraction (EAE) is an essential subtask of event extraction (EE). Given an input text and trigger(s) of target event(s), the EAE task aims to extract all argument(s) of each target event. Recently, substantial progress has been reported on EAE, thanks to the success of pre-trained language models (PLMs). Previous studies on EE commonly take event cooccurrences into account. However, recent works on EAE (Ebner et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2022; Du and Cardie, 2020; Wei et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Du et al., Figure 1: An illustration of EE and EAE. The triggers are in red and the arguments are underlined. EE models aim at extracting all events concurrently, whereas mainstream EAE models are trained to extract the arguments for one event trigger at a time. 2021; Lu et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2022) only consider one event at a time and ignore event cooccurrences (as illustrated in Figure 1). In fact, event co-occurrences always exisit in text and they are useful in revealing event correlation and contrasting the semantic structures of different events. For the instance in Figure 1, there exist two events in the same context. The two events are triggered by "leaving", "become" respectively, and share the same subject "Davies". It is clear that there exists a strong causal correlation between the two events. However, mainstream works on EAE split the instance into two samples, which conceals this correlation. In this paper, we try to resolve this divergence between EE research and EAE research, by highlighting the question that *"Can EAE models learn better* †Corresponding Author. when being aware of event co-occurrences?". To address this question, we reformulate EAE as a problem of table generation and extend the SOTA prompt-based EAE model, PAIE (Ma et al., 2022), into a non-autoregressive generation framework to extract the arguments of multiple events concurrently. Our framework, called TabEAE, inherits the encoding, prompt construction and span selection modules from PAIE, but employs a novel non-autoregressive decoder for table generation. Under this framework, we explore three kinds of training-inference schemes: (1) *Single-Single*, training model to extract single event at a time and infer in the same way; (2) *Multi-Multi*, training model to extract all events in parallel and infer in the same way; (3) *Multi-Single*, training model to extract all events in parallel and let the model extract single event at a time during inference. According to our experiments, the MultiSingle scheme works the best on 3 benchmarks (ACE, RAMS and WikiEvents) and the Multi-Multi scheme works the best on the MLEE benchmark, where the phenomenon of nested events extensively exists. Besides, in-depth analysis reveals that via training TabEAE to extract all events in parallel, it can better capture the semantic boundary of each event and its ability to extract single event at a time gets substantially improved. To sum up, our contributions include: - We observe the divergence between EE research and EAE research in terms of the phenomenon of event co-occurrence. To resolve this divergence, we extend the SOTA prompt-based EAE model PAIE into a text-to-table framework, TabEAE, which is able to extract the arguments of multiple events concurrently. - Under the TabEAE framework, we explore three training-inference schemes, i.e. Single-Single, Multi-Multi, Multi-Single, and verify the significance of event co-occurrence for EAE. - The proposed method outperforms SOTA EAE methods by 1.1, 0.4, 0.7 and 2.7 in Arg-C F1 respectively on the 4 benchmarks ACE05, RAMS, WikiEvents and MLEE. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Event Argument Extraction As a crucial subtask of EE, EAE has long been studied. In the early stages, EAE is only treated as a component of EE systems (Chen et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020), where the phenomenon of event co-occurrence is always taken into account. Recently, more and more works study EAE as a stand-alone problem. We summarize these recent works on EAE into 4 categories: (1) spanbased methods that identify candidate spans and predict the roles of them (Ebner et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2022); (2) QA-based methods that query arguments using questions constructed with predefined templates (Du and Cardie, 2020; Wei et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021); (3) sequence-tosequence methods that leveraging generative PLMs, e.g. BART (Lewis et al., 2020) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), to sequentially generate all arguments of the target event (Li et al., 2021; Du et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2021); (4) a prompt-based method by Ma et al. (2022) that leverages slotted prompts to extract arguments in a generative slot-filling manner. Among them, the prompt-based method, PAIE (Ma et al., 2022), demonstrates SOTA performance. However, all of them only consider one event at a time, diverging from EE research. In this work, we adapt PAIE into a non-autoregressive table generation framework, which is able to extract the arguments of multiple events in parallel. ## 2.2 Text-To-Table Although table-to-text (Bao et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020) is a well-studied problem in the area of controllable natural language generation, Text-toTable, the inverse problem of table-to-text, is just newly introduced by Wu et al. (2022). In Wu et al. (2022), text-to-table is solved with a sequence-tosequence model enhanced with table constraint and table relation embeddings. In contrast, our table generation framework constructs the slotted table input based on given trigger(s) and predefined prompt(s), and generate in a non-autoregressive manner. ## 3 Methodology In this section, we will first give an formal definition of EAE and then introduce TabEAE, our solution to the task in detail. ## 3.1 Task Definition An instance of EAE has the general form of (x, {ti} N i=1 , {ei} N i=1 , {Rei} N i=1 , {Ai} N i=1), where x is the text (a sentence or a document), N is the  number of target events, tiis the trigger of i-th event, eiis the type of i-th event, Reiis the set of argument roles associated with the event type ei, Aiis the set of arguments of the i-th event and each a (r) ∈ Aiis a textual span within x that represents the role r ∈ Rei. Different from the formulation by previous research on EAE that only considers one event for an input instance, this formulation takes all events co-occurring in the same context into consideration, providing a more comprehensive view of the problem. ## 3.2 Tabeae Our solution to EAE is a non-autoregressive table generation framework, namely TabEAE, which is derived from the SOTA prompt-based EAE model PAIE. Figure 2 gives an overview of the framework. A detailed description of each component comes as follows. ## 3.2.1 Trigger-Aware Context Encoding Given an input text x = x1, x2*, ..., x*L with a set of event triggers, we first mark each trigger with a pair of markers (<T-i>, </T-i>), where i counts the order of occurrence. Note that, there may be multiple events sharing the same trigger, in which case the shared trigger will only be marked once. After that, we tokenize the marked text into $$\tilde{\bf x}=[\mathrm{\bf<s>},x_{1},x_{2},...,\mathrm{\bf<T-1>},x_{t_{1}},\mathrm{\bf</T-1>},\quad\mathrm{(1)}$$ $$...,\mathrm{\bf<T-}i\mathrm{\bf>},x_{t_{i}},\mathrm{\bf</T-}i\mathrm{\bf>},...,x_{L},\mathrm{\bf</s>}]\quad\mathrm{(2)}$$ where $x_{t_{i}}$ is the text fragment of the $i$-th trigger. By feeding x˜ into a transformer-based encoder, we can get the encoding of the text: $$E_{\tilde{\mathbf{x}}}=\mathrm{Encoder}({\tilde{\mathbf{x}}})$$ $\eqref{eq:walpha}$. Ex˜ = Encoder(x˜) (3) We follow PAIE (Ma et al., 2022), to further decodes Ex˜ with a decoder to obtain the eventoriented context representation: $$(4)$$ $$\operatorname{\mathrm{r}}(E_{\mathbf{x}})$$ Hx˜ = Decoder(Ex˜) (4) ## 3.2.2 Slotted Table Construction The decoder input is constructed as a slotted table, where the column header is the concatenation of event-schema prompt(s) proposed by PAIE. Considering the example in Figure 2, there are a Life-die event with trigger "kills" and a Life-injure event with trigger "injured". Then the column header is "Victim (and Victim) died at Place (and *Place)* killed by Killer (and Killer). Victim (and *Victim)* injured by Injurer (and *Injurer)."*, where the first sentence is the prompt for Life-die event, the second sentence is the prompt for Life-injure event, and each underlined part is named after a argument role, acting as the head of a column. There are multiple columns sharing the same argument role for the extraction of multiple arguments playing the same role in an event. We initialize the representation of column header by feeding each prompt into the encoder in parallel and concatenating the encoding outputs: $$\begin{array}{l}{E_{\mathsf{PR}_{j}}={\mathrm{Encoder}}(\mathsf{PR}_{j})}\\ {E_{\mathsf{CH}}=[E_{\mathsf{PR}_{1}}:\ldots:E_{\mathsf{PR}_{j}}:\ldots:E_{\mathsf{PR}_{M}}]}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{c}{{(5)}}\\ {{(6)}}\end{array}$$ : ... : EPRM ] (6) where PRj is the j-th prompt, M is the number of event type(s). The i-th row of the table starts with the i-th trigger, followed by a sequence of argument slots Si. The initial representation of the i-th trigger, Eti , is copied from the encoding of the marked text. And the initial representation of argument slots, ESi , is the average of the encoding of corresponding argument roles (in the column header) and the encoding of corresponding trigger markers. We denote all the argument slots as S = {Si} N i=1. The initial representations of table components are row-wise concatenated to obtain the initial representation of the table: $$E_{\mathrm{Tab}}=[E_{\mathrm{CH}}:E_{t_{1}}:E_{S_{1}}:...:E_{t_{N}}:E_{S_{N}}]\quad(7)$$ ## 3.2.3 Non-Autoregressive Table Decoding The non-autoregressive decoder iteratively updates the representation of input table via structure-aware self-attention inner the table as well as crossattention between the table and the encoder output. Structure-aware Self-attention We devise a structure-aware self-attention mask, MTab, so that each element of the table can only attend to the region related to it. Our design is as follows: - All tokens within the column header attend to each other. - All tokens within the column header attend to the event trigger(s). - Each role along with corresponding argument slot(s) attend to each other. - Each event trigger along with corresponding argument slot(s) attend to each other. Note that this attention mask is only used for the decoding of slotted table. When computing Hx˜ (Equation 4), we employ normal self-attention. The cross-attention mechanism is the same as the one in Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) and it is only employed to decode the table. When computing Hx˜ (Equation 4), it is skipped. ## 3.2.4 Span Selection With the output of table decoding, H*T ab*, we can obtain the final representation of the argument slots, HS ⊂ H*T ab*. We transform each representation vector hsk ∈ HS into a span selector {Φ start sk , Φ end sk} (Du and Cardie, 2020; Ma et al., 2022): $$\begin{array}{l}{{\Phi_{s_{k}}^{\mathrm{start}}=\mathbf{h}_{s_{k}}\odot\mathbf{w}^{\mathrm{start}}}}\\ {{\Phi_{s_{k}}^{\mathrm{end}}=\mathbf{h}_{s_{k}}\odot\mathbf{w}^{\mathrm{end}}}}\end{array}$$ where wstart and wend are learnable weights, and ⊙ represents element-wise multiplication. The span selector {Φ start sk , Φ end sk} is responsible for selecting a span (start ˆ k,ˆendk) from the text to fill in the argument slot sk: **In in the argument that $\Phi_{k}$.** $$\begin{array}{l}\mbox{logit}_{k}^{\mbox{start}}=H_{\tilde{\mathbf{x}}}\Phi_{s_{k}}^{\mbox{start}}\in\mathbb{R}^{L}\\ \mbox{logit}_{k}^{\mbox{end}}=H_{\tilde{\mathbf{x}}}\Phi_{s_{k}}^{\mbox{end}}\in\mathbb{R}^{L}\\ \mbox{score}_{k}(l,m)=\mbox{logit}_{k}^{\mbox{start}}[l]+\mbox{logit}_{k}^{\mbox{end}}[m]\tag{12}$$ $$(\hat{\mbox{start}}_{k},\hat{\mbox{end}}_{k})=\begin{array}{l}\mbox{arg max}\quad\mbox{score}_{k}(l,m)\\ (l,m):0\!\!<\!\!m\!-\!l\!\!<\!\!L\end{array}$$ **In the above case, we can write the above definition set by where l or m represents the index of arbitrary token within the text. Note that, there can be more than one argument playing the same role in an event, requiring further consideration for the assignment of golden argument spans during training. Hence, we follow (Carion et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2022) to fine tune our model with the Bipartite Matching Loss. The loss for an training instance is defined as $$P_{k}^{\rm start}={\rm Softmax}({\rm logit}_{k}^{\rm start})\tag{13}$$ $$P_{k}^{\rm end}={\rm Softmax}({\rm logit}_{k}^{\rm end})$$ (14) $$\mathcal{L}=-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{(start_{k},end_{k})\in\delta(A_{i})}({\rm log}\,P_{k}^{\rm start}[start_{k}])$$ $$+\log P_{k}^{\rm end}[end_{k}])\tag{15}$$ (13) (14) $\left[t_{k}\right]$ (15) ... where δ(·) represents the optimal assignment calculated with Hungarian algorithm (Kuhn, 1955) according to the assignment cost devised by (Ma et al., 2022), and (startk*, end*k) is the golden span optimally assigned to the k-th argument slot. For an argument slot relating to no argument, it is assigned with the empty span (0, 0). ## 3.3 Three Training-Inference Schemes Under the TabEAE framework, there exist three possible training-inference schemes: (1) *SingleSingle*, train TabEAE to extract single event at a time and infer in the same way; (2) *Multi-Multi*, train TabEAE to extract all events in parallel and infer in the same way; (3) *Multi-Single*, train TabEAE to extract all events in parallel and let it extract single event at a time during inference. For the *Single* mode, only one trigger is marked in the input text; for the *Multi* mode, all the triggers are marked in the text. Note that, when trained to extract all events in parallel, TabEAE also learn to extract single event, since a great portion of training instances has only one event. $$\begin{array}{l}{(8)}\\ {\quad(9)}\end{array}$$ | Scheme | Model | PLM | ACE05 | RAMS | WikiEvents | MLEE | | | | | |-------------------------|---------------|---------|---------|--------|--------------|--------|-------|------|------|------| | Arg-I | Arg-C | Arg-I | Arg-C | Arg-I | Arg-C | Arg-I | Arg-C | | | | | EEQA (2020) | BERT | 70.5 | 68.9 | 48.7 | 46.7 | 56.9 | 54.5 | 68.4 | 66.7 | | | EEQA (2020) ⋆ | RoBERTa | 72.1 | 70.4 | 51.9 | 47.5 | 60.4 | 57.2 | 70.3 | 68.7 | | | BART-Gen (2021) | BART | 69.9 | 66.7 | 51.2 | 47.1 | 66.8 | 62.4 | 71.0 | 69.8 | | | TSAR (2022) | BERT | - | - | 56.1 | 51.2 | 70.8 | 65.5 | 72.3 | 71.3 | | | ⋆ | RoBERTa | - | - | 57.0 | 52.1 | 71.1 | 65.8 | 72.6 | 71.5 | | | TSAR (2022) PAIE (2022) | BART | 75.7 | 72.7 | 56.8 | 52.2 | 70.5 | 65.3 | 72.1 | 70.8 | | | PAIE (2022) ⋆ | RoBERTa | 76.1 | 73.0 | 57.1 | 52.3 | 70.9 | 65.5 | 72.5 | 71.4 | | | DEGREE (2022) | BART | 76.0 | 73.5 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | DEGREE (2022) ⋆ | RoBERTa | 76.6 | 73.9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | TabEAE (Ours) | RoBERTa | 75.5 | 72.6 | 57.0 | 52.5 | 70.8 | 65.4 | 71.9 | 71.0 | | | Multi-Multi | TabEAE (Ours) | RoBERTa | 75.9 | 73.4 | 56.7 | 51.8 | 71.1 | 66.0 | 75.1 | 74.2 | | Multi-Single | TabEAE (Ours) | RoBERTa | 77.2 | 75.0 | 57.3 | 52.7 | 71.4 | 66.5 | 72.0 | 71.3 | | Single-Single | | | | | | | | | | | Table 1: Main results on four benchmarks. Both RoBERTa and BART here are of large-scale (with 24 Transformer layers). ⋆ means we replace the original PLM with RoBERTa and rerun their code (hyperparameter tuning is conducted when necessary). The highest scores are in bold font and the second-highest scores are underlined. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Implementation Details We implement TabEAE with Pytorch and run the experiments with a Nvidia Tesla A100 GPU. We instantiate the encoder with the first 17 layers of RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019).1 The weight of the self-attention layers and feedforward layers of the decoder is initialized with the weight of the remaining 7 layers of RoBERTa-large. The setting of 17-layer encoder + 7-layer decoder is found to be optimal by our experiment (See Appendix C). Note that the cross-attention part of the decoder is newly initialized in random and we set its learning rate to be 1.5 times the learning rate of other parameters. We leverage the AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) equipped with a linear learning rate scheduler to tune our model. See Appendix B for details of hyperparameter tuning. ## 4.2 Experiment Setups Datasets We experiment with 4 datasets, including ACE05 (Doddington et al., 2004), RAMS (Ebner et al., 2020), WikiEvents (Li et al., 2021) and MLEE (Pyysalo et al., 2012). ACE05 is a sentence-level dataset, while the others are in document-level. The corpora of ACE05, RAMS and WikiEvents mainly consist of news, while the corpus of MLEE lies in the biomedical domain. Besides, the phenomenon of nested event is com-1We choose RoBERTa-large for a fair comparison with EAE methods based on BART-large, as the two PLMs adopt the same tokenizer and are pre-trained on the same corpus. monly observed in MLEE, but rare in the other 3 datasets. See Appendix A for a detailed description of the datasets. Evaluation Metrics Following previous works (Li et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2022), we measure the performance with two metrics: (1) strict argument identification F1 (Arg-I), where a predicted argument of an event is correct if its boundary matches any golden arguments of the event; (2) strict argument classification F1 (Arg-C), where a predicted argument of an event is correct only if its boundary and role type are both correct. All the reported results are averaged over 5 runs with different random seeds. ## 4.3 Compared Methods We compare TabEAE with several SOTA methods: - **EEQA** (Du and Cardie, 2020), a QA-based EAE model that treats EAE as a machine reading comprehension problem; - **BART-Gen** (Li et al., 2021), a seq-to-seq EAE model that generates predicted arguments conditioned on event template and context; - **TSAR** (Xu et al., 2022), a two-stream AMRenhanced span-based EAE model; - **PAIE** (Ma et al., 2022), a prompt-based EAE model that leverages slotted prompts to obtain argument span selectors; - **DEGREE** (Hsu et al., 2022), a data-efficient model that formulates EAE as a conditional generation problem. | ACE05 | RAMS | WikiEvents | MLEE | | | | | | | |---------------|---------------|--------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------| | Model | Scheme | # Ev = 1 | # Ev > 1 | # Ev = 1 | # Ev > 1 | # Ev = 1 | # Ev > 1 | # Ev = 1 | # Ev > 1 | | [185] | [218] | [587] | [284] | [114] | [251] | [175] | [2025] | | | | PAIE (2022) | Single-Single | 70.97 | 73.88 | 52.72 | 52.14 | 65.31 | 65.37 | 78.91 | 70.11 | | Single-Single | 71.21 | 73.83 | 52.82 | 51.61 | 65.27 | 65.46 | 79.26 | 70.32 | | | TabEAE | Multi-Multi | 73.38 | 73.45 | 52.87 | 50.82 | 67.30 | 65.32 | 81.13 | 73.60 | | Multi-Single | 76.13 | 52.49 | 66.19 | 69.97 | | | | | |  ## 4.4 Main Results The overall performances of compared baselines and TabEAE are illustrated in Table 1. We find that TabEAE (Single-Single) is competitive to previous SOTA models (TSAR, DEGREE and PAIE) on the four benchmarks. This is expected since these models follow the same training-inference scheme and leverage PLMs of the same scale. In the mean time, TabEAE (Multi-Single) outperforms the SOTA model by 0.6 Arg-I F1 and 1.1 Arg-C F1 on ACE05, by 0.2 Arg-I F1 and 0.4 ArgC F1 on RAMS, by 0.3 Arg-I F1 and 0.7 Arg-C F1 WikiEvents. As for the MLEE dataset, TabEAE (Multi-Multi) performs better than TabEAE (Multi-Single) and yields 2.5 Arg-I F1 gain, 2.7 Arg-C F1 gain compared to SOTA models. We analyze the reason behind the results in §5.1. ## 5 Analysis 5.1 The Effect Of Training-Inference Scheme To analyze the influence of the training-inference scheme, we measure the performances of EAE models with different training-inference schemes on handling instances with different numbers of events. The results are shown in Table 2. We can see that PAIE (Single-Single) and TabEAE (Singlesingle) have similar capacity in extracting standalone events and co-occurring events. When trained to extract all the events in parallel, the Arg-C F1 of TabEAE on instances with single event increases by 2.17, 0.05, 2.03 and 1.87 on the 4 datasets respectively. However, by letting TabEAE extract all the events in parallel during inference, the Arg-C F1 on instances with multiple events drops by 0.38, 0.79, 0.14 on ACE, RAMS and WikiEvents respectively, while increasing by 3.28 on MLEE. We believe this phenomenon is the result of two factors: 1. The distribution of the number of events per instance. As plotted in Figure 3, there are much more instances with multiple events on WikiEvents and MLEE than on ACE05 and RAMS. Hence, the model is better trained to extract multiple events concurrently on WikiEvents and MLEE. 2. Difficulty. Generally, it is more difficult for a model to extract all the events in one pass. But it is not the case for the MLEE dataset, since there are around 32.9% of the arguments acting as triggers of other events in MLEE, and when all triggers are provided (as in the Multi-Multi scheme), it become easier for the model to extract all the arguments. When training TabEAE to extract all events in parallel and letting it extract one event at a time during inference, the Arg-C F1 of TabEAE on instances with multiple events increases by 2.3, 0.88, | ACE05 | RAMS | WikiEvents | MLEE | | | | | | |---------------|-------------|--------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | Scheme | N-O | Overlap | N-O | Overlap | N-O | Overlap | N-O | Overlap | | [319] | [84] | [690] | [181] | [296] | [69] | [1460] | [734] | | | Single-Single | 71.1 | 78.6 | 51.6 | 55.6 | 65.7 | 64.4 | 75.4 | 65.8 | | Multi-Multi | - | - | - | - | - | - | 78.1 (+2.7) | 69.4 (+3.6) | | Multi-Single | 72.8 (+1.7) | 80.8 (+2.2) | 51.7 (+0.1) | 56.1 (+0.5) | 66.4 (+0.7) | 66.9 (+2.5) | - | - | 0.73 on ACE, RAMS and WikiEvents respectively. This is reasonable, since there is a large portion of instances having only one event, which means the model is also well-trained to extract one event at a time under the Multi-Single scheme. ## 5.2 Capturing The Event Semantic Boundary We hypothesize that the performance gains yielded by the Multi-Multi and Multi-Single schemes rooted in the stronger ability of TabEAE to capture the event semantic boundary. To verify this, we further measure the model's ability to capture the event semantic boundary from two points of view: (1) Inter-event Semantic; (2) Inner-event Semantic. From the view of **inter-event semantic**, we compare the performance of TabEAE with different training-inference schemes in terms of their ability to extract the arguments of overlapping events (i.e., events with shared arguments). As illustrated in Table 3, when trained to extract all events concurrently, the model's performance gains of extracting the arguments of overlapping events are much higher than that of extracting the arguments of nonoverlapping events. Specifically, the differences of performance gains are 0.5 Arg-C F1 on ACE05, 0.4 Arg-C F1 on RMAS, 1.8 Arg-C F1 on WikiEvents and 0.9 Arg-C F1 on MLEE. This suggests that TabEAE can better distinguish the semantic boundary between overlapping events. From the view of **inner-event semantic**, we compare the performance of TabEAE with different training-inference schemes in terms of their ability to extract arguments of different distances to the triggers. We define the distance here as the head word index of an argument minus the head word index of its corresponding trigger. The experiments are conducted on the document-level datasets WikiEvents and MLEE, where the distance distribution of event arguments is more disperse. The results are plotted in Figure 4. We can observe that, when equipped with the Multi-Multi/Multi- Single schemes the model's performance gains of extracting remote arguments are higher than the performance gains of extracting nearby arguments. This means TabEAE gets better at extracting arguments around the event boundary.  | Model | ACE05 | RAMS | WikiEvents | MLEE | |-------------|---------|--------|--------------|--------| | TabEAE | 75.0 | 52.7 | 66.5 | 74.2 | | w/o SAAM | 73.1 | 51.2 | 65.4 | 72.7 | | w/o PET | 70.8 | 49.3 | 61.9 | 69.9 | | w/o Prompts | 72.5 | 50.9 | 64.8 | 71.3 | | BERT → BART | 72.7 | 51.0 | 65.4 | 72.4 | ## 5.3 Ablation Study To verify the effectiveness of different components of TabEAE, we conduct ablation study on the 4 datasets. The results are illustrated in Table 4. After removing the **structure-aware attention** mask, the Arg-C F1 scores drop by 1.9, 1.5, 1.1, 1.5 on ACE05, RAMS, WikiEvents and MLEE respectively. This demonstrates the benefit of letting  Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is  each table token only paying attention to the table region related to it. After replacing the pre-computed encodings of the input table with RoBERTa token embeddings, the Arg-C F1 scores drop by 4.2, 3.4, 4.6, 3.9 on the 4 datasets. This proves the necessity of initializing the embeddings of input table with the encodings computed by the encoder. When constructing the table column header with the concatenation of argument roles instead of prompts , the Arg-C F1 scores drop by 2.5, 1.8, 1.7 and 2.9 on the 4 datasets respectively. This coincides with the finding by (Ma et al., 2022 ) that hand-crafted prompts can be of great help to the task of EAE. When replacing the encoder/decoder of TabEAE with BART encoder/decoder, the model performance degrades by 2.3, 1.7, 1.1, 1.8 on the 4 datasets respectively. The reason behind this degradation should be the uni-directional self-attention employed by BART decoder is not suitable for the decoding of table. ## Case Study 5.4 Figure 5 illustrates 2 test cases from ACE05 and MLEE respectively. In the first test case, there exist 2 events triggered by "leaving" and "become", with a shared argument "Davies". PAIE incorrectly predicts "London School of Economics" as an argument of the event triggered by "leaving", which is essentially an argument of the event triggered by "become". In contrast, TabEAE is able to avoid this mistake, demonstrating a stronger capacity to capture the event semantic boundary. In the second test case, there exist 3 events triggered by "regulator", "regulates" and "angiogenesis" respectively. Among them, the event triggered by "angiogenesis" has no argument. For the event triggered by "regulates", PAIE fails to extract the remote argument "Vascular endothelial growth factor", while TabEAE correctly extracts it by being aware of the co-occurring event that shares this argument. ## Conclusion 6 In this paper, we point out that recent studies on EAE ignore event co-occurrences, resulting in a divergence from main-stream EE research. To remedy this, we highlight the question that "Can EAE models learn better when being aware of event co-occurrences" and explore it with a novel text-totable framework, TabEAE , that can extract multiple event in parallel. By experimenting with 3 traininginference schemes on 4 datasets, we find that when trained to extract all event concurrently, TabEAE can better capture the event semantic boundary and its ability to extract single event gets greatly improved. Our work demonstrates the significance of event co-occurrence for EAE and establishes a new foundation for future EAE research. ## 7 Limitations In this section, we summarize the limitations of our work as follows: - There is still a lot more to explore in terms of event co-occurrence for EAE (e.g., iterative extraction, course learning, etc.). We are unable to cover all in this work and will explore further in the future. - As demonstrated by our ablation study, the high performance of our model greatly relies on the manual prompts. This limits the application of our model to the scenes where high-quality prompts are unavailable and difficult to construct. To address this, we should look into the area of automatic prompt construction. - Our work ignores the phenomenon of entity coreference commonly existing in narrative documents. This limits the model's ability to figure out the underlying relation between entities, which is crucial for the task of EAE. And we will take entity co-references into account in our future works. ## Acknowledgments We thank the reviewers for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions. This study is partially supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2021ZD0113402), National Natural Science Foundations of China (62276082, U1813215 and 61876052), National Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong, China (2019A1515011158), Major Key Project of PCL (PCL2021A06), Strategic Emerging Industry Development Special Fund of Shenzhen (20200821174109001) and Pilot Project in 5G + Health Application of Ministry of Industry and Information Technology & National Health Commission (5G + Luohu Hospital Group: an Attempt to New Health Management Styles of Residents). ## References Junwei Bao, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Zhao Yan, Yuanhua Lv, Ming Zhou, and Tiejun Zhao. 2018. Table-to-text: Describing table region with natural language. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirtieth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference and Eighth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'18/IAAI'18/EAAI'18. AAAI Press. Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. 2020. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In *Computer Vision - ECCV 2020*, pages 213–229, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Wenhu Chen, Jianshu Chen, Yu Su, Zhiyu Chen, and William Yang Wang. 2020. Logical natural language generation from open-domain tables. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7929–7942, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yubo Chen, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, Daojian Zeng, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Event extraction via dynamic multipooling convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 167–176, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. George R. Doddington, Alexis Mitchell, Mark A. Przybocki, Lance A. Ramshaw, Stephanie M. Strassel, and Ralph M. Weischedel. 2004. The automatic content extraction (ace) program tasks, data, and evaluation. In *Proceedings of the Fourth International* Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2004). Xinya Du and Claire Cardie. 2020. Event extraction by answering (almost) natural questions. In *Proceedings* of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 671–683, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinya Du, Alexander Rush, and Claire Cardie. 2021. Template filling with generative transformers. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 909–914, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Seth Ebner, Patrick Xia, Ryan Culkin, Kyle Rawlins, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2020. Multi-sentence argument linking. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8057–8077, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. I-Hung Hsu, Kuan-Hao Huang, Elizabeth Boschee, Scott Miller, Prem Natarajan, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. 2022. DEGREE: A data-efficient generation-based event extraction model. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1890–1908, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jungo Kasai, Nikolaos Pappas, Hao Peng, J. Cross, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. Deep encoder, shallow de- coder: Reevaluating the speed-quality tradeoff in machine translation. *ArXiv*, abs/2006.10369. H. W. Kuhn. 1955. The hungarian method for the assignment problem. *Naval Research Logistics Quarterly*, 2(1-2):83–97. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 7871–7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sha Li, Heng Ji, and Jiawei Han. 2021. Document-level event argument extraction by conditional generation. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 894–908, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7999–8009, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jian Liu, Yufeng Chen, and Jinan Xu. 2021. Machine reading comprehension as data augmentation: A case study on implicit event argument extraction. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2716– 2725, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. *CoRR*, abs/1907.11692. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. Cite arxiv:1711.05101Comment: Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2019. Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jin Xu, Xianpei Han, Jialong Tang, Annan Li, Le Sun, Meng Liao, and Shaoyi Chen. 2021. Text2Event: Controllable sequence-tostructure generation for end-to-end event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2795–2806, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yubo Ma, Zehao Wang, Yixin Cao, Mukai Li, Meiqi Chen, Kun Wang, and Jing Shao. 2022. Prompt for extraction? PAIE: Prompting argument interaction for event argument extraction. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6759–6774, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thien Huu Nguyen, Kyunghyun Cho, and Ralph Grishman. 2016. Joint event extraction via recurrent neural networks. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 300–309, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sampo Pyysalo, Tomoko Ohta, Makoto Miwa, HanCheol Cho, Jun'ichi Tsujii, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2012. Event extraction across multiple levels of biological organization. *Bioinformatics*, 28(18):i575– i581. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21(140):1–67. Xin Sun, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, and Houfeng Wang. 2021. Instantaneous grammatical error correction with shallow aggressive decoding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5937–5947, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hai-Long Trieu, Thy Thy Tran, Khoa N A Duong, Anh Nguyen, Makoto Miwa, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2020. DeepEventMine: end-to-end neural nested event extraction from biomedical texts. *Bioinformatics*, 36(19):4910–4917. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Proceedings of the 31st International* Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000–6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5784– 5789, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kaiwen Wei, Xian Sun, Zequn Zhang, Jingyuan Zhang, Guo Zhi, and Li Jin. 2021. Trigger is not sufficient: Exploiting frame-aware knowledge for implicit event argument extraction. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4672–4682, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xueqing Wu, Jiacheng Zhang, and Hang Li. 2022. Textto-table: A new way of information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2518–2533, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Runxin Xu, Peiyi Wang, Tianyu Liu, Shuang Zeng, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. 2022. A two-stream AMR-enhanced model for document-level event argument extraction. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human* Language Technologies, pages 5025–5036, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hang Yang, Yubo Chen, Kang Liu, Yang Xiao, and Jun Zhao. 2018. DCFEE: A document-level Chinese financial event extraction system based on automatically labeled training data. In *Proceedings* of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 50–55, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hang Yang, Dianbo Sui, Yubo Chen, Kang Liu, Jun Zhao, and Taifeng Wang. 2021. Document-level event extraction via parallel prediction networks. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6298– 6308, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhisong Zhang, Xiang Kong, Zhengzhong Liu, Xuezhe Ma, and Eduard Hovy. 2020. A two-step approach for implicit event argument detection. In *Proceedings* of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7479–7485, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shun Zheng, Wei Cao, Wei Xu, and Jiang Bian. 2019. Doc2EDAG: An end-to-end document-level framework for Chinese financial event extraction. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language* Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 337–346, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Profile Of Datasets ACE05 (Doddington et al., 2004) 2is an annotated information extraction corpus of newswire, broadcast news and telephone conversations. We 2https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2006T06 utilize its English event annotation for sentencelevel EAE. We preprocess the data in the same way as Wadden et al. (2019) do. RAMS (Ebner et al., 2020) 3is a documentlevel EAE dataset, which contains 9,124 annotated events from English online news. Since it is annotated event-wise (each event occupies one instance), we have to aggregate events occurring in the same context into one instance with multiple events. We follow the original train/dev/test data split. WikiEvents (Li et al., 2021) 4is a document-level EAE dataset, consisting of events recorded in English Wikipedia along with the linking news articles that mention these events. The dataset is also annotated with the co-reference links of arguments, but we only use the exact argument annotations in our experiments. MLEE (Pyysalo et al., 2012) 5is a documentlevel event extraction dataset with manually annotated abstracts of bio-medical publications written in English. We follow the preprocessing procedure of (Trieu et al., 2020). Since there is only train/test data split for the preprocessed dataset, we employ the training set as the development set. Statistics Detailed statistics of the datasets are listed in Table 5. ## B Hyperparameter Settings Most of the hyperparameters follow the same configuration of (Ma et al., 2022). We only tune a few hyperparameters manually for each dataset by trying different values of each hyperparameter within an interval and choosing the value that results in the highest Arg-C F1 on the development set. The trial-intervals and the final hyperparameter configuration are shown in Table 6. ## C Number Of Encoder/Decoder Layers We have employed the bottom layers of RoBERTalarge as our encoder and the top layers of RoBERTalarge as our decoder. To find the optimal layer allocation, we have tried different settings and recorded the corresponding model performance. This experiment is conduct on ACE and MLEE. The results are plotted in Figure 6. We can observe that the overall performance on the two datasets reaches 3https://nlp.jhu.edu/rams/ 4https://github.com/raspberryice/gen-arg 5http://www.nactem.ac.uk/MLEE/ | Dataset | ACE05 | RAMS | WikiEvents | MLEE | | |------------------------------|----------------|--------|--------------|------------|-------| | # Event types | 33 | 139 | 50 | 23 | | | # Args per event | 1.19 | 2.33 | 1.40 | 1.29 | | | # Events per text | 1.35 | 1.25 | 1.78 | 3.32 | | | # Events Train | 4202 | 7329 | 3241 | 4442 | | | Dev | 450 | 924 | 345 | - | | | Test | 403 | 871 | 365 | 2200 | | | Table 5: Dataset Statistics. | | | | | | | hyperparameters | Trial-Interval | ACE05 | RAMS | WikiEvents | MLEE | | Training Steps | - | 10000 | 10000 | 10000 | 10000 | | Warmup Ratio | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | | Learning Rate | - | 2e-5 | 2e-5 | 2e-5 | 2e-5 | | Max Gradient Norm | - | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | | Batch Size | [2, 16] | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | Context Window Size | - | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | | Max Span Length | - | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | | Max Encoder Seq Length | - | 200 | 500 | 500 | 500 | | Max Decoder Seq Length | [200, 400] | 250 | 200 | 360 | 360 |  the peak when there are 17 encoder layers and 7 decoder layers in the model. This observation coincides with recent findings on the areas of machine translation and spell checking that "deep encoder + shallow decoder" is superior to the conventional architecture with balanced encoder-decoder depth (Kasai et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2021). ## D Prompt Construction The prompts for ACE05, RAMS and WikiEvents are directly from (Li et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2022), which are manually constructed from the predefined ontology associated with each dataset. For MLEE, we manually construct the prompts in a similar manner, as shown in Table 7. | Event Type | Natural Language Prompt | |-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Cell proliferation | Cell proliferate or accumulate | | Development | Anatomical Entity develop or form | | Blood vessel development | neovascularization or angiogenesis at Anatomical Location | | Growth | growth of Anatomical Entity | | Death | death of Anatomical Entity | | Breakdown | Anatomical Entity degraded or damaged | | Remodeling | Tissue remodeling or changes | | Synthesis | synthesis of Drug/Compound | | Gene expression | expression of Gene and Gene ( and Gene ) | | Transcription | transcription of Gene | | Protein processing | processing of Gene product | | DNA methylation | methylation of Entity at Site | | Metabolism | metabolism of Entity | | Catabolism | catabolism of Entity | | Phosphorylation | phosphorylation of Entity at Site | | Dephosphorylation | dephosphorylation of Entity at Site | | Pathway | Entity and Entity and Entity ( and Entity ) participate in signaling pathway or system | | Localization | Entity At Location or To Location or From Location | | Binding | Site of Entity bind or interact with Site of Entity ( and Site of Entity ) | | Regulation | Something regulate Event/Entity at Site | | Positive regulation | Something positively regulate Event/Entity at Site | | Negative regulation | Something negatively regulate Event/Entity at Site | | Planned process | Something is treated with Entity and Entity ( and Entity ) | | Table 7: Prompts manually constructed for the MLEE dataset. | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7. ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? No potential risk is forseen. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract, Section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 1, 3, 4.1, 4.2, Software Supplement. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 1, 3, 4.1, 4.2. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? README (Software Supplement). ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? README (Software Supplement). ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? The datasets that we used are from official and trusted sources. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4.2, Appendix A. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix A. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4, 5. ✗ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? The backbone of our model is RoBERTa, which is commonly used and quite familiar to NLP researchers. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4.1, 4.2, Appendix B. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4.2. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 4.1, Software Supplement. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

he-etal-2023-hauser

{HAUSER}: Towards Holistic and Automatic Evaluation of Simile Generation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.702

Similes play an imperative role in creative writing such as story and dialogue generation. Proper evaluation metrics are like a beacon guiding the research of simile generation (SG). However, it remains under-explored as to what criteria should be considered, how to quantify each criterion into metrics, and whether the metrics are effective for comprehensive, efficient, and reliable SG evaluation. To address the issues, we establish HAUSER, a holistic and automatic evaluation system for the SG task, which consists of five criteria from three perspectives and automatic metrics for each criterion. Through extensive experiments, we verify that our metrics are significantly more correlated with human ratings from each perspective compared with prior automatic metrics. Resources of HAUSER are publicly available at \url{https://github.com/Abbey4799/HAUSER}.

# Hauser**: Towards Holistic And Automatic Evaluation Of Simile Generation** Qianyu He1, Yikai Zhang1**, Jiaqing Liang**2∗ , Yuncheng Huang1, **Yanghua Xiao**1∗ , **Yunwen Chen**3 1Shanghai Key Laboratory of Data Science, School of Computer Science, Fudan University 2School of Data Science, Fudan University 3DataGrand Inc., Shanghai, China {qyhe21, ykzhang22, yunchenghuang22}@m.fudan.edu.cn, {liangjiaqing, shawyh}@fudan.edu.cn, chenyunwen@datagrand.com ## Abstract Similes play an imperative role in creative writing such as story and dialogue generation. Proper evaluation metrics are like a beacon guiding the research of simile generation (SG). However, it remains under-explored as to what criteria should be considered, how to quantify each criterion into metrics, and whether the metrics are effective for comprehensive, efficient, and reliable SG evaluation. To address the issues, we establish HAUSER, a holistic and automatic evaluation system for the SG task, which consists of five criteria from three perspectives and automatic metrics for each criterion. Through extensive experiments, we verify that our metrics are significantly more correlated with human ratings from each perspective compared with prior automatic metrics. Resources of HAUSER are publicly available at https://github.com/Abbey4799/HAUSER. ## 1 Introduction Similes play a vital role in human expression, making literal sentences imaginative and graspable. For example, Robert Burns famously wrote "*My Luve* is like a red, red rose" to metaphorically depict the beloved as being beautiful. In this simile, "*Luve*" (a.k.a. topic) is compared with "*red rose*" (a.k.a. vehicle) via the implicit property "*beautiful*" and the event "is". Here, topic, vehicle, property, and event are four main *simile components* (Hanks, 2013). As a figure of speech, similes have been widely used in literature and conversations (Zheng et al., 2019; Chakrabarty et al., 2022). Simile generation (SG) is a crucial task in natural language processing (Chakrabarty et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021; Lai and Nissim, 2022), with the aim of polishing literal sentences into similes. In Fig. 1, the literal sentence "*He yelps and* howls." is polished into a simile by inserting the phrase "*like a wolf* ", resulting in "*He yelps and* ∗Corresponding author.  Figure 1: An example of Simile Generation (SG) Evaluation. The commonly used automatic metric BLEU deems the second candidate as the most *high-quality* one among all the generated similes, while our proposed metrics HAUSER deem the first candidate as the best one regarding its quality, *creativity* and *informativeness*, which better correlates with human ratings and also provides more criteria for SG evaluation. howls like a wolf ". The ability to generate similes can assist various downstream tasks, such as making the generations more imaginative in story or poet generation task (Tartakovsky and Shen, 2018; Chakrabarty et al., 2022) and the generated response more human-like in dialogue generation task (Zheng et al., 2019). Automatic evaluation is critical for the SG task since it enables efficient, systematic, and scalable comparisons between models in general (Celikyilmaz et al., 2020). However, existing studies are inadequate for effective SG evaluation. Task-agnostic automatic metrics (Papineni et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2016) are widely adopted for SG evaluation (Zhang et al., 2021; Lai and Nissim, 2022), which have several limitations: (1) The simile components should receive more attention than other words during SG evaluation (e.g. "he" and "*wolf* " in Fig. 1), while there are no automatic metrics that consider the key components. (2) The SG task is open-ended, allowing for multiple plausible generations for the same input (Chakrabarty et al., 2020) (e.g. the howling man can be compared to "*wolf* ", "*buffalo*", or "*tiger*" in Fig. 1). Hence, the metrics based on word overlap with a few references are inadequate to accurately mea12557 | Criterion | Literal Sentence | Example Simile Candidates | | |--------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Relevance | Some raindrops struck the roof, | Some raindrops struck the roof, window and ran down its panes (like tears | | | | window and ran down its panes. | like arrows). | | | | Quality | Logical | Stefan moved, every movement | Stefan moved (like lightning | like a dancer), every movement easy and | | easy and precisely controlled. | precisely controlled. | | | | Consistency Sentiment | The idea resounded throughout | The idea resounded (like an earthquake | like a thunderous wave) throughout | | | Consistency | the land. | the land. | | | Creativity | He possessed a power of sarcasm which could scorch. | He possessed a power of sarcasm which could scorch (like vitriol | like fire). | | | Informativeness | They gleamed. | They gleamed (like the eyes of a cat | like the eyes of an angry cat). | | sure the overall quality of generated similes. As shown in Fig. 1, the commonly used metric BLEU deems the second candidate as the highest quality, as it has more overlapped words with the only referenced groundtruth, while human deems the first candidate as the most coherent one. (3) The existing metrics are inadequate to provide fine-grained and comprehensive SG evaluation, considering that the creative generation tasks have distinct criteria for desired generations (Celikyilmaz et al., 2020), such as novelty and complexity for story generation (Chhun et al., 2022) and logical consistency for dialogue generation (Pang et al., 2020). However, establishing a comprehensive, efficient, and reliable evaluation system for SG is nontrivial, which raises three main concerns: (1) What criteria should be adopted to evaluate the SG task in a comprehensive and non-redundant fashion? (2) How to quantify each criterion into a metric thus enabling efficient and objective SG evaluation, given that the human evaluation of creative generation task is not only time-consuming but also subjective and blurred (Niculae and Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, 2014; Celikyilmaz et al., 2020)? (3) Whether the proposed metrics are effective in providing useful scores to guide actual improvements in the realworld application of the SG model? In this paper, we establish HAUSER, a Holistic and AUtomatic evaluation system for Simile gEneRation task, consisting of five criteria (Tab. 1): (1) The *relevance* between topic and vehicle, as the foundation of a simile is to compare the two via their shared properties (Paul, 1970). (2) The logical consistency between the literal sentence and generated simile, since the aim of SG task is to polish the original sentence without altering its semantics (Tversky, 1977). (3) The *sentiment consistency* between the literal sentence and generated simile, since similes generally transmit certain sentiment polarity (Qadir et al., 2015). (4,5) The *creativity* and *informativeness* of the simile, since novel similes or those with richer content can enhance the literary experience (Jones and Estes, 2006; Roncero and de Almeida, 2015; Addison, 2001). Overall, these five criteria can be categorized into three perspectives: *quality* (which considers relevance, logical, and sentiment consistency jointly), *creativity*, and *informativeness*. We further quantify each criterion into automatic metrics (Fig. 2) and prove their effectiveness through extensive experiments. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to systematically investigate the automatic evaluation of the SG task. To summarize, our contributions are mainly three-fold: (1) We establish a holistic and automatic evaluation system for the SG task, consisting of five criteria based on linguistic theories, facilitating both human and automatic evaluation of this task. (2) We design automatic metrics for each criterion, facilitating efficient and objective comparisons between SG models. (3) We conduct extensive experiments to verify that our metrics are significantly more correlated with human ratings than prior metrics. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Simile Generation Task There are two primary forms of the simile generation (SG) task: simile triplet completion and literal sentence polishing. For simile triplet completion, a model receives simile components, topic and property, and is required to generate the vehicle (Roncero and de Almeida, 2015; Zheng et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2022; He et al., 2022). For literal sentence polishing, a model receives a literal sentence and is expected to convert it into similes (Zhang  et al., 2021; Stowe et al., 2020; Chakrabarty et al., 2020; Lai and Nissim, 2022). We focus on the latter. However, prior works mainly adopt task-agnostic automatic metrics to evaluate the SG task, raising concern as to whether the claimed improvements are comprehensive and reliable. ## 2.2 Automatic Evaluation For Nlg Systems Existing automatic metrics for Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation can be categorized into task-agnostic and task-specific metrics. Taskagnostic metrics can be applied to various NLG tasks, which generally focus on the coherence of generations (Papineni et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2019), including n-gram-based metrics (Papineni et al., 2002; Lin, 2004; Denkowski and Lavie, 2014) and embedding-based metrics (Zhang et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2019). There are also many metrics for evaluating the diversity of generations (Li et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2018; Tevet and Berant, 2021). Task-specific metrics are proposed to evaluate NLG systems on specific tasks (Tao et al., 2018; Dhingra et al., 2019; Ren et al., 2020). Specifically, various works systematically study the evaluation of the creative generation task (Pang et al., 2020; Tevet and Berant, 2021; Chhun et al., 2022). Different from these works, we revisit SG evaluation, propose holistic criteria based on linguistic theories, and design effective automatic metrics for it. ## 3 Hauser **For Sg Evaluation** We establish HAUSER, a holistic and automatic evaluation system for SG evaluation, containing five criteria from three perspectives, and further design automatic metrics for each criterion (Fig. 2). ## 3.1 Quality We measure the overall quality of generated similes using three criteria: relevance, logical consistency, *sentiment consistency*. The key simile components - topic and vehicle - should be relevant, as the foundation of a simile is to compare the two via their shared properties (*relevance*) (Paul, 1970). In Tab. 1, comparing "*raindrops*" to "*tears*" is more coherent than to "*arrows*". Additionally, the generated simile should remain logically consistent with the original sentence (*logical consistency*), as the SG task aims to polish the plain text without changing its semantics (Tversky, 1977). In Tab. 1, comparing "*Stefan*" to "*dancer*" better depicts his controlled and easy movement than to "*lightning*". Furthermore, as similes generally transmit certain sentiment polarity (Qadir et al., 2015), the generated simile should enhance the sentiment polarity of the original sentence (*sentiment consistency*). In Tab. 1, the vehicle "*thunderous wave*" enhances the positive polarity of the original sentence, while the vehicle "*earthquake*" brings a negative sentiment polarity in opposition to the original sentence. ## 3.1.1 Relevance For the *relevance* score, if the components of one simile are relevant, they tend to co-occur in simile sentences (Xiao et al., 2016; He et al., 2022) and possess shared properties (Paul, 1970; Tversky, 1977). Hence, obtaining the relevance score requires large-scale simile sentences as references, as well as knowledge about the properties (adjectives) of each simile component. For a simile s, the relevance score is defined as follows: $$r=\frac{1}{m_{p}}\sum_{(t,v)\in s}\sum_{e\in\Gamma(t,v)}P_{e}(t,v),$$ $$(\mathrm{I})$$ Pe(*t, v),* (1) where there are mp topic-vehicle pairs extracted from simile s, each denoted as (*t, v*) 1. Γ(*t, v*) is the set of similes containing (*t, v*) as simile components, each denoted as e. Pe(*t, v*) is the probability that the simile components (*t, v*) share properties in the context of the simile sentence e. An effective way to obtain the frequency information Γ(*t, v*) and property knowledge Pe(*t, v*) is to utilize the large-scale probabilistic simile knowledge base MAPS-KB (He et al., 2022), which contains millions of simile triplets in the form of (*topic*, property, *vehicle*), along with frequency and two probabilistic metrics to model each triplet2. Specifically, the probabilistic metric *Plausibility* is calculated based on the confidence score of the simile instance (topic, property, vehicle, *simile sentence*) supporting the triplet, indicating the probability that the topic and vehicle share the property. The relevance score r can be calculated as follow: $$r=\frac{1}{m_{p}}\sum_{(t,v)\in s}\sum_{(t,p,v)\in\mathcal{G}_{(t,v)}}n(t,p,v)\cdot\mathcal{P}(t,p,v),\tag{2}$$ where G(t,v)is the set of triplets (t, p ,v) containing the (t, v) pair in MAPS-KB, with p referring to the property. n and P are the metrics provided by MAPS-KB, where n and P denote the frequency and the plausibility of the triplet respectively. It is noticed that the metric is not coupled with MAPS-KB, as the frequency information can be obtained by referencing a large set of simile sentences and the property knowledge can be contained via other knowledge bases. More methods are beyond the scope of this paper. However, we additionally provide a method to approximate the relevance score. If we assume the probability that the simile components (*t, v*) share properties in each sentence is 1, the relevance score can be approximated as: $$r\approx{\frac{1}{m_{p}}}\sum_{(t,v)\in s}n(t,v),$$ where n(*t, v*) denotes the number of samples that contain the simile components (*t, v*) in large-scale simile sentences. We discuss the effects of the referenced dataset size in Sec. 4.2.1. ## 3.1.2 Logical Consistency The literal sentence and the generated simile that are logically inconsistent generally exhibit contra-1All the simile components in our work are extracted and cleaned using rules from (He et al., 2022) which determines the optimal semantics a component should carry, e.g., "a kid in a candy store" instead of just "a kid". 2More details of MAPS-KB is provided in Appx. D dictory logic. Hence, for a generated simile, we input the <literal text(l), simile(s)> sentence pair into existing pre-trained Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI) model3, which determines the relation between them is entailment, *neutral*, or contradiction. The logical consistency score cl of this simile is defined as follows (Pang et al., 2020): $$c_{l}=1-P(h_{<l,s>}=c),\tag{4}$$ where P(h*<l,s>* = c) represents the probability that the model predicts the relation of the sentence pair *< l, s >* to be *contradiction* (denoted as c). ## 3.1.3 Sentiment Consistency Better similes tend to enhance the sentiment polarity of the original sentence (Qadir et al., 2015). Hence, we first apply the model fine-tuned on the GLUE SST-2 dataset4to classify each simile as being either positive or *negative*. Then, the sentiment consistency score cs is defined as follows: $c_{s}=P(h_{s}=a)-P(h_{l}=a)$, (5) where a is the sentiment polarity of the literal sentence (positive or *negative*) predicted by the model. P(hs = a) and P(hl = a) denote the probabilities that the model predicts the sentiment polarity of the simile s and the literal sentence l to be a, respectively. It is noticed that different <topic, vehicle> pairs within a sentence may have distinct sentiment polarities, such as <She, *scared rabbit*> and <I, *bird*> in the simile "*If she escapes like a scared rabbit, I* will fly like a bird to catch her.". Directly inputting text containing multiple topic-vehicle pairs into the sentiment classification model will result in inferior performance. Therefore, for each simile, only the text from the beginning up to the first *vehicle* is input into the model (i.e. "If she escapes like a scared rabbit" in the given example), and for each literal sentence, the text from the beginning up to the first *event* (i.e. "*If she escapes*" in the given example) is input into the model. $$(3)$$ ## 3.1.4 Combination Since the aim of the SG task is to polish the plain text, the quality of similes generated from different texts can not be compared. Therefore, the normalized score among the simile candidates for each original text is utilized. Suppose there are m simile candidates S = {s1, s2*, ..., s*m} for the literal text l, the original relevance scores of R is R = {r1, r2*, ..., r*m} respectively. The normalized relevance score r′i of siis formulated as follows: $$r_{i}^{\prime}={\frac{r_{i}-m i n({\mathcal{R}})}{m a x({\mathcal{R}})-m i n({\mathcal{R}})}},$$ , (6) which ranges from 0 to 1. Then, the normalized logical and sentiment consistency score c′li, c′si for each simile si are obtained in the same manner5. Finally, the *quality* for simile siis defined as the weighted combination of three parts as follows: $$\Omega_{i}=\alpha\cdot r_{i}^{\prime}+\beta\cdot c_{l i}^{\prime}+\gamma\cdot c_{s i}^{\prime},$$ ′si, (7) where $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ are hyperparameters. ## 3.2 Creativity Creative similes can provide a better literary experience (Jones and Estes, 2006). In Tab. 1, comparing "*sarcasm*" to "*vitriol*" is less common than to "*fire*", yet it better conveys the intensity of a person's sarcasm. Hence, we design *creativity* score. Previous studies mainly evaluate the creativity of text generation tasks via human evaluation (Sai et al., 2022), since measuring the creativity of openended text is a relatively difficult task (Celikyilmaz et al., 2020). Although there have been many works evaluating the diversity of open-ended text generation (Li et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2018; Tevet and Berant, 2021), these metrics are not suitable for measuring the creativity of the text. Because the diversity metrics take a set of generated text as input and output one score, while a *creativity* metric is required to measure each text individually and output a set of corresponding scores. Different from other open-ended generation tasks, the components of the generated similes enable us to evaluate creativity automatically. According to linguists, the creativity of a simile is determined by vehicles (Pierce and Chiappe, 2008; Roncero and de Almeida, 2015). Intuitively, the generated simile may be less creative if its extracted 5If all the relevance scores ri in R are the same, the normalized relevance scores r ′iin R′are set to 0.5 uniformly. topic-vehicle pair co-occurs frequently, or if many topics are compared to its vehicle in the corpus. Therefore, we adopt large-scale corpora as references when designing our creativity metric. The creativity score of s is calculated as follows: $\mathcal{C}=-log(\frac{1}{m_{u}}\sum_{u\in s}N_{u}+1)$, (8) $$(6)$$ where there are mv vehicles extracted from the simile s, each denoted as v. Nv denotes the frequency of the vehicles appearing in the similes in the corpora. The log transformation aims to reduce the influence of extreme values. An effective way to obtain the adequate frequency information Nv is to utilize the millionscale simile knowledge base MAPS-KB, where the Nv can be defined as follows: $N_{u}=\sum_{(t,p,v)\in\mathcal{G}_{v}}n(t,p,v)$, (9) $$\left(T\right)$$ Gv is the set of triplets containing the vehicle v in MAPS-KB, n denotes the frequency of the triplet. It is noticed that the metric is not coupled with MAPS-KB, as Nv can also be obtained by counting the samples containing the vehicle v in largescale simile sentences. The method of obtaining the simile sentences is beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, we discuss the effects of the referenced dataset size in Sec. 4.2.2. ## 3.3 Informativeness The vehicle with richer content can create a more impact and vivid impression(Addison, 2001). In the example from Tab. 1, the addition of the word "*angry*" makes the similes more expressive. Therefore, we design the metric *informativeness* to measure the content richness of the vehicles. Intuitively, the more words a vehicle contains, the richer its content will be. Hence, for a given simile s, we adopt the average length of the extracted vehicles to be the *informativeness* score6(Chakrabarty et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021), defined as Ii =1 mv Pv∈s len(v), where there are mv vehicles extracted from simile s. ## 4 Hauser **Analysis** In this section, we conduct experiments to verify the effectiveness of our automatic metrics. 6Different from the *quality* metric, we do not use a normalized score for *creativity* and *informativeness*, since they mainly depend on the generated vehicles, rather than the original text.  Figure 3: Correlation between automatic metrics and human ratings when evaluating quality. Here, BLEU2, Rouge2, and BERTScorelarge are presented since they perform the best in their respective category. To avoid overlapping points, random jitters sampled from N (0, 0.052) were added to human ratings after fitting the regression. ## 4.1 Experiment Setup 4.1.1 Simile Generation The existing datasets for the SG task are either Chinese (Zhang et al., 2021), limited to the simile triplet completion (Roncero and de Almeida, 2015; Chen et al., 2022), or having all vehicles located at end of the sentence (Chakrabarty et al., 2022; Lai and Nissim, 2022), which are not practical for English simile generation in a real-world application. To bridge the gap, we construct a large-scale English dataset for SG task based on simile sentences from (He et al., 2022), which contains 524k simile sentences labeled with topic and vehicle. The output decoder target is the simile sentence s and the input encoder source is s rewritten to drop the comparator "*like*" and the vehicle. For example, given s = "The idea resounded like a thunderclap throughout the land.", the encoder source would be "*The idea resounded throughout the land.*". In particular, we remove the simile sentences whose event is a linking verb (e.g. be, seem, *turn*) as they would be meaningless after the vehicle is removed. The final train, validation and test sets contain 139k, 2.5k, and 2.5k sentence pairs, respectively. Based on our constructed dataset, we finetune a pre-trained sequence-to-sequence model, BART (Lewis et al., 2020), for the SG task, which has been demonstrated to be an effective framework for various figurative language generation (Zhang and Wan, 2021; Chakrabarty et al., 2022; He et al., 2022; Lai and Nissim, 2022). The experiments are run on RTX3090 GPU and the implementation of BART is based on the HuggingFace Transformers7. The experiments are run with a batch size of 16, a max sequence length of 128, and a learning rate of 4e-5 for 10 epochs. ## 4.1.2 Evaluation Dataset Construction Firstly, we randomly sample 50 literal sentences from the test set and adopt the trained SG model to generate five candidates for each one. Then, for each perspective, three raters are asked to rate each 7https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/ | Setting | Metric | Pearson | Spearman | | | |------------|-----------------|-----------|------------|-------|-------| | Mean | Max | Mean | Max | | | | Quality | 0.573 | 0.626 | 0.542 | 0.595 | | | Creativity | 0.537 | 0.671 | 0.550 | 0.678 | | | Before | Informativeness | 0.833 | 0.857 | 0.799 | 0.816 | | Quality | 0.812 | 0.833 | 0.735 | 0.759 | | | Creativity | 0.551 | 0.643 | 0.568 | 0.650 | | | After | Informativeness | 0.848 | 0.893 | 0.817 | 0.841 | simile from 1 to 5, where 1 denotes the worst and 5 denotes the best8. Since evaluating the quality of generated similes is subjective and blurred (Niculae and Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, 2014), we remove the simile-literal sentence pairs if (1) raters argue that the pairs lack context and are difficult to rate (e.g. "*Nobody can shoot.*") or (2) some raters rate them as low quality (quality score of 12), while others rate them as high quality (scores of 4-5) (Niculae and Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, 2014). Moreover, we measure the inter-rater agreement by holding out the ratings of one rater at a time, calculating the correlations with the average of the other rater's ratings, and finally calculating the average or maximum of all the held-out correlations (denoted as "*Mean*" and "Max", respectively). The inter-rater agreement before and after applying the filtering strategies is shown in Tab. 2. Overall, the final inter-rater agreement ensures the reliability of our evaluation of automatic metrics and the filtering strategies improve the inter-rater agreement generally. We finally get 150 simile candidates generated from 44 literal sentences. ## 4.2 Results 4.2.1 Quality We compare our *quality* metric with the following automatic metrics9: (1) **BLEU** (Papineni et al.,  2002) calculates the precision of n-gram matches, (2) **RougeL** (Lin, 2004) is a recall-oriented metric, (3) **METEOR** (Denkowski and Lavie, 2014) proposes a set of linguistic rules to compare the hypothesis with the reference, (4) **BERTScore** (Zhang et al., 2019) calculates the cosine similarity between the BERT embeddings, (5) **Perplexity** (Pang et al., 2020) measures the proximity of a language model, the inverse of which is utilized. Correlations with Human Ratings. Tab. 3 shows the correlation coefficients between automatic metrics and human ratings. Firstly, our metrics are significantly more correlated with human ratings than prior automatic metrics. Moreover, all the sentence-level metrics, which consider the semantics of the entire sentence, perform worse than almost all the n-gram-level metrics, which compare the n-grams between the hypothesis and the reference, which reveals that simile components need to be specifically considered during SG evaluation. According to the visualized correlation result in Fig. 3, datapoints from prior automatic metrics tend to scatter at 0 or 1, while the datapoints from our metric are distributed closer to the fitter line, proving that our metric can better measure the quality. Recommendation Task. We compare the rankings given by automatic metrics with human rankings10. We adopt the following metrics: Hit Ratio at rank K (**HR@K**(K=1,3)), Nor-  malized Discounted Cumulative Gain at rank K (**NDCG@K**(K=1,3))11, and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR). From Tab. 4, our metric achieves significant improvement compared to other metrics, indicating that our metric can yield more accurate rankings for quality. Also, the n-gram-level metrics generally outperform sentence-level metrics, which is consistent with the result in Tab. 3. Ablation Study. To investigate the importance of different sub-metrics in *quality* metric, we compare the correlation between *quality* metric and human ratings after removing each sub-metric individually. From Tab. 3, the removal of any sub-metric leads to a decline in performance, which proves the effectiveness of each sub-metric. Among three components, the removal of the *relevance* results in the largest performance drop, which reveals that relevance is the most important sub-metric. The Effects of Hyperparameters. Since different sub-metrics have varying levels of importance, we study the correlation results when gradually increasing the weight of *relevance* component and decreasing the weight of *sentiment consistency* component (as in Tab. 5). From Fig. 4 (left), increasing the weight of the *relevance* component consistently results in improved performance, peaking at the combination [7](*α, β, γ* = 3/6, 2/6, 1/6), before eventually causing a decline in performance. This reveals that although *relevance* is the most important sub-metric, too much weight on it can be detrimental. The Effects of Referenced Dataset Size. We sample different numbers of simile sentences from (He et al., 2022) as references for relevance 11The formulated NDCG@K in our setting is provided in Appx. B, with the optimal ranking being human rankings.    score and study the correlation between the *quality* metric and human ratings12. From Fig. 4 (right)13, correlations grow linearly with exponential growth in referenced dataset size, indicating that using datasets larger than 100k will improve the correlation coefficients. Moreover, the performance at the peak surpasses the prior automatic metrics, proving the effectiveness of our approximation method. ## 4.2.2 Creativity We compare our *creativity* metric with the following automatic metrics: (1) **Perplexity** which is often utilized to measure diversity as well (Tevet and Berant, 2021), (2) **Self-BLEU** (Zhu et al., 2018) calculates the BLEU score of each generation against all other generations as references, (3) Distinct n-grams(Dist) (Tevet and Berant, 2021), which is the fraction of distinct n-grams from all possible n-grams across all generations. Correlations with Human Ratings. From Tab. 6, our metric *creativity* is significantly more correlated with human evaluation scores compared with prior diversity metrics. According to the visualized correlation result in Fig. 5, the prior diversity metrics have either wide confidence intervals (Perplexity, Dist) or scattered datapoints (self-BLEU), whereas our creativity metrics exhibit stronger linear correlation and narrower confidence intervals (Creativty w/ Log), implying higher reliability. Recommendation Task. We compare the rankings given by automatic metrics with human rank-  Table 6: Correlation between metrics and human ratings when evaluating creativity. All measures with p-value > 0.05 are italicized. "−log" denotes the removal of log transformation.  ings. According to Tab. 7, our creativity metric outperforms prior automatic metrics, which proves our metric can better measure the creativity of simile candidates given a literal sentence, which is consistent with the results in Tab. 6. Ablation Study. According to Tab. 6, removing the log transformation leads to significant performance drops. According to the visualized correlation result in Fig. 5, the datapoints are distributed closer to the fitter line and exhibit narrower confidence intervals after applying the log transformation, which further proves that log transformation is essential for our creativity metric. The Effects of Referenced Dataset Size. According to Fig. 6 (left), the correlation coefficients increase continuously and eventually converge as the number of referenced sentences increases. Moreover, the performance after convergence is comparable to that given by the *creativity* metric based on the simile KB. The trend reveals that our metric referencing 10k similes can achieve a promising correlation with human ratings. ## 4.2.3 Informativeness The Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients between our *informativeness* metric and human ratings are 0.798 and 0.882, respectively. According to Fig. 6 (right), the strong linear correlation between the metric and human ratings proves that our  Figure 5: Correlation between automatic metrics and human ratings when evaluating creativity. Here, Self-BLEU4 and Dist2, which perform the best in their respective category in Tab. 6, are presented. "w/o log" and "w/ log" denotes whether the log transformation is applied or not.   informativeness metric is simple yet quite effective. ## 4.2.4 Relation Between Metrics We present pair-wise correlations between the three automatic metrics in Tab. 8 and also visualize them in Fig. 7. Among the three metrics, creativity correlates with informativeness moderately, mainly because shorter vehicles tend to be less creative than longer ones. The correlations of all other pairwise metrics are relatively weak. Thus, it is evident that the three metrics are independent of each other and it is necessary to measure each one of them to obtain a holistic view of SG evaluation.  ## 5 Hauser **Application** We perform a case study to prove that our designed automatic metrics are effective for various methods. Here, we apply our metrics to a retrieval method (Zhang et al., 2021) (denoted as **BM25**), which utilizes the 20 context words around the insertion position given by groundtruth to retrieve the 5 most similar samples based on the BM25 ranking score from the training set, and adopts the vehicles from these samples to be those of simile candidates. This method ensures the diversity of generated similes. The method introduced in Sec. 4.1 is denoted as **Ours**. Given the candidates generated by each method, we rerank them using a weighted combination of quality, creativity, and informativeness rankings obtained by HAUSER, with a ratio of 2:2:1. From Tab. 11 in Appendix, the candidates generated by various methods can be more correlated with human rankings after being ranked by our metrics, thus proving the generality of our metrics. It is noticed that the insertion position for **BM25** is provided by the groundtruth, while the insertion position for **Ours** is predicted by the model, thus proving the effectiveness of our generation method. ## 6 Conclusion In this work, we systematically investigate the evaluation of the Simile Generation (SG) task. We establish a holistic and automatic evaluation system for the SG task, containing five criteria from three perspectives, and propose holistic automatic metrics for each criterion. Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of our metrics. ## Acknowledgements This research is funded by the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality Grant (No. 22511105902), Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (No. 2021SHZDZX0103), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62102095). ## Limitations We analyze the limitations of our work as follows. Firstly, although applying a million-scale simile knowledge base or large-scale simile sentences as reference makes our designed metric significantly more correlated with humans than prior referencebased metrics (e.g. BLEU, Rouge, BERTScore), our metrics are still reference-based and rely on the quality and scale of referenced data. We have discussed the effect of referenced dataset size in our paper and will design reference-free metrics to further complement our metrics in future work. Additionally, since our metrics utilize a million-scale simile knowledge base or large-scale simile sentences as references, the efficiency of our method is slightly lower than the automatic metrics based on a few references. Nevertheless, this limitation does not prevent our metrics from performing systematic and scalable comparisons between SG models. ## Ethical Considerations We provide details of our work to address potential ethical considerations. In our work, we propose holistic and automatic metrics for SG evaluation and construct an evaluation dataset to verify their effectiveness (Sec. 4.1). All the data sources used in our evaluation dataset are publicly available. The details about human ratings, such as the instructions provided to raters, are provided in Appx. A. In our case study (Sec. 5), the human rankings are discussed by three raters. We protect the privacy rights of raters. All raters have been paid above the local minimum wage and consented to use the evaluation dataset for research purposes covered in our paper. Our work does not raise any ethical considerations regarding potential risks and does not involve the research of human subjects. ## References Catherine Addison. 2001. "so stretched out huge in length": Reading the extended simile. *Style*, 35(3):498–516. Antoine Bosselut, Hannah Rashkin, Maarten Sap, Chaitanya Malaviya, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Comet: Commonsense transformers for automatic knowledge graph construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05317. Asli Celikyilmaz, Elizabeth Clark, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Evaluation of text generation: A survey. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2006.14799. Tuhin Chakrabarty, Yejin Choi, and Vered Shwartz. 2022. It's not rocket science: Interpreting figurative language in narratives. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 10:589–606. Tuhin Chakrabarty, Smaranda Muresan, and Nanyun Peng. 2020. Generating similes effortlessly like a pro: A style transfer approach for simile generation. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6455–6469. Weijie Chen, Yongzhu Chang, Rongsheng Zhang, Jiashu Pu, Guandan Chen, Le Zhang, Yadong Xi, Yijiang Chen, and Chang Su. 2022. Probing simile knowledge from pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5875–5887. Cyril Chhun, Pierre Colombo, Fabian M Suchanek, and Chloé Clavel. 2022. Of human criteria and automatic metrics: A benchmark of the evaluation of story generation. In *29th International Conference* on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2022). Michael Denkowski and Alon Lavie. 2014. Meteor universal: Language specific translation evaluation for any target language. In *Proceedings of the ninth* workshop on statistical machine translation, pages 376–380. Bhuwan Dhingra, Manaal Faruqui, Ankur Parikh, MingWei Chang, Dipanjan Das, and William Cohen. 2019. Handling divergent reference texts when evaluating table-to-text generation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4884–4895. Patrick Hanks. 2013. *Lexical analysis: Norms and* exploitations. Mit Press. Qianyu He, Xintao Wang, Jiaqing Liang, and Yanghua Xiao. 2022. Maps-kb: A million-scale probabilistic simile knowledge base. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05254. Lara L Jones and Zachary Estes. 2006. Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. *Journal of Memory and* Language, 55(1):18–32. Huiyuan Lai and Malvina Nissim. 2022. Multifigurative language generation. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5939–5954. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871–7880. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and William B Dolan. 2016. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 110–119. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74–81. Vlad Niculae and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2014. Brighter than gold: Figurative language in user generated comparisons. In *Proceedings of the* 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 2008–2018. Bo Pang, Erik Nijkamp, Wenjuan Han, Linqi Zhou, Yixian Liu, and Kewei Tu. 2020. Towards holistic and automatic evaluation of open-domain dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3619–3629. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318. Anthony M Paul. 1970. Figurative language. *Philosophy & Rhetoric*, pages 225–248. Russell S Pierce and Dan L Chiappe. 2008. The roles of aptness, conventionality, and working memory in the production of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and symbol, 24(1):1–19. Ashequl Qadir, Ellen Riloff, and Marilyn Walker. 2015. Learning to recognize affective polarity in similes. In *Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 190– 200. Shuo Ren, Daya Guo, Shuai Lu, Long Zhou, Shujie Liu, Duyu Tang, Neel Sundaresan, Ming Zhou, Ambrosio Blanco, and Shuai Ma. 2020. Codebleu: a method for automatic evaluation of code synthesis. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2009.10297. Carlos Roncero and Roberto G de Almeida. 2015. Semantic properties, aptness, familiarity, conventionality, and interpretive diversity scores for 84 metaphors and similes. *Behavior research methods*, 47(3):800– 812. Ananya B Sai, Akash Kumar Mohankumar, and Mitesh M Khapra. 2022. A survey of evaluation metrics used for nlg systems. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55(2):1–39. Kevin Stowe, Leonardo Ribeiro, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. Metaphoric paraphrase generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.12854. Chongyang Tao, Lili Mou, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2018. Ruber: An unsupervised method for automatic evaluation of open-domain dialog systems. In *ThirtySecond AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*. Roi Tartakovsky and Yeshayahu Shen. 2018. 'simple as a fire': Making sense of the non-standard poetic simile. *Journal of Literary Semantics*, 47(2):103– 119. Guy Tevet and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Evaluating the evaluation of diversity in natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 326–346. Amos Tversky. 1977. Features of similarity. *Psychological review*, 84(4):327. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In *Proceedings of* the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353–355. Ping Xiao, Khalid Alnajjar, Mark GranrothWilding, Kat Agres, Hannu Toivonen, et al. 2016. Meta4meaning: Automatic metaphor interpretation using corpus-derived word associations. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity. Sony CSL Paris. Jiayi Zhang, Zhi Cui, Xiaoqiang Xia, Yalong Guo, Yanran Li, Chen Wei, and Jianwei Cui. 2021. Writing polishment with simile: Task, dataset and a neural approach. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference* on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 14383– 14392. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09675. Yunxiang Zhang and Xiaojun Wan. 2021. Mover: Mask, over-generate and rank for hyperbole generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07726. Wei Zhao, Maxime Peyrard, Fei Liu, Yang Gao, Christian M Meyer, and Steffen Eger. 2019. Moverscore: Text generation evaluating with contextualized embeddings and earth mover distance. In *Proceedings* of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 563–578. Danning Zheng, Ruihua Song, Tianran Hu, Hao Fu, and Jin Zhou. 2019. "love is as complex as math": Metaphor generation system for social chatbot. In Workshop on Chinese Lexical Semantics, pages 337– 347. Springer. Yaoming Zhu, Sidi Lu, Lei Zheng, Jiaxian Guo, Weinan Zhang, Jun Wang, and Yong Yu. 2018. Texygen: A benchmarking platform for text generation models. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, pages 1097–1100. ## A Human Ratings The instructions given to raters are detailed as follows: 1. All raters are provided with the necessary background information on similes and the simile generation task, including the definition of similes, the main simile components, and the motivation of our proposed criteria. 2. To ensure the quality of ratings, all the raters label a small set of 20 samples to reach an agreement on the labeling criteria for each metric before the formal labeling. 3. For each perspective (i.e. quality, creativity, informativeness), three raters are asked to rate each simile from 1 to 5, where 1 denotes the worst and 5 denotes the best. **The examples of** our human ratings are provided in Tab. 10. 4. During the rating, raters are asked to specifically label the simile-literal sentence pairs which lack context and are thus difficult to rate (e.g. "*Nobody can shoot.*"). ## B Ndcg Formulation In our setting, the optimal rankings are human rankings. Hence, given m simile candidates S = {s1, s2*, ..., s*m}, the NDCG@k given by each automatic metric is defined as follows: $$\text{NDCG}(k)=\frac{\text{DCG}(\mathcal{O}_{\text{hypo}},k)}{\text{DCG}(\mathcal{O}_{\text{ref}},k)}\tag{10}$$ $$\text{DCG}(\mathcal{O},k)=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\frac{\mathcal{O}[\mathcal{I}(i)]}{log_{2}(1+i)}\tag{11}$$ where Oref and Ohypo represent the score list given by humans and each automatic metric respectively, O[j] denote the score of sj , I(i) denotes the index of the i-th largest score in O. ## C The Implementation Of Prior Metrics We report the packages used to implement prior automatic metrics in Tab. 9. For the metric denoted with an asterisk(*), we apply the corresponding package to implement the key parts, based on the definition from the cited papers. The formulation of NDCG in our setting is provided in Appx. B. The rest of the metrics are entirely implemented by us according to the cited papers. | Metric | Packages | |-------------------|------------| | BLEU, METEOR | NLTK | | Rouge | rouge | | BERTScore | bert_score | | Self-BLEU* | NLTK | | Distinct n-grams* | NLTK | Table 9: The packages used to implement the metrics. ## D The Details Of Maps-Kb MAPS-KB (He et al., 2022) is a million-scale probabilistic simile knowledge, containing 4.3 million simile triplets from 70 GB corpora, along with frequency and two probabilistic metrics, *plausibility* and *typicality*, to model each triplet. The simile triplet is in the form of (topic, property, vehicle)(*t, p, v*). In our paper, we specifically adopt the *frequency* and *plausibility* information from MAPS-KB to implement our relevance metric. With regard to *plausibility*, it evaluates the quality of simile triplets based on the confidence score of their supporting simile instances (simile sentence, topic, property, vehicle)(si*, t, p, v*). In each simile instance, the topic and vehicle are extracted from the simile sentence, while the property is generated via generative commonsense model COMET (Bosselut et al., 2019) and prompting the PLMs. MAPS-KB adopt the *noisy-or* model to measure the plausibility of the triplet (*t, p, v*), which is defined as follows: $${\mathcal{P}}(t,p,v)=1-\prod_{i=1}^{\eta}(1-S(s_{i},t,p,v)),$$ where S(si*, t, p, v*) = P(p|si*, t, v*) is the confidence score of each simile instance during generation and η is the number of simile instances supporting the simile triplet (t, p, v). | # | Literal Sentence | Vehicles in the Generated Similes | Q | C | I | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----|-----|-----| | like diamonds | 2.3 | 3.3 | 2.0 | | | | like tears | 3.3 | 3.3 | 2.0 | | | | like arrows | 1.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | | | | like a stream | 4.0 | 2.7 | 2.3 | | | | like a stream of diamonds | 4.0 | 4.7 | 4.0 | | | | 1 | Some raindrops struck the roof, window and ran down its panes [insert]. | like a rag doll | 3.0 | 3.3 | 2.7 | | like a deflated balloon | 4.7 | 4.0 | 3.3 | | | | 2 | As suddenly as she'd jumped up from the sofa, Jaklin collapsed [insert]. | like a pricked bladder | 3.0 | 4.7 | 3.3 | | like a pricked balloon | 4.3 | 4.3 | 3.3 | | | | As suddenly as [insert] she'd jumped up from the sofa, Jaklin collapsed. | like a flash | 3.3 | 2.0 | 2.3 | | | like a dark shadow | 4.0 | 2.3 | 3.3 | | | | like a huge black monster | 4.7 | 3.3 | 4.0 | | | | like a giant black monster | 4.7 | 3.7 | 4.0 | | | | like a huge black shadow | 4.3 | 3.0 | 4.0 | | | | like a huge black monster of destruction | 4.7 | 4.3 | 5.0 | | | | 3 | In the other direction the Empire State Building loomed [insert]. | like a boiling caldron | 3.0 | 4.3 | 3.0 | | like a volcano | 4.3 | 2.7 | 2.0 | | | | like a boiling cauldron | 4.0 | 4.7 | 3.0 | | | | like a cauldron of boiling water | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.7 | | | | like a cauldron of boiling water* | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.7 | | | | 4 | His hormones boiled and steamed [insert] and yet he did not reach for the succulent young flesh there beside him. | like a stone | 4.7 | 1.7 | 2.0 | | like a log | 3.0 | 1.7 | 2.0 | | | | like lead | 4.3 | 2.3 | 1.7 | | | | like an empty sack | 1.3 | 3.7 | 3.0 | | | | like an empty barrel | 1.3 | 3.7 | 3.0 | | | | The coil whistled through the air. It fell right over the mate's shoulder. | | | | | | | 5 | He clutched at it as the fore, topmast crosstrees, with the full force of the surge, struck him from behind, and he sank [insert]. | | | | | Table 10: Examples of human ratings for each perspective (Q, C, I denoting Quality, Creativity, *Informativeness*, respectively). The indicators "[insert]" denotes the insertion positions of vehicles within the generated similes given by models, which do not exist in the literal sentences. Bold numbers indicate the highest ranking among the simile candidates generated from a literal sentence. An asterisk (*) indicates that the generated simile introduces noise to the context word through additions, deletions, or changes within two words. | # Method | Literal Sentence | Vehicles in the Generated Similes | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Original Rank | HAUSER Rank | Human Rank | | | | like water | like a ballerina | like a ballerina | | | | like hell | like a predator | like a predator | | | | like a ballerina | like a drum | like a drum | | | | like a drum | like water | like water | | | | like a predator | like hell | like hell | | | | BM25 | Stefan moved [Insert], every movement easy and precisely controlled. | | | | | 1 | like a cat | like a dancer | like a dancer | | | like a dancer | like an automaton | like an automaton | | | | like lightning | like lightning | like a cat | | | | like an automaton | like a cat | like a cat* | | | | like a cat* | like a cat* | like lightning | | | | Ours | Stefan moved [Insert], every movement easy and precisely controlled. | like a fiend | like a wounded buffalo | like a wounded buffalo | | like a drug | like a fiend | like a fiend | | | | BM25 | But his next line called for him to howl [Insert]. | like a chicken | like a trail | like a chicken | | like a trail | like a chicken | like a trail | | | | like a wounded buffalo | like a drug | like a drug | | | | 2 | like a wolf | like a wounded animal | like a wounded animal | | | like a dog | like a dog | like a coyote | | | | Ours | But his next line called for him to howl [Insert]. | like a coyote | like a coyote | like a coyote* | | like a wounded animal. | like a coyote* | like a wolf | | | | like a coyote* | like a wolf | like a dog | | | | like a rabbit | like a very coward | like a very coward | | | | like bees about their friend | like bees about their friend | like a pack of wolves | | | | like wildfire | like a pack of wolves | like a rabbit | | | | like a very coward | like wildfire | like wildfire | | | | like a pack of wolves | like a rabbit | like bees about their friend | | | | She wondered absently if those soldiers would | | | | | | BM25 | survive the coming war, if they would earn glory or run [Insert]. | | | | | 3 | like cowards | like scared rabbits | like frightened sheep | | | like scared rabbits | like hares | like scared rabbits | | | | like frightened sheep | like frightened sheep | like cowards | | | | like hares | like cowards | like cowards* | | | | like cowards* | like cowards* | like hares | | | | She wondered absently if those soldiers would survive the coming war, if they would earn | | | | | | Ours | glory or run [Insert]. | like a pricked bubble | like a grocery bag | like a pricked bubble | | like a boy | like a pricked bubble | like a ragdoll | | | | like a panther | like a ragdoll | like a grocery bag | | | | like a ragdoll | like a boy | like a panther | | | | like a grocery bag | like a panther | like a boy | | | | BM25 | As suddenly as she'd jumped up from the sofa, Jaklin collapsed [Insert]. | | | | | 4 | like a rag doll | like a sack of potatoes* | like a deflated balloon | | | like a deflated balloon | like a deflated balloon | like a pricked balloon | | | | like a sack of potatoes | like a pricked balloon | like a rag doll | | | | like a pricked balloon | like a sack of potatoes | like a sack of potatoes | | | | like a sack of potatoes* | like a rag doll | like a sack of potatoes* | | | | Ours | As suddenly as she'd jumped up from the sofa, Jaklin collapsed [Insert]. | like golden fire | like the eyes of great cats | like the eyes of great cats | | like silver | like golden fire | like golden fire | | | | BM25 | They gleamed [Insert]. | like the eyes of great cats | like silver | like sparks of fire | | like a second skin | like sparks of fire | like silver | | | | like sparks of fire | like a second skin | like a second skin | | | | 5 | like polished ebony | like the eyes of a cat | like the eyes of a wild beast | | | like polished steel | like the eyes of a wild animal | like the eyes of a wild animal | | | | Ours | They gleamed [Insert]. | like the eyes of a cat | like the eyes of a wild beast | like the eyes of a cat | | like the eyes of a wild animal | like polished ebony | like polished ebony | | | | like the eyes of a wild beast | like polished steel | like polished steel | | | | like a gong | like the beating of a bass drum | like the crack of a whip in the silence of the hall | | | | like an agonized lament | like the crack of a whip in the | | | | | BM25 | The idea resounded [Insert] throughout the land. | silence of the hall | like prolonged theater applause | | | like the beating of a bass drum | like prolonged theater applause | like a gong | | | | like the crack of a whip in the silence of the hall like an agonized lament | like the beating of a bass drum | | | | | like prolonged theater applause | like a gong | like an agonized lament | | | | 6 | like thunder | like a trumpet | like a thunderclap | | | like a thunderclap | like a thunderclap* | like a thunderclap* | | | | Ours | The idea resounded [Insert] throughout the land. | like an earthquake | like a thunderclap | like thunder | | like a trumpet | like an earthquake | like a trumpet | | | | like a thunderclap* | like thunder | like an earthquake | | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? the "Limitations" Section. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? the "Abstract" Section and the Section 1. ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? I adopt the free api from text-davinci-003 to polish the language of the whole paper. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4,5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4,5 and Appendix A, C, D ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4, 5, the "Ethical Consideration" Section, and Appendix C, D ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 3, 4, 5, and Appendix D ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? the "Ethical Consideration" Section ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4, Appendix A ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4, 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 4, 5 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 3, 4, Appendix C, D D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 4 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix A ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? the "Ethical Consideration" Section. ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? the "Ethical Consideration" Section. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

mok-etal-2023-large

Large-scale Lifelong Learning of In-context Instructions and How to Tackle It

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.703

Jointly fine-tuning a Pre-trained Language Model (PLM) on a pre-defined set of tasks with in-context instructions has been proven to improve its generalization performance, allowing us to build a universal language model that can be deployed across task boundaries. In this work, we explore for the first time whether this attractive property of in-context instruction learning can be extended to a scenario in which tasks are fed to the target PLM in a sequential manner. The primary objective of so-called lifelong in-context instruction learning is to improve the target PLM{'}s instance- and task-level generalization performance as it observes more tasks. DynaInst, the proposed method to lifelong in-context instruction learning, achieves noticeable improvements in both types of generalization, nearly reaching the upper bound performance obtained through joint training.

# Large-Scale Lifelong Learning Of In-Context Instructions And How To Tackle It Jisoo Mok1∗ Jaeyoung Do2† Sungjin Lee2 **Tara Taghavi**2 Seunghak Yu3 **Sungroh Yoon**1,4† 1 Department of ECE, Seoul National University 2 Amazon Alexa AI 3 NAVER Search US 4Interdisciplinary Program in AI, Seoul National University ## Abstract Jointly fine-tuning a Pre-trained Language Model (PLM) on a pre-defined set of tasks with in-context instructions has been proven to improve its generalization performance, allowing us to build a universal language model that can be deployed across task boundaries. In this work, we explore for the first time whether this attractive property of in-context instruction learning can be extended to a scenario in which tasks are fed to the target PLM in a sequential manner. The primary objective of so-called lifelong in-context instruction learning is to improve the target PLM's instance- and task-level generalization performance as it observes more tasks. DYNAINST, the proposed method to lifelong in-context instruction learning, achieves noticeable improvements in both types of generalization, nearly reaching the upper bound performance obtained through joint training. ## 1 Introduction A number of recent studies have shown that Pretrained Language Models (PLMs) only need to undergo a brief fine-tuning process to achieve remarkable instance-level generalization performance within the observed task (Brown et al., 2020). Compared to instance-level generalization within seen tasks, however, the zero-shot cross-task generalization capability of PLMs to unseen tasks is just starting to be explored (Sanh et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2021). In order to build a language model that can generalize across task boundaries and thus be deployed to various task scenarios, in-context instruction learning draws inspiration from how humans can familiarize themselves with a variety of language-related tasks only by following instructions (Mishra et al., 2022). To emulate the human learning process, in-context instruction learning trains the target PLM with both input-output pairs ∗Work done while interning at Amazon Alexa AI (magicshop1118@snu.ac.kr) †Corresponding Authors and a set of in-context instructions that contain additional task-specific information. The introduction of in-context instructions is spearheading a noticeable progress in cross-task generalization within Natural Language Processing (NLP) research. The recent advances in-context instruciton learning (Ouyang et al., 2022; Mishra et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022) indicate that finetuning a PLM with task-specific instructions has a positive impact on its cross-task generalization capability. One common limitation shared by the existing works is that they require a static, pre-defined set of tasks to jointly train the target PLM. Any learning paradigm bound by the assumption that all of the tasks are pre-defined and non-changing not only incurs a huge memory and computational cost but also raises serious data privacy concerns (De Lange et al., 2021). In this paper, we aim to address such concerns by studying whether it is possible to sequentially fine-tune the target PLM on a stream of large-scale instruction-paired tasks in a lifelong manner. In the same spirit as joint in-context instruction learning, the primary objective of lifelong in-context instruction learning is to gradually improve both instance- and task-level generalization capabilities as the target PLM observes more train tasks. With the help of lifelong in-context instruction learning, deployment of a universal language model on edge devices with limited memory and computation power becomes easier. In such a resource-constrained setting, it is infeasible to jointly train a language model from scratch on all user data every time a new task is introduced. Moreover, it is difficult to deploy a separate model for every task or utilize an extremely large model with multi-task capability. Instead, we can deploy a continuously evolving language model and train it sequentially on a task stream. To study the problem of lifelong in-context instruction learning within the context of instance12573 and task-level generalization, we adopt SuperNaturalInstructions (Sup-NatInst) (Wang et al., 2022), which is the largest dataset with in-context instructions to date, and restructure it accordingly. Because we believe that cross-language generalization is beyond the scope of this paper, we use the English subset of Sup-NatInst, and from here on, we use Sup-NatInst to refer to the English subset instead of the entire dataset. More details on the characteristics of Sup-NatInst and the data restructuring process are provided in Section 3. Our proposed approach to lifelong in-context instruction learning, DYNAINST, combines parameter regularization and experience replay. The regularizer employed by DYNAINST is designed to induce wide local minima in the target PLM. Deep neural networks with wide local minima are known to achieve improved generalization performance and become more robust against task distribution shifts (Cha et al., 2020); these two advantages of wide local minima are well-aligned with the objectives of lifelong instruction learning, making it a particularly attractive choice of regularization. To design a memory- and compute-efficient experience replay framework, we devise Dynamic Instruction Replay, which is comprised of Dynamic Instance Selection (DIS) and Dynamic Task Selection (DTS). DIS and DTS flexibly determine which instances and tasks are stored and replayed, respectively. Our experimental results demonstrate that DYNAINST outperforms strong baselines in both instance- and task-level generalization under various experimental scenarios. Our contributions can be summarized as follows: - This is the first work to study the potential of lifelong in-context instruction learning as an efficient framework towards building a continuously evolving universal language model. - We propose DYNAINST, a hybrid approach to lifelong in-context instruction learning that integrates a wide local minima-inducing regularizer and Dynamic Instruction Replay. With extensive experimental results, we verify that DYNAINST outperforms existing baselines from continual learning. - We present a series of empirical analyses and ablation studies that offer further insights into lifelong in-context instruction learning and the inner-workings of DYNAINST. | Characteristic | ConTinTin | Ours. | |--------------------------|-------------|---------| | In-Context instructions | ✓ | ✓ | | Fully continual | ✗ | ✓ | | Zero-shot generalization | ✗ | ✓ | | Large-scale | ✗ | ✓ | | Changing # of instances | ✗ | ✓ | ## 2 Related Works 2.1 Lifelong Learning Lifelong learning (De Lange et al., 2021; McCloskey and Cohen, 1989) concerns with the problem of learning from a continuous stream of data (Parisi et al., 2019; Chen and Liu, 2018). Thus, what distinguishes lifelong learning from the conventional paradigm of joint training is the sequential characteristic of the learning process, in which only a subset of input data are fed to the model at once. There are largely three different settings for lifelong learning: class, domain, and task incremental settings (De Lange et al., 2021). Here, we focus on the methods for task incremental setting, which is most relevant to the investigated framework of lifelong in-context instruction learning. Based on how information from each task is stored and utilized later in the task stream, task incremental methods can be categorized into three: parameter regularization-, rehearsal-, and architecture expansion-based methods. Regularizationbased methods (Li and Hoiem, 2017; Aljundi et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Kirkpatrick et al., 2017) discourage re-visiting of inputs from previous tasks and instead introduce an auxiliary regularization term. Rehearsal-based methods (Rebuffi et al., 2017; Lopez-Paz and Ranzato, 2017; Chaudhry et al., 2018b; Shin et al., 2017) store a small number of instances and explicitly reuse the stored instances when training on future tasks. They inevitably result in some memory consumption, but this cost is offset by the clear advantage on the performance side. Lastly, architecture expansionbased methods (Mallya and Lazebnik, 2018; Serra et al., 2018) add new parameters to the backbone architecture each time a new task is presented. Although lifelong learning is studied mostly within computer vision or robotics-related tasks, lifelong learning with NLP data has also been attracting significant interest. Many of the lifelong learning works in NLP focus on learning a sequential stream of data that belong in the same task, such as sentiment classification (Chen and Liu, 2018) or task-oriented dialog systems (Mi et al., 2020; Madotto et al., 2021). Recent research efforts aim to explore a more challenging lifelong learning setting that encompasses more than one task (Sun et al., 2019; Kanwatchara et al., 2021), only uses a limited number of instances per task (*i.e.,* fewshot setting (Qin and Joty, 2021)), or generalizes to out-of-distribution data (Lin et al., 2022). ## 2.2 Learning With In-Context Instructions The idea of introducing in-context instructions was first proposed by Goldwasser and Roth (2014) who explored whether an automated agent can understand and execute the instruction that is transformed into a comprehensible expression through semantic parsing. In the NLP community, utilizing in-context language-based instructions continues to rise in popularity as an effective method of improving the generalization capability of PLMs. The core concept of in-context instruction learning is to utilize task-specific instructions that provide some description or hint to the task at hand. For instance, the NaturalInstructions-v1 (NI-v1) dataset (Mishra et al., 2022), a predecessor to Sup-NatInst used in our work, contains 64 NLP tasks, all paired with real-world instructions from Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) (Paolacci et al., 2010). The instruction schema of NI-v1 and Sup-NatInst resemble each other in that they include the following: taskspecific definition, positive examples, negative examples, and some explanation for why an example is positive or negative. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to explore whether a PLM can be trained sequentially on a stream of instruction-paired tasks. While Yin et al. (2022) seemingly consider a similar problem, their framework, ConTinTin, and ours fundamentally differ in several aspects. The key differences between ConTinTin and our framework are summarized in Table 1. Because ConTinTin includes the joint training step prior to sequentially adapting the jointly-trained model, it is not fully continual. During the adaptation step, ConTinTin observes evaluation tasks and thus ignores the trained model's generalization capacity to unseen tasks, an important aspect of instruction-based learning. Lastly, it is not as large-scale as ours, and it assumes that for all of the pre-train tasks, the  same number of instances are available. To tackle the ConTinTin framework, Yin et al. (2022) propose a method dubbed InstructionSpeak, which we consider as a baseline approach in Section 5.2. ## 3 Problem Definition In this section, we describe Sup-NatInst and how it is restructured for the purpose of lifelong in-context instruction learning. Then, we formulate evaluation metrics for quantifying the instance- and task-level generalization capabilities. The visual summary of problem definition is provided in Figure 1. ## 3.1 Data Dataset Sup-NatInst, which contains 757 train tasks and 119 evaluation tasks, is the largest and most comprehensive among existing datasets for in-context instruction learning. For the sake of computational efficiency, we randomly sample 500 out of 757 train tasks. The results reported in the original paper indicate that only minor performance change occurs after the model observes approximately 400 train tasks; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the results obtained after 500 tasks are sufficient for analyzing the characteristics of large-scale lifelong in-context instruction learning. The default instruction scheme of Sup-NatInst includes four components: task definition, positive examples, negative examples, and explanation. Unless specified otherwise, all explored approaches leave out negative examples because they have been shown to deteriorate the generalization performance of the target model (Wang et al., 2022). An example of instruction and instance in Sup-NatInst can be found in Section A1 of Appendix. Data Restructuring From here on, we refer to some arbitrary target PLM model as F. We use t to  denote a task, which implicitly includes an instruction, and (*x, y*) to denote the input and output of a task-specific instance. During the lifelong learning process, the 500 train tasks with L number of labeled instances per task (Ttr = [t itr] 500 i=1, where t itr = {(x i1 , yi1 )*, ...,*(x i L , yiL )}) are sequentially fed into F. In this work, we study two different settings for the choice of L: the static instance setting, where the same L number of instances per task are used for training, and the random instance setting, where a changing number of instances are used for each task. Because in real life, it is hard to guarantee that the same number of instances are available for each task, the random instance setting may be considered more realistic. In the random instance setting, we use a random integer value between 1 and L for each train task. The primary objective of the lifelong learning process is to gradually improve the trained model's instance- and task-level generalization performance, as more train tasks are visited by F. To measure the instance-level generalization performance, we leave out 100 instances in each train task for evaluation process and treat them as test instances within train tasks: t˜itr = {(˜x i1 , y˜ i1 )*, ...,*(˜x i100, y˜ i100)}. To measure the task-level generalization performance, we utilize 100 test instances in each one of 119 evaluation tasks (Teval = [t˜ieval] 119 i=1, where t˜ieval = {(˜x i1 , y˜ i1 )*, ...,*(˜x i100, y˜ i100)}). ## 3.2 Evaluation Metrics All metrics are measured with the Rouge-L score (Lin, 2004), which quantifies the sentencelevel structural similarity; thus, a high Rouge-L score corresponds the to improved performance of a language model. The Rouge-L score is used as the default metric in the original Sup-NatInst paper as well. We denote the Rouge-L score of the j-th task after training on the k-th task as: Ak(t j). GEN**Inst** measures the degree of instance-level generalization and is formulated as: 1k Pk i=1 Ak(t˜itr). This is equivalent to the Rouge-L score averaged across test instances of observed train tasks. GEN**Task** measures the degree of task-level generalization and is formulated as: 1 119 P119 i=1 Ak(t˜ieval). This is equivalent to the Rouge-L score averaged across test instances of unseen evaluation tasks. ## 4 Methodology We introduce DYNAINST, our approach to lifelong in-context instruction learning. DYNAINST is a hybrid method that combines parameter regularization and experience replay. In Section 4.1, we elaborate on the use of wide local minima-inducing regularizer for lifelong instruction learning. Then, in Section 4.2, we describe how instances and tasks are dynamically stored and replayed through Dynamic Instruction Replay. The lifelong instruction learning process with DYNAINST is illustrated in Figure 2. We also provide line-by-line description of DYNAINST in Algorithm 1. ## 4.1 Wide Local Minima Promoting wide local minima in neural networks has been widely accepted as an effective way of achieving improved generalization performance (Pereyra et al., 2017). In addition, in (Cha et al., 2020), it is shown that not only does wide local minima help with generalization performance, but it can also be used to combat task distribution shifts in a sequential learning process. The multifaceted benefits of wide local minima are wellaligned with the objectives of lifelong instruction learning. Therefore, we incorporate an implementation of wide local minima-inducing regularizer proposed in Cha *et al.* (Cha et al., 2020) by modifying the plain cross entropy loss as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{Dyna}}=\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{ce}}+\gamma\cdot\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{wlm}},\tag{1}$$ where $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{wlm}}=\frac{1}{L}\cdot\sum_{i=1}^{L}D_{\mathrm{KL}}(\hat{y}_{i}\mid\mid\mathrm{Unif.})$. odel ($F(x_i)$), a yˆiis the softmax output of the model (F(xi)), and γ is the coefficient used to control the strength of Lwlm. DKL and Unif. are the Kullback-Leiber (KL) divergence of two distributions and the uniform distribution, respectively. Essentially, Lwlm is designed to drive yˆi closer to the uniform distribution. By doing so, Lwlm effectively discourages the model output from becoming overconfident. Because penalizing overconfident model outputs allows F to avoid overfitting, the resulting F trained with LDyna becomes more robust to distribution shifts and thus obtains higher generalization (Pereyra et al., 2017). In practice, this regularization term is implemented by maximizing the entropy of the model predictions. We additionally discuss its relationship to maximum entropy regularization used in Soft Actor-Critic from reinforcement learning in Section A2 of Appendix. ## 4.2 Dynamic Instruction Replay Dynamic instruction replay (DIR) can largely be divided into two processes: Dynamic Instance Selection (DIS) and Dynamic Task Selection (DTS). To implement DIS and DTS, we introduce Replay Bank that consists of N number of task-specific Instance Banks with known task boundaries. The size of Replay Bank N is thus equal to the number of task-specific Instance Banks. Each Instance Bank of size M in Replay Bank contains M number of train instances per task. The maximum cap on the size of each memory bank is enforced to limit the memory consumption of DYNAINST. DIS: Storing all the train instances within each task in Instance Bank leads to an excessive amount of memory consumption. Therefore, after learning each task, it is preferable to selectively store instances that will be revisited later down the task Algorithm 1: DYNAINST Require: Target model F, Number of Tasks K, Instance Bank of Size M, Replay Bank of Size N, Number of Replayed Tasks Rt, Number of Replayed Instances RI , Number of Train Epochs per Task E $k=1:K$do **if $k==1$then** $\left|\begin{array}{l}\mbox{Train$F$on$t^{k}$with${\cal L}_{ce}+{\cal L}_{wlm}$for}\\ \mbox{$E$epochs$\rightarrow$WLM}\end{array}\right.$ Select Rt most difficult tasks from Replay Bank → DTS Sample RI number of instances from each selected task Finetune F on the sampled instances of selected tasks and t k with Lce + Lwlm for E epochs → WLM Replay Bank.push(t k) Select M/2 instances with lowest H Select M/2 instances with highest H Store the selected instances in Instance Bank of t k → DIS if *| Replay Bank |* > N **then** Replay Bank.pop(t k−N−1) stream. In DYNAINST, the stored instances are 1) used to determine which tasks must be prioritized for replay and 2) replayed with future tasks. As a criterion for instance selection, we adopt the entropy of model predictions as defined below: $${\mathcal{H}}({\hat{y_{i}}})=-\sum_{i}\ p({\hat{y_{i}}}|x_{i};F)\ \mathrm{log}(p({\hat{y_{i}}}|x_{i};F))\ \ (2)$$ From here on, we refer to this quantity as the model's predictive entropy. Predictive entropy is commonly adopted for sample selection across various research fields (*e.g.,* active learning (Gal et al., 2017) and neural architecture search (Na et al., 2021) that can benefit by identifying a subset of instances that best represents the dataset as a whole. After finetuning F on the k-th task, DYNAINST first measures H of all train instances in the k-th task. Based on H, DYNAINST stores a mixture of high and low entropy instances in the task-specific Instance Bank. Given Instance Bank of size M, we split it into two and allocate each half to high and low entropy instances. This hybrid approach to DIS allows easier and more difficult examples to be represented evenly in Instance Bank within a fixed memory budget. After determining which   instances to store in Instance Bank, Instance Bank of the k-th task is added to Replay Bank. Once the number of Instance Banks exceeds the pre-set size of Replay Bank N, Instance Bank of the oldest task is removed from Replay Bank. DTS: Instead of replaying all stored tasks in Replay Bank, we only replay the more difficult tasks that the model struggles to learn. To quantify the difficulty of a task, we rely on the instances stored in the corresponding Instance Bank. Based on the Rouge-L score of a task measured using the stored instances, Rt number of tasks with bottom RougeL scores are replayed with the current task. When replaying a task, we randomly sample Ri number of instances from its Instance Bank to replay. In essence, within DYNAINST, DIS and DTS complement each other to identify which tasks and instances should be replayed to maximize the generalization performance of the target model in a memory- and compute-efficient manner. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Experimental Set-Up For all experiments, BART-base model (Lewis et al., 2020) is used as the target model F. All of the implementation is done through Huggingface (Wolf et al., 2019) and PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019), and NVIDIA V100 GPU is used to run the experiments. The following hyperparameters are shared across all baselines and DYNAINST: AdamW optimizer with the learning rate of 5e-5 and constant learning rate scheduling, 2 epochs of training per task, and effective batch size of 16. As for the hyperparameters specific to DYNAINST, the Replay Bank size (N) is set to 50, and the Instance Bank size (M) is adjusted to store 50% of train instances depending on the value of L. The values of Rt and Ri are set to 10 and 2, respectively. All approaches are run using five different random seeds to create different task and instance streams. | Setting | Method | Evaluation Categories | | | | | | | | | | |-----------|----------|-------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------|-------------|-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | TE | CEC | CR | DAR | AC | WA | OE | KT | QR | TG | DT | GEC | | Static | DYNAINST | 35.29 | 54.13 | 34.52 27.63 | 49.45 | 8.48 | 17.62 36.63 | 52.16 | 21.44 | 28.17 | 78.66 | | Joint | 34.98 | 53.39 | 39.32 32.14 | 52.57 | 10.74 | 25.96 43.29 | 58.49 | 24.29 | 30.95 | 80.56 | | | Random | DYNAINST | 38.72 | 53.06 | 33.34 30.22 | 50.69 | 8.10 | 15.41 37.15 | 50.34 | 19.13 | 27.24 | 73.59 | | Joint | 36.22 | 53.70 | 41.16 35.96 | 52.26 | 10.46 | 24.31 43.72 | 56.43 | 23.79 | 32.56 | 78.89 | | ## 5.2 Baselines - **Naive:** sequentially finetunes the target model on a stream of tasks with no additional technique. - **Elastic Weight Consolidation (EWC)** (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017): is a benchmark parameter regularization method for continual learning. EWC retains past knowledge by preventing significant changes in important parameters. - **LAMOL**0.5,0.02 (Sun et al., 2019): is a benchmark continual learning method in NLP that relies on experience replay. The sampling ratio in LAMOL (0.5, 0.02) denotes the percentage of instances replayed from each one of previous tasks. - **InstructionSpeak** (Yin et al., 2022): is a continual learning method designed for the ConTinTin framework. InstructionSpeak consists of two main processes: History Training and Negative Training. History Training replays the past two tasks with the current task, and Negative Training utilizes negative samples as if they were positive ones. ## 5.3 Main Results In Figure 3, we compare GENInst and GENTask of compared approaches under the static setting. Likewise, in Figure 4, we report the results of using random number of instances. The default number of instances for the static setting is set to 100, and for the random setting, the number of instances per task is randomly sampled from 1 to 100. In addition to the lifelong learning approaches, we visualize the performance obtained by jointly training on all of the tasks, equivalent to the upper bound performance for lifelong in-context instruction learning, with pink dotted lines with star markers. In both figures, (a) and (c) show visualize how mean GENInst and GENTask averaged over five different random seeds change over time. Under the static setting, DYNAINST outperforms all baselines no matter how many tasks are used for lifelong learning. Under the random setting, DYNAINST comes in as a close second to LAMOL0.02 in the beginning when only 100 tasks are used, but soon outperforms all baselines as more tasks are added. These results clearly demonstrate that DYNAINST better utilizes the increased number of train tasks. DYNAINST appears to be particularly effective at improving the task-level generalization performance, outperforming the second-best baseline by a significant margin on the Rouge-L score under both settings. In (b) and (d), we report means and standard deviations of GENInst and GENTask after observing all 500 train tasks. Changes in random seeds seem to have a similar amount of effect on all compared methods, with no single method having a particularly small or large error bar. Under the random setting, we observe a slight increase in performance variation. We believe that this occurs because in the random setting, there are two sources of variation: changing number of instances and task ordering. In Table 2, we report the performance of the model trained with DYNAINST and that trained with joint training on separate evaluation categories. The evaluation categories as defined by Wang et al. (2022) are in Section A1 Appendix. Due to the page constraint, from here on, we only report the results after training on all 500 tasks. It appears that the models trained with DYNAINST and joint training struggle with similar evaluation categories. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the performance discrepancy among tasks is caused by the inherent task distribution skew within Sup-NatInst. In Section A3 of Appendix, we report the results of using up to 20 instances per task. Once again, DYNAINST achieves the highest Rouge-L score, closest to the upper bound performance. In addition, we provide forgetting and intransigence analyses and an example of instances identified through hybrid DIS in Sections A4 and A5 of Appendix, respectively. | Static | Random | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|----------|---------|---------|--------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | GENInst | GENTask | GENInst | GENTask | Static | Random | | | | | | GENInst GENTask GENInst GENTask | | | | | | | | | | | Naive | 33.66 | 34.08 | 30.08 | 32.39 | | | | | | | + WLM | 33.02 | 34.98 | 32.22 | 33.12 | | | | | | | + DIR | 33.24 | 35.48 | 32.17 | 35.31 | | | | | | | DYNAINST | 34.44 | 35.85 | 34.51 | 36.14 | Rand | 33.08 | 34.70 | 32.44 | 34.08 | | Min | 33.86 | 33.36 | 33.12 | 34.51 | | | | | | | DIS Max | 33.76 | 34.69 | 34.19 | 35.89 | | | | | | | Hyb | 34.44 | 35.85 | 34.51 | 36.14 | | | | | | | All | 34.69 | 36.45 | 34.44 | 37.18 | | | | | | | Table 3: Effect of separately applying each technical component in DYNAINST to the "Naive" baseline approach. Both the WLM regularizer and DIR process lead to a significant improvement in performance. | DTS Rel | 33.65 | 34.71 | 32.91 | 34.04 | | | | | | Abs | 34.44 | 35.85 | 34.51 | 36.14 | | | | | | | Static | Random | | | | |----------|----------|---------|---------|-------| | GENInst | GENTask | GENInst | GENTask | | | γ = 0.3 | 33.85 | 35.55 | 32.02 | 34.86 | | γ = 0.7 | 34.03 | 34.92 | 32.89 | 34.01 | | Rt = 15 | 33.86 | 32.74 | 33.30 | 35.88 | | Rt = 20 | 34.09 | 35.06 | 32.88 | 35.69 | | M = 10 | 33.94 | 36.32 | 33.83 | 36.87 | | Default | 34.44 | 35.85 | 34.51 | 36.14 | Table 4: Sensitivity of DYNAINST to changes in various hyperparameters. Default refers to DYNAINST implemented with the default set of hyperparameters. ## 6 Ablation Studies 6.1 Separate Components To validate the efficacy of each technical component in DYNAINST, we perform a component-wise analysis of DYNAINST and report the results in Table 3. It is apparent that parameter regularization with Lwlm and experience replay with DIR each contributes to improving the generalization performance of the target model trained with DYNAINST. ## 6.2 Hyperparameter Sensitivity We now analyze the sensitivity of DYNAINST to the following hyperparameters: the strength of Lwlm (γ), the number of replayed tasks (Rt), and the size of the Instance Bank (M). We test out one hyperparameter at a time and fix the rest of them as default values. The results are reported in Table 4. What is particularly noteworthy is that reducing M to 10 preserves the performance of DYNAINST; this result indicates that DYNAINST is capable of achieving high generalization performance even with a limited number of stored instances. In addition, we observe that increasing Rt does not necessarily improve the performance of DY- Table 5: Effect of altering the main design choices in DIS and DTS. The default settings used in DYNAINST (hybrid DIS and DTS with the absolute Rouge-L score) achieve the best performance out of potential choices. NAINST. We conjecture that the reason behind this phenomenon is that replaying relatively easier tasks by increasing Rt may hinder the target model from learning more difficult tasks. On the contrary, joint training, which uses all train tasks at once, does not experience performance degradation as the number of train tasks increases. Note that in joint training, all instances are shuffled in a task-agnostic manner, effectively blurring the task boundaries. Therefore, we would expect the discrepancy in task difficulties to have less influence on the generalization performance of the model. ## 6.3 Dis And Dts Design Choices Lastly, we study how different design choices for DIS and DTS influence the pefroamcne of DY-NAINST. The results can be found in Table 5. For DIS, we investigate three additional entropy-based instance selection methods - random, minimum, and maximum instance selection - as well as the upper bound performance obtained by storing all of the train instances. It is clear that the hybrid DIS best approximates the upper bound performance. Such a result validates that the hybrid selection is most capable of identifying instances that are representative of the task as a whole. The default criterion for task selection in DTS is the absolute Rouge-L score per task. One alternative approach to DTS is to utilize the relative change in the Rouge-L score, effectively replaying the tasks that are forgotten the most by the target model. The results in Table 5 show that using the relative change in the Rouge-L score leads to a meaningful degree of performance drop compared to default DTS, consolidating the effectiveness of DTS based on the absolute Rouge-L score. ## 7 Conclusion In this work, a fully lifelong learning of in-context instructions was investigated for the first time. We proposed DYNAINST, a novel hybrid approach to lifelong in-context instruction learning, and verified its superiority to existing baselines under various experimental scenarios. Potential directions for future research include extending our investigation to blurred or unknown task boundaries and analyzing whether DYNAINST outputs biased predictions. ## Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by the Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grants funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (2022-0-00959, No. 2022R1A3B1077720, No. 2022R1A5A708390811). ## Limitations And Potential Risks The two limitations of DYNAINST are that it requires known task boundaries, and that it does not concern with corrupted or noisy training instances. In a realistic industry setting where the task definition is quite ambiguous, and a non-negligible amount of human bias and noise are introduced during the data collection process, these limitations of DYNAINST may degrade its performance. However, considering that this is the first time lifelong instruciton learning has been studied, these limitations can be considered interesting directions for future research. Like any language model, the model trained with DYNAINST may output unfair and/or offensive predictions due to the bias embedded in the dataset. Improving the fairness of instruction-tuned language models is beyond the scope of this paper; nonetheless, if these problems remain neglected, we will risk deploying language models that are heavily biased and discriminatory. ## References Rahaf Aljundi, Francesca Babiloni, Mohamed Elhoseiny, Marcus Rohrbach, and Tinne Tuytelaars. 2018. Memory aware synapses: Learning what (not) to forget. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 139–154. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 33:1877–1901. Sungmin Cha, Hsiang Hsu, Taebaek Hwang, Flavio Calmon, and Taesup Moon. 2020. Cpr: Classifierprojection regularization for continual learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Arslan Chaudhry, Puneet K Dokania, Thalaiyasingam Ajanthan, and Philip HS Torr. 2018a. Riemannian walk for incremental learning: Understanding forgetting and intransigence. In *Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)*, pages 532–547. Arslan Chaudhry, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Marcus Rohrbach, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2018b. Efficient lifelong learning with a-gem. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Zhiyuan Chen and Bing Liu. 2018. Lifelong machine learning. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 12(3):1–207. Matthias De Lange, Rahaf Aljundi, Marc Masana, Sarah Parisot, Xu Jia, Aleš Leonardis, Gregory Slabaugh, and Tinne Tuytelaars. 2021. A continual learning survey: Defying forgetting in classification tasks. *IEEE* transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(7):3366–3385. Yarin Gal, Riashat Islam, and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2017. Deep bayesian active learning with image data. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 1183–1192. PMLR. Dan Goldwasser and Dan Roth. 2014. Learning from natural instructions. *Machine learning*, 94(2):205– 232. Tuomas Haarnoja, Aurick Zhou, Kristian Hartikainen, George Tucker, Sehoon Ha, Jie Tan, Vikash Kumar, Henry Zhu, Abhishek Gupta, Pieter Abbeel, et al. 2018. Soft actor-critic algorithms and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05905. Kasidis Kanwatchara, Thanapapas Horsuwan, Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn, Boonserm Kijsirikul, and Peerapon Vateekul. 2021. Rational lamol: A rationalebased lifelong learning framework. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2942–2953. James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521–3526. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871–7880. Zhizhong Li and Derek Hoiem. 2017. Learning without forgetting. *IEEE transactions on pattern analysis* and machine intelligence, 40(12):2935–2947. Bill Yuchen Lin, Sida I Wang, Xi Lin, Robin Jia, Lin Xiao, Xiang Ren, and Scott Yih. 2022. On continual model refinement in out-of-distribution data streams. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3128–3139. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74–81. Xialei Liu, Marc Masana, Luis Herranz, Joost Van de Weijer, Antonio M Lopez, and Andrew D Bagdanov. 2018. Rotate your networks: Better weight consolidation and less catastrophic forgetting. In *2018* 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 2262–2268. IEEE. David Lopez-Paz and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. 2017. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 30. Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Zhenpeng Zhou, Seungwhan Moon, Paul Crook, Bing Liu, Zhou Yu, Eunjoon Cho, Pascale Fung, and Zhiguang Wang. 2021. Continual learning in task-oriented dialogue systems. In *EMNLP 2021-2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,* Proceedings. Arun Mallya and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2018. Packnet: Adding multiple tasks to a single network by iterative pruning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7765–7773. Michael McCloskey and Neal J Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In *Psychology of learning and motivation*, volume 24, pages 109–165. Elsevier. Fei Mi, Liangwei Chen, Mengjie Zhao, Minlie Huang, and Boi Faltings. 2020. Continual learning for natural language generation in task-oriented dialog systems. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 3461–3474. Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3470–3487. Byunggook Na, Jisoo Mok, Hyeokjun Choe, and Sungroh Yoon. 2021. Accelerating neural architecture search via proxy data. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2106.04784. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2203.02155. Gabriele Paolacci, Jesse Chandler, and Panagiotis G Ipeirotis. 2010. Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. *Judgment and Decision making*, 5(5):411–419. German I Parisi, Ronald Kemker, Jose L Part, Christopher Kanan, and Stefan Wermter. 2019. Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review. Neural Networks, 113:54–71. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. Gabriel Pereyra, George Tucker, Jan Chorowski, Łukasz Kaiser, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2017. Regularizing neural networks by penalizing confident output distributions. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06548*. Chengwei Qin and Shafiq Joty. 2021. Lfpt5: A unified framework for lifelong few-shot language learning based on prompt tuning of t5. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Alexander Kolesnikov, Georg Sperl, and Christoph H Lampert. 2017. icarl: Incremental classifier and representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2001–2010. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, et al. 2021. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Joan Serra, Didac Suris, Marius Miron, and Alexandros Karatzoglou. 2018. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting with hard attention to the task. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4548–4557. PMLR. Hanul Shin, Jung Kwon Lee, Jaehong Kim, and Jiwon Kim. 2017. Continual learning with deep generative replay. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 30. Fan-Keng Sun, Cheng-Hao Ho, and Hung-Yi Lee. 2019. Lamol: Language modeling for lifelong language learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022. Super-naturalinstructions:generalization via declarative instructions on 1600+ tasks. In *EMNLP*. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-ofthe-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771. Wenpeng Yin, Jia Li, and Caiming Xiong. 2022. Contintin: Continual learning from task instructions. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3062–3072. ## A Appendix A1 Sup-Natinst Instruction Schema And Evaluation Categories A1.1 Instruction Schema The instructions in Sup-NatInst are contributions of 88 NLP practitioners, and the collected instructions are reviewed through Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) (Paolacci et al., 2010). All instructions in the Sup-NastInst dataset follow the same instruction schema that consists of: task definition, positive examples, negative examples, and explanation. The description and example of each component can be found in Figure A1. ## A1.2 Evaluation Categories All of the evaluation tasks in the Sup-NatInst dataset fall into one of the following 12 categories: Textual Entailment (TE), Cause Effect Classification (CEC), Coreference Resolution (CR), Dialogue Act Recognition (DAR), Answerability Classification (AC), Word Analogy (WA), Overlap Extraction (OE), Keyword Tagging (KT), Question Rewriting (QR), Title Generation (TG), Data to Text (DT), and Grammar Error Correction (GEC). ## A2 Similarities In Dynainst **And Soft** Actor-Critic Soft Actor-Critic (Haarnoja et al., 2018) from reinforcement learning and DYNAINST both employ maximum entropy regularization. Interestingly enough, while DYNAINST and Soft Actor-Critic are used in two different domains, their motivations behind utilizing maximum entropy regularization bear some resemblance. By maximizing the expected reward and the entropy of the actor simultaneously, Soft Actor-Critic incentives the actor to improve exploration in the exploration-exploitation trade-off. The resulting model becomes more robust against estimation errors. Similarly, with the WLM regularizer, DYNAINST drives the target model towards a flatter or wider minima, effectively making the model more robust against task and data distribution shifts. ## A3 **Results Of Using 20 Instances (**L = 20) The instance- and task-level generalization performance of models trained by using up to 20 instances per task are reported in Table A3 (static) and Table A4 (random). Even with fewer train instances, DYNAINST achieves the best generalization performance among compared approaches. ## A4 Forgetting And Intransigence Analyses For 100 Instances (L = 100) And 20 Instances (L = 100) In this section, we analyze the lifelong learning process through the following measures borrowed from the continual learning literature (Chaudhry et al., 2018a). For these measures, it is preferable to obtain lower numbers. Forgetting measures the stability of the lifelong learning process by quantifying the degree of catastrophic forgetting. When Sk(t j) is the stability of j-th task after training on k-th task, Sk(t j) is defined as: Sk(t j) = maxl∈*j,...k*−1Al(t j) − Ak(t j). Intransigence measures how much knowledge from past tasks is utilized by the model when learning the current task. Otherwise known as plasticity, the intransigence measure of j-th task is defined as: Ij = A∗(t j) − Aj (t j) where A∗(t j) denotes the Rouge-L score of F trained only on the j-th task. The forgetting and intransigence analyses when using L = 100 instances can be found in Table A1 (static) and Table A2 (random). The intransigence measure seems to have little correlation with the generalization performance of the model. For instance, EWC achieves relatively high intransigence under both settings but exhibits poor generalization performance. Such results may imply that a high level of forward transfer could be preventing the model from learning to generalize across tasks because it only promotes rapid learning of the current task, thus overfitting the target model to a single task. While the forgetting measure seems to be indicative of the model's generalization performance under the static instance setting, it again becomes less reliable under the random instance setting. We conjecture that this conflict between the generalization metrics and continual learning metrics is a result of the difference in learning objective between conventional continual learning and lifelong in-context instruction learning. The objective of conventional continual learning is to battle catastrophic forgetting within observed train tasks, and thus forgetting and intransigence metrics focus on quantifying how much knowledge is retrained and transferred among train instances. On the contrary, lifelong in-context instruction learning wishes to improve instance- and task-level generalization performance on unobserved instances and tasks. Because the two learning paradigms and their evaluation metrics prioritize different aspects of the trained model, the two sets of metrics end up showing little correlation with each other. The forgetting and intransigence analyses under the 20-shot setting in Table A5 (static) and Table A6 (random) show similar tendencies. ## A5 Analysis Of Stored Instances Here, we analyze which examples are being stored in Instance Bank and whether the difficulty of an instance quantified with the predictive entropy is aligned with human perception of difficulty. In Toxic Language Classification task, which is a binary classification task that identifies whether a tweet contains toxic language or not, the following examples were selected by DIS. Prior to discussing the examples, we apologize for their vulgarity. - **High-entropy (difficult) instance:** Input: "Monkey see monkey doo," | Output: "No." It appears that the model found this example to be difficult to classify because of the following reasons. First, it does not contain explicitly toxic language. Although the word "monkey" may be used as a derogatory term against certain races, within the above input sentence, it appears innocuous. Second, it is difficult to determine the intent of the writer in the first place. Because the input, which is an idiomatic expression, reads rather incoherently, the intent of the writer remains rather ambiguous without more context. - **Low-entropy (easy) instance:** Input: "Then the Mexican bitch wanna speak some other fuckin language & then give attitude. Can't speak right ass! Tf" | Output: "Yes." It is rather clear why the model found this to be an easy example. The input sentence contains explicitly negative words such as "bitch, "fucking," and "ass," and is openly expressing the writer's racist views. | Component | Description | Example | |--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Definition | Defines the scope of the target task in natural language and provides a complete description of how an input should be mapped to an output. | "Given an utterance and recent dialogue context containing past 3 utterances (wherever available), output 'Yes' if the utterance contains the small-talk strategy, otherwise output 'No'. Small-talk is a cooperative negotiation strategy. It is used for discussing topics apart from the negotiation, to build a rapport with the opponent" | | Positive | Samples of correct input-output | - Input: "Context: … 'That's fantastic, I'm glad we came to something | | Example | pairs. | we both agree with.' Utterance: 'Me too. I hope you have a wonderful camping trip.'" - Output: "Yes" | | Negative | Samples of incorrect or invalid | - Input: "Context: … 'Sounds good, I need food the most, what is your | | Example | input-output pairs. | most needed item?!' Utterance: 'My item is food too'." - Output: "Yes" | | Explanation | Short explanation for why an example falls under the positive or negative example category. | - Positive: "The participant engages in small talk when wishing their opponent to have a wonderful trip." - Negative: "The utterance only takes the negotiation forward and there is no side talk. Hence, the correct answer is 'No'." | | Instance | Additional nstances for training | - Input: "Context: … 'I am excited to spend time with everyone from | | and/or evaluation. | camp!' Utterance: 'That's awesome! I really love being out here with my son. Do you think you could spare some food?' " - Output: "Yes" | | Figure A1: Description of Sup-NatInst (Wang et al., 2022) instruction schema and sample instance. Methods Forgetting Intransigence T100 T200 T300 T400 T500 T100 T200 T300 T400 T500 Naive 49.24 51.66 52.95 52.84 52.68 -3.57 -4.44 -4.32 -4.38 -4.18 EWC 49.26 51.34 52.85 53.01 52.92 -3.58 -4.26 -4.29 -4.79 -4.98 LAMOL0.5 51.99 55.49 55.49 54.87 54.42 -2.50 -4.36 -4.11 -3.61 -3.35 LAMOL0.02 52.43 56.26 55.99 55.24 54.81 -4.83 -6.88 -6.45 -5.89 **-5.76** InstSpeak 51.14 53.34 53.49 53.19 53.02 -3.56 -4.94 -4.66 -4.49 -4.48 DYNAINST 46.29 50.89 51.85 52.36 **51.59** -2.88 -3.37 -2.69 -2.18 -1.63 Table A2: Forgetting and intransigence analysis when using L ∈ [1, 100] instances per task. Unlike generalization performance, it is preferable to achieve lower numbers for both forgetting and intransigence metrics. The best and second-best metrics in each column are marked in bold and underline, respectively. | Methods | Forgetting | Intrasigence | | | | | | | | | |-----------|--------------|----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | T100 | T200 | T300 | T400 | T500 | T100 | T200 | T300 | T400 | T500 | | | Naive | 49.19 | 52.63 | 53.39 | 53.49 | 53.56 | -8.48 | -9.31 | -8.89 | -8.34 | -8.46 | | EWC | 48.17 | 52.34 | 52.98 | 52.65 | 53.16 | -7.59 | -8.64 | -7.68 | -6.89 | -7.28 | | LAMOL0.5 | 50.46 | 54.06 | 54.34 | 53.96 | 53.88 | -7.66 | -8.16 | -7.22 | -6.08 | -6.14 | | LAMOL0.02 | 52.01 | 55.69 | 56.18 | 55.39 | 55.15 | -7.15 | -7.95 | -7.52 | -6.07 | -6.23 | | InstSpeak | 49.46 | 53.45 | 54.13 | 53.60 | 53.44 | -5.63 | -6.89 | -6.08 | -5.55 | -5.43 | | DYNAINST | 50.75 | 52.30 | 53.25 | 53.27 | 53.34 | -3.41 | -4.63 | -4.02 | -2.81 | -3.32 | Methods GENInst GENTask T100 T200 T300 T400 T500 T100 T200 T300 T400 T500 Naive 23.73 28.60 31.77 30.25 33.09 25.01 30.85 37.63 34.96 36.59 EWC 24.48 27.48 31.71 30.87 32.27 25.78 29.62 36.88 34.40 35.14 LAMOL0.5 24.52 30.42 30.39 30.66 32.05 27.20 33.85 35.02 35.43 37.56 LAMOL0.02 27.12 29.62 32.78 30.65 33.34 28.27 31.71 34.85 32.75 32.17 InstSpeak 24.62 26.49 30.98 30.62 33.68 26.84 25.85 34.17 34.51 35.09 DYNAINST 29.36 31.09 32.95 32.64 34.55 31.23 34.35 37.79 35.75 **37.96** Joint 29.93 36.29 39.62 42.50 43.41 32.28 34.44 37.49 38.93 38.25 Methods Forgetting Intransigence T100 T200 T300 T400 T500 T100 T200 T300 T400 T500 Naive 43.88 46.89 49.99 51.02 50.89 -11.44 -10.39 -12.20 -11.53 **-11.73** EWC 44.20 47.09 49.38 50.25 50.48 -11.73 -10.19 -11.65 -10.81 -11.35 LAMOL0.5 47.27 49.01 50.77 50.88 51.16 -7.84 -5.64 -7.76 -6.99 -7.58 LAMOL0.02 49.11 51.25 52.38 52.60 52.55 -14.03 **-10.96** -12.17 -10.37 -10.55 InstSpeak 46.11 49.18 50.69 51.18 51.25 -8.74 -8.19 -9.49 -9.01 -9.36 DYNAINST 42.69 45.36 46.53 47.07 **47.64** -9.71 -8.05 -9.31 -8.16 -8.56 | Methods | GENInst | GENTask | | | | | | | | | |-----------|-----------|-----------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | T100 | T200 | T300 | T400 | T500 | T100 | T200 | T300 | T400 | T500 | | | Naive | 20.07 | 26.07 | 30.58 | 29.68 | 30.56 | 20.11 | 26.26 | 33.60 | 31.73 | 32.12 | | EWC | 23.74 | 26.48 | 30.78 | 29.61 | 31.04 | 25.17 | 27.76 | 35.74 | 34.25 | 32.07 | | LAMOL0.5 | 26.38 | 29.05 | 31.62 | 30.51 | 33.43 | 28.63 | 31.53 | 35.83 | 35.12 | 36.09 | | LAMOL0.02 | 26.12 | 29.95 | 31.99 | 32.05 | 31.44 | 30.92 | 33.25 | 35.04 | 34.48 | 36.65 | | InstSpeak | 24.11 | 25.89 | 31.37 | 30.81 | 32.55 | 25.89 | 27.01 | 35.23 | 33.25 | 34.53 | | DYNAINST | 25.28 | 30.29 | 32.45 | 33.00 | 33.44 | 31.29 | 34.09 | 36.99 | 36.07 | 37.55 | | Joint | 27.33 | 31.76 | 34.51 | 34.93 | 35.79 | 30.34 | 34.61 | 37.68 | 37.24 | 38.58 | Table A5: Forgetting and intransigence analysis when using L = 20 instances per task (static instance setting). Unlike generalization performance, it is preferable to achieve lower numbers for both forgetting and intransigence metrics. The best and second-best metrics in each column are marked in bold and underline, respectively. Methods Forgetting Intrasigence T100 T200 T300 T400 T500 T100 T200 T300 T400 T500 Naive 48.38 51.45 52.25 52.14 **52.57** -15.12 -15.45 -15.49 -14.53 -15.65 EWC 50.97 54.61 57.11 58.25 58.72 -17.82 -17.99 -17.83 -17.31 **-18.91** LAMOL0.5 50.33 53.25 54.30 55.76 56.31 -10.85 -10.64 -10.42 -10.32 -11.89 LAMOL0.02 49.22 54.57 55.94 56.01 56.56 -7.63 -8.09 -9.17 -8.70 -9.42 InstSpeak 50.69 55.99 56.56 56.90 57.25 -12.42 -14.75 -14.78 -14.50 -15.69 DYNAINST **43.19** 53.56 55.45 55.56 56.07 -4.70 -8.22 -9.16 -8.27 -8.69 Table A6: Forgetting and intransigence analysis when using L ∈ [1, 20] instances per task (random instance setting). Unlike generalization performance, it is preferable to achieve lower numbers for both forgetting and intransigence metrics. The best and second-best metrics in each column are marked in bold and underline, respectively. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Left blank. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Left blank. A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Left blank. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank. ## C **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left blank. C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Left blank. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank. C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank. D **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank.

gu-etal-2023-controllable

Controllable Text Generation via Probability Density Estimation in the Latent Space

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.704

Previous work on controllable text generation has explored the idea of control from the latent space, such as optimizing a representation with attribute-specific classifiers or sampling one from relevant discrete samples. However, they cannot effectively model a complex space with diverse attributes, high dimensionality, and asymmetric structure, leaving subsequent controls unsatisfying. In this work, we propose a novel control framework using probability density estimation in the latent space. Our method utilizes an invertible transformation function, the Normalizing Flow, that maps the complex distributions in the latent space to simple Gaussian distributions in the prior space. Thus, we can perform sophisticated and flexible controls in the prior space and feed the control effects back into the latent space owing to the bijection property of invertible transformations. Experiments on single-attribute and multi-attribute control reveal that our method outperforms several strong baselines on attribute relevance and text quality, achieving a new SOTA. Further analysis of control strength adjustment demonstrates the flexibility of our control strategy.

# Controllable Text Generation Via Probability Density Estimation In The Latent Space Yuxuan Gu†, Xiaocheng Feng†‡, Sicheng Ma†, Lingyuan Zhang†**, Heng Gong**†, Weihong Zhong†**, Bing Qin**†‡ †Harbin Institute of Technology ‡ Peng Cheng Laboratory {yxgu,xcfeng,scma,lyzhang,hgong,whzhong,qinb}@ir.hit.edu.cn ## Abstract  Previous work on controllable text generation has explored the idea of control from the latent space, such as optimizing a representation with attribute-specific classifiers or sampling one from relevant discrete samples. However, they cannot effectively model a complex space with diverse attributes, high dimensionality, and asymmetric structure, leaving subsequent controls unsatisfying. In this work, we propose a novel control framework using probability density estimation in the latent space. Our method utilizes an invertible transformation function, the Normalizing Flow, that maps the complex distributions in the latent space to simple Gaussian distributions in the prior space. Thus, we can perform sophisticated and flexible controls in the prior space and feed the control effects back into the latent space owing to the bijection property of invertible transformations. Experiments on single-attribute and multi-attribute control reveal that our method outperforms several strong baselines on attribute relevance and text quality, achieving a new SOTA. Further analysis of control strength adjustment demonstrates the flexibility of our control strategy1. ## 1 Introduction Controllable text generation, a fundamental issue in natural language generation, refers to generating fluent and attractive sentences conditioned on target attributes (Zhang et al., 2022a). With the development of pre-trained language models (Zhao et al., 2023), early work explores converting generative language models to conditional models by altering their parameters via fine-tuning (Ziegler et al., 2019; Keskar et al., 2019) or reinforcement learning (Khalifa et al., 2020). Due to the high cost of modifying parameters (Brown et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022b), current control approaches prefer leaving pre-trained language models fixed (Dathathri et al., 2020; Krause et al., 2021). 1https://github.com/HappyGu0524/MultiControl. Figure 1: Illustration of methods controlling in Latent Space. Orange background denotes the latent space. Blue and red represent two attributes. **Prefix-Tuning** represents attributes with points in latent space and composes them by interpolation. **LatentOps** uses classifiers to estimate continuous distributions of attributes and control by optimizing in latent space. **Discrete** maps sentences to discrete samples in latent space and controls with direct searching. **Our method** deploys probability density estimation by transforming the complex latent space into a well-formed prior space, where common control strategies can be more effective. See §A for more details of the latent space's defects. Recent studies perform impressive control by influencing the fixed language model from the latent space (Yu et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2022) with prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021). However, inefficient and unreliable modeling of the complex latent space remains a problem that plagues control performance. As shown in the left part of Figure 1, Gu et al. (2022b) reveal that distributions of attributes in high dimensional latent space are usually asymmetric and even non-convex, making simple control strategies inefficient, including interpolation methods like Prefix-Tuning (Qian et al., 2022) 12590 and optimization approaches like LatentOps (Liu et al., 2022). For example, interpolation may exceed the support set of distributions, making generated sentences unable to acquire desired attributes. Besides, the optimization process can stuck in the saddle or local optimal points. Although mitigating the problem by discrete modeling and direct searching, Discrete (Gu et al., 2022b) introduces a more complicated control process, where searching for the intersection of attributes is vulnerable to the high-dimensionality of space and noise in samples. In this paper, we alleviate problems above by better modeling the latent space. As shown in the right of Figure 1, we propose probability density estimation in latent space by invertible transformation, where complex distributions of attributes in latent space are mapped (*bijection between continuous spaces*) to simple ones, such as Gaussian distributions, in prior space. Thus, traditional control strategies such as interpolation can be tractable and explainable in this normalized prior space. In the inference stage, our paradigm becomes: control attributes in prior space, then activate the language model in latent space. Furthermore, we explore the relationship between the latent space and our prior space and attempt to prove under what circumstances the control in the prior space can be effectively fed back into the latent space. We conduct experiments on single-attribute control and multi-attribute control. Datasets we use are IMDb movie reviews (Maas et al., 2011) for Sentiment, AGNews (Zhang et al., 2015) for Topic, and Jigsaw Toxic Comment Classification Challenge Dataset for Detoxification. We measure the control ability of our method using the correlation of generated sentences with each attribute. For text generation quality, we evaluate sentences with perplexity and distinctness concerning fluency and diversity. Results show that our method can significantly outperform baseline models and analytical experiments on control strength adjustment reveal our flexibility. The main contributions of our work are summarized as follows: - We propose a novel framework that introduces a well-formed prior space for effective and flexible control via invertible transformation. - We theoretically explore approaches to exploit invertibility to feed control in the prior space back into the latent space. - We experimentally reveal the effectiveness of our method compared to previous SOTA. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Controllable Text Generation Variational autoencoders are often used for controllable text generation (Hu et al., 2017; Duan et al., 2020; Mai et al., 2020) before the prosperity of large-scale pre-trained language models (Radford et al., 2019). Traditional control approaches like fine-tuning (Ficler and Goldberg, 2017; Ziegler et al., 2019; Keskar et al., 2019) and reinforcement learning (Khalifa et al., 2020) gradually become infeasible with the rapid increase of language models' parameters. Recent methods investigate control with fixed language models, including biasing the token distribution during decoding (Dathathri et al., 2020; Krause et al., 2021; Yang and Klein, 2021; Liu et al., 2021a; Gu et al., 2022a; Meng et al., 2022), optimization in the language space (Kumar et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2022; Mireshghallah et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2022), and optimization in the latent space (Yu et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2022; Carlsson et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022; Zhang and Song, 2022; Gu et al., 2022b). Another work trains a denoising diffusion language model before controlling sentence attributes in the denoising process (Li et al., 2022). ## 2.2 Normalizing Flow The Normalizing Flow (Dinh et al., 2014, 2016; Kingma and Dhariwal, 2018; Kingma et al., 2016; Papamakarios et al., 2017), consisting of a sequence of invertible transformations for continuous variables, is a powerful deep generative model (Kingma and Welling, 2013; Goodfellow et al., 2020; Ho et al., 2020) that enables capturing the inner probabilistic distribution of complex and highdimensional data (Oussidi and Elhassouny, 2018), including images and text. In natural language processing, Normalizing Flows are often used as enhanced prior distributions in VAE structures (Ma et al., 2019; Ding and Gimpel, 2021) or as deep generative language models (Tran et al., 2019; Ziegler and Rush, 2019; Tang et al., 2021). Besides, Wu et al. (2022) uses the Normalizing Flow as prefixtuning for controllable image generation. However, previous work usually treats Normalizing Flow as an ordinary generative model, easily replaced by stronger models like the denoising diffusion model (Ho et al., 2020), while ignoring its invertible property. In this work, we will explore the potential for the flexible application of the Normalizing Flow's invertible feature in controllable text generation.  ## 3 Methodology As illustrated in Figure 2, our framework is divided into three parts, where the former two are training phases, and the latter is the generation phase. ## 3.1 Estimating The Latent Space Given sentence and attribute pairs {(si, ai)}, we use a learnable encoder to map each sentence to a sample point xi ∈ R n×1, which can activate the fixed language model to reconstruct the same sentence afterward via prefix-tuning. We denote the training loss of this reconstruction target as: $$\begin{array}{c}{{\cal L}_{R}=-\sum_{i}\log p_{\bf LM}(s_{i}|{\rm Prefix}_{i})}\\ {{\rm Prefix}_{i}={\rm MLP}_{\phi}(x_{i})}\\ {x_{i}={\rm Encode}_{\phi}(s_{i}),}\end{array}\tag{1}$$ where we can regard each point xi as being sampled from a continuous Latent Space. It's worth noting that estimating the Latent Space can be a pre-processing phase that is compatible with any pre-trained auto-encoding structure. ## 3.2 Invertible Transformation Normalizing Flow, denoting as z = fK *◦ · · · ◦* f1(x) = Fθ(x), maps a point xiin a complex distribution to the one zi ∈ R n×1in a simple distribution, such as the Gaussian distribution, with a series of invertible transformations {fi(·)}. The probability density function p(x) can be derived as $p(x)=\pi(z)\left|\det\!\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{F}_{\theta}(x)}{\mathrm{d}x}\right|$ and the corresponding training target is: $\mathcal{L}=-\sum_{x}\log p(x)=-\sum_{x}\left[\log\pi(\mathcal{F}_{\theta}(x))+\log\left|\det\!\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{F}_{\theta}(x)}{\mathrm{d}x}\right|\right]\!.$ See §B for details about Normalizing Flows. - For controllable text generation we have to For controllable text generation, we have to model the conditional probability p(x|a). Therefore, we can decompose the probability as: $$\begin{split}p(x)&=\sum\nolimits_{a}p(x|a)p(a)\\ \pi(z)&=\sum\nolimits_{a}\pi(z|a)p(a),\end{split}\tag{2}$$ where $\sum\limits_{a}p(x|a)p(a)=\sum\limits_{a}\pi(z|a)p(a)\left|\det\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{F}_{\theta}(x)}{\mathrm{d}x}\right|$. This is a good distribution $\pi(\cdot\cdot\cdot)$ in $\Gamma$ is a This means distributions p(x|a) in Latent Space are mapped to the distributions π(z|a) in Prior Space through the same invertible transformation Fθ(x). When each sentence possesses labels of all attributes, which is an ideal supervised situation, we can obtain attribute distributions p(a) and their correlations. However, we usually encounter a semi-supervised situation where a sentence belonging to multiple attributes only has a single attribute label. As a result, we bypass the modeling of p(a) and set a stricter transformation constraint that p(x|a) = π(z|a) det dFθ(x) dx . Our target is $\mathcal{L}=-\sum\limits_{(x,a)}\log p(x|a)$, which equals to: $$\mathcal{L}=-\sum\limits_{(x,a)}\left[\log\pi(\mathcal{F}_{\theta}(x)|a)+\log\left|\det\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{F}_{\theta}(x)}{\mathrm{d}x}\right|\right].\tag{3}$$ $=-\sum\limits_{(x,a)}$ lc. In this case, we train each attribute independently under the same spatial mapping, where attribute correlations in Latent Space can still be revealed by operation in Prior Space. It's worth noting that the amount of training data for different attributes should be consistent as possible to ensure the balance of the transformation. Besides, for the convenience of control, we set covariance matrices Σ ∈ R n×n of prior distributions as diagonal matrices σ 2 = σσTI, where π(z|a) = N (µa, σ2 a). ## 3.3 Control In The Prior Space In this part, we first prove three significant properties that bridge the Prior and Latent Spaces. Then we introduce how to conduct flexible control in the Prior Space. The three properties ensure that control effect can be fed back into the Latent Space. ## 3.3.1 Theoretical Support For Control It's worth noting that although the Prior Space is connected to Latent Space with sample-level invertible transformation, the relationship between distributions in the two spaces has not been revealed. Next, we provide three important properties to ensure the effectiveness of controls across the space. Attribute Preservation We define z *possesses* the attribute a *as in the support set of* π(z|a), noted as z ∈ supp(πa). *The support of* πa is supp(πa)= {π(z|a) > 0, ∀z}. *Therefore, we have*: $$\exists x,x={\cal F}_{\theta}^{-1}(z),z\in{\rm supp}(\pi_{a})$$ $$\Rightarrow p(x|a)=\pi(z|a)\left|{\rm det}\frac{{\rm d}{\cal F}_{\theta}^{-1}(z)}{{\rm d}z}\right|^{-1}>0\tag{4}$$ $$\Rightarrow x\in{\rm supp}(p_{a}),$$ which means that sampling from π(z|a) in Prior Space is equivalent to sampling from p(x|a) in Latent Space, which ensures the effectiveness of single-attribute control in Prior Space. Intersection Invertibility *The intersection area* of multiple attributes a1, · · · , ad, d≤n + 1, *can be* defined as the overlapping of their probability density functions {z| min {π(z|a1),· · ·, π(z|ad)}>0}. In addition, the point where attributes are most tightly combined is considered center of the intersection: z∗ =argmaxz min{π(z|a1),· · ·, π(z|ad)}. Though there does not necessarily exist a mapping from z∗to the intersection center in Latent Space, we can restrict the region of this mapping to an upper bound. Since z∗lies in the n-d+1 *dimensional*  subspace I ={z|π(z|a1)=· · ·=π(z|ad)}, *named* as Intersection Subspace, *we can have*: $$\forall\hat{z}\in\mathcal{I},\exists\hat{x}=\mathcal{F}_{\theta}^{-1}(\hat{z}),$$ $$p(\hat{x}|a_{i})=\pi(\hat{z}|a_{i})\left|\det\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{F}_{\theta}^{-1}(\hat{z})}{\mathrm{d}\hat{z}}\right|^{-1}\tag{5}$$ $$=\pi(\hat{z}|a_{j})\left|\det\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{F}_{\theta}^{-1}(\hat{z})}{\mathrm{d}\hat{z}}\right|^{-1}$$ $$=p(\hat{x}|a_{j}),1\leq i\leq d,1\leq j\leq d,$$ which means that the intersection subspace, where attributes combine most tightly, in Prior Space corresponds to the subspace in Latent Space via bijection, making multi-attribute control effective. Inequality Maintenance We define the discrepancy between two attributes concerning the control strength as d(x|a1,a2) = p(x|a1) − p(x|a2), *measuring the degree of their mutual exclusion. Thus:* $$d(x|a_{1},a_{2})=p(x|a_{1})-p(x|a_{2})$$ $$=(\pi(z|a_{1})-\pi(z|a_{2}))\left|\det\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{F}_{\theta}^{-1}(z)}{\mathrm{d}z}\right|^{-1}$$ $$=d(z|a_{1},a_{2})\left|\det\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{F}_{\theta}^{-1}(z)}{\mathrm{d}z}\right|^{-1}$$ $$\Rightarrow\begin{cases}\forall z,d(z|a_{1},a_{2})>0\Rightarrow d(x|a_{1},a_{2})>0\\ \forall z,d(z|a_{1},a_{2})<0\Rightarrow d(x|a_{1},a_{2})<0\end{cases},\tag{6}$$ which means inequality of two attributes in Prior Space is also true in Latent Space. Besides, Intersection Subspace of attributes will divide the overlapping of their support sets into two parts, where points in the same part have the same inequality. This is the support for our flexible control strategy. ## 3.3.2 Details For Control Single-Attribute Control Given the **Attribute** Preservation property, sampling a point xa related to attribute a in the Latent Space is equivalent to first sampling in Prior Space za ∼ N (µa, σ2 a) and then transforming as xa = F −1 θ(za). We convert the sampling strategy to za = µa +σa*ϵ, ϵ* ∼ N (0, λ2I), where λ is a hyperparameter2. Control Strength Adjustment Given two mutually exclusive attributes, such as positive a and negative a¯ sentiment, sampling an α-weighted interpolated point z˜ in Prior Space is z˜ = αza + ¯αza¯, where α + ¯α = 1. This linear combination is: $$\begin{array}{l}{{\tilde{z}=(\alpha\mu_{a}+\bar{\alpha}\mu_{\bar{a}})+(\alpha\sigma_{a}\epsilon_{a}+\bar{\alpha}\sigma_{\bar{a}}\epsilon_{\bar{a}})}}\\ {{\quad=(\alpha\mu_{a}+\bar{\alpha}\mu_{\bar{a}})+\sqrt{(\alpha\sigma_{a})^{2}+(\bar{\alpha}\sigma_{\bar{a}})^{2}}\cdot\epsilon,}}\end{array}\quad(7)$$ which is z˜∼ N ((αµa+ ¯αµa¯),(ασa) 2+(¯ασa¯) 2I). As illustrated in the upper left of Figure 3, interpolation between µa and µa¯ is a line in Prior Space that passes through the Intersection Subspace3, where the intersection point is zˆ= α∗µa+ ¯α∗µa¯. Therefore, sampling with zˆ as the center has a great opportunity to sample from the Intersection Subspace in Prior Space, approximate to sampling from the Intersection Subspace in Latent Space based on Intersection Invertibility. It is worth noting that when distributions are isotropic, there is zˆ=z∗as in Figure 3, which improves the effect of interpolation. The **Inequality Maintenance** further ensures that *α > α*∗ ⇐⇒ p(F −1 θ(˜z)|a) > p(F −1 θ(˜z)|a¯), which means that positive sentiment is guaranteed to be more powerful than negative in Latent Space as long as our weight is larger than α∗. Our experiment in §5.1 demonstrates that the control strength can be monotonic at a coarse granularity. When trading off control strength between two polarities, α is usually ranging from 0 to 1. Besides, we can extend the control strength by increasing α to slightly larger than 1, which equals staying away from attribute a¯, as long as it can be guaranteed that points sampled are still within their distribution. 2We will discuss how λ influences control strength in §5.1. 3See §C for the calculation of zˆ. Multi-Attribute Control Due to the spatial symmetry of Gaussian distributions, our trained distributions are approximately isotropic when we constrain the covariance matrices to diagonal matrices. This means we can simply deploy the interpolation of each attribute's distributional center as: $$\begin{array}{l}{{z_{i}=\mu_{i}+\sigma_{i}\epsilon_{i},\sum_{i}\alpha_{i}=1,1\leq i\leq d}}\\ {{\tilde{z}=\mathcal{N}((\sum_{i}(\alpha_{i}\mu_{i}),\sum_{i}(\alpha_{i}\sigma_{i})^{2}\mathbf{I})}}\end{array}\quad(8)$$ Besides, our Prior Space is compatible with optimization methods. Our optimization process is constrained and the target can be defined as: $$\operatorname*{max}\left(\sum\nolimits_{i}\alpha_{i}\log\pi(z|a_{i})\right)\eqno(9)$$ s.t. $$\forall i\neq j,\pi(z|a_{i})\eqno(2)$$ which is approaching the intersection center z∗in the Intersection Subspace I. We use Lagrange multipliers to handle constraints and sampling with ordinary differential equations as Liu et al. (2022). $$\mathrm{d}z=\frac{1}{2}\beta(t)\bigg{[}\sum_{i}\alpha_{i}\nabla_{z}\log\pi(z|a_{i})-$$ $$\sum_{i\neq j}\delta_{ij}\nabla_{z}\big{(}\log\pi(z|a_{i})-\log\pi(z|a_{j})\big{)}\bigg{]}\mathrm{d}t$$ $$\delta_{ij}=\begin{cases}\Omega,\ \log\pi(z|a_{i})-\log\pi(z|a_{j})>\tau\\ \omega,\ \log\pi(z|a_{i})-\log\pi(z|a_{j})\leq\tau,\end{cases}\tag{10}$$ where $\Omega>>\omega$ are two hyperparameters and $\tau>$ 0 is a threshold. If |log π(z|ai)−log π(z|aj )| ≤ τ , |δij−δji| = 0. If |log π(z|ai)−log π(z|aj )| > τ , |δij−δji| = Ω−ω. β(t) = β0 + (βT −β0)t/T is a linear time-variant coefficient, where time t flows forward from 0 to T and dt is an infinitesimal positive time step. We provide details about the isotropy of Prior Space and optimization in §F. ## 4 Experimtents 4.1 Tasks And Baselines Tasks All our experimental setups, including datasets, evaluation metrics, and generation configurations, follow Discrete (Gu et al., 2022b) for fair comparisons. There are IMDb movie reviews (Maas et al., 2011), AGNews dataset (Zhang et al., 2015), and Jigsaw Toxic Comment Classification Challenge Dataset4for 2 sentiments, 4 topics, and 1 detoxification, respectively. It's worth noting that 4https://www.kaggle.com/c/jigsaw-toxic-comme nt-classification-challenge/ | Methods | Sentiment↑ (%) | Topic↑ (%) | Detox.↑ | PPL.↓ | Dist.-1/2/3↑ | | | | | | | |------------------------------------|------------------|--------------|-----------|---------|----------------|------|------|------|------|-------|--------------------| | Avg. | Neg. | Pos. | Avg. | W. | S. | B. | T. | (%) | | | | | Biasing during Decoding | | | | | | | | | | | | | PPLM | 80.0 | 97.2 | 62.7 | 70.6 | 74.9 | 46.5 | 62.4 | 98.6 | 93.2 | 63.2 | 31.1 / 70.9 / 85.9 | | GeDi | 82.3 | 93.9 | 70.7 | 83.2 | 73.4 | 85.7 | 75.7 | 98.0 | 94.9 | 81.6 | 38.1 / 74.0 / 78.4 | | GeDi raw | 88.4 | 96.6 | 80.2 | 90.8 | 84.3 | 92.6 | 87.1 | 99.2 | 95.4 | 134.1 | 47.5 / 88.9 / 93.0 | | Optimization in the Language Space | | | | | | | | | | | | | MUCOCO | 75.4 | 95.5 | 55.3 | 73.5 | 56.9 | 67.3 | 72.3 | 97.5 | 94.8 | 381.7 | 22.5 / 49.9 / 64.3 | | Mix&Match | 82.8 | 99.2 | 63.3 | 75.6 | 79.5 | 57.4 | 69.6 | 99.3 | 96.9 | 65.2 | 31.5 / 74.8 / 88.8 | | Optimization in the Latent Space | | | | | | | | | | | | | Prefix | 81.6 | 86.8 | 76.4 | 82.4 | 72.2 | 81.1 | 84.9 | 91.5 | 88.3 | 20.8 | 16.3 / 43.8 / 67.5 | | Con. Prefix | 89.5 | 88.4 | 90.6 | 86.7 | 74.5 | 85.3 | 93.5 | 93.6 | 93.8 | 37.7 | 17.3 / 47.0 / 71.1 | | LatentOps | 91.1 | 88.3 | 93.9 | 69.4 | 54.3 | 61.1 | 72.4 | 89.6 | 94.6 | 58.8 | 13.5 / 48.3 / 62.8 | | Discrete | 92.5 | 99.1 | 85.9 | 90.4 | 84.5 | 95.0 | 84.6 | 97.5 | 90.1 | 46.2 | 36.9 / 76.3 / 87.0 | | PriorControl | 97.1 | 99.9 | 94.3 | 95.9 | 95.5 | 99.3 | 90.2 | 98.7 | 90.7 | 54.3 | 29.1 / 70.1 / 86.9 | | + extend | 99.7 | 99.9 | 99.5 | 97.8 | 97.9 | 99.4 | 94.0 | 99.8 | 95.7 | 54.6 | 29.8 / 70.5 / 86.8 | Discrete randomly samples 10k sentences from each dataset, constituting a minor subset, to balance the data scale for the latent space construction. We directly use this latent space to make a fair comparison. To evaluate the attribute relevance, we use classifiers trained by Discrete for sentiment and topic, and we utilize the Google Perspective API5for detoxification. We also measure text quality with Perplexity and Distinctness(Li et al., 2016). For human evaluation, each sentence is rated by three professional evaluators for attribute relevance and text fluency. Evaluators rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 representing text highly related to the desired attribute or very fluent. There are 35 prompts used for text generation, as in PPLM (Dathathri et al., 2020). For single-attribute control, models will generate 5 completions for each attribute and each prompt, which are 35×(2+4+1)×5 = 1225 sentences. For multi-attribute control, each model generates 35 × (2 × 4 × 1) × 5 = 1400 sentences. Baselines (I) Biasing during Decoding: **PPLM** (Dathathri et al., 2020) accumulates gradients from classifiers as bias signals to influence the language model. **GeDi** (Krause et al., 2021) biases the decoding process with small conditional generative models. (II) **Optimization in Language Space**: MUCOCO (Kumar et al., 2021) converts the decoding process to multi-objective optimization in language space. **Mix&Match** (Mireshghallah et al., 2022) discretely optimizes the sentence in language space by token-level masking and resampling. (III) Optimization in Latent Space: **Prefix** (Liu et al., 2021b) is the original Prefix-Tun- | Methods | Avg.↑ Sent.↑ Topic↑ Detox.↑ Fluency↑ | | | | | |--------------|----------------------------------------|------|------|------|------| | GeDi raw | 3.28 | 2.66 | 3.40 | 4.08 | 2.81 | | Discrete | 3.42 | 3.28 | 3.42 | 3.68 | 3.47 | | PriorControl | 4.13 | 4.05 | 4.10 | 4.38 | 3.61 | Table 2: Human Evaluation on Single-Attribute Control. ing method which activates the language model to generate attribute-relevant sentences with tunable prefixes. **Contrastive Prefix** (Qian et al., 2022) enhances the prefixes through contrastive learning. LatentOPs (Liu et al., 2022) optimizes in latent space with classifiers. **Discrete** (Gu et al., 2022b) uses discrete samples to represent the distribution of attributes in latent space and controls the generation by sampling in relevant areas6. ## 4.2 Single-Attribute Control We demonstrate the automatic evaluation results on single-attribute control in Table 1. In addition to the degree of each independent attribute relevance, we compute their average for Sentiment and Topic. Models are grouped with their types of approaches. We mainly compare the control methods in the latent space, and the other two technical routes serve as supplementary references. Biasing methods can achieve decent control at the cost of some fluency. The diversity of their generated sentences is almost the same as the language model, owing to their plug-and-play property during decoding. Besides, we illustrate the raw GeDi without retraining, which is trained on the superset of our dataset. Results show that its performance is affected by the amount of data to some extent. Op5https://www.perspectiveapi.com 6We provide an extra comparison with ChatGPT in §H.  timization methods in language space, elegant in theory, are often troubled by high dimensionality when implemented. Optimization in latent space is a compromise strategy where the space dimension is relatively reduced, making the control process more effective but with lower diversity. Our method not only enhances the existing latent space optimization method at the level of control strength, with at least 5.0% and 7.3% significant improvement over baselines on sentiment and topic. For text quality, our model, sampling points from a Gaussian distribution, can also exceed the original prefix tuning method by 20.5 in the average distinctness. Our method performs comparable on detoxification because we directly use Discrete's latent space, which is not good at this task. Compared with Discrete, which assigns the same weight to different sample points, our method can be seen as sampling from the area with higher weights, making our control of higher strength. Although in a continuous space, our sampling will concentrate in a small area with higher probability but similar semantics, making the diversity slightly inferior to Discrete with completely random sampling. In addition, we show results of human evaluation for single-attribute control in Table 2, which are almost consistent with automatic evaluation. The agreement of annotators is 0.31 in Fleiss' κ. Besides, our performance can be further improved by the *extend* control strategy. We can achieve opposite control, as in contrastive learning, by using negative weights when interpolating. Figure 4(A) denotes a typical situation where we sample blue points with their probability density function. One reason for the suboptimal control effect is that exclusive attributes, denoted as the red distribution, interfere with desired ones, the blue. We can use the probability of blue surpassing red P(d(z|a,a¯)>0) and the expectation of the difference between blue and red E(z|a,a¯) to measure the anti-interference ability in the sampling process7. Figure 4(B) shows when our new blue sampling distribution, πˆ(z|a), is slightly away from the red, surpassing probability and expectation of difference will both increase. This means the sampling center farther away from interference sources possesses better confidence. Results of this *extend* control feeding back to the attribute relevance are 2.6, 1.9, and 5.0 improvements on Sentiment, Topic, and Detoxification, respectively. ## 4.3 Multi-Attribute Control Automatic evaluation results on multi-attribute control are demonstrated in Table 3. We group methods in the same way as single-attribute control, and we add an extra average score for all control combinations. Besides, we demonstrate their standard deviations, which denote the stability of models among different attribute combinations. Multiattribute control is more challenging compared to single-attribute control as all models suffer a drop in overall performance. There are at least 6.3% and 5.1% drops in the attribute relevance for Sentiment and Topic. There is little drop in detoxification because this attribute is generally compatible with others. On one hand, biasing models such as GeDi suffer from a drop not only in control strength but also in the fluency of the generated text, as mul7See §D for more details of the two metrics. | Methods | Average↑ (%) | Sentiment↑ (%) | Topic↑ (%) | Detoxification↑ (%) | PPL.↓ | Dist.↑ | | | |------------------------------------|----------------|------------------|--------------|-----------------------|-------------|------------|------|------| | Biasing during Decoding | | | | | | | | | | PPLM | 71.0 ± 21.4 | 64.7 ± 24.8 | 63.5 ± 22.7 | 84.9 ± 6.5 | 62.6 | 62.0 | | | | GeDi | 81.4 ± 14.7 | 76.1 ± 17.2 | 73.8 ± 11.3 | 94.2 ± 1.9 | 116.6 | 75.1 | | | | Optimization in the Language Space | | | | | | | | | | MUCOCO | 73.9 ± 24.1 | 65.0 ± 33.7 | 67.2 ± 18.3 | 89.5 ± 3.5 | 405.6 | 49.7 | | | | Mix&Match | 79.7 ± 21.8 | 73.5 ± 25.9 | 69.9 ± 21.1 | 95.8 ± 1.9 | 63.0 | 61.8 | | | | Optimization in the Latent Space | | | | | | | | | | Contrastive Prefix concatenation | 77.2 ± 18.5 | 67.3 ± 20.7 | 71.8 ± 16.5 | 92.6 ± 2.9 | 54.6 | 39.9 | | | | semi-supervised | 81.3 ± 16.5 | 74.4 ± 19.6 | 76.9 ± 16.7 | 92.7 ± 3.5 | 31.9 | 43.3 | | | | LatentOps | 81.6 ± 15.1 | 82.9 ± | 9.3 | 67.6 ± 14.7 | 94.2 ± 3.5 | 52.2 | 45.4 | | | Discrete | 87.4 ± 10.9 | 86.7 ± 10.5 | 84.8 ± 14.2 | 90.7 ± 7.4 | 28.4 | 49.5 | | | | PriorControl | 89.9 ± | 8.7 | 88.0 ± 10.6 | 87.4 ± | 8.5 | 94.3 ± 3.2 | 34.7 | 55.5 | | + optim | 92.2 ± | 8.6 | 92.5 ± | 8.5 | 89.3 ± 11.0 | 94.9 ± 3.4 | 29.6 | 51.6 | tiple biasing signals may conflict. On the other hand, optimization approaches undergo an extra loss in diversity, even including our model, since we have to shrink the variance of the sampling to cut down the decline of the control effect. As observed in Discrete (Gu et al., 2022b), this gap between single-attribute control and multi-attribute control is reasonable because different attributes usually combine at sparse edges of their distributions. It can also be observed in our mapped prior space that the probability density of the attribute combination region is relatively small. Compared with Discrete, in addition to control strength, our model possesses better stability according to lower standard deviations. Besides, we outperform the Discrete in diversity because they can only obtain a small number of points in intersection regions, while we can sample from a continuous area. ## 5 Analysis 5.1 Influence Of Λ During the sampling stage ϵ ∼ N (0, λ2I), we often anticipate that the obtained points have a higher probability density, which is influenced by λ. As mentioned in Figure 4, exclusive attributes can interfere with the control effect, and decreasing λ is another optional strategy to reduce the interference. We plot the probability density function for λ = 0.8 in Figure 4(C). The probability of blue surpassing red and the expectation of their difference are both larger than the original scores. Table 4 shows the results of λ's influence fed back into the latent and language space. Consistent with the situation in the prior space, attribute relevance increases as λ decreases. Besides, since smaller λ means concentrating on a smaller area with higher | Control on Sentiment λ P˜(d(z|a,a¯)>0) E˜(z|a,a¯) | Neg./Pos. | PPL. | Dist. | | | |-----------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------|-------------|------|------| | 1.0 | 0.773 | 0.161 | 99.1 / 78.7 | 85.0 | 64.9 | | 0.9 | 0.798 | 0.171 | 99.4 / 83.0 | 74.7 | 64.6 | | 0.8 | 0.826 | 0.181 | 99.4 / 88.5 | 64.9 | 64.2 | | 0.7 | 0.858 | 0.192 | 99.4 / 92.7 | 59.9 | 63.1 | | 0.6 | 0.894 | 0.205 | 99.9 / 94.3 | 53.9 | 62.0 | | 0.5 | 0.933 | 0.218 | 99.9 / 97.4 | 49.5 | 61.3 | | 0.4 | 0.970 | 0.232 | 99.9 / 99.0 | 45.1 | 60.0 | | 0.3 | 0.994 | 0.246 | 99.9 / 99.0 | 40.3 | 58.2 | | 0.2 | 0.999 | 0.259 | 99.9 / 99.0 | 37.1 | 54.9 | | 0.1 | 1.000 | 0.267 | 99.9 / 99.9 | 34.8 | 52.3 | | 0.0 | 1.000 | 0.269 | 99.9 / 99.9 | 34.3 | 49.9 | probability density, fluency grows while diversity drops. In addition, we analyze the theoretical influence of λ via a toy example of interference between two one-dimensional Gaussian distributions. As in Figure 4 and 8, we let π(z|a) = N (0, 1) and π(z|a¯) = N (1.5, 1). As the λ gets smaller, we can see that the probability of the desired attribute surpassing the undesired one P(d(z|a,a¯) > 0) and the expectation of the difference between the two E(z|a,a¯) increase, which is consistent to the change of attribute relevance. Therefore, narrowing the sampling area (decreasing λ) in the prior space will theoretically alleviate the interference from undesired attributes, which can also be reflected in language space, enhancing the control effect in generated sentences. ## 5.2 Control Strength Adjustment We directly adjust the control strength with αinterpolation over distribution centers under the approximately isotropic situation. As illustrated in §3.2, the loss function of invertible transformation is the combination of probability density and Jacobian determinant. Although higher probability in   latent space will also tend to be mapped to a higher probability in prior space during the training stage, this tendency is not always guaranteed since the Jacobian determinant can compensate for some loss in probability to obtain a better form of the mapped distribution. Therefore, there is no strict monotonic relationship between the control strength and the parameter α. Fortunately, as shown in Table 5, we can observe that the influence of α is approximately monotonic at the coarse-grained level8. ## 6 Conclusion In this work, we present a novel control framework by introducing a well-formed prior space converted from latent space via invertible transformation. We further provide some theoretical support to ensure that controls in the prior space can be fed back into the latent space. This allows our framework the potential to generalize to similar situations bothered by high-dimensional and complex latent spaces. Experimental results confirm the superiority of our model on control effectiveness, control flexibility, and generation quality. ## Limitations Our method requires balanced data because all attributes share the same Normalizing Flow. This means that when the training data for one attribute is much larger than others, we need additional training steps to make up such a gap to prevent the Jacobian part of the Normalizing Flow from too much in favor of that attribute. In addition, although we can achieve good results on the data scale of 2.5k or 5k per attribute, our model does not fit well in few-shot scenarios. We can alleviate this problem by obtaining a sufficient amount of single-attribute labeled data from the style transfer tasks. In our experiments, each attribute is considered equally 8See more analyses in §D, F, and G. important, which may be different from the practical situation. Fortunately, our control strategy is flexible and can be customized for different demands. ## Ethics Statement We are fully aware of the potential dangers that text generation techniques may present, such as generating fake, toxic, or offensive content. However, controllable text generation technology is a powerful weapon against harmful information hidden in pre-trained language models, where our study includes text detoxification specifically. We believe it is beneficial to carry forward research on controllable text generation. ## Acknowledgements Xiaocheng Feng is the corresponding author of this work. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China via grant 2020AAA0106502, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) via grant 62276078, the Key R&D Program of Heilongjiang via grant 2022ZX01A32, and the International Cooperation Project of PCL, PCL2022D01. ## References Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. Fredrik Carlsson, Joey Öhman, Fangyu Liu, Severine Verlinden, Joakim Nivre, and Magnus Sahlgren. 2022. Fine-grained controllable text generation using nonresidual prompting. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6837– 6857, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sumanth Dathathri, Andrea Madotto, Janice Lan, Jane Hung, Eric Frank, Piero Molino, Jason Yosinski, and Rosanne Liu. 2020. Plug and play language models: A simple approach to controlled text generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Xiaoan Ding and Kevin Gimpel. 2021. FlowPrior: Learning expressive priors for latent variable sentence models. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3242–3258, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Laurent Dinh, David Krueger, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Nice: Non-linear independent components estimation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.8516*. Laurent Dinh, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, and Samy Bengio. 2016. Density estimation using real nvp. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1605.08803. Yu Duan, Canwen Xu, Jiaxin Pei, Jialong Han, and Chenliang Li. 2020. Pre-train and plug-in: Flexible conditional text generation with variational autoencoders. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 253–262, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jessica Ficler and Yoav Goldberg. 2017. Controlling linguistic style aspects in neural language generation. In *Proceedings of the Workshop on Stylistic Variation*, pages 94–104, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2020. Generative adversarial networks. *Communications of the ACM*, 63(11):139–144. Yuxuan Gu, Xiaocheng Feng, Sicheng Ma, Jiaming Wu, Heng Gong, and Bing Qin. 2022a. Improving controllable text generation with position-aware weighted decoding. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 3449–3467, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuxuan Gu, Xiaocheng Feng, Sicheng Ma, Lingyuan Zhang, Heng Gong, and Bing Qin. 2022b. A distributional lens for multi-aspect controllable text generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02889*. Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 6840–6851. Curran Associates, Inc. Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P. Xing. 2017. Toward controlled generation of text. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70, ICML'17, page 1587–1596. JMLR.org. Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Lav Varshney, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. CTRL - A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1909.05858. Muhammad Khalifa, Hady Elsahar, and Marc Dymetman. 2020. A distributional approach to controlled text generation. In *International Conference on* Learning Representations. Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. 2013. Autoencoding variational bayes. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1312.6114. Durk P Kingma and Prafulla Dhariwal. 2018. Glow: Generative flow with invertible 1x1 convolutions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc. Durk P Kingma, Tim Salimans, Rafal Jozefowicz, Xi Chen, Ilya Sutskever, and Max Welling. 2016. Improved variational inference with inverse autoregressive flow. In *Advances in Neural Information* Processing Systems, volume 29. Curran Associates, Inc. Ben Krause, Akhilesh Deepak Gotmare, Bryan McCann, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Shafiq Joty, Richard Socher, and Nazneen Fatema Rajani. 2021. GeDi: Generative discriminator guided sequence generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 4929–4952, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sachin Kumar, Eric Malmi, Aliaksei Severyn, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2021. Controlled text generation as continuous optimization with multiple constraints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34. Sachin Kumar, Biswajit Paria, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2022. Constrained sampling from language models via langevin dynamics in embedding spaces. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2205.12558. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 110–119, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4582– 4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Lisa Li, John Thickstun, Ishaan Gulrajani, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. 2022. Diffusionlm improves controllable text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14217. Alisa Liu, Maarten Sap, Ximing Lu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2021a. DExperts: Decoding-time controlled text generation with experts and antiexperts. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6691–6706, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Guangyi Liu, Zeyu Feng, Yuan Gao, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Junwei Bao, Xiaodong He, Shuguang Cui, Zhen Li, and Zhiting Hu. 2022. Composable text controls in latent space with odes. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2208.00638. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021b. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586. Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Liwei Jiang, Jack Hessel, Lianhui Qin, Peter West, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Quark: Controllable text generation with reinforced unlearning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.13636. Xuezhe Ma, Chunting Zhou, Xian Li, Graham Neubig, and Eduard Hovy. 2019. FlowSeq: Nonautoregressive conditional sequence generation with generative flow. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4282–4292, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andrew L. Maas, Raymond E. Daly, Peter T. Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In *Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 142–150, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Florian Mai, Nikolaos Pappas, Ivan Montero, Noah A. Smith, and James Henderson. 2020. Plug and play autoencoders for conditional text generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6076–6092, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tao Meng, Sidi Lu, Nanyun Peng, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2022. Controllable text generation with neurally-decomposed oracle. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14219. Fatemehsadat Mireshghallah, Kartik Goyal, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. 2022. Mix and match: Learningfree controllable text generationusing energy language models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 401–415, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Achraf Oussidi and Azeddine Elhassouny. 2018. Deep generative models: Survey. In *2018 International* Conference on Intelligent Systems and Computer Vision (ISCV), pages 1–8. George Papamakarios, Theo Pavlakou, and Iain Murray. 2017. Masked autoregressive flow for density estimation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Jing Qian, Li Dong, Yelong Shen, Furu Wei, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Controllable natural language generation with contrastive prefixes. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 2912–2924, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lianhui Qin, Sean Welleck, Daniel Khashabi, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Cold decoding: Energy-based constrained text generation with langevin dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.11705. Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Zineng Tang, Shiyue Zhang, Hyounghun Kim, and Mohit Bansal. 2021. Continuous language generative flow. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4609–4622, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dustin Tran, Keyon Vafa, Kumar Agrawal, Laurent Dinh, and Ben Poole. 2019. Discrete flows: Invertible generative models of discrete data. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. Chen Henry Wu, Saman Motamed, Shaunak Srivastava, and Fernando De la Torre. 2022. Generative visual prompt: Unifying distributional control of pre-trained generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06970. Kevin Yang and Dan Klein. 2021. FUDGE: Controlled text generation with future discriminators. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3511–3535, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kexin Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Wenqiang Lei, Baosong Yang, Mingfeng Xue, Boxing Chen, and Jun Xie. 2022. Tailor: A prompt-based approach to attributebased controlled text generation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2204.13362. Dian Yu, Zhou Yu, and Kenji Sagae. 2021. Attribute alignment: Controlling text generation from pretrained language models. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 2251–2268, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hanqing Zhang and Dawei Song. 2022. Discup: Discriminator cooperative unlikelihood prompt-tuning for controllable text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09551. Hanqing Zhang, Haolin Song, Shaoyu Li, Ming Zhou, and Dawei Song. 2022a. A survey of controllable text generation using transformer-based pre-trained language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05337*. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022b. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068*. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 28. Curran Associates, Inc. Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2303.18223. Daniel M. Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B. Brown, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, Paul Christiano, and Geoffrey Irving. 2019. Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593. Zachary Ziegler and Alexander Rush. 2019. Latent normalizing flows for discrete sequences. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 7673–7682. PMLR. ## A Defects Of The Complex Latent Space  As discussed in Discrete(Gu et al., 2022b), highdimensional attribute spaces tend to be asymmetric,  anisotropic, and non-convex. Previous work often oversimplifies the spaces of controls into an ideal situation. As demonstrated in Figure 5, interpolation or optimization on two symmetric, isotropic, and convex Gaussian distributions can effortlessly achieve their intersection area. However, it will be completely different when considering a more complicated situation. Figure 6 shows the situation when we just make the distributions asymmetric and anisotropic. Both interpolation and optimization will obtain the worst control effect, in which neither distributions are involved nor their intersection. Especially, even if the initialization of the optimization is in the intersection, after a period of iterations, the optimization position will still stop at the saddle point between the distributions, which is outside their support set. Gu et al. (2022b) reveal that the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) projections of attribute distributions can sometimes be non-convex. Since the PCA is an operation that preserves convexity, a high-dimensional non-convex distribution may be projected to be convex, but the high-dimensional preimage of a non-convex projection must be nonconvex. This means controls in a high-dimensional non-convex space will be even more intractable. ## B Backgrounds For Normalizing Flows The normalizing Flow, dated back to Non-linear Independent Component Estimation (Dinh et al., 2014), is based on the idea that a good representation is one in which the data has an easy-to-model distribution. Since unsupervised learning studies how to capture complex data distributions that have unknown structures, the Normalizing Flow considers a trainable transformation z = Fθ(x) of data into a less complicated new space. Following the log-likelihood target in unsupervised learning, this transformation is required to be invertible and the training criterion is derived based on the change of variable rule: Zp(x)dx = Zπ(Fθ(x))dFθ(x) = 1 =⇒ p(x) = π(Fθ(x))  detdFθ(x) dx  log p(x) = log π(Fθ(x)) + log  detdFθ(x) dx  , where dFθ(x) dxis the Jacobian matrix of function Fθ at x. The log-likelihood objective maximizes p(x) for each x in the training data, which approximates simultaneously maximizing the probability density π(Fθ(x)) and the determinant det dFθ(x) dx . Since the absolute value of the determinant can be regarded as a scaling factor for the probability density, there is a trade-off between π(Fθ(x)) and det dFθ(x) dx  during training. This means a sample point xi with a high probability density p(xi) will not always be mapped to a high probability density π(Fθ(xi)) because the transformation Fθ(·) needs to consider the smoothness of mapping where the determinant det dFθ(xi) dx  will compensate for this gap of probability density. This situation has little effect when the Normalizing Flow is used as a generative model, however, it is critical to maintain the ratio of the probability density before and after the mapping when performing control. That's why our §3.3.1 makes sense. In addition, the key reason for using the Normalizing Flow rather than other generative models is **invertibility**. Among the current popular generative models, only the Normalizing Flow can achieve the invertible transformation (bijection), which forms the cornerstone of our control framework. For example, the variational autoencoder will construct a fuzzy match between the latent distribution π(z) and the sample distribution p(x), and the sample x will randomly correspond to a different z in the same distribution π(z) at each training time. This can only be used for single-attribute control, and it will collapse when performing multi-attribute control since we need to decompose and reconstruct attribute distributions from samples that highly rely on bijection. The denoising diffusion probability model shares a similar problem in that a sample x will correspond to an uncertain point z in the latent distribution π(z). The generative adversarial network is different in that a latent point z can connect to a determined sample x via the generator. However, the connection can not be reversed, making our control unattainable. ## C Calculation Of Zˆ Interpolation of two distribution centers is a line (one-dimensional subspace) where the probability density functions in this subspace are still two Gaussian distributions. That is: *Our target goes* back to solve the equation π(ˆz|a) = π(ˆz|a¯) *under* one-dimensional situation. Given: π(ˆz|a) = π(ˆz|a¯) ⇒ N (ˆz; µa, σ2 a) = N (ˆz; µa¯, σ2 a¯) ⇒ log exp(− (ˆz−µa) 2 2σ2a) √2πσa= log exp(− (ˆz−µa¯) 2 2σ 2a¯) √2πσa¯ ⇒ 1 2 log(σ 2 a¯ σ 2 a ) − (ˆz − µa) 2 σ 2 a + (ˆz − µa¯) 2 σ 2 a¯ = 0 ⇒ A(ˆz) 2 + Bzˆ + C = 0 A = − 1 σ 2 a +1 σ 2 a¯ B = 2(µa σ 2 a − µa¯ σ 2 a¯ ) C = log(σ 2 a¯ σ 2 a ) − µ 2a σ 2 a + µ 2a¯ σ 2 a¯ ⇒ ∆ = B 2 − 4AC =4 σ 2 aσ 2 a¯ (µa − µa¯) 2 + (σ 2 a − σ 2 a¯) log(σ 2 a σ 2 a¯ ) ≥ 0 ⇒ if σa = σa¯, zˆ = − C B = µa + µa¯ 2 if σa ̸= σa¯, zˆ = −B ± √∆ 2A According to the derivation above and Figure 7, when σa = σa¯, the zˆ *is simply the midpoint of* µa and µa¯. When σa ̸= σa¯, there are usually two solutions for zˆ, and the one we expect needs to be in the interval min(µa, µa¯) to max(µa, µa¯). It is worth noting that there may be cases where solutions of zˆ *are both outside this interval, which is caused by* the distance between µa and µa¯ being too small. In this case, the interval of the two solutions of zˆ becomes the region where two attributes intersect. As illustrated in Figure 7, it is complicated to accurately calculate the point where two attributes intersect, even in a one-dimensional case. Fortunately, we can observe that zˆ is always between µa and µa¯. This means we can find an approximate  intersection point by adjusting the interpolation parameter in practical use. ## D Measuring Exclusive Attributes As illustrated in Figure 8, given two exclusive attributes a and a¯, attribute a¯ will interfere with the effectiveness of a attribute's control. We measure the control effect by the probability of the blue attribute surpassing the red distribution: $$P(d(z|a,\bar{a})>0)=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\pi(z|a)\mathrm{d}z$$ $$\hat{P}(d(z|a,\bar{a})>0)=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\hat{\pi}(z|a)\mathrm{d}z$$ $$\tilde{P}(d(z|a,\bar{a})>0)=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\tilde{\pi}(z|a)\mathrm{d}z$$ and the expectation of the difference between the  blue distribution and the red distribution: $$E(z|a,\bar{a})=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\pi(z|a)(\pi(z|a)-\pi(z|\bar{a}))\mathrm{d}z$$ $$\hat{E}(z|a,\bar{a})=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\hat{\pi}(z|a)(\pi(z|a)-\pi(z|\bar{a}))\mathrm{d}z$$ $$\hat{E}(z|a,\bar{a})=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\tilde{\pi}(z|a)(\pi(z|a)-\pi(z|\bar{a}))\mathrm{d}z.$$ It's worth noting that due to the symmetry of the Gaussian distribution, when the red distribution is on the left side of the blue, it will only affect the integral's starting point and end point rather than the result. In Figure 8, part (A) is the original situation where P(d(z|a,a¯) > 0) ≈ 0.773 and E(z|a,a¯) ≈ 0.161. Part (B) is the extending trick in §3.3.2 that keeps the sampling distribution slightly away from the exclusive distribution by a distance of 0.2, where Pˆ(d(z|a,a¯) > 0) ≈ 0.829 and Eˆ(z|a,a¯) ≈ 0.171. Note that the offset needs to be balanced between staying away from interference and maintaining the original sampling area. Part (C) is concentrating the sampling area with a smaller λ, where P˜(d(z|a,a¯) > 0) ≈ 0.826 and E˜(z|a,a¯) ≈ 0.181. It's apparent that these two sampling strategies are compatible and follow the same principle: reallocate higher weights to more reliable regions which possess higher probability density and less noise. Next, we analyze the effect of these strategies fed back into the latent space. For part (B), we assume the offset is s<0, which means πˆ(z|a)=π(z−s|a). Therefore, we can prove that Pˆ(d(z|a,a¯) > 0) > P(d(z|a,a¯)>0): $$\begin{array}{r l}{{\hat{P}(d(z|a,{\bar{a}})>0)=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}{\hat{\pi}(z|a)\mathrm{d}z}}}\\ {{}}&{{=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\pi(z-s|a)\mathrm{d}z=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}-s}\pi(z|a)\mathrm{d}z}}\\ {{}}&{{=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\pi(z|a)\mathrm{d}z+\int_{z^{*}}^{z^{*}-s}\pi(z|a)\mathrm{d}z}}\\ {{}}&{{>\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\pi(z|a)\mathrm{d}z.}}\end{array}$$ Based on the **Inequality Maintenance**, there exists no *x < x*∗that can make Fθ(x) > Fθ(x∗). This means points in the interval (-∞, x∗] from the latent space have a one-to-one correspondence with points in (-∞, z∗] from the prior space. Therefore, when mapping to latent space, we have R x∗ -∞ p(x|a)dx = R z∗ -∞ π(z|a) dFθ(x) dxdx = R z∗ -∞ π(z|a)dz. Thus, we have R z∗ -∞ πˆ(z|a)dz = R x∗ -∞ p(x|a)dx + R z∗−s z∗ π(z|a)dz > R x∗ -∞ p(x|a)dx. It's worth noting that interval [z∗, z∗−s] is not guaranteed to correspond to interval [x∗, F -1 θ (z∗−s)]. As a result, points sampled from πˆ(z|a) possess higher probability density in the latent space. For part (C), which is similar, we have P˜(d(z|a,a¯) > 0)>P(d(z|a,a¯)>0): $$\begin{array}{l l}{{(\tilde{P}(d(z|a,\bar{a})>0)=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\tilde{\pi}(z|a)\mathrm{d}z}}\\ {{}}\\ {{=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\frac{\pi(\frac{z}{\lambda}|a)}{\lambda}\mathrm{d}z=\int_{-\infty}^{\frac{z^{*}}{\lambda}}\pi(z|a)\mathrm{d}z}}\\ {{}}\\ {{=\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\pi(z|a)\mathrm{d}z+\int_{z^{*}}^{\frac{z^{*}}{\lambda}}\pi(z|a)\mathrm{d}z}}\\ {{}}\\ {{>\int_{-\infty}^{z^{*}}\pi(z|a)\mathrm{d}z.}}\end{array}$$ Therefore, we have R z∗ -∞ π˜(z|a)dz= R x∗ -∞ p(x|a)dx+ R z∗ λ z∗ π(z|a)dz > R x∗ -∞ p(x|a)dx, which means the probability of sampled points in latent space is monotonically increasing as λ decreases. We can also observe the same phenomenon from the perspective of E(z|a,a¯). However, their proof requires the integration of Gaussian distributions, which is complex that we skip here. ## E Hyperparameters And Details We directly leverage the latent space provided by Discrete (Gu et al., 2022b), which is implemented on the *Huggingface Transformers* package9. The encoder is initialized with Bert-base-uncased, and the fixed decoder uses GPT2-medium. Each training sentence will be tokenized with WordPiece tokenizer from Bert and Byte-Pair Encoding tokenizer from GPT2 before input to encoder and decoder, respectively. As in Discrete, we perform mean pooling on outputs of the encoder and convert them to 768-dimensional latent representations, which are points in the latent space. Afterward, latent representations will be mapped to the prefix with a dimension of 20 × 24 × 2 × 1024, where 20 is the prefix sequence length, 24 is the number of hidden layers in GPT2-medium, 2 represents one key and one value, and 1024 is the size of hidden states in GPT2-medium. Our invertible transformation works like a plug-and-play module on the latent space and we implement it with the *FrEIA* package10. The normalizing flow contains 8 layers, each of which is composed of two linear layers and one activation layer. Normalization flows preserve the dimensionality of the input vectors, which means that our prior space has the same dimension as the latent space of 768. In addition, we follow LatentOps (Liu et al., 2022) and utilize the *torchdiffeq* package11 for solving the ordinary differential equations in the prior space. During the training stage, the parameters of the encoder, decoder, and prefix mapping module are fixed and initialized with ones from Discrete. We only train the parameters of the Normalizing Flow with half-precision mode on one NVIDIA A100 80GB GPU, where the batch size is 100. In our setting, the random seed is 0, the optimizer is AdamW with a learning rate of 1e-4, all 8 attributes are trained together in different batches, and the training steps are 300000 which spends about 9 hours. | Combination | Weight wi | λ | |-----------------------------|---------------|-----| | Neg. & World & NonTox. | 2 : 12 : 1 | 0.5 | | Neg. & Sports & NonTox. | 2 : 6 : 1 | 0.5 | | Neg. & Business & NonTox. | 2 : 16 : 1 | 0.5 | | Neg. & Sci./Tech. & NonTox. | 2 : 1 : 5 | 0.5 | | Pos. & World & NonTox. | 14 : 16 : 0.2 | 0.2 | | Pos. & Sports & NonTox. | 28 : 20 : 0.2 | 0.2 | | Pos. & Business & NonTox. | 20 : 26 : 0.2 | 0.1 | | Pos. & Sci./Tech. & NonTox. | 6 : 1 : 1 | 0.5 | Table 6: Hyperparameters for Multi-Attribute Control. During the inference phase for single-attribute control, we choose λ= 0.6 to balance the control strength, fluency, and diversity. In *extend* mode, our sampling center is slightly away from the adversarial attribute by a distance of 0.2. We can move away from the interpolation center for aspects with more than two attributes, such as the topic aspect. For multi-attribute control, we utilize a specialized list of hyperparameters, weight wi and λ, for each combination of attributes in Table 6, where αi = Pwi j wj . Our customized hyperparameters are aimed at balancing the control effect among attributes and the trade-off between diversity and attribute relevance. After mapping samples back to the latent space, the text generation process is the same as Discrete, where the sequence length is set to 50. The entire evaluation process for each attribute combination takes less than 1 minutes, allowing us to fine-grain the search for satisfying hyperparameters, where the maximum trial number for each attribute combination is 10. For constrained optimization in Intersection Subspace, the hyperparameters are Ω = 0.3, ω = 0.01, τ =8e-5, β0 = 20, βT = 0.1, and T = 1. Same as Discrete, 35 prompts we used in the inference stage are following the PPLM setting with 20 from its bag-of-word setting and 15 from its discriminator setting: - **PPLM-Bow**: "In summary", "This essay discusses", "Views on", "The connection", "Foundational to this is", "To review,", "In brief,", "An illustration of", "Furthermore,", "The central theme", "To conclude,", "The key aspect", "Prior to this", "Emphasised are", "To summarise", "The relationship", "More importantly,", "It has been shown", "The issue focused on", "In this essay". - **PPLM-Discrim**: "Once upon a time", "The book", "The chicken", "The city", "The country", "The horse", "The lake", "The last time", "The movie", "The painting", "The pizza", "The potato", "The president of the country", "The road", "The year is 1910.". Detailed setting of baselines: (I) **Biasing during** Decoding: For **PPLM**, we only retrain its classifier heads on our datasets while keeping all other original settings. For **GeDi**, we provide two versions. One is retrained on our dataset and another uses the raw parameters since their dataset is the superset of ours. (II) **Optimization in Language** Space: **MUCOCO** provides a solution for custom classification constraints, and thus we train these classifiers on our dataset. **Mix&Match** is relatively complex as it can not generate long sentences from scratch with the mask language model Bert. Worse still, as a method based on sampling, it is somewhat dependent on initialization. Therefore, we use sentences generated by PPLM as the starting sentences and let Mix&Match slowly polish the text by itself in iterations. (III) **Optimization in Latent Space**: We reproduce **Contrastive Prefix** and achieve comparable results. For **LatentOps**, we retrain both their VAE structure and the classifiers for optimization. We directly use **Discrete** as we follow their settings. For a fair comparison, we unify the pre-trained language model to GPT2-medium (345M parameters) except for Mix&Match using Bert-large (340M parameters). Attribute σi    max min avg std Negative 0.886 0.756 0.800 0.018 Positive 0.889 0.760 0.801 0.018 World 0.848 0.737 0.782 0.018 Sports 0.837 0.728 0.776 0.018 Business 0.851 0.738 0.783 0.018 Sci./Tech. 0.853 0.737 0.784 0.018 Toxic 0.853 0.740 0.783 0.017 NonTox. 0.853 0.747 0.790 0.017  ## F Statistics Of Prior Space F.1 Isotropic And Anisotropic We analyze σ of different attribute's Gaussian distribution N (µa, σ2 a) in Table 7. We demonstrate the maximum, minimum, average, and standard deviation values among all dimensions for each σ. The maximum differences of σs are around 0.1, and the standard deviations are all less than 0.02, in which case we consider the distributions to be approximately isotropic. Furthermore, we plot the situation in Figure 9 when two 2-dimensional anisotropic distributions intersect. We set up an example: µa = (0, 0)T, σa = (1.3, 0.9)T, µa¯ = (1, 1)T, σa¯ = (0.8, 1.5)T. At this time, the intersection subspace is still a onedimensional subspace, but it becomes a hyperbola rather than a straight line. Besides, the interpolation method can only obtain a suboptimal intersection point zˆ, where the optimal point lies in z∗. As shown in §3.3.2, optimization methods are expected to achieve z∗ with zˆ as the initialization, higher probability density as the target, and Intersection Subspace as constraints.   Next, we provide the derivation for the intersection of two distributions in 2-dimensional space.  Methods **Average**↑ (%) **Sentiment**↑ (%) **Topic**↑ (%) **Detoxification**↑ (%) PPL.↓ **Dist.**↑  Discrete 87.4 ± 10.9 86.7 ± 10.5 84.8 ± 14.2 90.7 ± 7.4 28.4 49.5 PriorControl 89.9 ± 8.7 88.0 ± 10.6 87.4 ± 8.5 94.3 ± 3.2 34.7 55.5 + uncons optim 91.8 ± 9.7 89.7 ± 11.9 **90.1** ± 10.4 **95.5** ± 3.0 29.9 52.1 + optim **92.2** ± 8.6 **92.5** ± 8.5 89.3 ± 11.0 94.9 ± 3.4 29.6 51.6 hyperbola. When multiple distributions intersect in a high-dimensional space, the formula of Intersection Subspace can be generalized according to the conic section above. ## F.2 Optimize In Prior Space We demonstrate in Table 8 the effect of optimizing in the prior space. *Unconstrained Optimization* represents a simplified target which drops the constraints as: dz = 1 2 β(t) [Pi αi∇z log π(z|ai)] dt. Compared with **PriorControl**, the improvement brought by optimization mainly comes from two parts: one is the large sampling area of **PriorControl** leads to some low-probability samples, and the other is the interpolation of **PriorControl** cannot perfectly achieve the optimal point z∗. This means although our model is approximately isotropic, it cannot completely ignore the influence of differences in various dimensions. Furthermore, the marginal improvement from constraints means that optimization does not need to worry about problems such as saddle points, which means the shape of our prior space is satisfyingly simple. In addition, we illustrate the detailed results of multi-attribute combinations in Table 9. It is rare for the attribute relevance to degrade after optimization when constrained in the intersection subspace. However, without these constraints, the optimization process becomes unstable and more likely to decay. Since these degradations are usually marginal, we consider that dropping constraints can improve optimization speed when the prior space is simple and regular. ## F.3 Distance Between Distributions We also analyze the distances between distributions in Tables 10 to 12, which are automatically learned without human guidance. The distance is calculated as the absolute difference for each corresponding dimension between two distributions. Table 10 and Table 11 show the average and maximum values of the distance in each dimension, respectively. The large discrepancy between the average and maximum values indicates that the distances in most dimensions are small. And the differences between distributions are mainly determined  by the few dimensions with the largest distances. Therefore, we additionally show the average value of the top-5 dimensions in Table 12. Consistent with the intuition, we can observe that the distance between two mutually exclusive attributes is relatively large, such as negative-positive sentiments and toxic-nontoxic. Furthermore, topics are generally farther from the positive sentiment than the negative one, which is in line with our experimental results in Table 9. The business topic is a counterexample that performs better on control strength with negative sentiment than positive while its distribution stays closer to the positive one. Compared to the performance in **Discrete**, we assume that this may be due to our probability density estimation on the business topic not being very good. ## G Optimize In Different Latent Spaces As demonstrated in Table 13, we analyze how the optimization method performs in different spaces. LatentOps (Liu et al., 2022) utilizes ordinary differential equations to optimize sampling points in simple latent spaces constructed by the VAE structure. Their latent spaces only require the dataset of the corresponding aspect each time for singleattribute control. Therefore, they perform well in aspects with only two attributes, like sentiment and detoxification, while they are mediocre in complex aspects, such as topic. We migrate the optimization method to the complex latent space of Discrete, named as DiscreteOps. **Discrete**'s space is specially designed for the combination of multiple attributes, where there exist eight attributes. For single-attribute control, we randomly sample a set of points in the corresponding attribute's training data as prefixes for text generation. We experiment with several random seeds and pick the best one for each attribute as the upper bound, **Discrete** best. Since optimization requires good initialization, as described in **LatentOps**, we use a random seed with average performances, i.e., **Discrete**, as DiscreteOps's initialization. It's interesting to observe that optimization is more likely to improve | Methods | Sentiment (%) | Topic (%) | Detox. (%) | | | | | |-----------------------------|-----------------|-------------|--------------|----------|------------|-------|-------| | Neg. | Pos. | World | Sports | Business | Sci./Tech. | | | | 69.7 | - | 71.7 | - | - | - | 84.1 | | | 78.6 | - | - | 80.0 | - | - | 80.2 | | | 99.9 | - | - | - | 96.7 | - | 96.8 | | | 92.8 | - | - | - | - | 98.0 | 81.7 | | | - | 80.5 | 58.0 | - | - | - | 95.1 | | | - | 84.7 | - | 86.6 | - | - | 94.5 | | | - | 87.6 | - | - | 91.7 | - | 98.1 | | | - | 99.7 | - | - | - | 96.1 | 95.4 | | | Discrete | 94.6 | - | 90.2 | - | - | - | 90.1 | | 96.5 | - | - | 97.4 | - | - | 93.0 | | | 91.4 | - | - | - | 88.5 | - | 97.6 | | | 99.6 | - | - | - | - | 97.1 | 88.8 | | | - | 79.5 | 80.1 | - | - | - | 94.8 | | | - | 82.4 | - | 79.5 | - | - | 95.7 | | | - | 65.6 | - | - | 72.5 | - | 98.2 | | | - | 94.3 | - | - | - | 93.8 | 96.2 | | | PriorControl | 97.7↑ | - | 99.2↑ | - | - | - | 92.4↑ | | 97.9↑ | - | - | 98.5↑ | - | - | 95.1↑ | | | 97.9↑ | - | - | - | 96.7↑ | - | 98.6↑ | | | 99.9↑ | - | - | - | - | 98.1↑ | 89.2↑ | | | - | 83.2↑ | 75.7↓ | - | - | - | 95.8↑ | | | - | 75.6↓ | - | 83.7↑ | - | - | 97.0↑ | | | - | 67.1↑ | - | - | 72.2↓ | - | 98.2↓ | | | - | 89.7↓ | - | - | - | 90.1↓ | 97.3↑ | | | PriorControl + uncons optim | 97.9↑ | - | 98.3↑ | - | - | - | 90.5↑ | | 98.4↑ | - | - | 98.5↑ | - | - | 93.4↑ | | | 97.3↑ | - | - | - | 96.9↑ | - | 98.5↑ | | | 99.9↑ | - | - | - | - | 99.7↑ | 89.1↑ | | | - | 89.5↑ | 79.4↓ | - | - | - | 95.4↑ | | | - | 84.5↑ | - | 73.7↓ | - | - | 96.8↑ | | | - | 74.2↑ | - | - | 73.1↑ | - | 98.4↑ | | | - | 98.0↑ | - | - | - | 95.2↑ | 97.3↑ | | | PriorControl + optim | | | | | | | | | Average | Sentiment | Topic | Detox. | | | | |------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|---------|----------|----|----|------| | Neg. | Pos. | W. | S. | B. | T. | Tox. | | Positive | 0.199 | - | | | | | | World | 0.135 0.156 | - | | | | | | Sports | 0.166 0.203 0.184 | - | | | | | | Business | 0.176 0.131 0.176 0.224 | - | | | | | | Sci./Tech. 0.163 0.142 0.166 0.248 0.128 | - | | | | | | | Toxic | 0.130 0.178 0.124 0.149 0.178 0.192 | | | | | | | NonTox. | 0.161 0.124 0.153 0.207 0.116 0.100 | 0.187 | | | | | | Max | Sentiment | Topic | Detox. | | | | |------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|---------|----------|----|----|------| | Neg. | Pos. | W. | S. | B. | T. | Tox. | | Positive | 0.776 | - | | | | | | World | 0.544 0.620 | - | | | | | | Sports | 0.571 0.735 0.651 | - | | | | | | Business | 0.751 0.452 0.798 0.794 | - | | | | | | Sci./Tech. 0.565 0.645 0.857 0.848 0.620 | - | | | | | | | Tox. | 0.525 0.639 0.493 0.559 0.632 0.733 | - | | | | | | NonTox. | 0.637 0.504 0.635 0.697 0.458 0.439 | 0.702 | | | | | performance when there is a large gap between Discrete and **Discrete** *best*. On the contrary, when Discrete is close to the upper bound, optimization may degrade the attribute relevance. We think this is because classifiers are not good tools for probability density modeling, where most region of the space is not in the classifier's domain of definition, making the optimization process coarse. This phenomenon can also be observed after migrating to the prior space. **PriorControl** we use in the main experiment sets λ= 0.6, and we let the points sampled when λ= 1.0 as the initialization of **PriorOps**. When the energy function composed of the classifier is used as the optimization target in the prior space, the attribute correlation of generated text cannot surpass the performance of **Discrete**. However, when we keep λ = 1.0 and replace the optimization target with the Gaussian distribution of corresponding attribute in the prior space, which is **PriorControl** + *optim*, the control strength can exceed the + *extend* method at the cost of diversity. This reveals that our work provides not only a better conditional probability density estimation method but also a better control framework that is compatible with current control strategies.  ## H Compare With Chatgpt Based on the principle of a fair comparison, we use *gpt2-medium* as the language model, which is consistent with baselines. In this section, we briefly test the controllability of ChatGPT (early version before January 1, 2023), which is the most powerful conditional generative language model at present. The *magic spell* we use to activate ChatGPT is "*Generate 5 sentences containing 50 words* with [ATTRIBUTE] *and start with* '[PROMPT]'." The [ATTRIBUTE] is selected from negative sentiment, positive sentiment, world topic, sports topic, business topic, technology topic, and non-toxicity. The [PROMPT] is from the 35 prompts we used in the experiments. As illustrated in Table 14, ChatGPT can accurately identify the task of attribute control and achieve impressive performance, especially on sentiment and detoxification. Because there are a large number of training datasets for both aspects. When facing attributes such as topics, which possess a relatively small amount of data, ChatGPT can only make limited associations based on keywords of the topic while can not control from a more abstract level. It is obvious that text it generated has a strong fluency that almost reaches the human level. However, although deliberately replacing words during decoding, it still lacks diversity in the scenario of large-scale open-ended text generation. We also show some cases in Table 15 and Table 16. For negative sentiment control, ChatGPT can generate fluent sentences with high attribute strength. Interestingly, it is insensitive to structural controls such as sentence length. For world topic control, ChatGPT tends to associate some keywords from the word *world*, such as economic, *community*, and *global*, while cannot generate sentences that feel like something happened somewhere in the world. Compared to our GPT2based framework, ChatGPT can generate sentences with better quality and fewer factual inconsistency issues. ## I Cases Study We demonstrate generated sentences of singleattribute control and multi-attribute control in Table 17 and Table 18, respectively. | Methods | Sentiment↑ (%) | Topic↑ (%) | Detox.↑ | PPL.↓ | Dist.-1/2/3↑ | | | | | | | |--------------------------------------|------------------|--------------|-----------|---------|----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|------|--------------------| | Avg. | Neg. | Pos. | Avg. | W. | S. | B. | T. | (%) | | | | | Optimization in Simple Latent Space | | | | | | | | | | | | | LatentOps | 91.1 | 88.3 | 93.9 | 69.4 | 54.3 | 61.1 | 72.4 | 89.6 | 94.6 | 58.8 | 13.5 / 48.3 / 62.8 | | Optimization in Complex Latent Space | | | | | | | | | | | | | Discrete | 88.2 | 98.5 | 77.8 | 89.7 | 84.5 | 95.0 | 84.5 | 94.7 | 88.7 | 46.4 | 35.5 / 77.7 / 89.2 | | DiscreteOps | 89.2 | 97.7↓ | 80.7↑ | 89.6 | 84.0↓ | 95.0↓ | 84.2↓ | 95.2↑ | 90.3↑ | 47.5 | 35.8 / 79.1 / 90.0 | | Discrete best | 92.5 | 99.1 | 85.9 | 90.4 | 84.5 | 95.0 | 84.6 | 97.5 | 90.1 | 46.2 | 36.9 / 76.3 / 87.0 | | Optimization in Prior Space | | | | | | | | | | | | | Prior (λ= 1.0) | 88.9 | 99.1 | 78.7 | 81.4 | 70.2 | 92.4 | 66.9 | 96.2 | 91.8 | 85.0 | 31.6 / 73.9 / 89.2 | | PriorOps | 87.9 | 97.8↓ | 77.9↓ | 84.2 | 74.3↑ | 92.2↓ | 72.3↑ | 97.9↑ | 91.7↓ | 85.2 | 31.2 / 73.6 / 89.1 | | PriorControl | 97.1 | 99.9 | 94.3 | 95.9 | 95.5 | 99.3 | 90.2 | 98.7 | 90.7 | 54.3 | 29.1 / 70.1 / 86.9 | | + extend | 99.7 | 99.9 | 99.5 | 97.8 | 97.9 | 99.4 | 94.0 | 99.8 | 95.7 | 54.6 | 29.8 / 70.5 / 86.8 | | + optim | 99.8 | 99.9 | 99.6 | 99.6 | 99.9 | 99.7 | 98.9 | 99.9 | 94.3 | 34.8 | 23.1 / 57.4 / 75.8 | Table 13: Results on Single-Attribute Control for the Optimization in Different Spaces. Methods **Sentiment**↑ (%) **Topic**↑ (%) Detox.↑PPL.↓ **Dist.-1/2/3**↑ Avg. Neg. Pos. Avg. **W. S. B. T.** (%) ChatGPT **99.9** 99.8 **99.9** 77.5 60.7 72.2 78.7 98.5 **98.4** 14.3 21.4 / 46.8 / 56.9 PriorControl 97.1 99.9 94.3 95.9 95.5 99.3 90.2 98.7 90.7 54.3 29.1 / 70.1 / 86.9 + extend 99.7 **99.9** 99.5 97.8 **97.9 99.4 94.0 99.8** 95.7 54.6 29.8 / 70.5 / 86.8 Table 14: Automatic Results on Single-Attribute Control compared with ChatGPT. | ChatGPT | PriorControl | |-----------|----------------| | Generate 5 sentences containing 50 words with negative sentiment and start with 'The movie'. The movie explores the growing sense of despair The movie was terrible. It's a shame that such blatant disregard of genre conventions was so prevalent in this movie. The plot was ridiculous, the and hopelessness that is taking hold of our society. dialogue was cliched, and the sound quality was poor. The movie discusses the increasing levels of stress and anxiety that are affecting our mental health and well-being. The movie is one of the worst I have ever seen. The plot is a bit like that of a scam involving some of the female characters. There should be no such film for this week. The movie examines the growing sense of disillusionment and frustration with our political system and its inability to address the pressing issues of the day. The movie is so bad, I could hardly believe what I saw. The plot is ridiculous, the direction is terrible and there are no lessons in this movie. The movie looks at the mounting evidence that our society is becoming increasingly divided and unequal, with negative consequences for all of us. The movie was horrific. Even though most people are just trying to avoid leaving home in the Gaza Strip, they have no reason to dislike him. The scenes were so scripted and acted like a joke. The movie explores the pervasive sense of discontent and dissatisfaction with the state of our society, and the urgent need for action to address these issues. The movie is so bad that it almost got caught on TV. The characters are terrible, the plot contrived, and utterly hopeless to watch. There is no connection between the stars, the actual history of this movie, or the countless pointless deaths. Table 15: ChatGPT's cases for negative sentiment control. | | | ChatGPT | PriorControl | |-----------|----------------| | Generate 5 sentences containing 50 words with world topic and start with 'The city'. The city, as a hub of economic activity, cultural exchange, and technological innovation, is discussed as a potential model for global development and progress. The city of Abu Dhabi has declared independence from Iraq, amid a furious Islamist rally on Monday and an increasingly provocative UN official. "It is such vile political propaganda," said the Islamic cleric-turned politician quoted by Reuters yesterday. The city, with its diverse and often marginalized communities, is examined as a potential site for the protection and promotion of human rights. The city of Afghanistan completed a test for its constitution, according to an official statement. Related videos: A suicide bomber killed a soldier in the Iraq war. The city, with its complex and interconnected systems, is considered as a potential laboratory for addressing global challenges such as climate change and pandemics. The city of Cheuba entered a marathon fundraising campaign Saturday, amid an international outcry. Provided by Reuters. The city, with its potential for both growth and decline, is explored as a potential site for the study of global economic and social trends. The city of Afghanistan set up a temporary moratorium on violence and the UN Security Council's approval of a draft pact. About 200 people died in the country during the war, including some who were killed by soldiers. The city, with its rich and varied histories, is discussed as a potential source of inspiration and lessons for global governance and cooperation. The city of London rocked the world today as an international panel investigating the deaths of two Palestinians in Iraq presented a stunning array of medical services for both sides. Table 16: ChatGPT's cases for world topic control. | | | Attribute | PriorControl | |-------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Negative | Furthermore, this movie is a complete waste of time and money. It makes sense to see an effort at making a memorable plot and characters but it doesn't get any better than that. The script is riddled with holes and the direction was crudely edited. | | Positive | In summary, this movie is very well written. One of the best movies ever made. This movie is filled with comedy and love. The cast is fantastic, especially those who love one particular piece of popular mythology. | | World | Foundational to this is a promise of enhanced security, the U.S. military said Monday. The U.S. military has sought a chance to free up some Palestinian leader-elect Omar Fatman's loose agent. | | Sports | More importantly, Atlanta United will continue to stand behind its record-breaking double-header. The United States has been through a difficult season with a disastrous effort at the Stadium of Champions. | | Business | An illustration of how the world economy fell in 2003, another year after an unexpected surge in solar energy, suggests the primary driver of global corporate cash reserves is unlikely to be investor confidence alone. | | Sci/Tech | The country's micro-phone technology is designed for use in conjunction with Apple Computer, a new source said. The technology used in conjunction with the open-source software Sericon OS was originally designed for cell phones. | | NonToxic | The book is not an archive, but rather a revision to the article itself, so why don't you join discussions with the contributor to see where they're supposed references? Table 17: PriorControl's cases for single-attribute control. | | Attribute | PriorControl | |----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Negative World NonToxic | This essay discusses a troubling situation involving an Islamic leader and his associates in the United States. The issue is highlighted by the fact that President Bush was forced to resign on Friday after repeated attempts failed to convince him of the importance of keeping track of people. | | Negative Sports NonToxic | The relationship between Mike and Tony Duke is one of the worst ones in baseball. Not only did he have a bad shot at the championship, but there were signs of him being involved in some serious dispute. | | Negative Business NonToxic | The chicken industry is turning out to be a very different product than it previously thought, according to the US Treasury Department. In an indication of how much money they are losing, Federal Reserve officials announced Wednesday that its quarterly profit was zero. | | Negative Sci/Tech NonToxic | Once upon a time I thought this would be an interesting article in the website. Unfortunately, it is not. As I mentioned above, the source is not credible and the editing is extremely sloppy. | | Positive World NonToxic | The issue focused on the possibility of establishing a permanent peace settlement in Iraq, an indication that President Bush is keen to do it. | | Positive Sports NonToxic | The road ahead of the Olympic Games is steep, but David Beckham has been in a mood for more serious thinking since last week. The man who has made famous his own love story and whose career is dominated by explosions, smiles at all the other players. | | Positive Business NonToxic | The potato industry has gained a foothold in the United States as well as elsewhere, according to a new report. The company is expected to bring up its share of world marketplaces after long struggling to reach higher levels. | | Positive Sci/Tech NonToxic | To conclude, this film is an excellent example of how a modern internet user can become a great person and enjoy the world's greatest television show. In fact, it is quite remarkable to see someone in a different life than you are. Table 18: PriorControl's cases for multi-attribute control. | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7: Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 8: Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 0: Abstract & Section 1: Introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4: Experiments ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Appendix C: Hyperparameters and Details ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We provide the GitHub addresses of all packages we use, where their certificates can be easily obtained. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Appendix C: Hyperparameters and Details ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? The dataset we used has been widely used for a long time and in various domains, where no ethical issues have been found. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix C: Hyperparameters and Details ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4: Experiments & Appendix C: Hyperparameters and Details ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4: Experiments ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix C: Hyperparameters and Details The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix C: Hyperparameters and Details ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4: Experiments ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix C: Hyperparameters and Details ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Section 4: Experiments; Human Evaluation Part ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Section 4: Experiments ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 4: Experiments ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section 4: Experiments ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? We only perform a simple human evaluation on generated sentences that involves no important ethical problems. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Section 4: Experiments

zhang-etal-2023-learning-latent

Learning Latent Relations for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.705

Temporal Knowledge Graph (TKG) reasoning aims to predict future facts based on historical data. However, due to the limitations in construction tools and data sources, many important associations between entities may be omitted in TKG. We refer to these missing associations as latent relations. Most existing methods have some drawbacks in explicitly capturing intra-time latent relations between co-occurring entities and inter-time latent relations between entities that appear at different times. To tackle these problems, we propose a novel Latent relations Learning method for TKG reasoning, namely L2TKG. Specifically, we first utilize a Structural Encoder (SE) to obtain representations of entities at each timestamp. We then design a Latent Relations Learning (LRL) module to mine and exploit the intra- and inter-time latent relations. Finally, we extract the temporal representations from the output of SE and LRL for entity prediction. Extensive experiments on four datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of L2TKG.

## Learning Latent Relations For Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning Mengqi Zhang1,2, Yuwei Xia3,4, Qiang Liu1,2, Shu Wu1,2∗**, Liang Wang**1,2 1School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 2Center for Research on Intelligent Perception and Computing State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences 3Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences 4School of Cyber Security, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences mengqi.zhang@cripac.ia.ac.cn,xiayuwei@iie.ac.cn, {qiang.liu,shu.wu,wangliang}@nlpr.ia.ac.cn ## Abstract Temporal Knowledge Graph (TKG) reasoning aims to predict future facts based on historical data. However, due to the limitations in construction tools and data sources, many important associations between entities may be omitted in TKG. We refer to these missing associations as *latent relations*. Most of the existing methods have some drawbacks in explicitly capturing *intra-time latent relations* between co-occurring entities and *inter-time latent relations* between entities that appear at different times. To tackle these problems, we propose a novel Latent relations Learning method for TKG reasoning, namely L 2TKG. Specifically, we first utilize a Structural Encoder (SE) to obtain representations of entities at each timestamp. We then design a Latent Relations Learning (LRL) module to mine and exploit the intraand inter-time latent relations. Finally, we extract the temporal representations from the output of SE and LRL for entity prediction. Extensive experiments on four datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of L 2TKG. ## 1 Introduction Temporal knowledge graphs (TKGs) play a vital role in capturing temporal facts in the real world. Each fact in a TKG is represented as a quadruple (*s, r, o, t*), such as (Obama, run for, president, 2012). Reasoning over TKGs involves two primary settings: interpolation and extrapolation. In recent years, there has been significant interest in the extrapolation setting due to its practical value in event prediction (Deng et al., 2020), question answering (Mavromatis et al., 2022), and other applications. In the extrapolation setting, the objective is to predict facts that occur at a time t with *t > t*n, based on the historical information available in the TKG from t0 to tn. *To whom correspondence should be addressed.  Most extrapolation models utilize the temporal and structural information available in the TKG for reasoning. For example, RE-NET (Jin et al., 2020a) and RE-GCN (Li et al., 2021) incorporate recurrent neural networks and graph neural networks to capture the temporal and structural dependencies of historical TKG sequences. Additionally, xERTE (Han et al., 2021a) and TITer (Sun et al., 2021) develop sub-graph search and path search strategies to predict target entities based on existing TKG structures, respectively. While these methods demonstrate promising results in TKG reasoning, they still face the challenge of missing associations within TKGs. Specifically, the majority of TKG data is automatically identified and extracted from diverse news articles, such as ICEWS data (Boschee et al., 2015). Many crucial associations between entities may be omitted from TKGs due to the limitations of construction tools and data sources. We refer to these missing associations as *latent relations* between entities. Existing approaches fail to explicitly discover and utilize these latent relations, which manifest primarily in two aspects. Firstly, existing methods fail to explicitly capture intra-time latent relations between co-occurring en12617 tities. During TKG reasoning, certain concurrent entities may lack direct connections but exhibit strong semantic correlations. Figure 1 illustrates this phenomenon, where *Afghanistan* and *Taliban* are not connected in the TKG for May 2021. However, in reality, the *Taliban* was involved in negotiations with *Afghanistan* during that time, significantly impacting the situation in *Afghanistan*. Hence, it is crucial to model the critical latent relations among concurrent entities. Most existing TKG reasoning models rely on Relational Graph Neural Networks (RGNNs) (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018; Li et al., 2021) to capture the semantic dependencies between entities at each timestamp. However, RGNNs heavily depend on existing edges or associations, making it challenging to model critical semantic dependencies among indirectly connected entities. Secondly, existing methods ignore the inter-time latent relations between entities appearing at different timestamps. Some entities at various timestamps can exhibit strong semantic dependencies, providing essential auxiliary information for TKG reasoning. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the associations between these entities. Taking Figure 1 as an example, the impact of the USA in May 2021 on *Afghanistan* in August 2021 is significant. However, as these two entities appear at different times, they cannot be directly related in the TKG. Existing TKG reasoning models primarily focus on modeling the semantic dependencies of the same entities at different times but fall short when addressing entities at distinct timestamps. To address the aforementioned challenges, we propose a novel Latent relations Learning method for TKG reasoning, L 2TKG for brevity. The overall framework of L 2TKG is presented in Figure 2. Specifically, we first employ a Structural Encoder (SE) to generate the representations of entities at each timestamp. Inspired by graph structural learning (Jin et al., 2020b; Zhu et al., 2021b; Liu et al., 2022), we design a Latent Relations Learning module (LRL) for learning the two types of missing associations in TKG reasoning. Utilizing the embeddings of entities at each timestamp, LRL enables the creation of new crucial associations between unconnected entities in a learnable manner and then encodes the learned latent relational graph to obtain more comprehensive representations of entities. Finally, we extract temporal representations from the output of SE and LRL components for the entity prediction task. In summary, our work makes the following main contributions: - We emphasize and investigate the necessity of capturing critical missing associations in TKG reasoning. - We introduce graph structure learning into TKG reasoning, and propose a novel and effective latent relations learning method to alleviate the problem of missing associations in TKG reasoning. - We conduct extensive experiments on four typical TKG datasets, which demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed model. ## 2 Related Work In this paper, we illustrate the related work about TKG reasoning under the extrapolation setting and graph structure learning. ## 2.1 Tkg Reasoning Under The Extrapolation Setting TKG reasoning under the extrapolation setting aims to predict new facts in future timestamps based on historical TKG sequence. Specifically, GHNN (Han et al., 2020) and Know-Evolve (Trivedi et al., 2017) use temporal point process (TTP) to model the TKG data for capturing the continuous-time temporal dynamics, and they predict the future facts by estimating the conditional probability of TTP. CyGNet (Zhu et al., 2021a) proposes a copy-generation mechanism that predicts the future based on repeating patterns in historical facts. Some recent methods (Jin et al., 2020a; Li et al., 2021, 2022) combine graph neural networks (GNNs) and recurrent neural networks (RNNs) to model the semantic and temporal dependencies between entities. For instance, RE-NET (Jin et al., 2020a) incorporates RNNs and RGCNs to capture the temporal and structural dependencies from entity sequences. RE-GCN (Li et al., 2021) considers adjacent structural dependencies of entities while introducing static properties of entities. To incorporate global temporal information, TiRCN (Li et al., 2022) designs a global history encoder network that collects repeated historical facts. HGLS (Zhang et al., 2023b) designs a Hierarchical Graph Neural Network to explicitly encode long-term temporal information. Furthermore, TANGO (Han et al., 2021b) employs Neural Ordinary Differential Equations for fine-grained temporal information in TKG reasoning, specifically for forecasting future links. Additionally, some works (Han et al., 2021a; Sun et al., 2021) propose sub-graph or path search strategies for TKG reasoning. xERTE (Han et al., 2021a) designs an explainable model for entity prediction, utilizing a sub-graph search strategy to identify answer entities. TITer (Sun et al., 2021) performs a path search based on reinforcement learning to predict future entities, incorporating a time-shaped reward using the Dirichlet distribution for guiding model training. Recently, MetaTKG (Xia et al., 2022) proposes a temporal meta-learner to learn evolution patterns of facts. CENET (Xu et al., 2023) combines the contrastive learning strategy with TKG models to identify significant entities from historical and nonhistorical dependency. However, all of these above methods rely on existing associations between entities or structures in TKG and disregard the utilization of important latent associations between entities. ## 2.2 Graph Structure Learning Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have gained significant attention for their ability to handle graphstructured data and have shown promising performance in various tasks, including Recommender Systems (Wu et al., 2019; Chen and Wong, 2020; Zhang et al., 2021, 2020a, 2023a) and Natural Language Processing (Yao et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020b). However, it has been observed that graph data can contain noise, which can negatively impact the training of GNNs (Jin et al., 2020c). To address this issue, researchers have proposed graph structure learning (GSL) methods, which aim to jointly learn an optimized graph structure and node representations. GSL models can be categorized into three main categories (Zhu et al., 2021b): metric-learningbased methods (Jiang et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020; Cosmo et al., 2020; Li et al., 2018b), probabilistic methods (Franceschi et al., 2018, 2019; Zhang et al., 2019), and direct-optimized methods (Yang et al., 2019; Jin et al., 2020c). For example, PTDNet (Luo et al., 2021) proposes a parameterized topological denoising network to improve the robustness and generalization performance of GNNs by learning to drop task-irrelevant edges. LDS (Franceschi et al., 2019) introduces a method for simultaneous learning of graph structure and graph convolutional network parameters. This is achieved by solving an approximate bilevel program that determines a discrete probability distribution on the graph edges. NeuralSparse (Chen et al., 2020) proposes a supervised graph sparsification technique that improves generalization power by learning to remove potentially task-irrelevant edges from input graphs. Drawing inspiration from GSL approaches, our work centers on metric-learning-based methods. The goal is to discover new and important missing associations within TKG data while obtaining optimal entity representations for TKG reasoning. ## 3 Preliminaries In this section, we introduce the definition of TKG, formulate the task of TKG reasoning, and explain some notations used in this paper. Definition 1 (**Temporal Knowledge Graph**). Let E and R represent a set of entities and relations. A quadruple qt = (es, r, eo, t) represents a relation r ∈ R that occurs between subject entity es ∈ E and object entity eo ∈ E at time t. All quadruple occurring at time t constitute a knowledge graph Gt. e ts ∈ Gtindicates that entity es occurs at time t. A temporal knowledge graph (TKG) G is defined as a sequence of knowledge graphs with different timestamps, i.e., G = {G1, G2, *· · ·* , Gt}. Definition 2 (**Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning**). This paper primarily emphasizes the *entity prediction* task within TKG reasoning. The objective of the *entity prediction* task is to forecast the missing object entity of (es, r, ?, t + 1) or the missing subject entity of (?, r, eo, t + 1) based on the historical KG sequence {G1, G2, *· · ·* , Gt}. Let xs ∈ R dand xr ∈ R d denote the static embedding of entity es and relation r, where d represents the dimension. The general paradigm of TKG reasoning is to learn future representations of each entity for predicting Gt+1 by using the historical KG sequences {Gi} t i=0, along with static entity and relation embeddings xs and xr. The embeddings xs and xr serve as learnable parameters. ## 4 Methodology In this section, we present the proposed L 2TKG. The overall framework of L 2TKG is illustrated in Figure 2. There are three main components: (1) Structural Encoder (SE), which captures the semantic dependencies among concurrent entities at each timestamp using the existing TKG structure. (2) *Latent Relations Learning* (LRL), which mines and exploits critical intra-time and inter-time latent relations between entities. (3) *Temporal Representation Learning*, which extracts temporal representation for each entity from the output of SE and LRL. ## 4.1 Structural Encoder At each timestamp, there exist strong semantic dependencies among connected co-occurring entities. To capture these semantic dependencies, we propose a structural encoder based on relational graph convolution neural network (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018; Li et al., 2021), which aims to obtain the embedding of each entity at the timestamp of its appearance. Formally, the structural encoder can be defined as follows: $$\mathbf{h}_{s,t_{i}}^{l+1}=f\left(\sum_{e_{o}\in\mathcal{N}_{e s}^{t_{i}}}\mathbf{W}_{1}\left(\mathbf{h}_{o,t_{i}}^{l}+\mathbf{x}_{r}\right)+\mathbf{W}_{2}\mathbf{h}_{s,t_{i}}^{l}\right)$$ ## kbbers of $\rho$ in $\mathcal{G}$ . where N ti es is the set of neighbors of es in Gti , f(·) is the ReLU function, W1 and W2 ∈ R d×dare trainable weight parameter matrices in each layer, and the initial entity embedding h 0 s,ti and h 0 o,ti are set to static embedding xs and xo. After ω-layer convolution, the entity representation h ω s,ti at time tiis obtained. We denote the embedding of es at time ti as hs,ti , omitting the superscript ω. ## 4.2 Latent Relations Learning After capturing the semantic dependencies among concurrent entities at each timestamp, we introduce a latent relations learning module to identify and leverage significant missing associations: *intratime latent relations* and *inter-time latent relations*, between historical entities. ## 4.2.1 Learning Latent Relational Graph The purpose of this part is to mine latent relations between entities appearing in TKG sequence G = {Gt−L, *· · ·* , Gt}. In this context, the same entity appearing at different times is treated as distinct entities, such as e ti sand e tj s . Consequently, the number of entities considered in this module is N =Pttk=t−L ntk , where ntk represents the number of entities in Gtk , and L represents the length of historical sequence. Assuming no loss of generality, we posit that highly associated entities also exhibit similarity within the embedding space. As a result, we first compute the similarity between entity embeddings. There are many similarity metrics that can be chosen. We use simple cosine metrics to compute the similarity: $$d(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})={\frac{(\mathbf{W}_{3}\mathbf{x})^{\mathrm{T}}\left(\mathbf{W}_{4}\mathbf{y}\right)}{\|\mathbf{W}_{3}\mathbf{x}\|\|\mathbf{W}_{4}\mathbf{y}\|}},$$ $$\mathrm{(1)}$$ * [10] A. A. K. , (1) where · T represents transposition, W3 and W4 ∈ R d×dare learnable weight parameters. To reduce the complexity of calculations, we only calculate the similarity between entity pairs that have not connected in the TKG sequence. Next, we will introduce in detail how to obtain the crucial intra-time and inter-time latent relations, respectively. Intra-time latent relation learning. We calculate the similarity between any two entity representations appearing at the same timestep tp but not becoming connected. The similarity matrix S tp ∈ R ntp×ntp between unconnected entities at time tp is computed by $$\mathbf{S}_{i,j}^{t_{p}}=d(\mathbf{h}_{e_{i},t_{p}},\mathbf{h}_{e_{j},t_{p}}),\tag{2}$$ where $(e_{i},e_{j})\in\mathcal{G}_{t_{p}}$ and $(e_{i},r,e_{j},t_{p})\notin\mathcal{G}_{t_{p}}$, for $$\left(2\right)$$ all r ∈ R. For other case, the value of S tp i,j is set to 0. To retain important latent relations and reduce noise interference, we use the sparse operation based on k-NN (Chen et al., 2009) for each matrix S tp, that is: for each entity, we only keep latent relations with the top-k scores. In this way, the final similarity matrix at time tp is calculated as: $$\hat{\mathbf{S}}_{i,j}^{t_{p}}=\begin{cases}\mathbf{S}_{i,j}^{t_{p}},&\mathbf{S}_{i,j}^{t_{p}}\in\mathrm{Top-k}(\mathbf{S}_{i,:}^{t_{p}})\\ 0,&otherwise\end{cases},\quad\quad(3)$$ where S tp i,: denotes the i-row of S tp. Each Sˆtp records the important intra-time latent relations between entities at time tp. Inter-time latent relation learning. We calculate the similarity between any two entity representations appearing at different timesteps tp and tq. $\mathbf{Q}^{t_p,t_q}_{i,j}=d(\mathbf{h}_{e_i,t_p},\mathbf{h}_{e_j,t_q})$, $\mathcal{C}_{i,j}=e_i\in\mathcal{C}_{i,j},t_p\neq t_p,t_q$, Eas other. $$\left(4\right)$$ where ei ∈ Gtp, ej ∈ Gtq, tp ̸= tq. For other cases, the value of Qtp,tqis 0. Similar to intra-time latent relation learning, we also perform sparsification on the similarity matrix: $\quad\hat{\mathbf{Q}}_{i,j}^{t_{p},t_{q}}=\begin{cases}\mathbf{Q}_{i,j}^{t_{p},t_{q}},&\mathbf{Q}_{i,j}\in\mathrm{Top-k}(\mathbf{Q}_{i,:}^{t_{p},t_{q}})\\ 0,&otherwise\end{cases}.$ (5) e.  Each Qˆ tp,tqrecords the important inter-time latent relation between entities at different times. We independently choose Top-k values for the sparse operations in learning the two types of latent relations, denoted as k1 and k2, respectively. Based on the acquired similarity matrices, we proceed to construct a latent relational graph denoted as P. Specifically, if Sˆ tp i,j > 0, we construct an intra-time latent relation between e tp iand e tp j within P. Similarly, if Qˆ tp,tq i,j > 0, we construct an inter-time latent relation between e tp iand e tq j within P. In this graph P, we solely consider latent relations and omit original relations of the TKG sequence. Furthermore, similar to existing relations, we transform the two types of latent relations into lowdimensional embedding vectors, which serve as learnable parameters. To facilitate presentation, we directly employ numerical numbers {1*, ..., N*} to represent the nodes in P in the subsequent section. ## 4.2.2 Encoding Latent Relational Graph After obtaining the latent relational graph P, we perform message propagation and aggregation operations on it to capture the semantic dependencies of entities under the newly learned associations. In specific, we first utilize a graph attention mechanism (Lv et al., 2021) to calculate the coefficient between two adjacent nodes i and j under the learned latent relation r in P: $$\alpha_{i j}=\frac{\exp\left(f\left(\mathbf{a}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{W}_{3}\left[\mathbf{z}_{i}^{l}\parallel\mathbf{z}_{j}^{l}\parallel\mathbf{z}_{r}^{i j}\right]\right)\right)}{\sum_{k\in\mathcal{N}_{i}}\exp\left(f\left(\mathbf{a}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{W}_{3}\left[\mathbf{z}_{i}^{l}\parallel\mathbf{z}_{k}^{l}\parallel\mathbf{z}_{r}^{i k}\right]\right)\right)},$$ where initial embedding z (0) iis the corresponding entity embedding obtained by Structural Encoder (§4.1), z ij r is the embedding of latent relation between node i and node j, Niis the set of neighbors of i in P, a ∈ R 3dand W5 ∈ R 3d×3dare learnable weight parameters in each layer, f(·) is the LeakyReLU activation function, and ∥ is the concatenation operation. After that, we obtain a more comprehensive representation for each entity by aggregating the embeddings from its neighbors in the latent relational graph, $$\mathbf{z}_{i}^{l+1}=g\left(\sum_{k\in\mathcal{N}_{i}}\alpha_{i j}\mathbf{W}_{6}\left(\mathbf{z}_{k}^{l}+\mathbf{z}_{r}^{i k}\right)+\mathbf{W}_{7}\mathbf{z}_{i}^{l}\right),$$ where g(·) is the ReLU activation function, W6 and W7 are weight parameter matrices in each layer. For simplicity, we use zito represent z β i after β-layer operation. ## 4.3 Temporal Representations Learning In addition to the semantic dependencies under different relations, the temporal patterns of entities are also crucial for TKG reasoning. This section discusses how to obtain the temporal representations of entities based on the output of SE and LRL. ## 4.3.1 Global Temporal Representation Since the LRL module captures the semantic dependencies of the entity under the new associations, its output contains more global information. We further input them into GRU to get the global temporal representation of each entity: $${\mathbf{e}}_{s,t+1}^{G}=\mathrm{GRU}_{G}\left({\mathbf{e}}_{s,t}^{G},{\mathbf{z}}_{s,t}\right),$$ where zs,t corresponds to the output representation of LRL (§4.2) at entity e ts . ## 4.3.2 Local Temporal Representation Local temporal representation reflects the semantic changes of entities in recent times. Following (Li et al., 2021, 2022), we adopt GRU to encode the most recent m timestamps of each entity based on the output of the structural encoder: $$\mathbf{e}_{s,t+1}^{L}=\mathrm{GRU}_{L}\left(\mathbf{e}_{s,t}^{L},\mathbf{h}_{s,t}\right),$$ s,t, hs,t, (7) where hs,t is the corresponding entity embedding obtained by Structural Encoder (§4.1). ## 4.3.3 Gating Integration To facilitate model reasoning, we adopt a learnable gating function (Hu et al., 2021) to adaptively integrate the global and local temporal representations into a unified temporal representation. Formally, es,t+1 = σ(ge) ⊙ e $$\stackrel{G}{s,t+1}+(1-$$ s,t+1 + (1 − σ(ge)) ⊙ e L s,t+1, where ge ∈ R dis a gate vector parameter to tradeoff two types of temporal information of each entity e, σ(·) is to constrain the value of each element in [0, 1], and ⊙ denotes element-wise multiplication. ## 4.4 Parameter Learning In this section, we describe how to get the score for each quadruple (es, r, eo, t + 1) and the learning objective for training our model. We first calculate the probability of interaction between entity es and eo under the relation r at time t + 1. Formally, pt+1(o|*s, r*) = σ (eo,t+1 f (es,t+1, xr)), where f(·) is decoder function ConvTransE (Li et al., 2021), es,t+1 and eo,t+1 are temporal representations that contain both global- and local temporal information. The learning tasks can be defined as, $${\mathcal{L}}_{e}=-\sum_{t=0}^{T}\sum_{(e_{s},r,e_{o},t+1)\in G_{t+1}}\log p_{t+1}(o|s,r).$$ Thus, the objective function is as follows: $\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{b}=-\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{b}$. $${\mathcal{L}}={\mathcal{L}}_{e}+\lambda_{1}\|\Theta\|_{2},$$ where *∥ · ∥*2 is L2 norm and λ1 is to control regularization strength. ## 5 Experiments In this section, we perform experiments on four TKG datasets to evaluate our model. We aim to answer the following questions through experiments. - Q1: How does L 2TKG perform compared with state-of-the-art TKG reasoning methods on the entity prediction task? - Q2: How does L 2TKG perform in learning missing associations? - Q3: How do different components affect the L 2TKG performance? - Q4: How sensitive is L 2TKG with different hyper-parameter settings? ## 5.1 Experimental Setup 5.1.1 Datasets We evaluate our L 2TKG on four representative TKG datasets in our experiments: ICEWS14 (García-Durán et al., 2018), ICEWS18 (Jin et al., 2020a), ICEWS05-15 (García-Durán et al., 2018), and GDELT (Jin et al., 2020a). The first three datasets are from the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (Boschee et al., 2015) and record the facts in 2014, 2018, and the facts from 2005 to 2015, respectively. The last one is from the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (Leetaru and Schrodt, 2013). The details of data split strategy and data statistics are shown in Appendix A. ## 5.1.2 Baselines We compare L 2TKG with static KG (SKG) reasoning models: DisMult (Yang et al., 2015),ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016), R-GCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018), ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018), and RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), as well as TKG models such as CyGNet (Zhu et al., 2021a), RE-NET (Jin et al., 2020a), xERTE (Han et al., 2021a), TIEer (Sun et al., 2021), RE-GCN (Li et al., 2021), TiRCN (Li et al., 2022), and CENET (Xu et al., 2023). We provide implementation details of baselines and L 2TKG in Appendix B and C, respectively. $\mathcal{L}/\mathcal{L}$ ## 5.1.3 Evaluation Metrics We adopt widely-used metrics (Jin et al., 2020a; Li et al., 2021), MRR and Hits@{1, 10} to evaluate the model performance in the experiments. For a fair comparison, we follow the setup of Li et al. (2022), using the ground truth history during multi-step inference, and report the experimental results under the time-aware filtered setting for all compared models. | Model | ICEWS14 | ICEWS05-15 | ICEWS18 | GDELT | | | | | | | | | |-----------|-----------|--------------|-----------|---------|--------|--------|-------|--------|-------|-------|--------|-------| | MRR | Hit@1 | Hit@10 | MRR | Hit@1 | Hit@10 | MRR | Hit@1 | Hit@10 | MRR | Hit@1 | Hit@10 | | | DisMult | 25.31 | 17.93 | 42.22 | 17.43 | 10.08 | 30.12 | 16.59 | 10.01 | 31.69 | 15.64 | 9.37 | 29.01 | | ComplEx | 32.33 | 23.21 | 52.37 | 23.14 | 14.56 | 41.63 | 18.84 | 11.41 | 25.78 | 12.23 | 8.30 | 20.36 | | RGCN | 28.14 | 19.43 | 46.02 | 27.43 | 20.15 | 44.62 | 18.04 | 8.57 | 35.68 | 10.93 | 4.59 | 22.38 | | ConvE | 30.93 | 21.74 | 50.18 | 25.25 | 16.07 | 44.34 | 24.28 | 15.61 | 44.59 | 17.28 | 10.34 | 30.63 | | RotatE | 27.53 | 18.60 | 47.62 | 19.39 | 10.19 | 38.57 | 15.35 | 7.10 | 33.09 | 5.48 | 1.96 | 13.76 | | CyGNet | 37.65 | 27.43 | 57.90 | 40.42 | 29.44 | 61.60 | 27.12 | 17.21 | 46.85 | 20.22 | 12.35 | 35.82 | | RE-NET | 39.86 | 30.11 | 58.21 | 43.67 | 33.55 | 62.72 | 29.78 | 19.73 | 48.46 | 19.55 | 12.38 | 34.00 | | xERTE | 40.79 | 32.70 | 57.30 | 46.62 | 37.84 | 63.92 | 29.31 | 21.03 | 46.48 | 19.45 | 11.92 | 34.18 | | TITer | 41.73 | 32.74 | 58.44 | 47.60 | 38.29 | 64.86 | 29.98 | 22.05 | 44.83 | 18.19 | 11.52 | 31.00 | | RE-GCN* | 41.99 | 32.93 | 61.92 | 47.39 | 37.65 | 68.56 | 30.13 | 19.11 | 48.86 | 19.13 | 11.54 | 32.35 | | CENET | 41.30 | 32.58 | 58.22 | 47.13 | 37.25 | 67.61 | 29.65 | 19.98 | 48.23 | 19.73 | 12.04 | 34.98 | | TiRGN* | 43.18 | 33.12 | 62.24 | 48.83 | 38.62 | 69.20 | 32.22 | 22.24 | 51.88 | 21.67 | 13.63 | 37.60 | | 2TKG | 47.40 | 35.36 | 71.05 | 57.43 | 41.86 | 80.69 | 33.36 | 22.15 | 55.04 | 20.53 | 12.89 | 35.83 | | ∆Improve. | 9.77% | 6.73% | 14.15% | 17.61% | 8.39% | 16.60% | 3.54% | - | 6.09% | - | - | - | ## 5.2 Performance Comparison (Rq1) The performance of all models on the entity prediction task is presented in Table 1. Based on the results, we made the following observations: L 2TKG achieves the best performance on all ICEWS datasets with most evaluation metrics, which verifies the effectiveness of our model. Specifically, L 2TKG significantly outperforms all compared static models, demonstrating the importance of modeling temporal information in TKG reasoning. Our model is better than RE-GCN and TiRCN. The reason might be that RE-GCN only utilizes the most recent historical sequence of TKG and neglects the global historical information of the entities. Although TiRCN considers more historical dependencies than RE-GCN, it only utilizes the first-order repetitive patterns of global history. Our L 2TKG not only encodes some recent information but also exploits more learned latent relations between historical entities, allowing it to make better use of global historical data than TiRCN. Compared with L 2TKG and TiRCN, both the RE-NET and CyGNET ignore the use of local temporal information about entities and thus perform less well than most TKG models. In contrast to our model, xERTE and TITer employ sub-graph-based search and path-based search, respectively, for target entity prediction. However, their search methods are constrained by existing paths, limiting their search scope and compromising their performance. In the case of the GDELT data, it contains a higher number of facts at each time, and the issue of missing associations is less severe. Consequently, our model exhibits limited improvement compared to state-of-the-art models. ## 5.3 Performance Comparison In Learning Missing Associations (Rq2) To further validate the capacity of L 2TKG in discovering and leveraging latent relations, we evaluate its performance on datasets with different levels of missing associations. On the ICEWS and GDELT datasets, we mask a range of {0.1*, ...,* 0.9} of the existing relations in the knowledge graph for each timestamp. Figure 3 presents the performance comparison of RE-GCN, TiRCN, and L 2TKG using various mask ratios, while Figure 4 illustrates the relative improvements of L 2TKG over RE-GCN and TiRCN. From the results, we have the following observations: From Figure 3 we find that the performance of all models decreases to different degrees as the mask rate increases, which is due to the gradual decrease of historical association information in the dataset. Nonetheless, our model suffers a relatively small drop in performance and maintains satisfactory results even when faced with significant missing association information (mask rate > 0.6). In Figure 4, the relative performance improvement of our model compared to RE-GCN and TiRCN gradually increases. In particular, the model performance improves substantially when the mask rate exceeds 0.6. These findings all indicate that our latent relations learning method can effectively mine and exploit the missing associa-  Figure 3: Performance of L 2TKG, TiRCN, and REGCN under different mask rates in terms of MRR (%).  tions between entities and alleviate the problem of missing associations in history. ## 5.4 Ablation Studies (Rq3) To investigate the superiority of each component in our model, we compare L 2TKG with different variants in terms of MRR. Specifically, we modify L 2TKG by removing the latent relation learning module (w/o LRL), intra-time relation learning of LRL (w/o LRL-Intra), inter-time relation learning | Model | ICEWS14 | ICEWS05-15 | ICEWS18 | GDELT | |---------------|-----------|--------------|-----------|---------| | w/o LRL | 38.32 | 44.49 | 28.74 | 19.46 | | w/o LRL-Intra | 47.08 | 55.84 | 33.05 | 20.36 | | w/o LRL-Inter | 47.00 | 56.30 | 33.30 | 20.41 | | w/o Ltr | 36.40 | 43.00 | 32.15 | 19.03 | | w/o Gtr | 40.64 | 49.27 | 29.61 | 20.24 | | w/o SE | 44.34 | 47.01 | 31.18 | 19.78 | | L 2TKG | 47.40 | 57.43 | 33.36 | 20.53 | of LRL (w/o LRL-Inter), local temporal representation module (w/o Ltr), global temporal representation module (w/o Gtr), and structural encoder (w/o SE), respectively. We show their results in Table 2 and have the following findings: L 2TKG significantly outperforms L 2TKG (w/o LRL) on all datasets, which confirms that our latent relations learning module effectively discovers and utilizes missing important associations in TKG sequence to assist prediction tasks. L 2TKG (w/o LRL-Intra) and L 2TKG (w/o LRL-Inter) also achieves better performance than L 2TKG (w/o LRL). The improvements verify that both learned inter-time and intra-time latent relations contribute to model performance. Compared with L 2TKG (w/o LRL-Intra) and (w/o LRL-Inter), the performance of L 2TKG is further improved, which means that two latent relations play different roles in promoting the prediction of the model, and it is necessary to use both latent relations together. L 2TKG also obtains significant improvements over L 2TKG (w/o Ltr) and L 2TKG (w/o Gtr), indicating that both global- and local-temporal information can effectively enhance the performance on the prediction task. The improvement between L 2TKG and L 2TKG (w/o SE) verifies the importance of capturing the semantic dependencies among co-occurring entities. ## 6 Sensitivity Analysis (Rq4) The structural encoder (SE) and latent relation learning (LRL) are two vital modules in our model. This section studies how hyper-parameters, the k value of the sparse operations (Intra-time and Intertime learning), and the layer numbers of LRL and SE affect the performance of L 2TKG. ## 6.1 Effect Of K **Values In Lrl** The values of k1 and k2 determine the number of newly learned intra-time and inter-time latent rela-  tions, respectively. Figure 5 illustrates the performance of model for different values of k1 and k2. When adjusting one ki value, the other ki utilizes the optimal value. A ki value of 0 indicates that our model does not consider the corresponding types of latent relation learning. From the results, we can find that the performance of L 2TKG improves initially as the two k values increase. This finding confirms that the two latent relations can provide more effective information for TKG reasoning. However, as k continues to increase, the trend begins to decline. This decline could be attributed to the introduction of numerous unimportant latent relations that act as noise, thereby interfering with the model. This demonstrates the necessity of employing k-NN sparsification in the LRL module. ## 6.2 Effect Of Lrl Layer Nubmer Β The number of layers in LRL decides the degree of utilizing the latent relations. In this part, we conduct our model when the LRL layer number β is in the range of {0, 1, 2, 3, 4}. The results are shown in Figure 6 (yellow line). We can find our method achieves significant improvement between β = 0 and β > 0, which validates the rationality of mining the latent associations in TKG reasoning. When further stacking the LRL layer, the performance of L 2TKG begins to deteriorate, which is probably because the LRL suffers from the over-smoothing problem (Li et al., 2018a).  ## 6.3 Effect Of Se Layer Number Ω The number of layers in SE determines the degree of modeling semantic dependencies among concurrent facts. We also set the SE layer number ω in the range of {0, 1, 2, 3, 4} and conduct our model. From the results in Figure 6 (blue line), we can find that our model achieves the best performance when ω = 2 and significantly outperforms the value at ω = 0, which demonstrates that utilizing the highorder neighbor information in concurrent entities can enhance the semantic representations of entities at each timestamp. As the number of layers further increases (ω > 2), the model's performance begins to decline, which may be because the use of higher-order information makes it easy to introduce noise and lead to over-smoothing. ## 7 Conclusion In this paper, we have proposed a novel method L 2TKG for reasoning over TKG. We first obtain the embedding of each historical entity based on the structural encoder. Then, a well-designed latent relations learning module is proposed to mine and encode the two types of latent relations, obtaining comprehensive entity embeddings. Finally, we extract temporal representations of entities from the outputs of LRL and SE for final prediction. Experimental results on four benchmarks and extensive analysis demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of L 2TKG in TKG reasoning. ## Limitations In this section, we discuss the limitations of our model. Specifically, the selection of k values in the LRL module necessitates human involvement. Various types of data or entities may rely on distinct k values. While the majority of k values within a reasonable range lead to improvements in model performance, identifying the optimal value solely through human involvement poses challenges. Moving forward, we will investigate the automatic optimization of k values to enhance the model's capacity for acquiring latent relations. ## Acknowledgement This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (62141608, 62206291, U19B2038). ## References Elizabeth Boschee, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Sean O'Brien, Steve Shellman, James Starz, and Michael Ward. 2015. ICEWS Coded Event Data. Jie Chen, Haw-ren Fang, and Yousef Saad. 2009. Fast approximate knn graph construction for high dimensional data via recursive lanczos bisection. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10(9). Tianwen Chen and Raymond Chi-Wing Wong. 2020. Handling information loss of graph neural networks for session-based recommendation. KDD. Yu Chen, Lingfei Wu, and Mohammed Zaki. 2020. Iterative deep graph learning for graph neural networks: Better and robust node embeddings. In *NIPS*, pages 19314–19326. Luca Cosmo, Anees Kazi, Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi, Nassir Navab, and Michael M. Bronstein. 2020. Latent patient network learning for automatic diagnosis. Songgaojun Deng, Huzefa Rangwala, and Yue Ning. 2020. Dynamic knowledge graph based multi-event forecasting. In KDD, pages 1585–1595. Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In *AAAI*, pages 1811–1818. Luca Franceschi, Paolo Frasconi, Saverio Salzo, Riccardo Grazzi, and Massimiliano Pontil. 2018. Bilevel programming for hyperparameter optimization and meta-learning. In *ICML*, pages 1568–1577. Luca Franceschi, Mathias Niepert, Massimiliano Pontil, and Xiao He. 2019. Learning discrete structures for graph neural networks. In *ICML*, pages 1972–1982. A García-Durán, Sebastijan Dumani, and M. Niepert. 2018. Learning sequence encoders for temporal knowledge graph completion. In *EMNLP*, pages 4816–4821. Zhen Han, Peng Chen, Yunpu Ma, and Volker Tresp. 2021a. Explainable subgraph reasoning for forecasting on temporal knowledge graphs. In *ICLR*. Zhen Han, Zifeng Ding, Yunpu Ma, Yujia Gu, and Volker Tresp. 2021b. Learning neural ordinary equations for forecasting future links on temporal knowledge graphs. In *EMNLP*, pages 8352–8364. Zhen Han, Yunpu Ma, Yuyi Wang, Stephan Günnemann, and Volker Tresp. 2020. Graph hawkes neural network for forecasting on temporal knowledge graphs. In *AKBC*. Linmei Hu, Tianchi Yang, Luhao Zhang, Wanjun Zhong, Duyu Tang, Chuan Shi, Nan Duan, and Ming Zhou. 2021. Compare to the knowledge: Graph neural fake news detection with external knowledge. In ACL, pages 754–763. Bo Jiang, Ziyan Zhang, Doudou Lin, Jin Tang, and Bin Luo. 2019. Semi-supervised learning with graph learning-convolutional networks. In *CVPR*, pages 11305–11312. W. Jin, M. Qu, X. Jin, and X. Ren. 2020a. Recurrent event network: Autoregressive structure inferenceover temporal knowledge graphs. In *EMNLP*, pages 6669–6683. Wei Jin, Yao Ma, Xiaorui Liu, Xianfeng Tang, Suhang Wang, and Jiliang Tang. 2020b. Graph structure learning for robust graph neural networks. In KDD, pages 66–74. Wei Jin, Yao Ma, Xiaorui Liu, Xianfeng Tang, Suhang Wang, and Jiliang Tang. 2020c. Graph structure learning for robust graph neural networks. KDD. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. In *ICLR*. Kalev Leetaru and Philip A Schrodt. 2013. Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone, 1979–2012. In *ISA annual convention*, volume 2, pages 1–49. Citeseer. Qimai Li, Zhichao Han, and Xiao-Ming Wu. 2018a. Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learning. In *AAAI*. Ruoyu Li, Sheng Wang, Feiyun Zhu, and Junzhou Huang. 2018b. Adaptive graph convolutional neural networks. In *AAAI*. Yujia Li, Shiliang Sun, and Jing Zhao. 2022. Tirgn: Time-guided recurrent graph network with localglobal historical patterns for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In *IJCAI*, pages 2152–2158. Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Wei Li, Saiping Guan, Jiafeng Guo, Huawei Shen, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on evolutional representation learning. In SIGIR, pages 408–417. Yixin Liu, Yu Zheng, Daokun Zhang, Hongxu Chen, Hao Peng, and Shirui Pan. 2022. Towards unsupervised deep graph structure learning. In WWW, pages 1392–1403. Dongsheng Luo, Wei Cheng, Wenchao Yu, Bo Zong, Jingchao Ni, Haifeng Chen, and Xiang Zhang. 2021. Learning to drop: Robust graph neural network via topological denoising. In *WSDM*, pages 779–787. Qingsong Lv, Ming Ding, Qiang Liu, Yuxiang Chen, Wenzheng Feng, Siming He, Chang Zhou, Jianguo Jiang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. 2021. Are we really making much progress? revisiting, benchmarking and refining heterogeneous graph neural networks. In KDD, page 1150–1160. Costas Mavromatis, Prasanna Lakkur Subramanyam, Vassilis N Ioannidis, Adesoji Adeshina, Phillip R Howard, Tetiana Grinberg, Nagib Hakim, and George Karypis. 2022. Tempoqr: temporal question reasoning over knowledge graphs. In *AAAI*, volume 36, pages 5825–5833. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. In *NeurIPS*, pages 8024–8035. Michael Schlichtkrull, Thomas N Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne Van Den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In *ESWC*, pages 593–607. Haohai Sun, Jialun Zhong, Yunpu Ma, Zhen Han, and Kun He. 2021. TimeTraveler: Reinforcement learning for temporal knowledge graph forecasting. In EMNLP, pages 8306–8319. Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In *ICLR*. Rakshit Trivedi, Hanjun Dai, Yichen Wang, and Le Song. 2017. Know-evolve: Deep temporal reasoning for dynamic knowledge graphs. In *ICML*, pages 3462–3471. Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In *ICML*, pages 2071–2080. Minjie Wang, Lingfan Yu, Da Zheng, Quan Gan, Yu Gai, Zihao Ye, Mufei Li, Jinjing Zhou, Qi Huang, Chao Ma, Ziyue Huang, Qipeng Guo, Hao Zhang, Haibin Lin, Junbo Zhao, Jinyang Li, Alexander J Smola, and Zheng Zhang. 2019. Deep graph library: Towards efficient and scalable deep learning on graphs. *ICLR* Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds. Shu Wu, Yuyuan Tang, Yanqiao Zhu, Liang Wang, Xing Xie, and Tieniu Tan. 2019. Session-based recommendation with graph neural networks. In *AAAI*. Yuwei Xia, Mengqi Zhang, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, and Xiao-Yu Zhang. 2022. Metatkg: Learning evolutionary meta-knowledge for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In *EMNLP*, pages 7230–7240. Yi Xu, Junjie Ou, Hui Xu, and Luoyi Fu. 2023. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning with historical contrastive learning. In *AAAI*. Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. In ICLR. Liang Yang, Zesheng Kang, Xiaochun Cao, Di Jin, Bo Yang, and Yuanfang Guo. 2019. Topology optimization based graph convolutional network. In IJCAI. Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. 2019. Graph convolutional networks for text classification. AAAI, 33(01):7370–7377. Jinghao Zhang, Yanqiao Zhu, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, Shuhui Wang, and Liang Wang. 2021. Mining latent structures for multimedia recommendation. ACM MM. Mengqi Zhang, Shu Wu, Meng Gao, Xin Jiang, Ke Xu, and Liang Wang. 2020a. Personalized graph neural networks with attention mechanism for session-aware recommendation. *IEEE Transactions on Knowledge* and Data Engineering, 34(8):3946–3957. Mengqi Zhang, Shu Wu, Xueli Yu, Qiang Liu, and Liang Wang. 2023a. Dynamic graph neural networks for sequential recommendation. *IEEE Transactions on* Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(5):4741–4753. Mengqi Zhang, Yuwei Xia, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, and Liang Wang. 2023b. Learning long-and short-term representations for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In WWW, pages 2412–2422. Yingxue Zhang, Soumyasundar Pal, Mark J. Coates, and Deniz Üstebay. 2019. Bayesian graph convolutional neural networks for semi-supervised classification. In *AAAI*. Yufeng Zhang, Xueli Yu, Zeyu Cui, Shu Wu, Zhongzhen Wen, and Liang Wang. 2020b. Every document owns its structure: Inductive text classification via graph neural networks. ACL. Cunchao Zhu, Muhao Chen, Changjun Fan, Guangquan Cheng, and Yan Zhang. 2021a. Learning from history: Modeling temporal knowledge graphs with sequential copy-generation networks. In *AAAI*, pages 4732–4740. Yanqiao Zhu, Weizhi Xu, Jinghao Zhang, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, and Liang Wang. 2021b. Deep graph structure learning for robust representations: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03036. ## A Dataset We divide ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT into training, validation, and test sets with a proportion of 80%, 10%, and 10% by timestamps following (Li et al., 2021). The statistics of four TKG datasets are summarized in Table 3. ## B Baselines The comparison of static KG reasoning models with our work is presented as follows: DisMult (Yang et al., 2015) is a model that proposes a simplified bilinear formulation to capture relational semantics. ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016) is a model that converts the embedding into complex vector space to handle symmetric and antisymmetric relations. R-GCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018) is a graph neural network that handles highly multi-relational graph data. ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018) is a model that adopts a 2D convolutional neural network to model the interactions between entities and relations. RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), a model that defines each relation as a rotation from the subject entity to object entity in the complex vector space. The temporal KG reasoning models compared to our model are: CyGNet1(Zhu et al., 2021a) is a model that utilizes recurrence patterns in historical facts to predict future facts. RE-NET2(Jin et al., 2020a) is a model that adopts RNN and RGCNs to capture the temporal and structural dependencies from entity sequences. RE-GCN3(Li et al., 2021) is a Recurrent Evolution network based on Graph Convolution Network (GCN), which learns the evolutional representations of entities and relations at each timestamp by | Datasets | ICEWS14 | ICEWS05-15 | ICEWS18 | GDELT | |------------|-----------|--------------|-----------|-----------| | # E | 6,869 | 10,094 | 23,033 | 7,691 | | # R | 230 | 251 | 256 | 240 | | # Train | 74,845 | 368,868 | 373,018 | 1,734,399 | | # Valid | 8,514 | 46,302 | 45,995 | 238,765 | | # Test | 7,371 | 46,159 | 49,545 | 305,241 | | Time gap | 24 hours | 24 hours | 24 hours | 15 mins | Table 3: The statistics of the datasets. modeling the KG sequence recurrently. It also incorporates the static properties of entities through a static graph module. However, to ensure fairness in comparisons among models, we remove the static properties in RE-GCN, as other models do not utilize additional information. xERTE4(Han et al., 2021a) is an explainable model that designs a sub-graph search strategy to identify answer entities. TITer5(Sun et al., 2021) is a reinforcement learning-based model, which performs a path search to predict future entities. TiRCN6(Li et al., 2022) is a model that utilizes a local recurrent graph encoder network to capture the historical dependency of events at adjacent timestamps. It also uses a global history encoder network to collect repeated historical facts. The static properties are removed to ensure fairness in comparisons among models. CENET7(Xu et al., 2023) is a model based on contrastive learning that learns both the historical and non-historical dependencies to distinguish the most potential entities. ## C Implementation Deatils We implement our L 2TKG in **Pytorch** (Paszke et al., 2019) and DGL Library (Wang et al., 2019). We use Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with learning rate set to 0.001 and l2 regularization λ2 set to 10−5. The embedding size is fixed to 200 for all methods. For the L 2TKG hyper-parameters, we apply a grid search on the validation set: the k1 and k2 values are searched in {2, 4, ..., 20}, the SE layer number ω and LRL layer number β in {1, 2, 3, 4}, and the length of local temporal representation m in {1, 2, *· · ·* , 10}. For ICEWS14, ICEWS05-15, ICEWS18, and GDELT, the optimal k1 values are 8, 10, 6, and 6. 4https://github.com/TemporalKGTeam/xERTE 5https://github.com/JHL-HUST/TITer 6https://github.com/Liyyy2122/TiRGN 7https://github.com/xyjigsaw/CENET  The optimal k2 values are 10, 10, 6, and 8. The optimal LRL layer number β are 2, 2, 1, and 2. The optimal length of local temporal representation m for are 3, 5, 6, and 1, respectively. The optimal SE layer number ω is 2 for all datasets. For the SE, we set the block dimension to 2 × 2 and the dropout rate for each layer to 0.2. For the ConvTransE of the score function, the number of kernels, kernel size, and the dropout rate are set to 50, 2 × 3, and 0.2, respectively. To enhance the efficiency of L 2TKG while maintaining performance, we appropriately preprocess historical TKG data when predicting queries of the form (es, r, ?, t + 1). Specifically, we only use the historical KG sequence in which es has appeared for the learning of latent relations. For example, entity es has appeared at time t1, t2, and t3, where t3 < t + 1. Then we input the representations of entities in {Gt1 , Gt2 , Gt3} into the LRL module to mine and exploit important latent relations. For the compared methods, we use the default hyper-parameters except for dimensions. We run the evaluation five times with different random seeds and report the mean value of each method. All experiments are conducted on NVIDIA Tesla V100 (32G) and Intel Xeon E5-2660. ## D Efficiency To examine the efficiency of our model, we compared L 2TKG with RE-GCN, TiRCN, xERTE, and RE-NET in terms of inference time on the test set. As shown in Figure 7, despite the fact that our L 2TKG uncovers and leverages numerous significant latent relations from historical entities, its inference speed surpasses that of TiRCN, xERTE, and RE-NET. We attribute this efficiency to the sparsification operations of LRL (§4.2) and the appropriate processing of data (Appendix C). Moreover, the fundamental components of L 2TKG primarily rely on the GNN model, which enables parallel computation, thus ensuring a more optimal balance between performance and efficiency. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitation ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? There are no potential risks in our paper. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 1(Introduction) ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 2,3,4 B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 5 ✗ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? The use of existing artifacts in our paper is only for research. ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? The use of existing artifacts in our work is only for research. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? The documentation of the artifacts is not the focus of our research. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 5.1.1 and Appendix A ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5, 6, Appendix C And D. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Yes, Appendix C reports the computing infrastructure used. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 6 and Appendix C. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Appendix C ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix C D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

wang-etal-2023-dt

{DT}-Solver: Automated Theorem Proving with Dynamic-Tree Sampling Guided by Proof-level Value Function

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.706

Recent advances in neural theorem-proving resort to large language models and tree searches. When proving a theorem, a language model advises single-step actions based on the current proving state and the tree search finds a sequence of correct steps using actions given by the language model. However, prior works often conduct constant computation efforts for each proving state while ignoring that the hard states often need more exploration than easy states. Moreover, they evaluate and guide the proof search solely depending on the current proof state instead of considering the whole proof trajectory as human reasoning does. Here, to accommodate general theorems, we propose a novel Dynamic-Tree Driven Theorem Solver (DT-Solver) by guiding the search procedure with state confidence and proof-level values. Specifically, DT-Solver introduces a dynamic-tree Monte-Carlo search algorithm, which dynamically allocates computing budgets for different state confidences, guided by a new proof-level value function to discover proof states that require substantial exploration. Experiments on two popular theorem-proving datasets, PISA and Mathlib, show significant performance gains by our DT-Solver over the state-of-the-art approaches, with a 6.65{\%} improvement on average in terms of success rate. And especially under low computing resource settings (11.03{\%} improvement on average).

## Dt-Solver: Automated Theorem Proving With Dynamic-Tree Sampling Guided By Proof-Level Value Function Haiming Wang1∗, Ye Yuan2, Zhengying Liu3 Jianhao Shen2, Yichun Yin3**, Jing Xiong**1, Enze Xie3, Han Shi3, Yujun Li3, Lin Li3, Jian Yin1†, Zhenguo Li3, Xiaodan Liang1,4† 1Sun Yat-sen University, 2Peking University, 3Huawei Noah's Ark Lab, 4MBZUAI {wanghm39,xiongj69}@mail2.sysu.edu.cn, {yuanye_pku,jhshen}@pku.edu.cn, {liuzhengying2,yinyichun,xie.enze,shi.han}@huawei.com {liyujun9,lilin29,Li.Zhenguo}@huawei.com issjyin@mail.sysu.edu.cn, xdliang328@gmail.com ## Abstract Recent advances in neural theorem-proving resort to large language models and tree searches. When proving a theorem, a language model advises single-step actions based on the current proving state and the tree search finds a sequence of correct steps using actions given by the language model. However, prior works often conduct constant computation efforts for each proving state while ignoring that the hard states often need more exploration than easy states. Moreover, they evaluate and guide the proof search solely depending on the current proof state instead of considering the whole proof trajectory as human reasoning does. Here, to accommodate general theorems, we propose a novel Dynamic-Tree Driven Theorem Solver (**DT-Solver)** by guiding the search procedure with state confidence and proof-level values. Specifically, DT-Solver introduces a dynamic-tree Monte-Carlo search algorithm, which dynamically allocates computing budgets for different state confidences, guided by a new proof-level value function to discover proof states that require substantial exploration. Experiments on two popular theorem-proving datasets, PISA and Mathlib, show significant performance gains by our DT-Solver over the state-of-the-art approaches, with a 6.65% improvement on average in terms of success rate. And especially under low computing resource settings (11.03% improvement on average). ## 1 Introduction Automated theorem proving (ATP) (Harrison et al., 2014) has been considered an essential task of Artificial Intelligence (AI) ever since the birth of modern AI (McCarthy et al., 2006). Besides its remarkable theoretical value and huge potential to accelerate research in mathematics, ATP already demonstrates excellent application value in, for ex- Figure 1: Illustration of a theorem and its proof  in Lean (de Moura et al., 2015). The theorem sub_ne_zero_of_ne states that if the hypothesis h holds (i.e. we have a ̸= b), then we have a − b ̸= 0. Three proof steps are used to prove this theorem. After the keyword begin, a proof state (containing one or several goals) is initialized. Then each proof step is applied to the current proof state to obtain a new one until a proof state 'goals accomplished' is reached, which marks the success of the proof. ample, formal verification (Barras et al., 1997) and code generation (Howard, 1980). In general, the goal of a theorem proving task is to construct a *proof* (a sequence of proof steps) that *proves* a given theorem (often within a given time budget, e.g. 300 seconds). The validity of this proof is verified by a *formal environment* in which the theorem and the proof are formalized. We show in Fig. 1 an example of a theorem proven in Lean (de Moura et al., 2015), a formal environment we use in this work. Sec.2.1 gives more details on the formal environment. To deal with this theorem proving problem automatically, many task-specific algorithms have been proposed and are later implemented as stateof-the-art ATP solvers such as Z3 (de Moura and Bjørner, 2008), Vampire (Kovács and Voronkov, 2013), E (Schulz, 2002) and Zipperposition (Bentkamp et al., 2021). These approaches are taskspecific in that they are specific to one given formal environment and rely on solid domain knowledge, symbolic operations, and usually human heuris12632 tics. With the exciting development of deep learning (LeCun et al., 2015) over the past decade, approaches (not necessarily for ATP) in the *taskagnostic* paradigm have been proposed, such as AlphaZero (Silver et al., 2017) and more recently Gato (Reed et al., 2022). As for ATP, task-agnostic approaches are also proposed. For example, GPTf (Polu and Sutskever, 2020) uses a language model to suggest a set of candidates for the next proof step and then search for a complete valid proof within the formal system Metamath (MEGILL and DAVID A, 2019). In contrast to classic ATP algorithms, GPT-f has remarkable generality and can be applied to any ATP tasks in any formal system, such as propositional logic, first-order logic, higherorder logic, typed lambda calculi, etc. With GPT-f, domain knowledge and human heuristics are no more absolutely required. Some works following the workflow of GPT-f are introduced in A.2. Although approaches such as GPT-f demonstrate impressive generality and performance, they still have two significant drawbacks. **On the one hand**, GPT-f consumes considerable computational resources. According to (Lample et al., 2022), the original GPT-f requires 2000 GPU days (A100) for training, and their approach HTPS (HyperTree Proof Search (Lample et al., 2022)) also consumes more than 1000 GPU days for one training process, which sets a prohibitive threshold for most researchers. Even worse, the cost for inference with GPT models and search can be 5 to 10 times heavier than that of training. **On the other hand**, the search process in GPT-f could reach a state of 'empty queue', where all proof step candidates (i.e. all leaf nodes in the search tree) generated by the language model turn out to be inapplicable. This can typically take place within the time budget and an premature 'Failed' result is returned, potentially resulting in a low *pass rate* (sometimes we also use the term 'one-pass success rate' to be more specific). Also, prior works (Polu and Sutskever, 2020; Han et al., 2021; Polu et al., 2022) often conduct constant computation efforts for each proving state while ignoring that the hard states often need more exploration than easy states. Moreover, they evaluate and guide the proof search solely depending on the current proof state instead of considering the whole proof trajectory as human reasoning does. In this work, we address the above two issues and propose a novel Dynamic-Tree driven Theorem **Solver** (DT-Solver). As an automated theoremproving algorithm, DT-Solver uses *dynamic-tree* sampling guided by a *proof-level value function*. We illustrate these two main components as follows. - **Dynamic-tree sampling.** To remedy the issue of premature failure with 'empty queue', we allow the nodes in the search tree to be expanded (i.e. generate child nodes using proof steps predicted by the language model) *several times*, instead of being expanded just once (as proposed by GPT-f). To achieve this, we add an imaginary node or a *virtual node* to each node in the search tree. When this virtual node is selected, no specific *proof step* is applied. Instead, we use the language model again to generate possible *proof steps* and potentially produce new and promising child nodes (proof states). Thus the width of the search tree can be adjusted *dynamically*. Furthermore, we modify the usual PUCT score in the Monte-Carlo tree search to ensure that the computational resources focus on promising but possibly 'hard' nodes. We find this dynamic sampling technique helpful and obtain an increase of 39.9% -> 48.4% in terms of the pass rate. - **Proof-level value function.** Different from GPT-f (Polu and Sutskever, 2020) and HTPS (Lample et al., 2022), which use steplevel value function to guide the search, we train another encoder-only transformer, RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) to predict whether a new *proof state* is on the right track to finishing the proof. As we consider the whole proof instead of the current proof step, this RoBERTa model is actually a *proof-level* value function. We find that this technique can help increase the value function's accuracy, for instance, from 63.6% to 70.7%. ## 2 Background 2.1 Formal Mathematics Environments Following (Han et al., 2021; Polu et al., 2022) and (Jiang et al., 2021, 2022), we choose Lean (de Moura et al., 2015) and Isabelle (Paulson, 1994) as our formal environments. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the theorem-proving process in Lean (and similarly in Isabelle) consists of sequentially applying a proof step (also known as a tactic) to a given theorem statement. Specifically, the formal environment first constructs an initial proof state from the theorem statement, which contains one or multiple goals to be proved. Seeking to solve all goals in the proof state, the user produces a proof step that applies an existing theorem (apply int.eq_of_sub_eq_zero), introduces some new assumptions (intro hap), or tells the formal environment to use techniques like proof by contradiction or mathematical induction. If the produced proof step is applicable, the formal environment applies the proof step and transforms the original proof state into a new proof state. This process is repeated until the proof state reaches 'no goals' (or 'goals accomplished' as illustrated), which means all goals in the theorem are proven. ## 2.2 Language Model Guided Theorem Proving Recent approaches that use language models to solve the ATP problem mostly follow the work from GPT-f. Given the current proof state, a causal language model (usually a decoder-only transformer like GPT (Radford et al.)) is used to predict possible proof steps that can be applied. Concretely, the language model is trained on sequences in the following form using a language modeling objective: GOAL $(proof state) PROOFSTEP $(proof step) where $(·) is the placeholder for the actual proof state and proof step. At test time, multiple new proof steps are sampled from the language model giving a prompt as follows: GOAL $(proof state) PROOFSTEP We denote this atomic operation as expansion. To construct a complete proof for a given theorem, GPT-f adopts the best-first search algorithm that iterates among selecting a best-scoring proof state from the priority queue to expand, doing expansion using the language model with the selected proof state, and adding new states to the priority queue. Each state's score is either calculated by a value function or uses the prior probability of the preceding proof step. Iterations continue until GPT-f finds the theorem's proof or reaches the limit of computational budgets. ## 3 Methodology Starting from the initial state of the theorem, DT-Solver adapts the language model to suggest forward-moving actions and empowers dynamictree sampling guided by a proof-level value function to find the complete proof path. This is accomplished by a three-step pipeline: (1) Following procedures described in Sec. 2.2, DT-Solver trains a language model using supervised data extracted from formal mathematics libraries to predict proof steps based on proof states. The trained language model is called the *policy model*. (2) Subsequently, dynamic-tree sampling uses the trained policy model to generate steps and searches for theorems proofs in the training set. A data collection procedure collects proof trajectories from successful proof searches. (3) Lastly, DT-Solver trains the proof-level value function (called the *critic model*) to identify promising proof paths from astray ones on collected data with a classification loss. At test time, to evaluate the performance of our method, we use the trained policy model and critic model to perform dynamic-tree sampling on the test set theorems. In the following section, we first introduce the dynamic-tree sampling algorithm and the data collection procedure (Sec.3.1). After that, we introduce our proof-level value function (Sec. 3.2). ## 3.1 Dynamic-Tree Sampling The dynamic-tree sampling algorithm strives to maximize the efficiency of the search procedure under limited computational budgets. In practice, it controls the exploration of different proof states according to two criteria: state value and model confidence. The state value estimates whether the state is on the correct proof path. Only high-valued states deserve more exploration. The model confidence is calculated with the prior probabilities of the current state's proof step. A state is considered to require more exploration if the policy model cannot produce confident steps toward the current state. To achieve the above objectives, we build the dynamic-tree sampling based on the Monte-Carlo tree search algorithm. As shown in Fig. 2, dynamic tree sampling progressively adds new proof states to construct a proof tree. Specifically, each node in the proof tree represents a proof state denoted as si ∈ {s0, s1*..., s*M}, where M is the total number of tree nodes. Each edge represents a proof step denoted as aj ∈ {a0, a1*..., a*M−1}, where M − 1 is the total number of edges. For notational clarity, the edge from sito sj is always denoted as aj , using the same subscript as sj . Similar to the classic Monte-Carlo tree search algorithm, every node-edge pair in the proof tree has a visit count  denoted as N(si, aj ) and a value count denoted as W(si, aj ). Starting from the root node, dynamictree sampling repeats the following three steps until the theorem's proof is found or the computational budget is exhausted. (1) The selection phase (Fig. 2(a)). Dynamic-tree sampling computes the PUCT score for child nodes and the virtual child node. We select the highest-scoring child node and proceed according to the following conditions: if a non-virtual child node is selected, dynamic-tree sampling continues the selection phrase from the selected child node. If a virtual node is selected, the selection phase ends and proceeds to expansion & evaluation. (2) The expansion & evaluation phase (Fig. 2(b)(d)(e)). Dynamic-tree sampling performs expansion on the parent node of the selected virtual node. A fixed number (denoted as e) of proof steps are sampled from the trained policy model. The formal environment verifies proof steps and produces new proof states, which are then deduplicated and evaluated by the critic model, and finally added to the tree. (3) The backpropagation phase (Fig. 2(c)). Dynamic-tree sampling backpropagates new state scores to the root state by successively adding the score to the parent's value count W and accumulating visit count N. We detailed the selection and backpropagation phrases in the following. The expansion phase is well discussed and we leave the details about evaluating states' value in Sec. 3.2 Selection. We denote the current node to perform selection as st, and its children as sc ∈ C(st) where C(·) is the function that returns all the children for a given node. The virtual child of stis denoted as s′t . The PUCT score for each child node sc ∈ C(st) is formulated as follow: $$\mathrm{PUCT}_{s_{c}}={\frac{W(s_{t},a_{c})}{N(s_{t},a_{c})}}+c\cdot p(a_{c}|s_{t})\cdot{\frac{\sqrt{N(s_{t},\cdot)}}{N(s_{t},a_{c})}}\qquad\qquad(1)$$ where c is a constant balancing the exploration and exploitation trade-off, and p(ac|st) is the probability (estimated by the language model) of generating the proof step ac given current state st. The PUCT score for the virtual child node s′t is formulated as follow: $$\mathrm{PUCT}_{s^{\prime}_{t}}=v a l_{s^{\prime}_{t}}+c\cdot c o n f_{s^{\prime}_{t}}\cdot{\frac{\sqrt{N(s_{t},\cdot)}}{|C(s_{t})|}}\quad(2)$$ $$v a l_{s^{\prime}_{t}}=1-\operatorname*{max}_{s_{c}\in C(s_{t})}{\frac{W(s_{t},a_{c})}{N(s_{t},a_{c})}}\quad\quad(3)$$ $$c o n f_{s^{\prime}_{t}}=1-\sum_{s_{c}\in C(s_{t})}p(a_{c}|s_{t})\quad\quad(4)$$ where |C(st)| is the number of children st have. Two parts control the score of selecting the virtual node. vals′t estimates the value of the virtual node. When st finds high-valued promising children, vals′t will have a low score, indicating that no more exploration is required on st. *conf*s′t estimates the model confidence on st. The value of confs′t remains high until confident proof steps are generated. The model confidence is discounted by the number of children st have and keeps annealing with more exploration performed on st. In the selection phase, we repeatedly select the child node with the highest PUCT score and continue until we reach a virtual node. The selection process empowers dynamic-tree sampling by being able to backtrack to previously expanded states, eliminating the "empty queue" failure and drastically increasing DT-Solver's stability of finding valid proof. Backpropagation. The backpropagation follows the classical Monte-Carlo tree search. We denote the function that returns the node's parent as P(·). The value counts W(P(sc), ac) and visit counts N(P(sc), ac) are both initialized as 0 for newly add child node. Given the newly added leaf state sc and its estimated score vc, dynamic-tree sampling repeats the following steps until the root node is reached: (1) Accumulate the visit count N(P(sc), ac) += 1, and accumulate the value count W(P(sc), ac) += vc (2) Traverse back the tree by changing the current node to the parent sc ⇐ P(sc). Data collection. To construct a proof-level value function capable of identifying promising states from astray ones, DT-Solver collects supervised training data by performing dynamic-tree sampling in training set theorems1. Specifically, DT-Solver collects trajectories data in the form of ([(s0, a0),(s1, a1), ...,(sl, al)], y), where s0 is the root state and slis the leaf state. The label y = 1 if the trajectory correctly proves the theorem and y = 0 otherwise. The same data collection procedure is performed on the validation and test theorems for testing the value function. ## 3.2 Proof-Level Value Function The performance and efficiency of the dynamictree sampling algorithm depend heavily on correctly evaluated state values. Existing methods like GPT-f only use a representation of the current state to assess the state's quality. However, according to our close-up observation, states along correct proof paths tend to be more similar and consistent, while states along false proof paths exhibit more diversity. 1At this stage, the proof-level value function is not applicable; thus the state's preceding step's prior probability is used as value estimate v.  Thus, it is beneficial to use proof-level information to estimate the value of a state. Accordingly, shown in Fig. 3, we propose four types of proof-level value functions. Current-stateonly value function construct supervised data formatted as (sl, y) from the collected trajectory data. A Roberta language model is fine-tuned on the current-state-only data with a classification loss. Root-state-and-current-state value function constructs sentence pair data formatted as ([s0, sl], y) from the collected trajectory. The two states are concatenated and fed into the Roberta to predict the state's value. Conversely, previous-state-tocurrent-state uses more recent state information and formats the training data as ([sl−1, sl], y). Entiretrajectory value function concatenates the entire proof path as follows: GOAL $(s0) PROOFSTEP $(a0) </s></s> GOAL $(s1) PROOFSTEP $(a1) ... where the </s></s> separate different stateaction pair. Empirically, the entire-trajectory value function performs the best in the value function test set, but slightly worse than the Root-state-andcurrent-state value function in end-to-end proof successful rate. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Experimental Setup Implementation details. In this paper, we adopt the same model setup from PACT (Han et al., 2021) 2in Lean formal environment and Thor(Jiang et al., 2022) in Isabelle formal environment for better comparison. Detailed model configuration and training procedure are described at Sec. A.3 in Appendix. Dataset. To validate our proposed DT-Solver, we choose the Mathlib dataset in the Lean formal environment and the PISA dataset constructed from Archive of Formal Proofs (AFP) in the Isabelle formal environment. Although both datasets are extracted from the world's largest formal mathematical libraries, these two datasets have very different characteristics. Mathlib's proof steps are instructional, such as applying a theorem or simplifying a goal. Contrary, Isabelle's proof steps are more human-friendly and declarative. The proof step is usually led by a conjecture to proof and followed by short instructions to prove it. Empirically, it is much harder for the model to suggest a correct conjecture. Detailed statics regarding the training dataset are shown in Table.4 and Table.5 in Appendix. Baseline methods. For the Isabelle formal environment, we compare our DT-Solver with Lisa (Jiang et al., 2021) 3, the first work that applies the GPT-f model to the Isabelle environment. In addition, Lisa proposes to add previous proof context to the original proof state to help the lan- | Dataset | Methods | low. ↑ | high. ↑ | OTR ↑ | SOTR | Time (s) | STime (s) | |-----------------------------------|-----------|----------|-------------|-------------|---------------|--------------|-------------| | Lisa† (Jiang et al., 2021) | 16.8 | 27.3 | 15.2 / 23.1 | 57.0 / 47.4 | 58.6 / 229.4 | 26.4 / 108.7 | | | Lisa+MCTS | 13.3 | 21.1 | 11.7 / 17.3 | 53.3 / 47.2 | 37.8 / 209.3 | 24.2 / 51.3 | | | Lisa+DT-Solver | 26.7 | 27.6 | 19.7 / 20.6 | 53.0 / 44.5 | 176.5 / 229.1 | 45.8 / 88.7 | | | GPT-f† (Polu and Sutskever, 2020) | 12.6 | 23.4 | 11.9 / 19.2 | 61.3 / 48.2 | 7.6 / 77.6 | 15.1 / 83.2 | | | PACT† (Han et al., 2021) | 22.6 | 35.1 | 20.2 / 30.1 | 54.4 / 53.5 | 23.1 / 165.4 | 29.1 / 98.6 | | | Expert iter.† (Polu et al., 2022) | 39.9 | 45.9 | 35.5 / 40.5 | 53.6 / 50.8 | 61.4 / 149.2 | 34.1 / 87.3 | | | PACT+MCTS | 23.2 | 36.1 | 20.5 / 29.6 | 48.6 / 45.0 | 32.8 / 170.1 | 61.3 / 115.4 | | | Expert iter.+MCTS | 40.9 | 47.1 | 35.4 / 40.2 | 48.1 / 46.1 | 75.3 / 150.8 | 64.3 / 101.2 | | | PACT+DT-Solver | 37.3 | 39.3 | 28.3 / 31.7 | 43.0 / 42.4 | 203.9 / 204.3 | 95.5 / 136.6 | | | Expert iter.+DT-Solver | 48.4 | 48.2 | 39.5 / 40.2 | 45.5 / 45.6 | 167.7 / 175.2 | 75.6 / 103.9 | | guage model predict the following proof states. For the Lean formal environment, besides the original GPT-f model (Polu and Sutskever, 2020), we compare our DT-Solver with PACT (Han et al., 2021) and Expert iteration (Polu et al., 2022) PACT (Proof Artifact Co-training) built upon the GPT-f model and proposed to co-train the language model with nine auxiliary tasks. Expert iteration bootstraps the language model by training the model with self-generated data from proof searches. All the baseline methods described above use the bestfirst search algorithm described in Sec. 2.2. DT-Solver follows previous work to construct a policy model. For fair comparisons, we use the same policy models from baseline methods. Specifically, three policy models are trained: Lisa, PACT, and Expert iter. We evaluate our DT-Solver by substituting the best-first search with dynamic-tree sampling and entire-trajectory proof-level value function. For ablation, we substitute dynamic-tree sampling with classic Monte-Carlo tree search but leave the policy and critic models unchanged. All the baseline methods are re-implemented by ourselves since none of them releases the code. ## 4.2 Main Results 4.2.1 Comparison With State-Of-The-Art As shown in Table 1, our proposed DT-Solver dramatically outperforms all the baseline methods under all scenarios. Specifically, Expert iter.+DTSolver improves from 39.9% to 48.4% in the lowresource setting, surpassing the model performance of 45.9% for the Expert iter. method in high- | PISA mathlib | |----------------| | Methods | acc. ↑ | low. ↑ | OTR ↑ | SOTR ↑ | Time(s) ↓ | |-------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|---------|----------|-------------| | ✄ Ablation: Log prob (Polu and Sutskever, 2020) | - | 47.9 | 39.4 | 51.7 | 150.3 | | Outcome (Han et al., 2021) | 63.62 | 47.6 | 39.5 | 48.1 | 175.7 | | ✄ Expert iter.+DT-Solver: Current state only | 66.43 | 48.2 | 38.6 | 47.6 | 169.2 | | Root state and current state | 68.01 | 48.9 | 38.7 | 48.7 | 167.1 | | Previous state to current state | 69.39 | 49.6 | 39.3 | 44.5 | 167.9 | | Entire trajectory | 70.70 | 48.4 | 39.5 | 45.5 | 167.7 | resource settings. Moreover, in the low-resources setting, PACT+DT-Solver achieves a success rate of 37.3%, only 2.6% worse than the Expert iter. baseline of 39.9%. This result implies that our proposed DT-Solver can substantially close the gap brought by different policy models and empower weaker models to solve more difficult problems. The same improvement applies to the PISA dataset, where the Lisa+DT-Solver model improves from 16.8% to 26.7% in the Lisa baseline. In the high resources setting, the effectiveness of DT-Solver is marginalized by high expansion samples in the best-first search algorithm. Nevertheless, Our DTSolver can still improve upon baseline methods 2.25% on average. Focusing on how well different search algorithms can find the correct proof state to perform expansion, we calculated the global on-track rate (OTR) and successful on-track rate (SOTR). Ontrack rate averages the rate of selecting the correct nodes to expand in each proof search. As shown in the Table, our proposed DT-Solver has the highest global on-track rate in most scenarios. The result shows that DT-Solver with proof-level value function can locate states requiring more exploration and finds the proof efficiently. The best success on-track rate and shortest average search time are biased toward weaker policy models. The high successful on-track rate with weak policy models is accomplished by only being able to solve simple theorems within one or two steps long. Meanwhile, the short average search time is because a weak policy model with the best-first search quickly exhausted the plausible action, resulting in a state named "empty queue" that quickly declares the search's failure. Although DTSolver takes more time to solve a theorem, the algorithm makes maximum utility within the given time limitation. On average, Expert iter.+DT-Solver only uses 10.2 seconds more to find 5.4% more proofs that Expert iter. in the high-resource setting. Calculating only the successful proof search, Expert iter.+DT-Solver in the low-resources setting uses 75.6 seconds on average to solve a problem, which is 11.6 seconds less than the high-resources setting counterpart Expert iter. ## 4.2.2 The Effect Of Dynamic-Tree Sampling We compare our proposed dynamic tree sampling with the classic Monte-Carlo tree search algorithm (MCTS). MCTS disables dynamic tree sampling by restricting the selection process until a nonexpanded leaf node, denoting no backtracking capabilities. As shown in Table. 1, PACT+MCTS and Expert iter.+MCTS both improved against PACT and Expert iter. 0.95% on average. This shows MCTS a better algorithm to locate correct proof states in proof searches. Compared to DT-Solver, the model's performance dropped drastically without the ability to backtrack to previous states. In the low-resources setting, MCTS, on average, drops 11.25% in success rate compared to DT-Solver. We observe similar performance drops in the PISA dataset. From these results, we believe that the back-tracking capability in DT-Solver plays a vital role in improving the algorithm effect. ## 4.2.3 The Effect Of Proof-Level Value Function To validate the effectiveness of our proof-level value function, we substitute the proof-level value function with outcome value function (Han et al., 2021) and log prob value function (Polu and Sutskever, 2020). Additionally, We calculate the value function's accuracy on the created value function test set to evaluate the performance of different value functions. As shown in Table 2, the critic model using Roberta as the classifier backbone performs better than the GPT counterpart (Log prob and Outcome). The entire-trajectory value func-   tion substantially outperforms the outcome objective baseline in test set accuracy. Furthermore, the previous-to-current-state value functions provide the best end-to-end result. The result indicates that the state value is better estimated by more recent representations, instead of a remote anchor. The minor disadvantage of the entire-trajectory value function might be the over-length trajectories, which need to be truncated to feed into the language model for prediction. Specifically, trajectories with lengths exceeding the maximum LM input were truncated from the left, resulting in the absence of the root state being preserved as a prefix. Among all value function queries, truncation occurred at a frequency of 53.00%, covering 53.54% of theorems in the Lean test set. However, when employing the "root-state-and-current-state" strategy, truncation only took place 3.10% of the time. We have extracted a sub-dataset that solely contains theorems with shorter proofs. This subset enables one to calculate the "entire trajectory" value function without resorting to any truncation. Table 3 shows the performance of root-state-and-current-state and | Methods | low. ↑ | OTR ↑ | SOTR ↑ | Time(s) ↓ | |-------------------|----------|---------|----------|-------------| | Root & current | 90.67 | 82.9 | 56.7 | 41.0 | | Entire trajectory | 93.22 | 86.7 | 57.6 | 32.4 | entire-trajectory strategies in the short-proof subset. This outcome validates our initial hypothesis that truncation harms the overall performance of the value function. ## 4.2.4 The Effect Of Balancing Exploration And Exploitation In this section, we seek to understand how c in Eq.1 and Eq.2 affect model performance. As shown in Fig.5, with larger c, the dynamic tree sampling weights more on the model prior to determining which node to select. DT-Solver achieves a better end-to-end success rate with larger c. This result indicates that more exploration and back-tracking are beneficial to find more plausible actions. However, the SOTR achieves the best performance in c = 0.5; this shows better selection accuracy when we focus more on exploiting the value function's state estimates. ## 4.3 Case Study In this section, we conduct a detailed case study for a close-up look at the result DT-solver produced. More examples are shown in Sec. A.4. As shown in Fig. 4, we compare proof from DT-solver with the expert iteration policy model and best-first searchbased expert iteration policy model. The theorem rpow_le_rpow_left_iff_of_base_lt_one aims to prove that for x ∈ (0, 1) and *y, z* ∈ R, we have x y ≤ x zif and only if z ≤ y. Both approaches can produce (by prediction and search) the same first 6 proof steps. These steps rewrite (with the tactic rw) the goal with previously proved theorems such as rpow_def_of_pos (if x > 0 then x y = exp(x · log y)) and exp_le_exp (e x ≤ e yif and only if x ≤ y). Here, we focus on Fig. 4 left. After the tactic application of the first rw [<- not_lt], DT-solver fails to generate the second rw [<- not_lt] subsequently. Ordinarily, such a malfunction in the best-first search algorithm would lead to the persistence of incorrect states without the opportunity to re-explore the node after the first application of rw [<- not_lt]. Nevertheless, the utilization of our Dynamic-tree sampling approach and proof-level value function facilitates the algorithm's return to the node after 9 attempts to explore other search branches. Upon the decision to re-expand the state, there were 20 unexpanded states, and the total number of different states stood at 41. Thus the prooflevel value function plays an essential role in identifying the appropriate states for re-expansion. With the best-first search algorithm, we see that the search tree has a width of 1 or 2 and one easily falls into a state of 'empty queue', where no candidate generated by the language model is applicable. The approach stops the search process and returns failed before the time budget (300 seconds) is used up. While for DT-Solver, the number of child nodes varies from 1 to 5 and has greater variance than the best-first search. Although the number of child nodes can be relatively larger, the search process of DT-Solver manages to achieve a good balance between exploration and exploitation. Eventually, DT-Solver finds proof of 11 steps within the time budget with higher OTR (36.3% > 21.8%) than the best-first search. ## 5 Conclusion In this work, we introduced a new ATP method, DT-Solver, which uses a proof-level value function to guide the dynamic tree sampling algorithm. DTSolver smartly allocates computational budget to states that require more exploration and reduces the cost on easy states. The proof-level value function effectively locates difficult states. Extensive tests show that our method can indeed improve success rates on both PISA and mathlib datasets while being efficient enough to find proofs within a limited time budget. Although our method brings substantial advantages, there remain multiple aspects for improvement in the future, such as utilizing the formal environment's feedback or reducing enormous search spaces with high-level proof planning. ## 6 Limitations Due to the limited ability of the policy model, most theorem still failed to find the proof because of poorly suggested proof steps. Predicting the proof step from the proof state requires substantial reasoning ability. It's observed in the experiment that the language model tends to produce the same proof step in training data, and is unsatisfactory in generalizing for new states. Another limitation resides in the proof-level value functions. Although the performance of the proof-level value functions shows promising improvement in the value function test set. The end-to-end pass rate diminishes the performance gap. This accounts for two major reasons: 1) weak policy model fails to produce correct action even if our value function correctly located the state to expand. 2) Our value function's performance is still behind the performance threshold where the value really helps the search drastically. One future direction is to enhance the language model for better reasoning ability by using a larger language model or adding symbolic reasoning into the language model to produce more reasonable proof steps and better evaluate states' value. ## 7 Acknowledgement This work was supported in part by the National Key R&D Program of China under Grant No. 2020AAA0109700, Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (Grant No. RCYX20200714114642083) and Shenzhen Fundamental Research Program(Grant No. JCYJ20190807154211365) ## References Alexander A. Alemi, François Chollet, Niklas Een, Geoffrey Irving, Christian Szegedy, and Josef Urban. 2016. DeepMath - deep sequence models for premise selection. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'16, pages 2243–2251, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. Kshitij Bansal, Christian Szegedy, Markus Norman Rabe, Sarah M. Loos, and Viktor Toman. 2020. Learning to Reason in Large Theories without Imitation. Bruno Barras, Samuel Boutin, Cristina Cornes, Judicaël Courant, Jean-Christophe Filliâtre, Eduardo Giménez, Hugo Herbelin, Gérard Huet, César Muñoz, Chetan Murthy, Catherine Parent, Christine PaulinMohring, Amokrane Saïbi, and Benjamin Werner. 1997. *The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual :* Version 6.1. report, INRIA. Pages: 214. Alexander Bentkamp, Jasmin Blanchette, Sophie Tourret, and Petar Vukmirovic. 2021. ´ Superposition for Full Higher-order Logic. In Automated Deduction – CADE 28, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 396–412, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Leonardo de Moura and Nikolaj Bjørner. 2008. Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In *Tools and Algorithms for* the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 337–340, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer. Leonardo de Moura, Soonho Kong, Jeremy Avigad, Floris van Doorn, and Jakob von Raumer. 2015. The Lean Theorem Prover (System Description). In *Automated Deduction - CADE-25*, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 378–388, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, Shawn Presser, and Connor Leahy. 2020. The Pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027. Jesse Michael Han, Jason Rute, Yuhuai Wu, Edward W. Ayers, and Stanislas Polu. 2021. Proof Artifact Cotraining for Theorem Proving with Language Models. ICLR 2022. ArXiv: 2102.06203. John Harrison, Josef Urban, and Freek Wiedijk. 2014. History of interactive theorem proving. In *Computational Logic*, volume 9, pages 135–214. William Alvin Howard. 1980. The Formulae-as-Types Notion of Construction. In Haskell Curry, Hindley B, Seldin J. Roger, and P. Jonathan, editors, To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus, and Formalism. Academic Press. Albert Q Jiang, Wenda Li, Szymon Tworkowski, Konrad Czechowski, Tomasz Odrzygó´zd´z, Piotr Miłos,´ Yuhuai Wu, and Mateja Jamnik. 2022. Thor: Wielding hammers to integrate language models and automated theorem provers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10893. Albert Qiaochu Jiang, Wenda Li, Jesse Michael Han, and Yuhuai Wu. 2021. Lisa: Language models of isabelle proofs. Laura Kovács and Andrei Voronkov. 2013. First-Order Theorem Proving and Vampire. In Computer Aided Verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–35, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer. Guillaume Lample, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Xavier Martinet, Amaury Hayat, Gabriel Ebner, Aurélien Rodriguez, and Timothée Lacroix. 2022. HyperTree Proof Search for Neural Theorem Proving. Technical Report arXiv:2205.11491, arXiv. ArXiv:2205.11491 [cs] type: article. Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2015. Deep learning. *Nature*, 521(7553):436–444. Number: 7553 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. Wenda Li, Lei Yu, Yuhuai Wu, and Lawrence C. Paulson. 2020. IsarStep: a Benchmark for High-level Mathematical Reasoning. In *ICLR 2021*. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. *CoRR*, abs/1907.11692. John McCarthy, Marvin L Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester, and Claude E Shannon. 2006. A proposal for the dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence, august 31, 1955. *AI magazine*, 27(4):12–12. NORMAN. WHEELER MEGILL and DAVID A. 2019. METAMATH: a computer language for mathematical proofs. Lulu Press, Place of publication not identified. OCLC: 1105224041. Lawrence C. Paulson. 1994. *Isabelle a Generic Theorem Prover*. Springer Verlag. Stanislas Polu, Jesse Michael Han, Kunhao Zheng, Mantas Baksys, Igor Babuschkin, and Ilya Sutskever. 2022. Formal Mathematics Statement Curriculum Learning. Technical Report arXiv:2202.01344, arXiv. ArXiv:2202.01344 [cs] type: article. Stanislas Polu and Ilya Sutskever. 2020. Generative Language Modeling for Automated Theorem Proving. arXiv:2009.03393 [cs, stat]. ArXiv: 2009.03393. Markus Norman Rabe, Dennis Lee, Kshitij Bansal, and Christian Szegedy. 2020. Mathematical Reasoning via Self-supervised Skip-tree Training. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners. page 24. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Scott Reed, Konrad Zolna, Emilio Parisotto, Sergio Gomez Colmenarejo, Alexander Novikov, Gabriel Barth-Maron, Mai Gimenez, Yury Sulsky, Jackie Kay, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Tom Eccles, Jake Bruce, Ali Razavi, Ashley Edwards, Nicolas Heess, Yutian Chen, Raia Hadsell, Oriol Vinyals, Mahyar Bordbar, and Nando de Freitas. 2022. A Generalist Agent. Technical Report arXiv:2205.06175, arXiv. ArXiv:2205.06175 [cs] type: article. Stephan Schulz. 2002. E - a brainiac theorem prover. AI Communications, 15(2,3):111–126. David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J. Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George van den Driessche, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, Sander Dieleman, Dominik Grewe, John Nham, Nal Kalchbrenner, Ilya Sutskever, Timothy Lillicrap, Madeleine Leach, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Thore Graepel, and Demis Hassabis. 2016. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. *Nature*, 529(7587):484– 489. Number: 7587 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. David Silver, Thomas Hubert, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Matthew Lai, Arthur Guez, Marc Lanctot, Laurent Sifre, Dharshan Kumaran, Thore Graepel, Timothy Lillicrap, Karen Simonyan, and Demis Hassabis. 2017. Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm. *arXiv:1712.01815 [cs]*. ArXiv: 1712.01815. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998–6008. Mingzhe Wang and Jia Deng. 2020. Learning to Prove Theorems by Learning to Generate Theorems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 18146–18157. Curran Associates, Inc. Daniel Whalen. 2016. Holophrasm: a neural Automated Theorem Prover for higher-order logic. Technical Report arXiv:1608.02644, arXiv. ArXiv:1608.02644 [cs] type: article. Yuhuai Wu, Albert Qiaochu Jiang, Jimmy Ba, and Roger Grosse. 2021. INT: An Inequality Benchmark for Evaluating Generalization in Theorem Proving. ICLR 2021. ArXiv: 2007.02924. ## A.3 Experimental Details A.3.1 Experimental Setup A Appendix A.1 Overview A.2 Related Works GPT-f (Polu and Sutskever, 2020). Methods such as DeeMath (Alemi et al., 2016), Holophrasm (Whalen, 2016), HOList (Bansal et al., 2020; Rabe et al., 2020) and MetaGen (Wang and Deng, 2020) all apply one or several neural networks to recommend premises and proof steps. Then the search can either be guided by a neural network or not. GPT-f (Polu and Sutskever, 2020) uses a finetuned GPT-2 (Radford et al.) as the language model to recommend the next proof step for the current proof state (called *tactic state* in Lean) and apply a best-first search based on the log-prob of the sequence predicted by the language model. Based on this framework, PACT (Han et al., 2021) provides a multi-tasking training scheme for a slightly larger GPT-2 model. Polu et al. (Polu et al., 2022) further introduce expert iteration (Silver et al., 2017) to achieve a sort of data augmentation to improve the training of the language model further. Most recently, HTPS (Lample et al., 2022) plugs in MonteCarlo Tree Search (Silver et al., 2016) in this framework and applies an online version of expert iteration, which further advances the state-of-the-art performance on Metamath and the Lean benchmark miniF2F (Zheng et al., 2021). Approaches in a similar paradigm have also been successfully applied to other formal systems such as Isabelle (Paulson, 1994; Li et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2021, 2022), Lean (de Moura et al., 2015; Han et al., 2021; Polu et al., 2022; Lample et al., 2022) and other customized systems such as INT (Wu et al., 2021; Polu and Sutskever, 2020) and Equations (Lample et al., 2022). Kunhao Zheng, Jesse Michael Han, and Stanislas Polu. 2021. miniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematics. Model specification. The policy model is a decoder-only transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) language model with 774M parameters, 36 layers, 20 attention heads, a hidden dimension of 1280, and a GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2018) tokenizer with 50400 vocabulary size. The model is pre-trained on Github python codes and the arXiv library. For lean, we further pre-train our policy model on the PACT dataset (mix1 and mix2 as denoted in PACT). During per-training, we use a global batch size of 512 with 2500 steps warmup using the AdamW optimizer. The cosine learning rate scheduling strategy is used with a maximum learning rate of 5 ∗ 10−5and a minimum learning rate 5 ∗ 10−6. 12642 In the appendix, we first discuss related works in Section A.2. We give more implementation details and dataset statistics of DT-Solver in Section A.3. More examples of theorem proven by DT-Solver are shown in Section A.4. Deep learning has already been applied to automated theorem proving prior to The policy model is pre-trained for 250000 step. For fine-tuning in Lean, we use the tactic dataset in PACT to train the model, with a batch size of 16, and a warmup step of 1000 with a maximum learning rate of 5 ∗ 10−5and a minimum learning rate of 5 ∗ 10−6. We are early-stoping the finetuning in 15000 steps with a total training budget of 100000 step. For Isabelle, we follow instructions from Lisa (Jiang et al., 2021) and reproduce the AFP dataset. The policy model is further finetuned on the AFP dataset with the same fine-tuning configuration used in Thor. For the critic model, we use a pre-trained RoBERTa-base model (Liu et al., 2019) as our language model classifier. The critic model is finetuned for one epoch on the dataset generated following procedures described in Sec.3.1. Fine-tuning critic model uses a global batch size of 128, a maximum sequence length of 512, a linear learning secluding strategy with 2000 warmup steps, and a maximum learning rate of 1 ∗ 10−5. We early stop the training with the lowest evaluation loss. Dyamic tree sampling configuration. We set the balancing factor c = 1 in Eq. 1 and Eq. 2. To sample from the policy model, we use temperature T = 1.2 for Isabelle and T = 1 for Lean. Each proof step has a timeout limit of 10 seconds, and the search is terminated in the following condition: (1) A proof of the theorem has been found (2) Global timeout for 300 seconds (3) A total expansion step of 128 is reached. Machine Configuration. We use Nvidia V100 GPU with 32GB of GPU memory for pre-training and fine-tuning. The training server has 104 CPU cores and 768GB of CPU memory. For training the policy model and the critic model, we use 8 GPUs with data parallel to speed up the training, with estimated 1100 GPU hours to run the training. For running the dynamic tree sampling algorithm, we use 32 GPUs to speed up the proof-finding procedure. We estimate it takes 64 GPU hours to run a single evaluation on the mathlib test set. Interactive theorem provers To expediently verify proofs in Lean and Isabelle, we use REPL wrappers that formulate the interactions with ITPs in a REPL style. For lean, we use lean-gym following (Polu et al., 2022). In every step, lean-gym takes a proof state and a proof step as input and outputs a new proof state. For Isabelle, we created a REPL verifier named isabelle-gym based on PISA, with the same IO specification as lean-gym. Table 4: Data statistics on the training data | Data split | size | |---------------------|--------| | GitHub python code | 159GB | | GitHub (the pile) | 95GB | | Arxiv documents | 56GB | | PACT-mix1 | 2GB | | PACT-mix2 | 22GB | | PISA fine-tuning | 1102MB | | Mathlib fine-tuning | 119MB | \begin{tabular}{l|c c c} dataset & train & valid & test \\ \hline Mathlib & 36960 & 1621 & 1580 \\ PISA & 156809 & 1627 & 6491 \\ \end{tabular} With these formal environments, we can check if a proof step is applicable or whether we have proven the theorem. A.3.2 Dataset statistics We provide statistics for our training dataset. Detailed statics for pre-training are shown in Table.4. We use 159G Python code collected from GitHub and PACT-mix{1,2} dataset for Mathlib pre-train. Moreover, we follow (Jiang et al., 2022) for Isabelle pre-train with GitHub and Arxiv dataset from the-pile (Gao et al., 2020). We also provide the number of theorems for Mathlib and PISA datasets in Table.5. The Mathlib dataset is created with versions of b72300f3455ae73c3ab9ed40fc1f80bbb9c85ba4 and lean core versions of 3.39.1. The PISA dataset is created with Isabelle2021. For running proof searches in the test set in Isabelle, we use the 'quick test problem' crated following Thor, which contains 600 theorems randomly sampled from the test split of the PISA dataset. ## A.4 Proof Examples In this section, we provide more examples of proof found by our DT-Solver. For each proof, we also compare our method with the best-first search counterpart using the same policy model. Specifically, we provide two cases for proofs found in the Lean formal environment shown in Fig.6 and Fig.7. As well as two cases for proofs found in the Isabelle formal environment shown in Fig.8 and Fig.9. | [Expert iter.+DT-Solver]: Time: 58.1s OTR:47.6% | [Expert iter.]: Time: 15.07s OTR 75.0% | |--------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | lemma lipschitz_with.comp {Kf Kg : R20} {f : β + γ} {g : α → β} (hf : lipschitz_with Kf f) (hg : lipschitz_with Kg E) : lipschitz_with (Kf * Kg) (f * g) := | lomma lipschitz_with.comp {Kf Kg : R20} {f : β → γ} {g : α → β} (hf : lipschitz_with Kf f) (hg : lipschitz_with Kg ε) : lipschitz_with (Kf * Kg) (f ° g) := | | bb | bb | | uunnnntttt | uunnnntttt | | simp, | intros, | | intros x y, | ss | | ss | apply le_trans ( hf _ _ ); | | sorry, | | | end | | | ssimplll [ ennreal.coe_mull using hg.edist_le_mul x y, | | | end | | Figure 6: An example proof in Mathlib. Our approach DT-Solver manages to find a proof for the theorem | [Lisa.+DT-Solver] Time: 14.81s OTR: 57.1% | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | lemma sumZero: | | fiiiissssssssssssssssss ppppp ppppp ppppp ppppp ppppp ppppp ppppp ppppp ppppp ppppp ppppp ppppp ppppp p | | sssseeeerrrrrv | | proof - | | have "P \<oplus> \<zero> \<sim> P" | | by(rule sumZero) | | thus?thesis | | by(rule strongBisimWeakEq) | | qed | lipschitz_with.comp in 58.1 seconds. While with best-first search, a premature 'Failed' result is return after only 15 seconds, knowing that the time budget for proving one theorem is 300s. | [Expert iter.+DT-Solver] Time: 197.4s OTR: 24.0% | [Expert-iter.] Time: 143.34s OTR: 15.4% | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | lemma indicator_eventually_eq (hf : f = f[l n P s] g) | lemma indicator_eventually_eq (hf : f = ′ [l ∩ P s] g) | | (hs : s = f [ l ] t) : indicator s f = f [ l ] indicator t g := | (hs : s = f [ l ] t) : indicator s f = f [ l ] indicator t g := | | bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb | bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb | | ssss | sssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee | | ssse | sssseeerrrrvvviiitttt | | and_iff_left_iff_imp, filter.eventually] at *, | | | filter_upwards [hf, hs], | revert hs, | | assume x hx hxs, | classical, | | ss | intro h | | ssssseeeeeeeeeeeee [[ | sssseeeerrrrvvvillaaac | | sssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee | | | split_ifs; | | | sssssssseeeerrrrrreeeerrrreeeetttt * | filter_upwards [h, hf], | | tauto, | intros x hx hxs, | | tauto, | split_ifs, | | end | tidy, | | end | | Figure 7: An example proof in Mathlib. For this example, we see that both DT-Solver and best-first search successfully find a proof for the theorem indicator_eventually_eq , under a duration of similar scale. DT-Solver achieves a higher on-track-rate (24.0%) than that of best-first search (15.4%). Figure 8: An example proof in Isabelle. While the best-first search counterpart returns a premature 'Failed' result uder only 3.12 seconds, our DT-Solver finds a two-step proof under 14 seconds with a high on-track-rate. Figure 9: An example proof in Isabelle. Similar to the results in Fig.7, both approaches successfully find a proof | [Lisa.+DT-Solver] Time: 80.77s OTR: 62.0% | [Lisa.] Time: 4.90s OTR: 50% | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | lemma kD_nsqn: | lemma kD_nsqn: | | assumes "dip \<in> kD(rt)" | assumes "dip \<in> kD(rt)" | | ssshhhoooowww | sssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee | | (\<sigma>\<^bsub>route\<^esub>(rt, dip)))" | (\<sigma>\<^bsub>route\<^esub>(rt, dip)))" | | proof - | using assms | | from assus | uunnnntttteeeerrrrrrreeee------dddddeee----ddddeee----ddddeee----ddddeee----ddddeee----ddddeee----ddddeee----ddddeee----ddddeee----ddddeee----ddddeee----ddddeee----dddddeee-- | | show?thesis | by | | uuunnnntttteee | | | using assms | | | uuunnnnnttttt nnnnttttteeeerrrrrreeee | | | by auto | | | qed | | while DT-Solver manages to achieve a higher OTR than best-first (62.0% > 50%). | [Lisa.] Time: 3.12s OTR: 50% | |------------------------------------| | lemma sumZero: | | fixes P :: pi | | sssseeerrrrvvvillagement | | proof - | | have "P \<oplus> \<zero> \<sim> PT | | oops | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 6 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 6 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? I use chatGPT and use it to polish the language of my paper and correct the grammar error. This happens in section 4.2.3 and section 4.3 ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? References ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section A.3 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section A.3 B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section A.3 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section A.3.2 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section A.3 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section A.3 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section A.3 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section A.3 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

storek-etal-2023-unsupervised

Unsupervised Selective Rationalization with Noise Injection

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.707

A major issue with using deep learning models in sensitive applications is that they provide no explanation for their output. To address this problem, unsupervised selective rationalization produces rationales alongside predictions by chaining two jointly-trained components, a rationale generator and a predictor. Although this architecture guarantees that the prediction relies solely on the rationale, it does not ensure that the rationale contains a plausible explanation for the prediction. We introduce a novel training technique that effectively limits generation of implausible rationales by injecting noise between the generator and the predictor. Furthermore, we propose a new benchmark for evaluating unsupervised selective rationalization models using movie reviews from existing datasets. We achieve sizeable improvements in rationale plausibility and task accuracy over the state-of-the-art across a variety of tasks, including our new benchmark, while maintaining or improving model faithfulness.

# Unsupervised Selective Rationalization With Noise Injection Adam Storek Columbia University astorek@cs.columbia.edu Melanie Subbiah Columbia University m.subbiah@columbia.edu Kathleen McKeown Columbia University kathy@cs.columbia.edu ## Abstract A major issue with using deep learning models in sensitive applications is that they provide no explanation for their output. To address this problem, unsupervised selective rationalization produces rationales alongside predictions by chaining two jointly-trained components, a rationale generator and a predictor. Although this architecture guarantees that the prediction relies solely on the rationale, it does not ensure that the rationale contains a plausible explanation for the prediction. We introduce a novel training technique that effectively limits generation of implausible rationales by injecting noise between the generator and the predictor. Furthermore, we propose a new benchmark for evaluating unsupervised selective rationalization models using movie reviews from existing datasets. We achieve sizeable improvements in rationale plausibility and task accuracy over the state-of-the-art across a variety of tasks, including our new benchmark, while maintaining or improving model faithfulness.1 ## 1 Introduction With the advent of large pre-trained language models like GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), the size and complexity of deep learning models used for natural language processing has dramatically increased. Yet greater performance and complexity can come at the cost of interpretability, masking anything from implementation mistakes to learned bias. A model architecture that justifies its output by providing relevant subsets of input text as a rationale is therefore desirable (see example in Figure 1). The unsupervised selective rationalization architecture as introduced by Lei et al. (2016) generates rationales alongside predictions by chaining two jointly-trained components, a rationale-generator and a predictor. The generator extracts a rationale: concatenated short and concise spans of the input 1Code and benchmark are available at https://github. com/adamstorek/noise_injection. Movie Review: Ultra low budget but extremely inventive horror **film** about a group of friends vacationing in a cabin who accidentally awaken an evil force in the woods via the necronomicon, the book of the dead. Bruce Campbell stars as Ash, who eventually becomes the sole survivor and has to battle both the demons from the woods, and his friends who have become demons (including his own girlfriend). The results shown on screen are amazing considering the **film's** tiny budget, constant location changes, and a filming schedule that was sporadic over two years… Class: Positive Figure 1: Example of a rationale selected by BERTA2R + NI (our model) on the USR Movie Review dataset (our benchmark), which asks models to classify movie reviews as positive or negative. text that suffice for prediction. The predictor bases its prediction only on this rationale, which encourages **faithfulness**, meaning how much the rationale reveals what parts of the input were important to the model's prediction. In practice, however, the rationale often isn't **plausible**, meaning it can't convince a human of the correct prediction, undermining the architecture's interpretability (Jacovi and Goldberg, 2021; Zheng et al., 2022). Using a high-capacity generator can further degrade plausibility (Yu et al., 2019). To prevent this effect, we introduce a novel training strategy that leverages online noise injection, based on word-level unsupervised data augmentation (Xie et al., 2020). By definition, if the lossminimizing generator selects an implausible rationale, then the rationale both (a) offers no plausible connection for a human to the target label and (b) locally improves prediction accuracy. This might include communicating via punctuation (Yu et al., 2019) or subtle input perturbations (Garg and Ramakrishnan, 2020). Our new approach is to inject noise into the generated rationale during training by probabilistically replacing lower-importance words with noise - random words from the vocabulary - 12647 before passing the rationale to the predictor. We observe that this strategy leads to a significant improvement in plausible rationale generation and prediction accuracy without compromising the faithfulness of the architecture. We also show that powerful generators typically interfere with plausible rationale generation but can be effectively deployed when trained with noise injection. To test our approach, we introduce a new benchmark for unsupervised selective rationalization by integrating existing movie review datasets to replace the retracted canonical beer review dataset (McAuley et al., 2012; McAuley and Leskovec, 2013; Lei et al., 2016).2 We merge a large IMDb movie review dataset (Maas et al., 2011) for training and validation and a smaller, rationaleannotated movie review dataset (DeYoung et al., 2020; Zaidan and Eisner, 2008; Pang and Lee, 2004) for evaluation. We also evaluate our unsupervised approach on the ERASER Movie Review, MultiRC and FEVER tasks (DeYoung et al., 2020; Khashabi et al., 2018; Thorne et al., 2018).3 Our contributions therefore include: 1) characterizing the issue of implausible rationale generation from the perspective of powerful rationale generators, 2) introducing a novel training strategy that limits implausible rationale generation and enables unsupervised selective rationalization models with powerful generators, 3) proposing a new unsupervised rationalization benchmark by repurposing existing movie review datasets, and 4) achieving more plausible rationale generation, with up to a relative 21% improvement in F1 score and a 7.7 point improvement in IOU-F1 score against the baseline model across a number of tasks. ## 2 Related Work A major challenge with selective rationalization is that discrete selection of rationale tokens is nondifferentiable, making training challenging without additional rationale supervision. Lei et al. (2016) use REINFORCE-style learning (Williams, 1992) to propagate the training signal from the predictor to the generator. Bastings et al. (2019) propose a differentiable approach leveraging the Hard Kumaraswamy Distribution. Yu et al. (2019) strive to improve rationale comprehensiveness. Chang et al. (2020) focus on avoiding spuriously correlated rationales. Yu et al. (2021) tackle the propensity of selective rationalization models to get stuck in local minima. Atanasova et al. (2022) use diagnosticsguided training to improve plausibility. Our work builds on the previous approaches, since we also frame the generator-predictor interaction as a cooperative game and seek to improve plausibility. The previous approaches have, however, introduced additional training objectives (Atanasova et al., 2022) or involved incorporating a third adversarial (Yu et al., 2019) or cooperative (Yu et al., 2021) component. This increases model complexity significantly, leading to more resourceintensive and/or complicated training. Instead, we demonstrate the effectiveness of online noise injection, a considerably more lightweight approach. An alternative approach is proposed by DeYoung et al. (2020) who assemble a series of datasets with labeled rationales; this enables fully supervised rationale learning. Given rationale-annotated training sets, Jain et al. (2020) train each model component separately, approaching the accuracy of an entirely black-box model. Although this is a compelling direction, requiring supervision reduces the practical usability of this technique, as many applications lack rationale annotations. Both unsupervised and supervised selective rationalization approaches generally require a specific token selection strategy to select the output rationale from the generator model (Yu et al., 2021; Jain et al., 2020; Paranjape et al., 2020). No previous work that we are aware of, however, has tried to then modify the output rationale before it is input into the predictor. Using online noise injection to enforce prediction stability is therefore a novel approach that adds greater power to the current architectures and can be easily retrofitted. ## 3 Implausible Rationale Generation Previous work has conceptualized the interaction between the generator and the predictor as a cooperative game (Chen et al., 2018a,b; Chang et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2019; Chang et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021). This repeated sequential game consists of two-round stage games. In the first round, the generator accepts an input sequence X1:T and outputs a rationale selection as a binary mask M1:T ∈ M where M represents the set of all masks such that X1:T ⊙ M1:T satisfies rationale constraints. In the second round, the predictor accepts an input sequence X1:T ⊙M1:T and outputs prediction Y . The 12648 joint objective is to minimize the loss (see Equation 2) based on the generated mask (see Equation 1): $$M_{1:T}\gets g e n(X_{1:T};\theta_{g e n}),M_{1:T}\in{\mathcal{M}}$$ $$\operatorname*{min}_{\theta_{g e n,\theta_{p r e}}}{\mathcal{L}}(p r e(X_{1:T}\odot M_{1:T};\theta_{p r e}),\check{Y})$$ For classification, it is customary to minimize the cross-entropy loss LCE. Such a system can be shown to maximize mutual information (MMI) of the rationale with respect to the class label provided sufficient generator and predictor capacity as well as a globally optimal generator (Yu et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2018a): $$\operatorname*{max}_{M_{1:T}\in{\mathcal{M}}}I(X_{1:T\odot}\,M_{1:T};{\tilde{Y}})$$ However, this property does not guarantee rationale plausibility. First, MMI does not protect against spurious correlations (Chang et al., 2020). For example, a pleasant taste is not a good explanation for a positive review of a beer's appearance, although the two aspects are strongly correlated. Second, MMI does not prevent rationale degeneration if the generator and predictor already contain certain biases, for example from pre-training (Jacovi and Goldberg, 2021). Third, MMI does not prevent rationale degeneration if the generator and predictor are sufficiently powerful to develop a common encoding. Yu et al. (2019) found that providing the generator with a label predicted by a full-input classifier led the generator to develop a communication scheme with the predictor, including a period for positive and a comma for negative examples. Jacovi and Goldberg (2021) argue that any generator with sufficient capacity to construct a good inner-representation of Y can cause rationale degeneration. The key underlying cause is that a sufficiently powerful generator is not disincentivized to produce implausible rationales beyond the assumption that generating a plausible rationale should maximize the expected accuracy of the predictor in the current training iteration. However, since the predictor is treated as a black box, this is not guaranteed. On the i-th training iteration, the generator greedily selects a binary mask M1:T that minimizes the expected loss: $$\operatorname*{arg\,min}_{M_{1:T}\in{\mathcal{M}}}\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathcal{L}}({\widehat{p r e_{i}}}(X_{1:T}\odot M_{1:T}))\right]\tag{4}$$ $$(1)$$ where pre gG,i represents the generator's learned representation of pre(·; θpre) from its previous experience interacting with the predictor for i − 1 iterations in game G. As i increases, the generator learns to leverage deficiencies and biases of the predictor that remain hidden to humans, resulting in rationale plausibility degeneration. $$(2)$$ ## 4 Online Noise Injection We propose a strategy that disrupts the generator's learned representation of the predictor pre gG,i for all games G ∈ G, thereby making it harder for the generator to learn to exploit quirks of the predictor. We use online noise injection, which probabilistically perturbs unimportant words in a rationale sequence X of length T (see Algorithm 1). Algorithm 1: Noise Injection. Input: input text X1:T ; binary mask M1:T Data: set of documents D; vocabulary V R1:T ← X1:T ⊙ M1:T ; R∗ 1:T ← R1:T ; forall ri ∈ R1:T do $$=\stackrel{\ldots}{=}\mathrm{ProbOfReplacement}_{\mathcal{D}}(r_{i});$$ $=$ *place $\leftarrow$ Binomial$(1,p_{i})$*; $=$ *replace then* $r_{i}^{*}$ $\leftarrow$ SampleFromVocab${}_{\mathcal{D}}$,$\nu()$*; end end return *perturbed rationale* R∗ 1:T $$\begin{array}{l l}{p_{i}\,-\,{\bf1}{\bf1}{\bf0}{\bf0}{\bf0}{\bf1}{\bf k}_{i}}\\ {r e p l a c e\,\leftarrow\,B i n}\\ {{\bf{if}}\,r e p l a c e\,{\bf{then}}}\\ {\left|\begin{array}{l}{r_{i}^{*}\,\leftarrow\,{\bf Samp}}\\ {r_{i}^{*}\,\leftarrow\,{\bf Samp}}\end{array}\right.}\end{array}$$ If the generator attempts to generate an implausible rationale during training iteration i, it strategically includes unimportant words from the input text in the generated rationale, relying on the predictor to pick up on the bias. By subtly perturbing the rationale - replacing the unimportant words - noise injection disrupts this attempt, and the predictor does not respond to the generator-injected bias favorably as expected by the generator. The generator is therefore forced to unlearn/reset its representation pre gG,i of the predictor and reassess its strategy, learning that generating implausible rationales is ineffective. Across any two stages *i, j* of game G, noise injection therefore keeps the learned representations of the predictor more consistent: ∀G ∈ G, ∀i, j ∈ stages(G), pre gG,i(·) ≈ pre gG,j (·) (5) We implement the ProbOfReplacement and SampleFromVocab functions by adapting a strategy that probabilistically replaces words with small TF*IDF, originally proposed for unsupervised data augmentation by Xie et al. (2020). We precompute the probability of replacement of each word wi ∈ d in each document d ∈ D as its normalized TF*IDF score multiplied by the document length and a hyperparameter representing the magnitude of augmentation p: $${\frac{w_{m a x}-T F^{*}I D F(w_{i})}{\sum_{w\in d}w_{m a x}-T F^{*}I D F(w)}}p|d|$$ $$w_{m a x}=\operatorname*{max}_{w\in d}\,T F^{*}I D F(w)$$ We use these precomputed probabilities to sample which words to replace as shown in Algorithm 1. The words are replaced with random words from the vocabulary V. Nonetheless, we also strive to prevent sampling "keywords" from the vocabulary - words that are highly indicative of a label - to avoid confusing the predictor. We compute the sampling probability of wi as its normalized ATF*IDF, where ATF corresponds to term frequency macroaveraged over D: $$\frac{w_{m a x}^{*}-A T F^{*}I D F(w_{i})}{\sum_{w\in d}w_{m a x}^{*}-A T F^{*}I D F(w)}$$ $$w_{m a x}^{*}=\operatorname*{max}_{w\in d}A T F^{*}I D F(w)$$ $$(8)$$ ## 5 Model Our baseline model builds on the A2R architecture by Yu et al. (2021) who improve training stability by using an auxiliary predictor connected directly to the generator via an attention layer - this allows for gradients to flow. A2R selects top- k2 bigrams with the highest attention scores from the generator as the rationale and input for the second predictor, with k corresponding to the number of rationale tokens selected as a fraction of the size of the input text. The two components minimize their separate criteria as well as the Jensen-Shannon divergence of their predictions Y aand Y rfor the attentionbased predictor and the rationale-based predictor, respectively. A2R's generator consists of a fixed GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) embedding layer and a linear token scoring layer. To take full advantage of our noise injection strategy, we replace the limited-capacity generator with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). This allows us to use a simpler attention-based predictor than A2R (see Figure 2). To further manifest the efficacy of noise injection, we opt for a top-k unigram selection strategy which offers less regularization compared to a bigram selection strategy. Selecting unigrams is more challenging because it allows the model to select uninformative stopwords like "a" or "the". Our architecture is shown in Figure 2. Both the selection strategy and the noise injection are modelexternal and untrained. As in Yu et al. (2021), the attention-based (see Equation 10) and the rationalebased (see Equation 11) components are trained using identical objectives - minimizing the sum of the cross-entropy loss and the Jensen-Shannon divergence of the two predictors: $$\quad(6)$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{a}=\mathcal{L}_{CE}(Y^{a},\tilde{Y})+\lambda JSD(Y^{a},Y^{r})\tag{10}$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{r}=\mathcal{L}_{CE}(Y^{r},\tilde{Y})+\lambda JSD(Y^{a},Y^{r})\tag{11}$$ We refer to our model as BERT-A2R and add +NI when noise injection is used during training. ## 6 Usr Movie Review Dataset $$(9)$$ Previous work on unsupervised selective rationalization used a decorrelated subset of the BeerAdvocate review dataset (McAuley et al., 2012) as preprocessed by Lei et al. (2016). The dataset has recently been removed at the request of BeerAdvocate and is therefore inaccessible to the scientific community. BeerAdvocate reviews consists of 80,000 labeled reviews without rationales for training/validation and ∼1,000 labeled reviews with token-level annotated rationales for testing. Alternative datasets either include rationale labels for the entire dataset (DeYoung et al., 2020) or do not provide rationale labels altogether (e.g. Maas et al. (2011)). Moreover, large datasets such as MultiRC or FEVER tend to provide sentence-level rationales compared to BeerAdvocate token-level rationales. We thus repurpose existing movie review datasets to recreate a task similar to beer review, enabling new work on unsupervised selective rationalization to evaluate their performance against models designed for beer review. We merge a smaller ERASER Movie Review dataset (DeYoung et al., 2020; Zaidan and Eisner, 2008; Pang and Lee, 2004) that has full token-level rationale annotations with the lower-cased Large Movie Review Dataset (Maas et al., 2011) which has no rationale annotations. The movie review task is similar to the binarized beer review task as used in Chang et al. (2019); Yu et al. (2019); Chang et al. (2020); Yu et al. (2021);  ## Imdb Movie Review 1: Jim Carrey shines in this beautiful movie. This is now one of my favorite movies. I read all about the making and I thought it was incredible how they did it. I can't wait till this comes out on dvd. I saw this in theaters so many times, I can't even count how times I've seen it. **Class: Positive** ERASER Movie Review 1: "Party Camp," is one of the most mindnumbingly brainless comedies I've seen in awhile. A late **rip-off** of the "Meatballs" series, the film follows a group of young camp counselors at camp chipmunk. That's really about all that can be said about the "plot" because nothing much **happens**, except that the main character, wise-cracking Jerry (Andrew Ross), has the hots for a cute blonde (Kerry Brennan ), and there is a big contest in the climax. How fun! Class: Negative ERASER Movie Review 2: Absolute Power, the new film produced and directed by Clint Eastwood, attempts to be a thriller set in the world of hypocritical presidents and their murderous political staff. It is about as thrilling as a lecture on the mating habits of the South American grasshopper. One can only wonder how an **utterly** absurd script like the one written by William Goldman could have ever **interested** Eastwood. Not only is the plot unbelievable and contrived, but even the writing itself lacks any **consistency** or intelligence. **Class: Negative** Figure 3: Examples from the USR Movie Review Dataset. Note that compared to ERASER reviews, IMDb reviews tend to be shorter; ERASER reviews vary in length dramatically. Furthermore, ERASER rationale annotations are often inconsistent: the rationale for review 1 contains only very short spans, whereas the rationale for review 2 spans a few sentences. both are binary sentiment classification tasks based on English user reviews. However, human rationale annotations of Eraser Movie Review are less coherent and consistent than beer review (see Figure 3) and lack single-aspect labels comparable to beer review's appearance, aroma, and taste labels. Moreover, movie review annotations tend to be over-complete (Yu et al., 2021): the same relevant information is often repeated many times in each review. This new task therefore also evaluates previous models' robustness to a subtle distribution shift, an increasingly important consideration for real-world systems. The reviews from the ERASER Dataset were collected and processed by Pang and Lee (2004) from the IMDb archive of the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup, whereas the Large Movie Review Dataset was scraped from the IMDb website by Maas et al. (2011). In order to avoid overlap between the train and test sets, we looked for similarity by searching for matches between lowercased, break-tag-free, stop-word-free, lemmatized sentences which spanned at least 5 tokens to avoid generic matches such as "would not recommend" or "great film !". We discovered no overlap between the datasets. We use 40,000 reviews from the Large Movie Review Dataset for training and the remaining 10,000 reviews for validation. We then test our model on the 2,000 annotated examples from ERASER Movie Review. ## 7 Experimental Setup Metrics We evaluate generated rationales across several datasets using different metrics that capture faithfulness and plausibility. Faithfulness captures the extent to which the generated rationales truly explain the model's output. For faithfulness, we use comprehensiveness and sufficiency metrics (DeYoung et al., 2020). A rationale is *comprehensive* if it extracts all the information contained in the input text that is relevant for prediction and *sufficient* if it contains enough relevant information to make an accurate prediction. The comprehensiveness score measures the difference between the model's predictions on the entire input text and the input text without the selected rationale (higher is better), whereas the sufficiency score measures the difference between the model's predictions on the entire input text and just on the rationale (lower is better). For plausibility, we use standard alignment metrics in reference to the human-annotated rationales: precision, recall, and F1 score as well as IOU-F1 score (referred to as IOU in tables) with partial match threshold 0.1 (DeYoung et al., 2020; Paranjape et al., 2020). We use token-level metrics for Movie Review which offers token-level annotations and sentence-level metrics for MultiRC and FEVER which provide only sentence-level annotations. Finally, we report prediction accuracy for the overall classification task. All results are averaged across 5 random seeds and reported as the mean with standard deviation in parentheses. Implementation Our BERT-A2R models are trained for a maximum of 20 epochs for ERASER Movies and 5 epochs for every other dataset, keeping the checkpoint with the lowest validation loss. All BERT-A2R variants use uncased BERT-base, A2R closeness parameter λ = 0.1, and the selection strategy of picking the top k = 20% of the highest attention-scoring tokens for movie review or sentences for MultiRC and FEVER. We compute sentence-level scores by taking sentence-level averages of token scores. For optimization, we used Adam (Kingma, D.P. et al., 2015) with learning rate 2e-5 and batch size 16. Noise injection level p was set to 0.2 for USR and ERASER Movie review, 0.3 for MultiRC, and 0.05 for FEVER. This was determined based on our hyperparameter search. All of the models were trained on a single machine equipped with a 12-core processor, 64 GB of RAM, and a GPU with 24 GB of VRAM. 4 ## 8 Results 8.1 Does Noise Injection Improve Selective Rationalization? | Model | Acc. | F1 | |-----------------------|------------|------------| | Hard-Kuma (2019) | - | 27.0 | | BERT Sparse IB (2020) | 84.0 | 27.5 | | A2R (2021) | - | 34.9 | | BERT-A2R (Ours) | 84.0 (2.9) | 36.4 (2.8) | | BERT-A2R + NI (Ours) | 85.7 (2.7) | 38.6 (0.6) | To compare against previous published results, we trained a BERT-A2R model on the ERASER Movie Review dataset with and without noise injection and compared our numbers to published results from the best unsupervised selective rationalization systems on this benchmark (see Table 1). All models were trained without rationale supervision. We see that our model with noise injection improves on both the classification task accuracy and the rationale F1 score relative to previous systems. Note that noise injection improves the F1 score more than the introduction of BERT to A2R. We then train BERT-A2R models with and without noise injection on the MultiRC and FEVER benchmarks (see Table 2) as well as on our new USR Movie Review benchmark (see Table 3). Again, our noise injection training strategy achieves statistically significant improvements in rationale alignment with human annotations (p < 0.01 on the MultiRC and USR Movies, p < 0.05 on the FEVER, and p < 0.1 on ERASER Movies), achieving up to a relative 21% improvement in F1 score over our already performant baseline. The plausibility improvement applies for both tokenlevel and sentence-level extraction tasks and across all metrics. Prediction accuracy also improves across all tasks except FEVER. Noise injection also does not seem to have a negative impact on model faithfulness. On ERASER benchmarks, neither comprehensiveness nor sufficiency worsen dramatically, and in the case that one score worsens, the other score tends to remain stable or even improve. On USR movie review, we see an improvement in both faithfulness scores from using noise injection. Task Plausibility **Faithfulness** Dataset Model Acc. P R F1 IOU Com ↑ Suf ↓ MultiRC BA2R 66.1 (1.9) 18.5 (1.6) 21.9 (2.2) 19.3 (1.8) n/a **-.01** (.01) **-.02** (.02) BA2R+NI 66.4 (0.8) 22.6 (1.2) 26.9 (1.8) **23.8** (1.4) n/a **-.01** (.01) **-.02** (.02) FEVER BA2R **82.1** (3.2) 36.3 (0.6) 44.0 (0.3) 36.7 (0.5) n/a .02 (.01) **-.01** (.02) BA2R+NI 78.2 (1.9) 39.0 (2.5) 47.2 (2.9) **39.5** (2.5) n/a .02 (.00) .00 (.00) Movies BA2R 84.0 (2.9) 36.3 (2.8) 36.5 (2.8) 36.4 (2.8) 30.9 (3.9) .02 (.02) **-.04** (.02) BA2R+NI 85.7 (2.7) 38.5 (0.6) 38.7 (0.6) 38.6 (0.6) 34.4 (2.2) .05 (.02) -.02 (.01) ## 8.2 How Does The Noise Injection Level P **Affect** Model Performance?  We train variants of BERT-A2R+NI with different levels of p to examine what noise level is optimal for different datasets (see Figure 4). We average results across 5 seeds but there is still some noise given that the methodology injects noise into the process. It appears that in all cases noise injection seems to degrade performance once p becomes too high as we would expect since too much noise prevents useful signal from getting through. The optimal p varies depending on the task. Rationale alignment performance on FEVER peaks at just p = 0.05. The optimum for ERASER and USR Movie Review is at p = 0.1 and p = 0.2, respectively. The best performance on MultiRC was achieved at p = 0.3. There are numerous factors that might interact with noise injection to cause this behavior: task-specific demands, sentence vs. token-level rationale annotations, and the suitability of other training parameters. These interactions might be complex, especially with training strategies that dynamically adjust p during training. We leave exploration of these factors for future work. ## 8.3 Does Noise Injection Enable The Use Of Powerful High-Capacity Rationale Generators? For this experiment, we train BERT-A2R with fixed or trainable BERT weights in the generator, with or without noise injection, and evaluate on our new USR Movie Review benchmark (see Table 3). The version with fixed BERT weights in the generator has much less trainable capacity and cannot learn a task-specific text representation, whereas the generator with trainable BERT weights can potentially learn much better rationales or degrade to implausible rationales. We find that the tuned generator trained with noise injection achieves superior performance across all the rationalization metrics without compromising prediction accuracy (2.8 improvement in rationale F1 score and a 7.7 improvement in rationale IOU-F1 score relative to the fixed setting). In contrast, the tuned generator without noise injection training performed the worst in all rationale metrics as well as prediction accuracy. Noise injection with a fixed generator results in a minor improvement in both plausibility metrics and prediction accuracy. We can therefore observe not only that noise injection allows us to leverage the power of a tunable BERT model in the generator that previously would have resulted in performance degradation, but also that the benefits of noise injection are greater with a powerful high-capacity generator model. Finally, the addition of noise injection training also slightly improves comprehensiveness for both fixed and tuned generators while improving suffi- | Task | Plausibility | Faithfulness | | | | | | |-------------------------|----------------|----------------|------------|------------|------------|-----------|------------| | Model | Acc. | P | R | F1 | IOU | Com ↑ | Suf ↓ | | fixed gen. weights | 85.0 (0.8) | 21.9 (0.4) | 47.4 (0.8) | 30.0 (0.5) | 29.9 (0.6) | .02 (.00) | -.02 (.00) | | fixed gen. weights + NI | 85.8 (1.1) | 22.3 (0.4) | 48.2 (0.9) | 30.5 (0.6) | 30.7 (0.8) | .03 (.01) | -.01 (.00) | | tuned gen. weights | 82.4 (8.6) | 20.2 (2.2) | 43.7 (4.7) | 27.6 (3.0) | 29.1 (5.3) | .03 (.02) | -.03 (.03) | | tuned gen. weights + NI | 87.9 (1.8) | 24.4 (0.6) | 52.7 (1.3) | 33.3 (0.8) | 38.4 (1.9) | .04 (.01) | -.04 (.02) | Table 3: Results on USR Movie Review using fixed or trainable BERT weights in the BERT-A2R generator. ciency for the tuned generator. | Human-annotated: With the exception of Don Knotts as the annoying "tv repairman" the film is cast perfectly: BERT-A2R: With the exception of Don Knotts as the annoying "tv repairman" the film is cast perfectly: BERT-A2R + NI: With the exception of Don Knotts as the annoying "tv repairman" the film is cast perfectly: Class: Positive | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Figure 5: An occasional failure case of noise injection training - omitting frequently used words in movie reviews, such as "film". ## 8.4 What Errors Do The Models Make? Human-annotated: Proof of Life, Russell Crowe's one-two punch of a deft kidnap and rescue thriller, is one of those rare gems. A taut drama laced with strong and subtle acting, an intelligent script, and masterful **directing**, together it delivers something virtually **unheard** of in the film industry these days, genuine motivation in a story that rings **true**. BERT-A2R: Proof of Life, Russell Crowe's one-two punch of a deft kidnap and rescue thriller, is one of those rare gems. A taut drama laced **with** strong and subtle acting, an intelligent script, and masterful directing, **together** it delivers **something** virtually unheard of in the film industry these days, genuine motivation in a story that rings true. BERT-A2R + NI: Proof of Life, Russell Crowe's one-two punch of a deft kidnap and rescue thriller, is one of those rare **gems.** A taut drama laced with strong and subtle **acting,** an intelligent script, and masterful directing, together it delivers **something** virtually unheard of in the film industry these days, genuine **motivation** in a story **that** rings **true**. Class: Positive Figure 6: This review shows the benefits of BERT-A2R + NI's propensity to highlight longer rationale spans where the baseline selects only single words. For our qualitative analysis we randomly selected 20 reviews to evaluate the effect of adding noise injection to BERT-A2R during training. From this review sample, we include examples that we believe are characteristic for the behavior we observed. First, a BERT-A2R trained with noise injection tends to select longer spans of text as rationales (see Figure 6, 7), generally without sacrificing precision compared to the baseline. Selecting continuous rationales greatly improves readability and human-alignment as noted by Lei et al. (2016). | Human-annotated: The movie's running time is under two hours, but it seems like it is well over it. There's just not enough humor to speed things along, and not enough meaning to propel any drama. BERT-A2R: The movie's running time is under two hours, but it seems like it is well over it. There's just not enough humor to speed things along, and not enough meaning to propel any drama. BERT-A2R + NI: The movie's running time is under two hours, but it seems like it is well over it. There's just not enough humor to speed things along, and not enough meaning to propel any drama. Class: Negative | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Figure 7: BERT-A2R + NI produces a more continuous and readable rationale, but it also includes a not-sorelevant part of the previous sentence. We also observed that BERT-A2R + NI occasionally fails to select generic words such as "film" that, nevertheless, form a part of the rationale (see Figure 5). This could be a downside to our noise injection strategy, since the model will learn to ignore words with low TF*IDF even though they are relevant in a minority of cases. A potential remedy might be to use task-specific heuristics to generate probability of replacement information instead of the general low TF*IDF strategy. We leave this for future work. ## Conclusion In this paper, we investigate a major obstacle of unsupervised selective rationalization frameworks, where the generator has a tendency to learn to generate implausible rationales: rationales that lack a convincing explanation of the correct prediction. We explain the generator's propensity towards degeneration in terms of a flawed incentive structure, characterizing unsupervised selective rationalization as a sequential, repeated cooperative game. Through this lens, we propose a novel training strategy that penalizes implausible rationale generation, thereby realigning the incentive structure with the objective to generate plausible rationales. Using a new benchmark for unsupervised selective rationalization, we show that our noise injection approach is beneficial for training high-capacity generators, outperforming the current state of the art models. ## Limitations One of the main limitations of the noise injection training strategy is that statistics used to determine probability of replacement and sampling probability are token-specific. Although this works well on languages with limited morphology such as English, inflected languages like Czech that rely on declension and conjugation might require a lemmabased strategy or a different technique altogether. Furthermore, the model extracts a rationale of fixed length k, proportional to the length of the input text. Nevertheless, input text might include more or less information relevant to the class label; a sparsity objective as proposed by Paranjape et al. (2020) could remedy this issue. Lastly, injecting noise during training sometimes leads to more unpredictable training runs. Additional model limitations are connected to using BERT. Despite its performance and fast training, using BERT limits the scalability to long text due to the 512-token limitation; nevertheless, tasks involving long text might be able to leverage specialized approaches such as Beltagy et al. (2020). Likewise, BERT renders BERT-A2R about 20 times larger than the GRU-based A2R, requiring greater GPU resources. The dataset also comes with a few limitations. As Yu et al. (2021) note, some reviews contain many clear explanations for the target label, decreasing the need for the generator to include all relevant explanations in the rationale. Similarly, the sparsity of human-annotated rationales can be inconsistent across reviews: as shown in Figure 3, some rationales include long, generous spans of text that contain irrelevant information, whereas other rationales consist of merely the most important phrases. ## Ethics Statement We believe that improving the effectiveness and efficiency of unsupervised selective rationalization in the context of large pre-trained models such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) can help uncover and mitigate their learned bias as well as any implementation mistakes. Enabling models to produce plausible faithful rationales increases transparency, improving the end-user's understanding of the model's prediction and allowing AI practitioners to make more informed ethical choices in deploying models. ## Acknowledgments This research was conducted with funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under Contract No. HR001120C0123. The views, opinions, and findings expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. ## References Pepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Lioma, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2022. Diagnosticsguided explanation generation. *Proceedings of* the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(10):10445–10453. Jasmijn Bastings, Wilker Aziz, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Interpretable Neural Predictions with Differentiable Binary Variables. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics, pages 2963–2977, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The Long-Document Transformer. ArXiv:2004.05150 [cs]. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. Shiyu Chang, Yang Zhang, Mo Yu, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2019. A game theoretic approach to class-wise selective rationalization. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. Shiyu Chang, Yang Zhang, Mo Yu, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2020. Invariant Rationalization. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1448–1458. PMLR. Jianbo Chen, Le Song, Martin Wainwright, and Michael Jordan. 2018a. Learning to explain: An informationtheoretic perspective on model interpretation. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 883–892. PMLR. Jianbo Chen, Le Song, Martin J. Wainwright, and Michael I. Jordan. 2018b. L-shapley and c-shapley: Efficient model interpretation for structured data. Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merriënboer, Dzmitry Bahdanau, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder–decoder approaches. In Proceedings of SSST-8, Eighth Workshop on Syntax, Semantics and Structure in Statistical Translation, pages 103–111, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jay DeYoung, Sarthak Jain, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Eric Lehman, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Byron C. Wallace. 2020. ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4443–4458, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Siddhant Garg and Goutham Ramakrishnan. 2020. BAE: BERT-based adversarial examples for text classification. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6174–6181, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alon Jacovi and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Aligning faithful interpretations with their social attribution. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 9:294–310. Sarthak Jain, Sarah Wiegreffe, Yuval Pinter, and Byron C. Wallace. 2020. Learning to Faithfully Rationalize by Construction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4459–4473, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel Khashabi, Snigdha Chaturvedi, Michael Roth, Shyam Upadhyay, and Dan Roth. 2018. Looking beyond the surface: A challenge set for reading comprehension over multiple sentences. In *Proceedings* of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 252–262, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kingma, D.P., Ba, L.J., and Amsterdam Machine Learning lab (IVI, FNWI). 2015. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*. arXiv.org. Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2016. Rationalizing Neural Predictions. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 107–117, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andrew L. Maas, Raymond E. Daly, Peter T. Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In *Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 142–150, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Julian McAuley, Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. 2012. Learning Attitudes and Attributes from Multi-aspect Reviews. In *2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining*, pages 1020–1025. ISSN: 23748486. Julian John McAuley and Jure Leskovec. 2013. From amateurs to connoisseurs: modeling the evolution of user expertise through online reviews. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web - WWW '13, pages 897–908, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. ACM Press. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), pages 271–278, Barcelona, Spain. Bhargavi Paranjape, Mandar Joshi, John Thickstun, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. An information bottleneck approach for controlling conciseness in rationale extraction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1938– 1952, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In *Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)*, pages 1532–1543, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification. In *Proceedings of the 2018* Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 809–819, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ronald J. Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradientfollowing algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. *Mach. Learn.*, 8(3–4):229–256. Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard Hovy, Thang Luong, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. +unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training. In *NeuRIPS*. Mo Yu, Shiyu Chang, Yang Zhang, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2019. Rethinking cooperative rationalization: Introspective extraction and complement control. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4094– 4103, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mo Yu, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, and Tommi S. Jaakkola. 2021. Understanding Interlocking Dynamics of Cooperative Rationalization. Omar Zaidan and Jason Eisner. 2008. Modeling annotators: A generative approach to learning from annotator rationales. In *Proceedings of the 2008* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 31–40, Honolulu, Hawaii. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yiming Zheng, Serena Booth, Julie Shah, and Yilun Zhou. 2022. The irrationality of neural rationale models. In *Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing (TrustNLP 2022)*, pages 64–73, Seattle, U.S.A. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Licensing B Training Details Appendix | Model | License | |----------------------|-------------| | A2R | MIT License | | HF BERT-base-uncased | Apache 2.0 | | NLTK "popular" | Apache 2.0 | | Dataset | License | |-------------|------------------------| | FEVER | Apache License 2.0 | | MultiRC | Apache License 2.0 | | Movies | Apache License 2.0 | | IMDb Movies | None, to our knowledge | | USR Movies | MIT License | | Dataset | Train | Val | Test | |------------|---------|-------|--------| | FEVER | 97957 | 6122 | 6111 | | MultiRC | 24029 | 3214 | 4848 | | Movies | 1600 | 200 | 200 | | USR Movies | 40000 | 10000 | 2000 | | Dataset | Train | Test | |------------|---------|--------| | FEVER | 150 min | 150 s | | MultiRC | 70 min | 90 s | | Movies | 17 min | 15 s | | USR Movies | 110 min | 70 s | Dataset LR BS #E P FEVER 2e-5 16 5 2 MultiRC 2e-5 16 5 n/a Movies 2e-5 16 20 5 USR Movies 2e-5 16 (64) 5 (10) 2 (n/a) Table 4: Listing of model licenses. Table 5: Listing of dataset licenses. Total estimated GPU hours spent on training: 500. BERT-A2R has 109484547 parameters. Table 6: Dataset details: Number of examples. Table 7: Dataset details: BERT-A2R runtime. Table 8: BERT-A2R Training parameters by dataset. LR, BS, \#E and P stand for learning rate, batch size, number of epochs, and patience. Parameters in parentheses are for fixed BERT generator training. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? No section number but directly following conclusion. ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We do not see that our work introduces any new risks over the already published and publicly available previous work. In fact, we believe that better rationale plausibility improves interpretability and fairness, thereby reducing the risk that black-box models pose to the general public, especially to the historically disadvantaged groups. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 5, 8 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 1-8 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix A ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? 5-8 ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We haven't collected any data ourselves. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? We haven't collected any data ourselves. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix B; For each split of each dataset, we included the number of examples. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 7-8 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 7, Appendix B ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 7-8 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 7-8 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 7, Appendix A ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

han-etal-2023-understanding

Understanding In-Context Learning via Supportive Pretraining Data

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.708

In-context learning (ICL) improves language models{'} performance on a variety of NLP tasks by simply demonstrating a handful of examples at inference time. It is not well understood why ICL ability emerges, as the model has never been specifically trained on such demonstrations. Unlike prior work that explores implicit mechanisms behind ICL, we study ICL via investigating the pretraining data. Specifically, we first adapt an iterative, gradient-based approach to find a small subset of pretraining data that supports ICL. We observe that a continued pretraining on this small subset significantly improves the model{'}s ICL ability, by up to 18{\%}. We then compare the supportive subset constrastively with random subsets of pretraining data and discover: (1) The supportive pretraining data to ICL do not have a higher domain relevance to downstream tasks. (2) The supportive pretraining data have a higher mass of rarely occurring, long-tail tokens. (3) The supportive pretraining data are challenging examples where the information gain from long-range context is below average, indicating learning to incorporate difficult long-range context encourages ICL. Our work takes a first step towards understanding ICL via analyzing instance-level pretraining data. Our insights have a potential to enhance the ICL ability of language models by actively guiding the construction of pretraining data in the future.

# Understanding In-Context Learning Via Supportive Pretraining Data Xiaochuang Han♠♣∗ Dániel Simig♣ **Todor Mihaylov**♣ Yulia Tsvetkov♠ Asli Celikyilmaz♣ **Tianlu Wang**♣ ♣Meta Ai ♠University of Washington {xhan77, yuliats}@cs.washington.edu simigd@gmail.com {tbmihaylov, aslic, tianluwang}@meta.com ## Abstract In-context learning (ICL) improves language models' performance on a variety of NLP tasks by simply demonstrating a handful of examples at inference time. It is not well understood why ICL ability emerges, as the model has never been specifically trained on such demonstrations. Unlike prior work that explores implicit mechanisms behind ICL, we study ICL via investigating the *pretraining data*. Specifically, we first adapt an iterative, gradient-based approach to find a small subset of pretraining data that *supports* ICL. We observe that a continued pretraining on this small subset significantly improves the model's ICL ability, by up to 18%. We then compare the supportive subset constrastively with random subsets of pretraining data and discover: (1) The supportive pretraining data to ICL do not have a higher domain relevance to downstream tasks. (2) The supportive pretraining data have a higher mass of rarely occurring, long-tail tokens. (3) The supportive pretraining data are *challenging* examples where the information gain from long-range context is below average, indicating learning to incorporate difficult long-range context encourages ICL. Our work takes a first step towards understanding ICL via analyzing instance-level pretraining data. Our insights have a potential to enhance the ICL ability of language models by actively guiding the construction of pretraining data in the future. ## 1 Introduction In-context learning in NLP has drawn tremendous attention recently (Dong et al., 2022). Unlike traditional learning paradigms that rely on training or finetuning models, in-context learning only provides a handful of demonstration examples to language models as a prefix to the test input, without any parameter updates. In-context learning has shown superior performance on a range of NLP tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022b; ∗Work done during an internship at Meta AI.   Chowdhery et al., 2022; Hoffmann et al., 2022), but the origin and reason of this emergent ability remain under-investigated. In-context learning is surprising since language models have not been explicitly trained to learn from demonstration examples (Xie et al., 2022). As shown in an illustrative scenario in Figure 1, a typical pretraining data instance is highly different from an in-context learning example for downstream tasks, in both content and format. Prior work have attempted to answer *what* incontext learning is, through empirically investigating useful and irrelevant attributes of the demonstration examples (Min et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022a), or theoretically proving certain synthetic language models implicitly do Bayesian inference with demonstrations (Xie et al., 2022). Furthermore, recent work have drawn connections between the mechanism of in-context learning and standard learning algorithms, such as regression, nearest neighbor, and gradient descent (Olsson et al., 2022; Akyürek et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2022; von Oswald et al., 2022). Differently, in this work we are interested in understanding *from where* the in-context learning ability is acquired, through a perspective of pre12660 training data. Although not many, some recent work have investigated this direction. For instance, Shin et al. (2022) pretrain a variety of language models on different corpora. They study correlations between attributes of pretraining datasets and in-context learning performance, at a relatively coarse dataset-level. Chan et al. (2022) construct pretraining data with different attributes and discover that some distributional properties of the data drive the emergence of in-context learning. However, their experiment is limited to synthetic data of image-label pairs. In this work, we investigate a large language model OPT (Zhang et al., 2022b) and its pretraining data. We first hypothesize that there exists some specific pretraining data instances that are particularly helpful to the model's in-context learning ability. As an attempt to find such instances, we adapt an iterative, gradient-based method ORCA (Han and Tsvetkov, 2022) to search within OPT's pretraining corpus. The process is guided by the gradients of the in-context learning data from downstream tasks, and we refer to the identified subset as supportive pretraining data to in-context learning following Han and Tsvetkov (2022). Furthermore, we quantitatively verify through a perturbative continued pretraining, that the supportive subset does improve the model's in-context learning performance on downstream tasks, while not affecting a spurious zero-shot performance (§2). We then analyze the identified supportive data in contrast to the general pretraining data, to obtain data features particularly relevant to in-context learning. We specifically approach from three aspects: the domain relevance to downstream tasks, the token frequency distribution, and the information gain of incorporating long-range pretraining context. Our major findings include: (1) Compared to general pretraining data, the supportive data do not have a higher domain relevance to the downstream tasks. (2) The supportive pretraining data contain a relatively higher amount of rarely occurring, long-tail tokens. (3) The supportive pretraining data are *challenging* examples in incorporating long-range context for language modeling (§3). Our work offers a first step towards interpreting in-context learning in NLP tasks via analyzing instance-level pretraining data. We believe it can help improve the transparency and interpretability of language models' in-context learning behavior. Our analysis can also pave the way to improved in-context learning in the future by informing pretraining data construction. ## 2 **Finding Supportive Pretraining Data For** In-Context Learning Han and Tsvetkov (2022) propose an iterative, gradient-based method ORCA to find supportive pretraining data of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) under a vanilla zero-shot prompting setup. In this section, we provide some background and adapt ORCA for large language models in a setting of incontext learning (ICL), finding supportive pretraining data for downstream tasks with demonstration examples.1 ## 2.1 Methodology Assume we have a pretrained language model (LM) θ and data pairs (x, y) representing the inputs and ground truth outputs of task Dtask. Both x and y are in natural language. For classification tasks, the target labels can be converted to natural language via verbalizers (Schick and Schütze, 2021). Zero-shot prompting A pretrained language model can be applied to perform downstream tasks via zero-shot prompting (e.g., Petroni et al., 2019). For classification tasks, the language model θ outputs a candidate answer with top probability, argmaxy′∈Y pθ(y′| x) = argmaxy′∈Y Qt<|y′| t=0 pθ(y′t| x, y′<t), where Y contains all candidate answers y′. For generation tasks, outputs can be obtained by sampling autoregressively from θ conditioned on x (e.g., Holtzman et al., 2019). This is a zero-shot scenario with no demonstration examples. In-context learning Instead of modeling pθ(y | x), ICL estimates pθ(y | {(xdemo, ydemo)}, x), prepending the original model input with several demonstration examples (xdemo, ydemo) sampled from the target task Dtask. The language model θ is never trained on the task data with demonstrations. However, we can form a loss on the in-context data as a surrogate for θ's 1Identifying important training data for an inference time model output is an estabilished topic in model interpretability, with various prior work measuring data importance via variants of gradient similarity (Koh and Liang, 2017; Pruthi et al., 2020). However, these methods are prohibitively expensive to be applied to large-scale pretraining data. Concurrent to our work, Guu et al. (2023) propose an interesting method to model the importance of individual training examples by simulating training runs, but it is also on a scale of finetuning instead of pretraining. ICL performance, which will be used for a later guidance step, L ICL θ(x, y) = − log pθ(y | $$\begin{array}{r c l}{{\{\left(\mathbf{x}_{\mathrm{demo}},\,\mathbf{y}_{\mathrm{demo}}\right)\},\mathbf{x}\right)}}&{{=}}&{{-\log\prod_{t=0}^{t<|\mathbf{y}|}p_{\theta}(y_{t})}}\\ {{\{\left(\mathbf{x}_{\mathrm{demo}},\,\mathbf{y}_{\mathrm{demo}}\right)\},\mathbf{x},\,\mathbf{y}_{<t}\}}.}\end{array}$$ Pretraining The pretraining data of θ often consists of texts w from large, general-domain corpora. During pretraining, the LM θ is updated via stochastic gradient descent with a loss to reconstruct w given a prefixing context, L PT θ (w) = − log Qt<|w| t=0 pθ(wt| w<t). Supportive pretraining data Our goal is to locate what pretraining data w if upweighted would be most helpful to the LM θ's ICL ability. Following ORCA (Han and Tsvetkov, 2022), we use the similarity between gradients ∇θL PT θ (w) and ∇θL ICL θ(x, y) iteratively to find such supportive pretraining data. We show details of our adapted algorithm ORCA-ICL in Figure 2. The algorithm finds pretraining data that exert a gradient to θ similarly as a group of guidance ICL task data would. ∇θL ICL θ(x, y) provides a guidance for the direction the model parameters *should* be updated towards to be better at ICL, while ∇θL PT θ (w) approximates how the direction the model parameters would be updated based on individual pretraining instances. We conduct a multi-iteration process (a total of M iterations each selecting k supportive instances) to mitigate noise.2 SGD denotes an one-pass stochastic gradient descent to mimick an incremental upweight to the selected data, with a minimum number of steps to prevent overfitting. The resulting supportive set S has a very small size (under 2000 in this work).3 Verifying supportiveness To quantitatively evaluate the supportiveness of the selected set of pretraining data, we perform an one-pass gradient descent on the original LM with the selected set S, which mimics a *perturbative continued pretraining* with a minimum number of updates: θM ← SGD S (θ0). We then benchmark this perturbed model (θM) with the original model (θ0) and a model perturbed with a random set of pretraining data. We expect the perturbed model using our selected supportive pretraining data to achieve a better ICL performance. 2Additionaly according to Han and Tsvetkov (2022), this may prevent selecting examples associated with only one class of the task, a case of poor calibration. 3More details of the ORCA algorithm can be found in Han and Tsvetkov (2022). Algorithm 1 ORCA-ICL 1: Load a pretrained language model as θ0 2: for i ← 1, M do 3: if i = 1 **then** **In $t=1$**then** $S_{1}\leftarrow$ **argtop-$k[\cos(\nabla_{\theta}L_{\theta_{0}}^{\rm PT}(\mathbf{w}),\nabla_{\theta}\sum L_{\theta_{0}}^{\rm CL}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})]$** $\theta_{1}\leftarrow$ **SGD($\theta_{0}$)** $S_{1}$ **else** (x, y))] 10: **end for** 11: Return supportive pretraining data S ← ∪M $${\mathfrak{g}}\operatorname{data}S\leftarrow\cup_{i=1}^{M}S_{i}$$ 6: else 7: Si ← argtop-k w∈DPT [cos(∇θL PT θ0 (w), ∇θ P Dtask L ICL θi−1 (x, y))] 8: θi ← SGD ∪ij=1Sj (θ0) 9: end if Figure 2: ORCA-ICL, an iterative gradient-based selection of supportive pretraining data for ICL. ## 2.2 Setup Language model Throughout the work, we use a pretrained, autoregressive OPT-6.7B (Zhang et al., 2022b) as our LM θ. Tasks In this work, we focus on classification problems and first retrieve 48 classification-based tasks from Natural Instructions v2 (NI-v2, Wang et al., 2022). We apply the LM on the tasks with both a zero-shot and in-context learning setup. We extract tasks that achieve at least 10% better performance with in-context demonstrations. We group 17 tasks that satisfies the constraint and further select 6 typical tasks among them: SST-2: Movie review sentiment classification (Socher et al., 2013). **AG News**: News topic classification (Zhang et al., 2015). **Story Cloze Test**: Story coherence classification (Mostafazadeh et al., 2017). **SMS Spam Collection**: Spam classification (Almeida et al., 2011). **Sentiment 140**: Tweet sentiment classification (Go et al., 2009). **TweetQA**: Answer verification (Xiong et al., 2019). For each task, we randomly sample 500 examples with a balanced class distribution as Dtask, guiding the ORCA-ICL algorithm. The quantitative evaluation is performed on the full dataset. For ICL, for each instance in the task data, we randomly sample 4 demonstration examples under each candidate class defined in the task.4 The order of demonstration examples in the context is randomly shuffled. The template and verbalizer of each task follows the original NI-v2 dataset, though we did not include the task instructions, as 4The sampling of demonstration examples is independent across test instances to mitigate potential spurious correlations. the focus of this work is in-context learning with demonstration examples. Pretraining Considering the size of pretraining data DPT, we include an as large portion of OPT's pretraining data as possible under a reasonable budget. Specifically, in this work we use a total of 2.5M pretraining instances each consists of 2048 tokens.5 For computing efficiency, we use intralayer model parallelism (Shoeybi et al., 2019) and fully sharded data parallel (Ott et al., 2021).6 Implementation Details We run ORCA-ICL with a maximum of M = 5 iterations. In each iteration we extract k = 400 pretraining instances with top gradient similarity with the ICL task data. We use a batch size of 16 and learning rate of 2e-5 for the one-pass gradient descent with an Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014). This results in a total of 125 updates7to the original LM after all iterations as the perturbative continued pretraining. ## 2.3 Results Perturbative continued pretraining As the main evaluation of the supportive pretraining data obtained by ORCA-ICL, we perform perturbative continued pretraining on both the selected supportive data and random pretraining data as a control. Table 1 shows the main results of task accuracy. The leftmost column shows a source task Dtask guiding the selection of supportive pretraining data. At each row, we evaluate the perturbed model (SGD S (θ0)) on all 6 tasks. The ICL performance of the original LM is reported in the headers of the table. In each cell of the table, the top number shows the continued pretraining result with the supportive data we identified. We consider M ∈ [1, 5] iterations as a hyperparameter and report result with a best M. We want to know *at a same size* of selection, how our identified subset performs compared to random pretraining data. We therefore run random selection with 5 seeds, and the bottom number of the cell shows the continued pretraining result with random data at a same size of our selection, accompanied by a standard deviation. The performance of our selection is bolded when 5The total 5B tokens are about 3% of OPT's 180B full pretraining data. 6This groups 4 input data for each backward pass in our setup. The 4 instances receive a same gradient similarity score, equivalent to an aggregated instance 4 times of the length. 7The one-pass descent has M∗k batch size steps. the performance difference with random selection exceeds one standard deviation. The diagonal cells show the performance of perturbed models on the same task used for selecting supportive data. We observe on 4 of the 6 source tasks, our selection of supportive pretraining data is effective. For the cross-task performance, we observe on 5 of the 6 source tasks, our selection is effective for at least three tasks.8 We conclude that **our identified supportive pretraining data** is overall effective for ICL, though the cross-task results show a portion of the ICL behavior can be task-specific and not universal across tasks. Control evaluation on zero-shot data Being effective on the ICL data does not necessarily mean a direct support for a model's ICL ability, which is to learn from the demonstration examples. The test input can be a confounding factor: if our selection is effective as well on zero-shot test input without demonstrations, then the selection is not specific to the ICL ability. Therefore, we further confirm the supportiveness of our selected supportive pretraining data to ICL, contrastively in a zeroshot setup. We evaluate our models after perturbative continued pretraining in Table 1 on the same tasks but without the in-context demonstrations. We present the results in Table 2. The two columns show the zero-shot prompting performance of the original LM and the model after continued pretraining with our ICL-supportive selection, respectively. We do not observe performance gain for most tasks, indicating **our selection is specific to** the ICL ability without benefiting the zero-shot, no-demonstration task performance. ## 3 Analyzing Supportive Pretraining Data For In-Context Learning In the previous section, we identify a small subset of pretraining data that supports the ICL ability of language models. In this section, we analyze the selected supportive pretraining data to understand what makes them useful to ICL. Specifically, we compare the supportive pretraining data contrastively with randomly sampled pretraining instances, investigating three aspects of the pretraining data: the domain relevance to downstream | Eval | SST-2 | AG News | Story | SMS | Sentiment | TweetQA | |---------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-----------| | Source | Cloze | Spam | 140 | | | | | 75.47 | 74.12 | 66.09 | 45.07 | 67.23 | 62.36 | | | SST-2 | 83.15 | 52.48 | | | | | | 74.91 | 67.76 | 69.03 | 62.20 | | | | | 75.87± 1.64 | 73.24± 1.24 | 66.24± 1.25 | 49.82± 4.50 | 66.23± 1.24 | 61.75± 0.26 | | | AG News | 79.04 | 75.40 | 68.34 | 59.24 | 68.96 | 61.86 | | 74.99± 0.77 | 73.77± 0.41 | 66.38± 0.69 | 46.55± 4.24 | 66.23± 1.24 | 62.02± 0.55 | | | Story Cloze | 75.33 | 74.12 | 67.47 | 51.36 | 69.92 | 62.33 | | 72.50± 2.53 | 73.77± 0.41 | 65.25± 1.52 | 47.15± 4.90 | 66.23± 1.24 | 62.02± 0.55 | | | SMS Spam | 73.88 | 72.78 | 67.25 | 64.69 | 63.70 | 62.13 | | 75.87± 1.64 | 73.77± 0.41 | 65.25± 1.52 | 46.55± 4.24 | 66.33± 1.34 | 61.75± 0.26 | | | Sentiment 140 | 77.56 | 72.78 | 66.78 | 51.64 | 66.66 | 62.93 | | 73.49± 2.33 | 73.77± 0.41 | 66.38± 0.69 | 44.52± 2.45 | 66.00± 1.41 | 61.64± 0.21 | | | TweetQA | 75.22 | 71.52 | 66.27 | 43.09 | 66.76 | 61.31 | | 72.50± 2.53 | 73.01± 1.42 | 64.91± 2.01 | 44.52± 2.45 | 66.33± 1.34 | 61.33± 0.80 | | Zero-shot Eval Original +ICL-supportive SST-2 46.82 46.83 AG News 46.14 44.05 Story Cloze 50.43 51.39 SMS Spam 44.41 43.84 Sentiment 140 55.84 54.90 TweetQA 50.44 50.32 tasks, the token frequency distribution, and the information gain of incorporating long-range context. ## 3.1 Domain Relevance Xie et al. (2022) and Min et al. (2022) imply that in-context demonstration is useful since it helps locate a particular domain or concept of the test input the LM already learned through the pretraining data. On the other hand, Olsson et al. (2022) imply that in-context demonstration is useful because the decision over the test input may be done through a soft-copy mechanism from the demonstration examples. These lead to two different expectations of the role of supportive pretraining data: (1) Inferred from Xie et al. (2022) and Min et al. (2022), the supportive pretraining data should be from a same domain as the demonstration and test examples, providing direct supporting knowledge to solve the downstream task. (2) Inferred from Olsson et al. (2022), the supportive pretraining data should be beneficial to the soft-copy mechanism, providing meta support for the abstract ability, unconstrained with the concrete data domain.9 We aim to measure the domain relevance between supportive pretraining data and downstream tasks. Method To quantify domain relevance, we use MAUVE score (Pillutla et al., 2021) to measure an information divergence between two text distributions. We compute two MAUVE scores, between the target task data and our selected supportive pretraining data, and between the task data and ran9This view of supportive data will be revisited in §3.3.  dom pretraining data. We then compute and report their difference. A positive MAUVE difference indicates a higher domain relevance of our supportive pretraining data.10 We use RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) as MAUVE's embedding model following He et al. (2022). Results We show the difference of MAUVE scores in Figure 3. The error bar shows the 95% confidence interval using 32 random seeds. We find that for 5 of the 6 tasks, there is no significant difference between the MAUVE scores of supportive pretraining data and random data. For SST-2, the supportive pretraining data even shows a lower MAUVE score. Therefore, **the supportive** pretraining data to ICL do not **have a higher domain relevance to the task, compared to general** pretraining data. This result aligns with the domain relevance finding in Shin et al. (2022) where dataset-level analyses were performed. This implies the improved ICL behavior of our models may be a meta ability, aided by pretraining data unrelated to the specific domain knowledge for solving the task, but related to a domain-invariant mechanism to learn from a data's context. §3.3 continues this discussion. ## 3.2 Token Frequency Distribution Providing demonstrations to a task input under an ICL setup creates repetitions (e.g., of label tokens), which changes the token frequency distribution of the ICL task data. Therefore, we are interested in 10Pillutla et al. (2021) also shows higher MAUVE indicates higher generation quality, but we skip that aspect since all of our data are naturally occuring text. whether the supportive pretraining data possess a different token frequency distribution from general pretraining data. Experimented with sequences of image-label pairs, Chan et al. (2022) find that a skewed class distribution (high burstiness) and a large number of rarely occurring classes in training data promote the ICL ability of Transformer models (Vaswani et al., 2017). However, it is unknown whether the findings on the synthetic image-label data can transfer to the natural language pretraining data, a gap we address in this subsection. Method We fit a Zipfian distribution over each supportive and random pretraining instance that consists of 2048 tokens. The Zipf's coefficient is the negative slope of a linear regression over the tokens' log-rank v.s. log-frequency. A higher Zipf's coeffcient indicates a higher mass on the frequent tokens (i.e., more skewed distribution). A lower Zipf's coefficient indicates a higher mass on the rare, long-tail tokens (i.e., flatter distribution). Results In Figure 4, we show the difference in average Zipf's coefficients between supportive and random pretraining data, each with a group size of 2000. The error bar shows the 95% confidence interval with 32 random seeds. We find that for all tasks, the Zipf's coefficient of the supportive pretraining data is significantly *lower* than that of the random pretraining data. This indicates a flatter Zipfian distribution with a relatively higher mass over the long-tail tokens. In other words, though the overall burstiness of data is lower, there is a relatively higher amount of rarely occurring, longtail tokens in the supportive pretraining data for ICL. Flatter frequency distribution also indicates higher entropy over the tokens, presumably making the supportive pretraining data *challenging* examples to fit by the model, a concept we explore further in the next subsection. ## 3.3 **Information Gain From Long-Range Context** In §3.1, we find that the domain relevance of the supportive pretraining data to downstream tasks is not higher than that of random pretraining data. This is comprehendible if we follow the aforementioned perspective of Olsson et al. (2022), hypothesizing that there exists a soft-copy mechanism between the in-context demonstrations and test input. The supportive pretraining data may provide meta support for the abstract soft-copy mechanism rather than task-specific knowledge. We further hypothesize that to facilitate such meta support, the incorporation of long-range context during language modeling in supportive pretraining data should be different from random pretraining data, since the demonstration examples in the ICL setup is a form of long-range context. We propose a novel information gain measure to quantify this feature of incorporating long-range context. Method Recall that the canonical definition of information gain (IG) is IG(*T, a*) = H(T) − H(T | a), where T is a target variable, a is an attribute conditioned on by T, and H(·) computes entropy. It measures the decrease of entropy (thus the gain of information) in T if conditioned on a. We adapt the canonical IG to measure the decrease of cross entropy for each token (wi) in a pretraining dataset when conditioned on a long (l) context over a short (s) context: $$\operatorname{IG}(l,s)=\operatorname{CE}(w_{i}\mid\operatorname{ctx}_{s})-\operatorname{CE}(w_{i}\mid\operatorname{ctx}_{l})$$ Ideally the length of long or short context should remain constant across different tokens wi, but it would be a very expensive computation due to a lack of parallelism. We approximate the computation by splitting a full sequence of pretraining tokens (e.g., 2048 tokens) to smaller blocks and calculate cross entropy with the boundary of blocks: $$\begin{array}{c}{{\mathrm{IG}(l,s)=-\log p_{\theta}(w_{i}\mid w_{i-(i\bmod2s)}:i)}}\\ {{\qquad\qquad+\log p_{\theta}(w_{i}\mid w_{i-(i\bmod2l)}:i)}}\end{array}$$ With the above definition, the average length of context for all wiis s and l, respectively. In the experiments below, we keep s = 128 for the length of short context and increase the length of long context at l = {256, 512, 1024}. We report the difference in the average information gain (across wi) of incorporating long-range context for a language modeling objective, in supportive pretraining data over random pretraining data. Additionally, we want to use the defined information gain measure as a standalone feature of data, so we use a different LM to compute the cross entropy than the LM on which we perform ICL. Below we report results using OPT-1.3B, while experiments using OPT-350M shows a similar trend. Results In Figure 5, we see for all of the experimented tasks, there is a significant trend that increasing the length l for the long-range context for supportive pretraining data has a *lower* relative information gain compared to random pretraining data. Though seeming counterintuitive at first glance, this suggests that the supportive pretraining data are more *challenging* **examples in incorporating the long-range context information**. 11 A possible explanation for this is that such challenging examples contain confounding spans that harms the information gain measure. The language model has to learn to decide which part of the longrange context is truly relevant to the prediction of next tokens. This would resemble more and thus helpful to the ICL task scenario where there are multiple demonstrations from different classes. ## 3.4 Future Work Despite our aforementioned findings, we mainly conduct correlational analyses throughout the work. Despite the potential confounding factors, future work can try converting the correlational findings to causal ones. For example, to actively refine or construct pretraining data to improve existing models' ICL performance, with a metric of token frequency distribution (i.e., find data with a higher mass of long-tail tokens) or context information gain (i.e., find difficult examples in incorporating long-range context). Additionally, we only investigate classification tasks in this work. However, the ORCA-ICL method can be applicable to generation tasks as well in the future, if the ICL loss is defined over a sequence probability of the generation.  ## Related Work 4 Demonstration examples Min et al. (2022) understand ICL through analyzing which aspects of the demonstration examples contribute or are irrelevant to task performance. They find replacing ground truth demonstration labels with random labels would not hurt task performance, while ICL still benefits from knowing the label space, distribution of inputs, and sequence format specified in demonstration examples. 12 Zhang et al. (2022a) further show on sequence labeling tasks, the length of demonstrations and the relevance of their tokens are important for ICL. Xie et al. (2022) explain Learning mechanism ICL as implicit Bayesian inference, occurring when language models infer a shared latent concept from demonstration examples at inference time. They show language models exhibit such ICL behavior by constructing synthetic pretraining data with a controlled distribution of concepts. Garg et al. (2022) empirically show that Transformer models can be trained to learn unseen linear functions from in-context demonstration examples. Olsson et al. (2022) present evidence that multi-layer attention12 Recent work like Wei et al. ( 2023 ) and Pan et al. ( 2023 ) based models form an induction head and perform ICL by a pattern copying behavior from the prefixing context. More recent work like Akyürek et al. (2022), Dai et al. (2022), and von Oswald et al. (2022) explain ICL in Transformer models as a kind of standard learning algorithms over the demonstration examples, such as gradient descent and regression. Pretraining data Razeghi et al. (2022) find on numerical reasoning tasks, a language model's ICL performance is highly correlated with the term frequency of the input data in the pretraining corpus. Shin et al. ( 2022 ) investigate how ICL can be affected when the pretraining dataset varies. They discover that ICL heavily depends on the corpus domain source, but pretraining with a corpus related to a downstream task does not always translate to a competitive ICL performance on the task. Chan et al. ( 2022 ) experiment on a synthetic image-label pairs dataset. They show certain distributional properties of the synthetic pretraining data, such as the burstiness of classes and large numbers of rarely occurring classes, promote the emergence of ICL. Our work belongs to this line of work, but offers a first step towards understanding ICL in realistic NLP tasks through analyzing instance-level pretraining data. Additionally, concurrent to our work, Gu et al. ( 2023 ) propose a method that groups pretraining data by their instrinsic tasks, enhancing instead of interpreting existing language models' ICL ability. ## 5 Conclusion In-context learning has shown superior performance on a range of NLP tasks, yet it remained unclear *from where* language models acquired this ability. We approach the problem by identifying a small subset of pretraining data that particularly supports language models to do in-context learning on downstream tasks. We analyze common features of the supportive instances in contrast to general pretraining data and find that: (1) The supportive pretraining data do not have a higher domain relevance to the downstream tasks. (2) The supportive data contain a relatively larger amount of rare, longtail tokens. (3) The supportive pretraining data are more *challenging* instances in incorporating longrange context in language modeling. Our findings may be beneficial to future work that refine or construct pretraining data, in order to actively improve existing models' in-context learning performance. ## Limitations It is worth noting that the supportive pretraining data we investigated throughout the work is w.r.t. the *current* LM, such that a perturbative continued pretraining with the supportive data would improve the final LM checkpoint deployed to downstream tasks. It is possible that for some data which we did not determine as supportive, they *had been* supportive w.r.t. early checkpoints of the LM. With more computing resources, future work may investigate the trend of supportive patterns across multiple checkpoints of a LM throughout the pretraining process. Additionally, another significant limitation of our work is the amount of involved computing resource. The ORCA-ICL method is gradient-based that requires back-propagation. Since we iterate through a large size of pretraining data, the cost of computation is similar to training a language model with a batch size of 1 on the considered pretraining data. On our 4 nodes each consists of 8 Nvidia V100 GPUs, finding the supportive pretraining data for *each* source task in our experiment would take about a week. One mitigating aspect of such computation is that the gradient calculation can be done asynchronously, therefore enabling the use of idle, leftover GPUs scattered across a cluster of nodes. We plan to explore efficient computation of gradient similarity or move from a paradigm of extracting supportive data to generating supportive data in future work. ## Acknowledgements We thank Naman Goyal, Anjali Sridhar, Zeyu Liu, Victoria Lin, Mengzhou Xia, Weijia Shi, Jiacheng Liu, and Tianxing He for helpful discussions. We also thank the anonymous ACL reviewers and all members of TsvetShop for the valuable feedback. This research is supported in part by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), via the HIATUS Program contract 202222072200004. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of ODNI, IARPA, or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation therein. ## References Ekin Akyürek, Dale Schuurmans, Jacob Andreas, Tengyu Ma, and Denny Zhou. 2022. What learning algorithm is in-context learning? investigations with linear models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15661*. Tiago A Almeida, José María G Hidalgo, and Akebo Yamakami. 2011. Contributions to the study of sms spam filtering: new collection and results. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM symposium on Document engineering, pages 259–262. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. Stephanie CY Chan, Adam Santoro, Andrew Kyle Lampinen, Jane X Wang, Aaditya K Singh, Pierre Harvey Richemond, James McClelland, and Felix Hill. 2022. Data distributional properties drive emergent in-context learning in transformers. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. Damai Dai, Yutao Sun, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Zhifang Sui, and Furu Wei. 2022. Why can gpt learn in-context? language models secretly perform gradient descent as meta optimizers. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10559*. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proc. NAACL-HLT*. Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiyong Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, and Zhifang Sui. 2022. A survey for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234. Shivam Garg, Dimitris Tsipras, Percy Liang, and Gregory Valiant. 2022. What can transformers learn in-context? a case study of simple function classes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01066. Alec Go, Richa Bhayani, and Lei Huang. 2009. Twitter sentiment classification using distant supervision. CS224N project report, Stanford, 1(12):2009. Yuxian Gu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, and Minlie Huang. 2023. Pre-training to learn in context. Kelvin Guu, Albert Webson, Elizabeth-Jane Pavlick, Lucas Dixon, Ian Tenney, and Tolga Bolukbasi. 2023. Simfluence: Modeling the influence of individual training examples by simulating training runs. *ArXiv*, abs/2303.08114. Xiaochuang Han and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2022. Orca: Interpreting prompted language models via locating supporting data evidence in the ocean of pretraining data. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12600*. Tianxing He, Jingyu Zhang, Tianle Wang, Sachin Kumar, Kyunghyun Cho, James Glass, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2022. On the blind spots of model-based evaluation metrics for text generation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2212.10020. Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In *International Conference on Learning* Representations. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. 2017. Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. In Proc. ICML. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In *EMNLP*. Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Michael Roth, Annie Louis, Nathanael Chambers, and James Allen. 2017. Lsdsem 2017 shared task: The story cloze test. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Linking Models of Lexical, Sentential and Discourse-level Semantics, pages 46–51. Catherine Olsson, Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Nicholas Joseph, Nova DasSarma, Tom Henighan, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, et al. 2022. In-context learning and induction heads. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2209.11895. Myle Ott, Sam Shleifer, Min Xu, Priya Goyal, Quentin Duval, and Vittorio Caggiano. 2021. Fully sharded data parallel: faster ai training with fewer gpus. https://engineering.fb.com/2021/07/ 15/open-source/fsdp/. Jane Pan, Tianyu Gao, Howard Chen, and Danqi Chen. 2023. What in-context learning"learns"in-context: Disentangling task recognition and task learning. Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, Alexander H. Miller, and Sebastian Riedel. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? In *Proc. EMNLP*. Krishna Pillutla, Swabha Swayamdipta, Rowan Zellers, John Thickstun, Sean Welleck, Yejin Choi, and Zaïd Harchaoui. 2021. Mauve: Measuring the gap between neural text and human text using divergence frontiers. In *Proc. NeurIPS*. Garima Pruthi, Frederick Liu, Mukund Sundararajan, and Satyen Kale. 2020. Estimating training data influence by tracking gradient descent. In *Proc. NeurIPS*. Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2022. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. *ArXiv*, abs/2202.07206. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In *Proc. EACL*. Seongjin Shin, Sang-Woo Lee, Hwijeen Ahn, Sungdong Kim, HyoungSeok Kim, Boseop Kim, Kyunghyun Cho, Gichang Lee, Woomyoung Park, Jung-Woo Ha, et al. 2022. On the effect of pretraining corpora on in-context learning by a large-scale language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.13509. Mohammad Shoeybi, Mostofa Patwary, Raul Puri, Patrick LeGresley, Jared Casper, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2019. Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08053. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In *Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing*, pages 1631–1642. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 30. Johannes von Oswald, Eyvind Niklasson, Ettore Randazzo, João Sacramento, Alexander Mordvintsev, Andrey Zhmoginov, and Max Vladymyrov. 2022. Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07677. Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022. Benchmarking generalization via in-context instructions on 1,600+ language tasks. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2204.07705. Jerry W. Wei, Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Dustin Tran, Albert Webson, Yifeng Lu, Xinyun Chen, Hanxiao Liu, Da Huang, Denny Zhou, and Tengyu Ma. 2023. Larger language models do in-context learning differently. *ArXiv*, abs/2303.03846. Sang Michael Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2022. An explanation of in-context learning as implicit bayesian inference. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Wenhan Xiong, Jiawei Wu, Hong Wang, Vivek Kulkarni, Mo Yu, Shiyu Chang, Xiaoxiao Guo, and William Yang Wang. 2019. Tweetqa: A social media focused question answering dataset. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1907.06292. Hongxin Zhang, Yanzhe Zhang, Ruiyi Zhang, and Diyi Yang. 2022a. Robustness of demonstration-based learning under limited data scenario. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2210.10693. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022b. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068*. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Jake Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In *Proc. NeurIPS*. ## A Qualitative Examples In Table 3, we show some qualitative examples of the supportive pretraining data to ICL and random pretraining data. Note that these are illustrative examples extracted from long pretraining instances (each instance consists of 2048 tokens), for a better understandability of our findings. A manual examination of such data is difficult, and we thus propose the quantitative analyses described in the main paper. ## Supportive Pretraining Data To Icl ... Samsung's new Odyssey+ headset could fix its muddled VR vision As one of the world's most technologically innovative companies, Samsung should be leading the pack in VR - one of the decade's top transformative technologies. Instead, it has largely let Microsoft and Facebook determine its role in the VR space, leading to its current situation as an also-ran. If I was betting on whether that will change anytime soon, an FCC leak of the company's new Odyssey+ VR headset (discovered by RoadtoVR) would point to "no." Most of the specs are staying the same as its prior, Windowsdependent Odyssey model: Each eye still gets a 3.5-inch screen with 1,440 by 1,600 resolution, combining for a 110-degree field of view, and AMOLED technology will be used to guarantee dark blacks and rich colors. There's one mystery in the new specs, namely a reference to the AMOLED screens now including something called "SFS." ... ## Random Pretraining Data ... Bangladesh authorities and intelligence officials have long been saying that many of the refugees are involved in illicit drug trade, smuggling, robbery and ransom-seeking. Earlier Tuesday, the elite security agency Rapid Action Battalion arrested nine refugees suspected of being involved in various criminal activities. They had firearms, bullets and sharp weapons, Islam said. Local media reported that Tuesday' s chaos began after the arrest of the suspects as one group blamed another for helping the security agency in detaining them. Human rights groups that are involved in the camps acknowledge there are criminal elements among the Rohingya refugees. ... Table 3: Qualitative examples of the supportive pretraining data to ICL in the task of SMS spam detection. We also show an example of random pretraining data for comparison. As our finding on domain relevance suggested, neither of the examples are about SMS spam, so the language model may not learn direct knowledge about the task from supportive pretraining data to ICL. Compared to the random data, the supportive data to ICL has some relatively low-frequency tokens appear multiple times (e.g., VR, Odyssey, AMOLED) and the language model may learn some meta-knowledge about ICL (e.g., copying behaviors from the context) based on them. However, such patterns are sparse, noisy, and hard to analyze through manual inspections. We therefore present the quantitative analyses in the main paper. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Page 9 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Page 9 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Page 9 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Page 9 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 2.2 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 2, Section 3 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 3 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

zhang-etal-2023-ethicist

{ETHICIST}: Targeted Training Data Extraction Through Loss Smoothed Soft Prompting and Calibrated Confidence Estimation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.709

Large pre-trained language models achieve impressive results across many tasks. However, recent works point out that pre-trained language models may memorize a considerable fraction of their training data, leading to the privacy risk of information leakage. In this paper, we propose a method named Ethicist for targeted training data extraction through loss smoothed soft prompting and calibrated confidence estimation, investigating how to recover the suffix in the training data when given a prefix. To elicit memorization in the attacked model, we tune soft prompt embeddings while keeping the model fixed. We further propose a smoothing loss that smooths the loss distribution of the suffix tokens to make it easier to sample the correct suffix. In order to select the most probable suffix from a collection of sampled suffixes and estimate the prediction confidence, we propose a calibrated confidence estimation method, which normalizes the confidence of the generated suffixes with a local estimation. We show that Ethicist significantly improves the extraction performance on a recently proposed public benchmark. We also investigate several factors influencing the data extraction performance, including decoding strategy, model scale, prefix length, and suffix length. Our code is availabel at \url{https://github.com/thu-coai/Targeted-Data-Extraction}.

# Ethicist**: Targeted Training Data Extraction Through Loss Smoothed** Soft Prompting And Calibrated Confidence Estimation ## Zhexin Zhang, Jiaxin Wen, Minlie Huang∗ The CoAI group, DCST; Institute for Artificial Intelligence; State Key Lab of Intelligent Technology and Systems; Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology; Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China. zx-zhang22@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn, aihuang@tsinghua.edu.cn ## Abstract Large pre-trained language models achieve impressive results across many tasks. However, recent works point out that pre-trained language models may memorize a considerable fraction of their training data, leading to the privacy risk of information leakage. In this paper, we propose a method named ETHICIST for targeted training data Extraction TH*rough* loss smoothed soft prompting and calI*brated* ConfIdence eST*imation*, investigating how to recover the suffix in the training data when given a prefix. To elicit memorization in the attacked model, we tune soft prompt embeddings while keeping the model fixed. We further propose a smoothing loss that smooths the loss distribution of the suffix tokens to make it easier to sample the correct suffix. In order to select the most probable suffix from a collection of sampled suffixes and estimate the prediction confidence, we propose a calibrated confidence estimation method, which normalizes the confidence of the generated suffixes with a local estimation. We show that ETHICIST significantly improves the extraction performance on a recently proposed public benchmark. We also investigate several factors influencing the data extraction performance, including decoding strategy, model scale, prefix length, and suffix length. Our code is available at https://github.com/ thu-coai/Targeted-Data-Extraction. ## 1 Introduction Large pre-trained language models have achieved impressive results on various natural language processing tasks (Devlin et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2019a; Raffel et al., 2020). Model sizes rapidly increase from millions to trillions of parameters and keep growing to achieve better performance and even obtain some emergent abilities (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Fedus et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). Despite the ∗Corresponding author.  success of large-scale pre-trained language models, recent works point out that they may memorize a considerable fraction of training data, leading to the privacy risk of information leakage (Carlini et al., 2022a; Tirumala et al., 2022a; Mireshghallah et al., 2022; Carlini et al., 2021). Furthermore, researchers find that memorization scales with model sizes (Carlini et al., 2022a). Therefore, this privacy risk becomes more and more critical in the era of large-scale pre-training. And attacking language models to extract their training data attracts increasing attention. There are currently two main settings to extract training data. One is membership inference attack, which infers whether a given example is contained in the model's training data (Hisamoto et al., 2020; Shokri et al., 2017). The other is untargeted train12674 ing data extraction (Carlini et al., 2021), which aims to extract training data from scratch (i.e., without the given prefix). However, both settings are not suitable for extracting targeted training data. For example, attackers may feed the model with a prefix indicating the beginning of an email and try to extract the following private email content in the training dataset as shown in Figure 1. In such cases, we do not have complete examples to do membership inference, and we have specific goals instead of performing untargeted extraction. Therefore, we focus on **targeted training data extraction** in this paper, which requires recovering the suffix when given a prefix according to the training data. Compared with untargeted training data extraction, the task matters more because attackers can recover specific types of training data instead of any possible training data that might be harmless. What's more, it is easier to evaluate targeted training data extraction because we just need to compare the prediction with the ground truth suffix. However, for untargeted training data extraction, we need to search over the whole massive pre-training dataset (e.g., The Pile dataset (Gao et al., 2020), which has 800GB text data) to check whether it contains the generated sample, which is very slow and costly. The general process for targeted training data extraction can be divided into two steps: (1) generating one or more possible suffixes based on the given prefix, and (2) choosing a most likely suffix as the prediction result based on a confidence estimation method. We summarize two challenges of this task: (1) how to increase the generation likelihood of the ground truth suffix, and (2) how to estimate the confidence accurately so that the confidence score can be meaningfully interpreted as the probability that the output suffix is correct. To tackle these challenges, we propose a method named ETHICIST for targeted training data Extraction THrough loss smoothed soft prompting and calIbrated ConfIdence eST*imation*. For the first challenge, we propose loss smoothed soft prompting. It uses soft prompt to elicit memorization in the attacked model, and adds an additional loss besides the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) loss to smooth the loss distribution of the suffix tokens. Through the loss smoothing, we hope to ensure that the probability of the ground truth token at each time step is not low, which makes it more likely to sample the ground truth suffix. With the two loss functions, we tune the prepended soft prompt tokens on an extracted training set which contains pairs of prefixes and ground truth suffixes. The existence of a training set is reasonable because large-scale pre-trained data generally contain public data (e.g., Common Crawl) 1. For the second challenge, we propose a calibrated confidence estimation method. We find that the model's perplexity cannot accurately represent the probability that the generated suffix is correct because the prediction probabilities for diversified prefixes are inherently different and incomparable. We thus normalize the confidence of the generated suffixes with a local estimation, which can mitigate the problems caused by intrinsic differences in the difficulties of distinct samples. We verify ETHICIST on a recently proposed public benchmark containing 15,000 pairs of prefixes and suffixes derived from The Pile dataset (Gao et al., 2020). Experiments show that ETHICIST can significantly improve the extraction performance, which suggests that existing large language models are at significant risk of leaking training data. We also discuss and analyze several factors influencing the data extraction performance, including decoding strategy, model scale, prefix length, and suffix length. Our contributions can be summarized as follows: - We propose loss smoothed soft prompting to reduce the difficulties of sampling the ground truth suffixes. - We propose a calibrated confidence estimation method that enables the confidence score to be meaningfully interpreted as the probability that the output suffix is correct. - Experiments on a recently proposed benchmark demonstrate that ETHICIST can consistently and significantly improve the data extraction performance across various model sizes. We further investigate several factors influencing the data extraction performance. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Training Data Extraction Existing works on training data extraction mainly focus on membership inference attack or untargeted training data extraction. For membership inference attack, adversaries need to judge whether a given example is contained in the training data of the attacked model. Shokri et al. (2017); Song 1Similar setting is adopted in Hisamoto et al. (2020). and Shmatikov (2019) train several shadow models that mimic the attacked models' behaviors to help train an auditing model that can predict whether an example is contained in the training dataset. Hisamoto et al. (2020) perform membership inference attacks on machine translation systems. They find it is harder to attack sequence generation models than classification models. Song and Raghunathan (2020) show that the encoded dense representations can leak information under membership inference attack. Mireshghallah et al. (2022) focuses on attacking masked language models that are pre-trained on possibly sensitive data (e.g., clinical notes). They introduce an additional reference masked language model besides the original attacked model and compute the ratio of the likelihood measured by the attacked model and the reference model, which is better than solely relying on the attacked model. For untargeted training data extraction, adversaries first generate various samples using the attacked model and then predict whether they are contained in its training set. Carlini et al. (2021) extract hundreds of verbatim sequences from the popular pre-trained language model GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019b). And there is privacy information such as names, phone numbers, and email addresses in the extracted sequences. Lehman et al. (2021) try to extract sensitive information from BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) pre-trained on clinical notes. However, they are mostly unable to meaningfully expose Personal Health Information by simply using templates. Different from the existing works, we focus on targeted training data extraction that aims to recover the suffix when given a prefix, which is more security-critical and easier to evaluate. ## 2.2 Memorization We generally expect models can gain the generalization ability from the training process. However, recent works point out that models may unintentionally memorize the training data even without overfitting (Tirumala et al., 2022a; Carlini et al., 2022a, 2019; Béguelin et al., 2020). One possible method to mitigate this problem is to deduplicate training data (Kandpal et al., 2022). However, Carlini et al. (2019) also show that it is possible to recover samples appearing only once in the training dataset. Surprisingly, Tirumala et al. (2022a) find that there is a forgetting baseline during the pre-training of the casual language model (e.g., the model can memorize at least 40% of the data that appear only once, even being trained on other data for many epochs afterward). These findings further emphasizes the difficulties of avoiding memorization and the potential threats of unintended memorization in large-scale pre-trained language models. Another line of work uses differential privacy to avoid the memorization problem (Abadi et al., 2016; McMahan et al., 2018; Shokri and Shmatikov, 2015), but the mechanism could reduce the accuracy (Jayaraman and Evans, 2019; Feldman and Zhang, 2020; Feldman, 2020; Song and Shmatikov, 2019). Differential privacy also increases the training time, which can further influence the accuracy within the same budget. Therefore there is still no effective and practical way to avoid unintended memorization. Our work further verifies the existence of unintended memorization and makes it more necessary to develop practical defense methods. ## 3 Methodology We formulate the targeted training data extraction task as follows: given a source prefix S = (s1, s2, · · · , s|S|) with |S| tokens, the attacker should predict the target suffix T = (t1, t2, · · · , t|T|) with |T| tokens and its confidence. The pair of the given prefix and the predicted suffix (*S, T*) should be contained in the pre-training dataset Dpretrain = {(Si, Ti)}, which the attacked model M is trained on. The prediction of the confidence score is necessary for picking out the most probable suffix when we don't know the ground truth suffix in realistic attack scenarios (i.e., we need to pick out most probable pairs of prefixes and extracted suffixes based on their confidence scores among all predictions). We assume the attacker can obtain some pairs of ground truth prefixes and suffixes Dtrain = {(Si, Ti)|(Si, Ti) ∈ Dpretrain, 1 ≤ i ≤ |Dtrain|} before attacking, which is reasonable because large-scale pre-trained data generally contain public data (e.g., Common Crawl). The attackers can utilize Dtrain to train their attacking models and their goal is to predict suffixes for the prefixes in the test set Dtest = {Si|1 ≤ i ≤ |Dtest|}. Note that the prefix Siin Dtest is included in Dpretrain but is not a part of Dtrain. ## 3.1 Method Overview An overview of ETHICIST is shown in Figure 2. We first tune the soft prompt embeddings during training to elicit memorization in the attacked model M  '(!) with the MLE loss and the additional smoothing loss. The smoothing loss aims to increase the probability of sampling the ground truth suffix. After prompt tuning, we repeatedly sample K suffixes using the attacked model M conditioned on one given prefix and reorder them with our calibrated confidence estimation. Our calibrated confidence estimation can not only select the most possible suffix, but also provide a more accurate confidence score that represents how likely the predicted suffix is correct. Finally, the suffix with the highest confidence is selected as the final prediction. ## 3.2 Prompt Tuning With Smoothing Loss We adopt prompt tuning to train the soft prompt tokens on D, which prepends |X| soft tokens X = (x1, x2, · · · , x|X|) before the original input sequence. Then we feed the input to the attacked model M to compute the MLE loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{MLE}}=\sum_{i=1}^{|T|}-{\frac{1}{|T|}}\mathrm{log}P_{M}(t_{i}|X,S,t_{<i}).\quad\quad(1)$$ Note that we only tune the parameters of the soft prompt tokens and the parameters of the attacked model M are fixed. We use prompt tuning for two reasons: (1) we do not want to change the original parameters of the attacked model M because the main goal is to elicit memorization in M, and (2) prompt tuning is helpful to improve the training efficiency when M is very large, making ETHICIST able to efficiently adapt to larger language models that generally memorize more training data. The MLE loss aims to increase the total generation probability of the target suffix T. However, when using popular sampling methods such as topk sampling (Fan et al., 2018) and top-p (nucleus) sampling (Holtzman et al., 2020) to generate multiple candidate suffixes, we want to ensure the probability of the ground truth suffix token at **each time** step is not low. Suppose the total probability of the ground truth suffix is high while there is one token in the sequence with a low generation probability. In this case, it is still hard to generate the correct suffix using auto-regressive sampling methods. Therefore, we propose a smoothing loss to make the loss distribution of the suffix sequence more smooth. More specifically, we pick out the top-N tokens with the highest loss values in the whole sequence T. Then we additionally optimize the generation probabilities for these N tokens as follows: **Shows.** $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{Smooth}}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}-\frac{1}{N}\text{log}P_{M}(t_{\sigma(i)}|X,S,t_{<\sigma(i)}),\tag{2}$$ $$({\mathfrak{I}})$$ where tσ(i)represents the token with the i-th highest loss in T. Note that tσ(i)is dynamically computed during training. The smoothing loss can also be seen as assigning higher weights to the tokens with higher loss values. Finally, we derive the overall loss function as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{Total}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{MLE}}+\alpha{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{Smooth}},$$ where the coefficient α is a hyperparameter to control the strength of the smoothing loss. ## 3.3 Calibrated Confidence Estimation After predicting the suffix, we also need to give a confidence score for the prediction, which can be meaningfully interpreted as the probability that the output suffix is correct. A naive method is to use the generation likelihood PT = exp(−|T|LMLE) as the confidence score. This naive method is reasonable for picking out the most probable suffix Ti from a collection of sampled suffixes {T1, T2, · · · , TM} for one given prefix. However, it is unsuitable for comparing the confidence of different predicted suffixes corresponding to different prefixes. As the language model is essentially a statistical model, frequencies of tokens and n-grams in the prefixes can greatly influence the absolute generation likelihood of the suffixes. For example, consider two predicted suffixes TA and TB conditioned on two different prefixes SA and SB, where SA and TA contain tokens and n-grams with much higher frequencies. The absolute generation likelihood of TA may be significantly higher than TB, even if they are both ground truth suffixes. Therefore, to eliminate the intrinsic differences in scales of generation likelihood across different suffixes, we propose a novel calibrated confidence estimation method. To calibrate the confidence estimation, we have two considerations: (1) different generated suffixes conditioned on one given prefix should have comparable scales of generation likelihood, and (2) the memorized ground truth suffix is expected to be generated more frequently during multiple generations, which is also validated in Section 5. Suppose the sampled distinct suffixes are {T1, T2, · · · , TM} for one given prefix, the repeated generation times for these suffixes are {r1, r2, · · · , rM} (i.e., ri denotes how many times Tiis generated among K repeated sampling outputs), and the MLE loss values for these suffixes are {L1MLE,L 2MLE, *· · ·* ,LM MLE}. Then we assign the calibrated confidence score to Ti as: $$C(T_{i})=\frac{r_{i}\times\exp(-|T_{i}|\mathcal{L}_{\text{MLE}}^{i})}{\sum_{j=1}^{M}r_{j}\times\exp(-|T_{j}|\mathcal{L}_{\text{MLE}}^{j})}.\tag{4}$$ Through the proposed confidence estimation method, we obtain the confidence score of Ti by comparing it with other sampled suffixes with comparable scales of generation likelihood. In this way, we avoid the scale problem brought by different prefixes and make it practical to compare the predicted suffixes conditioned on different prefixes. Moreover, we leverage the repetition time ri as a valuable signal since memorized suffix is expected to be generated more frequently. Finally, we select the suffix Tbest with the highest confidence score C(Tbest) among {C(T1), C(T2), · · · , C(TM)} as the predicted suffix and C(Tbest) as its confidence estimation. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Benchmark We evaluate ETHICIST on the LM-Extraction benchmark2, which is designed for benchmarking targeted training data extraction attacks. It consists of a subset contained in The Pile dataset (Gao et al., 2020). Both the prefix and the suffix are 50 tokens long. All examples are well-specified, meaning that there is only one 50-token suffix in The Pile dataset given the 50-token prefix. What's more, these examples are all chosen to meet the property that there exists a prefix length (maybe longer than 50) that causes the model to generate the suffix string exactly, which implies that the extraction performance on this benchmark may be **higher** than that on randomly selected prefixes. We randomly split the dataset into training, validation and test sets. The detailed statistics of the LM-Extraction benchmark are shown in Table 1. | Split | # Examples | # Prefix Len | # Suffix Len | |------------|--------------|----------------|----------------| | Train | 12,600 | 50 | 50 | | Validation | 1,400 | 50 | 50 | | Test | 1,000 | 50 | 50 | Table 1: Statistics of the LM-Extraction benchmark. ## 4.2 Baselines We compare ETHICIST with the following baselines. All the compared baselines first sample K suffixes {T1, T2, · · · , TK} conditioned on one given prefix S and then pick out one suffix as the prediction. Perplexity It leverages the perplexity (PPL) measured by the attacked language model M as the metric to sort the candidate suffixes and finally chooses the one with the lowest PPL as the predicted suffix T: $$T=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{T_{i}}C(T_{i})=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{T_{i}}{\frac{1}{\mathbf{PPL}_{M}(T_{i}|S)}}$$ Comparing (LM) It takes another language model M′and leverages the ratio of the perplexity 2https://github.com/google-research/ lm-extraction-benchmark/ measured by theses two language models as the metric (Carlini et al., 2021): $$T=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{T_{i}}C(T_{i})=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{T_{i}}{\frac{\mathbf{PPL}_{M^{\prime}}(T_{i}|S)}{\mathbf{PPL}_{M}(T_{i}|S)}}$$ The language model M′could be a much smaller model trained on the same dataset with M or trained on a different dataset. Comparing (zlib) Different from Comparing (LM), it uses the zlib (Gailly and Adler, 2004) entropy of the text (i.e., the number of bits after compression with zlib) for comparison (Carlini et al., 2021): $$T=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{T_{i}}C(T_{i})=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{T_{i}}{\frac{\operatorname{len}(\operatorname{zlib}(T_{i}))}{\operatorname{PPL}_{M}(T_{i}|S)}}$$ Comparing (lowercase) It compares the perplexity of the original text and the lower-cased text measured by the same language model M (Carlini et al., 2021): $$\begin{array}{r l}{T=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{T_{i}}C(T_{i})}\\ {=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{T_{i}}{\frac{\mathbf{P}\mathbf{P}\mathbf{L}_{M}(\mathrm{lowercased}(T_{i})|S)}{\mathbf{P}\mathbf{P}\mathbf{L}_{M}(T_{i}|S)}}}\end{array}$$ Furthermore, we conduct ablation tests by removing the proposed components respectively to investigate the influence of each component. ## 4.3 Metrics We adopt the following automatic metrics for evaluation. Recall The metric computes the percentage of the suffixes that are predicted verbatim over the whole test set. A higher recall score indicates better data extraction ability, which can also be understood as a higher attacking success rate. Recall**Early stop** The metric first sorts the predictions according to their confidence scores and then evaluates the correctness of each prediction one by one. It finally computes the Recall score while making x incorrect predictions. We set x to 100 in our experiments following the LM-Extraction benchmark. A better confidence estimation method can give the correct predictions higher confidence scores and thus lead to a higher RecallEarly stop score. ## 4.4 Main Results Table 2 shows the automatic evaluation results with GPT-Neo 1.3B as the backbone. ETHICIST achieves an impressive Recall score of 62.8% and outperforms all the baselines by a large margin, indicating its better ability to extract training data from language models. Moreover, ETHICIST has better confidence estimation performance after calibration as shown by a significantly higher RecallEarly stop score. To further investigate the influence of each component, we run an ablation study. From the results shown in Table 2, it can be seen that both the smoothing loss and the calibrated confidence estimation are important to enhance the ability to extract training data, and combining both of them achieves the best performance. Furthermore, we draw the following conclusions: (1) With prompt tuning and extra training data, we can better induce large-scale language models to generate their memorized training data and successfully achieves a 9.5% performance improvement on Recall and a 12.4% performance improvement on RecallEarly stop. (2) The proposed smoothing loss can further enhance the ability to extract training data, boosting the Recall score from 60.8% to 62.3%. (3) The calibrated confidence provides a 6.3% improvement on RecallEarly stop as expected, demonstrating the importance of calibrating confidence estimation for this task. (4) The smoothing loss is more effective in predicting exact suffixes while the calibrated confidence is more beneficial for identifying highly confident predictions, according to the significant drop in Recall without smoothing and the substantial decrease in RecallEarly stop without calibration. (5) The calibrated confidence estimation is effective regardless of whether using prompt tuning. And it demonstrates greater advantages compared to the comparing (LM) baseline in recognizing predictions with higher confidence when using prompt tuning, indicated by increasing RecallEarly stop (from 48.7 to 52.4). ## 4.5 Analysis: Decoding Strategy In our experiments, we use top-p sampling to sample multiple candidate suffixes conditioned on one given prefix. However, there are also other popular decoding methods, including greedy search, beam search, and top-k sampling. We thus compare these popular decoding methods in this section. Table 3 shows the results. Not surprisingly, greedy search performs worst on both Recall and RecallEarly stop, | Method | Recall | RecallEarly stop | |-----------------------------------------|----------|--------------------| | Perplexity | 51.3 ±.0 | 32.2 ±.0 | | Comparing (LM) | 51.9 ±.0 | 37.4 ±.0 | | Comparing (zlib) | 49.7 ±.2 | 25.6 ±.0 | | Comparing (lowercase) | 51.5 ±.0 | 32.5 ±.0 | | ETHICIST | 62.8 ±.5 | 53.8 ±.5 | | w/o smooth | 61.2 ±.3 | 52.4 ±.5 | | w/o calibrated | 62.3 ±.6 | 47.5 ±1.3 | | w/o smooth & calibrated | 60.8 ±.6 | 44.6 ±.8 | | w/o smooth & calibrated, comparing (LM) | 62.4 ±.7 | 48.7 ±1.2 | | w/o prompt tuning | 50.9 ±.0 | 38.0 ±.0 | which suggests some tokens in the ground truth suffix do not have the highest probability at the corresponding positions. Beam search outperforms top-p sampling on Recall, indicating that searching for the suffix with the lowest loss works well to find the ground truth suffix. However, beam search performs significantly worse than top-p sampling on RecallEarly stop, because it cannot use our calibrated confidence. Compared with beam search, top-p sampling can generate multiple candidates, which could substantially increase the accuracy of confidence estimation with our proposed calibrated confidence. Moreover, the top-k sampling performs worse than top-p sampling on RecallEarly stop, which may be because top-k sampling is easier to sample low-probability tokens and thus reduce the confidence of the ground truth suffixes. We finally select top-p sampling as our decoding method due to its balance on Recall and RecallEarly stop. ## 4.6 Analysis: Model Scale Previous works on scaling laws find that larger language models can memorize more training data (Carlini et al., 2022b; Tirumala et al., 2022b). Therefore, we are interested in how targeted data extraction performance varies across different model scales. Figure 3 shows the results. We can see that the targeted training data extraction performance continuously increases as the model scale increases from 125 million to 6 billion. ETHI-CIST shows impressive results as it consistently and | Strategy | Recall | RecallEarly stop | |-------------|----------|--------------------| | Greedy | 58.7 ±.6 | 47.1 ±1.1 | | Beam Search | 64.5 ±.9 | 47.9 ±1.0 | | Top-k | 62.7 ±.6 | 50.8 ±.6 | | Top-p | 62.8 ±.5 | 53.8 ±.5 | significantly outperforms baselines across different model scales. Thanks to prompt tuning, ETHICIST is efficient in terms of computation time and particularly memory consumption. Therefore, ETHICIST can also be adapted to larger language models for efficient targeted training data extraction. ## 4.7 **Analysis: Prefix Length And Suffix Length** All prefixes and suffixes in the LM-Extraction benchmark are 50 tokens long, making it an interesting question how the length of prefixes and suffixes would affect the extraction performance. We show the effect of the given prefix length in Figure 4. We can observe that the extraction performance grows approximately linearly with the prefix length for all evaluated methods, and ETHICIST performs best for all prefix lengths. Al-    though all methods have similar growth speed on Recall, ETHICIST has the highest growth speed on RecallEarly stop. It is also interesting that *Comparing (LM)* only outperforms *Perplexity* when given | Feature | Correct | Wrong | |---------------------|-----------|---------| | Recall@1 | 0.63 | 0.37 | | Recall@3 | 0.68 | 0.32 | | Recall@100 | 0.69 | 0.31 | | Average Repeat Time | 85.38 | 29.66 | | Average Confidence | 0.95 | 0.67 |  prefixes that are long enough. We show the effect of the predicted suffix length in Figure 5. For all three methods, the extraction performance decreases when the suffix length increases. Different from the approximately linear relationship between the prefix length and the extraction performance, the performance degradation tends to become progressively slower as the suffix length increases. This suggests that the model can still memorize a considerable proportion of suffixes (rather than quickly decreasing to zero) even if the predicted suffix length continues to increase. What's more, we observe that ETHICIST has a significantly slower speed of performance degradation compared with the two baselines, which suggests ETHICIST is effective for eliciting deeper memorization of longer suffixes of the attacked model. ## 4.8 Analysis: Sampling Time Due to space limitations, we put the analysis of sampling time in Appendix C.  ## 5 Discussion We further show some statistical features in Table 4. We can see that the memorized suffixes can be sampled significantly more frequently with a high average repeat time of 85.38, validating that the repeat time is a valuable signal for confidence estimation. What's more, the memorized suffixes have significantly higher confidence. One interesting phenomenon we observe is that if the ground truth suffix can be generated, it mostly has the top 3 highest confidence (Recall@3 ≈ Recall@100). We also find that for more than 30% of the prefixes, the model cannot generate the correct prefix even given 100 chances. Therefore, an important future direction is to design better methods to elicit memorization in the attacked model. Considering the non-negligible gap between Recall@1 and Recall@100 (0.63 vs. 0.69), another important future direction is to design better confidence estimation methods (maybe trainable), which can pick out the ground truth suffix among the collection of candidate suffixes for one prefix. We show a case in Figure 6. Although the first predicted suffix has higher loss than the second predicted suffix, it is sampled far more times than the latter. Therefore, we assign higher confidence to the first suffix using our calibrated confidence estimation method. We further show the probability of generating each token during the sampling process in Figure 7. We can observe that although the correct prediction has higher loss as a whole, it keeps a high sampling probability across the generation process. The minimum probability of generating one token in the correct suffix is about 0.45, which is significantly higher than 0.1 for the wrong suffix. Therefore it is easier to generate the correct suffix, which leads to a higher confidence score. This is also in line with our motivation for designing the extra smoothing loss, which can increase the probability of sampling the correct suffix. ## 6 Conclusion In this work, we propose ETHICIST, an effective method for targeted training data extraction attack. ETHICIST uses soft prompt to elicit memorization in the attacked model. To ensure the probability of the ground truth suffix token at each time step is not low, we propose a smoothing loss besides the standard MLE loss. We also propose a calibrated confidence estimation method to calibrate the scale of confidence across different samples. Experiments on the LM-Extraction benchmark demonstrate that ETHICIST significantly improves the extraction performance. We further conduct extensive experiments to investigate several critical factors influencing the extraction performance, including decoding strategy, model scale, prefix length, and suffix length. We hope our work can promote future researches on better attack methods and practical defense methods for the training data extraction problem. ## Acknowledgement This work was supported by the NSFC projects (Key project with No. 61936010 ). This work was also supported by the Guoqiang Institute of Tsinghua University, with Grant No. 2020GQG0005. ## Limitations Although we conduct experiments across various model scales ranging from 125M to 6B, there are still larger language models we don't test either because their training data is not publicly released or because we have limited resources. Moreover, the examples in the LM-Extraction benchmark are all chosen to meet the property that there exists a prefix length (maybe longer than 50) that causes the model to generate the suffix string exactly, which makes the extraction performance on this benchmark higher than that on randomly selected prefixes. ## Ethics Statement ETHICIST is a powerful method to elicit memorization in the large pre-trained language models, which makes it a useful tool to expose the privacy risk of large language models. However, it also has a risk to be abused by attackers to extract privacy information from pre-trained language models. Thus large language models should be carefully examined before being made publicly available. What's more, it is necessary to develop defense methods against the training data extraction attacks without sacrificing the language modeling ability. The LM-Extraction benchmark is derived from the Pile dataset, and thus covers many domains including books, code, emails, etc. This suggests the effectiveness of targeted training data extraction across different domains. ## References Martín Abadi, Andy Chu, Ian J. Goodfellow, H. Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang. 2016. Deep learning with differential privacy. In *Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC* Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, October 24-28, 2016, pages 308–318. ACM. Santiago Zanella Béguelin, Lukas Wutschitz, Shruti Tople, Victor Rühle, Andrew Paverd, Olga Ohrimenko, Boris Köpf, and Marc Brockschmidt. 2020. Analyzing information leakage of updates to natural language models. In CCS '20: 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Virtual Event, USA, November 9-13, 2020, pages 363–375. ACM. Sid Black, Leo Gao, Phil Wang, Connor Leahy, and Stella Biderman. 2021. GPT-Neo: Large Scale Autoregressive Language Modeling with MeshTensorflow. If you use this software, please cite it using these metadata. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901. Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramèr, and Chiyuan Zhang. 2022a. Quantifying memorization across neural language models. *CoRR*, abs/2202.07646. Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramer, and Chiyuan Zhang. 2022b. Quantifying memorization across neural language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07646*. Nicholas Carlini, Chang Liu, Úlfar Erlingsson, Jernej Kos, and Dawn Song. 2019. The secret sharer: Evaluating and testing unintended memorization in neural networks. In *28th USENIX Security Symposium,* USENIX Security 2019, Santa Clara, CA, USA, August 14-16, 2019, pages 267–284. USENIX Association. Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), pages 2633–2650. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2204.02311. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 889–898. William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2022. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. *Journal of* Machine Learning Research, 23(120):1–39. Vitaly Feldman. 2020. Does learning require memorization? a short tale about a long tail. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 954–959. Vitaly Feldman and Chiyuan Zhang. 2020. What neural networks memorize and why: Discovering the long tail via influence estimation. *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems, 33:2881–2891. Jean-loup Gailly and Mark Adler. 2004. Zlib compression library. Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2020. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027*. Sorami Hisamoto, Matt Post, and Kevin Duh. 2020. Membership inference attacks on sequence-tosequence models: Is my data in your machine translation system? *Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics*, 8:49–63. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2020. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In *International Conference on Learning* Representations. Bargav Jayaraman and David Evans. 2019. Evaluating differentially private machine learning in practice. In 28th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 2019, Santa Clara, CA, USA, August 14-16, 2019, pages 1895–1912. USENIX Association. Nikhil Kandpal, Eric Wallace, and Colin Raffel. 2022. Deduplicating training data mitigates privacy risks in language models. In *International Conference on* Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, volume 162 of *Proceedings* of Machine Learning Research, pages 10697–10707. PMLR. Eric Lehman, Sarthak Jain, Karl Pichotta, Yoav Goldberg, and Byron C. Wallace. 2021. Does BERT pretrained on clinical notes reveal sensitive data? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 946–959. Association for Computational Linguistics. H. Brendan McMahan, Daniel Ramage, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang. 2018. Learning differentially private recurrent language models. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. Fatemehsadat Mireshghallah, Kartik Goyal, Archit Uniyal, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, and Reza Shokri. 2022. Quantifying privacy risks of masked language models using membership inference attacks. *CoRR*, abs/2203.03929. Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019a. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019b. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21(140):1–67. Reza Shokri and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2015. Privacypreserving deep learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Denver, CO, USA, October 12-16, 2015, pages 1310–1321. ACM. Reza Shokri, Marco Stronati, Congzheng Song, and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2017. Membership inference attacks against machine learning models. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2017, San Jose, CA, USA, May 22-26, 2017, pages 3–18. IEEE Computer Society. Congzheng Song and Ananth Raghunathan. 2020. Information leakage in embedding models. In CCS '20: 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Virtual Event, USA, November 9-13, 2020, pages 377–390. ACM. Congzheng Song and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2019. Auditing data provenance in text-generation models. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD 2019, Anchorage, AK, USA, August 4-8, 2019, pages 196–206. ACM. Kushal Tirumala, Aram H. Markosyan, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Armen Aghajanyan. 2022a. Memorization without overfitting: Analyzing the training dynamics of large language models. *CoRR*, abs/2205.10770. Kushal Tirumala, Aram H Markosyan, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Armen Aghajanyan. 2022b. Memorization without overfitting: Analyzing the training dynamics of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10770. Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/ mesh-transformer-jax. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. ## A Implementation Details As the benchmark is derived from The Pile (Gao et al., 2020) dataset, we conduct experiments only on the models that are pre-trained on The Pile dataset. They are GPT-Neo 125M, GPT-Neo 1.3B, GPT-Neo 2.7B, and GPT-J 6B (Black et al., 2021; Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021). We set the prompt length to 100, the batch size to 32, the learning rate of AdamW optimizer to 1e-3, the warmup step to 500, the learning rate decay strategy to linear, N in Equation 2 to 5, α in Equation 3 to 0.7, and the maximum training epoch to 20 with an early stopping mechanism. In our main experiments, we generate the suffix using top-p sampling (Holtzman et al., 2020) with p = 0.7 and temperature = 0.8. For other decoding methods, we set beam size to 10 for beam search, and k to 10 for top-k sampling (temperature = 0.8). Our code is based on Huggingface Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020). ## B Computing Infrastructure All experiments are carried out on a single Tesla  V100 GPU with 32GB memory. Each experiment can be completed in less than 20 hours. ## C Effect Of Sampling Time In our main experiments, we sample 100 candidate suffixes for one given prefix. We show the effect of sampling time in Figure 8. We can see that all methods' performances increase quickly when the sampling time increases from 1 to 10. However, ETHICIST's performance can still improve slowly when the sampling time increases from 10 to 100, which we attribute to the consideration of repeat time in our calibrated confidence estimation. What's more, although we report the result for sampling 100 times in our main experiments, we can see that ETHICIST can achieve satisfying performance when sampling only 10 times, which ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section Abstract and Section Introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section Methodology ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section References ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? They are discussed in our github repo. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section Experiments ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? The publisher of the data did the work. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? We don't create new data. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section Experiments ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section Experiments ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section Implementation Details and Section Computing Infrastructure in the Appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section Implementation Details in the Appendix ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section Experiments ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section Implementation Details D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

wang-etal-2023-effective

Effective Contrastive Weighting for Dense Query Expansion

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.710

Verbatim queries submitted to search engines often do not sufficiently describe the user{'}s search intent. Pseudo-relevance feedback (PRF) techniques, which modify a query{'}srepresentation using the top-ranked documents, have been shown to overcome such inadequacies and improve retrieval effectiveness for both lexical methods (e.g., BM25) and dense methods (e.g., ANCE, ColBERT). For instance, the recent ColBERT-PRF approach heuristically chooses new embeddings to add to the query representation using the inverse document frequency (IDF) of the underlying tokens. However, this heuristic potentially ignores the valuable context encoded by the embeddings. In this work, we present a contrastive solution that learns to select the most useful embeddings for expansion. More specifically, a deep language model-based contrastive weighting model, called CWPRF, is trained to learn to discriminate between relevant and non-relevant documents for semantic search. Our experimental results show that our contrastive weighting model can aid to select useful expansion embeddings and outperform various baselines. In particular, CWPRF can improve nDCG@10 by upto to 4.1{\%} compared to an existing PRF approach for ColBERT while maintaining its efficiency.

# Effective Contrastive Weighting For Dense Query Expansion Xiao Wang‡, Sean MacAvaney†, Craig Macdonald†**, Iadh Ounis**†, School of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, UK ‡x.wang.8@research.gla.ac.uk †{sean.macavaney, craig.macdonald, iadh.ounis}@glasgow.ac.uk ## Abstract Verbatim queries submitted to search engines often do not sufficiently describe the user's search intent. Pseudo-relevance feedback (PRF) techniques, which modify a query's representation using the top-ranked documents, have been shown to overcome such inadequacies and improve retrieval effectiveness for both lexical methods (e.g., BM25) and dense methods (e.g., ANCE, ColBERT). For instance, the recent ColBERT-PRF approach heuristically chooses new embeddings to add to the query representation using the inverse document frequency (IDF) of the underlying tokens. However, this heuristic potentially ignores the valuable context encoded by the embeddings. In this work, we present a contrastive solution that learns to select the most useful embeddings for expansion. More specifically, a deep language model-based contrastive weighting model, called CWPRF, is trained to learn to discriminate between relevant and non-relevant documents for semantic search. Our experimental results show that our contrastive weighting model can aid to select useful expansion embeddings and outperform various baselines. In particular, CWPRF can improve nDCG@10 by upto to 4.1% compared to an existing PRF approach for ColBERT while maintaining its efficiency. ## 1 Introduction When using search engines, users frequently enter queries that insufficiently express their desired intent. For instance, a user who issues the query georgia run off elections may indeed be looking for details about a specific electoral procedure in the US state of Georgia. For search algorithms that rely on lexical matching, such as BM25, this can result in a *lexical gap*, since relevant documents may just as easily use different terms (e.g., GA and 2nd-round). Pseudo-Relevance Feedback (PRF) techniques are often employed to overcome such a lexical gap. Indeed, classical PRF techniques,  such as RM3 (Abdul-Jaleel et al., 2004), have been widely used to enrich the user's query with terms selected from the initial retrieval top-ranked documents, i.e. the pseudo-relevance feedback set (Amati and Van Rijsbergen, 2002; Roy et al., 2016; Cao et al., 2008). This *expanded* query is capable of overcoming the lexical gap if the pseudo-relevance feedback documents are relevant and additional related terms can be identified (for instance adding GA to the query). However, there is a risk that the added terms *drift* the intent of the query (for instance, adding terms such as Tbilisi that relate to the *country* of Georgia rather than the US state). An alternative approach for overcoming the lexical gap is to perform *semantic search* over learned embedded documents (*single representation*, e.g., ANCE (Karpukhin et al., 2020)) or tokens (*multiple representations*, e.g., ColBERT (Khattab and Zaharia, 2020)). Such *dense retrieval* approaches enable queries to retrieve documents that do not necessarily contain the query terms. However, the encoded query vectors might still not adequately express the user's desired intent. Indeed, several recent works have shown that implementing PRF techniques within the dense retrieval paradigm - such as ANCE-PRF (Yu et al., 2021), VectorPRF (Li et al., 2023) and ColBERT-PRF (Wang et al., 2021, 2022b) - can further improve retrieval effectiveness. ColBERT-PRF has been shown to be 12688 more effective than Vector-PRF and ANCE-PRF variants applied on various dense retrieval models. A key limitation of ColBERT-PRF is that it relies on clustering and inverse document frequency (IDF) statistics for identifying the expansion embeddings - both of which are heuristics. This approach ignores valuable context present in the embeddings, e.g., for the *georgia run off elections* query, effectiveness might be improved by adding an embedding for 'US', however, this would not likely be selected due to its low IDF (indeed, 'us' is also a pronoun, and is often included in stopword lists). Moreover, there is no direct connection between the expansion embeddings selected by the heuristic and the semantic search algorithm itself. To overcome these problems, we propose a contrastive weighting method, called CWPRF, to select and weight the usefulness of the feedback embeddings for dense expansion. More specifically, for each feedback token, we construct a contrastive objective, where, given positive and negative documents, CWPRF is trained to assign high weights to the tokens that are semantically closer to tokens occurring the positive document than to those in the negative document. Introducing the PRF passages into the training procedure of CWPRF enables the model to take the surrounding context into account when identifying the useful tokens from the PRF passages. Meanwhile, training CWPRF with the contrastive objective allows it to learn the effective weights for expansion embeddings that are tailored for the semantic ranking task. Figure 1 presents the trade-off between the retrieval effectiveness and the mean PRF stage execution time for a variety of existing dense PRF techniques on the TREC 2019 Deep Learning track queries, including Vector-PRF (Li et al., 2023), ANCE-PRF (Yu et al., 2021), ColBERTPRF variants (Wang et al., 2021, 2022b) and our proposed CWPRF method. As the figure shows, the default ColBERT-PRF implementation outperforms ANCE-PRF and Vector-PRF in terms of retrieval effectiveness but requires a longer execution time. Meanwhile, our proposed CWPRF achieves the highest nDCG@10 score without requiring high computational cost. Overall, our contributions are summarised as follows: (1) We propose CWPRF, a contrastive weighting method for dense query expansion; (2) We construct the contrastive targets and train our CWPRF model to assign high expansion weights for tokens that can discriminate the relevant documents from the non-relevant documents. Based on the predicted weights, CWPRF helps to identify useful expansion embeddings for generating refined query representations; (3) We perform an extensive empirical evaluation and demonstrate how to effectively train our CWPRF in a supervised way; (4) Experiments show that our CWPRF can achieve significantly higher retrieval effectiveness but with less execution time than the default ColBERT-PRF. ## 2 Preliminaries Given a query q and a document1 d, we employ the pre-trained ColBERT (Khattab and Zaharia, 2020) query and document encoders to encode the query and document, respectively. The ColBERT query and document encoders share weights but are distinguished by the different prepended special tokens. The ColBERT model is defined as a linear layer upon the raw token embeddings obtained from a BERT model: ColBERT = Linear(BERT(t1, ..tn), m)) ∈ R m, where m is typically set to 128 (Khattab and Zaharia, 2020). In particular, the input query tokens are encoded as a list of query embeddings (each of dimension m), as follows: ϕq = ColBERT([CLS], [Q], q1*, ..., q*|q|) ∈ R 32×m, where m = 128 and the '[MASK]' embeddings are used to pad the input query embeddings to 32. Similarly, for a document d, we encode it into a list of document embeddings, as follows: ϕd = ColBERT([CLS], [D], d1*, ..., d*|d|) ∈ R|d|×m. Based on the obtained query and document embeddings, the final similarity score between a query and a document, s(*q, d*), is given by the summation of the highest cosine similarity among the document embeddings for each query embedding: $$s(q,d)=\sum_{i=1}^{|q|}\mbox{MaxSim}(\phi_{q_{i}},\phi_{d})=\sum_{i=1}^{|q|}\max_{j=1}^{|d|}\phi_{q_{i}}^{T}\phi_{d_{j}}.\tag{1}$$ ## 3 Contrastive Weighting For Dense Prf This section first provides an implementation overview of CWPRF for dense query expansion in Section 3.1. It then details the contrastive weighting method and the training procedure of CWPRF in Sections 3.2 & 3.3, respectively.  ## 3.1 Cwprf **Implementation Overview** An overview of CWPRF in a multiplerepresentation dense expansion framework is illustrated in Figure 2, where three stages are presented: (1) initial retrieval, (2) predicting the PRF tokens weights and (3) retrieval with the refined query representation. We note that the first and the third stages of this framework are shared with ColBERT-PRF (Wang et al., 2021, 2022b). In the initial retrieval stage, we obtain a result list in response to the original user's query q. The top fp documents are employed as the pseudorelevance feedback documents. Then, as input for our trained CWPRF model, we append the PRF passages to the query. The model outputs weights for each query token as well as for the feedback tokens. Finally, according to these produced weights, we identify fe feedback tokens with high weights as our expansion tokens and append their corresponding expansion embeddings obtained from ColBERT's document encoder to the original query representation. Following conventional PRF models going back to Rocchio (Croft et al., 2010), the overall contribution of the expansion embeddings is further controlled by a hyper-parameter denoted by β. Finally, the refined query representation is reissued to the underlying dense retrieval model, i.e. ColBERT, so as to return the final document list. The core challenge, which lies in the second PRF stage, is how to accurately predict the expansion weights for the refined query representation that can more effectively perform semantic search. We propose a novel contrastive weighting model that learns to weight each feedback token individually based on the extent it will increase the score of the relevant document w.r.t. the non-relevant one(s). ## 3.2 Cwprf **Feedback Embedding Weighting** Building on ColBERT, and taking an initially retrieved set of pseudo-relevant feedback pas-1 We use 'document' and 'passage' interchangeably. sages as input, the CWPRF model aims to predict the importance of each (token-level) feedback embedding in the feedback passages. This is achieved using a separate BERT model instance, which takes a list of input tokens and returns a scalar weight for each token: CWPRF(t1*...t*n) = Linear(BERT(t1*, ..t*n), 1)) ∈ R n. More specifically, given a document p in the pseudo-relevant set, which is tokenised into a sequence of PRF tokens p1, p2*, ..., p*|p|, we employ the ColBERT encoder to obtain its embeddings: ϕp = ColBERT([CLS], [D], p1*, ..., p*|p|) ∈ R|p|×m. Then we obtain the feedback weight for each PRF token using CWPRF which takes the query representations as well as the PRF representations as input: query tokens $$ws=\text{CWPRF}(\overbrace{\text{[CLS]},[\text{Q]},q_{1},q_{|q|}}^{\text{query tokens}}\overbrace{\text{[D]},p_{1},...,p_{|p|}}^{\text{PRF tokens}}).\tag{2}$$ According to the returned importance score for each of the feedback embeddings in ϕp, we identify the highly important ranked embeddings as our expansion embeddings. The expansion embeddings are appended to the original query embeddings to refine the query representation. Note that the original query is included in the invocation of CWPRF(·) - this is by design, to ensure that the CWPRF model considers the relation of the PRF tokens to the original query. However, we ignore the predicted weights of the original query; following ColBERT-PRF, the weights of the original embeddings are assumed to be unchanged. Furthermore, we apply a ReLU upon ws, to ensure that feedback weights non-negative. Finally, the score for a document can be calculated as the summation of the weighted MaxSims using the refined query representation: $$s^{\prime}(q,f_{e},d)=s(q,d)+\beta\sum_{i=1}^{|f_{e}|}ws_{i}\cdot\text{MaxSim}(f_{e_{i}},\phi_{d}).\tag{3}$$  ## 3.3 Training **Cwprf** To train CWPRF(·), we construct a contrastive target for each feedback token. In particular, we use a conventional training file containing triples of ⟨q, d+, d−⟩, and supplement it with PRF passages, i.e. the passages highly ranked for the original query q, which we assume to be relevant. The aim of our training objective, therefore, is to identify *which* tokens of a feedback passage p result in the positive passage being scored much higher than the negative passage, when the feedback passage is itself treated as the query. Therefore, for each feedback token, and given the positive and negative documents, CWPRF is trained to assign high weights to the tokens that are semantically closer to the tokens occurring in positive document than those in the negative document. Hence, the target for the i-th PRF token, pi, is obtained as: $$t(p_{i})=\mathrm{MaxSim}(p_{i},d^{+})-\mathrm{MaxSim}(p_{i},d^{-}),\tag{4}$$ (4) where MaxSim(*., .*) measures the semantic similarity between representations, as per Equation (1). The target generation process for CWPRF is illustrated in Figure 3. This figure presents the interaction matrices between a PRF document ("cause baby heart rate increase") obtained from the returned documents list in response to the query: "is a little caffeine ok during pregnancy" compared to the positive and negative document. The shading is indicative of the magnitude of dot product similarity between a PRF embedding and a document embedding, while the highest document embedding for each PRF embedding is indicated with a •. For each PRF embedding, we subtract the negative similarity from the positive similarity, resulting in an importance score for each PRF embedding. In this example, 'cause' and 'heart' are the most important tokens. These differences are used as targets for learning the CWPRF model. pAAAT = p 11 , p12 , .., p1 |p 1| , [SEP]*, ..., p*k 1 , pk 2 , .., pk |p k| , [SEP]. However, in common with all BERT models, |pAAAT| is limited to 512 tokens, so some tokens may be cut off for large feedback sets. Hence, in the OAAT training mode, each PRF document is regarded as an individual PRF sequence. The CWPRF training is then conducted for each feedback passage individually. In-Batch Negative Sampling: In-Batch Negative (IBN) sampling is a technique that has been widely used for training effective dense retrieval models such as DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020). However, it has not previously been applied for query expansion weighting. To promote the discriminative expansion embeddings and suppress the unimportant ones during our target generation, we adapt the idea of in-batch negative (IBN) sampling during the training of CWPRF. Thus, each training sample is equipped with one positive sample and B −1 negative samples, where B is the batch size used during training. As a consequence, the target for the i-th PRF token is obtained as: $t(p_{i})=\text{MaxSim}(p_{i},d^{+})-\max_{j=1}^{|B-1|}\text{MaxSim}(p_{i},d_{j}^{-})$. This ensures that the importance of each feedback embedding for ranking a positive passage is discounted by its presence in all negative passages of the batch. While IBN is commonly used for training ranking models on entire passages, our adaptation focuses instead on the token-level embedding importance. Loss Functions: CWPRF is trained to assign weights from the target signal using the following objectives. For AAAT training, the loss is computed as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{AA}\mathcal{AT}}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(t_{p_{i}}-ws_{p_{i}}\right)^{2},\tag{6}$$ where $N$ is the total number of tokens in the PRF sequence. For the OAAT training mode, we compute the loss for each PRF sequence and add them to obtain the total loss: $$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{O}\mathcal{A}\mathcal{A}\mathcal{T}}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(t_{p_{i}^{j}}-ws_{p_{i}^{j}})^{2}\right).\tag{7}$$ At the inference time, we apply CWPRF consis At the inference time, we apply CWPRF consistently with its training mode, i.e. AAAT or OAAT. ## 3.4 Discussion Connection to ColBERT-PRF: Similar to ColBERT-PRF, CWPRF is implemented in the multiple representation late interaction dense retrieval paradigm. However, in contrast to ColBERT-PRF, CWPRF is a supervised approach, which is tailored for semantic search by selecting and learning the contrastive weights for the discriminate expansion embeddings. The Kendall's τ correlation between the contrastive weights learned by CWPRF and the IDF weights assigned by ColBERT-PRF is only 0.1, which indicates that CWPRF prioritises differently the feedback embeddings. Moreover, compared to ColBERT-PRF, CWPRF has advantages over ColBERT-PRF in that it can identify expansion embeddings that may have low IDF values. It can also avoid the expensive clustering and nearest neighbour lookups used by ColBERT-PRF. Connection to Learned Sparse Models: In practice, the CWPRF model structure is similar to unexpanded learned sparse retrieval approaches (Dai and Callan, 2020; Mallia et al., 2021; Lin and Ma, 2021). Importantly, however, the learning objectives are different; learned sparse retrieval optimises for relevance directly, while CWPRF is optimised to identify and weight the most helpful query expansion embeddings. ## 4 Experimental Setup Datasets: We conduct our experiments using the MS MARCO (Nguyen et al., 2016) passage ranking dataset. The corpus consists of 8.8M passages from web pages, along which are provided 0.5M training queries with sparse document relevance judgements. We employ the TREC Deep Learning track 2019 query set (43 queries with an average of 215 relevant documents per query) as our validation set and use TREC 2020 (54 queries with 211 relevance assessments per query) query set as our test set due to their dense judgements, which can provide more reliable evaluations (Carterette et al., 2006; Craswell et al., 2021). As pseudo-relevance feedback approaches are known not to show a benefit on sparsely judged documents (Amati et al., 2004), we omit the MS MARCO Dev queries. In addition, we also report the performance of CWPRF on four BEIR (Thakur et al., 2021) datasets in Appendix A.2. We evaluate our method using the official metrics of TREC, such as nDCG@10, MAP@1000 and Recall@1000. We follow the standard practice of TREC (non-relevant = 0 or 1 and relevant = 2 or 3) for the binary-relevance based metrics (MAP and Recall). To investigate the extent that semantic matching, rather than exact token matches occurs when retrieving documents, we also report the semantic match proportion (SMP) (Wang et al., 2022a) for the ColBERT-based system. The calculation of SMP is detailed in Appendix B. For significance testing, we use the paired t-test (p < 0.05) and apply the Holm-Bonferroni multiple testing correction. Experimental Implementation: Both the AAAT and OAAT training modes are trained using the MS MARCO "small" triples training set, i.e. the triplets of ⟨*q, d*+d−⟩. Following the settings of ColBERT (Khattab and Zaharia, 2020), we use a ColBERT checkpoint trained using the MS MARCO passage ranking training triplets for 44k batches. We employ the query encoder from the trained ColBERT model to encode the query (the maximum query length is set to 32) and the document encoder to encode the pseudo-relevance feedback documents (the maximum document length is set to 512 for the AAAT training mode and 180 for the OAAT training mode). We set the maximum length to 180 when encoding the positive and negative passages. For ease of notation, we use » to denote a retrieval pipeline, for instance BM25 » ColBERT indicates applying the ColBERT reranker on the results obtained from BM25. For setting the hyper-parameters of CWPRF, we use | Systems | TREC 2019 (Validation) | TREC 2020 (Test) | | | | | | | | |----------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------|--------------|--------|----------------|-----------------|--------------|--------|----| | MAP | nDCG@10 | Recall | Mean-SMP | MAP | nDCG@10 | Recall | Mean-SMP | | | | (a) BM25 | 0.2864 | 0.4795 | 0.7553 | - | 0.2930 | 0.4936 | 0.8103 | - | | | Sparse (b) BM25 » ColBERT | 0.4597 | 0.6969 | 0.7553 | 0.3244 | 0.4721 | 0.6891 | 0.8072 | 0.3546 | | | (c) BM25+RM3 | 0.3108 | 0.5156 | 0.7756 | - | 0.3203 | 0.5043 | 0.8423 | - | | | (d) BM25+RM3 » ColBERT | 0.4732 | 0.7059 | 0.7756 | 0.3404 | 0.4801 | 0.6866 | 0.8423 | 0.3560 | | | Dense (e) ANCE | 0.3715 | 0.6537 | 0.7571 | - | 0.4070 | 0.6447 | 0.7737 | - | | | (f) ColBERT E2E | 0.4310 | 0.6934 | 0.7892 | 0.3332 | 0.4648 | 0.6871 | 0.8245 | 0.3684 | | | L-Sparse (g) SPLADE-v2 » ColBERT | 0.4579 | 0.6957 | 0.8723 | 0.3327 | 0.4730 | 0.6794 | 0.8987 | 0.3682 | | | (-) DeepImpact » ColBERT | - | 0.7220 | - | - | - | 0.6910 | - | - | | | (h) DocT5Query » ColBERT | 0.5009 | 0.7136 | 0.8263 | 0.3400 | 0.4733 | 0.6934 | 0.8456 | 0.3618 | | | D-PRF | (i) ANCE-PRF | 0.4253 | 0.6807 | 0.7912 | - | 0.4452 | 0.6948 | 0.8148 | - | | (j) ColBERT-PRF | 0.5244 | 0.7276 | 0.8760 | 0.3592 | 0.4904 | 0.6958 | 0.8858 | 0.3837 | | | (-) Vector-PRF | 0.4151 | 0.6629 | 0.6962 | - | 0.4341† | 0.6598† | 0.7948† | - | | | Ours CWPRF-AAAT | 0.5319acef gi | 0.7444acef gi | 0.8596abef i | 0.2814 | 0.5136abcef gi | 0.7246abcdef gj | 0.8783abef i | 0.3240 | | | CWPRF-OAAT | 0.5252acef gi | 0.7244ace | 0.8722abef i | 0.2923 | 0.5049abcef gi | 0.7204acdef g | 0.8783abef i | 0.3265 | | the TREC 2019 queries as our validation set; the resulting settings of fp = 3, fe = 10 and β = 5 are obtained, as reported later in Appendix A.1. However, we note that fp = 3, fe = 10 is also the recommended setting for ColBERT-PRF (Wang et al., 2021). The high β value indicates the high contribution of the CWPRF identified expansion embeddings for semantic ranking. We further provide the ablations of performing only the expansion embeddings in Appendix A.1. For both CWPRF and ColBERT-PRF, we perform 5 sets of experiments with varied random seeds for each variant and report the median results. Compared Systems: To test the effect of CWPRF, we compare the retrieval effectiveness of a CWPRF-based retrieval system with the following 4 families of retrieval approaches: (1) *Sparse* Retrieval Systems (denoted as Sparse in Table 1): We compare with the traditional lexical retrieval models, namely BM25 and BM25+RM3 (AbdulJaleel et al., 2004), and both with and without the ColBERT reranker, namely BM25 » ColBERT and BM25+RM3 » ColBERT models; (2) *Dense Retrieval Systems* (denoted as Dense): We compare with both single-representation and multiple-representation dense retrieval models, namely ANCE (Xiong et al., 2021) and ColBERT (Khattab and Zaharia, 2020); (3) Learned Sparse Retrieval Systems (denoted as L-Sparse): We compare with SPLADE-v2 (Formal et al., 2022), DeepImpact (Mallia et al., 2021) and DocT5Query (Nogueira et al., 2020), which are reranked using ColBERT; (4) *Dense PRF models* (denoted as D-PRF): we compare with the ANCE- PRF (Yu et al., 2021), Vector-PRF (Li et al., 2023) and ColBERT-PRF (Wang et al., 2021) models. We compare our proposed CWPRF model with the more effective ColBERT-PRF Ranker model using the default KMeans clustering (Wang et al., 2021), rather than comparing with the Reranker. Moreover, when measuring the efficiency of CWPRF, we also compare with the recently proposed variants of ColBERT-PRF, which avoid costly ANN lookups when calculating IDF values for embeddings: KMedoids and KMeans-Closest (Wang et al., 2022b). ## 5 Results This section studies the effectiveness as well as the efficiency performance of CWPRF in Section 5.1. The effects of the various training strategies are investigated in Section 5.2. We also provide qualitative analysis of CWPRF in Appendix A.3 and a breakdown performance of CWPRF according to various query types in Appendix A.4. ## 5.1 Main Results Effectiveness: To evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the CWPRF model in a dense pseudorelevance feedback framework, we compare CWPRF with various families of baselines in Table 1. Among the variants of CWPRF, we observe that when comparing the CWPRF-AAAT and CWPRFOAAT models (the bottom block), CWPRF-AAAT, which is trained with all PRF passages processed as a single sequence, consistently obtains a higher performance than CWPRF-OAAT, where the PRF sequences are considered individually. This suggests that AAAT provides more relevant context than OAAT for the CWPRF model. Next, we compare our CWPRF model with other baseline models. Firstly, we observe that the CWPRF models significantly outperform the sparse retrieval models and exhibit marked improvements over sparse-retrieval reranked with the ColBERT reranker. When compared with dense retrieval models, the CWPRF models significantly outperform both types of dense retrieval models. In particular CWPRF exhibits 7.4% (TREC 2019 queries) and 5.5% (TREC 2020 queries) improvements in terms of nDCG@10 than the ColBERT E2E model where no expansion embeddings are appended to the original query. This indicates the usefulness of our CWPRF model for selecting expansion embeddings to augment the query representation. We also compare the CWPRF models with the learned sparse systems, where the document tokens are enriched and reweighted, then applied with a more advanced reranker. We find that the CWPRF models significantly outperform the learned sparse models, indicating the effectiveness of learning the feedback weights and refining the query representation compared with document enrichment. Finally, when comparing with existing dense PRF models, namely the ANCE-PRF, Vector-PRF and ColBERT-PRF models, we find that the CWPRF models exhibit significant improvements over ANCE-PRF on both query sets and significantly improves over ColBERT-PRF on the TREC 2020 query set. This indicates that our proposed CWPRF approach can select more appropriate expansion embeddings that can help to retrieve more relevant documents, and minimise topic drift. Overall these results show that the retrieval effectiveness can be markedly improved with the CWPRF feedback weighting technique. Training CWPRF with all PRF passages as one context gives more precise retrieval at top ranks. In particular, the CWPRF approaches achieve the highest nDCG@10 and MAP performances on both query sets and exhibit upto 4.7% improvements on MAP and a 4.1% improvement on nDCG@10 for the TREC 2020 queries compared to ColBERT-PRF. Semantic Match Proportion: To further explain the effect of implementing CWPRF for dense query expansion, following (Wang et al., 2022b), we also report the mean *semantic match proportion* (SMP) values for the models under the ColBERT dense retrieval paradigm in Table 1. In particular, SMP | Systems | Mean Execution Time (ms) | | | | |--------------------------|----------------------------|---------|------|-----| | Stage 1 | PRF Stage | Stage 3 | ALL | | | Vector-PRF | 67 | 4 | 61 | 132 | | ANCE-PRF | 111 | 63 | 241 | | | C-PRF (KMeans) (default) | 2997 | 719 | 4103 | | | C-PRF (KMeans-Closest) | 908 | 757 | 2052 | | | 387 | | | | | | C-PRF (KMedoids) | 218 | 744 | 1349 | | | CWPRF-AAAT | 320 | 710 | 1417 | | | CWPRF-OAAT | 642 | 714 | 1743 | | quantifies the extent to which a query token exhibits an exact match (matching with the same document token) and a semantic match (matching with different document tokens) in the top-ranked documents. On analysing Table 1, we find that, for both query sets, the CWPRF models show lower Mean-SMP values than ColBERT-PRF, implying a more 'focused' retrieval. This is because CWPRF's expansion embeddings correspond to the actual tokens while ColBERT-PRF's expansion embeddings can be the centroid embeddings from clustering. By using more focused embeddings, nDCG@10 is improved compared to ColBERT-PRF. Efficiency: Following the three stages described in Figure 2, we also report the mean execution time of each stage for various dense PRF systems, including Vector-PRF, ANCE-PRF, variants of ColBERT-PRF with differing efficiency and our CWPRF methods. As Table 2 shows, our CWPRF method performs as efficiently as the most efficient ColBERT-PRF variant (KMedoids variant) and brings upto 3.06x speedup than the default ColBERT-PRF method (KMeans variant). Although CWPRF needs a longer execution time than Vector-PRF and ANCE-PRF, according to the effectiveness and efficiency tradeoff in Figure 1, CWPRF can significantly outperform them without adding much computational cost. In summary, our CWPRF model achieves the highest nDCG@10 on the test set among all the compared baselines, while reducing the computational overhead costs compared with previous ColBERT-PRF approaches. ## 5.2 Ablation Study Next, we inspect the effect of each of the training techniques, namely in-batch negative training, initialisation of the model, different learning objectives and training with PRF passages obtained from different retrieval approaches. Experiments for each training strategy are grouped in Table 3. Effect of In-Batch Negative Sampling: In Table 3, we see that training CWPRF with further in-batch negative samples achieves higher retrieval effectiveness on both the TREC 2019 and TREC 2020 query sets, for both the AAAT and OAAT training modes. In practice, more negative training samples for the pseudo-relevance feedback tokens give more opportunity for the model to learn to properly weight unimportant terms in the feedback. For instance, the stopword "it" might occur in the feedback and positive passages, and not in the negative passage, resulting in a high weight. By applying IBNs, there is more chance for "it" to occur in any of the negative passages, reducing its learned target weight, and resulting in a more effective CWPRF model. Effect of Model Initialisation: Here, we investigate the training from scratch and training with the parameters initialised from an existing learned sparse model, namely uniCOIL (Lin and Ma, 2021). In the second group of Table 3, we find that this initialisation for CWPRF can lead to higher performance compared with training from scratch. Effect of Initial Retrieval: Now, we further investigate the training of CWPRF using the PRF passages obtained by sparse retrieval, using BM25, as well as by dense retrieval, using the ColBERT E2E retrieval model. From the final experiment group in Table 3, we observe that there is no obvious effectiveness difference between training CWPRF using different initial retrieval systems. Thus, considering the training efficiency, our default CWPRF is trained using the PRF passages obtained from a sparse BM25 initial retrieval. ## 6 Related Work Dense Retrieval Models: Different from the popular "cross-encoder" based BERT-rerankers (MacAvaney et al., 2019; Nogueira and Cho, 2019), dense retrieval models usually build upon a BERT-based "bi-encoder" structure. The query and document are encoded separately into dense representations. There are two families of dense retrieval models: single representation dense retrieval and multiple representation dense retrieval models (Macdonald et al., 2021). In particular, in the single representation dense retrieval paradigm, exemplified by DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) or ANCE (Xiong et al., 2021), each query or document is represented into a single dense representation. Thus, | Models | TREC 2019 (Validation) | TREC 2020 (Test) | | | |--------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------|---------|---------| | MAP | nDCG@10 | MAP | nDCG@10 | | | ColBERT E2E | 0.4310 | 0.6934 | 0.4648 | 0.6871 | | Effect of In-Batch Negative Sampling (IBN) | | | | | | CWPRF-AAAT | 0.5168† | 0.7331 | 0.4938 | 0.7079 | | CWPRF-AAAT-IBN | 0.5244† | 0.7332 | 0.4966† | 0.7045 | | CWPRF-OAAT | 0.5050 | 0.7064 | 0.5084† | 0.7125 | | CWPRF-OAAT-IBN | 0.5151† | 0.7269 | 0.5094† | 0.7118 | | Effect of Model Initialisation (Init) | | | | | | CWPRF-AAAT-Init | 0.5304† | 0.7301 | 0.5125† | 0.7184† | | CWPRF-AAAT-IBN-Init | 0.5319† | 0.7444† | 0.5136† | 0.7246† | | CWPRF-OAAT-Init | 0.5151† | 0.7269 | 0.4948† | 0.7112 | | CWPRF-OAAT-IBN-Init | 0.5252† | 0.7244 | 0.5049† | 0.7204† | | Effect of Initial Retrieval Stage | | | | | | CWPRF-AAAT (BM25) | 0.5168† | 0.7331 | 0.4938 | 0.7079 | | CWPRF-AAAT (ColBERT) | 0.5109† | 0.7346† | 0.4869 | 0.7002 | | CWPRF-OAAT (BM25) | 0.5050 | 0.7064 | 0.5084† | 0.7125 | | CWPRF-OAAT (ColBERT) | 0.5138† | 0.7170 | 0.4983 | 0.6904 | with the pre-computed document representations, retrieval can be conducted using the Nearest Neighbour search. In contrast, a multiple representation dense retrieval model encodes each token of the query and document into a dense representation, for instance, ColBERT model introduced by Khattab and Zaharia (2020). During retrieval, ColBERT performs an *approximate* nearest neighbour search (using FAISS (Johnson et al., 2019)) for each query embedding, followed by an exact scoring. Pseudo-Relevance Feedback: Traditional lexical pseudo-relevance feedback (PRF) approaches, such as RM3 (Abdul-Jaleel et al., 2004) and Bo1 (Amati and Van Rijsbergen, 2002), as well as some recent proposed neural PRF models (Naseri et al., 2021; Li et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2020) are applied upon sparse retrieval. Some initial efforts of implementing PRF mechanism for dense retrieval have been proposed recently: for instance, ColBERT-PRF (Wang et al., 2021), which is the most similar work to ours, selects cluster centroids as expansion embeddings. Different from ColBERT-PRF, where the expansion embeddings are prioritised by the closest token's IDF, our work focuses on learning the contextualised weights of the PRF tokens and identifies the prominent ones as the expansion tokens that can better differentiate between the positive and negative documents. On the other hand, ANCE-PRF (Yu et al., 2021) is a supervised PRF approach, which trains an additional query encoder. Similar to CWPRF-AAAT, the query and passages are passed to this new encoder. However, unlike CWPRF, ANCE-PRF is trained to produce a new single embedding for the query. Due to the nature of its single embedding output, it is infeasible to analyse how the query representation has been refined in ANCE-PRF, while CWPRF provides explicit weights for each selected expansion embedding. Contrastive Learning in IR: The contrastive learning technique has been used to optimise the query and document representations produced by the BERT-based dense retrieval models in IR. More specifically, some works focus on employing various negative sampling methods, such as the inbatch (Yih et al., 2011) and cross-batch negative sampling (Qu et al., 2021), while some works mine hard negative samples for more effective dense retrieval model (Xiong et al., 2021; Zhan et al., 2021). To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to leverage contrastive learning for optimising the expansion weights for dense query expansion. Feedback Weighting for PRF: Various sparse PRF models have been proposed for weighting the importance of terms occurring in the feedback documents. For instance, Clinchant and Gaussier (2011) emphasised the importance of term rarity (cf. IDF) in selecting expansion terms, a finding echoed by Roy et al. (2019) - indeed, the importance of IDF is a key insight brought into ColBERT-PRF. Going further, while there have been several approaches that have proposed supervised models for selecting high-quality expansion terms for sparse retrieval, e.g., (Cao et al., 2008; Imani et al., 2019), none of these have tackled the problem from a dense retrieval perspective, as proposed in CWPRF. ## 7 Conclusions Pseudo-relevance feedback has recently been shown to be effective for dense retrieval. In this work, we propose a deep language model-based contrastive weighting approach (CWPRF) for selecting useful query expansion embeddings and calibrating their expansion weights for semantic search. In particular, CWPRF is trained with a contrastive objective to learn to assign a high weight for feedback embeddings that can distinguish relevant documents from non-relevant documents. During retrieval, the embeddings of tokens appearing in the feedback documents that CWPRF predicts to be important are appended to the query embeddings. Extensive experiments performed on two query sets demonstrate that our proposed CWPRF approach can significantly outperform the ColBERT dense retrieval model. In particular, CWPRF significantly improves over ColBERT-PRF by 4.1% in terms of nDCG@10 on the TREC 2020 query set without requiring high computational cost. ## Limitations And Future Work Our approach makes it feasible to learn the discriminative ability of an expansion embedding for dense retrieval. However, it is unclear how it may be adapted for the single-representation dense retrieval PRF model. In addition, in this work, we did not test the effect of the hard negative sampling and the number of negative samples for CWPRF. Finally, while we have focused on passage retrieval, longer document retrieval can be addressed through splitting documents into passages during indexing, retrieval and PRF, and applying a max-passage aggregation (Dai and Callan, 2019) to obtain a document ranking. For future work, we will consider a hybrid approach to incorporate both the learned weights produced by CWPRF and the statistical information in the expansion embedding identification process. While PRF approaches typically increase query response time, they can also be used as teacher approaches to realise more effective and efficient student models (e.g., ColBERT-PRF is applied as teacher by Kim et al. (2022)). This means that improved PRF approaches, such as CWPRF, can also have downstream benefits to other retrieval approaches. ## Acknowledgements Xiao Wang acknowledges support by the China Scholarship Council (CSC) from the Ministry of Education of P.R. China. ## References Nasreen Abdul-Jaleel, James Allan, W Bruce Croft, Fernando Diaz, Leah Larkey, Xiaoyan Li, Mark D Smucker, and Courtney Wade. 2004. UMass at TREC 2004: Novelty and HARD. In Proceedings of TREC. Giambattista Amati, Claudio Carpineto, and Giovanni Romano. 2004. Query difficulty, robustness, and selective application of query expansion. In *Proceedings of ECIR*, pages 127–137. Gianni Amati and Cornelis Joost Van Rijsbergen. 2002. Probabilistic models of information retrieval based on measuring the divergence from randomness. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 20(4):357–389. Valeriia Bolotova, Vladislav Blinov, Falk Scholer, W Bruce Croft, and Mark Sanderson. 2022. A nonfactoid question-answering taxonomy. In *Proceedings of SIGIR*, pages 1196–1207. Guihong Cao, Jian-Yun Nie, Jianfeng Gao, and Stephen Robertson. 2008. Selecting good expansion terms for pseudo-relevance feedback. In *Proceedings of* SIGIR, pages 243–250. Ben Carterette, James Allan, and Ramesh Sitaraman. 2006. Minimal test collections for retrieval evaluation. In *Proceedings of SIGIR*, pages 268–275. Stéphane Clinchant and Eric Gaussier. 2011. Is document frequency important for PRF? In *Proceedings* of ICTIR, pages 89–100. Springer. Nick Craswell, Bhaskar Mitra, Emine Yilmaz, Daniel Campos, Ellen M Voorhees, and Ian Soboroff. 2021. TREC Deep Learning Track: reusable test collections in the large data regime. In *Proceedings of SIGIR*, pages 2369–2375. W Bruce Croft, Donald Metzler, and Trevor Strohman. 2010. *Search engines: Information retrieval in practice*, volume 520. Addison-Wesley Reading. Zhuyun Dai and Jamie Callan. 2019. Deeper text understanding for IR with contextual neural language modeling. In *Proceedings of SIGIR*, page 985–988. Zhuyun Dai and Jamie Callan. 2020. Context-aware document term weighting for ad-hoc search. In *Proceedings of WWW*, pages 1897–1907. Thibault Formal, Carlos Lassance, Benjamin Piwowarski, and Stéphane Clinchant. 2022. From distillation to hard negative sampling: Making sparse neural IR models more effective. In *Proceedings of* SIGIR, pages 2353–2359. Ayyoob Imani, Amir Vakili, Ali Montazer, and Azadeh Shakery. 2019. Deep neural networks for query expansion using word embeddings. In *Proceddings of* ECIR, pages 203–210. Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2019. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. In *IEEE* Transactions on Big Data, pages 535–547. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of EMNLP, pages 6769–6781. Omar Khattab and Matei Zaharia. 2020. ColBERT: Efficient and effective passage search via contextualized late interaction over BERT. In *Proceedings of SIGIR*, pages 39–48. Jihyuk Kim, Minsoo Kim, and Seung-won Hwang. 2022. Collective relevance labeling for passage retrieval. In Proceedings of NAACL. Canjia Li, Yingfei Sun, Ben He, Le Wang, Kai Hui, Andrew Yates, Le Sun, and Jungang Xu. 2018. NPRF: A neural pseudo relevance feedback framework for adhoc information retrieval. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*, pages 4482–4491. Hang Li, Ahmed Mourad, Shengyao Zhuang, Bevan Koopman, and Guido Zuccon. 2023. Pseudo relevance feedback with deep language models and dense retrievers: Successes and pitfalls. *ACM Transactions* on Information Systems (TOIS), 41(3):1–40. Jimmy Lin and Xueguang Ma. 2021. A few brief notes on DeepImpact, COIL, and a conceptual framework for information retrieval techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.14807. Jimmy Lin, Rodrigo Nogueira, and Andrew Yates. 2020. Pretrained transformers for text ranking: BERT and beyond. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.06467*. Sean MacAvaney, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis. 2022. Streamlining evaluation with ir-measures. In Proceedings of ECIR, page 305–310. Sean MacAvaney, Andrew Yates, Arman Cohan, and Nazli Goharian. 2019. CEDR: Contextualized embeddings for document ranking. In *Proceedings of* SIGIR, pages 1101–1104. Sean MacAvaney, Andrew Yates, Sergey Feldman, Doug Downey, Arman Cohan, and Nazli Goharian. 2021. Simplified data wrangling with ir_datasets. In Proceedings of SIGIR, pages 2429–2436. Craig Macdonald, Nicola Tonellotto, and Iadh Ounis. 2021. On single and multiple representations in dense passage retrieval. In *IIR 2021 Workshop*. Antonio Mallia, Omar Khattab, Torsten Suel, and Nicola Tonellotto. 2021. Learning passage impacts for inverted indexes. In *Proceedings of SIGIR*, pages 1723– 1727. Shahrzad Naseri, Jeffrey Dalton, Andrew Yates, and James Allan. 2021. CEQE: Contextualized embeddings for query expansion. In *Proceedings of ECIR*, pages 467–482. Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, L Deng, and MS MARCO. 2016. A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. *arXiv preprint* ArXiv:1607.06275. Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Passage re-ranking with BERT. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1901.04085. Rodrigo Nogueira, Zhiying Jiang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Document ranking with a pretrained sequence-to-sequence model. In *Proceedings* of EMNLP: Findings, pages 708–718. Yingqi Qu, Yuchen Ding, Jing Liu, Kai Liu, Ruiyang Ren, Wayne Xin Zhao, Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Rocketqa: An optimized training approach to dense passage retrieval for opendomain question answering. In Proceedings of NAACL, pages 5835–5847. Dwaipayan Roy, Sumit Bhatia, and Mandar Mitra. 2019. Selecting discriminative terms for relevance model. In *Proceedings of SIGIR*, pages 1253–1256. Dwaipayan Roy, Debjyoti Paul, Mandar Mitra, and Utpal Garain. 2016. Using word embeddings for automatic query expansion. In *Neural Information Retrieval Workshop*. arXiv:1606.07608. Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rücklé, Abhishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. BEIR: A heterogeneous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models. In Proceddings of NeurIPS. Xiao Wang, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis. 2022a. Improving zero-shot retrieval using dense external expansion. *Information Processing & Management*, 59(5):103026. Xiao Wang, Craig Macdonald, and Nicola Tonellotto. 2021. Pseudo-relevance feedback for multiple representation dense retrieval. In *Proceedings of ICTIR*, pages 297–306. Xiao Wang, Craig Macdonald, Nicola Tonellotto, and Iadh Ounis. 2022b. ColBERT-PRF: Semantic pseudo-relevance feedback for dense passage and document retrieval. *ACM Transactions on the Web*, 17(1):1–39. Lee Xiong, Chenyan Xiong, Ye Li, Kwok-Fung Tang, Jialin Liu, Paul Bennett, Junaid Ahmed, and Arnold Overwijk. 2021. Approximate nearest neighbor negative contrastive learning for dense text retrieval. In Proceedings of ICLR. Wen-tau Yih, Kristina Toutanova, John C Platt, and Christopher Meek. 2011. Learning discriminative projections for text similarity measures. In *Proceedings of ACL*, pages 247–256. HongChien Yu, Chenyan Xiong, and Jamie Callan. 2021. Improving query representations for dense retrieval with pseudo relevance feedback. In Proceedings of CIKM, pages 3592–3596. Jingtao Zhan, Jiaxin Mao, Yiqun Liu, Jiafeng Guo, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2021. Optimizing dense retrieval model training with hard negatives. In *Proceedings of SIGIR*, pages 1503–1512. Zhi Zheng, Kai Hui, Ben He, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Andrew Yates. 2020. BERT-QE: Contextualized query expansion for document re-ranking. In Proceedings of EMNLP: Findings, pages 4718–4728. ## A Cwprf Model **Description** A.1 Hyper-Parameter Study | Model Training Details | | | | | | |--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-------------|----| | Mathematical setting | cf. Section 3 | | | | | | Source code | https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ CWPRF-31E0/ | | | | | | Computing | infrastruc | | | | | | ture | NVIDIA RTX TITAN | | | | | | Training time | 8h | | | | | | Inference time | cf. Figure 1 & Table 2 | | | | | | Batch size | 12 | | | | | | Number of parameters | 109M | | | | | | Validation performance | cf. Table 1 | | | | | | Evaluation Metrics | cf. | Section | 4; | implemented | by | | ir-measures (MacAvaney et al., 2022) | | | | | | | Number of training runs | 5 | | | | | | Number of evaluation | 1 | | | | | | runs | Hyper-parameter Experiments | | | | | | Bounds | for | hyper | | | | | parameters | 1 ≤ fp ≤ 5; 1 ≤ fe ≤ 128; 0 < β ≤ 10. | | | | | | Hyper-parameter configurations | cf. Appendix A.1 | | | | | | Number | of | hyper | | | | | parameter search trials | 3 | | | | | | Method | of | choosing | Highest retrieval effectiveness (MAP@1000) | | | | hyper-parameter values | on validation set Dataset | | | | | | Dataset Languages | English | | | | | | Number of examples in | Training: 39,780,811; validation: 43; test: 54. | | | | | | datasets MSMARCO | obtained | https://microsoft.github.io/msmarco/ | | | | | from Training dataset | triples.train.small.tar.gz | | | | | | Validation & Test sets | https://trec.nist.gov/data/deep.html | | | | | | Data | pre-processing | Using ir-datasets (MacAvaney et al., 2021) | | | | | steps | | | | | | Table 4: Summary of reproducibility criteria for CWPRF. For reproducibility purposes, the source code for the training and inference of our CWPRF model is provided in our virtual appendix.2 The hyper-parameters for CWPRF are: the number of expansion embeddings fe and β which controls the overall contribution of the expansion embeddings. In addition, fp defines the number of feedback documents used during training and retrieval of CWPRF. We first vary the fe and β hyper-parameters during retrieval. Figure 4 and Figure 5 presents the effectiveness of applying the CWPRF models while varying fe and β, respectively. Note that fe = 0 or β = 0 represents the vanilla ColBERT model without any expansion embeddings appended. From Figure 4, we find that for both CWPRF-AAAT and CWPRF-OAAT models, 10 expansion terms give the highest MAP performance. Thus, we set 2github.com/Xiao0728/CWPRF_VirtualAppendix   fe = 10 as the default. This echoes the default expansion setting identified for ColBERT-PRF (Wang et al., 2021). For the β parameter (Figure 5), we find that for both CWPRF-AAAT and OAAT models, MAP performance shows a rising trend as higher β → 5 and becomes stable for β > 5. Indeed for β > 5, it appears that the feedback embeddings are dominating over the original query embeddings. This indicates the high contribution of the selected expansion embeddings during retrieval. Based on this, we set β = 5 as default in this work. Indeed, we further quantify the contribution of the expansion embeddings of CWPRF technique and the original query embeddings in respectively in Table 5. We find that for CWPRF-AAAT, using only the 10 selected expansion embeddings for reranking, markedly outperforms using the query embeddings alone, which verifies the high contribution of CWPRF selected expansion embeddings. Furthermore, we study how many PRF passages are needed for CWPRF. We conduct experiments to train both the CWPRF-AAAT and CWPRF-OAAT | Systems | MAP | nDCG@10 | Recall | |-----------------------|---------|-----------|----------| | ColBERT (only Q) | 0.4648 | 0.6871 | 0.8245 | | CWPRF-AAAT (only exp) | 0.4824 | 0.6925 | 0.8697† | | CWPRF-AAAT (Q & exp) | 0.5136† | 0.7246† | 0.8783† | | CWPRF-OAAT (only exp) | 0.4639 | 0.6750 | 0.8600 | | CWPRF-OAAT (Q & exp) | 0.5049† | 0.7204† | 0.8783† | models with a different number of PRF passages. We note that similar to the setting of the ANCEPRF model, due to the input length of BERT-based encoders, for the CWPRF-AAAT training, the maximum number of PRF passages is set to 3. On the other hand, for the OAAT training mode, as each PRF document is treated independently, there is no such requirement. The nDCG@10 results are presented in Figure 6. We observe that for CWPRF-OAAT, three feedback documents employed for training alone or evaluation alone give higher performance than other fp values. Overall, the combination of fp = 3 for both training and retrieval gives the highest performance. In addition, for CWPRF-AAAT, we find that a high MAP performance is achieved by training with only the top two PRF passages. However, this is not stable, as during retrieval, more PRF passages are needed under this setting. This indicates the model might not be trained enough. Moreover, we observe a similar trend for fp = 3 used for both training and retrieval. Thus, based on this observation, we suggest to set fp = 3 as the default for the training and evaluation of CWPRF. ## A.2 Performance Of Cwprf **On Beir** We examine the performance of the ColBERT and CWPRF (both trained on MSMARCO) in a zero-shot setting, using the BEIR datasets. We choose four datasets from BEIR that have dense judgements (Amati et al., 2004). Table 6 reports the performance of CWPRF as well as that of existing dense PRF models on four BEIR (Thakur et al., 2021) benchmarks. From Table 6, we find that CWPRF shows comparable performance with ColBERT-PRF but with much lower query latency. In addition, CWPRF outperforms ANCE-PRF by a large margin, indicating the superiority of our contrastive weighting method in such zero-shot settings.   | Models | DBPedia | NFCorpus | TREC-COVID | Touché-2020 | |-------------|-----------|------------|--------------|---------------| | ANCE | 0.265† | 0.236† | 0.392† | 0.291† | | ANCE-PRF | 0.268† | 0.239† | 0.430 | 0.292† | | ColBERT | 0.392 | 0.316† | 0.533 | 0.307† | | ColBERT-PRF | 0.387 | 0.321 | 0.548 | 0.348 | | CWPRF-AAAT | 0.385 | 0.321 | 0.524 | 0.348 | ## A.3 Qualitative Analysis Table 7 presents an example of the expansion tokens identified by CWPRF and the ColBERT-PRF technique as well as their retrieved top-ranked document. We observe that the two comparing methods can generate some expansion tokens in common but not necessarily received the same weights. In particular, compared to the ColBERT-PRF model, CWPRF can bring a highly relevant document (Label=2) to the top rank, by expanding with tokens: "revision" and "allows", which are helpful in retrieving the more relevant document (indicated by their darker shading). Indeed, this superior ability to retrieve highly relevant documents at high ranks is more useful in a real-life retrieval scenario. Unexpectedly, "allow" and "allows" are identified by CWPRF as important expansion tokens. This indicates that CWPRF can take the context into account - more so than IDF. The second example in Table 7 is selected from a case when CWPRF underperforms ColBERT-PRF. Indeed, while CWPRF experiences a performance drop compared to ColBERT-PRF, it can still retrieve a document with label 3 at the top rank. This indicates the benefits of our contrastive weighting technique for bringing more relevant documents to the top positions. Overall, we see that CWPRF can select more useful expansion embeddings to help bring more relevant documents on top, which would be more useful when implementing in a retrieval system in a real-life scenario. ## A.4 Performance Of Cwprf Across Different Query Types We further investigate the performance of the CWPRF models compared to ColBERT on different query types using the query taxonomy of Bolotova et al. (2022). Specifically, we combine the TREC 2019 and TREC 2020 queries to create a single query pool, consisting of 97 queries. Then, the merged queries are classified using a trained query category classifier according to the query taxonomy introduced by Bolotova et al. (2022). Figure 7a and Figure 7b illustrate the absolute difference in performance between the CWPRFAAAT model and the ColBERT-PRF model in terms of MAP and nDCG@10, respectively. Similarly, Figure 7c and Figure 7d provide comparisons for the CWPRF-OAAT model against ColBERTPRF. From Figure 7, it is evident that CWPRFAAAT demonstrates improvement across all query types in terms of MAP and nDCG@10, except | Approach | CWPRF > ColBERT-PRF | QID 156498: Query: do google docs auto save | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------| | Expansion tokens | doc google save ##s allows revision automatically deleted allow just DOCNO: 104801 TEXT: Allow Google Docs to automatically save your document. As you add new content to your Google Doc, the changes you make to the document are | Label=2 | | | automatically saved to your drive. Next to the"Help" tab at the top of your screen, you will see light gray text. | | | | | CWPRF | Top returned passage after PRF Expansion tokens | ##' doc automatically google document save saves drive changes back DOCNO: 104803 TEXT: Allow Google Docs save and sync your changes automatically. In the offline application, Google Drive automatically saves changes made to a document every few seconds. When your computer connects to the internet, the Google Drive application will function like its online counterpart. | Label=1 | | ColBERT-PRF | Top returned passage after PRF CWPRF < ColBERT-PRF | QID 67316: Query: can fever cause miscarriage early pregnancy | | | Expansion tokens | fever cause pregnancy mis ##carriage increases baby temperature causing birth | | | | CWPRF | DOCNO: 6680964 TEXT: 1 A temperature above 103F (39.50C) during early weeks of pregnancy (usually the first trimester) may be responsible for a miscarriage, spinal cord or mental defects in the baby. Fever in early pregnancy may cause more harm than fever in | Label=3 | | | late pregnancy. | | | | | Top returned passage after PRF Expansion tokens | defects ##' ##ping bath trim fever studies pregnancy early during DOCNO: 7348851 TEXT: A temperature higher than 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit - or the illness causing the fever - could harm both you and your developing baby. A high fever increases the risk of birth defects or miscarriage in early pregnancy. The higher the fever and the longer it lasts, the higher the risk. If you want to lower your fever without using medicine like acetaminophen - or just don't have any on hand - you can try these methods: 1 Lie down and place a cool, damp washcloth on your forehead. 2 Take a lukewarm tub bath or sponge bath. | | | | ColBERT-PRF | Top returned passage after PRF | Label=3 | | for the NOT-A-QUESTION type. However, it is worth noting that the number of queries belonging to the NOT-A-QUESTION type is quite low, comprising only approximately 1% (a single query) of the total. Similarly, we observe that CWPRF-OAAT also enhances performance across various query types, except for the single NOT-AQUESTION type in terms of MAP, and the REASON type (with a ratio of approximately 4.1%) in terms of nDCG@10. These observations further highlight the effectiveness and robustness of our proposed CWPRF models compared to ColBERTPRF across diverse query types. ## B Semantic Match Proportion In ColBERT and other multi-representation models using MaxSim, semantic matching of token-level embeddings occurs when the surface token form of a query embedding is matched with a document embedding that has a different token. To quantify the proportion of the query embeddings performing semantic or exact matching, following Wang et al. (2022a), we report the proportion of average semantic matching occurring for all the ColBERT related models in Table 1. More formally, given a query q and the list Rk of the top-ranked k passages, the *Semantic Match Proportion* (SMP) at rank cutoff k w.r.t. q and Rk is calculated as: $$\text{SMP}(q,R_{k})=\sum_{d\in R_{k}}\frac{\sum_{i\in\text{today}(q)}1[t_{i}\neq t_{j}]\cdot\max_{j=1,\ldots,|d|}\phi_{q_{i}}^{T}\phi_{d_{j}}}{\sum_{i\in\text{today}(q)}\max_{j=1,\ldots,|d|}\phi_{q_{i}}^{T}\phi_{d_{j}}},\tag{8}$$ where ti and tj denote the token ids of the i-th query embedding and j-th passage embedding, respectively. In this work, we report the Mean-SMP values calculated at rank cutoff k = 10 in Table 1.  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations and Future Work ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Limitations and Future Work ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract Introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3 Contrastive Weighting for Dense PRF B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Sections 4, 5, 6 ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. We conduct our experiments using the MS MARCO (?) passage ranking dataset. The corpus consists of 8.8M passages from web pages, along which are provided 0.5M training queries with sparse document relevance judgements. We employ the TREC-DL 2019 (43 queries with an average of 215 relevant documents per query) query set as our validation set and use TREC 2020 (54 queries with 211 relevance assessments per query) query set as our test set due to their dense judgements, which can provide more reliable evaluations (??). The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Sections 4, 5, 6 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 4 and Appendix ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4 and Appendix ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Sections 5, 6, 7 and Appendix ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 4 and Appendix ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

haber-etal-2023-improving

Improving the Detection of Multilingual Online Attacks with Rich Social Media Data from {S}ingapore

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.711

Toxic content is a global problem, but most resources for detecting toxic content are in English. When datasets are created in other languages, they often focus exclusively on one language or dialect. In many cultural and geographical settings, however, it is common to code-mix languages, combining and interchanging them throughout conversations. To shine a light on this practice, and enable more research into code-mixed toxic content, we introduce SOA, a new multilingual dataset of online attacks. Using the multilingual city-state of Singapore as a starting point, we collect a large corpus of Reddit comments in Indonesian, Malay, Singlish, and other languages, and provide fine-grained hierarchical labels for online attacks. We publish the corpus with rich metadata, as well as additional unlabelled data for domain adaptation. We share comprehensive baseline results, show how the metadata can be used for granular error analysis, and demonstrate the benefits of domain adaptation for detecting multilingual online attacks.

# Improving The Detection Of Multilingual Online Attacks With Rich Social Media Data From Singapore Janosch Haber1*, Bertie Vidgen2*, Matt Chapman*, Vibhor Agarwal3*, Roy Ka-Wei Lee4, Yong Keong Yap5, and Paul Röttger6* 1Queen Mary University London 2Alan Turing Institute 3University of Surrey 4Singapore Univ. of Technology & Design 5DSO National Laboratories 6Univ. of Oxford ## Abstract Toxic content is a global problem, but most resources for detecting toxic content are in English. When datasets are created in other languages, they often focus exclusively on one language or dialect. In many cultural and geographical settings, however, it is common to code-mix languages, combining and interchanging them throughout conversations. To shine a light on this practice, and enable more research into code-mixed toxic content, we introduce SOA, a new multilingual dataset of online attacks. Using the multilingual city-state of Singapore as a starting point, we collect a large corpus of Reddit comments in Indonesian, Malay, Singlish, and other languages, and provide fine-grained hierarchical labels for online attacks. We publish the corpus with rich metadata, as well as additional unlabelled data for domain adaptation. We share comprehensive baseline results, show how the metadata can be used for granular error analysis, and demonstrate the benefits of domain adaptation for detecting multilingual online attacks. Content warning: This article contains illustrative examples of toxic content. ## 1 Introduction Toxic content, such as hate speech and abuse, is a global problem, but most resources for detecting toxic content are in English (Vidgen and Derczynski, 2020; Poletto et al., 2021; Röttger et al., 2022a). This makes it difficult to develop effective models for detecting toxic content in other languages, and as a consequence, non-English speakers across the world are less protected against toxic content. New datasets and models for non-English languages often focus exclusively on one language or dialect. In many cultural and geographical settings, however, languages and dialects are often code-mixed, i.e., combined or used interchangeably within a conversation or even a single utter- *Work completed at Rewire. ance (Gibbons, 1987; Rijhwani et al., 2017). So far, this practice has received very limited attention in toxic content research, with most work on code-mixed content focusing on Hinglish, which is a mix of Hindi and English (e.g. Mathur et al., 2018a; Bohra et al., 2018; Sengupta et al., 2022). In this article, we take a step towards addressing this issue by introducing SOA, a new multilingual dataset of Singapore-centered online attacks. Singapore is a multilingual city-state in Southeast Asia, with five million inhabitants from a wide range of ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds. Singapore's official languages are English, Malay, Singaporean Mandarin and Tamil, but many other languages are widely spoken, including the codemixed Singlish language and Indonesian, which is closely related to Malay. Using the r/Singapore subreddit as a starting point, we collect a large corpus of Reddit comments in Indonesian, Malay, Singlish and other languages. We select 15,000 comments for annotation with a diverse set of sampling methods. We provide fine-grained hierarchical labels for online attacks, as well as language identification, from trained, native-speaking annotators. We also publish rich metadata, such as timestamps, anonymised user IDs and source subreddit for all comments, and make available the complete unlabelled pool of 3,196,400 comments that the labelled data was sampled from. For the new dataset, we share comprehensive baseline results for a suite of mono- and multilingual models, finding that Indonesian models adapted to Twitter data perform best out-of-the-box. We show how the rich metadata we provide can be leveraged for more granular error analysis, finding that the advantages of the Indonesian models over multilingual models stem from the language distribution in our data. Finally, we demonstrate how the unlabelled pool of comments we provide can be used for adapting models to the domain of our data, finding that this domain adaptation creates 12705 clear performance benefits, especially for models not pre-trained on any social media data. Overall, we make two main research contributions. 1) We publish a new dataset for multilingual online attacks in under-resourced languages with fine-grained hierarchical labels, rich metadata and additional resources. 2) We provide comprehensive baseline results, and demonstrate how metadata and additional resources can be used to evaluate and improve classification models. Together, we hope that these contributions will enable more research into code-mixed toxic content for under-resourced languages, and thus serve to improve how non-English speakers across the world are protected online.1 ## 2 Taxonomy Of Online Attacks Research into toxic online content and its automated detection is marred by definitional challenges, with much disagreement about the exact characteristics of core concepts (Vidgen et al., 2019; Banko et al., 2020; Röttger et al., 2022). Following Poletto et al. (2021), we use toxicity as an umbrella term for various kinds of disruptive online content, with online attacks being a particular type of toxic content. Other types of toxic content include spam, sexually explicit language or the use of profanity. We define online attacks as content that directs anger, aggression or maliciousness at an identifiable target. This includes insults, threats, and inciting harm and violence, and being overtly abusive. A range of entities, individuals and groups can be targeted by an attack. Related concepts include abuse, which is a subset of online attacks directed at just individuals or groups, and hate speech, which is commonly defined as a subset of online attacks directed at groups with protected characteristics, such as race, gender or sexual orientation (Röttger et al., 2021). The taxonomy of online attacks, which we introduce in this article and use for data annotation, is hierarchical and comprises two levels. The first level is binary, indicating whether content is an online attack based on our definition. If an online attack is present, the second level lists the potential targets of the attack, split into 1) individuals, 2) social groups, 3) the media, 4) institutions and government, and 5) other. Table 1 shows more details on each target, as well as example content. An online attack can have one or multiple targets. 1All data, annotation guidelines and code are available at github.com/rewire-online/singapore-online-attacks. As it relates to other taxonomies of toxic content, our hierarchical setup takes inspiration from how Zampieri et al. (2019) classify offensive language. Talat et al. (2017) and Vidgen et al. (2021), like us, also differentiate between attacks targeting persons and attacks targeting groups. Vidgen et al. (2019) also separate out attacks against institutions. Our taxonomy is also more general, compared to work that focuses on specific targets of attacks, such as women (Guest et al., 2021; Zeinert et al., 2021), Muslims (Vidgen and Yasseri, 2020), or trans people (Lu and Jurgens, 2022). ## 3 Dataset 3.1 Data Collection We collected all data from Reddit, a large online forum where discussions are organised into *subreddits* dedicated to particular topics or communities, via a public API (Baumgartner et al., 2020). To identify subreddits that are most relevant to the languages spoken in Singapore, we used a snowball sampling approach. We first identified the 1,000 users who made the most comments on the r/Singapore subreddit between August 2021 and August 2022. For each of these users, we collected their 1,000 most recent comments and extracted the name of the subreddit each comment was posted to, resulting in a list of circa 11,000 unique subreddits. This list was then filtered to subreddits which contained keywords related to Singapore as well as Singaporean languages in their names (e.g., "Sing", "SG", "Malay", "Indo", etc.). From this filtered list we manually selected the most relevant subreddits. This yielded a final list of 104 subreddits. For each of the 104 subreddits, we collected all comments written before September 1st 2022, resulting in a total of 16,966,812 comments. Most of these comments were in English, reflecting Reddit's overall language bias. Since our project focuses on content written in Singaporean languages, such as Malay, Indonesian and Singlish, we used the Python language detection tool lingua to identify content which contained these languages. For each comment, lingua assigns a match probability to each of a set of specified languages. Identifying code-mixed content proved difficult, because it would often be predicted with high confidence as just one language, particularly English. We found that those comments that were predicted as Indonesian first and Malay second, or vice versa, were most likely to fit our language scope. Selecting only | Target | Definition | Examples | | | | |---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-----|--------|---------| | Individuals | An identifiable individual that is either directly addressed or referred to. | "F*ck | you | dude", | "Closed | | minded idiots", "He is a fool and a wh*re" | | | | | | | Social Groups | A group defined by protected characteristics | "The rapist is a black, typical behaviour", "Just like a pervert, he | | | | | such as race, gender or sexual orientation. | bats for both sides" | | | | | | Media | Journalists, media organisations, and the | "Journos can s*ck my c*ck", | | | | | media as a concept. | "the media are infidels and satan worshippers" | | | | | | Institutions & Govt. | Governments, official bodies, regulators, | "Loong is a dangerous man, our | | | | | political bodies and political parties. | PM is fricking n*nce", "Stupid goverment" | | | | | Table 1: The four specified targets of online attacks in our taxonomy. Examples are in English, to be illustrative. This does not reflect the language distribution in our dataset, where English is excluded through filtering. those comments resulted in a pool of 3,196,400 comments. From this pool, we selected 15,000 comments for model training and evaluation, using three sampling strategies. 1) Keyword sampling We sampled the first 9,000 comments using a keyword-search approach, to increase the proportion of online attacks in our dataset. For this purpose, we created a list of 229 attack-related key terms in Indonesian, Malay and Singlish with support from our native-speaking annotators. For instance, "bondol" is a Malay word that means "loony" in English, "chao" is a Singlish word which means "smelly", and "makan tai" is an Indonesian phrase which means "eat sh*t". We then filtered the unlabelled pool of 3,196,400 comments to include only those comments containing at least one keyword. This resulted in 138,361 comments, from which we sampled at equal rates using each keyword to obtain 9,000 comments. 2) Active learning We sampled the next 5,000 comments using two rounds of active learning. Active learning is a sampling method, whereby an initial model selects further entries for annotation that are expected to be particularly informative to it. This method has been shown to be effective for toxic content detection (Markov et al., 2022; Kirk et al., 2022). In the first round of active learning, we fine-tuned an initial XLM-R model (Conneau et al., 2020) on the 9,000 comments collected with keyword sampling, and ran inference with it over 100,000 random comments from the unlabelled pool. Then, we selected 3,000 comments - 1,500 comments about which the model was most uncertain, to address gaps in model coverage, and 1,500 comments for which the model was maximally certain they were online attacks, to address potential false positive issues. We trained another XLM-R model on the now-total 12,000 comments, and repeated the process, sampling another 1,000 comments of each type, so that in total we collected 5,000 comments with active learning. While the outcome of the active learning process is somewhat contingent on the model used for it, we found that complementing keyword-based sampling with this method resulted in more diverse data, which we expect to be useful for any model. 3) Random sampling We sampled a final 1,000 comments randomly from the unlabelled pool, so that we could have a portion of the test set that reflects a more realistic distribution of online attacks (see experimental setup in §4.1). In the dataset, we specify for each comment which sampling method was used to select it. ## 3.2 Data Annotation We recruited a team of 14 annotators through Upwork, a crowdworking platform. All annotators were screened using a set of example annotation questions, and then onboarded and trained for our annotation task. We also asked all annotators to complete a short survey about themselves. 11 of the annotators are Indonesian, two are Malaysian and one declined to give this information. All annotators primarily resided in the country of their nationality. Annotators could enter their ethnicity as free-text. Two identified as Chinese, two as Malay, two as Gorontalo, and two as Asian. One identified as Minang, one as Javanese, one as being from Flores, and one from Sumatra. One annotator identified as mixed and another declined to give this information. All annotators were intermediate or fluent in English, and 12 were native, or near-native, in Indonesian. Six were intermediate or better in Malay, and many could speak other languages such as Japanese, Javanese, Korean and Tagalog. Ten of the annotators identify as women and four as men. Eight of the annotators are aged 18-29 years old and six are 30-39 years old. Each annotator worked independently, labelling comments assigned to them according to extensive annotation guidelines based on our taxonomy of online attacks (§2). The annotators labelled whether comments contained an online attack or not, and if they did, they selected the target(s) of the attack. They also labelled the language(s) in which each comment was written. The 15,000 comments were annotated in six batches, with 10-14 annotators working on each batch. Annotation was prescriptive (Röttger et al., 2022), in the sense that we tasked annotators with applying the guidelines rather than their subjective beliefs. Each comment was annotated by three annotators. We make all annotations with anonymised annotator IDs available for each comment in order to enable further analysis of human label variation (Plank, 2022). For the primary binary attack label, there was 3/3 agreement on 49.4% of comments, and 2/3 agreement on the rest. Fleiss' Kappa is 0.314. For the language label, there was 3/3 agreement on 70.2% of comments. 3.9% of comments had three-way disagreement on the language label, which we resolved through expert annotation. Throughout the annotation process, we followed guidelines by Davani et al. (2022) to protect the wellbeing of our annotators. Annotators were compensated at a rate of $16 per hour, well above the living wage in their countries of residence. ## 3.3 Descriptive Statistics Attack 6,173 comments (41.2%) were majoritylabelled as containing an attack, while 8,827 comments (58.8%) were majority-labelled as not containing an attack. Of the 6,173 attacks, based on majority labels, 4,356 attacks (70.6%) target an individual, 534 (8.7%) target a social group, 428 (6.9%) target an institution, 78 (1.3%) target the media, and 14 (0.2%) were labelled with another target in a free text field (e.g. "Animal", "Convenience Store", and "Place"). For 1,199 attacks (19.4%), there is no majority agreement on a target. Language 12,212 comments (81.4%) were majority-labelled as Indonesian, followed by 1,635 comments (10.9%) labelled as Malay and 218 comments (1.5%) were majority-labelled as Singlish. The remaining 688 (4.6%) comments were marked as containing one of dozens of other languages spoken in or around Singapore, such as Javenese and Hokkien Chinese, and code-mixed combinations thereof. This imbalance is created by our language filtering, which favours Indonesian and Malay - the two languages being very similar (see Section 3.1). Both languages often code-mix with English (e.g. *"Straight outta horror movie, jangan2 kerasukan makhluk halus"*). For details on the language distribution, see Appendix A.1 Subreddit The 15,000 comments in our labelled datasets are from 26 different subreddits, out of 104 subreddits initially selected for data collection. A large majority of 12,561 comments (83.7%) is from the r/indonesia subreddit, followed by 1,389 comments (9.3%) from r/malaysia, 272 comments (1.8%) from r/malaygonewild and 239 comments (1.6%) from r/singapore. This skewed distribution is a consequence of our sampling methods and our language filtering, which did not explicitly account for subreddit sources. As a result, the largest subreddits with the most activity in in-scope languages, like r/indonesia, are most represented in our data. For details, see Appendix A.2 Time The oldest comment in our labelled dataset is from May 2011, and the most recent from August 31st 2022, which is the end of our sampling period. Most comments were written in more recent years, with 3,672 comments (24.5%) from 2022, 4,142 comments (27.6%) from 2021, and 3,028 comments (20.2%) from 2020. By contrast, only 293 comments (2.0%) were written before 2017. This reflects general growth trends in Reddit activity.2 For details, see Appendix A.3 Authorship We replace comment author names with alphanumeric IDs. The 15,000 comments in our labelled dataset were written by 5,307 different 2See, for example, https://subredditstats.com/r/indonesia. authors. 3,303 authors (62.2%) wrote just a single comment in the dataset. 763 authors (14.4%) wrote two comments, and 376 authors (7.1%) wrote three. 70 authors (1.3%) wrote ten or more comments, with 179 being the largest number of comments from a single author. For details, see Appendix A.4 ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Experimental Setup We show results for three sets of experiments. The task is always the binary distinction between content containing or not containing an online attack. Our primary goal is not to develop a bestperforming classifier for our task, but rather to provide baseline results and demonstrate the usefulness of the additional resources and metadata we share along with the labelled dataset. Model Parameters We use the same standard parameters across all models we evaluate. In training, the learning rate is 1e-05, and the batch size 16. The maximum input length is 256 tokens, which affects less than 1% of our data. We train for a maximum of 10 epochs, with early stopping based on development set cross-entropy loss, and a patience of three epochs. None of the models trained for more than six epochs. We do not perform any further hyperparameter optimisation. Data Splits We split the 15,000 labelled comments into 10,000 comments for model training, 2,000 for validation and 3,000 for testing. The 3,000 comments for testing include all 1,000 comments selected with random sampling, to reflect a more realistic distribution of online attacks (§3.1). The test set therefore contains 945 comments (31.8%) labelled as online attacks. Preprocessing For all comments, we collapse whitespaces, and remove linebreaks and HTML artefacts. We replace user mentions in the format of 'u/username' with a [USR] token, and URLs with a [URL] token. Evaluation Metrics We use macro F1 as an overall measure of performance, and evaluate performance on attacks, i.e. the positive class, based on precision and recall, given as percentages. ## 4.2 Baseline Models For our baseline experiments, we evaluate six models. Three models are multilingual models, chosen for their widespread use and/or competitive performance on toxic content detection tasks (see e.g. Röttger et al., 2022a): mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019), XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020), and XLM-T (Barbieri et al., 2021), which is XLM-R adapted to the Twitter domain through continued pre-training. Two models are monolingual Indonesian models, chosen because of the large amount of Indonesian content in our labelled dataset, and the high similarity between Indonesian and Malay: IndoBERT (Koto et al., 2020), and IndoBERTweet (Koto et al., 2021), which is IndoBERT adapted to Twitter, analogous to XLM-T and XLM-R.3 Finally, we translate the train, validation and test set to English using the Google Translate API, and evaluate a monolingual English DeBERTA-v3 model (He et al., 2021). None of the models are case sensitive. In addition to the six models, we show results for three naive baselines: one model that always predicts attack, one that never predicts attack, and one that predicts each label with equal probability. All results are shown in Table 2. Model Prec. Rec. **Macro F1** mBERT 61.9 58.9 71.3 XLM-R 65.8 68.2 75.6 XLM-T 71.0 68.0 77.9 IndoBERT 65.4 64.0 74.3 IndoBERTweet 73.8 68.2 **79.1** DeBERTa 73.1 49.6 72.1 Always attack 31.8 100 24.1 Never attack 0.0 0.0 40.5 Equal prob. 31.8 50.0 48.3 Table 2: Baseline results. Precision and recall are for attacks, i.e. the positive class. Best model performance is highlighted in **bold** (excl. naive baselines). We find that the Twitter-adapted models perform best overall, with 79.0 macro F1 for IndoBERTweet and 77.8 for XLM-T. Adaptation has a larger effect on the IndoBERT models (4.8 points difference) than on the XLM models (2.2 points difference). Precision on attacks is generally higher than recall across models, except for XLM-R, where precision is 65.8 and recall is 68.2. The worstperforming model is mBERT, with 71.3 macro F1. The DeBERTa model trained and evaluated on auto-3Wilie et al. (2020) introduce another model also called IndoBERT, which we do not test in this article but would expect to give similar results. translated data performs second-worst, with recall below the 50% from random guessing. The naive baselines perform strictly worse than all other models in terms of macro F1 and precision on attacks. ## 4.3 Error Analysis | Language | n | XLM-T | IndoT | |-----------------|-------|---------|---------| | Indonesian | 2,476 | 77.1 | 78.9 | | Malay | 276 | 80.1 | 78.6 | | English + Indo. | 94 | 74.1 | 74.4 | | Singlish | 38 | 71.9 | 71.9 | | English | 37 | 100 | 82.6 | | English + Malay | 19 | 84.2 | 72.5 | | Other | 50 | 76.2 | 74.0 | Each comment in our dataset comes with rich metadata, which includes the comment language, timestamp, anonymised user ID, and the subreddit that the comment was posted to. This metadata can be used to perform fine-grained error analysis and diagnose specific model strengths and weaknesses. To demonstrate this, we analyse the predictions of XLM-T and IndoBERTweet, the two strongest baseline models, across different languages. Table 3 shows macro F1 scores for the different languages in our 3,000-comment test set. Table 3: Macro F1 for XLM-T and IndoBERTweet on the 3,000-comment test set, split by comment language. Best model performance is highlighted in **bold**. We find that the IndoBERTweet model, which performs best overall (Table 2), outperforms XLMT on Indonesian and code-mixed Indonesian content, but falls behind on Malay, English and Other languages. *"Jadi gini mbak, rasanya k*ntol saya* pengen saya cekek deh liat mbak soalnya mbak ngomongnya dah kek k*ntol", for example, is correctly identified as an online attack by IndoBERTweet, but not by XLM-T. "You sure, I used to be quite effeminate in sekolah rendah and got called p*ndan too.", on the other hand, is classified correctly an non-attack by XLM-T and misclassified by IndoBERTweet. Further, we can leverage the secondary labels, which specify for all online attacks which target is attacked, for error analysis. Table 4 shows accuracy on the 945 online attacks in our 3,000-comment test set, split by the five different target categories.4 We find that the IndoBERTweet model, which has the best precision and recall on attacks overall (Table 2), actually performs worse than XLM-T on all attack targets except for attacks on individuals, which are by far the most common type of attack in our dataset, and "other" targets, which are extremely rare. *"Damkar gak mau menanggapi* panggilan darurat dan malah ngehalu ujungnya bakal gantian mereka yang dibakar massa", for example, which attacks an institution (the fire department), is misclassified by IndoBERTweet but not XLM-T. "b*debah ini yg komen, sy bikin meme OG sendiri'', on the other hand, attacks a person, and is classified correctly by IndoBERTweet while being misclassified by XLM-T. | Target | n | XLM-T | IndoT | |--------------|-----|---------|---------| | Individual | 679 | 70.3 | 72.5 | | Social Group | 81 | 70.4 | 65.4 | | Institution | 69 | 78.3 | 73.9 | | Media | 11 | 72.7 | 63.6 | | Other | 4 | 75.0 | 100 | ## 4.4 Domain Adaptation We also provide a large unlabelled pool of 3,196,400 comments along with the 15,000 labelled comments (§3.1). These unlabelled comments can be used to adapt pre-trained language models to the specific domain of our data through continued pre-training. This approach to domain adaptation has been found to improve model performance on a wide variety of downstream tasks (e.g. Alsentzer et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2020; Gururangan et al., 2020; Röttger and Pierrehumbert, 2021). We randomly sample 100,000 comments for domain adaptation from the unlabelled pool, and then continue pre-training each of our baseline models on these comments for one epoch with default hyperparameters on a masked language modelling objective.5 Then, we fine-tune these newly-adapted models in the same way as our baseline models. We show macro F1 comparisons in Table 5, and more detailed results in Appendix B. We find that all models benefit from domain 5We exclude the DeBERTa model because it would require translation of the larger unlabelled pool of comments. | Model | Baseline | Adapted | Change | |--------------|------------|-----------|----------| | mBERT | 71.3 | 74.0 | +2.7 | | XLM-R | 75.6 | 76.9 | +1.3 | | XLM-T | 77.9 | 77.6 | -0.2 | | IndoBERT | 74.3 | 77.5 | +3.3 | | IndoBERTweet | 79.1 | 79.9 | +0.9 | adaptation, except for XLM-T. Weaker models, like mBERT (+2.7 macro F1), tend to benefit more than stronger models, like XLM-R (+1.3 macro F1). Further, models already adapted to social media data from Twitter have very little benefit from domain adaptation with Reddit data (IndoBERTweet, +0.9 macro F1), or even suffer a slight performance decrease (XLM-T, -0.2 macro F1). ## 5 Discussion The results for our baseline models suggest clear benefits from model scale for detecting online attacks in our dataset. XLM-R is much like mBERT, but it has more model parameters and was pretrained on a larger corpus. Accordingly, it performs much better than mBERT. Our results also show the benefits of adapting models to social media data, even if adaptation data and task data come from different social media platforms. XLM-R and XLM-T, like IndoBERT and IndoBERTweet, are the same, except for additional pre-training on Twitter data. In our baseline results (Table 2), this adaptation has a clear positive effect, with the adapted models outperforming all others. In our own domain adaptation experiments (Table 5), however, models that were already adapted to Twitter data did not substantially benefit from further adaptation with Reddit data. This suggests that most of the benefit of adaptation comes from capturing language use that is shared between Twitter and Reddit. On the other hand, we perform our own domain adaptation experiments with just 100,000 Reddit comments, whereas XLM-T and IndoBERTweet, respectively, are adapted with 198 million and 26 million tweets. On our dataset, XLM-R adapted with our Reddit comments performs roughly on par with XLM-T (Table B). This suggests that, even if large amounts of Twitter data are as useful for adaptation, it may be more efficient to learn from Reddit, the target platform. Multilingual models do not appear to have an advantage over Indonesian monolingual models for our dataset. This can likely be explained by Indonesian content making up most of the dataset (§3.3), and other languages in the dataset, like Malay and Singlish, sharing a lot of similarity with Indonesian. As we found in our error analysis, the monolingual Indonesian IndoBERTweet model outperforms XLM-T, the strongest multilingual model, on Indonesian content (Table 3), but performs worse on most other languages. This aligns with evidence on the *curse of multilinguality* (Conneau et al., 2020; Pfeiffer et al., 2022), which describes the tradeoff between language coverage and monolingual performance for fixed model sizes. Overall, the dataset appears to be moderately challenging for models, with performance differences between baselines that align with general intuition and other research. However, there are also some limitations to our dataset and experiments, which we discuss in a separate Section following the Conclusion below. ## 6 Related Work 6.1 Multilingual Toxic Content Detection Most resources for detecting toxic content focus on English only (Vidgen and Derczynski, 2020; Poletto et al., 2021; Röttger et al., 2022a), which mirrors an overall imbalance in natural language processing (Joshi et al., 2020). More recently, researchers have started to create more multilingual toxic content datasets, which usually consist of an English portion and separate portions in other languages. Basile et al. (2019), for example, collect Spanish and English hate speech against women and immigrants from Twitter. Modha et al. (2021) provide datasets for offensive language in English, Hindi and Marathi (see also Mandl et al., 2019, 2020). Ousidhoum et al. (2019) collect hate speech in English, French and Arabic, using separate sets of keywords. Röttger et al. (2022b) create functional test suites for hate speech detection models in ten different languages. By contrast, we create a single dataset, which includes a variety of languages (§3.3), and we explicitly filtered out English-only content, which is already wellrepresented in the research. We use a single sampling method to collect multilingual data from multilingual communities, rather than collecting data in different languages from different communities. ## 6.2 Cross-Lingual Toxic Content Detection Another closely-related stream of research focuses on cross-lingual toxic content detection, where large multilingual language models are first finetuned on a resource-rich source language - often English - and then applied to another target language. This is relevant to our work, as our dataset contains large amounts of content in some languages, like Indonesian, and relatively little content in many other languages, like Singlish (see Appendix A.1). For detecting toxic content, like online attacks, research has generally found that some target language content is necessary for good performance, but very little data goes a long way (Leite et al., 2020; Stappen et al., 2020; Nozza, 2021; Bigoulaeva et al., 2021; Pelicon et al., 2021; Röttger et al., 2022a). Therefore, we would expect our dataset to be a useful resource for the wide range of languages and dialects that it covers, even if it only contains a few entries in some languages. ## 6.3 Code-Mixed Toxic Content Code-mixed toxic content, where languages are combined and used interchangeably within conversations or single utterances, has received little research attention. Most work so far focuses on Hinglish, which is a mix of English and Hindi. Mathur et al. (2018b) and Mathur et al. (2018a) each create a dataset of offensive tweets in Hinglish, and train baseline models by first translating content to English, which resembles our translation baseline (§4.2). Kapoor et al. (2019) use the dataset released by Mathur et al. (2018b) to train stronger LSTM models. Bohra et al. (2018) create a dataset of Hinglish tweets labelled for hate speech. Kumar et al. (2018) annotate Hinglish content from Twitter and Facebook for aggression. Sengupta et al. (2022) train and evaluate simple transformer models across several of these datasets. By contrast, to our knowledge, we introduce the first dataset for code-mixed Singaporean languages, including Singlish as well as Indonesian and Malay content that borrows English words. ## 6.4 Toxic Content In Singaporean Languages Among the languages we focus on in this article, only Indonesian has received some dedicated attention in toxic content research. Alfina et al. (2017) share a small dataset of 520 Indonesian Twitter posts labelled for hate speech, along with baseline models. Pratiwi et al. (2018) create a dataset of 1,200 Indonesian Instagram comments, also labelled for hate speech. Ibrohim and Budi (2018) label 2,500 Indonesian tweets for abuse. Ibrohim and Budi (2019) then combine and expand the previous three datasets, and provide results for simple baseline models such as a random forest classifier. Similarly, Elisabeth et al. (2020) use the Ibrohim and Budi (2018) dataset, and provide additional annotations for implicit hate. Our dataset contains a large amount of Indonesian comments - more than any of the existing Indonesian datasets - but it also contains content in Malay, Singlish and other regional dialects, like Javanese. To our knowledge, our dataset is the first in toxic content research to cover these language.6 ## 7 Conclusion Online attacks and other forms of toxic content are a global problem. This is not reflected in the available resources for detecting toxic content, which are mostly in English. As a consequence, non-English models for toxic content detection are less effective, and non-English speakers across the world are less protected from toxic content. When non-English resources are created, they often focus on single languages. By contrast, in this article, we focused on multilingual code-mixed content. We introduced a dataset of multilingual online attacks, using Reddit community of the multilingual city-state of Singapore as our starting point for data collection. From the unlabelled data we collected, which covers Indonesian, Malay, Singlish and other languages, we sampled 15,000 comments for annotation using diverse sampling methods. We provided fine-grained hierarchical labels for online attacks, and also shared rich metadata as well as the unlabelled pool of 3,196,400 comments along with the labelled data. We shared comprehensive baseline results for the new dataset, finding strong out-of-the-box performance for multilingual and monolingual Indonesian models adapted to Twitter data. We conducted an error analysis, using language metadata and secondary attack labels to gain granular insights into model performance. Finally, we showed how the unlabelled data we provide can be used for domain adaptation, showing that this particularly benefits models not already adapted to social media data. To our knowledge, our toxic content dataset and 6For a similar non-toxic resource relevant to Indonesian dialects, see the NusaX corpus (Winata et al., 2023). experiments are the first for code-mixed Singaporean languages. With our contributions, we hope to enable more research into code-mixed toxic content, especially for such under-resourced language settings. This research is needed to develop more effective models for multilingual toxic content detection, and therefore to improve how billions of non-English are protected online. ## Acknowledgments We thank all annotators for their work, and all reviewers for their constructive feedback. ## Limitations Dataset All our data was sampled from a single social media platform, over a long but static time span. This limits the generalisability of models trained on our dataset, and the conclusions that can be drawn from model performance on our dataset. Our sampling methods did not account for language and subreddit information. Therefore, the language and subreddit distributions in our labelled dataset are extremely skewed, broadly matching the distributions in our unlabelled pool. Most comments are in Indonesian, and from the r/Indonesia subreddit. While other languages and subreddits are represented, this still increases the specificity of our dataset, and limits the scope of our insights. Despite the prescriptive annotation process and the training of native-speaking annotators, disagreement on the attack labels in our dataset is high. This suggests that there are many challenging cases in our dataset, as annotators tend to agree on more extreme cases (Salminen et al., 2019). The disagreement also likely creates some inconsistencies in the majority labels, which limits optimal model performance on the dataset. Experiments The primary goal of our experiments was to 1) provide useful baseline results, and 2) demonstrate how the additional resources and metadata, which we share along with the labelled dataset, can be used to further improve the detection of multilingual online attacks. Therefore, we did not focus on optimising the performance of the models we trained and evaluated. It is very possible, that the same models we used could be more effective with different hyperparameters. We also did not re-run our experiments for many different random seeds, which limits our ability to test for statistically significant differences in performance. Initial experiments did not reveal much randomness in performance, which is expected given the relatively large size of our labelled training set. Further, we see relatively large differences in performance across models, and the differences match clear intuitions. ## Ethical Considerations Annotator Wellbeing As outlined in §3.2, we followed guidelines by Davani et al. (2022) to protect the wellbeing of our annotators. Annotators were clearly informed about the nature of the annotation task before commencing their work. They completed their work in batches, on their own schedules, and could decide to withdraw from the work at any point. Compensation for annotators was well above the living wage in their countries of residence, at $16 per hour. We do not release identifiable information about our annotators. Data Privacy We used Reddit data made publicly available via the Pushshift API (Baumgartner et al., 2020) rather than scraping any new data ourselves. Comment author usernames are anonymised by replacing them with alphanumeric IDs. Environmental Impact We only trained a handful of models in our experiments, and did not perform any hyperparameter tuning. Relative to the concerns raised around the environmental costs of pre-training large language models (Strubell et al., 2019; Henderson et al., 2020; Bender et al., 2021), or even larger-scale fine-tuning with hyperparameter tuning, we therefore consider the environmental costs of our work to be relatively minor. ## References Ika Alfina, Rio Mulia, Mohamad Ivan Fanany, and Yudo Ekanata. 2017. Hate speech detection in the indonesian language: A dataset and preliminary study. In 2017 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS), pages 233–238. IEEE. Emily Alsentzer, John Murphy, William Boag, WeiHung Weng, Di Jindi, Tristan Naumann, and Matthew McDermott. 2019. Publicly available clinical BERT embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 2nd* Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop, pages 72–78, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Michele Banko, Brendon MacKeen, and Laurie Ray. 2020. A Unified Taxonomy of Harmful Content. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms, pages 125–137. Association for Computational Linguistics. Francesco Barbieri, Luis Espinosa Anke, and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2021. XLM-T: A multilingual language model toolkit for twitter. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2104.12250. Valerio Basile, Cristina Bosco, Elisabetta Fersini, Debora Nozza, Viviana Patti, Francisco Manuel Rangel Pardo, Paolo Rosso, and Manuela Sanguinetti. 2019. SemEval-2019 task 5: Multilingual detection of hate speech against immigrants and women in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 54–63, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jason Baumgartner, Savvas Zannettou, Brian Keegan, Megan Squire, and Jeremy Blackburn. 2020. The Pushshift Reddit dataset. In *Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media*, volume 14, pages 830–839. Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillanMajor, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In *Proceedings of the 2021 ACM* Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '21, page 610–623, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Irina Bigoulaeva, Viktor Hangya, and Alexander Fraser. 2021. Cross-lingual transfer learning for hate speech detection. In *Proceedings of the First Workshop on* Language Technology for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, pages 15–25, Kyiv. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aditya Bohra, Deepanshu Vijay, Vinay Singh, Syed Sarfaraz Akhtar, and Manish Shrivastava. 2018. A Dataset of Hindi-English Code-Mixed Social Media Text for Hate Speech Detection. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Computational Modeling of People's Opinions, Personality, and Emotions in Social Media, pages 36–41. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 8440– 8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Mark Díaz, and Vinodkumar Prabhakaran. 2022. Dealing with disagreements: Looking beyond the majority vote in subjective annotations. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 10:92–110. Marco Del Tredici and Raquel Fernández. 2017. Semantic variation in online communities of practice. In *IWCS 2017 - 12th International Conference on* Computational Semantics - Long papers. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Damayanti Elisabeth, Indra Budi, and Muhammad Okky Ibrohim. 2020. Hate code detection in indonesian tweets using machine learning approach: A dataset and preliminary study. In *2020 8th International* Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICoICT), pages 1–6. IEEE. John Gibbons. 1987. Code-mixing and code choice: A Hong Kong case study, volume 27. Cambridge University Press. Ella Guest, Bertie Vidgen, Alexandros Mittos, Nishanth Sastry, Gareth Tyson, and Helen Margetts. 2021. An expert annotated dataset for the detection of online misogyny. In *Proceedings of the 16th Conference of* the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1336–1350, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovic, Swabha ´ Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. Don't stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8342–8360. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In *International* Conference on Learning Representations. Peter Henderson, Jieru Hu, Joshua Romoff, Emma Brunskill, Dan Jurafsky, and Joelle Pineau. 2020. Towards the systematic reporting of the energy and carbon footprints of machine learning. *Journal of Machine* Learning Research, 21(248):1–43. Muhammad Okky Ibrohim and Indra Budi. 2018. A dataset and preliminaries study for abusive language detection in indonesian social media. *Procedia Computer Science*, 135:222–229. Muhammad Okky Ibrohim and Indra Budi. 2019. Multilabel hate speech and abusive language detection in Indonesian Twitter. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Abusive Language Online, pages 46– 57, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pratik Joshi, Sebastin Santy, Amar Budhiraja, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. The state and fate of linguistic diversity and inclusion in the NLP world. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6282–6293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Raghav Kapoor, Yaman Kumar, Kshitij Rajput, Rajiv Ratn Shah, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, and Roger Zimmermann. 2019. Mind your language: Abuse and offense detection for code-switched languages. In *Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial* intelligence, volume 33, pages 9951–9952. Hannah Kirk, Bertie Vidgen, and Scott Hale. 2022. Is more data better? re-thinking the importance of efficiency in abusive language detection with transformers-based active learning. In *Proceedings* of the Third Workshop on Threat, Aggression and Cyberbullying (TRAC 2022), pages 52–61, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fajri Koto, Jey Han Lau, and Timothy Baldwin. 2021. IndoBERTweet: A pretrained language model for Indonesian Twitter with effective domain-specific vocabulary initialization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10660–10668, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fajri Koto, Afshin Rahimi, Jey Han Lau, and Timothy Baldwin. 2020. IndoLEM and IndoBERT: A benchmark dataset and pre-trained language model for Indonesian NLP. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 757–770, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Ritesh Kumar, Aishwarya N. Reganti, Akshit Bhatia, and Tushar Maheshwari. 2018. Aggressionannotated corpus of Hindi-English code-mixed data. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2020. BioBERT: A pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234–1240. João Augusto Leite, Diego Silva, Kalina Bontcheva, and Carolina Scarton. 2020. Toxic language detection in social media for Brazilian Portuguese: New dataset and multilingual analysis. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 914–924, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Christina Lu and David Jurgens. 2022. The subtle language of exclusion: Identifying the toxic speech of trans-exclusionary radical feminists. In *Proceedings* of the Sixth Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms (WOAH), pages 79–91, Seattle, Washington (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Mandl, Sandip Modha, Anand Kumar M, and Bharathi Raja Chakravarthi. 2020. Overview of the hasoc track at fire 2020: Hate speech and offensive language identification in tamil, malayalam, hindi, english and german. In *Forum for information retrieval evaluation*, pages 29–32. Thomas Mandl, Sandip Modha, Prasenjit Majumder, Daksh Patel, Mohana Dave, Chintak Mandlia, and Aditya Patel. 2019. Overview of the hasoc track at fire 2019: Hate speech and offensive content identification in indo-european languages. In Proceedings of the 11th forum for information retrieval evaluation, pages 14–17. Todor Markov, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Tyna Eloundou, Teddy Lee, Steven Adler, Angela Jiang, and Lilian Weng. 2022. A holistic approach to undesired content detection in the real world. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2208.03274. Puneet Mathur, Ramit Sawhney, Meghna Ayyar, and Rajiv Shah. 2018a. Did you offend me? classification of offensive tweets in hinglish language. In *Proceedings* of the 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2), pages 138–148. Puneet Mathur, Rajiv Shah, Ramit Sawhney, and Debanjan Mahata. 2018b. Detecting offensive tweets in hindi-english code-switched language. In *Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Natural* Language Processing for Social Media, pages 18–26. Sandip Modha, Thomas Mandl, Gautam Kishore Shahi, Hiren Madhu, Shrey Satapara, Tharindu Ranasinghe, and Marcos Zampieri. 2021. Overview of the hasoc subtrack at fire 2021: Hate speech and offensive content identification in english and indo-aryan languages and conversational hate speech. In *Forum for* Information Retrieval Evaluation, FIRE 2021, page 1–3, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Debora Nozza. 2021. Exposing the limits of zero-shot cross-lingual hate speech detection. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 907–914, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nedjma Ousidhoum, Zizheng Lin, Hongming Zhang, Yangqiu Song, and Dit-Yan Yeung. 2019. Multilingual and multi-aspect hate speech analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4675– 4684, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andraž Pelicon, Ravi Shekhar, Blaž Škrlj, Matthew Purver, and Senja Pollak. 2021. Investigating crosslingual training for offensive language detection. PeerJ Computer Science, 7:e559. Publisher: PeerJ Inc. Jonas Pfeiffer, Naman Goyal, Xi Lin, Xian Li, James Cross, Sebastian Riedel, and Mikel Artetxe. 2022. Lifting the curse of multilinguality by pre-training modular transformers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3479–3495, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Barbara Plank. 2022. The "problem" of human label variation: On ground truth in data, modeling and evaluation. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10671–10682, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fabio Poletto, Valerio Basile, Manuela Sanguinetti, Cristina Bosco, and Viviana Patti. 2021. Resources and benchmark corpora for hate speech detection: a systematic review. *Language Resources and Evaluation*, 55(2):477–523. Nur Indah Pratiwi, Indra Budi, and Ika Alfina. 2018. Hate speech detection on indonesian instagram comments using fasttext approach. In *2018 International* Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS), pages 447–450. IEEE. Shruti Rijhwani, Royal Sequiera, Monojit Choudhury, Kalika Bali, and Chandra Shekhar Maddila. 2017. Estimating code-switching on Twitter with a novel generalized word-level language detection technique. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1971–1982, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Paul Röttger, Debora Nozza, Federico Bianchi, and Dirk Hovy. 2022a. Data-efficient strategies for expanding hate speech detection into under-resourced languages. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 5674–5691, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Paul Röttger and Janet Pierrehumbert. 2021. Temporal adaptation of BERT and performance on downstream document classification: Insights from social media. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 2400–2412, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Paul Röttger, Haitham Seelawi, Debora Nozza, Zeerak Talat, and Bertie Vidgen. 2022b. Multilingual HateCheck: Functional tests for multilingual hate speech detection models. In *Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms (WOAH)*, pages 154–169, Seattle, Washington (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics. Paul Röttger, Bertie Vidgen, Dong Nguyen, Zeerak Talat, Helen Margetts, and Janet Pierrehumbert. 2021. HateCheck: Functional tests for hate speech detection models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 41–58, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Paul Röttger, Bertie Vidgen, Dirk Hovy, and Janet Pierrehumbert. 2022. Two contrasting data annotation paradigms for subjective NLP tasks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 175–190, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Joni Salminen, Hind Almerekhi, Ahmed Mohamed Kamel, Soon-gyo Jung, and Bernard J. Jansen. 2019. Online hate ratings vary by extremes: A statistical analysis. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on* Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR '19, page 213–217, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Ayan Sengupta, Sourabh Kumar Bhattacharjee, Md Shad Akhtar, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2022. Does aggression lead to hate? detecting and reasoning offensive traits in hinglish code-mixed texts. *Neurocomputing*, 488:598–617. Lukas Stappen, Fabian Brunn, and Björn W. Schuller. 2020. Cross-lingual zero- and few-shot hate speech detection utilising frozen transformer language models and AXEL. *CoRR*, abs/2004.13850. Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3645–3650, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zeerak Talat, Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Understanding abuse: A typology of abusive language detection subtasks. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online, pages 78–84, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bertie Vidgen and Leon Derczynski. 2020. Directions in abusive language training data, a systematic review: Garbage in, garbage out. *PLOS ONE*, 15(12):e0243300. Bertie Vidgen, Alex Harris, Dong Nguyen, Rebekah Tromble, Scott Hale, and Helen Margetts. 2019. Challenges and frontiers in abusive content detection. In *Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Abusive Language Online*, pages 80–93, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bertie Vidgen, Dong Nguyen, Helen Margetts, Patricia Rossini, and Rebekah Tromble. 2021. Introducing CAD: the contextual abuse dataset. In *Proceedings* of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2289–2303, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bertie Vidgen and Taha Yasseri. 2020. Detecting weak and strong islamophobic hate speech on social media. *Journal of Information Technology & Politics*, 17(1):66–78. Bryan Wilie, Karissa Vincentio, Genta Indra Winata, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Xiaohong Li, Zhi Yuan Lim, Sidik Soleman, Rahmad Mahendra, Pascale Fung, Syafri Bahar, and Ayu Purwarianti. 2020. IndoNLU: Benchmark and resources for evaluating Indonesian natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 843–857, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Genta Indra Winata, Alham Fikri Aji, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Rahmad Mahendra, Fajri Koto, Ade Romadhony, Kemal Kurniawan, David Moeljadi, Radityo Eko Prasojo, Pascale Fung, Timothy Baldwin, Jey Han Lau, Rico Sennrich, and Sebastian Ruder. 2023. NusaX: Multilingual parallel sentiment dataset for 10 Indonesian local languages. In *Proceedings* of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 815–834, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Marcos Zampieri, Shervin Malmasi, Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal, Noura Farra, and Ritesh Kumar. 2019. Predicting the type and target of offensive posts in social media. In *Proceedings of the 2019* Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1415–1420, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Philine Zeinert, Nanna Inie, and Leon Derczynski. 2021. Annotating online misogyny. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3181–3197, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Additional Descriptive Statistics comment on August 31st 2022. ## A.1 Language Distribution | Language | n | % of Data | |--------------------------|--------|-------------| | Indonesian | 12,212 | 81.4 | | Malay | 1,635 | 10.9 | | Indonesian and English | 396 | 2.6 | | Singlish | 218 | 1.5 | | Malay and English | 131 | 0.9 | | Javanese | 92 | 0.6 | | English | 85 | 0.6 | | Sundanese | 46 | 0.3 | | Javanese and Indonesian | 23 | 0.2 | | Sundanese and Indonesian | 20 | 0.1 | | Chinese | 11 | 0.1 | | Other | 121 | 4.0 | The 15,000 comments in our labelled dataset comprise 69 unique combinations of languages. Table 6: Distribution of languages and language combinations for the 15,000 comments in our labelled dataset. Languages or language combinations present in fewer than 10 comments, such as Hokkien Chinese, Arabic and Russian, are combined as 'Other'. | Subreddit | n | % of Data | % Attacks | |--------------------|--------|-------------|-------------| | indonesia | 12,561 | 83.7 | 39.7 | | malaysia | 1,389 | 9.3 | 51.1 | | malaygonewild | 272 | 1.8 | 61.4 | | singapore | 239 | 1.6 | 26.8 | | MalaysGoneWild | 201 | 1.3 | 54.2 | | Ajar_Malaysia | 89 | 0.6 | 23.6 | | MalaysianFappers | 49 | 0.3 | 57.1 | | malaysians | 35 | 0.2 | 37.1 | | NegarakuMalaysia | 35 | 0.2 | 37.1 | | SeksiArtisMalaysia | 24 | 0.2 | 79.2 | | SingaporeRaw | 20 | 0.1 | 35.0 | | malaysiasecretlab | 17 | 0.1 | 64.7 | | MalaysNSFW | 15 | 0.1 | 60.0 | | IndoR4R | 13 | 0.1 | 7.7 | | NSFW_Malaysia | 11 | 0.1 | 63.6 | | askSingapore | 8 | 0.1 | 12.5 | | SGExams | 6 | 0.0 | 16.7 | | Other | 11 | 0.4 | 25.0 | ## A.2 Subreddit Distribution The 15,000 comments in our labelled dataset come from 26 different subreddits. Table 7: Subreddit distribution for the 15,000 comments in our labelled dataset. Subreddits from which we sampled fewer than 5 comments are combined as 'Other' ## A.3 Temporal Distribution The earliest comment in the labelled dataset was published on May 19th 2011, and the most recent Table 8: Distribution of the 15,000 labelled comments across years covered by the dataset. ## A.4 Author Distribution The most active author in our labelled dataset of 15,000 comments made 179 comments. This analysis is based on anonymised author IDs. Table 9: Distribution of comment counts for the 5,307 users contributing to the labelled dataset. | Year | n | % of Data | % Attacks | |--------|-------|-------------|-------------| | 2022 | 3,672 | 24.5 | 38.7 | | 2021 | 4,142 | 27.6 | 39.6 | | 2020 | 3,028 | 20.2 | 42.1 | | 2019 | 2,084 | 13.9 | 40.9 | | 2018 | 1,076 | 7.2 | 46.7 | | 2017 | 705 | 4.7 | 51.9 | | 2016 | 101 | 0.7 | 44.6 | | 2015 | 113 | 0.8 | 39.8 | | 2014 | 61 | 0.4 | 32.8 | | 2013 | 10 | 0.1 | 30.0 | | 2012 | 5 | 0.0 | 60.0 | | 2011 | 3 | 0.0 | 66.7 | ## A.5 Attack Types | Comments | Users | % of Users | |------------|---------|--------------| | 1 | 3,303 | 62.2 | | 2 | 763 | 14.4 | | 3 | 376 | 7.1 | | 4 | 194 | 3.7 | | 5 | 150 | 2.8 | | 6 | 105 | 2.0 | | 7 | 63 | 1.2 | | 8 | 46 | 0.9 | | 9 | 36 | 0.7 | | 10+ | 70 | 1.3 | 6,173 (41.15%) out of 15,000 comments were majority-labelled as containing an online attack. | Attack Target | n | % of Attacks | |-----------------|-------|----------------| | Person | 4,356 | 70.6 | | Media | 78 | 1.3 | | Social Group | 534 | 8.7 | | Institution | 428 | 6.9 | | Other | 14 | 0.2 | Table 10: Distribution of attack types for the 6,173 comments labelled attacks. An attack type is assigned if a majority of annotators selected it for a given comment. Comments can be assigned multiple attack types. ## B Domain Adaptation Results C Community Context Results Each comment in our dataset comes with rich metadata, which includes the comment timestamp, anonymised user ID and the source subreddit that the comment was posted to. Different subreddits will have different community guidelines and moderation practices, which can result in different propensities to share online attacks (see Figure 7). We also expect topical and semantic variation across online communities more generally (Del Tredici and Fernández, 2017). Therefore, we hypothesised that this kind of *community context*, as captured by information about the source subreddit of each comment, could be leveraged to improve classification. To test this hypothesis for each of our baseline models, we take a simple approach using a support vector machine (SVM). For a given comment and a given baseline model, the input features for the SVM are 1) the prediction of the baseline model, and 2) the identity of the subreddit that the comment was posted to, encoded in a one-hot vector. Since the distribution of comments across subreddits in our dataset is heavily skewed (see Appendix A.2), we collapse all subreddits from which there are ten or fewer comments in our dataset into a single category. The SVM is then trained on the same training set and evaluated on the same test set as our baseline models. We use default parameters for the SVM, as given by the scikit-learn Python package, and training time is negligible. Results are shown in Table 12. We find that adding community context as an additional feature using our SVM method does not improve model performance compared to the performance baselines. Performance differences are small, and mostly negative. Our hypothesis is that this negative result can mainly be attributed to the uneven distribution of subreddits in our dataset. Over 90% of labelled comments come the largest two subreddits (see Table 7). These two subreddits also have a similar rate of attacks (39.7% for r/indonesia and 51.1% for r/malaysia), which resembles the average proportion of attacks in the overall dataset (41.2%). As a consequence, the additional community context information will have minimal impact on the classifier's decision boundary. For the less-represented subreddits, on the other hand, the SVM will struggle to establish a better decision boundary than that based on text alone because of data scarcity. And even if the context-aware model did make better predictions on comments from less-represented subreddits, the impact on overall performance would be minimal. | Model | Prec. | Rec. | Macro F1 | |--------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | mBERT | 61.7 (+4.5) | 61.7 (+2.8) | 74.0 (+2.7) | | IndoBERT | 68.1 (+4.6) | 68.1 (+4.1) | 77.5 (+3.2) | | IndoBERTweet | 67.8 (+2.5) | 67.8 (-0.4) | 79.9 (+0.9) | | XLM-R | 67.0 (+3.7) | 67.0 (-1.2) | 76.9 (+1.3) | | XLM-T | 66.4 (+0.8) | 66.4 (-1.6) | 77.6 (-0.2) | | Model | Baseline | Context | Change | |--------------------------|------------|-----------|----------| | mBERT Base | 71.3 | 71.4 | +0.1 | | XLM RoBERTa Base | 75.6 | 75.2 | -0.4 | | Twitter XLM RoBERTa Base | 77.9 | 77.3 | -0.6 | | IndoBERT Base | 74.3 | 73.3 | -1.0 | | IndoBERTweet Base | 79.1 | 78.7 | -0.3 | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations section after conclusion ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethical considerations section after conclusion ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 3 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? 3 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? 3 ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? 3 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 3 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 3 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 4 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 4 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 4 ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** 3 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? In supplementary materials ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? 3 ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? 3 ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? internal ethics review ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? 3

prange-wong-2023-reanalyzing

Reanalyzing {L}2 Preposition Learning with {B}ayesian Mixed Effects and a Pretrained Language Model

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.712

We use both Bayesian and neural models to dissect a data set of Chinese learners{'} pre- and post-interventional responses to two tests measuring their understanding of English prepositions. The results mostly replicate previous findings from frequentist analyses and newly reveal crucial interactions between student ability, task type, and stimulus sentence. Given the sparsity of the data as well as high diversity among learners, the Bayesian method proves most useful; but we also see potential in using language model probabilities as predictors of grammaticality and learnability.

# Reanalyzing L2 Preposition Learning With Bayesian Mixed Effects And A Pretrained Language Model Jakob Prange Hong Kong Polytechnic University jakob.prange@polyu.edu.hk ## Abstract We use both Bayesian and neural models to dissect a data set of Chinese learners' pre- and post-interventional responses to two tests measuring their understanding of English prepositions. The results mostly replicate previous findings from frequentist analyses and reveal new and crucial interactions between student ability, task type, and stimulus sentence. Given the sparsity of the data as well as high diversity among learners, the Bayesian method proves most useful; but we also see potential in using language model probabilities as predictors of grammaticality and learnability.1 ## 1 **Introduction** Learning a second or third language is hard—not only for NLP models but also for humans! Which linguistic properties and external factors make it so difficult? And how can we improve instruction and testing to help learners accomplish their goals? Here we also ask a third question: How can we best apply different computational models to such behavioral experimental data in order to get intuitive and detailed answers to the first two questions in a practical and efficient way? For example, we are interested in whether language model (LM) probabilities might give a rough estimate of grammaticality and learning difficulty (table 1, right columns). This work is in part a replication study of Wong (2022), who, in addressing these questions about native Chinese speakers' learning of English prepositions in context (see examples in table 1), mainly focused on instructional intervention and found generally positive effects as well as differences between instruction types, in particular favoring conceptual over rule-based teaching. We pick up where Wong (2022) left off and search for more fine-grained patterns among students' individual differences, linguistic items, stimulus sentences, 1Our experimental code is available at **https://github.** com/jakpra/L2-Prepositions. Man Ho Ivy Wong Hong Kong Shue Yan University mhwong@hksyu.edu and their grammaticality. Our main hypothesis is that the full story of the complex interactions among these factors can only be revealed by modeling them holistically. Such a fine-grained holistic analysis is well-aligned with Item Response Theory (IRT; Fischer, 1973; Lord, 1980). IRT allows us to formulate models in terms of predicting whether students provide the intended response to each test item. We consider sparse Bayesian and dense neural versions of this framework. We can then inspect how strongly each model input (the linguistic, experimental, and student-specific factors mentioned above, which are realized as random and fixed effects for the Bayesian model and feature vectors for the neural model) affects the outcome. As a representative of yet another modeling strategy, and also as an additional input to the IRT models, we obtain probability estimates for the target prepositions in each stimulus sentence from a pretrained transformer LM. These probabilities serve as a proxy for contextual formulaicity, as learned distributionally from a large corpus. While the theoretical advantages of Bayesian over frequentist statistics, as well as the generally strong performance of neuro-distributional models, are often cited as justification for choosing one particular modeling method, both replication studies and side-by-side comparisons of such drastically different modeling strategies for linguistic analysis remain rare (with notable exceptions, e.g., Michaelov et al., 2023; Tack, 2021). We contribute to this important development by - designing (§4.1), fitting, and evaluating (§5.1) a Bayesian mixed effects model on Wong's (2022) data (§3), considering more potential linguistic and human factors in preposition learning than previously and finding significant effects for several of them; - training (§4.2) and evaluating an analogous multilayer perceptron (MLP) model and comparing it with the Bayesian model in terms of | Student judgment | LM | | | | | | | | | |--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------------|-------|-----------| | # | Usage | Stimuli | Grammatical? | pre | post | ptgt | pctx | | | | 1a | HIR-Spat | The bell hung over | the baby's cradle and made him smile. | ✓ | 80.65 | 92.59 | 4.15 | 54.66 | | | 1b | through | ✗ | 50.00 | 46.67 | 0.03 | 54.10 | As expected | | | | 2a | HIR-Abst | The tutors watched over the students during the oral presentation. | ✓ | 80.00 | 96.77 | 96.70 | 67.19 | | | | 2b | on | ✗ | 35.00 | 46.15 | 0.07 | 50.64 | | | | | 3a | CVR-Abst Tremendous fear fell over | the town after the murder. | ✓ | 71.43 | 91.67 | 18.58 | 65.61 | | | | 3b | through | ✗ | 41.67 | 27.27 | 0.39 | 63.91 | | | | | 4a | CRS-Spat | The painter reached over | the paint can for a brush. | ✓ | 41.18 | 63.33 | 0.05 | 49.50 | ptgt) ??? | | 4b | through | ✗ | 36.11 | 33.33 | 0.78 | 45.42 | | | | | 5a | CRS-Abst | The lawyer jumped over a few pages of the contract. | ✓ | 72.73 | 94.12 | 6.97 | 52.39 | | | | 5b | to | ✗ | 42.11 | 34.78 | 20.27 | 51.66 | sign(∆ | | | | 6a | CVR-Abst Happiness diffused over the guests when they see the newly-weds. | ✓ | 44.44 | 88.46 | 2.47 | 65.27 | | | | | 6b | on | ✗ | 80.00 | 35.48 | 3.19 | 62.82 | | | | | 7a | CVR-Spat | The canvas stretched over | a large hole in the road. | ✓ | 44.12 | 70.37 | 17.99 | 51.66 | pctx) ??? | | 7b | through | ✗ | 55.56 | 60.00 | 15.52 | 52.79 | | | | | 8a | CVR-Abst The tension swept over the school when the alarm rang. | ✓ | 66.67 100.00 | 3.93 | 46.61 | | | | | | 8b | onto | ✗ | 37.84 | 12.50 | <0.01 | 46.63 | sign(∆ | | | | 9a | CRS-Abst | The politicians skipped over sensitive topics during the debate. | ✓ | 83.33 | 94.59 | 2.88 | 40.80 | | | | 9b | to | ✗ | 60.98 | 35.00 | 0.17 | 42.06 | | | | both feature ablation and overall prediction accuracy of the outcome, i.e., whether a student will answer a test prompt correctly (§5.2); - and probing a pretrained LM (§4.3 and §5) for contextual probabilities of target prepositions in order to determine their correlation—and thus, practical usefulness—with human language learning. Thus, we aim to both better explain L2 preposition learning and compare Bayesian, frequentist, and neural approaches to doing so. ## 2 **Background** 2.1 **English Preposition Semantics** Prepositions are among the most frequently used word classes in the English language—they make up between 6 and 10 % of all word tokens depending on text type and other factors (cf. Schneider et al., 2018). This is because English does not have a full-fledged morphological case system and instead often expresses semantic roles via word order and lexical markers like prepositions. At the same time, the inventory of preposition forms is relatively small—a closed set of largely grammaticalized function words covering a wide range of predictive, configurational, and other relational meanings. The resulting many-to-many mapping between word forms and meanings is complex and warrants nuanced linguistic annotation, analysis, and computational modeling in context (O'Hara and Wiebe, 2003; Hovy et al., 2010; Srikumar and Roth, 2013; Schneider et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2019b). Further, considerable cross-linguistic variation in the precise syntax-semantics interactions of prepositions and case has been shown to affect not only machine translation (Hashemi and Hwa, 2014; Weller et al., 2014; Popovic´, 2017), but also construal in human translation (Hwang et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2020; Prange and Schneider, 2021) and—crucially—learner writing (Littlemore and Low, 2006; Mueller, 2011; Gvarishvili, 2013; Kranzlein et al., 2020). ## 2.2 **Cognitive And Concept-Based Instruction** Cognitive linguistics (CogLx) maintains that many aspects of natural language semantics are grounded in extra-linguistic cognition, even (or especially) when they do not directly arise from syntactic composition, or at the lexical level. For example, Brugman (1988), Lakoff (1987), and Tyler and Evans (2003) argue that spatial prepositions evoke a network of interrelated senses, ranging from more prototypical to extended and abstract ones. Incorporating such conceptual connectedness into language instruction has shown some benefits (Tyler, 2012; Boers and Demecheleer, 1998; Lam, 2009). ## 2.3 **Computational Modeling In Sla** Until recently, most studies in applied linguistics and second-language acquisition (SLA)—insofar as they are quantitative—have relied on nullhypothesis testing with frequentist statistical measurements like analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Norouzian et al., 2018). This has the advantage that it is generally unambiguous and interpretable what is being tested (because concrete and specific hypotheses need to be formulated ahead of time) and that conclusions are based directly on data without any potentially confounding modeling mechanisms. At the same time, frequentist analyses are relatively rigid, and thus run into efficiency, sparsity, and reliability issues as interactions of interest grow more complex. Li and Lan (2022) propound a more widespread use of computational modeling and AI in language learning and education research. A promising alternative exists in the form of Bayesian models (e.g., Murakami and Ellis, 2022; Privitera et al., 2022; Guo and Ellis, 2021; Norouzian et al., 2018, 2019), which circumvent sparsity by sampling from latent distributions and offer intuitive measures of uncertainty "for free" in form of the estimated distributions' scale parameters. They can also be made very efficient to train by utilizing stochastic variational inference (SVI). Bayesian modeling for educational applications goes hand-in-hand with Item Response Theory (IRT; Fischer, 1973; Lord, 1980), which posits that learning outcomes depend on both student aptitude and test item difficulty. This addresses another limitation of frequentist analysis—the focus on aggregate test scores—by modeling each student's response to each item individually. We loosely follow this general paradigm with our model implementations, without committing to any specific theoretical assumptions. Within NLP, Bayesian and IRT-based approaches have been used to evaluate both human annotators (Rehbein and Ruppenhofer, 2017; Passonneau and Carpenter, 2014) and models (Kwako et al., 2022; Sedoc and Ungar, 2020), to conduct text analysis (Kornilova et al., 2022; Bamman et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2012), and natural language inference (Gantt et al., 2020). Murakami and Ellis (2022) show that grammar learning can be affected by contextual predictability (or formulaicity). While they used a simple n-gram model, we account for this phenomenon more broadly with a pretrained transformer LM. ## 3 **Original Study And Data** Wong (2022) measured students' pre- and postinterventional understanding of the English prepositions in, at, and *over*, particularly contrasting CogLx/schematics-based instruction with different flavors of rule-based methods. To this end, intermediate learners of English (all university students) with first languages Mandarin or Cantonese took initial English language tests ('pretest') targeting different usages of prepositions. They were then taught with one of four methods (incl. one control group, who received instruction about definite and indefinite articles instead of prepositions), and subsequently tested two more times. There were two different tests: a grammaticality judgment test (GJT) to measure effects on language processing and a picture elicitation test (PET) to measure effects on production. While all preposition-focused training was found to enhance learners' understanding of prepositions compared to both the pretest and the control group, schematics-based mediation led to stronger learning results than any of the other methods, especially at the PET (fig. 1) and on spatial usages of prepositions (the interaction between instruction method and spatial usage is not shown in fig. 1 for brevity). These latter findings in particular support our hypothesis that in addition to external factors like task type and instruction method, learning difficulty may also be affected by *inherent linguistic* properties of the prepositions and their usages (just as, e.g., Guo and Ellis (2021) show for distributional properties of grammatical suffixes). In this work we take a second look at Wong's data to directly address this possibility for preposition learning. ## 3.1 **Data Summary** We conduct all of our computational analyses with Wong's data (stimuli and behavioral results) but expand on the original study by explicitly modeling as potential factors several additional dimensions, relating to individual differences and interactions among stimuli, task types, and students (table 2, §3.2 and §3.3). 71 students (after outlier filtering) participated in the study. There are a total of 48 test items (12 senses × 4 contexts) and 22 fillers for the GJT as well as 36 test items (12 senses × 3 contexts) and 15 fillers for the PET. Outlier students and filler items are removed before any analysis/model training, resulting in 17,644 data points overall (GJT: 10,156; PET: 7,488). ## 3.2 **Stimulus Sentences** In the GJT (but not in the PET), students receive a linguistic stimulus to evaluate for grammaticality (see examples in table 1). Intended-grammatical stimuli involve target prepositions used in a sentence context that evokes their intended sense or function (fxn), either literally/spatially or figuratively/abstractly. For each intended-grammatical stimulus, there is an intended-ungrammatical stimulus, consisting of the same sentence context but replacing the target preposition with another that is meant to fit the context less well. ## 3.3 **Categorical Features** Instruction method. The main goal of Wong's (2022) study was to compare CogLx-based schematic mediation (SM) with more traditional rule-and-exemplar (RM) and bare-bones correctness-based mediation (CM). SM, RM, and CM instruction focused on the same preposition forms and usages students were tested on. Time of test. Students were tested three times: Two days before instructional intervention (PREtest, ◁ in fig. 1), two days after instruction (*POST*test, ○), and again 3 weeks later (DeLaYed posttest, ▷). Preposition form, function (fxn), and usage. The test cues are made up of 6 pairs of preposition usages across three forms: 'in' with the CON-TAINMENT (CTN) function; 'at' with the TARGET (TGT) and POINT (PNT) functions; and '*over*' with the HIGHER (HIR), ACROSS (CRS), and COVER (CVR) functions. Each usage pair consists of a spatial (e.g., 'in the box') and a non-spatial cue (e.g., 'in love') sharing the same schematization (in this case, CONTAINMENT). The cues were selected based on the Principled Polysemy Framework (Tyler and Evans, 2003), thereby ruling out overly fine-grained senses and allowing systematic presentation for instruction and testing. Test type. In the GJT, learners had to decide, for each stimulus sentence containing a preposition, whether the whole sentence is "correct" or "incorrect".2 We consider as a potential factor on the outcome whether a stimulus is intended-grammatical (*GJT-Y*) or not (*GJT-N*). In the PET, learners were | Random Effects Feature Values Instruction SM, RM, CM, CTRL | ✓ | ✓ | | |--------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-----|----| | Time | PRE, POST, DLY | ✓ | ✓ | | Test | GJT, PET | ✓ | ✓ | | Usage | Spatial, Abstract | ✓ | ✓ | | Answer | GJT-Y, GJT-N, PET | ✗ | ✓ | | Form-Fxn | in-CTN, at-TGT | ✗ | ✓ | | at-PNT, over-HIR, over-CRS, over-CVR | | | | | Student | s1, ..., s71 | ✗ | ✓ | | Fixed Effects ptgt—LM probability of target preposition | ✗ | ✓ | | | pctx—Avg. LM prob. of non-tgt tokens in sent. | ✗ | ✓ | |  shown an illustration of a concrete scenario instantiating one of the cues and were asked to produce a descriptive sentence containing a preposition. Responses were counted as correct if they chose the target preposition. Students. By adding local student identities to the model input (anonymized as, e.g., s1, s23), we allow fine-grained degrees of freedom w.r.t. individual differences, as is suggested by IRT. ## 4 **Models** Our main point of reference (or quasi-baseline) is Wong's frequentist data analysis, which is summarized in §3. In this work, we newly consider the following different modeling strategies: We train a Bayesian logistic model (BLM, §4.1) as well as a small multilayer perceptron (MLP, §4.2) on the same data. With the BLM we can define and interpret the precise structure of how individual features and their interactions affect the outcome. In contrast, the MLP utilizes nonlinear activation functions and multiple iterations/layers of computation, allowing it to pick up on complex interactions among input features without prior specification and thus to potentially achieve higher predictive accuracy, at the cost of interpretability. Both the BLM and MLP are implemented in Python and PyTorch, and are light-weight enough to be trained and run on a laptop CPU within several minutes for training and several seconds for inference. We also query a pretrained **neural language model** (LM, namely RoBERTa; Liu et al., 2019b) to obtain contextual probabilities for the stimulus sentences used 2The testing prompt did not explicitly highlight or otherwise draw attention to the preposition in question. in the grammaticality judgment test and add those probabilities to the BLM and MLP's inputs (§4.3). ## 4.1 **Bayesian Logistic Model** We model the posterior likelihood of a correct response (i.e., a given student providing the intended answer to a given stimulus) as a logistic regression conditional on the aforementioned categorical variables. Concretely, responses are sampled from a Bernoulli distribution with log-odds proportional to the weighted sum of the random and fixed effects. As potential factors we consider the features listed in §3.3 and table 2, as well as their mutual interactions. For the *students* feature, to keep model size manageable, we only consider pairwise interactions with usage (spatial/abstract), form-fxn, and answer. Otherwise all n-wise interactions are included. The effects' weight coefficients are sampled from Normal distributions whose means and standard deviations are fitted to the training data via SVI with the AdamW optimizer, AutoNormal guide, and ELBO loss. We use standard-normal priors for means and flat half-normal priors for standard deviations, meaning that, by default, parameter estimates are pulled towards null-effects, and will only get more extreme if there is strong evidence for it. The model is implemented using the Pyro-PPL/BRMP libraries (Bingham et al., 2018). ## 4.2 **Multilayer Perceptron** We train and test a multilayer perceptron (MLP) with depth 3. We mirror the BLM setup by treating student response correctness as the output and optimization objective and the different feature sets as concatenated embedding vectors. Between hidden layers we apply the GELU activation function, and during training additionally dropout with p = 0.2 before activation. We also apply dropout with p = 0.1 to the input layer. We minimize binary cross-entropy loss using the AdamW optimizer. We train for up to 25 epochs but stop early if dev set accuracy does not increase for 3 consecutive epochs. ## 4.3 **Roberta** We feed the GJT stimulus sentences to RoBERTabase (Liu et al., 2019b, accessed via Huggingfacetransformers). RoBERTa a pretrained neural LM based on the transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) and trained on English literary and Wikipedia texts to optimize the masked-token and next-sentence prediction objectives. For each sentence, we wish to obtain RoBERTa's posterior probability estimates for each observed word token wi ∈ w0∶n−1, given w0∶n−1/{wi}, i.e., all other words in that sentence. Thus we run RoBERTa n times, each time i masking out wiin the input. From these n sets of probabilities, we extract two measurements of formulaicity we expect to be relevant to our modeling objective of student response correctness:3(a) ptgt, the contextual probability of the target or alternate preposition given all other words in the sentence and (b) pctx, the average contextual probability of all words *except* the preposition.4 Examples are given in table 1. We standardize these two variables to N (0,1) and add them to the BLM (as fixed effects, both individually and with interactions) and MLP (as scalar input features). ## 5 **Evaluation** We first analyze the BLM's learned latent coefficients (§5.1). Then we compare different versions of the BLM and MLP w.r.t. their ability to predict unseen student responses using their estimated weighting of linguistic and external features as well as LM probabilities (§5.2). Finally, we manually inspect a small set of stimulus sentences with anomalous LM probabilities w.r.t. their intended grammaticality and observed judgments (§5.3). ## 5.1 **Determining Relevant Input Features** Setup. We fit BLMs on the entire data set (without reserving dev or eval splits). We run SVI for 1000 iterations with a sample size of 100 and a fixed random seed. We compute effect sizes (Cohen's d), and p-values based on 95%-confidence intervals of differences between estimated parameter values (Altman and Bland, 2011). Replication. As in Wong (2022), we use the features *instruction, time, form-fxn, usage*, and additionally let the model learn individual coefficients for each student. Separate models were trained for GJT and PET. As shown in fig. 1, we mostly replicate similar trends (differences between differences) as found previously, namely: - *Time:* DLY ≈ POST > PRE; - *Instruction:* treatment > ctrl; SM > CM ≈ RM; 3We also preliminarily experimented with inputting the entire LM hidden state of the last layer to the models but did not find it to be helpful. Kauf et al. (2022) found that alignment with human judgments varies from layer to layer, which presents an interesting avenue for future work. 4Note that the preposition token still has the potential to affect the other words' probabilities by occurring in their context condition. - and we generally see larger learning effects in the PET than in the GJT. However, many effect sizes are amplified—and thus p-values more significant-looking—in our model. A potential explanation for this could be that the BLM models each individual item response whereas ANOVA only considers overall %-correct. We are thus comparing effects on all students' accuracy at multiple test items in aggregate with effects on each student's accuracy at each test item separately. It seems intuitive that the latter 'microeffects' are much greater on average than the former 'macro-effects', which are themselves effects on the average performance metric. Another reason could be that because the Bayesian effect sizes stem from simulated data points, they are only indirectly related to the real underlying data via SVI. The estimated distribution these samples are drawn from only approximates the real data and thus the effect size estimations may be over-confident. See §6.1 for a discussion of advantages and disadvantages. Although our model estimates spatial usages as generally more difficult than abstract ones, we do not replicate Wong's finding of an *interaction* between abstractness and instruction or time. Still, our Bayesian quasi-IRT approach allows us to find additional interesting patterns that could not have been captured by a frequentist analysis5as they involve student-level and item-level interactions: Answer type and individual differences. We trained a single combined model on both GJT and PET data. As can be expected, in addition to the overall trends (fig. 1), we also find a strong effect for expected answer type (fig. 2): the *receptive* task of accepting grammatical items (GJT-Y) is much easier than the *productive* task of choosing the right preposition when describing a picture (PET). Interestingly, ruling out ungrammatical items (GJT-N) is equally as difficult as the PET. In addition, outcomes are affected by individual differences between students, and student aptitude heavily depends on answer type (fig. 3) as well as on preposition form/function (fig. 5 in appendix A). There is some (negative) correlation between individual aptitudes at GJT-N and GJT-Y and some (positive) correlation between GJT-N and PET. Still, both correlations are weak (R 2 = 0.23 and 0.20). In sum, not only do receptive vs. productive task   $\phi$=0.100, $\phi$=0.444 $\phi$=1.254, $\phi$=0.0001""". Figure 2: Estimated effects for different answer types.  types vary in their overall difficulty (fig. 2), but the wide spread in individual student differences (fig. 3) suggests that the skill sets required (let's call them "sensitivity" and "specificity") are somewhat complementary to each other and tend to be distributed unevenly among students. Each student has a unique combination of them. We discuss this further in §6.2. LM probabilities. The model was trained on GJT data only. Recall from §3.3 that GJT testing prompts did not explicate the target preposition or even mention the word 'preposition'. All else equal, it is thus conceivable that, despite the preposition-focused training, students evaluate the sentences' grammaticality for reasons unrelated to the target preposition. However, we can with high probability rule out this option as our model estimates strong effects for numerous features directly related to the preposition, namely: ptgt by itself (d=4.57; p<0.0001***); interaction ptgt:pctx (d=14.92; p<0.0001***);7and spatial vs. abstract usage of each preposition form and function (fig. 1, fig. 6 in appendix A). Furthermore, due to the heavy interaction between LM probabilities and categorical cue properties,8the singular random effect of spatial vs. abstract usage decreases when the model considers the LM-based fixed effects (d=0.372; p=0.0093**) compared to when it does not (d=0.491; p=0.0006***, fig. 1). ## 5.2 **Predicting Student Responses** Setup. We train the BLM and MLP using a training:evaluation:development data split ratio of 84:15:1, placing less weight on the dev set since it is only used to determine early-stopping during MLP training. Experiments are run 10 times with random data splits and model initializations. Results. As shown in table 3, both models easily outperform simple baselines, and the two models' overall accuracies are roughly on par (within each other's stdevs) with a slight advantage for the BLM. For predicting GJT outcomes only, the aforementioned interaction between students and answer types is most crucial, followed by information about the target preposition (BLM) and instruction (MLP), respectively. The LM-based features ptgt and pctx are useful for both models, | GJT + PET | GJT only | | | | |----------------|------------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | BLM | MLP | BLM | MLP | | | Uniform BL | 49.7 ±1.1 | 49.7 ±1.2 | | | | BLM prior BL | 49.7 ±2.1 | 48.2 ±1.4 | | | | Majority BL | 64.2 ±0.9 | 68.1 ±0.7 | | | | Full model | 72.6 ±1.1 | 71.5 ±0.6 | 72.5 ±0.8 | 71.3 ±0.9 | | − students | −2.2 ±0.6 | −0.9 ±0.7 | −2.6 ±0.9 | −2.0 ±0.8 | | − answer | −5.6 ±0.8 | −4.6 ±0.6 | −2.4 ±0.8 | −2.0 ±0.8 | | − fxn & usage | −5.4 ±1.0 | −4.6 ±1.0 | −1.5 ±0.4 | −0.8 ±1.3 | | − instr & time | −2.1 ±0.9 | −1.8 ±0.9 | −0.4 ±0.7 | −1.4 ±0.9 | | −ptgt & pctx | n/a | n/a | −0.9 ±0.9 | −0.4 ±0.9 | Uniform BL 49.7 ±1.1 49.7 ±1.2 BLM prior BL 49.7 ±2.1 48.2 ±1.4 Majority BL 64.2 ±0.9 68.1 ±0.7 Full model 72.6 ±1.1 71.5 ±0.6 72.5 ±0.8 71.3 ±0.9 − students −2.2 ±0.6 −0.9 ±0.7 −2.6 ±0.9 −2.0 ±0.8 − answer −5.6 ±0.8 −4.6 ±0.6 −2.4 ±0.8 −2.0 ±0.8 − fxn & usage −5.4 ±1.0 −4.6 ±1.0 −1.5 ±0.4 −0.8 ±1.3 − instr & time −2.1 ±0.9 −1.8 ±0.9 −0.4 ±0.7 −1.4 ±0.9 −ptgt & pctx n/a n/a −0.9 ±0.9 −0.4 ±0.9 Table 3: Baselines (BL), BLM and MLP prediction performance, and feature ablation (student response correctness prediction accuracy in %). Means and standard deviations over 10 random seeds, which affect not only model initialization but also data splitting and shuffling. Best full model results on each data split are underlined; highest-impact features in each column are bolded. but less so than the categorical ones. This is somewhat unexpected based on their strong effect sizes (§5.1) and the overwhelmingly high performance of LMs on other tasks. A potential reason is the contrast between the LM reflecting a gross average of language use—which indeed correlates with grammaticality (R 2 = 0.48, fig. 4)—and the unreliability of student judgments, especially at the pretest and in the control group (fig. 1 top). The lack of stimulus sentences (and thus LM probabilities) in the PET further increases the importance of the answer, form-function, and usage features in the GJT+PET condition. We also see a larger ablation effect of the instruction and time features, which is consistent with the larger interaction effect estimates for the PET (fig. 1 bottom). ## 5.3 **Qualitative Analysis Of Stimuli** We take a closer look at individual stimuli in fig. 4. From the y-axis distribution in the center and right panels we can clearly see the learning development among students undergoing preposition-focused training. At the pretest (center), aggregate students' grammaticality judgment is less decisive (mostly vertically centered around 50%± ≈ 20pp. At the posttest (right), the spread is much more decisive, ranging from almost 0% to 100%. At both points in time, there is a slight bias towards positive judgment, i.e., students are generally more willing to accept ungrammatical stimuli as grammatical than to reject grammatical ones. In contrast, LM probabilities (x-axis) tend to err on the conservative side, i.e., the LM has higher recall on recognizing ungrammatical items, whereas students have higher  recall on recognizing grammatical items, each at the cost of precision.9 We expect that intended-grammatical (✓) usages generally receive higher LM probabilities (∆p) than intended-ungrammatical (✗) usages. This is the case most of the time (for 41/48 stimulus pairs total), except for 7 cases, 6 of which involve the preposition '*over*' as the target. We present these sentences in table 1, along with 3 examples where both ∆p's are as expected. What makes ex. 4 - 9 special? A potential explanation is that the verb+preposition+object constructions in ex. 1 - 3 seem to be more clearly distinguishable as either grammatical or ungrammatical than the rest. In contrast, the ✗ sentences in ex. 4 - 6 are not *truly* ungrammatical. The scenarios they describe are unlikely but possible, and the unlikeliness mostly arises through the full-sentence context rather than the prepositional construction alone. In fact, each alternative preposition in 4b, 5b, and 6b might in isolation be a *more* expected collocation with the verb than '*over*', which would explain the ptgt trend. Ex. 7 - 9 (both ✗ and ✓) describe much more rare (i.e., unlikely as far as the distributional LM is concerned) scenes, which may lead to the overall lower pctx values.10 9Note that LM probabilities are not based on a binary grammaticality decision but on a selection decision over the entire vocabulary, and also that gradient linguistic judgments in general cannot be said to *only* revolve around grammaticality (cf. Lau et al., 2017). We could address this by looking at the ratio between the probabilities for each pair, but that would in turn establish a dependency among stimuli within each pair which is not present in the human experiment—each stimulus is presented in isolation, in randomized order. Thus, for transparency, we stick with the plain probability and elaborate qualitatively on the expected behavior below. 10A second tendency may lie in the concreteness and perceived simplicity (both in terms of semantics and register) of ## 6 **Discussion** 6.1 **Which Model Type Is Most Appropriate?** For the purpose of our study, the Bayesian logistic model of student responses has clear advantages over both the previous frequentist analysis of score aggregates (complexity of interactions, intuitiveness; §5.1) and the neural response classifier (higher interpretability with roughly equal prediction accuracy; §5.2). However, while this observation is in line with both our expectations and recent literature in SLA (e.g., Norouzian et al., 2018, 2019), we still recommend testing model practicability on a case-by-case basis. For example, if much more training data is available, a neural classifier is likely to outperform a sparse model at prediction accuracy. Whenever the BLM and ANOVA agree on a feature's significance (and they usuallybut not always—do), the BLM's estimates are relatively amplified (§5.1). This can be useful for identifying potentially relevant effects and interactions, but should also be taken with a grain of salt as it sometimes may construe results too optimistically. Where do these divergences come from? We hesitate to make any strong statements about broad philosophical differences between Bayesian and frequentist statistics in the abstract. Rather, we suspect that it mostly comes down to practical considerations like framing model and data around individual item responses vs. aggregate score, as well as varying degrees of commitment to latent sampling and optimization. Item response prediction accuracy and ablation analyses give some inthe preposition-governing *verbs*: '*hang, watch, fall*' are all fairly concrete, unambiguous, and colloquial, whereas '*reach,* diffuse, stretch, sweep' have more specialized meanings and are somewhat higher register. sight into how individual features affect models' estimates of the outcome variable and is consistent with statistical analyses (§5.2). This is particularly useful for discriminative neural models such as our MLP classifier, and is, of course, common practice in NLP classification studies. However, it is also much more costly, less precise, and less reliable than Bayesian and frequentist approaches. ## 6.2 **Implications For Sla** Our analysis of answer types and student aptitudes (§5.1 and §5.2) confirms Wong's (2022) and others' findings about differences between productive and receptive knowledge. We support Wong's argument that the type of assessment should align with both instruction type and and intended learning outcome. We further observe that even within the generally receptive task of grammaticality judgment, the subtask of ruling out ungrammatical items (GJT-N) requires higher specificity than accepting grammatical ones (GJT-Y) and is thus more closely aligned with *productive* tasks (e.g., PET). Interestingly, students who are better than average at productive tests tend to be slightly weaker than average at receptive ones and vice versa. A potential future use case of explicitly modeling students' individual differences w.r.t. different task types and linguistic items is that educational applications can be tailored to their *weaknesses*, which is expected to increase learning effectiveness and efficiency.11 Outside of directly deploying learning technology to end users, our findings can inform educators and SLA researchers. For example, unexpected patterns in LM probabilities (§5.3) may point to suboptimally designed stimulus pairs. Thus, LM probing could be a useful tool in cue selection and stimulus design of similar studies in the future. ## 6.3 **Implications For Nlp** In this work, we primarily analyze human learner behavior *using* different machine learning models, while in NLP-at-large it is much more common to analyze machine learning models w.r.t. a human ground truth. At the same time, our observations that different senses and usages even of the same preposition form heavily affect human learnability are somewhat analogous to previous results in automatic preposition disambiguation (varying model performance for extended vs. lexicalized senses; 11In practice, such a process should ideally be decentralized by training separate models for each student on the client side, to uphold privacy and other ethical standards. Schneider et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019a). Liu et al. also found that LM pretraining improves disambiguation performance, while Kim et al. (2019a) drew attention to differences among various NLP tasks as 'instruction methods'. This is not to say that current LM training practices are necessarily plausible models of human language learning and teaching, but even these high-level similarities in behavioral patterns invite further investigation. ## 7 **Conclusion** Much quantitative research in many areas of linguistics, including SLA, has been relying on the frequentist method for a long time—and for good reasons: It enables strong conclusions about clear hypotheses, closely following the observed data. Here we compared several alternative approaches to estimating a multitude of potential effects more holistically, namely via IRT-inspired Bayesian sparse models of explicit interactions among facts, neural classifiers of student responses and feature ablation, as well as contextual probabilities of the experimental stimuli obtained from a pretrained language model (§4). Overall, we were able to replicate previous frequentist findings regarding the difficulty of acquiring the preposition system in English as a second language and the benefits of concept-based instruction (§5.1). Our computational analysis emphasized the increased flexibility and occasionally stronger effect size estimates of IRT and Bayesian models, as well as their natural interpretability compared to neural models with equal predictive power. We also found novel interactions among task and subtask type, student individual differences, preposition cue and LM contextualization (§5), and discussed them in the broader contexts of both NLP and SLA, hoping to build bridges between the two research communities (§6). As a final takeaway for both fields, the differences between the LM's and students' overall tendencies to accept or reject stimuli (§5.3 and fig. 4 right) could potentially be exploited in both directions: The aggregate distributional grammatical knowledge of an LM could be used to teach students the most accepted usages of prepositions and other function words across a large population of speakers (i.e., improve their specificity), while LMs could learn to be more creative and to utilize humans' intuitive cross-lingual meaning mappings by learning from second-language learner data. ## Limitations Our study and findings are limited to the specific L1–L2 pair of Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese)–English. Further, the experimental setting we draw our data from is highly controlled, with carefully-chosen lexical items and carefullydesigned (length- and distractor-matched) stimulus sentences. While this enables strong statistical conclusions about the data itself, it poses a sparsity problem for most state-of-the-art NLP models, as can be seen even in the small and simple multilayer perceptron we test. While it would also be interesting to know whether students respond differently to the same instruction type or vice versa, the between-subjects experimental design underlying our data does not allow such a measurement. We inspect several model types representing a selection of extreme areas of a vast continuum of computational analysis methodologies. Naturally, this means that we cannot go into a lot of depth regarding model engineering and detailed comparison among similar implementations of each type. ## Ethics Statement Student identities are completely anonymized in our analyses and in the data we feed to our models. By locally distinguishing individual students, we do not wish to single out, over-interpret, or judge any individual student's behavior or aptitude, but rather to fit the models to our data as best we can and also to control for spurious patterns that might have been missed during initial outlier-filtering. ## Acknowledgments We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful questions and feedback. This work has been supported by Hong Kong PolyU grant 1-YWBW, awarded to the first author, and grant EDB(LE)/P&R/EL/203 of the Hong Kong Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (SCOLAR), awarded to the second author. ## References Douglas G Altman and J Martin Bland. 2011. How to obtain the p value from a confidence interval. BMJ, 343. David Bamman, Ted Underwood, and Noah A. Smith. 2014. A Bayesian mixed effects model of literary character. In *Proc. of ACL*, pages 370–379, Baltimore, Maryland. Eli Bingham, Jonathan P. Chen, Martin Jankowiak, Fritz Obermeyer, Neeraj Pradhan, Theofanis Karaletsos, Rohit Singh, Paul Szerlip, Paul Horsfall, and Noah D. Goodman. 2018. Pyro: Deep Universal Probabilistic Programming. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*. Frank Boers and Murielle Demecheleer. 1998. A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT Journal, 52(3):197–204. Claudia Marlea Brugman. 1988. The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. Taylor & Francis. Gerhard H. Fischer. 1973. The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. *Acta Psychologica*, 37(6):359–374. William Gantt, Benjamin Kane, and Aaron Steven White. 2020. Natural language inference with mixed effects. In *Proc. of *SEM*, pages 81–87, Barcelona, Spain (Online). Rundi Guo and Nick C. Ellis. 2021. Language usage and second language morphosyntax: Effects of availability, reliability, and formulaicity. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 12. Zeinab Gvarishvili. 2013. Interference of L1 prepositional knowledge in acquiring of prepositional usage in English. *Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences*, 70:1565–1573. Homa B Hashemi and Rebecca Hwa. 2014. A comparison of MT errors and ESL errors. In *Proc. of LREC*, pages 2696–2700. Dirk Hovy, Stephen Tratz, and Eduard Hovy. 2010. What's in a preposition? Dimensions of sense disambiguation for an interesting word class. In *Proc. of* COLING, pages 454–462, Beijing, China. Jena D. Hwang, Hanwool Choe, Na-Rae Han, and Nathan Schneider. 2020. K-SNACS: Annotating Korean adposition semantics. In Proc. of DMR@COLING, pages 53–66, Barcelona, Spain (online). Ganesh Jawahar, Benoît Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2019. What does BERT learn about the structure of language? In *Proc. of ACL*, pages 3651–3657, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Carina Kauf, Anna A. Ivanova, Giulia Rambelli, Emmanuele Chersoni, Jingyuan S. She, Zawad Chowdhury, Evelina Fedorenko, and Alessandro Lenci. 2022. Event knowledge in large language models: the gap between the impossible and the unlikely. Preprint arXiv:2212.01488. Najoung Kim, Roma Patel, Adam Poliak, Patrick Xia, Alex Wang, Tom McCoy, Ian Tenney, Alexis Ross, Tal Linzen, Benjamin Van Durme, Samuel R. Bowman, and Ellie Pavlick. 2019a. Probing what different NLP tasks teach machines about function word comprehension. In *Proc. of *SEM*, pages 235–249, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Najoung Kim, Kyle Rawlins, Benjamin Van Durme, and Paul Smolensky. 2019b. Predicting the argumenthood of English prepositional phrases. In *Proc.* of AAAI, volume 33, pages 6578–6585. Anastassia Kornilova, Vladimir Eidelman, and Daniel Douglass. 2022. An Item Response Theory framework for persuasion. In *Findings of NAACL*, pages 77–86, Seattle, Washington, USA. Michael Kranzlein, Emma Manning, Siyao Peng, Shira Wein, Aryaman Arora, and Nathan Schneider. 2020. PASTRIE: A corpus of prepositions annotated with supersense tags in Reddit international English. In Proc. of LAW@COLING, pages 105–116, Barcelona, Spain. Alexander Kwako, Yixin Wan, Jieyu Zhao, Kai-Wei Chang, Li Cai, and Mark Hansen. 2022. Using Item Response Theory to measure gender and racial bias of a BERT-based automated English speech assessment system. In *Proc. of BEA@NAACL-HLT*, pages 1–7, Seattle, Washington, USA. George Lakoff. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. Yvonne Lam. 2009. Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para. *Language Awareness*, 18(1):2–18. Jey Han Lau, Alexander Clark, and Shalom Lappin. 2017. Grammaticality, acceptability, and probability: A probabilistic view of linguistic knowledge. *Cognitive Science*, 41(5):1202–1241. Ping Li and Yu-Ju Lan. 2022. Digital language learning (DLL): Insights from behavior, cognition, and the brain. *Bilingualism: Language and Cognition*, 25(3):361–378. Jeannette Littlemore and Graham D Low. 2006. *Figurative thinking and foreign language learning*. Springer. Nelson F. Liu, Matt Gardner, Yonatan Belinkov, Matthew E. Peters, and Noah A. Smith. 2019a. Linguistic knowledge and transferability of contextual representations. In *Proc. of NAACL-HLT*, pages 1073–1094, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019b. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. Preprint arXiv:1907.11692. Frederic M Lord. 1980. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Routledge. James A. Michaelov, Seana Coulson, and Benjamin K Bergen. 2023. Can peanuts fall in love with distributional semantics? In *Proc. of CogSci*. Preprint arXiv:2301.08731. Charles M. Mueller. 2011. English learners' knowledge of prepositions: Collocational knowledge or knowledge based on meaning? *System*, 39(4):480–490. Akira Murakami and Nick C Ellis. 2022. Effects of availability, contingency, and formulaicity on the accuracy of English grammatical morphemes in second language writing. *Language Learning*. Reza Norouzian, Michael de Miranda, and Luke Plonsky. 2018. The Bayesian revolution in second language research: An applied approach. *Language* Learning, 68(4):1032–1075. Reza Norouzian, Michael de Miranda, and Luke Plonsky. 2019. A Bayesian approach to measuring evidence in L2 research: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 103(1):248–261. Tom O'Hara and Janyce Wiebe. 2003. Preposition semantic classification via Treebank and FrameNet. In Proc. of CoNLL, pages 79–86, Edmonton, Canada. Rebecca J. Passonneau and Bob Carpenter. 2014. The Benefits of a Model of Annotation. Transactions of the ACL, 2:311–326. Siyao Peng, Yang Liu, Yilun Zhu, Austin Blodgett, Yushi Zhao, and Nathan Schneider. 2020. A corpus of adpositional supersenses for Mandarin Chinese. In Proc. of LREC, pages 5986–5994, Marseille, France. Maja Popovic. 2017. Comparing language related is- ´ sues for NMT and PBMT between German and English. *The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics*, 108(1):209. Jakob Prange and Nathan Schneider. 2021. Draw mir a sheep: A supersense-based analysis of German case and adposition semantics. *Künstliche Intelligenz*, 35(3):291–306. Adam John Privitera, Mohammad Momenian, and Brendan Weekes. 2022. Graded bilingual effects on attentional network function in chinese high school students. *Bilingualism: Language and Cognition*, page 1–11. Ines Rehbein and Josef Ruppenhofer. 2017. Detecting annotation noise in automatically labelled data. In Proc. of ACL, pages 1160–1170, Vancouver, Canada. Nathan Schneider, Jena D. Hwang, Vivek Srikumar, Jakob Prange, Austin Blodgett, Sarah R. Moeller, Aviram Stern, Adi Bitan, and Omri Abend. 2018. Comprehensive supersense disambiguation of English prepositions and possessives. In *Proc. of ACL*, pages 185–196, Melbourne, Australia. João Sedoc and Lyle Ungar. 2020. Item Response Theory for efficient human evaluation of chatbots. In Proc. of Eval4NLP@EMNLP, pages 21–33, Online. Vivek Srikumar and Dan Roth. 2013. Modeling semantic relations expressed by prepositions. Transactions of the ACL, 1:231–242. Anaïs Tack. 2021. *Mark my words! On the automated* prediction of lexical difficulty for foreign language readers. Ph.D. thesis, KU Leuven. Andrea Tyler. 2012. *Cognitive linguistics and second* language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. Routledge. Andrea Tyler and Vyvyan Evans. 2003. *The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition*. Cambridge University Press. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Proc. of NeurIPS*, pages 5998–6008, Long Beach, CA, USA. William Yang Wang, Elijah Mayfield, Suresh Naidu, and Jeremiah Dittmar. 2012. Historical analysis of legal opinions with a sparse mixed-effects latent variable model. In *Proc. of ACL*, pages 740–749, Jeju Island, Korea. Marion Weller, Sabine Schulte im Walde, and Alexander Fraser. 2014. Using noun class information to model selectional preferences for translating prepositions in SMT. In *Proc. of AMTA*, pages 275–287, Vancouver, Canada. Man Ho Ivy Wong. 2022. Fostering conceptual understanding through computer-based animated schematic diagrams and cue contrast. *TESOL Quarterly*.  ## A **Effects Of Preposition Cues** In the main text, for brevity, we omitted a detailed analysis of the effects of specific combinations of preposition form, function, and usage on student performance. Here we take a closer look at the six types of cues: in with the CONTAINMENT function, at with the TARGET and POINT functions, and *over* with the HIGHER,COVER, and CROSS functions. In fig. 5, we see that there is a wide spread among students for each of the cue types, especially at the PET. The fact that these effects are estimated as interactions in addition to the student-level intercepts suggests, again, that students' skill sets are unique, depending on the preposition cue, which is also illustrated for 5 randomly chosen students. In fig. 6, we see that the difficulty of these six cues varies greatly, depending on both spatial/ abstract use and task type. In fact, the difficulty ranking is largely reversed between GJT and PET. As a striking example of this, at-TARGET-Abstract and in-CONTAIN-Abstract are the easiest cues to judge correctly in the GJT but most difficult to produce in the PET. There exceptions to this trend, too. E.g., at-POINT-Abstract is relatively difficult in both GJT and PET. Another interesting observation is that, in the PET, both usages of *over*-HIGHER are much easier to produce than any other cue. Figure 5: Spread among student effect means (x-axis) in interaction with preposition form/function. 5 randomly chosen students are shown exemplarily (filled shapes; empty circles are outliers). Note that, while in our other figures the error bars denote standard deviations over models' marginal parameter distributions, here they describe the distribution over students of estimated mean interaction effects.  12734 ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 6 Discussion and Conclusions; Limitations Statement ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We conduct a small-scale research and replication study. We will release our experimental software code, but do not deploy any end-user applications. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 Introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** We used experimental data (stimuli and behavioral results) from Wong (2022). This is explained and described in section 3 Original Study and Data. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? section 3 Original Study and Data and throughout the paper ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? The data are currently not publicly available. They were shared with us by the author of the original study, who is also a co-author on this paper. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? section 3 Original Study and Data; Ethics Statement ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? section 3 Original Study and Data ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. section 3 Original Study and Data; section 5 Evaluation The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 Models; Section 5 Evaluation ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? section 4 Models C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Not applicable. We did not perform extensive hyperparameter search and are not proposing a state-of-the-art model configuration. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? section 5 Evaluation ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? section 4 Models ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Section 3 Original Study And Data; Section 5 Evaluation ✗ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? We computationally replicate data analysis and outcome prediction of data that was collected by other researchers. We cite and discuss the relevant publication, which provides detailed information about participants and procedures. ✗ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? See above. ✗ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? See above. ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? See above. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? section 3 Original Study and Data

pagnoni-etal-2023-socratic

Socratic Pretraining: Question-Driven Pretraining for Controllable Summarization

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.713

In long document controllable summarization, where labeled data is scarce, pretrained models struggle to adapt to the task and effectively respond to user queries. In this paper, we introduce Socratic pretraining, a question-driven, unsupervised pretraining objective specifically designed to improve controllability in summarization tasks. By training a model to generate and answer relevant questions in a given context, Socratic pretraining enables the model to more effectively adhere to user-provided queries and identify relevant content to be summarized. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach through extensive experimentation on two summarization domains, short stories and dialogue, and multiple control strategies: keywords, questions, and factoid QA pairs. Our pretraining method relies only on unlabeled documents and a question generation system and outperforms pre-finetuning approaches that use additional supervised data. Furthermore, our results show that Socratic pretraining cuts task-specific labeled data requirements in half, is more faithful to user-provided queries, and achieves state-of-the-art performance on QMSum and SQuALITY.

# Socratic **Pretraining: Question-Driven Pretraining** For Controllable Summarization Artidoro Pagnoni∗1 Alexander R. Fabbri2 Wojciech Krysci ´ **nski** ´ 2 **Chien-Sheng Wu**2 1University of Washington, 2Salesforce AI Research artidoro@uw.edu, {afabbri, wojciech.kryscinski, wu.jason}@salesforce.com ## Abstract In long document controllable summarization, where labeled data is scarce, pretrained models struggle to adapt to the task and effectively respond to user queries. In this paper, we introduce SOCRATIC pretraining, a question-driven, unsupervised pretraining objective specifically designed to improve controllability in summarization tasks. By training a model to generate and answer relevant questions in a given context, SOCRATIC pretraining enables the model to more effectively adhere to user-provided queries and identify relevant content to be summarized. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach through extensive experimentation on two summarization domains, short stories and dialogue, and multiple control strategies: keywords, questions, and factoid QA pairs. Our pretraining method relies only on unlabeled documents and a question generation system and outperforms pre-finetuning approaches that use additional supervised data. Furthermore, our results show that SOCRATIC pretraining cuts task-specific labeled data requirements in half, is more faithful to userprovided queries, and achieves state-of-the-art performance on QMSum and SQuALITY. ## 1 Introduction Summarization systems are designed to help users navigate large amounts of information (Edmunds and Morris, 2000), but often fail to meet the unique needs of different users, especially for long documents. Recent research has explored ways to make summarization systems more controllable (Bornstein et al., 1999; Leuski et al., 2003) by allowing users to input queries or control sequences such as keywords (He et al., 2020), questions (Zhong et al., 2021), entity chains (Narayan et al., 2021), or question-answer pairs (Narayan et al., 2022). A challenge shared by all of the mentioned approaches is the absence of abundant labeled data.  Figure 1: Our SOCRATIC pretraining compared to denoising. We mask important sentences in unlabeled input documents and train the model to generate both questions and **pseudo-summaries** as their answers. Currently available datasets for training these systems are the result of expensive annotation efforts (Zhong et al., 2021; Kulkarni et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022) with only hundreds to a few thousand query-document pairs, with the same document often being repeated. This translates into poor adherence of generated summaries to user-provided queries, particularly when these are finegrained plans. Recent work demonstrates the benefits of tailoring the pretraining objective to downstream task characteristics, especially where training data is difficult to obtain in large quantities like factualityfocused and multi-document summarization (Wan and Bansal, 2022; Xiao et al., 2022). In controllable summarization, summaries are grounded by queries, so designing an objective for the task requires introducing realistic queries in unlabeled data in a scalable manner. This work introduces SOCRATIC pretraining, an unsupervised pretraining objective for language models that is specifically designed for controllable summarization. It is inspired by the Socratic method and aims to facilitate the identification of ∗ Work done during internship at Salesforce 12737 relevant content and ensure that the generated summary faithfully responds to the user query. During SOCRATIC pretraining (see Figure 1) the language model is trained to generate relevant questions based on an input document and then answer them, bringing finegrained controllability to model pretraining which translates to better adherence to user queries. SOCRATIC pretraining only relies on unlabeled data and a question generation system and outperforms pre-finetuning approaches relying on additional supervised data (Aghajanyan et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2021; Fabbri et al., 2021a). In this work, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the SOCRATIC objective through *pretraining adaptation*, where a language model is further pretrained with the SO-CRATIC objective before finetuning on task-specific labeled data. In summary, our contributions are as follows1: - We introduce the SOCRATIC pretraining objective for controllable summarization to improve adherence to user-specified queries or plans, both high-level and finegrained. - We show that SOCRATIC pretraining performs well across domains, control strategies, and achieves state-of-the-art performance on two datasets. - We perform ablations on our approach showing that SOCRATIC pretraining cuts labeled data requirements in half. ## 2 Related Work Task-Specific Pretraining Adaptation Current state-of-the-art methods in abstractive summarization apply a two-step approach where models are first pretrained on large corpora of text with taskagnostic variations of the text denoising objective and next finetuned on labeled examples from the target task (Lewis et al., 2020; Raffel et al., 2020). However, in tasks where labeled data is scarce, task-specific pretraining objectives have been shown to provide significant benefits. Recent work adapted language models to summarize multiple documents (Xiao et al., 2022), produce more factual summaries (Wan and Bansal, 2022), or plan with entity chains (Narayan et al., 2021). We build on these methods, focusing on the downstream task of controllable summarization. 1Our code is be available at https://github.com/ salesforce/socratic-pretraining Other studies demonstrate the effect of continued pretraining (Gururangan et al., 2020) and prefinetuning (Aghajanyan et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2021; Fabbri et al., 2021a) on downstream task adaptation. These either continue training with the same objective on data in the downstream task domain or perform multitask learning using labeled data. In this work, we demonstrate the benefits of language model adaptation with a task-specific pretraining objective without additional supervised data and show that these benefits are consistent and statistically significant in low-resource settings like query-focused summarization (QFS). Controllable Summarization Controllable text generation (Hu et al., 2017) aims to control properties of the generated text including style (Kumar et al., 2021), length, or content (Fan et al., 2018; He et al., 2020). Approaches for content control vary according to the type of control: keywords (He et al., 2020), entities (Narayan et al., 2021), questions (Vig et al., 2022), factoid question-answer pairs (also called QA blueprints) (Narayan et al., 2022). As opposed to methods like GSum (Dou et al., 2021), which insert control tokens on the encoder side, we focus on decoder-based methods which do not require re-encoding the document when the control sequences are updated. In summarization, these controls can broadly indicate the information to summarize, like the questions in query-focused summarization, or provide a detailed plan of the text to be generated, like the entity chains. While these types of control are not typically studied together we show that our SOCRATIC pretraining provides benefits across the board for both high-level and finegrained queries and plans. Learning with Questions Inspired by the Socratic method, recent literature in education theory shows students generate questions as a way of learning (Rosenshine et al., 1996; Aflalo, 2021), hinting at the potential benefits that could derive from incorporating questions during model training. Previous work shows that question-answer pairs, both generated (Du et al., 2017; Alberti et al., 2019; Ko et al., 2021; Murakhovs'ka et al., 2022; Chakrabarty et al., 2022) and from the web (Narayan et al., 2020), can provide useful training signal for pretrained encoders (Jia et al., 2022) as well as question generation and abstractive summarization systems (Narayan et al., 2022). Our SOCRATIC objective builds on these observations and is designed to improve sequence-to-sequence model pretraining for more controllable summarization systems. Similar to information-seeking Dialogue Inpainting (Dai et al., 2022), SOCRATIC pretraining extracts questions from unlabeled data focusing on higher-level questions, whose answers are full sentences, instead of factoid QA pairs. ## 3 Socratic **Pretraining** During SOCRATIC pretraining, the model takes as input a document with important sentences masked and is trained to generate questions about the masked content and produce the mask itself. As seen in Figure 1, SOCRATIC pretraining is formulated as a sequence-to-sequence task and consists of two steps 1) important content is selected from unlabeled documents to be masked, and 2) a question-generation system is applied to produce questions about the selected content. The question augmentation component trains the model to produce summaries grounded to questions and allows for controllability as the end-user can prompt the model decoder with new questions during inference. We describe both steps below. ## 3.1 Content Selection Selecting important content is essential for the model to learn to generate salient questions and summaries. In SOCRATIC pretraining, this content selection is done using the PEGASUS-style Gap Sentence Generation (GSG) objective (Zhang et al., 2020a), which we now briefly describe. Sentences with the highest self-Rouge with the document are selected for masking, ensuring that there is high information overlap with the rest of the document. The selected sentences, concatenated, produce a pseudo-summary of the document. As in PEGASUS, a Gap Sentence Ratio (GSR) of 45% is used, meaning that 45% of the sentences in the document are selected to appear in the target pseudo-summary. To help the model learn to copy, 80% of these sentences are masked and 20% are kept unmasked in the input document. Documents and summaries are truncated to 512 and 256 tokens. ## 3.2 Question Augmentation After selecting the pseudo-summary, a question generation (QG) system is applied to obtain a question from each sentence of the pseudo-summary. The QG system takes as input one of the selected sentences at a time and the unmasked document as  context. We apply MixQG (Murakhovs'ka et al., 2022), a state-of-the-art QG system. The choice to generate a question for each selected sentence, as opposed to each entity or the entire summary, is driven by three reasons. First, sentences in the pseudo-summary are selected from across the document and generally lack coherence, so there is no single query they collectively answer. Second, current QG systems are not trained to produce paragraph-level questions. Third, entity-level questions are often simple paraphrases of the answer sentence and are uncommon in QFS datasets. Questions whose answers are full sentences, therefore, offer a compromise in terms of the complexity of the question and the coherence of the answer. We refer to these sentence-level questions as *content-questions* as they tend to ask about the content of the document instead of specific entities. ## 3.3 Training Objective After obtaining the questions, there are multiple ways to introduce them in the training objective either in the input or in the target text. As seen in Figure 2, we experiment with three modes on top of the base GSG objective: - *Reconstruct.* The reconstruct mode is the default GSG mode where no questions are introduced. The masked document is the input and the pseudo-summary is the target text. We provide this mode as a baseline for our approach. - *Ask.* Given the masked document as input, the model is trained to only predict the questions about the masked sentences. This is the only mode where the target text does not include the pseudo-summary. With this mode, the model is trained to predict which questions can be asked in a given context. - *Answer.* Here, the questions are prepended to the masked input document while the target text remains the pseudo-summary. This mode is similar to how queries are introduced to the model during query-focused summarization and should help the model learn to respond to user-provided queries. However, this mode forgoes content planning as each generated sentence corresponds to one of the questions prepended to the input. - *Ask&Answer.* This mode combines benefits from both Ask and *Answer* modes. The model is tasked to first generate questions about the document and then, conditioning on both the document and the generated questions, the pseudo-summary. The model conditions on the generated questions in the decoder. This mode can be seen as first generating a finegrained plan for the pseudo-summary and then the pseudo-summary itself. Like Tay et al. (2022), we prepend special tokens <ask>, <answer>, and <ask&answer> to the input document to specify the augmentation mode, and the <qsep> token to separate the generated questions from the target pseudo-summary. ## 4 Experimental Setup We describe the experimental setup that we use to study SOCRATIC pretraining along with empirical studies justifying our design decisions. ## 4.1 Model Architecture The SOCRATIC objective can be applied to any sequence-to-sequence language model irrespective of its specific architecture. In our experiments, we choose BART-large (Lewis et al., 2020), as the starting point for SOCRATIC pretraining adaptation. Following previous work on pretraining adaption for summarization, we pick BART over PEGASUS for its smaller size without performance compromises on summarization benchmarks and its more general-purpose pretraining objective. BART is also the underlying model in the SegEnc (Vig et al., 2022) architecture, which achieved state-of-the-art performance on QMSum, outperforming models such as LongT5 (Guo et al., 2022). Instead of pretraining the language model from scratch, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed objective through what we call *pretraining adaptation*, where a generic language model is further pretrained with the SOCRATIC objective before being finetuned on task-specific labeled data. Although we introduce a new term for this training phase, *pretraining adaptation* was recently employed to evaluate task-specific pretraining objectives for factuality and multi-document summarization (Wan and Bansal, 2022; Xiao et al., 2022). After SOCRATIC pretraining adaptation, the resulting model is used to initialize the SegEnc architecture, which is then finetuned on labeled data from downstream tasks. Pretraining and finetuning hyperparameter details are available in A.2. ## 4.2 Pretraining Corpus We experiment with three different corpora, two of which are part of the Pile (Gao et al., 2021). - *OpenWebText2* is a web-scraped dataset inspired by WebText (Radford et al., 2019) that uses Reddit upvotes of outgoing links as a proxy for page quality. Raffel et al. (2020) found this dataset to work well for summarization pretraining. - *Books3* is a collection of both fiction and nonfiction books. We explore this data because our downstream tasks involve the short story and dialogue domains, and Csaky and Recski (2021) show books can be a good source of dialogue data. - *UnDial* (He et al., 2022) We also explore using a dialogue corpus. As there are only two speakers in each dialogue in UnDial, we use a simple rule-based system to convert dialogues to third person. The pseudo-summary and related questions are then expressed in the third person while the input remains in the original dialogue format. ## 4.3 Downstream Tasks To determine whether SOCRATIC pretraining improves model initialization for finetuning on controllable summarization, we test on two downstream datasets for query-focused, long-document summarization: QMSum and SQuALITY (dataset statistics can be found in A.1). We focus on long  Figure 3: Comparison of question augmentation modes.  document datasets as a challenging and practical testbed for controllable summarization methods. QMSum. QMSum is a benchmark for querybased, multi-domain meeting summarization (Zhong et al., 2021). The dataset consists of 1,808 query-summary pairs over 232 meetings, including product, academic, and parliamentary meetings. SQuALITY. SQuALITY is a dataset for querybased short stories summarization (Wang et al., 2022). The dataset is composed of 625 examples over 100 stories with four long reference summaries per document-question pair. ## 4.4 Evaluation Protocol We apply the standard Rouge (Lin, 2004) and BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020b) metrics to compare model generations with reference summaries on downstream finetuning tasks. In SQuALITY, we use the same procedure as the dataset authors to incorporate multiple references by taking the maximum score over the reference summaries. We also conduct a human evaluation study to ensure the variations between models are meaningful to users. Details on the setup can be found in A.4. ## 5 Socratic **Pretraining Ablations** In this section, we corroborate our design choices with ablation studies of the components of SO-CRATIC pretraining. Similar to Zhang et al. (2020a) and Raffel et al. (2020), to save time and resources, we conduct the ablations of the objective on a small scale by restricting the pretraining adaptation to 1M documents from the OpenWebText2 corpus and then finetuning it on the full downstream task datasets. We report the mean over five randomly initialized finetuning runs on the validation set.   Figure 5: Effect of the pretraining corpus (dev set). Question Augmentation Modes In Figure 3, we compare the performance of the three approaches for incorporating generated questions in the SO-CRATIC objective. The Ask and *Ask&Answer* perform similarly while *Answer* lags behind. This is in line with our hypothesis that learning which questions are relevant in a given context is a useful training signal for the model. The *Ask&Answer* mode also grounds the pseudo-summary generation in a sequence of finegrained questions. Therefore, it is chosen to be used in SOCRATIC pretraining. Question Augmentation Proportion Incorporating questions with the *Ask&Answer* mode in each pretraining example could bias the model to always start by generating questions. We hypothesize that combining the *Reconstruct* mode with the *Ask&Answer* mode could alleviate this bias. In Figure 4, we find that introducing questions in 25% of pretraining examples leads to the best performance and use this proportion when scaling the pretraining adaptation. Pretraining Corpus Selection In Figure 5, we find that the choice of pretraining corpus has a small but consistent effect on the performance of the SOCRATIC pretrained model on downstream tasks. The Books3 corpus performs best both on QMSum and SQuALITY. The dialogue corpus offers a slight advantage over OpenWebText2 on QMSum, a dialogue summarization task, while the opposite is true for SQuALITY. As a result, the full Books3 corpus, consisting of 30M training instances, is used in further experiments. ## 6 Query Focused Summarization Results We scale the SOCRATIC pretraining adaptation based on the findings of the previous ablation and evaluate its downstream effects on query-focused summarization. Unless specified, the results in this section are averaged over five randomly initialized finetuning runs on the downstream tasks. In Table 1, we compare the effect of SOCRATIC pretraining to other pretraining strategies on QMSum and SQuALITY. We obtain an improvement | Model | Rouge1 | Rouge2 | RougeL | BS-R | |------------------------------------|----------|----------|----------|--------| | QMSum BART-LS (Xiong et al., 2022) | 37.90 | 12.10 | 33.10 | - | | BART-Large SegEnc | 37.05 | 13.04 | 32.62 | 87.44 | | + WikiSum Pre-Finetuning | 37.80 | 13.43 | 33.38 | - | | + BART Pret. 1M | 36.64 | 12.44 | 31.94 | 86.94 | | + SOCRATIC Pret. 1M | 37.46 | 13.32 | 32.79 | 87.54 | | + PEGASUS Pret. | 37.29 | 13.30 | 32.70 | 87.48 | | + SOCRATIC Pret. | 38.06 | 13.74 | 33.51 | 87.63 | | Squality LED | 27.7 | 5.9 | 17.7 | - | | PEGASUS | 38.2 | 9.0 | 20.2 | - | | BART | 40.2 | 10.4 | 20.8 | - | | BART + DPR | 41.5 | 11.4 | 21.0 | - | | Human | 46.6 | 12.5 | 22.7 | - | | BART-Large SegEnc | 45.68 | 14.51 | 22.47 | 85.86 | | + PEGASUS Pret. | 45.78 | 14.43 | 22.90 | 85.94 | | + SOCRATIC Pret. | 46.31 | 14.80 | 22.76 | 86.04 | of +1.01 and +0.53 Rouge-1, respectively, surpassing even the use of additional supervision from the related dataset WikiSum in Vig et al. (2022) and achieving new state-of-the-art results. These improvements are validated by a human study reported in Figure 6 and showing that SOCRATIC SegEnc performs better than the baselines in 5965% of instances. Details of the human evaluation are found in A.4. ## 6.1 Disentangling The Effect Of Questions The main baseline for SOCRATIC pretraining is the PEGASUS style GSG pretraining. We therefore perform a pretraining adaptation of BART-large with the GSG objective on the full Books3 corpus. In Table 1, we observe that GSG pretraining on the full Books3 corpus improves by +0.24 Rouge-1 over the BART SegEnc model. However, with the SOCRATIC objective, 1M examples from Books3 (1/30 of the full corpus) are sufficient to surpass GSG pretraining, with a +0.41 Rouge-1 improvement over BART SegEnc. This indicates that GSG pretraining, tailored to generic summarization, is only marginally helpful in tasks where summaries have to answer user-provided queries. In addition, increasing the corpus for SOCRATIC pretraining to the entire Books3 corpus further improves the performance by +0.60 Rouge-1 on QMSum, showing that the benefits of the pretraining objective do not saturate early and that the model continues to improve with additional SOCRATIC pretraining.  Figure 6: Human annotators' preferences on QMSum. We also compare to BART-LS, an orthogonal approach that tailors BART's architecture, pretraining corpus, and objective to long documents (Xiong et al., 2022). While our approaches are complementary, we outperform BART-LS on QMSum by +1.64 Rouge-2. This confirms our hypothesis that grounding generations in control queries in SOCRATIC pretraining is beneficial in controllable summarization, even more so than better long document modeling. ## 6.2 Comparing To Continued Pretraining Gururangan et al. (2020) show that language models can be successfully adapted to the task domain by continuing to pretrain them in the new domain. This raises the question of whether improvements due to SOCRATIC pretraining are simply due to a better affinity of the pretraining corpus to the task domain. To answer this question, we perform continued pretraining2 on a 1M subset of the Books3 corpus and next finetune the model on QMSum. Table 1 shows that continued pretraining slightly hurts Rouge-1 performance. In comparison, performing SOCRATIC pretraining on the same corpus improves performance by +0.41 Rouge-1. This observation rules out that improvements achieved through SOCRATIC pretraining are simply due to improved domain adaptation. ## 6.3 Comparing To Pre-Finetuning Transferring information from related tasks is another approach to adapt generic models to specific tasks (Aghajanyan et al., 2021). We show in Table 1 that SOCRATIC pretraining outperforms even the best pre-finetuned BART SegEnc model, which uses additional supervision from the WikiSum dataset (Liu et al., 2018). This transfer dataset was selected from a wide range of relevant summarization datasets tested by Vig et al. (2022). Crucially, we note that transfer learning, like prefinetuning, is orthogonal to our line of work which operates on the pretraining side. We believe that SOCRATIC can therefore be used in combination with pre-finetuning to further boost performance. 2For consistency, we use Fairseq to pretrain BART-large  ## 6.4 General Vs. Specific Summaries Both QMSum and Squality datasets contain a substantial portion of general summaries (12.5-20%) that aim to summarize the entire document in addition to those answering more specific queries. We find that our approach improves in both cases (+0.98 and +0.28 ROUGE-1 on QMSum in general and specific queries respectively). This shows that SOCRATIC pretraining improves models intended to perform a combination of general-purpose and query-focused summarization. In addition, with users increasingly interacting with language models through prompts to perform different tasks, the query-focused datasets we evaluate on become realistic testbeds for NLP systems that aim to perform well across tasks. ## 6.5 Few-Shot Finetuning To show that SOCRATIC pretraining alleviates the need for labeled downstream task data, we study the few-shot learning performance of SOCRATIC and BART SegEnc models. We perform one finetuning run for each model on each subset of the task data. In Figure 7, we show that with half the QMSum examples, SOCRATIC SegEnc achieves the same performance as finetuning BART SegEnc on all of QMSum. We believe that bringing SO-CRATIC pretraining closer to the downstream task of query-focused summarization lets the models learn from fewer downstream task examples. ## 7 Finegrained Planning Results In this section, we evaluate the effect of SOCRATIC pretraining on the adherence to user-provided finegrained control sequences. In these experiments, the same SOCRATIC pretrained model is finetuned on task-specific data with various control strategies. ## 7.1 Going Beyond High-Level Questions The queries found in QMSum and SQuALITY are only one format to encode user intent. Previous research explored other control strategies like keywords (He et al., 2020), entity chains (Narayan et al., 2021), or factoid question-answer pairs (Narayan et al., 2022). As seen in Figure 8, these strategies offer a more finegrained level of control over the summaries as they operate at the sentence level. Reference control sequences are not available for QMSum and SQuALITY so we *generate them automatically* from reference summaries. In the summarization literature, such control sequences are often modeled as intermediate plans generated before the summaries (Narayan et al., 2022; He et al., 2020). In these cases, given the input X, the model first generates the detailed plan for the summary B from P(B|X), then generates the summary Y conditioning on the plan and the input x from P(Y |*B, X*). Even if the plan B is initially generated by the model, a user can control the summary by altering the plan. In practice, we experiment with three different planning strategies. - *Content questions*. For each sentence in the reference summary, we generate a question using the MixQG system while giving the full summary as context. These are similar to the questions that we use in our SOCRATIC pretraining. The sentence-level questions are then concatenated into a single plan for the summary. To our knowledge, we are the first to propose using content questions as finegrained plans for summaries. - *QA blueprint*. We reimplement the recently proposed text plan in the form of a sequence of question-answer (QA) pairs (Narayan et al., 2022). First, all noun phrase answers are extracted from the reference. Then, a QG system generates questions answered by each noun phrase. The QA pairs are then filtered using round-trip consistency, rheme, and coverage criteria. The final plan consists of the concatenation of the remaining QA pairs. - *Keywords*. We use keywords extracted from each sentence of the reference summary. We take the noun-phrase answers from the QA blueprint as keywords and concatenate them with sentence separators into a plan. | Summary | Control Plan | | | | | | | | | |-------------------|-------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------|--------|--------|--------|-------------| | Control Strategy | Model | Rouge1 | Rouge2 | RougeL | BS-R | Rouge1 | Rouge2 | RougeL | Leven. Edit | | BART-Large SegEnc | 35.3 | 11.6 | 30.7 | 86.95 | 42.3 | 23.4 | 41.6 | 0.77 | | | + PEGASUS Pret. | 35.4 | 11.8 | 30.9 | 87.03 | 41.7 | 22.9 | 41.0 | 0.74 | | | + SOCRATIC Pret. | 36.0 | 12.1 | 31.5 | 87.15 | 42.4 | 23.2 | 41.7 | 0.77 | | | Blueprint QA | BART-Large SegEnc | 33.5 | 9.3 | 29.4 | 86.62 | 40.2 | 15.7 | 39.2 | 0.85 | | + SOCRATIC Pret. | 35.4 | 10.0 | 30.6 | 86.89 | 40.7 | 15.9 | 39.6 | 0.85 | | | Keywords | BART-Large SegEnc | 36.2 | 12.8 | 31.4 | 87.01 | 24.1 | 9.2 | 21.3 | 0.88 | | + SOCRATIC Pret. | 36.9 | 13.2 | 32.1 | 87.01 | 25.0 | 10.0 | 22.1 | 0.88 | | Table 2: Results on different control strategies on QMSum (results averaged over five random seeds). | Original Text: In a group discussion about a philosophical concept, Sarah used the Socratic method by asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and clarify underlying assumptions. The method helped her and her classmates achieve a deeper understanding of the concept and address disagreements. Sarah looked forward to continuing to use it in her studies. Content Questions (Ours): How did Sarah use the Socratic method? What were the benefits of the Socratic method? What did Sarah think of the method? Keywords: Group discussion | Sarah | Socratic method | questions | thinking | assumptions || method | classmates | understanding | disagreement || studies Blueprint QA: What type of discussion did Sarah have about a philosophical concept? Group discussion | Who used the Socratic method? Sarah | What method did Sarah use to stimulate critical thinking? Socratic method | What did Sarah ask in the Socratic method? questions | What did Sarah clarify in the Socratic method? assumptions ... | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| ## 7.2 Comparing Control Strategies In Table 2, we report evaluation metrics for both the model-generated summaries and plans. We find that with all three control strategies, SOCRATIC pretraining provides a consistent improvement over the vanilla BART model and the PEGASUS pretraining on both the generated finegrained plan and summary. On the planning side, there is a small but consistent improvement, up to +0.9 Rouge-1 with keyword chain control, indicating that the model has improved planning abilities. On the summarization side, we find a more significant improvement with up to +1.9 Rouge-1 with blueprint QA control. We attribute this to a combination of improved planning and execution ability of the model from SOCRATIC pretraining. With respect to control strategy performance, we find that our content questions obtain the highest Rouge scores (42.4 Rouge-1), outperforming keyword chains with only 25.0 Rouge-1. Despite the keyword plan having low overlap with the reference, it results in good summarization performance, so it is unclear whether the model using keyword chains learns the right correspondence between plan and summary. Moreover, the generated keyword chain would need heavier editing to obtain the reference plan compared to the content question plan (0.88 Levenstein distance compared to 0.77), Table 3: Performance on the QMSum dataset with various oracle finegrained control strategies. 0 25 50 75 Socratic Equal Bart | Oracle Strategy | Model | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | BS-R | |-------------------|-------------------|-------|-------|-------|--------| | Content Questions | BART-Large SegEnc | 43.7 | 18.0 | 39.0 | 88.32 | | + SOCRATIC Pret. | 46.8 | 20.3 | 41.7 | 88.92 | | | Blueprint QA | BART-Large SegEnc | 52.9 | 24.1 | 46.8 | 89.63 | | + SOCRATIC Pret. | 56.3 | 26.6 | 49.3 | 90.03 | | | Keywords | BART-Large SegEnc | 45.7 | 20.2 | 40.5 | 88.73 | | + SOCRATIC Pret. | 47.5 | 21.9 | 42.5 | 89.18 | | Figure 9: Annotators' finegrained planning preferences. making them less useful in practice. Previous work has focused on keyword controls (He et al., 2020) and fact-oriented questions for text generation (Narayan et al., 2022), but there are inherent limitations with these approaches, which we discuss in detail in A.5. ## 7.3 Oracle Questions Ideally, users can tailor generated summaries with an intervention limited to editing the generated plans. However, this requires strong adherence of generations to the finegrained plans, which we test here with oracle plans. Instead of generating both plan and summary, the system is given the oracle plans automatically extracted from the reference summaries (see 7.1). In Table 3, we observe a large improvement of +3.1 Rouge-1 over the BART SegEnc baseline. Human annotators confirm that SOCRATIC SegEnc follows oracle finegrained plans better or similarly to the baseline in 74% of instances, shown in Figure 9 and described further in A.4. This confirms our hypothesis that SOCRATIC pretraining helps ground the generations to userprovided queries. We attribute these gains to using the *Ask&Answer* mode, which introduces structure in the pretraining data by using as target text a question plan followed by its pseudo-summary answer. We hypothesize that this structure in pretraining is what helps the model adhere to the planning step more effectively regardless of the control strategy. ## 8 Conclusion In this work, we introduce SOCRATIC pretraining, a question-driven, unsupervised pretraining objective to adapt generic language models to the task of controllable summarization. SOCRATIC pretraining trains the model to generate relevant questions in a given context and then to answer them. Our experiments demonstrate the generality of our approach both on query-focused summarization and finegrained controllable summarization. We show that SOCRATIC pretraining outperforms other pretraining and prefinetuning objectives, that it cuts downstream task data requirements in half, and that it works across control strategies and domains. ## 9 Limitations Downstream Tasks In this work, we focused on long-document summarization as we believe it is the task where controllable summarization is most needed. Future work could investigate the effect of SOCRATIC pretraining on other downstream applications beyond those studied here. To handle long document input we could not use the BART model with SOCRATIC pretraining adaptation directly. Instead, we applied the SegEnc architecture on top of BART. This adaptation of the pretrained model may have dampened some of the few-shot performance of SOCRATIC pretraining. We thus believe that tasks with shorter input documents for which the SegEnc architecture is not necessary would see even greater benefits in the low-resource setting. Base Model Throughout this work, we restricted our analysis to one model architecture the SegEnc architecture with the BART base model. Previous work extensively studied the impact of different architectures for long-document query-focused summarization (Vig et al., 2022). These primarily differ in how they model long documents. The authors found SegEnc, a simple sliding window adaptation of BART, to perform best on QMSum. While the results presented here are specific to SegEnc and BART, our approach is agnostic to the underlying model architecture and is orthogonal to longdocument modeling. We leave it to future work to investigate the effect SOCRATIC pretraining has on other architectures. Evaluation Metrics As discussed in prior work (Fabbri et al., 2021b; Pagnoni et al., 2021; Gehrmann et al., 2021), there are limitations with the current automated evaluation metrics which do not strongly correlate with human judgments. Our results from these metrics should therefore be interpreted with caution and in combination with the human evaluation we performed to support them. One area in which automated metrics have been reported to perform poorly is factuality. Moreover, current factuality metrics have been designed and tested in the news domain and their performance in the out-of-domain setting (long documents and dialog data) was not systematically evaluated and is hard to interpret (Agarwal et al., 2022). In this work, we therefore choose not to report any factuality metric results. QG Efficiency We did not optimize the efficiency of the QG component of SOCRATIC pretraining and, consequently, it is computationally expensive. Currently, given equal amounts of resources for QG and pretraining, it takes us about the same time to perform the QG phase and pretraining phase on the same amount of data. We note, however, that in low-resource scenarios, the additional compute can lead to significant benefits, as shown in our results. In addition, we did not experiment with efficient sampling strategies, and believe that improving the efficiency of the QG model inference, for example through model distillation (Hinton et al., 2015), could lead to significant efficiency gains. Dataset Biases The datasets for pretraining and finetuning used in this work are in English and thus mainly represent the culture of the Englishspeaking populace. Political or gender biases may also exist in the dataset, and models trained on these datasets may propagate these biases. Additionally, the pretrained BART model carries biases from the data it was pretrained on. We did not stress test these models for biases and request that the users be aware of these potential issues in applying the models presented. Misuse Potential and Failure Mode When properly used, the summarization models described in this paper can be time-saving. However, the current model outputs may be factually inconsistent with the input documents, and in such a case could contribute to misinformation on the internet. This issue is present among all current abstractive summarization models and is an area of active research. ## References Ester Aflalo. 2021. Students generating questions as a way of learning. *Active Learning in Higher Education*, 22(1):63–75. Divyansh Agarwal, Alexander R. Fabbri, Simeng Han, Wojciech Kryscinski, Faisal Ladhak, Bryan Li, Kathleen McKeown, Dragomir Radev, Tianyi Zhang, and Sam Wiseman. 2022. CREATIVESUMM: Shared task on automatic summarization for creative writing. In *Proceedings of The Workshop on Automatic* Summarization for Creative Writing, pages 67–73, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics. Armen Aghajanyan, Anchit Gupta, Akshat Shrivastava, Xilun Chen, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Sonal Gupta. 2021. Muppet: Massive multi-task representations with pre-finetuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5799–5811, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chris Alberti, Daniel Andor, Emily Pitler, Jacob Devlin, and Michael Collins. 2019. Synthetic QA corpora generation with roundtrip consistency. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, pages 6168–6173, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jeremy J Bornstein, Douglass R Cutting, John D Hatton, and Daniel E Rose. 1999. Interactive document summarization. US Patent 5,867,164. Tuhin Chakrabarty, Justin Lewis, and Smaranda Muresan. 2022. Consistent: Open-ended question generation from news articles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11536. Richard Csaky and Gábor Recski. 2021. The Gutenberg dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 138–159, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhuyun Dai, Arun Tejasvi Chaganty, Vincent Y Zhao, Aida Amini, Qazi Mamunur Rashid, Mike Green, and Kelvin Guu. 2022. Dialog inpainting: Turning documents into dialogs. In *International Conference* on Machine Learning, pages 4558–4586. PMLR. Zi-Yi Dou, Pengfei Liu, Hiroaki Hayashi, Zhengbao Jiang, and Graham Neubig. 2021. GSum: A general framework for guided neural abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4830–4842, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinya Du, Junru Shao, and Claire Cardie. 2017. Learning to ask: Neural question generation for reading comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1342–1352, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Angela Edmunds and Anne Morris. 2000. The problem of information overload in business organisations: a review of the literature. International journal of information management, 20(1):17–28. Alexander Fabbri, Simeng Han, Haoyuan Li, Haoran Li, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Shafiq Joty, Dragomir Radev, and Yashar Mehdad. 2021a. Improving zero and few-shot abstractive summarization with intermediate fine-tuning and data augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 704–717, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Krysci ´ nski, Bryan Mc- ´ Cann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2021b. SummEval: Re-evaluating summarization evaluation. *Transactions of the Association* for Computational Linguistics, 9:391–409. Angela Fan, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2018. Controllable abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Neural Machine Translation and Generation*, pages 45–54, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. *Psychological bulletin*, 76(5):378. Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2021. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2101.00027. Sebastian Gehrmann, Tosin Adewumi, Karmanya Aggarwal, Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Antoine Bosselut, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, Miruna-Adriana Clinciu, Dipanjan Das, Kaustubh Dhole, Wanyu Du, Esin Durmus, Ondˇrej Dušek, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Varun Gangal, Cristina Garbacea, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Yufang Hou, Yacine Jernite, Harsh Jhamtani, Yangfeng Ji, Shailza Jolly, Mihir Kale, Dhruv Kumar, Faisal Ladhak, Aman Madaan, Mounica Maddela, Khyati Mahajan, Saad Mahamood, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Pedro Henrique Martins, Angelina McMillan-Major, Simon Mille, Emiel van Miltenburg, Moin Nadeem, Shashi Narayan, Vitaly Nikolaev, Andre Niyongabo Rubungo, Salomey Osei, Ankur Parikh, Laura Perez-Beltrachini, Niranjan Ramesh Rao, Vikas Raunak, Juan Diego Rodriguez, Sashank Santhanam, João Sedoc, Thibault Sellam, Samira Shaikh, Anastasia Shimorina, Marco Antonio Sobrevilla Cabezudo, Hendrik Strobelt, Nishant Subramani, Wei Xu, Diyi Yang, Akhila Yerukola, and Jiawei Zhou. 2021. The GEM benchmark: Natural language generation, its evaluation and metrics. In *Proceedings of the* 1st Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM 2021), pages 96–120, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tanya Goyal, Junyi Jessy Li, and Greg Durrett. 2022. News summarization and evaluation in the era of gpt-3. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12356*. Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David Uthus, Santiago Ontanon, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2022. LongT5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 724– 736, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovic, Swabha ´ Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. Don't stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8342–8360, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Junxian He, Wojciech Krysci ´ nski, Bryan McCann, ´ Nazneen Rajani, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. {CTRL}sum: Towards generic controllable text summarization. *arXiv*. Wanwei He, Yinpei Dai, Yinhe Zheng, Yuchuan Wu, Zheng Cao, Dermot Liu, Peng Jiang, Min Yang, Fei Huang, Luo Si, et al. 2022. Galaxy: A generative pre-trained model for task-oriented dialog with semisupervised learning and explicit policy injection. *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, Jeff Dean, et al. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/1503.02531. Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P. Xing. 2017. Toward controlled generation of text. In *Proceedings of the* 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, volume 70 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 1587–1596. PMLR. Robin Jia, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Question answering infused pre-training of generalpurpose contextualized representations. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 711–728, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wei-Jen Ko, Cutter Dalton, Mark Simmons, Eliza Fisher, Greg Durrett, and Junyi Jessy Li. 2021. Discourse comprehension: A question answering framework to represent sentence connections. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2111.00701. Sayali Kulkarni, Sheide Chammas, Wan Zhu, Fei Sha, and Eugene Ie. 2020. Aquamuse: Automatically generating datasets for query-based multi-document summarization. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2010.12694. Sachin Kumar, Eric Malmi, Aliaksei Severyn, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2021. Controlled text generation as continuous optimization with multiple constraints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:14542–14554. Anton Leuski, Chin-Yew Lin, and Eduard Hovy. 2003. iNeATS: Interactive multi-document summarization. In *The Companion Volume to the Proceedings of 41st* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 125–128, Sapporo, Japan. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 7871–7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In *Text Summarization Branches Out*, pages 74–81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peter J. Liu, Mohammad Saleh, Etienne Pot, Ben Goodrich, Ryan Sepassi, Lukasz Kaiser, and Noam Shazeer. 2018. Generating wikipedia by summarizing long sequences. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. Yixin Liu, Alexander R Fabbri, Pengfei Liu, Yilun Zhao, Linyong Nan, Ruilin Han, Simeng Han, Shafiq Joty, Chien-Sheng Wu, Caiming Xiong, et al. 2022. Revisiting the gold standard: Grounding summarization evaluation with robust human evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07981. Lidiya Murakhovs'ka, Chien-Sheng Wu, Philippe Laban, Tong Niu, Wenhao Liu, and Caiming Xiong. 2022. MixQG: Neural question generation with mixed answer types. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 1486–1497, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shashi Narayan, Joshua Maynez, Reinald Kim Amplayo, Kuzman Ganchev, Annie Louis, Fantine Huot, Dipanjan Das, and Mirella Lapata. 2022. Conditional generation with a question-answering blueprint. ArXiv preprint, abs/2207.00397. Shashi Narayan, Gonçalo Simoes, Ji Ma, Hannah Craighead, and Ryan Mcdonald. 2020. Qurious: Question generation pretraining for text generation. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/2004.11026. Shashi Narayan, Yao Zhao, Joshua Maynez, Gonçalo Simões, Vitaly Nikolaev, and Ryan McDonald. 2021. Planning with learned entity prompts for abstractive summarization. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1475–1492. Artidoro Pagnoni, Vidhisha Balachandran, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2021. Understanding factuality in abstractive summarization with FRANK: A benchmark for factuality metrics. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 4812–4829, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. *OpenAI* blog, 1(8):9. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21(140):1–67. Barak Rosenshine, Carla Meister, and Saul Chapman. 1996. Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. *Review of Educational Research*, 66(2):181–221. Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Unifying language learning paradigms. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2205.05131. Jesse Vig, Alexander Fabbri, Wojciech Kryscinski, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Wenhao Liu. 2022. Exploring neural models for query-focused summarization. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 1455–1468, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. David Wan and Mohit Bansal. 2022. FactPEGASUS: Factuality-aware pre-training and fine-tuning for abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 2022* Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1010–1028, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alex Wang, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Angelica Chen, Jason Phang, and Samuel R Bowman. 2022. Squality: Building a long-document summarization dataset the hard way. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2205.11465. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wen Xiao, Iz Beltagy, Giuseppe Carenini, and Arman Cohan. 2022. PRIMERA: Pyramid-based masked sentence pre-training for multi-document summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5245–5263, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wenhan Xiong, Anchit Gupta, Shubham Toshniwal, Yashar Mehdad, and Wen-tau Yih. 2022. Adapting pretrained text-to-text models for long text sequences. ArXiv preprint, abs/2209.10052. Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. PEGASUS: pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 37th International Conference* on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 11328–11339. PMLR. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020b. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. QMSum: A new benchmark for querybased multi-domain meeting summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5905–5921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Appendix A.1 Dataset Information We use the QMSum and SQuALITY datasets according to their intended research purposes. | Dataset | Domain | # Ex. | Doc. Len | Sum. Len | |-----------|----------|---------|------------|------------| | CNN/DM | news | 311K | 804 | 60 | | XSum | news | 226K | 438 | 24 | | QMSum | meetings | 1,808 | 9,067 | 70 | | SQuALITY | stories | 625 | 5,200 | 237 | Table 4: Statistics of general summarization vs. QFS datasets, length in words (Wang et al., 2022). ## A.2 Training Details We describe here the training details for SOCRATIC pretraining as well as downstream task finetuning. Our experiments rely on the Huggingface Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). Our code includes sample pretraining and finetuning scripts to facilitate the reproduction of our results. We use 8 Nvidia A100 GPUs to run the experiments described in this paper. We will release our code under BSD 3-Clause license. ## A.2.1 Pretraining Data Preprocessing In the Books3 corpus, documents are longer than the desired input and target texts, we therefore segment the documents to obtain roughly the desired lengths. In the UnDial dataset, the opposite is true and therefore we concatenate dialogues to obtain the desired lengths. Following this segmentation or concatenation, we mask the input text and construct the target as described in section 3 depending on the desired mode. We then truncate the input and target texts to 256 and 512 tokens respectively. Special Tokens We introduce mode tokens and a new separator tokens to the tokenizer of the BARTlarge model before the pretraining adaptation step. Training Hyperparameters We train the BARTlarge model for 100k steps with batch size 512, checkpointing every 10k steps. For the ablations, we use batch size of 64 and the same number of steps. In all our experiments, we use AdamW optimizer with 5k warmup steps, learning rate 3e-5, weight decay of 0.01, max grad norm of 0.1, and bfloat16. Our choice of hyperparameters is based on best practices from previous work performing pretraining adaptations of BART-large (Xiao et al., 2022; Wan and Bansal, 2022). We also performed grid-search on the learning rate on the small-scale pretraining dataset testing the values {3e-6, 3e-5, 1e-4} but finding the initial value to perform best. We use the same hyperparameters on all three pretraining corpora in our ablations. Checkpoint validation We evaluate the checkpoints on the validation dataset of the target downstream tasks and pick the best performing checkpoint. ## A.2.2 Finetuning SegEnc Implementation We use the SegEnc implementation from the original authors. Instead of using vanilla BART-large to initialize the SegEnc model, we use one of our pretrainined models. Finetuning Hyperparameters We use the same hyperparameters for both QMSum and SQuALITY datasets and for QFS and finegrained planning experiments. We train the SegEnc model for 10 epochs with batch size 1 and bfloat16. We use the AdamW optimizer with learning rate 5e-6. We tested the following learning rate values {5e-7, 5e6, 5e-5, 5e-4}. We use beam search decoding with beam size of 4. Our hyperparameters follow the best performing hyperparameters found by the original authors of the SegEnc model (Vig et al., 2022). Annotations will be made available ensuring the identity of the workers remains anonymous. We will only report the answers to the questions for each example and anonymize the worker ID. Mode While the SOCRATIC pretraining consists of both *Reconstruct* and *Ask&Answer* modes, we found that the latter performed best on the downstream tasks. ## A.3 Automated Evaluation Details We perform an automated evaluation using Rouge and BERTScore metrics following best practices from previous work. Specifically, we use the evaluation setup from Vig et al. (2022) for QMSum and the evaluation setup from Wang et al. (2022) for SQuALITY. More details and the relevant scripts can be found the in the supporting code supporting their papers. We also provide scripts to reproduce our evaluation. For BERTScore, we report recall following recommendations from Liu et al. (2022). ## A.4 Human Evaluation Details We perform a human evaluation study to confirm that variations between models are perceptible and meaningful to human users. The study separately assesses the QFS and the finegrained planning models finetuned on the QMSum dataset. In both cases, we use 100 of the 281 examples from the QMSum test set, and three independent annotators from the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. We restrict the study to the specific questions of the QMSum dataset as these also provide relevant text spans in the original dialogue. We measure inter-annotator agreement with Fleiss Kappa κ (Fleiss, 1971) and obtain fair to moderate agreement in our tasks. Other studies that also rely on untrained crowd-sourced workers report similar, or sometimes even lower, agreement (Goyal et al., 2022). QFS Task In this task, we compare the SegEnc model with SOCRATIC pretraining to Pegasus and BART pretraining. We ask annotators to select the best answer to the given query between two candidate summaries or mark if they are equally good. We provide both the reference summary and the relevant text span as supporting information. Annotator agreement on this task is κ = 0.33. The results are summarized in Figure 6 and the annotation instructions can be found in Figure 10. Finegrained Planning Task In this task, we compare the SOCRATIC SegEnc model to the baseline BART SegEnc model in terms of their adherence to a finegrained plan. Both models are finetuned to the finegrained planning task on QMSum with the *content question* control strategy. Here we test how well they follow oracle plans automatically generated from the reference summary. The task is structured in two parts. First, for each question of the oracle plan, we ask annotators whether a sentence of the summary answers the question. We repeat for both SOCRATIC and BART summaries. On this task, we obtain moderate agreement of κ = 0.49. Next, we ask the annotators to select the best summary between the two candidates in terms of how closely it follows the plan. For the second task, the agreement is κ = 0.34. The results are summarized in Figure 9 and the annotation instructions can be found in Figure 11. Worker Selection and Considerations An ethics review board did not review this particular protocol, but we followed prior protocols and internally-approved guidelines, such as carefully calibrating the time/HIT to ensure a pay-rate of $12/hour and letting workers know that their annotations will be used as part of a research project to evaluate the performance of summarization systems. We selected workers according to the following criteria: HIT approval rate greater than or equal to 98%, number of HITs approved greater than or equal to 10000, and located in either the United Kingdom or the United States. The workers also passed a qualification test for a related summarization task from a prior project, ensuring that the annotators were familiar with the task of judging model-generated summaries. ## A.5 Comparing Control Strategies Using content questions for QG augmentation in SOCRATIC pretraining improves performance across control strategies, including on nonquestion-based finegrained controls like keyword chains (see Table 2). While most previous work has focused on keyword controls (He et al., 2020) and fact-oriented questions for text generation (Narayan et al., 2022), there are inherent limitations with these approaches. We identify important qualitative properties of queries for controllable generation below that informed our choice of content questions for SOCRATIC pretraining. Natural To facilitate the use of controllable summarization, one overarching objective is to make the user interaction with the system as natural as possible. When evaluating how "natural" a query strategy is, we consider whether such a strategy is used by humans when they interact with one another. According to this perspective, using keywords is an unnatural query strategy. Users generally express themselves through natural language, and when inquiring about information, they use questions. Our query systems in controllable summarization should strive to reflect this and support natural queries from the users. Unambiguous To ensure that summaries contain the intended information, it is necessary that queries refer with minimal ambiguity to the information of interest in the document. When dealing with long documents, where the same entities occur repeatedly, keywords often imprecisely describe the intended query. But it is precisely with such long documents that query-focused summarization is particularly useful. In Table 5, we show that different keyword queries about the same document have a lexical overlap of 46% of words on average and 100% in the worst-case scenario in QMSum. In | Control Type | Length | Lexical Overlap With Summ. | Lexical Overlap Across Queries | | |--------------------------|----------|------------------------------|----------------------------------|------| | % of summ. len | Rouge 1 | Avg. Overlap | Max. Overlap | | | Keywords | 25% | 37.9 | 43% | 100% | | Bleuprint QA | 149% | 65.9 | 22% | 44% | | Content Questions (ours) | 48% | 38.1 | 36% | 67% | Table 5: Properties of finegrained control strategies for the QMSum dataset. We measure lexical overall between the control sequence and the reference summary. We also calculate the average and maximum lexical overlap of two control sequences from the same QMSum document but answering two different high-level queries. comparison, content questions have a word overlap of 36% on average and no more than 67%. When formulating queries in natural language, they more richly encode the entities and their relations making them less ambiguous. Concise Fact-oriented question-answer pairs (blueprint QA) (Narayan et al., 2022) tend to be less ambiguous than keywords (with the least lexical overlap across the three query strategies) but often end up requiring more text than the summary itself. On average, blueprint QA uses 50% more words than the summary (see Table 5). This makes this query strategy impractical for controllable summarization where the concision of the query is a desirable property.  Warning: Annotations will be checked for quality against control labels, **low quality work will be rejected.**    ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 9 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 9 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 8 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** We Use Scientific Artifacts In Sections 3 To 6 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? We cite the artifacts as they are introduced in the paper in sections 2 to 6 and in the appendix. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Appendix ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Appendix ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4 and Appendix ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4 and Appendix. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 To 6 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? In Section 4 and the Appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Sections 4, 5 and 6 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 4 and Appendix D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Sections 5,6 and appendix ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Appendix ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Appendix ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? An ethics review board did not review this particular protocol, but we followed prior protocols and internally-approved guidelines, such as carefully calibrating the time/HIT to ensure a pay-rate of $12/hour and letting workers know that their annotations will be used as part of a research project to evaluate the performance of summarization systems. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Appendix

liu-etal-2023-matcha

{M}at{C}ha: Enhancing Visual Language Pretraining with Math Reasoning and Chart Derendering

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.714

Visual language data such as plots, charts, and infographics are ubiquitous in the human world. However, state-of-the-art vision-language models do not perform well on these data. We propose MatCha (Math reasoning and Chart derendering pretraining) to enhance visual language models{'} capabilities in jointly modeling charts/plots and language data. Specifically, we propose several pretraining tasks that cover plot deconstruction and numerical reasoning which are the key capabilities in visual language modeling. We perform the MatCha pretraining starting from Pix2Struct, a recently proposed image-to-text visual language model. On standard benchmarks such as PlotQA and ChartQA, the MatCha model outperforms state-of-the-art methods by as much as nearly 20{\%}. We also examine how well MatCha pretraining transfers to domains such as screenshots, textbook diagrams, and document figures and observe overall improvement, verifying the usefulness of MatCha pretraining on broader visual language tasks.

# Matcha **: Enhancing Visual Language Pretraining** With Math Reasoning And Chart Derendering Fangyu Liu♠♣∗ Francesco Piccinno♣ Syrine Krichene♣ Chenxi Pang♣ **Kenton Lee**♣ Mandar Joshi♣ Yasemin Altun♣ Nigel Collier♠ **Julian Martin Eisenschlos**♣ ♣Google DeepMind ♠University of Cambridge ## Abstract Visual language data such as plots, charts, and infographics are ubiquitous in the human world. However, state-of-the-art visionlanguage models do not perform well on these data. We propose MATCHA (Math reasoning and Chart derendering pretraining) to enhance visual language models' capabilities in jointly modeling charts/plots and language data. Specifically we propose several pretraining tasks that cover plot deconstruction and numerical reasoning which are the key capabilities in visual language modeling. We perform the MATCHA pretraining starting from Pix2Struct, a recently proposed imageto-text visual language model. On standard benchmarks such as PlotQA and ChartQA, the MATCHA model outperforms state-of-the-art methods by as much as nearly 20%. We also examine how well the MATCHA pretraining transfers to domains such as screenshots, textbook diagrams, and document figures and observe overall improvement, verifying the usefulness of MATCHA pretraining on broader visual language tasks.12 ## 1 Introduction Visual language is the system that uses tightly integrated textual and visual elements to convey meaning (Horn, 1998). It is ubiquitous in the human world with typical examples being charts, plots and diagrams existing in places such as textbooks, scientific papers web pages and many more. Visual language is also highly complex - besides texts, its structural units can include line, shape, color, orientation, scale, angle, space, etc. One needs to recognize patterns from these structural units, and perform spatial grouping and/or alignment to extract information for reasoning. ∗Work done during Google internship. 1Code and models: github.com/google-research/googleresearch/tree/master/deplot 2For questions paper please contact fl399@cam.ac.uk and eisenjulian@google.com. Whilst being prevalent and important, there is little research on visual language understanding from the machine learning community. Visionlanguage models pretrained on natural images or image-text pairs crawled from the web perform badly on visual language tasks such as ChartQA (Masry et al., 2022) and PlotQA (Methani et al., 2020) due to the high complexity of jointly modeling language and symbols (more evidence in experiments). Pix2Struct (Lee et al., 2023) is a recently proposed pretraining strategy for visually-situated language that significantly outperforms standard vision-language models, and also a wide range of OCR-based pipeline approaches. Pix2Struct designs a novel masked webpage screenshot parsing task and also a variable-resolution input representation for pretraining an image-to-text encodedecoder Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017). In this work, we use Pix2Struct as the base model and further pretrain it with chart derendering and math reasoning tasks. We argue that visual language understanding needs two key ingredients: (1) layout understanding (including number extraction and their organizations) and (2) mathematical reasoning. (1) is required to discover the underlying patterns of the image and organize the elements in the image in a logical form. (2) is needed to operate on the elements extracted from (1) and derive meaningful information demanded by a task or query. Based on these observations, we propose two complementary pretraining tasks for enhancing visual language understanding: **chart derendering** and **math reasoning**. In chart derendering, given a plot/chart, the image-to-text model is required to generate its underlying data table or the code used to render it. The second task is math reasoning pretraining. We pick two numerical reasoning dataset MATH (Saxton et al., 2019) and DROP (Dua et al., 2019), render the input into images and the image-to-text model needs to decode the answers. 12756  We use a suite of visual language tasks to test the effectiveness of our method. Most importantly, we test on ChartQA and PlotQA which are QA datasets about plots and charts. On both datasets, MATCHA surpasses even the SOTA model assuming access to charts' underlying data tables and can beat the prior SOTA without gold data table by as much as 20%. We also test MATCHA on chart-to-text summarization tasks and observe clear improvements over Pix2Struct and achieves SOTA on Chart-toText (Kantharaj et al., 2022) Pew split. Last but not least, to examine if the MATCHA pretraining generalizes to datasets beyond the standard plots and charts domain, we also test MATCHA on four additional domains where Pix2Struct was evaluated on: documents, illustrations, user interfaces, and natural images (including datasets, such as textbook QA, Widget Captioning, etc.). We demonstrate consistent improvement on most additional datasets compared with the base model Pix2Struct. To summarize, our contributions are: (1) proposing a set of effective pretraining tasks for visual language learning (2) demonstrating consistent improvements across all evaluated tasks and SOTA results on ChartQA, PlotQA, and Chart-to-Text summarization (Statista set) without accessing the gold data tables; (3) verify that MATCHA pretraining transfers to visual language benchmarks beyond the chart & plot domains and achieve SOTA across a wide range of datasets beyond the chart domain such as textbook VQA and Widget Captioning; (4) comprehensive ablation and analyses to understand the effect of each pretraining component and its impact to downstream performance. ## 2 Related Work Vision-language research and a lack of attention on visual language. Research on visionand-language has predominately been focusing on natural images. Visually-grounded reasoning datasets such as NLVR2 (Suhr et al., 2019) and MaRVL (Liu et al., 2021) are mostly in the natural image domain. Synthesized datasets such as SHAPES (Andreas et al., 2016), NLVR (Suhr et al., 2017), and CLEVR (Johnson et al., 2017) can be seen as in the visual language domain. However, their visual language systems are significantly simpler than those in the real world such as plots and charts. As a result, information extraction from these synthesized datasets is straightforward. Besides, the queries in the synthesized datasets are relatively naive and do not require complex reasoning (e.g., questions can usually be on spatial relations or counting objects). Consequently, current vision-language models can handle the above mentioned synthesized visual reasoning datasets quite well. However, they do not perform well on real-world visual language datasets where both the information extraction and reasoning becomes much more complex (we will show this in §4). ## Ocr-Based & End-To-End Methods For Visuallysituated Language.3 Layoutlm (Xu Et Al., 2020; Huang et al., 2022) leverages a patch-OCR alignment loss to inject an external OCR systems' knowledge into the Transformer model. PresSTU (Kil et al., 2022) and PaLI (Chen et al., 2023) also design OCR-aware pretraining objectives where the model needs to predict texts obtained from offthe-shelf OCR systems. ChartBERT (Akhtar et al., 2023) relies on OCR text and positions to train a transformer encoder. While OCR systems can be helpful for accurately extracting texts, running them is not cheap. Also, OCR systems do not cover visual language systems that do not explicitly use text. As examples, plots and charts do not always have numbers written explicitly. In our concurrent work DEPLOT (Liu et al., 2023), we explore combining a chart-to-text translation module (without OCR) with large language models. Donut (Kim et al., 2022), Dessurt (Davis et al., 2023), and Pix2Struct (Lee et al., 2023) are end-toend pretrained models for visual language where Donut and Dessurt focus on document understanding and Pix2Struct aim to provide a generic pretrained checkpoint for all visual language tasks. MATCHA's architecture is identical to Pix2Struct - we continually pretrain a Pix2Struct checkpoint with new objectives. Learning to reason by designing novel pretraining tasks. MATCHA is related to the literature of designing better pretraining objectives to help the language models (LMs) to reason better since the skill is hard to require through naive language modeling objectives only (e.g, masked language modeling and autoregressive language modeling on raw text). Geva et al. (2020); Eisenschlos et al. (2020) generate additional pretraining data focused on (numerical) reasoning through human-written templates. Pi et al. (2022) synthesize data and programs, and then use program executors to simulate answers. LMs are pretrained to predict the answers given data and programs. Wu et al. (2022) explore a wide range of synthetic pretraining tasks and found that even just injecting knowledge as simple as induction and deduction rules could teach LMs to reason. We teach an image-to-text model to reason through mapping charts to data and code, and also directly learning textual math reasoning datasets. ## 3 Method We argue that layout understanding and basic math operation capabilities are the key elements for performing visual language understanding/reasoning. We inject such capabilities to the model by proposing two pretraining tasks: **chart derendering** (§3.1) and **math reasoning** (§3.2) which we introduce in detail in the following sections. ## 3.1 Chart Derendering Plots and charts are usually generated by an underlying data table and a piece of code. Code decides the overall layout of the figure (e.g., type, direction, color/shape scheme of the chart) and the underlying data table decides the actual numbers and the groupings of them. Both the data and code are sent to a compiler/rendering engine to create the final image. To understand a chart one needs to discover the visual patterns in the image, effectively parse and group them to extract the key information. Reversing the plot rendering process demands all such capabilities and can thus serve as a perfect pretraining task. In practice, it is challenging to simultaneously obtain charts, their underlying data tables, and their rendering code. To collect sufficient pretraining data, we independently accumulate (chart, code) and (chart, table) pairs. For (chart, code), we crawl all GitHub IPython notebooks with appropriate licenses and extract blocks with figures. A figure and the code block right before it are saved as a (chart, code) pair.4 For (chart, table) pairs, we explored 4Note that the code snippet can be noisy since earlier blocks could also be relevant for generating the figure and also the snippet may contain bits of code that is irrelevant to generating the figure. Also note that the data table is fretwo sources. First is to manually write code for converting web-crawled Wikipedia tables from Herzig et al. (2020) to charts. We randomly combine several plotting options. The key random variables include: using either matplotlib or seaborn as the plotting package; using either bar, line, or pie chart; styles and colors of the charts; whether to show numbers explicitly on the graph; font and size of the texts. Besides our own synthetic data, we also add chart-table pairs generated by Methani et al. (2020) (from PlotQA) to diversify the pretraining corpus. The second source is web-crawled chart-table pairs. Websites such as Statista provides both. We directly use the chart-table pairs crawled by Masry et al. (2022) (from ChartQA), containing around 20k pairs in total from four websites: Statista, Pew, Our World in Data, and OECD.5 Note that to avoid leaking test information for the PlotQA and ChartQA tasks which use the same chart data as pretraining, we only use the charttable pairs in the training sets for pretraining and test tables/charts are strictly excluded. In ablation study (§5.1), we will show that chart-table from both sources are useful and having a diverse set of chart-table pairs is always better. However, using only our synthetic data brings very significant improvement already, suggesting that the concept of chart derendering can be easily transferred to charts of other domains (including real-world charts). ## 3.2 Math Reasoning Reasoning over visual language requires (1) effective recognition and grouping of the visual elements and also (2) applying mathematical operations (such as sorting, min/max, averaging, etc.) on top of them. Plot derendering addresses (1) but (2) is still lacking in the current pretraining framework. As a result, we propose to explicitly inject numerical reasoning knowledge to the image-totext model by learning from textual math datasets. We use two existing textual math reasoning datasets, MATH (Saxton et al., 2019) and DROP (Dua et al., 2019) for pretraining. MATH is synthetically created, containing two million training examples per module (type) of questions (see Appx. §A for a comprehensive listing of modules included in MATCHA pretraining). DROP is a reading-comprehension-style QA dataset where the input is a paragraph context and a question. DROP quently missing and usually not hardcoded in the notebook. As a result, we collect (chart, table) pairs separately. 5See Appx. §A for links. has 96k question and answer pairs over 6.7K paragraphs.6 To solve questions in DROP, the model needs to read the paragraph, extract relevant numbers and perform numerical computation to predict the answer. We found both datasets to be complementarily helpful. MATH contains large amounts of questions and is categorized which helps us identify math operations needed to explicitly inject to the model. DROP's reading-comprehension format resembles the typical QA format where models need to simultaneously perform information extraction and reasoning. In practice, we render inputs of both datasets into images (concatenating the context and question for DROP). The image-to-text model is trained to decode the answer given the redered image. Examples of MATH and DROP can be found in Figure 1 (in light red). Besides the two newly proposed pretraining strategies, to prevent catastrophic forgetting, we also keep applying the screenshot parsing pretraining from Pix2Struct (Lee et al., 2023). Specifically, given screenshot of a website (where parts of the website is masked), the image-to-text transformer needs to predict the underlying simplified HTML code that could render the original unmasked website screenshot. The final pretraining task is a mixture of all aforementioned tasks. We discuss the mixture weights in §4.1. ## 4 Experiment We detail our experimental setup in §4.1, introduce the main results in §4.2, and results on additional Pix2Struct tasks in §4.3. ## 4.1 Experimental Setups Pretraining datasets/tasks. Overall, we create a mixture of pretraining task that has 40% of math reasoning, 40% of chart derendering, and 20% screenshot parsing. The weight for specific task/dataset is listed in Table 1. For chart derendering, we have four sources of data: (1) chart-table pairs synthesized by ourselves, (2) from ChartQA, (3) synthesized in PlotQA, and (4) chart-to-code data. We initially assigned equal weight to the four tasks however noticed training instability since chart-to-code is very hard (the pretraining data is noisy). We thus lower chart-to-code to 4% and increase all chart-to-table tasks to 12%. For math reasoning, we assign equal weights to MATH and 6Note that for all datasets used for pretraining, we always use only the training set if there exists a split. | Component | Task/Dataset | Rate | Size | |------------------------|--------------------|--------|--------| | reasoning | MATH dataset | 20% | 2M | | Math Chart | | | | | derendering Pix2Struct | Screenshot parsing | 20% | 80M | Table 1: Mixture rates for all tasks in pretraining and the absolute size of each dataset. The mixture rate is used to sample each example within the batch. Table 2: Statistics of the finetuning datasets. DROP (both are 20%). For pretraining dataset ablation studies, see §5.1. | Task | Dataset | # Tables | # Pairs | |--------------------------|--------------------------|------------|-----------| | ChartQA (Human) | 4.8K | 9.6K | | | ChartQA (Machine) | 17.1K | 23.1K | | | PlotQA (v1) | 224K | 8M | | | PlotQA (v2) | 224K | 29M | | | Summarization | Chart-to-Text (Pew) | 9K | 9K | | Chart | Chart-to-Text (Statista) | 35K | 35K | | Chart Question Answering | | | | Evaluation datasets. We evaluate MATCHA on multimodal English QA and generation tasks including ChartQA (Masry et al., 2022), PlotQA (Methani et al., 2020),7and Chart-to-Text summarization (Kantharaj et al., 2022). Both ChartQA and PlotQA are chart domain QA datasets where the input is an image of a chart and a query and the target is an answer string. ChartQA has two subsets: (1) augmented and (2) human where the augmented set is machine generated and thus more extractive and the human set is human written and requires more complex reasoning. PlotQA also has two sets v1 and v2. Similarly, v1 focuses more on extractive questions and v2 requires more numerical reasoning. However, both v1 and v2 are machine generated. Chart-to-Text has two sets as well. They are "Pew" and "Statista" where the names describe the source of the image examples. For Pew, the gold summaries are automatically extracted from areas around the image. For Statista, the summaries are human written. The sizes of each dataset are described in Table 2. Beyond chart domain datasets, we additionally evaluate on other datasets used in Pix2Struct (Lee et al., 2023). We follow the exact same setups and protocols of Pix2Struct by rerunning Pix2Struct 7There exists othear chart domain QA datasets such as DVQA (Kafle et al., 2018) and FigureQA (Kahou et al., 2017). However, they are both synthetic and SOTA models have already reached > 95% accuracy. We thus focus on more challenging datasets. experiments but replacing the initial checkpoint with MATCHA. See Lee et al. (2023) for more experimental details. Metrics. For ChartQA and PlotQA, following previous works (Masry et al., 2022; Methani et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2023), we use relaxed correctness (exact match but tolerating 5% of numerical error). For Chart-to-Text, we use BLEU4. For all Pix2Struct experiments, we use identical metrics introduced in Lee et al. (2023). Training and inference details. We save checkpoint every 200 steps and keep the checkpoint that produces the highest validation score. Following Lee et al. (2023), we finetune models on the ChartQA aug. and human sets together (i.e., one checkpoint for two sets) and use the checkpoint selected on human val set as the final checkpoint for testing. For PlotQA and Chart-to-Text, we train standalone models for v1, v2, Pew, and Statista sets. For pretraining, we use a batch size of 512 and max sequence length of 192. We pretrain for 100k steps and the final MATCHA checkpoint is selected at the 90k step (where the average exact match validation score is the highest). For downstream tasks finetuning, we use a batch size of 256 and max sequence length of 128. For ChartQA and Chart-to-Text we finetune for 10k steps and for PlotQA we finetune for 20k steps (since it is significantly larger). Setups for Pix2Struct tasks are the same as the original paper. As for the PaLI baselines, we use the larger 17B variant and finetune for 5k steps and save checkpoints every 1000 steps. All MATCHA and Pix2Struct models are pretrained/finetuned with 64 GCP-TPUv3 while PaLI models are finetuned with 128 GCP-TPUv4. Note that since MATCHA is an image-to-text model (without a textual input branch), whenever it is required to input text to the model, the text is rendered as an image. As an example, for QA tasks, we prepend the question as a header above the chart and input the image with question header as a whole to the model. ## 4.2 Main Results We summarize the main results in Table 3 where we compare MATCHA with a wide range of baselines and SOTA models8across three chart/plotdomain benchmarks ChartQA, PlotQA, and Chartto-Text Summarization. On ChartQA, MATCHA 8For brief introduction of baselines used, please see Appx. §B. | Gold | ChartQA | PlotQA | Chart-to-Text | avg. | | | | | | | | |---------------------|-----------|----------|-----------------|--------|------|------|------|----------|------|-------|------| | Table? | | | | | | | | | | | | | Model | aug. | human | avg. | v1 | v2 | avg. | Pew | Statista | avg. | (all) | | | T5 | yes | - | - | 59.8 | 93.2 | 85.6 | 89.4 | - | 37.0 | - | - | | VL-T5 | yes | - | - | 59.1 | 96.4 | 84.7 | 90.6 | - | - | - | - | | VisionTaPas | yes | - | - | 61.8 | 80.2 | 58.3 | 69.3 | - | - | - | - | | CRCT | no | - | - | - | 76.9 | 34.4 | 55.7 | - | - | - | - | | VL-T5-OCR | no | - | - | 41.6 | 75.9 | 56.0 | 66.0 | - | - | - | - | | T5-OCR | no | - | - | 41.0 | 72.6 | 56.2 | 64.4 | 10.5 | 35.3 | 22.9 | 42.8 | | VisionTaPas-OCR | no | - | - | 45.5 | 65.3 | 42.5 | 53.9 | - | - | - | - | | PaLI-17B (res. 224) | no | 11.2 | 15.2 | 13.2 | 56.9 | 13.1 | 35.0 | 10.0 | 40.2 | 25.1 | 24.4 | | PaLI-17B (res. 588) | no | 64.9 | 30.4 | 47.6 | 64.5 | 15.2 | 39.8 | 11.2 | 41.4 | 26.3 | 37.9 | | Pix2Struct | no | 81.6 | 30.5 | 56.0 | 73.2 | 71.9 | 72.5 | 10.3 | 38.0 | 24.2 | 50.9 | | MATCHA | no | 90.2 | 38.2 | 64.2 | 92.3 | 90.7 | 91.5 | 12.2 | 39.4 | 25.8 | 60.5 | beats the previous SOTA (without access to the underlying gold data table) Pix2Struct by 8.2%. Even if we consider models that do assume the existence of gold data tables, they generally underperform MATCHA by 3-5%. The best performing baseline VisionTaPas has a specialized module for modeling tables but still lags behind MATCHA by 2.4%. On PlotQA, MATCHA is again the best performing model overall. On the v1 set, VL-T5 with access to underlying data table performs better than MATCHA by ≈ 4% which is intuitive since PlotQA is a synthetic dataset thus containing relative simple queries and the v1 is the extractive set where queries are even more straightforward. On v2 where questions are related to numerical reasoning, MATCHA outperforms all models including the models with access to underlying gold tables. On Chart-to-Text summarization, MATCHA improves upon Pix2Struct on both Pew and Staista and is the new SOTA on Pew. However, MATCHA underperforms PaLI-17B (res. 588) on Statista. Overall, MATCHA is clearly the best-performing model with SOTA or competitive performance on every setup and all tasks. All baselines without access to gold tables lag behind significantly – MATCHA outperforms the strongest baseline without gold table access Pix2Struct by ≈ 10% if we average the performance scores across all datasets. Among the baselines, we would like to highlight PaLI which is the SOTA for a series of multimodal text-image tasks such as VQA and captioning on natural images and is of a much larger size (i.e., 17B parameters vs. 300M in MATCHA). PaLI fails significantly on ChartQA and PlotQA since the challenge in the visual language is distinctly different from that in the natural image domain. Increasing input resolution substantially helps the model's performance (likely due to the better text reading with higher resolution) but this also increases the sequence length (thus also memory and compute) quadratically. PaLI performs reasonably well in Chart-to-Text. We believe this is because the Chart-to-Text task (evaluated by BLEU4) might be more sensitive to textual fluency but less sensitive to factuality as compared with the other two QA tasks. It is expected that PaLI trained with a language modeling objective on natural text will have more advantage under this evaluation setup. ## 4.3 Results On Pix2Struct Tasks Besides chart/plot domain datasets, we would also like to examine if MATCHA transfers to other visual language datasets such as documents, user interfaces, and natural images. We rerun all Pix2Struct finetuning experiments with a MATCHA checkpoint and the results are shown in Table 4. On average across all tasks, MATCHA outperforms Pix2Struct by 2.3%. Besides ChartQA, the improvement is also observed in AI2D (QA on textbook diagrams), Widget Captioning (recognizing and captioning widgets in screenshots), DocVQA (QA on scanned documents), etc. Even if we exlucde ChartQA, MATCHA can outperform Pix2Struct by 1.6% on average, suggesting that knowledge learned through MATCHA pretraining can be transferred to visual language domains out side of plots/charts. | Tasks→ | ChartQA | AI2D | OCRVQA | RefExp | WidgetCap | Screen2Words | TextCaps | DocVQA | InfoVQA | avg. | avg. (excl. ChartQA) | |------------|-----------|--------|------|----------|-------|-------|------|------|------|--------|------------------------| | Pix2Struct | 56.0 | 40.9 | 69.4 | 92.2 | 133.1 | 107.0 | 88.0 | 72.1 | 38.2 | 77.4 | 80.1 | | MATCHA | 64.2 | 42.6 | 68.9 | 94.2 | 137.7 | 106.2 | 92.4 | 74.2 | 37.2 | 79.7 | 81.7 | Table 4: MATCHA vs. Pix2Sturct on Pix2Sturct tasks. ## 5 Analyses And Discussions In this section, we first conduct pretraining ablations in §5.1 to understand the usefulness of each pretraining component, then in §5.2 we conduct fine-grained analysis and error analysis to probe MATCHA' strengths and weaknesses. ## 5.1 Ablation Study | Setup↓ | aug. human avg. | | | |-----------------------------------------|-------------------|------|------| | MATCHA (full; 50k steps) | 88.6 | 37.4 | 63.0 | | Component-level ablations | | | | | - no math reasoning | 88.2 | 33.0 | 60.6 | | - no chart derendering | 83.7 | 34.4 | 59.1 | | - no Pix2Struct screenshot parsing 87.8 | 34.9 | 61.4 | | | Single-task ablations | | | | | - no MATH dataset | 88.2 | 36.7 | 62.5 | | - no DROP dataset | 88.2 | 34.3 | 61.3 | | - no real-world chart-table pairs | 87.4 | 34.5 | 61.0 | | - no chart-to-code | 89.1 | 34.6 | 61.9 | Table 5: MATCHA pretraining ablations on ChartQA. We conduct two types of ablations. First, we remove a whole type of pretraining datasets. For example, 'no math reasoning' means removing the whole math reasoning component and drops the MATH and DROP datasets. The weights of other datasets in the mixture are proportionally increased. Second, we remove an individual dataset within a component. For example, 'no MATH dataset' means removing just MATH dataset but keep other datasets in the math reasoning component untouched. In this scenario, we increase the weight of other math datasets (in this case just DROP) proportionally to maintain the overall weight of the component in the mixture. To reduce compute used, we train one full MATCHA model and all its ablated models with 50k steps (the original full MATCHA is trained for 100k steps). As a result the MATCHA model performance in Table 5 is slightly lower than the 100k model (63.0 vs. 64.2). The pretrained models are then finetuned and evaluated on ChartQA only. The full ablation study table is shown in Table 5 where the first half is component-level ablations and the second half is individual dataset ablation. The impact of each pretraining component. On the component-level, we found that removing any major component (math reasoning, chart derendering, and screenshot parsing) would cause a performance drop. The most important component is chart derendering, the removal of which causes a decrease of ≈ 4% averaging across the two sets. Removing math reasoning decreases the avg. score by 2.4% and removing the continual pretraining of screenshot parsing causes a drop of 1.6%. We notice that math reasoning is more important to the human set while chart derendering is more important on the augmented set. The findings are likely due to the fact that the human set contains more numerical reasoning questions while the augmented set contains more extractive questions. We also conducted ablations of specific datasets/tasks which we discuss in paragraphs below. MATH vs. DROP dataset for learning to reasoning. We have used two datasets, i.e. MATH and DROP, for injecting numerical reasoning capabilities to MATCHA. According to Table 5, we observe that DROP seems to be more important (the removal of which causes a performance drop of 1.7% vs. a drop of 0.5% from the removal of MATH). We conjecture that it is because the reading-comprehension-QA format of DROP is more similar to the downstream task of QA on visual language, where information extraction and reasoning needs to be jointly performed. Synthetic vs. real-world corpus as pretraining chart-table pairs. We perform another ablation to justify the choice of chart derendering pretraining corpus. Real-world chart-table pairs can increase the diversity and coverage of chart derendering pretraining however we need to explicitly scrape such data from the web. We are interested in understanding to what extent our manually synthesized charts and plots with existing libraries can improve model's performance. The row 'no realworld chart-table pairs' shows results of only using synthesized chart-table data by us (i.e., no ChartQA and PlotQA chart-table data). The overall performance drops by 2%. Interestingly, for the augmented set, the performance only drops 1.2% but almost 3% is dropped on the human set. This indicates that extractive questions can usually be solved with synthetic pretraining but the more diverse realworld data (also usually having more sophisticated layout) can benefit reasoning learning more. The impact of chart-to-code pretraining. While much of the information in a chart is provided by data table, the code that is used to render the table decides the visual layout (e.g., type of chart and orientation) and attributes (e.g., color) of the data. To test the importance of the chart-to-code pretraining component, we remove it in an ablated pretrained model and the model performance on ChartQA drops by 1.1% overall. The drop is mainly on the human set where more complex reasoning is required. ## 5.2 Fine-Grained Analysis And Error Analysis Fine-grained analysis. To understand the specific aspects of strengths and weaknesses of the models and breakdown the challenges into finegrained categories, we sample 100 test examples from ChartQA (both augmented and human sets) for further analyses. Specifically, we summarize the challenges of ChartQA into three categories: (1) data extraction (where the model needs to parse a complex query with sophisticated coreference resolution or needs to read numbers when numbers are not explicitly written out), (2) math reasoning (where the model needs to perform one or multiple numerical operations such as min/max/sort/average/etc.), and (3) plot attributes (where the query asks about color/shape/location of specific objects/labels). We manually classify the 100 examples into the three categories and allow an instance to belong to multiple categories when the challenge is multifaceted. After excluding 7 annotation errors, we find 55.9% questions need complex data extraction, 45.2% involve math reasoning, and 7.5% concern plot attributes. We plot the per-category performance of PaLI (res. 588), Pix2Struct and MATCHA in Figure 2. Overall, all models perform the best on data extraction while math reasoning and plot attributes are more challenging. When compared across models, MATCHA  improves Pix2Struct in every category and beats PaLI in both data extraction and math reasoning. However, for plot attributes, MATCHA lags behind PaLI. This is not significantly reflected in the overall ChartQA performance since plot attribute only concerns less than 10% of the examples. Error analysis. Similar to the fine-grained analysis, we sample 100 errors made by MATCHA on ChartQA test set and manually classify the 100 errors into the three categories. After exluding 21 annotation errors, we find 48.3% of the errors are related to math reasoning, 43.4% are related to data extraction, and 8.0% concern plot attributes. We conclude that math reasoning remains to be the major challenge even if MATCHA has improved its math reasoning capability compared with Pix2Struct and PaLI. We notice that MATCHA still struggles with sophisticated math reasoning questions or numerical computation that requires high precision. An example is shown in Appendix Table 8. Case study. To concretely understand what type of questions MATCHA can do better than the baselines, we present several case studies. In Table 6, we show an example which requires computing average of multiple numbers. Besides MATCHA, PaLI and Pix2Struct's answers are far from the ground truth. In Table 7, we demonstrate an example that requires resolving complex coreference resolution of multiple data points. The model needs to accurately parse the query and find the referenced data points in the chart, then perform a simple numerical computation. MATCHA is the only model that gets the correct answer. Besides cases where MATCHA succeeded, we What is the average of last 4 countries' data?  PaLI: **40.94** Pix2Struct: 40.5 MATCHA: **50.5** Table 6: An example that requires strong numerical reasoning skills. Red and **green** indicate correct and wrong answers respectively.  Table 7: An example that requires resolving both coreference resolution and math reasoning. also present an example where all models have failed (Table 8). Questions which require very accurate numerical computation are still very challenging to MATCHA. Continue pretraining Pix2Struct with its original objective. It is commonly known that BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) is undertrained and simply continuing training BERT with the same objective and on the same data for longer can slightly improve a model's performance (Liu et al., 2019). To understand whether such phenomenon persists for MATCHA and to what extent does continue Is the sum of all last three places more than  Oceania? PaLI: Yes Pix2Struct: Yes MATCHA: Yes Table 8: An error made by all models including MATCHA which requires very accurate numerical computation. The answer should be 'No' since 6.67+5.8+5.63=18.1<18.18. pretraining on Pix2Struct screenshot parsing task would improve the model's performance, we continue pretraining Pix2Struct with its original objective and data for 50k steps. We found that continue pretraining indeed improves Pix2Struct's performance (56.0→57.0 on ChartQA) but is to a much less extent without using the MATCHA pretraining components (improving from 56.0 to 64.2). ## 6 Conclusion We have proposed a pretraining method MATCHA for visual language tasks. MATCHA injects chart understanding and reasoning knowledge to an image-to-text transformer model by learning to (1) predict the underlying data tables and code given chart images and (2) decode the answers of math questions (rendered in the form of images). MATCHA establishes new SOTA on 5 out of 6 setups across three chart domain benchmarks covering both QA and summarization tasks. On visual language tasks beyond the chart domain (e.g., textbook QA and DocVQA), MATCHA improves upon Pix2Struct, indicating that the learned knowledge in MATCHA pretraining can be transferred outside of the pretraining domain. We conduct comprehensive ablation studies to identify the actual impact of each pretraining component and task and find that chart derendering is essential for extractive questions while math pretraining is important for queries that requires complex reasoning. ## Limitations Though we have injected math reasoning skills to MATCHA, error analysis shows that there is still room for improvement on queries requiring complex reasoning. Besides, it remains debatable whether doing math calculation in weight space in a purely end-to-end manner is the most promising path forward.9 Besides math reasoning, Figure 2 shows that plot attributes is an area where MATCHA underperforms PaLI. We conjecture that it is due to MATCHA's lack of massive scale grounded imagetext pretraining with rich semantics (which PaLI has using web-scale image-text pairs). While chartto-code pretraining provides certain level of plot attribute grounding, such plot features are mostly using default options in plotting packages but not explicitly written out in code. In terms of experimental setup, the reported number is result of a single run. Pretraining is extremely costly especially when there exists more than twenty ablation setups and downstream evaluation tasks. We have collected pretraining and evaluation data points from multiple aspects on various scenarios to verify the robustness of MATCHA. However, we do acknowledge that the paper can benefit from reporting multiple runs given sufficient compute. Last but not least, it is also worth noting that visual language is an umbrella term. There are other visual language systems beyond the ones discussed in this paper. As an example, comics/manga have their distinct visual lexicon or even grammars (Cohn, 2013). ## Ethics Statement To the best of our knowledge, MATCHA has not been trained on sensitive private information and should be of low risk to generate harmful contents. All pretraining and finetuning data are either synthetically created using rules or publicly available data on the web with appropriate permissive licenses. ## References Mubashara Akhtar, Oana Cocarascu, and Elena Simperl. 2023. Reading and reasoning over chart images 9See recent works that combine LLMs with calculators (Wei et al., 2022) or compilers/program executors (Cheng et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2022). for evidence-based automated fact-checking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 399–414, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Andreas, Marcus Rohrbach, Trevor Darrell, and Dan Klein. 2016. Neural module networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 39–48. Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W Cohen. 2022. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12588. Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, AJ Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, et al. 2023. Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations*. Zhoujun Cheng, Tianbao Xie, Peng Shi, Chengzu Li, Rahul Nadkarni, Yushi Hu, Caiming Xiong, Dragomir Radev, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, et al. 2023. Binding language models in symbolic languages. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations*. Jaemin Cho, Jie Lei, Hao Tan, and Mohit Bansal. 2021. Unifying vision-and-language tasks via text generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1931–1942. PMLR. Neil Cohn. 2013. *The Visual Language of Comics: Introduction to the Structure and Cognition of Sequential Images*. A&C Black. Brian L. Davis, B. Morse, Bryan Price, Chris Tensmeyer, Curtis Wigington, and Vlad I. Morariu. 2023. End-to-end document recognition and understanding with dessurt. In *Computer Vision - ECCV 2022* Workshops: Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part IV, page 280–296, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In *International* Conference on Learning Representations. Dheeru Dua, Yizhong Wang, Pradeep Dasigi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2019. DROP: A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American* Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2368–2378, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Julian Eisenschlos, Syrine Krichene, and Thomas Müller. 2020. Understanding tables with intermediate pre-training. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 281–296, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2022. PAL: Program-aided language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.10435*. Mor Geva, Ankit Gupta, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Injecting numerical reasoning skills into language models. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 946–958, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonathan Herzig, Pawel Krzysztof Nowak, Thomas Müller, Francesco Piccinno, and Julian Eisenschlos. 2020. TaPas: Weakly supervised table parsing via pre-training. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4320–4333, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robert E Horn. 1998. Visual language. MacroVu Inc. Washington. Yupan Huang, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Yutong Lu, and Furu Wei. 2022. LayoutLMv3: Pre-training for document ai with unified text and image masking. In *Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia*, MM '22, page 4083–4091, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Justin Johnson, Bharath Hariharan, Laurens Van Der Maaten, Li Fei-Fei, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Ross Girshick. 2017. Clevr: A diagnostic dataset for compositional language and elementary visual reasoning. In *Proceedings of the IEEE conference* on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2901–2910. Kushal Kafle, Brian Price, Scott Cohen, and Christopher Kanan. 2018. DVQA: Understanding data visualizations via question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5648–5656. Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Vincent Michalski, Adam Atkinson, Ákos Kádár, Adam Trischler, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. FigureQA: An annotated figure dataset for visual reasoning. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1710.07300. Shankar Kantharaj, Rixie Tiffany Leong, Xiang Lin, Ahmed Masry, Megh Thakkar, Enamul Hoque, and Shafiq Joty. 2022. Chart-to-text: A large-scale benchmark for chart summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4005–4023, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jihyung Kil, Soravit Changpinyo, Xi Chen, Hexiang Hu, Sebastian Goodman, Wei-Lun Chao, and Radu Soricut. 2022. PreSTU: Pre-training for scene-text understanding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.05534*. Geewook Kim, Teakgyu Hong, Moonbin Yim, JeongYeon Nam, Jinyoung Park, Jinyeong Yim, Wonseok Hwang, Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, and Seunghyun Park. 2022. OCR-free document understanding transformer. In *European Conference* on Computer Vision, pages 498–517. Springer. Kenton Lee, Mandar Joshi, Iulia Turc, Hexiang Hu, Fangyu Liu, Julian Eisenschlos, Urvashi Khandelwal, Peter Shaw, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2023. Pix2Struct: Screenshot parsing as pretraining for visual language understanding. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning. Matan Levy, Rami Ben-Ari, and Dani Lischinski. 2022. Classification-regression for chart comprehension. In *European Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 469–484. Springer. Fangyu Liu, Emanuele Bugliarello, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Siva Reddy, Nigel Collier, and Desmond Elliott. 2021. Visually grounded reasoning across languages and cultures. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10467–10485, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fangyu Liu, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Francesco Piccinno, Syrine Krichene, Chenxi Pang, Kenton Lee, Mandar Joshi, Wenhu Chen, Nigel Collier, and Yasemin Altun. 2023. DePlot: One-shot visual language reasoning by plot-to-table translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Ahmed Masry, Do Long, Jia Qing Tan, Shafiq Joty, and Enamul Hoque. 2022. ChartQA: A benchmark for question answering about charts with visual and logical reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 2263–2279, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nitesh Methani, Pritha Ganguly, Mitesh M Khapra, and Pratyush Kumar. 2020. PlotQA: Reasoning over scientific plots. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision*, pages 1527–1536. Xinyu Pi, Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Morteza Ziyadi, Zeqi Lin, Qiang Fu, Yan Gao, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Reasoning like program executors. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 761–779, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. David Saxton, Edward Grefenstette, Felix Hill, and Pushmeet Kohli. 2019. Analysing mathematical reasoning abilities of neural models. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Alane Suhr, Mike Lewis, James Yeh, and Yoav Artzi. 2017. A corpus of natural language for visual reasoning. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 217–223, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alane Suhr, Stephanie Zhou, Ally Zhang, Iris Zhang, Huajun Bai, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. A corpus for reasoning about natural language grounded in photographs. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 6418–6428, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 30. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. Yuhuai Wu, Felix Li, and Percy Liang. 2022. Insights into pre-training via simpler synthetic tasks. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. Yiheng Xu, Minghao Li, Lei Cui, Shaohan Huang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2020. LayoutLM: Pretraining of text and layout for document image understanding. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 1192–1200. ## A More Details On Datasets Used Chart-table pairs from the web. The data was originally collected by Masry et al. (2022) and came from the below four sources: - Statista: www.statista.com - Pew: www.pewresearch.org - Our World in Data: ourworldindata.org - OECD: www.oecd.org Modules of MATH questions included. We exclude overly complex math questions and only select the basic modules that would help with numerical reasoning. They are from the two areas of Arithmetic and Comparison. The individual modules included are - Arithmetic - add_or_sub - add_sub_multiple - div - mixed - mul - mul_div_multiple - Comparison - closest - closest_composed - kth_biggest - kth_biggest_composed - pair - pair_composed - sort - sort_composed Please see Saxton et al. (2019) for detailed descriptions about each module and how they are generated. ## B Details Of Baselines We introduce below the details of the baselines used in Table 3. T5 is an encode-decoder Transformer model proposed by Raffel et al. (2020). The baseline model T5 takes the concatenation of a linearized table (and a query, when the task is QA) as input, and aims to decode the target (answer or summarization). When the gold table is availible, the gold table is used as the input and the chart image is not used directly. VL-T5 proposed by Cho et al. (2021) is similar to T5 but also takes a visual input (i.e., the chart image) on the encoder side. VisionTaPas (Masry et al., 2022) is modified from TaPas (Herzig et al., 2020) to incorporate the visual modality by adding a ViT model (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) and cross-modal fusion layers. T5-OCR, VL-T5-OCR, and VisionTaPas-OCR are the same model as T5, VL-T5, and VisionTaPas, respectively. However, they do not assume the existence of gold table but use an OCR-based system to extract the data table from the chart image. The above mentioned models and their performance numbers are all extracted from Masry et al. (2022) and Kantharaj et al. (2022). Please see the original paper for more details. Classification - Regression Chart Transformer (CRCT) (Levy et al., 2022) is the best performing model on PlotQA according to the PlotQA benchmark on paperswithcode.com. It uses a detector that extracts all textual and visual elements of chart then processes these elements with a multimodal Transformer. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? After the conclusion section (§6) ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? §1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** §4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? §4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? §4 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Ethics Statement ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Ethics Statement ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? §4 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. §4 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** §4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? §4 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? §4 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? §4 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? §4 ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** §5 ✗ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? We annotated 100 examples for analysis within the authors ourselves. ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? §5, We annotated 100 examples for analysis within the authors ourselves. ✗ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? We annotated 100 examples for analysis within the authors ourselves. ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? We annotated 100 examples for analysis within the authors ourselves. ✗ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? We annotated 100 examples for analysis within the authors ourselves.

liu-etal-2023-mgr

{MGR}: Multi-generator Based Rationalization

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.715

Rationalization is to employ a generator and a predictor to construct a self-explaining NLP model in which the generator selects a subset of human-intelligible pieces of the input text to the following predictor. However, rationalization suffers from two key challenges, i.e., spurious correlation and degeneration, where the predictor overfits the spurious or meaningless pieces solely selected by the not-yet well-trained generator and in turn deteriorates the generator. Although many studies have been proposed to address the two challenges, they are usually designed separately and do not take both of them into account. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective method named MGR to simultaneously solve the two problems. The key idea of MGR is to employ multiple generators such that the occurrence stability of real pieces is improved and more meaningful pieces are delivered to the predictor. Empirically, we show that MGR improves the F1 score by up to 20.9{\%} as compared to state-of-the-art methods.

# Mgr: Multi-Generator Based Rationalization Wei Liu1 Haozhao Wang1∗ Jun Wang2† **Ruixuan Li**1 Xinyang Li1 Yuankai Zhang1 **Yang Qiu**1 1School of Computer Science and Technology, 1Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China 2iWudao Tech 1{idc_lw, hz_wang, rxli, lxy722, yuankai_zhang, anders}@hust.edu.cn 2jwang@iwudao.tech ## Abstract Rationalization is to employ a generator and a predictor to construct a self-explaining NLP model in which the generator selects a subset of human-intelligible pieces of the input text to the following predictor. However, rationalization suffers from two key challenges, i.e., spurious correlation and degeneration, where the predictor overfits the spurious or meaningless pieces solely selected by the not-yet well-trained generator and in turn deteriorates the generator. Although many studies have been proposed to address the two challenges, they are usually designed separately and do not take both of them into account. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective method named MGR to simultaneously solve the two problems. The key idea of MGR is to employ multiple generators such that the occurrence stability of real pieces is improved and more meaningful pieces are delivered to the predictor. Empirically1, we show that MGR improves the F1 score by up to 20.9% as compared to state-of-the-art methods. ## 1 Introduction The widespread use of deep learning in NLP models has led to increased concerns about interpretability. To solve this problem, Lei et al. (2016) proposed rationalization framework RNP in which a generator selects human-intelligible subsets (i.e., rationales) from the input text and feeds them to the subsequent predictor that maximizes the text classification accuracy, as shown in Figure 1. Unlike post-hoc approaches for explaining black-box models, the RNP framework has the built-in selfexplaining ability through a cooperative game between the generator and the predictor. RNP and its variants have become one of the mainstreams ∗Corresponding author † This paper is a collaborative work between the Intelligent and Distributed Computing Laboratory at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and iWudao Tech. 1https://github.com/jugechengzi/Rationalization-MGR  Figure 1: The standard rationalization framework RNP. X, Z, *Y , Y* ˆ represent the input text, rationale, prediction and the groundtruth label, respectively. to facilitate the interpretability of NLP models (Yu et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022, 2023). Notably, given the versatility of the self-explaining rationalization framework, such methods have significant potential for application in diverse fields such as multiaspect recommender systems (Deng et al., 2023) and computer vision (Yuan et al., 2022). Despite its strength, rationalization schemes are notoriously hard to train. Two main training obstacles are the spurious correlations (Chang et al., 2020) and the degeneration (Yu et al., 2019). As shown in the example of Table 1(a), the problem of spurious correlations is that the predictor mistakenly makes a correlation between the label on some specific aspect and the spurious pieces on another similar aspect, which commonly exists in multiaspect classification (Chang et al., 2020; Plyler et al., 2021; Yue et al., 2023). Degeneration means that the predictor may overfit to meaningless rationales generated by the not yet well-trained generator (Yu et al., 2019), causing the converged generator tends to select these uninformative rationales, which is illustrated in the example of Table 1(b). Many prior efforts have separately considered the problem of spurious correlations or degeneration in rationalization. For instance, to solve the problem of spurious correlations, some recent methods leverage the idea of causal inference to build the causal relationship between the rationale and label (Chang et al., 2020; Yue et al., 2023). The common idea to address the degeneration problem is to introduce some auxiliary modules such that the predictor has access to the full texts, and thus 12771 it cannot overfit the meaningless rationales solely provided by the generator (Yu et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021). Although these approaches may be effective at either solving the problem of spurious correlations or degeneration isolation, they are usually designed separately and do not take both of them into account. In this paper, we seek to simultaneously solve the two problems. Specifically, we identify that both two problems arise from that the predictor has only access to the limited view of pieces provided by the single generator, and thus may learn corruptly when this generator selects spurious or meaningless rationales. Besides, recent studies find that the initialization of the model has a significant impact over the training performance, which implicitly indicates that the rationalization model is hardly to train once the single generator is not well initialized (Jain et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021). Considering these limitations of the rationalization with one single generator, as shown in Figure 2, we design a novel architecture where there is a predictor but with multiple generators. These generators are initialized with different parameters. In this way, the view of the predictor is not limited to one single generator and it can have access to more meaningful rationales. We theoretically show that the occurrence stability of real rationales increases such that the predictor has lower risks at learning spurious correlations, and that the diversity of the rationales is improved such that the predictor can hardly deviate to some specific meaningless rationale. Extensive experiments conducted on three widely used rationalization benchmarks, i.e., the correlated BeerAdvocate dataset (McAuley et al., 2012), the decorrelated BeerAdvocate dataset (Lei et al., 2016), and the Hotel Reviews dataset (Wang et al., 2010), show that MGR achieves significant improvements over several state-of-the-art methods in terms of the rationale quality. Our contributions can be summarized as: - To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first to simultaneously solve the spurious correlations and degeneration problem in rationalization. We propose a simple but effective method, namely, MGR, that facilitates the predictor to have a broader view of the rationales by using multiple generators. - We theoretically prove that using multiple generators can provide real rationales more stably such that the risk of the predictor learning spurious correlations is reduced. Besides, we prove that multiple generators can produce more diverse rationales and thus the predictor will not overfit to some specific meaningless rationale. - We conduct extensive experiments over various datasets and show that MGR achieves an improvement by up to 20.9% as compared to state-of-theart rationalization methods in terms of F1 score. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Rationalization The base cooperative framework of rationalization named RNP (Lei et al., 2016) is flexible and offers a unique advantage, i.e., certification of exclusion, which means any unselected input is guaranteed to have no contribution to prediction (Yu et al., 2021). However, such a method is hard to train. To tackle this challenge, many methods have been proposed to improve RNP from different aspects. Rationales sampling. Many works focus on refining the sampling process of the rationales. Bao et al. (2018) used Gumbel-softmax to do the reparameterization for binarized selection. Bastings et al. (2019) replaced the Bernoulli sampling distributions with rectified Kumaraswamy distributions. Jain et al. (2020) disconnected the training regimes of the generator and predictor via a saliency threshold. Paranjape et al. (2020) imposed a discrete bottleneck objective to balance the task performance and the rationale length. Hase et al. (2020) explored better metrics for the explanations. Rajagopal et al. (2021) used phrase-based concepts to conduct a self-explaining model. These methods are orthogonal to our method. Degeneration. Degeneration is one of the major problem in rationalization. To solve this problem, many efforts seek to regularize the predictor using supplementary modules which have access to the information of the full text (Yu et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021) such that the generator and the predictor will not collude to uninformative rationales. 3PLAYER (Yu et al., 2019) takes the unselected text Z cinto consideration by inputting it to a supplementary predictor *Predictor*c. DMR (Huang et al., 2021) tries to align the distributions of rationale with the full input text in both the output space and feature space. A2R (Yu et al., 2021) endows the predictor with the information of full text by introducing a soft rationale. Spurious correlations. The predictor in rationalization model may make correlations between spurious rationales and the label. To tackle this chal- Label (Aroma): Positive **Prediction:** Positive Text: the appearance was nice . dark gold with not much of a head but nice lacing when it started to dissipate . the smell was ever so hoppy with a hint of the grapefruit flavor that 's contained within . the taste was interesting , up front tart grapefruit , not sweet in the least . more like grapefruit rind even . slight hint of hops and seemingly no malt . the mouth feel was crisp , with some biting carbonation . drinkability was easily above average due to the crispness and lack of sweetness . not the usual taste you expect when drinking a fruit beer . in fact this is my favorite fruit beer ever . (b) An example of degeneration Label (Appearance): Negative **Prediction:** Negative Text: appearance : light yellow to almost clear smell : slight hops , but barely smelled like beer taste : little to none , like a rice lager , zero taste mouthfeel : watery and tasteless drinkability : very easy , goes down easier than water . good for drinking games. Table 1: The blue piece of the text is the human-annotated rationale. Pieces of the text with underline are the rationales from RNP. (a): An example of RNP making the right sentiment prediction using the spurious correlation. If the predictor overfits the spurious correlation, it will then tell the generator to continue to select this spurious correlation as the rationale. (b): An example of RNP making the right sentiment prediction using an uninformative rationale. Initially, the generator may randomly select some uninformative candidates like "appearance" as rationales for the negative text. The predictor of RNP overfits to these uninformative rationales and classifies the sentiment according to whether "appearance" is included in the rationale. Guided by such a spoiled predictor, the generator in turn tends to select these uninformative rationales. lenge, the typical methods mainly adopt causal inference to exclude the spurious correlations. For instance, Chang et al. (2020) introduced an environment-agnostic predictor to recognize the spurious correlations. Yue et al. (2023) aimed to remove the spurious correlations based on the backdoor adjustment. ## 2.2 Model Ensemble Methods Ensemble methods that combine the outputs of several different models to improve the prediction performance and robustness have been studied for a long time (Breiman, 1996; Wolpert, 1992; Schapire, 1999). Ensemble methods train N models with different datasets independently and fuse the outputs of different models during inference. This requires maintaining N models and running each of them at test time, which increases the costs of computational resources and brings obstacles to applications (Singh and Jaggi, 2020). Although our method is similar to ensemble methods to some extent, it has essential differences with ensemble methods. In our method, different generators are not trained entirely independently. In fact, they all play a cooperative game with the same predictor on one same training dataset. With different initializations, different generators can provide diverse rationales to train a robust and stable predictor at early training stage. But with the same training target and dataset, different generators can converge to get the same output (Ainsworth et al., 2022), thus we only need to keep one generator during inference, which is also empirically supported by the experimental results in Figure 3(b). ## 3 Problem Definition Notation. fG(⋅) and fP (⋅) represent the generator and predictor, respectively. θG and θP represent the parameters of the generator and predictor, respectively. D represents the distribution of dataset. We consider the classification problem, where the input is a text sequence X=∥x1, x2,⋯, xl∥ with xi being the i-th token and l being the number of tokens. The label of X is a one-hot vector Y ∈ {0, 1} c, where c is the number of categories. Cooperative rationalization. Rationalization framework consists of a generator and a predictor. The goal of the generator is to find the most informative pieces containing several tokens in the original input text X. For each sample (*X, Y* ) ∼ D, the generator firstly outputs a sequence of binary mask M = ∥m1,⋯, ml∥ ∈ {0, 1} l. Then, it forms the rationale Z by the element-wise product of X  and M: $$Z=M\odot X=[m_{1}x_{1},\cdots,m_{l}x_{l}].\qquad(1)$$ To simplify the notation, we denote Z = fG(X). In cooperative rationalization, the informativeness of the rationale Z provided by the generator is measured by the negative cross entropy −H(Y, Yˆz), where Yˆz is the output of the predictor with the input being Z. Consequently, the generator and the predictor are usually optimized cooperatively: $$\operatorname*{min}_{\theta_{G},\theta_{P}}\sum_{(X,Y)\sim{\mathcal{D}}}H(Y,f_{P}(f_{G}(X))).\quad\quad(2)$$ Regularizer of shortness and coherence. To make the selected rationales human-intelligible, the original RNP constrains the rationales by short and coherent regularization terms. In this paper, we use the constraints updated by Chang et al. (2019): $$\Omega(M)=\lambda_{1}\big|\frac{||M||_{1}}{l}-s\big|+\lambda_{2}\sum_{t=2}^{l}\big|m_{t}-m_{t-1}\big|.\ \ (3)$$ The first term encourages that the percentage of the tokens being selected as rationales is close to a pre-defined level s. The second term encourages the rationales to be coherent. ## 4 Multi-Generator Based Rationalization 4.1 Methodology Based on the framework of RNP, MGR uses multiple generators with different initialized parameters to help the predictor learn from diverse rationale candidates, as shown in Figure 2. For the convenience of comparing with previous methods in experiments, we adopt the bidirectional gated recurrent units (GRUs) (Cho et al., 2014) as the encoder which has been adopted by most previous works (Chang et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021). Training of MGR. MGR is to leverage each generator fGi(⋅) to process the input text X in isolation, and then send the obtained rationales Zito the predictor fP (⋅) to obtain the prediction Yˆi. Based on Equation 2, MGR computes its loss by calculating the average of the cross entropy between Y and Yˆi in each generator: $$\begin{array}{c}{{\operatorname*{min}_{\theta_{G_{1}},\ldots,\theta_{G_{n}},\theta_{P}}\sum_{(X,Y)\sim{\mathcal{D}}}H(Y,\hat{Y})}}\\ {{=\sum_{(X,Y)\sim{\mathcal{D}}}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}H(Y,f_{P}(f_{G_{i}}(X))).}}\end{array}\tag{4}$$ Inference of MGR. During inference, MGR only uses one generator, e.g., the first generator Z1 and Yˆ1, to provide the rationale. It's worth noting that our idea is similar to but not the same as ensemble models. We keep a set of *generators* during training to help train a good predictor which in turn will promise the cooperative generator to be good. Nevertheless, we only keep the first *generator* during inference (see experimental results in Figure 3(b)), which is efficient in terms of both time and resource consumption. ## 4.2 Dealing With Spurious Correlations In this section, we seek to show that the proposed method can solve the problem of spurious correlations. Specifically, we specify the principles of our method on the case with simplified settings. Settings. Similar to Yu et al. (2021), we consider the input text X consists of two subsets of the features X1 and X2, where X1 is the causal rationale belonging to the target aspect label, while X2 is the comments about other aspects that correlates with the target aspect. We denote the parameters of the predictor by θ 1 P when it fits X1, and by θ 0 P when it fits X2. We also assume a payoff table as shown in Table 2, where we denote the negative loss as the payoff. The higher payoff indicates that the rationalization achieves better convergence results. Considering that rationalization is a cooperative game, the payoff of the generator is the same as that of the predictor. Here, a can be seen as the negative loss when the predictor fits the generator's selection and b is the negative loss when the predictor fits the unselected part. Since the loss is usually smaller when fP (⋅) fits what fGi(⋅) selects, we consider a > b. We denote that there are k *generators* that select the causal rationale X1 and the other n − k *generators* select X2. Without losing generality, we consider that the predictor | fP (⋅) | θ P | θ | | |---------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------| | 1 | P | θ | | | α | | | | | (⋅) Select X1 | (a, a) | (α ⋅ a + (1 − α) ⋅ b, α ⋅ a + (1 − α) ⋅ b) | (b, b) | | Select X2 | (b, b) | ((1 − α) ⋅ a + α ⋅ b, (1 − α) ⋅ a + α ⋅ b) | (a, a) | Table 2: The payoff (negative loss) table of the cooperative game between the generator and the predictor. Here a > b, which indicates that if fP (⋅) fits what fGi(⋅) selects, both fP (⋅) and fGi(⋅) get a higher payoff. is randomly initialized by interpolation between θ 0 P , θ1P with θ α P , where α is a random variable in [0,1]. Similar to Yu et al. (2021) 2, we consider α to be the probability (or degree) that the predictor tends to fit X1. If α = 1, the predictor always fits X1, and if α = 0, the predictor always fits X2. This is where the third column in Table 2 comes from. Theoretical analysis. For the situation that k *generators* select X1 and the predictor is θ α P , the expected payoff of the predictor is $$\begin{array}{c}R_{P}(\alpha)=k\cdot\alpha\cdot a+k(1-\alpha)\cdot b\\ +(n-k)(1-\alpha)a+(n-k)\cdot\alpha\cdot b.\end{array}\tag{5}$$ With the generator's random initialization, k follows a binomial distribution B(*n, P*c), where Pc depends on the dataset (subscript c stands for causality). We assume that Pc > 0.5 because the causality appears more often than the spurious correlation when the target aspect's label appears (Please refer to Appendix B.4 and Table 11 for more detailed discussion). Apparently, we have $$\operatorname*{lim}_{n\to\infty}p(k<n-k)=0,$$ of which the detailed derivation is in Appendix B.1. Lemma 1 *If the number of generators that select* X1 is more than those that select X2 *(i.e.,* k > n−k), the predictor will be optimized to increase α to get a higher payoff (i.e., ∂RP (α) ∂α > 0). The proof is in Appendix B.2. Lemma 1 indicates that if k > n − k, by increasing RP (α) (for lower loss), the cooperative game will guide the predictor to move towards θ 1 P (by increasing α) and fit the right causal rationale X1. In turn, such a good predictor will guide the generator to select the desired causal rationales. We denote the probability of the predictor overfits to the spurious correlation as pMGR(spu). Ac2Our α is similar to π in (Yu et al., 2021). In (Yu et al., 2021), π is the degree that the generator tends to select X1. cording to Lemma 1, we have $$p_{MGR}(spu)=p(\frac{\partial R_{P}(\alpha)}{\partial\alpha}<0)$$ $$=p(k<n-k)\tag{7}$$ $$=\sum_{k=0}^{(n-1)/2}(\binom{n}{k}\cdot P_{c}^{k}\cdot(1-P_{c})^{n-k}),$$ where ( n k) is the combinatorial number. Combining Lemma 1 with Equation 6, we have the following theorem: Theorem 1 For any tolerable upper bound probability Ps of the predictor overfitting to spurious correlation, if Pc > 0.5, there always exists a constant N *such that* $$\forall n>N,\quad p_{M G R}(s p u)<P_{s}.$$ $$(9)$$ The proof is deferred to Appendix B.3. Theorem 1 indicates that we can reduce the risk of spurious correlations to arbitrarily low levels by increasing the number of the generator. When n = 1, MGR becomes the vanilla RNP and we have $$p_{R N P}(s p u)=1-P_{c}.$$ pRNP (spu) = 1 − Pc. (9) It is obvious that $$p_{M G R}(s p u)<p_{R N P}(s p u).\quad(10)$$ ∀n > 1, pMGR(spu) < pRNP (spu). (10) ## 4.3 Dealing With Degeneration In this section, we consider *X, Y, Z* as random variables rather than deterministic ones. The principle behind Equation 2 is to maximize the mutual information between Y and Z (Chang et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021): $$(6)$$ max Z I(Y ;Z) = max Z(H(Y ) − H(Y ∣Z)). (11) Since H(Y ) is irrelevant to Z, the equation is equal to minimizing H(Y ∣Z). Degeneration happens because the diversity of the rationales is not taken into account. Hence, the generator of RNP may get rationale candidates with low diversity (i.e., low H(Z)). Under this case, the predictor may overfit to some specific patterns that are contained in the limited rationale candidates and has a high risk of occurring degeneration when the rationales are merely noises. Next, we show that MGR with multiple generators improves the diversity of the selected rationale candidates. Specifically, by viewing the rationales of different generators as different variables, we can compute the rationale diversity of MGR as $$H(Z_{M G R})=H(Z_{1},Z_{2},\cdots,Z_{n}).\quad\quad(12)$$ **Theorem 2**: _For $\forall i\in[1,n]$, we have_ $$H(Z_{i})\leq H(Z_{1},Z_{2},\cdots,Z_{n})\leq\sum_{k=1}^{n}H(Z_{k}),\tag{13}$$ _where the right equality holds if and only if ∀i, j, Zi á Zj , and the left equality holds if and only if ∀*i, j, Z*i = Zj . The proof is in Appendix B.5. Theorem 2 indicates that the diversity of MGR with multiple generators is equivalent to the case with one single generator when all generators are the same. More specifically, since RNP consists of only one generator, we have $$H(Z_{R N P})=H(Z_{i})\leq\operatorname*{max}_{i}H(Z_{i}),\quad\quad(14)$$ where i ∈ ∥1, n∥. We always have H(ZMGR) ≥ H(ZRNP ) no matter how different generators are coupled together, thus alleviating degeneration. Besides, Theorem 2 also indicates that the diversity of MGR achieves the maxima when all the generators are completely independent. Accordingly, we seek to decrease the correlation between different generators to make that H(ZMGR) gets closer to ∑ n k=1 H(Zk) during training which is specified in the next section. ## 4.4 Diverse Training With Separate Learning Rates To facilitate the improvement of the diversity of rationales while guaranteeing the convergence of rationalization models, we consider that training MGR has to satisfy two conditions. First, to deal with degeneration, generators should be different from each other to guarantee that the predictor continuously learns from diverse rationales before it learns adequate information. Second, different generators should be able to achieve the same convergence result, i.e., selecting the same rationales for any given text, after the predictor has learned enough information and converged. Only in this way can we keep one single generator during inference to guarantee that MGR is efficient in terms of latency and resource consumption. To satisfy the two properties, we propose separately setting the learning rates of different generators. Intuitively, separate learning rates provide different generators with different learning states in any training moment, thus keeping them diverse during the learning process. On the other side, learning rates do not modify the loss landscape of generators and thus these generators can eventually achieve the same convergence result although  maybe at different speeds (Ainsworth et al., 2022). The argument is also empirically supported by the results in Figure 3(b). Formally, we denote the learning rate of the i-th generator as ηi and the loss as L. *generator*i and generatorj are updated during training as: $$\begin{array}{l}{{\theta_{G_{i}}{}^{\prime}=\theta_{G_{i}}-\eta_{i}\cdot\nabla\theta_{G_{i}}{\mathcal{L}},}}\\ {{\theta_{G_{j}}{}^{\prime}=\theta_{G_{j}}-\eta_{j}\cdot\nabla\theta_{G_{j}}{\mathcal{L}},}}\end{array}\qquad(15)$$ Practically, we first find a learning rate η and set the i-th generator's learning rate simply to be i ⋅ η. And to alleviate the problem that the loss function of the predictor is too large due to the superposition of multiple loss functions, we set the learning rate of the predictor to be ηn . To support our claims, we conduct two practical experiments on *decorrelated BeerAdvocate* dataset, where the main problem is degeneration. First, we compare the performance of MGR using one learning rate to MGR using separate learning rates. The results are shown in Figure 3(a). Although using separate learning rates does not help much in the relatively easy aspects including *Appearance* and *Aroma*, it makes a significant improvement in the hard *Palate* aspect. Second, we compare the performance of keeping only one *generator* for inference to averaging the results of multiple *generators*, as shown in Figure 3(b). The results show that keeping only one *generator* hardly influences the performance, which indicates that different *generators* can finally converge to get the same outputs and only one *generator* is required in inference time. We also show the differences in the rationales generated by different generators in Figure 7 of Appendix A.5. | Methods | Appearance | Aroma | Palate | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------|--------------|---------|----------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | S | Acc | P | R | F1 | S | Acc | P | R | F1 | S | Acc | P | R | F1 | | | RNP∗ | 10.0 | - | 32.2 | 18.6 | 23.6 | 10.0 | - | 44.8 | 32.4 | 37.6 | 10.0 | - | 24.6 | 23.5 | 24.0 | | INVRAT∗ | 10.0 | - | 42.6 | 31.5 | 36.2 | 10.0 | - | 41.2 | 39.1 | 40.1 | 10.0 | - | 34.9 | 45.6 | 39.5 | | Inter-RAT∗ | 11.7 | - | 66.0 | 46.5 | 54.6 | 11.7 | - | 55.4 | 47.5 | 51.1 | 12.6 | - | 34.6 | 48.2 | 40.2 | | MGR(ours) | 10.9 | 80.5 | 87.5 | 51.7 | 65.0 | 10.3 | 89.7 | 78.7 | 52.2 | 62.8 | 10.8 | 86.0 | 65.6 | 57.1 | 61.1 | | RNP∗ | 20.0 | - | 39.4 | 44.9 | 42.0 | 20.0 | - | 37.5 | 51.9 | 43.5 | 20.0 | - | 21.6 | 38.9 | 27.8 | | INVRAT∗ | 20.0 | - | 58.9 | 67.2 | 62.8 | 20.0 | - | 29.3 | 52.1 | 37.5 | 20.0 | - | 24.0 | 55.2 | 33.5 | | Inter-RAT∗ | 21.7 | - | 62.0 | 76.7 | 68.6 | 20.4 | - | 44.2 | 65.4 | 52.8 | 20.8 | - | 26.3 | 59.1 | 36.4 | | MGR(ours) | 20.3 | 85.6 | 76.3 | 83.6 | 79.8 | 19.7 | 89.6 | 64.4 | 81.3 | 71.9 | 19.3 | 89.3 | 47.1 | 73.1 | 57.3 | | RNP∗ | 30.0 | - | 24.2 | 41.2 | 30.5 | 30.0 | - | 27.1 | 55.7 | 36.4 | 30.0 | - | 15.4 | 42.2 | 22.6 | | INVRAT∗ | 30.0 | - | 41.5 | 74.8 | 53.4 | 30.0 | - | 22.8 | 65.1 | 33.8 | 30.0 | - | 20.9 | 71.6 | 32.3 | | Inter-RAT∗ | 30.5 | - | 48.1 | 82.7 | 60.8 | 29.4 | - | 37.9 | 72.0 | 49.6 | 30.4 | - | 21.8 | 66.1 | 32.8 | | MGR(ours) | 30.4 | 88.5 | 57.2 | 93.9 | 71.1 | 29.8 | 91.6 | 45.8 | 87.4 | 60.1 | 30.3 | 89.3 | 27.3 | 66.5 | 38.7 | RNP CAR DMR A2R MGR(Ours) modules 1gen+1pred 1gen+2pred 1gen+3pred 1gen+2pred 3gen+1pred parameters 2× 3× 4× 3× 4× Table 4: The complexity of different models. "gen": generator. "pred": predictor. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Experimental Setup Datasets 1) **BeerAdvocate** (McAuley et al., 2012) is a multi-aspect sentiment prediction dataset widely used in rationalization. There is a high correlation among the rating scores of different aspects in the same review, making the rationale selecting faces a severe spurious correlation. We use the original dataset to verify the effectiveness of MGR in dealing with spurious correlation and degeneration at the same time. In addition, following the previous work (Lei et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021), we use the subsets containing less spurious correlation (Lei et al., 2016) to see the effectiveness in dealing with solitary degeneration. 2) Hotel Reviews (Wang et al., 2010) is another multiaspect sentiment classification dataset also widely used in rationalization. Each aspect itself can be seen as a dataset and is trained independently. Baselines and implementation details. In parcitce, we set n = 3 (the number of generators) as for our MGR as a performance-time trade-off. We compare MGR to the vanilla RNP (Lei et al., 2016) and several latest published methods that achieve state-of-the-art results: INVRAT (Chang et al., 2020), DMR (Huang et al., 2021), A2R (Yu et al., 2021), Inter-RAT (Yue et al., 2023), all of which have been specified in Section 2. Following the commonly used rationalization settings (Chang et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2019; Chang et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021; Yue et al., 2023), we use the 100-dimension Glove (Pennington et al., 2014) as the word embedding and 200-dimension GRUs to get the text representation. We do not use BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) because it is still a challenging task to finetune large pretrained models on the RNP cooperative framework (see Table 4 in Chen et al. (2022) and Appendix A.2). We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) as the optimizer. All the baselines are tuned multiple times manually to find the best hyperparameters. The complexity of different models are shown in Table 4 All of the models are trained on a RTX3090 GPU. More details are in Appendix A.1. Metrics. All the methods get similar predictive accuracy. Following (Chang et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021; Yue et al., 2023), we mainly focus on the quality of rationales, which is measured by the overlap between the model-selected tokens and human-annotated tokens. *P, R, F*1 indicate the precision, recall, and F1 score, respectively. S indicates the average sparsity of the selected rationales, i.e., the percentage of selected tokens to the whole texts. Acc indicates the predictive accuracy of the test set. ## 5.2 Results We first conduct an experiment on the correlated BeerAdvocate dataset, where the problems of degeneration and spurious correlation both may damage the rationale quality. Methods that achieve the state-of-the-art results on this dataset are INVRAT (Chang et al., 2020) and Inter-RAT (Yue et al., 2023). We tune s in Equation 3 to get similar rationale sparsity as previous methods do. The results are shown in Table 3. We improve the F1 score by up to 20.9% (*Palate* aspect with 20% sparsity) over | (a) Normal experiments on decorrelated BeerAdvocate | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-------|-----------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Methods | Appearance | Aroma | Palate | | | | | | | | | | | | | | S | Acc | P | R | F1 | S | Acc | P | R | F1 | S | Acc | P | R | F1 | | | RNP∗ | os | 85.7 | 83.9 | 71.2 | 72.8 | os | 84.2 | 73.6 | 67.9 | 65.9 | os | 83.8 | 55.5 | 54.3 | 51.0 | | re-DMR | 18.2 | - | 71.1 | 70.2 | 70.7 | 15.4 | - | 59.8 | 58.9 | 59.3 | 11.9 | - | 53.2 | 50.9 | 52.0 | | re-A2R | 18.4 | 83.9 | 72.7 | 72.3 | 72.5 | 15.4 | 86.3 | 63.6 | 62.9 | 63.2 | 12.4 | 81.2 | 57.4 | 57.3 | 57.4 | | A2R∗ | os | 86.3 | 84.7 | 71.2 | 72.9 | os | 84.9 | 79.3 | 71.3 | 70.0 | os | 84.0 | 64.2 | 60.9 | 58.0 | | MGR(ours) | 18.4 | 86.1 | 83.9 | 83.5 | 83.7 | 15.6 | 86.6 | 76.6 | 76.5 | 76.5 | 12.4 | 85.1 | 66.6 | 66.6 | 66.6 | | (b) Beer-Skewed in Palate aspect of decorrelated BeerAdvocate | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Setting | RNP∗ | A2R∗ | MGR(ours) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Acc | P | R | F1 | Acc | P | R | F1 | Acc | P | R | F1 | | | | | | skew10 | 77.3 | 5.6 | 7.4 | 5.5 | 82.8 | 50.3 | 48.0 | 45.5 | 82.0 | 65.2 | 62.8 | 64.0 | | | | | skew15 | 77.1 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 80.9 | 30.2 | 29.9 | 27.7 | 77.4 | 62.7 | 58.2 | 60.4 | | | | | skew20 | 75.6 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 76.7 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 82.5 | 65.6 | 63.2 | 64.4 | | | | Table 5: The standard experiment and one synthetic experiment on *decorrelated BeerAdvocate*. " ∗ ": results from the paper of A2R. "re-": our reimplemented methods. "os": one sentence. Methods Location Service Cleanliness S Acc P R F1 S Acc P R F1 S Acc P R F1 RNP∗10.9 - 43.3 55.5 48.6 11.0 - 40.0 38.2 39.1 10.6 - 30.5 36.0 33.0 CAR∗10.6 - 46.6 58.1 51.7 11.7 - 40.7 41.4 41.1 9.9 - 32.3 35.7 33.9 DMR∗∗ 10.7 - 47.5 60.1 53.1 11.6 - 43.0 43.6 43.3 10.3 - 31.4 36.4 33.7 re-A2R 8.5 87.5 43.1 43.2 43.1 11.4 96.5 37.3 37.2 37.2 8.9 94.5 33.2 33.3 33.3 MGR(ours) 9.7 97.5 52.5 60.5 **56.2** 11.8 96.5 45.0 46.4 **45.7** 10.5 96.5 37.6 44.5 **40.7** Table 6: Results on *HotelReview*. Each aspect is trained independently. " ∗ ": results from the paper of CAR (Chang et al., 2019), " ∗ ∗": results from the paper of DMR. "re-": our reimplemented method. the latest SOTA. Besides, except the *Palate* aspect with 30% sparsity, we get over 10% improvements under all the other settings. We then conduct an experiment on the *decorrelated BeerAdvocate* dataset, where the main problem is degeneration. Methods that achieve the stateof-the-art results on this dataset are DMR (Huang et al., 2021) and A2R (Yu et al., 2021). Since the rationales of *BeerAdvocate* on a sentence level, A2R in its original paper does sentence level selection (i.e., selecting one sentence as the rationale) on this dataset. We also reimplement A2R according to its source codes to do the token-level selection. The results are shown in Table 4(a). The sparsity is set to be close to that of the human-annotated rationales. We beat all the methods in terms of F1 score. We do not get as significant improvements as those in Table 3 because the spurious correlation is removed manually in this dataset. But we still get up to 10.8% (*Appearance* aspect) improvements as compared to the SOTA. To show the generalizability of our method, we further conduct an experiment on *HotelReviews*. Methods that achieve the state-of-the-art results on this dataset are DMR (Huang et al., 2021) and CAR (Chang et al., 2019). We also beat all the baselines and get up to 6.8% (*Cleanliness* aspect) improvements on this dataset. Results of MGR with different numbers of generators. Although we set n = 3 in our previous experiments, we also show the results of our MGR with different values of n in Table 7. When n grows, the results are somewhat better than those of n = 3. However, n = 3 yields the most improvements per additional generator and proved to be a good performance-cost trade-off. And note that, having too many generators may not always result in better outcomes, because the learning rate for the i-th generator, which is i × η, may become too large for stable training. | Methods | Appearance | | | | | |-----------|--------------|------|------|------|------| | S | Acc | P | R | F1 | | | MGR(n=5) | 19.2 | 86.3 | 83.8 | 86.8 | 85.3 | | MGR(n=7) | 19.6 | 87.0 | 83.5 | 88.3 | 85.8 | | MGR(n=9) | 19.4 | 86.0 | 83.6 | 87.7 | 85.6 |  Beer-Skewed. To show that our MGR does not suffer from the degeneration problem, we conduct the same synthetic experiment that deliberately induces degeneration as Yu et al. (2021) did. The details of the experimental setup are in Appendix A.3. We use the relatively harder *Palate* aspect (Yu et al., 2021). The results are shown in Table 4(b). The results of RNP and A2R are obtained from (Yu et al., 2021). For all the settings, we outperform both RNP and A2R. Especially, for *skew*20, RNP and A2R can not work at all while our MGR is only slightly influenced as compared to the corresponding result in Table 4(a). Sharing encoders between generators. The major limitation of MGR is the increased computational costs. One plausible trade-off method may be sharing some parameters between the generators. We conduct an experiment where we share the generators' GRUs but keep their own linear heads. Figure 4 shows the results on *correlated BeerAdvocate* with sparsity around 20%. More results are in Appendix A.4. Although simply sharing the generators' encoders sometimes cause damage to the performance of MGR, it still outperforms the state-of-the-art method Inter_RAT. We leave how to better decrease the computational costs without hurting the model performance as future work. ## 6 Conclusion And Future Work In this paper, we design a new framework MGR to simultaneously tackle the two major challenges including the spurious correlation and degeneration in the self-explaining rationalization schemes. Specifically, we propose leveraging multiple generators to select rationales such that the predictor can have access to more meaningful rationales stably. We theoretically show that the proposed method can solve the two problems. Finally, empirical results conducted on various datasets demonstrate the great effectiveness of our proposed method. ## Limitations More generators bring significant benefits to the model performance to our MGR, but the training cost is also increased with the number of generators growing. Although we have verified that we only need to keep one generator during test, there is no denying that the training cost is still an important problem. In the future, we will explore some methods like multi-task learning and model fusion, to reduce the model complexity. ## Acknowledgements This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants U1836204, U1936108, 62206102, and Science and Technology Support Program of Hubei Province under grant 2022BAA046. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on improving the quality of this paper. ## References Samuel K. Ainsworth, Jonathan Hayase, and Siddhartha S. Srinivasa. 2022. Git re-basin: Merging models modulo permutation symmetries. *CoRR*, abs/2209.04836. Yujia Bao, Shiyu Chang, Mo Yu, and Regina Barzilay. 2018. Deriving machine attention from human rationales. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 1903–1913. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jasmijn Bastings, Wilker Aziz, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Interpretable neural predictions with differentiable binary variables. In *Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August* 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2963–2977. Association for Computational Linguistics. Leo Breiman. 1996. Bagging predictors. *Mach. Learn.*, 24(2):123–140. Shiyu Chang, Yang Zhang, Mo Yu, and Tommi S. Jaakkola. 2019. A game theoretic approach to classwise selective rationalization. In *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 10055–10065. Shiyu Chang, Yang Zhang, Mo Yu, and Tommi S. Jaakkola. 2020. Invariant rationalization. In *Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on* Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1448–1458. PMLR. Howard Chen, Jacqueline He, Karthik Narasimhan, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Can rationalization improve robustness? In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 3792–3805. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Çaglar Gülçehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. In *Proceedings of* the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2014, October 25-29, 2014, Doha, Qatar, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 1724–1734. ACL. Zhiying Deng, Jianjun Li, Zhiqiang Guo, and Guohui Li. 2023. Multi-aspect interest neighbor-augmented network for next-basket recommendation. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1–5. IEEE. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nuno Miguel Guerreiro and André F. T. Martins. 2021. SPECTRA: sparse structured text rationalization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 6534–6550. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peter Hase, Shiyue Zhang, Harry Xie, and Mohit Bansal. 2020. Leakage-adjusted simulatability: Can models generate non-trivial explanations of their behavior in natural language? In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4351–4367. Yongfeng Huang, Yujun Chen, Yulun Du, and Zhilin Yang. 2021. Distribution matching for rationalization. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial* Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13090–13097. AAAI Press. Sarthak Jain, Sarah Wiegreffe, Yuval Pinter, and Byron C. Wallace. 2020. Learning to faithfully rationalize by construction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4459–4473. Association for Computational Linguistics. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi S. Jaakkola. 2016. Rationalizing neural predictions. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1-4, 2016, pages 107–117. The Association for Computational Linguistics. Wei Liu, Haozhao Wang, Jun Wang, Ruixuan Li, Chao Yue, and YuanKai Zhang. 2022. Fr: Folded rationalization with a unified encoder. In *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems, volume 35. Curran Associates, Inc. Wei Liu, Jun Wang, Haozhao Wang, Ruixuan Li, Yang Qiu, Yuankai Zhang, Jie Han, and Yixiong Zou. 2023. Decoupled rationalization with asymmetric learning rates: A flexible lipschitz restraint. *CoRR*, abs/2305.13599. Julian J. McAuley, Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. 2012. Learning attitudes and attributes from multiaspect reviews. In *12th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM 2012, Brussels, Belgium, December 10-13, 2012*, pages 1020–1025. IEEE Computer Society. Bhargavi Paranjape, Mandar Joshi, John Thickstun, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. An information bottleneck approach for controlling conciseness in rationale extraction. In *Proceedings* of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1938–1952. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2014, October 25-29, 2014, Doha, Qatar, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 1532–1543. ACL. Mitchell Plyler, Michael Green, and Min Chi. 2021. Making a (counterfactual) difference one rationale at a time. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 28701–28713. Dheeraj Rajagopal, Vidhisha Balachandran, Eduard H Hovy, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2021. SELFEXPLAIN: A self-explaining architecture for neural text classifiers. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 836– 850, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robert E. Schapire. 1999. A brief introduction to boosting. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 99, Stockholm, Sweden, July 31 - August 6, 1999. 2 Volumes, 1450 pages, pages 1401–1406. Morgan Kaufmann. Sidak Pal Singh and Martin Jaggi. 2020. Model fusion via optimal transport. In *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Hongning Wang, Yue Lu, and Chengxiang Zhai. 2010. Latent aspect rating analysis on review text data: a rating regression approach. In *Proceedings of the 16th* ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA, July 25-28, 2010, pages 783–792. ACM. David H. Wolpert. 1992. Stacked generalization. *Neural Networks*, 5(2):241–259. Mo Yu, Shiyu Chang, Yang Zhang, and Tommi S. Jaakkola. 2019. Rethinking cooperative rationalization: Introspective extraction and complement control. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and* the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 4092–4101. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mo Yu, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, and Tommi S. Jaakkola. 2021. Understanding interlocking dynamics of cooperative rationalization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 12822–12835. Hao Yuan, Lei Cai, Xia Hu, Jie Wang, and Shuiwang Ji. 2022. Interpreting image classifiers by generating discrete masks. *IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence*, 44(4):2019–2030. Linan Yue, Qi Liu, Li Wang, Yanqing An, Yichao Du, and Zhenya Huang. 2023. Interventional rationalization. | Datasets | Train | Dev | Annotation | | | | | | |-------------|------------|--------|--------------|-------|------|----------|------|------| | Pos | Neg | Pos | Neg | Pos | Neg | Sparsity | | | | Beer | Appearance | 202385 | 12897 | 28488 | 1318 | 923 | 13 | 18.5 | | Aroma | 172299 | 30564 | 24494 | 3396 | 848 | 29 | 15.6 | | | Palate | 176038 | 27639 | 24837 | 3203 | 785 | 20 | 12.4 | | | Beer* | Appearance | 16891 | 16891 | 6628 | 2103 | 923 | 13 | 18.5 | | Aroma | 15169 | 15169 | 6579 | 2218 | 848 | 29 | 15.6 | | | Palate | 13652 | 13652 | 6740 | 2000 | 785 | 20 | 12.4 | | | Hotel | Location | 7236 | 7236 | 906 | 906 | 104 | 96 | 8.5 | | Service | 50742 | 50742 | 6344 | 6344 | 101 | 99 | 11.5 | | | Cleanliness | 75049 | 75049 | 9382 | 9382 | 99 | 101 | 8.9 | |  ## A More Results A.1 More Implementation Details To the best of our knowledge, both datasets are sufficiently anonymized to make identification of individuals impossible without significant effort. Both datasets are in English. For *correlated BeerAdvocate*, we preprocess the data in the same way as Yue et al. (2023). For *decorrelated BeerAdvocate* and *Hotel Reviews*, we preprocess them in the same way as Huang et al. (2021). The maximum text length is set to 256. More statistics of the datasets are in Table 8. Some previous methods needs very careful hyper-parameter tuning. To make fair comparisons, most results of the baselines are copied from previous papers. But some settings are not unified, so we also reimplement them according to their source codes. For DMR, we adopt its source code and adjust its sparsity constraint to get a sparsity similar to the annotated rationales. For A2R, we re-implement it to do token-level selection as other methods do. The hyper-parameters of reimplemented models are manually tuned multiple times to get the best results. For our MGR, the early stopping technique is conducted according to the predictive accuracy of the development set. For our reimplemented DMR and A2R, although we have tried our best to tune the hyper-parameters, chances are that the hyper-parameters are not the best. To compensate for this potential issue, we do the test after every training epoch and choose their best results when they get the best F1 score on the test set. The random seed is kept the same across all the experiments rather than manually selected. We think the experiments with one same random seed on multiple different settings and different datasets are enough to show the stability of our method. We also provide the standard deviations with running the experiments in Table 3 with five different ran-   ## A.2 Discussion On Bert Encoder In the field of rationalization, researchers generally focus on frameworks of the models and the methodology. Methods most related to our work do not use Bert or other pre-trained encoders (Chang et al., 2019, 2020; Huang et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2019, 2021; Yue et al., 2023). We use GRUs and GloVe to ensure the same experimental setup as our baselines for a fair comparison. More importantly, how to finetune large models on the rationalization framework is still a significant challenge. Some recent studies (Chen et al., 2022) show that the methods with BERT encoders perform much worse than those with simple GRUs on BeerAdvocate and HotelReviews, which is shown in Table 10. VIB and SPECTRA are two RNP-based model. When using BERT, these two methods perform much worse than the vanilla RNP with GRUs (as compared to the results in Table 4(a)). Table 10: Results with BERT. VIB: Paranjape et al. (2020), SPECTRA: Guerreiro and Martins (2021). The results are from Table 4 of Chen et al. (2022). The metric is F1 score. ## A.3 The Details Of Beer-Skewed | Methods | Beer-Appearance Hotel-Cleanliness | | |-----------|-------------------------------------|------| | VIB | 20.5 | 23.5 | | SPECTRA | 28.6 | 19.5 | The experiment was first designed by Yu et al. (2021). It deliberately induces degeneration to show the robustness of A2R compared to RNP. The predictor is first pre-trained using the first sentence of each text for a few epochs. In Beer Reviews, the first sentence is usually about appearance. So, the predictor will overfit to the aspect of *Appearance*, which is uninformative for *Aroma* and *Palate*. In fact, as compared to degeneration, we think it's more like spurious correlation, which may explain why A2R also fails in this situation. ## A.4 More Results About Sharing The Grus Figure 4 in the main paper has shown the results of sharing the generators' encoders with the rationale sparsity being around 20%, and we further show the results with the sparsity being around 10% and 30% in Figure 5 and 6, respectively. Simply sharing the encoders may not be the best way to reduce the computational costs due to the damage on the model performance, but it still outperform Inter_RAT in most cases. For *Appearance* with 10% sparsity, the reason for the poor performance may come from two aspects. First, as compared to the percentage of human-annotated rationales (18.4%), 10% is too small. It is hard to find the true rationales under such sparsity constraint. Second, the shared encoder limits the explore power of MGR, making the above problem more severe. We will look for better method to reduce the computational costs in the future. Methods Appearance Aroma Palate S Acc P R F1 S Acc P R F1 S Acc P R F1 MGR(Table 3) 10.9 80.5 87.5 51.7 65.0 10.3 89.7 78.7 52.2 62.8 10.8 86.0 65.6 57.1 61.1 MGR±std 11.0±0.1 80.1±0.7 85.6±1.4 50.9±0.9 63.8±1.0 9.7±0.5 88.2±1.7 80.6±2.7 50.3±1.6 61.9±1.1 10.6±0.2 84.9±1.0 62.8±2.2 53.5±2.4 57.9±2.3 MGR(Table 3) 20.3 85.6 76.3 83.6 79.8 19.7 89.6 64.4 81.3 71.9 19.3 89.3 47.1 73.1 57.3 MGR±std 19.8±0.3 86.7±1.1 79.4±1.9 84.9±1.2 82.1±1.5 19.3±0.3 88.6±0.8 65.8±0.9 81.3±0.8 72.7±0.6 19.6±0.7 88.4±1.1 46.3±1.9 72.8±1.6 56.6±1.8 MGR(Table 3) 30.4 88.5 57.2 93.9 71.1 29.8 91.6 45.8 87.4 60.1 30.3 89.3 27.3 66.5 38.7 MGR±std 29.4±0.6 87.0±1.5 57.8±0.4 91.5±1.4 70.8±0.3 29.6±0.4 89.5±1.5 46.5±1.0 88.8±1.8 61.0±1.1 29.9±0.9 88.3±1.6 26.4±1.1 63.5±2.2 37.3±1.4 Table 9: The standard deviations of MGR on *correlated BeerAdvocate* with five different random seeds. ## A.5 The Rationale-Overlap Between Different Generators Corresponding to Figure 3(b), we plot the rationaleoverlap between different generators in Figure 7. The metric is ∣∣Mi−Mj ∣∣1 ∣∣Mi∣∣1+∣∣Mj ∣∣1 , which represents the percentage of different tokens in rationales from different generators. Mi represents the binary rationale mask from the i-th generator. The figures show that the variance is high initially and gradually converges to a small value. So, the generators are diverse initially and finally converge to be the same. ## B Proofs Of Theorems B.1 Derivation Of Equation 6 To make the presentation succinct, we first discuss the case where n is an odd number. $$\operatorname*{lim}_{n\to\infty}p(k<n-k)$$ $$=\operatorname*{lim}_{n\to\infty}p(k<\frac{n}{2})\tag{16}$$ $$=\operatorname*{lim}_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k=0}^{(n-1)/2}(C_{n}^{k}\cdot P_{c}^{k}\cdot(1-P_{c})^{n-k})$$ Since Pc > 0.5, we then have $$\operatorname*{lim}_{n\to\infty}\;\sum_{k=0}^{(n-1)/2}\left(C_{n}^{k}\cdot P_{c}^{k}\cdot\left(1-P_{c}\right)^{n-k}\right)=0.\quad(17)$$ There is nothing different expect that the upper limit of the summation should be replaced by n/2− 1 when n is an even number. ## B.2 Proof Of Lemma 1 According to Equation 5, we have $$\frac{\partial R_{P}(\alpha)}{\partial\alpha}=a\cdot k-(n-k)a-k\cdot b+(n-k)b$$ $$=a\cdot(k-(n-k))-b\cdot(k-(n-k))$$ $$=(a-b)(k-(n-k)).\tag{18}$$ Since we have $a>b$ and $k>n-k$, we get $\frac{\partial R_{P}(\alpha)}{\partial\alpha}>$ ∂α > 0. It means that to get a higher payoff, the predictor needs to increase α, i.e., it needs to move towards θ 1 P . The proof of Lemma 1 is completed. Full Decorrelated Correlated Pc 30564 15169 15395 0.67 Table 11: The Pc approximated by the statistical data of the *Beer-Aroma* dataset. It is approximated by 1 − Correlated Correlated∗2+*Decorrelated* . We only count samples with negative labels because because the original dataset is unbalanced and we do sampling balance according to the number of negative samples during training. ## B.3 Proof Of Theorem 1 The proof is obvious. It's equal to that limn→∞ pMGR(spu) = 0. The left derivation is the same as Appendix B.1. B.4 Discussion about Pc > 0.5 For a dataset, there are some samples that contain both the causality and the spurious correlation (i.e., X1 and X2, corresponding to the number of *Correlated* in Table 11), and the other samples contain only the causality (i.e., X1, corresponding to the number of *Decorrelated* in Table 11 ). So we always have the number of X1 is larger than that of X2. And for random selection, the probability of selecting X1 is higher than selecting X2, which means that Pc > 0.5. In Table 11, we approximate Pc by $$P_{c}=\frac{\text{Number}(X_{1})}{\text{Number}(X_{1})+\text{Number}(X_{2})}$$ $$=\frac{Decorrelated+Correlated}{Decorrelated+2*Correlated}>0.5$$ $$=1-\frac{Correlated}{Correlated*2+Decorrelated}>0.5.$$ ## B.5 Proof Of Theorem 2 We first proof the left inequality of Theorem 2. For any two random variable Zi, Zj , we have $$\begin{array}{c}{{H(Z_{i}|Z_{j})=H(Z_{i},Z_{j})-H(Z_{j})}}\\ {{H(Z_{i}|Z_{j})\geq0}}\\ {{H(Z_{j})\geq0.}}\end{array}$$ $$(20)$$ $$(21)$$ So, we have $$H(Z_{i},Z_{j})\geq H(Z_{j}),$$ where the equality holds if and only if H(Zi∣Zj) = 0, i.e., Zi = Zj . There is nothing different for H(Zi, Zj) ≥ H(Zi). Then we easily get the left inequality of Theorem 2 through Mathematical Induction. Then we proof the right inequality of Theorem 2.  We first have $$\begin{array}{l}{{I(Z_{i},Z_{j})=H(Z_{i})+H(Z_{j})-H(Z_{i},Z_{j})}}\\ {{I(Z_{i},Z_{j})\geq0,}}\end{array}\tag{22}$$ $Z_i,Z_j\,\,\,$ is $\,\,$ the $\,\,$ i where I(Zi, Zj) is the mutual information. I(Zi, Zj) = 0 if and only if Zi á Zj . So, we have $H(Z_{i},Z_{j})\leq H(Z_{i})+H(Z_{j})$, (23) with the equality holds if and only if Zi á Zj . Then we easily get the right inequality of Theorem 2 through Mathematical Induction. The proof of Theorem 2 is completed.  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7 A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. No potential risks. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 5. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 5. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 5. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Appendix B.1. ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Appendix B.1. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix B.1. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix B.1. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 5.1. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix B.1. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Appendix B.1. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. Left blank. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

ma-etal-2023-bump

{BUMP}: A Benchmark of Unfaithful Minimal Pairs for Meta-Evaluation of Faithfulness Metrics

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.716

The proliferation of automatic faithfulness metrics for summarization has produced a need for benchmarks to evaluate them. While existing benchmarks measure the correlation with human judgements of faithfulness on model-generated summaries, they are insufficient for diagnosing whether metrics are: 1) consistent, i.e., indicate lower faithfulness as errors are introduced into a summary, 2) effective on human-written texts, and 3) sensitive to different error types (as summaries can contain multiple errors). To address these needs, we present a benchmark of unfaithful minimal pairs (BUMP), a dataset of 889 human-written, minimally different summary pairs, where a single error is introduced to a summary from the CNN/DailyMail dataset to produce an unfaithful summary. We find BUMP complements existing benchmarks in a number of ways: 1) the summaries in BUMP are harder to discriminate and less probable under SOTA summarization models, 2) unlike non-pair-based datasets, BUMP can be used to measure the consistency of metrics, and reveals that the most discriminative metrics tend not to be the most consistent, and 3) unlike datasets containing generated summaries with multiple errors, BUMP enables the measurement of metrics{'} performance on individual error types.

# Bump: A Benchmark Of Unfaithful Minimal Pairs For Meta-Evaluation Of Faithfulness Metrics Liang Ma1 Shuyang Cao2 Robert L. Logan IV1 **Di Lu**1 Shihao Ran1 Ke Zhang1 Joel Tetreault1 **Alejandro Jaimes**1 1Dataminr Inc. 2University of Michigan, Ann Arbor {lma,rlogan,dlu,sran,kzhang,jtetreault, ajaimes}@dataminr.com caoshuy@umich.edu ## Abstract The proliferation of automatic faithfulness metrics for summarization has produced a need for benchmarks to evaluate them. While existing benchmarks measure the correlation with human judgements of faithfulness on modelgenerated summaries, they are insufficient for diagnosing whether metrics are: 1) *consistent*, i.e., indicate lower faithfulness as errors are introduced into a summary, 2) effective on human-written texts, and 3) sensitive to different *error types* (as summaries can contain multiple errors). To address these needs, we present a benchmark of unfaithful minimal pairs (BUMP), a dataset of 889 *human-written*, minimally different summary pairs, where a single error is introduced to a summary from the CNN/DailyMail dataset to produce an unfaithful summary. We find BUMP complements existing benchmarks in a number of ways: 1) the summaries in BUMP are harder to discriminate and less probable under SOTA summarization models, 2) unlike non-pair-based datasets, BUMP can be used to measure the consistency of metrics, and reveals that the most discriminative metrics tend not to be the most consistent, and 3) unlike datasets containing generated summaries with multiple errors, BUMP enables the measurement of metrics' performance on individual error types. ## 1 Introduction Although modern abstractive summarization systems have improved in their ability to produce fluent text (Lewis et al., 2020), their ability to generate text that is factually grounded in the source article remains an issue (Kryscinski et al., 2020). This phenomenon has inspired the NLP community to develop faithfulness evaluation metrics (Fabbri et al., 2022; Laban et al., 2022; Honovich et al., 2021; Scialom et al., 2021) that automatically measure the extent to which abstractive summarization systems produce summaries that contain information that cannot be verified by the source article. As the number of these automatic faithfulness metrics has increased, there has arisen a corresponding need for benchmarks that evaluate their relative strengths. To satisfy this need, researchers have developed datasets such as FRANK (Pagnoni et al., 2021) and TRUE (Honovich et al., 2022) that are comprised of model-generated summaries along with human-annotated faithfulness levels. Although these datasets are useful for evaluating the degree to which faithfulness metrics correlate with human judgements and can discriminate unfaithful summaries, a number of factors limit the conclusions that can be drawn from them. For one, because model summaries can vary in terms of length, content, and number of errors, these benchmarks are ill-suited for drawing conclusions about the *consistency* (Gabriel et al., 2021) of metrics, i.e., whether their scores indicate lower faithfulness as summaries become increasingly unfaithful, as well as their sensitivity to specific *types of errors* since summaries can contain multiple errors. Furthermore, as the summaries are machine-generated, these benchmarks cannot evaluate whether metrics can detect *human-written* unfaithful summaries. To enable research on these topics, we present BUMP—a benchmark of unfaithful minimal pairsa dataset of 889 minimally different summary pairs where all unfaithful summaries are generated by human annotators. As illustrated in Figure 1, given an article and its reference summary, we ask a human annotator to edit the reference summary in a minimal way such that the edited summary exhibits one unfaithful error. We design two tasks for performance comparisons: 1) taxonomy-based edits, where a specific unfaithfulness error type is required according to our proposed taxonomy, and 2) freestyle edits, where no error type constraints are imposed. The motivation behind the first task setting is to ensure that different error types are adequately represented in our dataset, while the second task setting is important for understanding 12788 Summary [Extrinsic Entity Error]: Aaron Cresswell has impressed during debut season in Premier League . The left back joined West Ham from Championship club Ipswich for £2m . Manchester City and Chelsea are both keen to sign the 25-year-old . Both clubs are mindful of boosting their quota of homegrown foreign players . Faithfulness Metric Scores  the completeness of our error type taxonomy as well as whether annotation difficulty is affected by instructing annotators to focus on specific error types. We use BUMP to study the ability and performance consistency of faithfulness evaluation metrics in differentiating unfaithful summaries from faithful ones. Similar to how minimal pairs are used to diagnose linguistic knowledge of language models (Marvin and Linzen, 2018; Warstadt et al., 2020), the minimal summary pairs in BUMP allow targeted tests of a metric's consistency on different types of errors (Table 1). This setup minimizes the effect of confounding factors that affect similar analyses (e.g., Pagnoni et al. (2021) and Tang et al. (2022)) such as text length, stylistic variation, and multiple errors occurring in the same summary. We evaluate standard and state-of-the-art faithfulness metrics on BUMP using meta-evaluation protocols that target two phenomena: 1) *consistency*, i.e. the fraction of unfaithful summaries that receive a lower score than their corresponding faithful summaries, and 2) *discriminability*, i.e., the metric's ability to classify unfaithful vs. faithful summaries as measured by ROC AUC. Our results (Section 5) yield a number of useful findings: 1) BUMP differs substantially from existing benchmarks: the summaries in BUMP are harder to discriminate (ROC AUC scores between 50–70% vs. 70–84%) and are less probable under SOTA summarization models. 2) Discriminability != consistency: interestingly, the most consistent metrics (BARTSCORE, COCO) tend to have poor discriminability. 3) *Some error types are harder* than others: e.g., metrics seem to uniformly struggle with summaries containing *Intrinsic Error*s. In sum, our contributions are three-fold: 1) We build a benchmark of human-generated unfaithful minimal pairs (BUMP) for evaluating faithfulness metrics. 2) We show human-generated unfaithful errors are substantially different from and more challenging than model-generated ones. 3) We demonstrate how BUMP provides insights on both the consistency and discriminative ability of faithfulness metrics on different error types than prior evaluation benchmarks that complement insights from existing benchmarks. The BUMP dataset is available at: https://github.com/ dataminr-ai/BUMP. ## 2 Related Work Standard evaluation metrics for text generation tasks, e.g., BLEU and ROUGE, do not correlate well with human judgements of factual alignment in summarization settings (Kryscinski et al., 2019; Maynez et al., 2020). This has motivated the development of automated faithfulness metrics that quantify factual alignment through methods that either: use NLI to measure the entailment degree between the source article and summary (Kryscinski et al., 2020; Goyal and Durrett, 2020; Laban et al., 2022), compare summary probabilities when relevant information is removed from the source (Xie et al., 2021), or use question answering models to measure if questions derived from the source can be answered by the summary and vice versa (Wang et al., 2020; Durmus et al., 2020; Scialom et al., 2021). Existing faithfulness metric evaluations use one of two classes of benchmarks: 1) machinegenerated summaries paired with human-annotated faithfulness levels (Laban et al., 2022; Pagnoni et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2022), and 2) summary pairs pertaining to the same article where one summary is faithful and the other is unfaithful (Falke et al., 2019; Gabriel et al., 2021). While both classes can evaluate a metric's ability to discriminate unfaithful summaries, the latter additionally allows for consistency tests, i.e., whether metrics assign higher values to more faithful summaries. The BUMP dataset belongs to the second class of benchmarks; however, it has a number of unique properties. First, unlike both Falke et al. (2019) and Gabriel et al. (2021), the unfaithful summaries in BUMP are human-written. In addition, the unfaithful summaries in BUMP are *minimally different*, in the sense that only a single error differentiates the faithful and unfaithful summary. As shown in Section 5, this produces summary pairs that are substantially more challenging for metrics to differentiate. Inspired by the use of minimal pairs to diagnose linguistic knowledge of language models (Marvin and Linzen, 2018; Warstadt et al., 2020), the benefit of this approach is that it allows targeted tests of a metric's consistency on different types of errors (Section 3.2) while minimizing the effect of confounding factors. Therefore, unlike other benchmarks with error type annotations (Pagnoni et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2022), results on BUMP are not complicated by issues such as multiple errors appearing in the same summary. ## 3 Benchmark Of Unfaithful Minimal Pairs (Bump) Two annotation tasks are designed for BUMP, where Task 1 is taxonomy-based (a specific error type is required for the edited summary), and Task 2 allows freestyle edits (i.e., no error type constraints are imposed). In this section, we first describe how data sources are selected to build BUMP (3.1), and then describe the details of the two annotation tasks (3.2 and 3.3). ## 3.1 Dataset For Task 1, we randomly select 100 articlesummary pairs from the test set of the CNN/DailyMail dataset (Hermann et al., 2015).1 For Task 2, we select an additional 100 random article-summary pairs. Both tasks are performed via Amazon Mechanical Turk.2 ## 3.2 Task 1: Taxonomy-Based Unfaithful Summaries To obtain fine-grained performance evaluations of faithfulness metrics, it is critical to evaluate their sensitivity regarding various error types. Furthermore, benchmarks should contain sufficiently many instances associated with each error type to enable statistically significant comparisons to be made. To this end, we first define a taxonomy of unfaithful error types, and then ask annotators to introduce errors of a specific type in order to ensure each error type is adequately represented in the final dataset. We note that existing taxonomies of error types may contain overlapped error types, e.g., grammatical vs. entity errors in FRANK (Pagnoni et al., 2021) or lack fine granularity, e.g., Tang et al. (2022). By considering the strengths and shortcomings of existing taxonomies, we define our own taxonomy in Table 1. Our taxonomy is first adapted from the one in FRANK (Pagnoni et al., 2021) by including semantic frame errors (*Predicate Error*, Entity Error, and *Circumstance Error*) and *Coreference Error*, and removing error types that might overlap with others. To further categorize each semantic frame error, we adopt the notions of *Intrinsic* and *Extrinsic* errors (Maynez et al., 2020; Goyal and Durrett, 2020; Tang et al., 2022). Note that we do not simply categorize errors into the Intrinsic and *Extrinsic* ones, as we believe semantic frame errors can better instruct annotators to create summaries with diverse unfaithful errors. In our taxonomy, the Intrinsic/*Extrinsic* distinction only applies to the *Predicate, Entity, and Circumstance Error*, since for a *Coreference Error*, it is generally ambiguous whether an erroneous pronoun/reference that does not exist in the source article should be regarded as intrinsic or extrinsic. In total, this results in seven different error types. For each of the seven error types in this taxonomy, given an article-summary pair, we ask the annotator to introduce an error of the required type through a minimal edit to the reference summary. All *<article, summary, error type>* Human Intelligence Tasks (HITs) in Amazon Mechanical Turk are shuffled and there is no annotation repetition, i.e., one assignment per HIT. This increases the chance that edits of the same reference summary will be made by different annotators. Additional details regarding qualification tests and annotation instructions are presented in Appendix A. After the data collection, we manually check the validity of each edit. For cases where the edits do not match the required error types, we relabel them with the corrected error types based on our taxonomy. The dataset statistics after correction are shown in Table 2. For this task, one common mistake is that annotators consider the quantity of a noun object as a circumstance and make edits to the quantity (the first example in Table 3), hence mistakenly treat *Entity Error*s as *Circumstance Error*s, which causes the total number of *Circumstance* Errors to be only 160 (much smaller than that of Entity Errors; see Table 2). Another frequent mistake is that the edited word actually exists in the original article for the required extrinsic error (the second example in Table 3), which results in a smaller number of *Extrinsic Error*s than intrinsic ones across all semantic frame errors, especially for *Predicate Error*s. Furthermore, Table 2 shows all edited summaries can be categorized by our taxonomy (no summaries are relabeled as "Other"), and the incorrect response rate is 16%, suggesting that, in general, annotators correctly respond with the required error types. ## 3.3 Task 2: Freestyle Unfaithful Summaries In addition to the taxonomy-based Task 1, we also conduct a separate task, Task 2, where annotators can edit reference summaries in any way they want, i.e., freestyle editing, as long as only one error is introduced to the reference summary via minimal edits. The goal of Task 2 is to understand how human-generated unfaithful summaries may vary, and how the performance of faithfulness evaluation metrics changes accordingly, when there are no error type constraints. In particular, only annotators who did not participate in the qualification test of Task 1 are considered to participate in this task; in this way, we ensure the edited summaries in Task 2 | Error Type | Description | | | | |--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------|-----| | Predicate Error | The predicate in the summary is inconsistent with the source article. | | | | | Entity Error | The subject/object of a predicate is inconsistent with the source article. | | | | | Circumstance Error | Time, duration, or location of an event of the predicate is wrong. | | | | | Coreference Error | A pronoun/reference with wrong or nonexistent antecedent. | | | | | Intrinsic Error | Error derived from information within the source article. | | | | | Extrinsic Error | Error | contains | information | not | | present in the source article. | | | | | | Task 1 | Task 2 | | | |--------------|-----------|-----|----| | Predicate | Intrinsic | 116 | 17 | | Extrinsic | 76 | 28 | | | Entity | Intrinsic | 128 | 28 | | Extrinsic | 115 | 62 | | | Circumstance | Intrinsic | 82 | 22 | | Extrinsic | 78 | 33 | | | Coreference | - | 98 | 1 | | Other | - | 0 | 5 | | Total | 693 | 196 | | are not constrained to any known error types. To post-process all data collected in Task 2, we manually assign an error type to each data point, based on our error type taxonomy in Task 1. Without informing annotators of any specific error types, we observe the rate that the "Other" label occurs is only 2.5% for Task 2 in Table 2. This confirms that the vast majority of errors produced by humans adhere to our proposed taxonomy. For more details on Task 2, please see Appendix B. Remark. For both tasks, we ask annotators to introduce only one error (by editing the reference summary in a minimal way). We acknowledge that some reference summaries may be unfaithful in the first place; nevertheless, for both tasks, edited summaries are based on reference summaries, by which we ensure the edited summaries are always more unfaithful than reference summaries. ## 4 Meta-Evaluation Of Faithfulness Evaluation Metrics In this section, we first describe the faithfulness evaluation metrics benchmarked on BUMP (4.1). | Article (Partial) | Reference Summary | Required | Corrected | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------|-------------| | Error Type | Edited Summary | Error Type | | | ... The drugs, whose value is estimated at more than $105 million, ... Officers arrested one Venezuelan and two Spanish citizens who were on board the vessel off the coast ... French customs officials seized nearly 250 kilograms (550 pounds) of cocaine on a vessel that was also off the coast of Martinique, according to authorities. | The value of the drugs is estimated at more than $105 million. Officers arrested one Venezuelan and two Spanish citizens on board the vessel. | The value of the drugs is estimated at more than $250 million . Officers arrested one Venezuelan and two Spanish citizens on board the vessel. | | | Intrinsic Circumstance Error | Intrinsic Entity Error | | | | Lightning, floods and a deluge of hailstones descended on St Louis Tuesday as powerful storms pummeled the mid-United States. Roads around the Missouri city were flooded in the intense downpour, with one town recording more than two inches of rain in half an hour | St Louis pummeled Tuesday by flash floods . A nearby town had more than two inches of rain in less than half an hour. | | | | St Louis was hit Tuesday by flash floods. A nearby town had more than two inches of rain in less than half an hour. | Extrinsic Predicate Error | Intrinsic Predicate Error | | Then meta-evaluation protocols are discussed (4.2). ## 4.1 Faithfulness Metrics To cover diverse types of faithfulness metrics, in this section, we select metrics that are generally used for measuring generation quality (i.e., n-grambased metrics), recent metrics that are proposed specifically for faithfulness evaluations, as well as some pre-trained model based metrics, which are detailed as follows. We investigate their abilities to distinguish faithful summaries from their minimally edited counterparts. r n**-Gram-Based Metrics:** We evaluate the following 2 n-gram-based metrics: BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) and ROUGE (ROUGE-2 Precision specifically) (Lin, 2004). r **Faithfulness Evaluation Metrics:** We evaluate the following 7 faithfulness evaluation metrics: QUESTEVAL (Scialom et al., 2021), Q2(Honovich et al., 2021), QAFACTEVAL (Fabbri et al., 2022), FACTCC (Kryscinski et al., 2020), DAE (Goyal and Durrett, 2020), SUMMAC (Laban et al., 2022) and COCO (Xie et al., 2021) in this paper. To obtain a score for FACTCC, we take the classifier probability of the summary being faithful. r**Other Metrics:** We evaluate the following 3 pretrained model based metrics: BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020) with the BLEURT-20 checkpoint (Pu et al., 2021), BERTSCORE (Zhang et al., 2020) (specifically the BERTSCORE-precision variant) using the DeBERTa-xl-MNLI model (He et al., 2021), and BARTSCORE (Yuan et al., 2021) with a BART (Lewis et al., 2020) model fine-tuned on the CNN/DailyMail dataset. Note that for reference-based metrics, faithfulness scores are computed by treating the input article as the reference, and the reference/edited summary as the system output. We also normalize the direction of the metric score so that a higher score always corresponds to better faithfulness from the metric's view, e.g., FACTCC predicts the probability that a summary is unfaithful, and so to obtain a faithfulness score, we take its complement. ## 4.2 Meta-Evaluation Each faithfulness metric takes an article-summary pair and outputs a numerical faithfulness score. In our analysis, we measure faithfulness scores for both the reference summary as well as the humanannotated erroneous summary. We quantify the difference between faithfulness metrics on BUMP using two measurement protocols: **consistency** and ROC AUC. Originally introduced in Gabriel et al. (2021), consistency measures the success rate of a metric assigning a lower faithfulness score to the erroneous unfaithful summary. In contrast, ROC AUC instead measures the overall capability of a metric to discriminate faithful from unfaithful content for an input summary, and has previously been used by Honovich et al. (2022) for meta-evaluation. Although other metrics such as balanced accuracy have also been used to evaluate disciminability (Laban et al., 2022), we opt to use ROC AUC as it does not require determining a decision threshold. ## 5 Results We report and analyze the performance of faithfulness metrics in this section using meta-evaluation protocol consistency and ROC AUC. Consistency. The consistency studies of the two tasks3for all the metrics are reported in Table 4. In terms of the difficulty per error type, 1) for Task 1, 3Note that for Task 2, the error types with only a few samples (e.g., Coreference and Other) are not analyzed separately.  Extrinsic Entity Errors are generally the easiest, while all but BARTSCORE struggle with *Intrinsic* Predicate Errors; 2) for Task 2, *Intrinsic Entity* Errors are the hardest. This implies that when annotators are not presented with any error types, the introduced error styles may differ from those in Task 1 (see Section 6), potentially causing inconsistencies for metrics in these two tasks. Nevertheless, we observe that for both tasks, *Intrinsic Error*s are more challenging than extrinsic ones across all but FACTCC in Task 2. This is likely because *Intrinsic Error*s can be derived from the original article, while *Extrinsic Error*s contain words that do not appear in the original article, making *Intrinsic Error*s more subtle to be identified than extrinsic ones. For the overall performance (all error types are considered), BARTSCORE has the highest consistency in both tasks, though BARTSCORE has not been proposed specifically for faithfulness evaluations. Other metrics that rank top 4 in both tasks include QAFACTEVAL and COCO. By comparison, Q2and FACTCC have the worst consistency, even worse than n-gram-based metrics ROUGE and BLEU; nevertheless, they exhibit different rankings in terms of ROC AUC (see the next section). ROC AUC. ROC AUC scores are presented in Table 5. We observe that the overall ranking of faithfulness metrics according to ROC AUC substantially differs from the ranking according to consistency. In particular, the rank of BARTSCORE drops from the top one to the fifth, while Q2improves significantly from second to last to second overall. QAFACTEVAL consistently exhibits high performance and even ranks first under ROC AUC, while n-gram based metrics, e.g., ROUGE-2 and BLEU consistently show the worst performance, as expected. In general, metrics that are specifically proposed for faithfulness evaluations rank higher than generic NLG evaluation metrics. We additionally observe that the relative rankings of ROC AUC scores across error types and task settings are largely consistent with the relative rankings of consistency scores. Specifically, we again observe that on a per metric basis: 1) ROC AUC scores are generally lower for Task 2 than Task 1 (particularly for *Entity Error*s), and 2) metrics generally show worse performance on *Intrinsic* Errors than extrinsic ones. For our two meta-evaluation protocols, consistency is suitable for the pairwise ranking of two summaries for a given input article, while ROC AUC is more adequate in evaluating the absolute capacity of unfaithful summary detection. If a metric has high consistency but low ROC AUC, it implies that the scores for predicted faithful and unfaithful summaries overlap frequently. Such overlap makes  it challenging to establish a clear decision boundary for classifications. Hence, to improve the classification capability of metrics with high consistency, more calibration is needed to increase the score gap between faithful and unfaithful summaries. ## 6 Analysis Of Bump In this section, we conduct more analysis of BUMP by studying how BUMP differs from other benchmarks, followed by a qualitative analysis of the detection difficulty between Tasks 1 and 2. Comparison with Model-Generated Unfaithful Summaries. We compare the generation probabilities of our edited summaries to those of summaries generated from beam search by a BARTbased summarizer (trained using the training data of CNN/DailyMail) for the same set of documents in our dataset. We report the difference of these generation probabilities normalized by the text length in Figure 2, where we find our edited summaries are much different from model generations in terms of the model generation probabilities. This highlights that existing metrics may not work well on summaries of various styles and experiments are needed to verify their effectiveness in humangenerated unfaithful summaries. Furthermore, we compare our ROC AUC scores with those in existing datasets as shown in TRUE  (Honovich et al., 2022). In BUMP, faithful and unfaithful samples under each error type are balanced for both Tasks 1 and 2. Therefore, for a fair comparison, we pick QAGS-C (Wang et al., 2020) (also a balanced dataset on CNN/DailyMail) in TRUE. In Table 5, it shows that the ROC AUC scores evaluated on BUMP are generally much smaller (50–70% with many values close to random baseline), whereas most ROC AUC scores are 70–84% in QAGS-C (see Appendix C). This again | Article (Partial) | Reference Summary | Error | Edited Summary | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Type | Task 1 | Task 2 | | | ... Detective Chief Inspector Paul Johnson of the London Metropolitan Police Flying Squad said the thieves appeared to have gained access to the vault of Hatton Garden Safe Deposit Ltd through the shaft of an elevator that is used by several businesses in the building | Police say the thieves | Extrinsic | | | gained entry through | Entity | | | | the building's communal elevator shaft | Error | Police say the thieves gained entry through the building's communal staircase | Police say the thieves gained entry through the building's private elevator shaft Claire Nugent and Nigel Morter restored a ... likes to come home and switch on a black and white TV like in the 60s. | | Almost three years after nearly leaving Liverpool Jordan Henderson has committed his long-term future to the club convinced he can win silverware at Anfield Henderson has urged Liverpool team-mate Raheem Sterling to follow his lead by signing a new deal. | Claire | Nugent | and | | Nigel Morter restored a ... likes to come home and switch on an old record player like in the 60s. | Tim Horton and Nigel Morter restored a ... likes to come home and switch on an old record player like in the 60s. | | | | ... Claire Nugent, 43, and Nigel Morter, 47, have been married for 14 years... She said: 'Every night I come home to my Sixties bubble, switch on my old record player, listen to some vinyl, and all the stresses of 2015 melt away' ... | Extrinsic Entity Error | Jordan Henderson is considering signing a new five-year deal at Anfield Henderson has urged Raheem Sterling to ... | | | Jordan Henderson has signed a new five-year | Extrinsic | | | | deal at Anfield Henderson has urged Raheem Sterling to ... | Predicate Error | Jordan Henderson has signed a new five-year deal at Anfield Henderson has discouraged Raheem Sterling to ... | | indicates that the human-generated errors in BUMP are more difficult for metrics to detect than modelgenerated errors in existing datasets, reinforcing the value of BUMP as a challenging benchmark for evaluating faithfulness metrics. In addition, we also compare the ROC AUC rankings of different faithfulness metrics under QAGS-C and BUMP. Specifically, we summarize the performance rankings under QAGS-C from Appendix C as well as those from Table 5 under Intrinsic/Extrinsic Error types in Tasks 1 and 2, and report them in Figure 3, where only faithfulness metrics used in both (Honovich et al., 2022) and Table 5 are presented. In Figure 3, we observe that for some faithfulness metrics, such as Q2and BARTSCORE, their ROC AUC rankings are quite stable across all datasets. However, for other faithfulness metrics, the performance ranking under QAGS-C is very different from the ranking derived from BUMP, e.g., QUESTEVAL mostly exhibits high ROC AUC ranking in BUMP; by contrast, it experiences the worst performance in QAGS-C. Thus, we believe BUMP complements existing benchmarks and allows a more comprehensive analysis of faithfulness metrics in future studies. Qualitative Analysis. We provide a qualitative analysis of examples that demonstrate the increased difficulty of Task 2. The examples are provided in Table 6. Each row contains edited summaries from Tasks 1 and 2 for the same original article and its reference summary. In addition, to compare edited summaries under the same error type, we pick examples where the corrected error type from Task 1  is the same as the exhibited error type from Task 2. As shown in Table 6, in the first example, for the Extrinsic Entity Error type, the annotator in Task 1 modifies the entity *elevator shaft* to another entity staircase. Whereas the annotator in Task 2 modifies the word communal to *private* (i.e., also an *Extrinsic Entity Error*) which requires commonsense knowledge to infer that *private* is contradictory to the fact that *the elevator is used by several businesses in the building*. In the second example, for the *Extrinsic Entity Error* type, the annotator in Task 1 modifies the entity name from *Claire Nugent* to a random name *Tim Horton*, whereas the annotator in Task 2 changes record player to *black* and white TV to fit the 60s theme, which again, requires additional knowledge. In the last example, the annotator in Task 2 modifies the temporal state of the action *sign* from signed to is considering signing which is more challenging than changing the action *urged* to its antonym *discouraged* as the annotator in Task 1 does. For the first two examples of Task 2 in Table 6, only 4 metrics (QAFACTEVAL, QUESTE-VAL, BLEURT, and BERTSCORE for the first example; QAFACTEVAL, SUMMAC, BLEURT, and ROUGE-2 for the second example) succeed in giving a higher score to the reference summary. In comparison, 9 and 11 metrics succeed in giving a higher score to the reference summary in their Task 1 counterparts, respectively. For the last example, 8 metrics succeed in Task 2 and all 12 metrics succeed in Task 1. Thus, Table 6 shows that some unfaithful summaries in Task 2 are more challenging for faithfulness metrics to detect, which further exemplifies the challenges of Task 2 in BUMP. ## 7 Conclusion In this paper, we presented a benchmark of unfaithful minimal pairs (BUMP) to evaluate faithfulness metrics. Unlike prior work where all unfaithful summaries are model generated, each unfaithful summary in BUMP is generated by minimal human edits to introduce one unfaithful error given a reference summary. Through our experiments, we found that BUMP complements existing benchmarks in a number of ways. First, we found that the summaries in BUMP are harder to discriminate and less probable under SOTA summarization models. Second, we used BUMP to measure the consistency of metrics, which cannot be readily measured using other benchmarks. This analysis revealed a discrepancy between the discriminability and consistency of existing metrics, highlighting an important area for future faithfulness metric research to address. Finally, we used BUMP to study faithfulness metrics' performance on individual error types—where our minimal-pair-inspired setup helped control for conclusions being conflated across multiple error types—which revealed that sensitivity to intrinsic errors is another important area for future research to focus on. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank our colleague Aoife Cahill at Dataminr for her valuable comments, suggestions, and support for this paper. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their feedback and ## Comments. Limitations Although BUMP is, to our knowledge, the first dataset on which to study the consistency of faithfulness metrics on human-written errors across different error types, there are some limitations regarding the conclusions that can be drawn from it. For one, because BUMP is comprised of minimal edits to reference summaries from CNN/DailyMail, it is not suitable for analyzing the consistency of faithfulness metrics when errors are added to reference summaries already containing many errors. In addition, due to a combination of resource constraints and human preferences for writing specific types of errors, the sample sizes for some error types in Task 2 (e.g., *Coreference Error* and *Intrinsic Predicate Error*) may not be sufficiently large to enable statistically significant comparisons between different metrics for specific error types. ## Ethics Statement The collection of BUMP involves human annotations. The human annotators are provided with clear task instructions and informed of the conditions where they would be qualified and disqualified. We compensate annotators with $3.00 per assignment in the qualification task and $0.50 per assignment in the full task for both Tasks 1 and 2. The final paid rate is $15 per hour which is over the US national minimum wage4 of $7.25. We are also aware that our shared datasets could be potentially misused as training samples, albeit a small number, to develop models to generate unfaithful content. ## References Esin Durmus, He He, and Mona Diab. 2020. FEQA: A question answering evaluation framework for faithfulness assessment in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5055– 5070, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexander Fabbri, Chien-Sheng Wu, Wenhao Liu, and Caiming Xiong. 2022. QAFactEval: Improved QAbased factual consistency evaluation for summarization. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technolo- gies, pages 2587–2601, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Krysci ´ nski, Bryan Mc- ´ Cann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. SummEval: Re-evaluating summarization evaluation. *Transactions of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, 9:391–409. Tobias Falke, Leonardo F. R. Ribeiro, Prasetya Ajie Utama, Ido Dagan, and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Ranking generated summaries by correctness: An interesting but challenging application for natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 2214–2220, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Saadia Gabriel, Asli Celikyilmaz, Rahul Jha, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021. GO FIGURE: A meta evaluation of factuality in summarization. In *Findings of* the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACLIJCNLP 2021, pages 478–487, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tanya Goyal and Greg Durrett. 2020. Evaluating factuality in generation with dependency-level entailment. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 3592–3603, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. DEBERTA: Decodingenhanced BERT with disentangled attention. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. *Advances in neural information* processing systems, 28. Or Honovich, Roee Aharoni, Jonathan Herzig, Hagai Taitelbaum, Doron Kukliansy, Vered Cohen, Thomas Scialom, Idan Szpektor, Avinatan Hassidim, and Yossi Matias. 2022. TRUE: Re-evaluating factual consistency evaluation. In Proceedings of the Second DialDoc Workshop on Document-grounded Dialogue and Conversational Question Answering, pages 161– 175, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Or Honovich, Leshem Choshen, Roee Aharoni, Ella Neeman, Idan Szpektor, and Omri Abend. 2021. Q2: Evaluating factual consistency in knowledgegrounded dialogues via question generation and question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 7856–7870, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wojciech Kryscinski, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Neural text summarization: A critical evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 540–551, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wojciech Kryscinski, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2020. Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9332–9346, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul N. Bennett, and Marti A. Hearst. 2022. SummaC: Re-visiting NLIbased models for inconsistency detection in summarization. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 10:163–177. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 7871–7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In *Text Summarization Branches Out*, pages 74–81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rebecca Marvin and Tal Linzen. 2018. Targeted syntactic evaluation of language models. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing, pages 1192–1202, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. 2020. On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings* of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1906–1919, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! topic-aware convolutional neural networks for extreme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1797–1807, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Artidoro Pagnoni, Vidhisha Balachandran, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2021. Understanding factuality in abstractive summarization with FRANK: A benchmark for factuality metrics. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 4812–4829, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL '02, page 311–318, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Amy Pu, Hyung Won Chung, Ankur Parikh, Sebastian Gehrmann, and Thibault Sellam. 2021. Learning compact metrics for MT. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 751–762, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Scialom, Paul-Alexis Dray, Sylvain Lamprier, Benjamin Piwowarski, Jacopo Staiano, Alex Wang, and Patrick Gallinari. 2021. QuestEval: Summarization asks for fact-based evaluation. In *Proceedings of* the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6594–6604, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881–7892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Liyan Tang, Tanya Goyal, Alexander R. Fabbri, Philippe Laban, Jiacheng Xu, Semih Yahvuz, Wojciech Krys-´ cinski, Justin F. Rousseau, and Greg Durrett. 2022. ´ Understanding factual errors in summarization: Errors, summarizers, datasets, error detectors. Alex Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Mike Lewis. 2020. Asking and answering questions to evaluate the factual consistency of summaries. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5008–5020, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alex Warstadt, Alicia Parrish, Haokun Liu, Anhad Mohananey, Wei Peng, Sheng-Fu Wang, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. BLiMP: The benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for English. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:377– 392. Yuexiang Xie, Fei Sun, Yang Deng, Yaliang Li, and Bolin Ding. 2021. Factual consistency evaluation for text summarization via counterfactual estimation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 100–110, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. BARTScore: Evaluating generated text as text generation. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing* Systems. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. BERTScore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. ## A Details Of Task 1: Taxonomy-Based Unfaithful Summaries A.1 Qualification Task The instructions and the task interface for the qualification task of Task 1 are shown in Figures A1 to A4. In this qualification task, all US-based annotators are able to participate. Specifically, we ask annotators to read a news article and seven pairs of summaries. For each pair of summaries, the first summary is the correct reference summary, and the second summary is the unfaithfully edited summary that contains one of the seven error types in our taxonomy. We then ask the annotators to select one answer from the seven error types to indicate which type of error is introduced in the edited unfaithful summary. Only the annotators who answered 6 out of these 7 questions correctly passed the qualification task. We launched 3 batches in total with 9 assignments for each batch, and 9 annotators passed the qualification task. ## A.2 Full Task The instructions and the task interface for the full task of Task 1 are shown in Figures A5 to A7. In the full task for Task 1, different from the qualification task, we ask the annotators to read a news article from CNN/DailyMail (Hermann et al., 2015) and one reference summary for the article. We then ask the annotators to edit the reference summary to introduce the error type specified through a minimal edit. If they cannot introduce the error type based on the reference summary, they can write "N/A" to indicate that it is impossible to introduce the specified error type based on the provided reference summary. There are 18 samples in Task 1 dataset that are annotated as "N/A" by the annotators, all of which are reviewed by the authors of this paper and re-annotated with the correct edits (we note that the required error types can be provided for all these cases) as a post-processing step to ensure the completeness of the dataset. In addition, for Task 1, to help reduce the confusion from annotators regarding *Circumstance Error*s and *Entity Error*s, we explicitly specify that the *Circumstance Error*s should only be erroneous edits concerning the time, duration, or location of an event, and changing the quantity of a *noun* is not considered as a *Circumstance Error*. ## B Details Of Task 2: Freestyle Unfaithful Summaries B.1 Qualification Task The instructions and the task interface for the qualification task of Task 2 are shown in Figures A8 to A9. In this qualification task, all US-based annotators who did not participate in the qualification task of Task 1 are qualified to participate. Specifically, we show the annotators four pairs of news article and its summary from CNN/DailyMail, and ask them to answer if the summaries are faithful based on the original news articles. Among the four pairs, three of them are unfaithful and one is faithful. Only the annotators who answered correctly to all of these 4 pairs passed the qualification task. We launched 3 batches in total with 9 assignments for each batch, and 8 annotators passed the qualification task. ## B.2 Full Task The instructions and the task interface for the full task of Task 2 are shown in Figures A10 to A11. In the full task of Task 2, unlike Task 1, we do not list any potential error types so as to achieve freestyle editing. The edited summary is valid as long as only one error is introduced based on the reference summary via a minimal edit. Furthermore, we also do the following to ensure the quality of edited summaries: - For minimal edits, we explicitly ask annotators not to write from scratch, but to introduce only one error on top of the given reference summary. - In the pilot study, we notice that some edited summaries are simply removing/adding sentences or phrases (such data points are removed in the final released data); we, therefore, add additional instructions that require the edited and the reference summaries to contain a similar amount of information about the given news article (i.e., similar coverage). - The edited summaries should be grammatically correct. - The edited summaries should be plausible and adhere to common sense. - Some examples of edited summaries are given in the task instructions. ## C Roc Auc Results From Other Benchmarks To compare BUMP with other benchmarks, we also report the ROC AUC scores from TRUE (Honovich et al., 2022). Specifically, in BUMP, faithful and unfaithful samples under each error type are balanced for both Tasks 1 and 2. Therefore, for a fair comparison, 1) in TRUE, we pick QAGSC (Wang et al., 2020), which is also a balanced dataset on CNN/DailyMail. The ROC AUC scores of QAGS-C are reported in Table A1; 2) for faithfulness metrics in Table A1, we use the same implementation and model checkpoints in this paper as those in TRUE (Honovich et al., 2022). Then according to Table A1, the metric performance ranking in terms of ROC AUC for QAGS-C is Q2 > SUMMAC > BARTSCORE > FACTCC > BLEURT > BERTSCORE > QUESTEVAL, which is very different from the ranking derived from our BUMP dataset, e.g., SUMMAC exhibits worse ROC AUC than QUESTEVAL for most error types in both Tasks 1 and 2 (see Table 5). In addition to the balanced dataset QAGS-C in TRUE, we also report the ROC AUC scores of imbalanced FRANK (Pagnoni et al., 2021) and SummEval (Fabbri et al., 2021) datasets (two datasets containing CNN/DailyMail) from TRUE in Table A1. Although the FRANK and SummEval datasets are imbalanced, we have similar observations as those from the QAGS-C dataset: 1) their ROC AUC scores (mostly 70–90%) are much larger than the ROC AUC scores (50–70%) derived from our BUMP dataset; 2) in terms of the ROC AUC ranking, the top two remain Q2and SUMMAC for both FRANK and SummEval, and SUMMAC always ranks higher than QUESTEVAL. By contrast, in Table 5, we show that SUMMAC mostly exhibits worse ROC AUC than QUESTEVAL. Task Instructions This is a qualification task. Please read and follow the instructions carefully, you will be asked to copy a randomly generated code into one text box in the middle of the example. If you do not pass this test we may reject your response, In this task, you will read a news article and 7 pairs of summaries for the article. For each pair of summaries, the first summary is the correct reference summary, and the second summary is the unfaithful or erroneous edited summary that contains one of the following types of errors: 1. Intrinsic Predicate Error 2. Extrinsic Predicate Error 3. Intrinsic Entity Error 4. Extrinsic Entity Error 5. Intrinsic Circumstance Error 6. Extrinsic Circumstance Error 7. Coreference Error A description of each error type, along with an example are shown in the table below. You will then select one correct answer from the 7 error types for each pair of summaries to indicate which type of error was introduced in the edited unfaithful or erroneous summary. Note: Punctuation errors should be ignored. For example, the additional white space before perid: A source article The first vaccine for Ebola was approved by the FDA in 2019 in the US, five years after the initial outbreak in 2014. To produce the vaccine, scientists had to sequence the DNA of Ebola, then identify possible vaccines, and finally show successful clinical trials. Scientists say a vaccine for COVID-19 is unlikely to be ready this year, although clinical trials have aiready started. Intrinsic Predicate Error - The predicate in the summary statement is inconsistent with the source article. AND - The verb/event is either explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the source article. Example: The Ebola vaccine was produced by the FDA in 2019. Extrinsic Predicate Error - The predicate in the summary statement is inconsistent with the source article. AND - The verb/event is NOT present in the source article.  Example: The Ebola vaccine was rejected by the FDA in 2019. Intrinsic Entity Error - The primary arguments (or their attributes) of the predicate are wrong. AND - The wrong entities are present in the source article. Example: The COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the FDA in 2019. Extrinsic Entity Error - The primary arguments (or their attributes) of the predicate are wrong. AND - The wrong entities are NOT present in the source article. Example: The SARS vaccine was approved by the FDA in 2019. Figure A1: Screenshot of the qualification task for Task 1 (1/4).   ## Example Now you will review an example article and seven associated summaries. Example article Ashley Young is finally feeling like a serior member of the Manchester United squad. The 29-year-old moved to Old Trafford in June 2011 from Aston Villa, but acknowledges it took time for him to come into his own at the club. Young now feels he has an important role under Louis van Gaal, and told ManUtd.com: 1 was looking around and thinking l was in the top six or seven who have been here the longest now. Whereas I used to say I was a youngster, now I can only say that by my name. Ashley Young is finally feeling like a serior member of the Manchester United squad under Louis van Gaal . The 29-year-old moved to Old Trafford in June 2011 from Aston Villa and feels he has a role to play at United . "Io be honest, a few of my team-mates have mentioned my name when they talk about characters and jokers and it's always nice to hear that. You have got to have good team spirit and we have got that here. We always have done. 'There are people who like to mess about and do different things in the dressing room. There are big characters in the dressing room and everyone gets on with everybody else. The team spirit we have got here is brilliant.' Young had to be patient but the winger says easing himself in was only natural when he had to meet his new team-mates and get used to a different dressing room. "When I first came here, I knew a few of the lads from playing with them for Engiand but I didn't really know what to expect,' Young added. 'When you settle in properly at a club, your character starts to come out more and more. 'With me, I'm always there or thereabouts when there is any mucking about or things going on in the dressing room.' Young acknowledges it took time for him to come into his own at the club but believes that is only natural . Young tries to beat Tottenham Hotspur goalkeeper Hugo Lioris to the ball during their Premier League match . Young feels he an Wayne Rooney (left) are among those that have had to share the responsibility . Being a senior member of the squad, Young feels he has had to share the responsibility with captain Wayne Rooney following the departures of Nemanja Vidic, Rio Ferdinand and Patrice Evra. 'When you've got Vida, Rio and Evra leaving, Individuals who were not only big characters but captains, people have to step up and take over that mantie, ' Young stated. ' It has definitely happened. You give out more advice and try to help the youngsters slong but it's everybody's job resily. Everybody chips in. 'We've got one captain but, when we're on the pitch, there are 11 captains and everyone wants to be pulling in the right direction and wanting to perform and do as we well as we can as a team. When you have got that on and off the pitch, it's great Example original summary Ashley Young joined Manchester United in June 2011 from Aston Villa . Young feels he has an important role to play under Louis van Gaal . He feels he and Wayne Rooney are among those that have taken on responsibility after Nemanja Vidic, Rio Ferdinand and Patrice Evra left . Type of error 1 Intrinsic Predicate Error Edited summary Ashley Young joined Manchester United in June 2011 from Aston Villa . Young feels he has an important role to play under Louis van Gaal . He feels he and Wayne Rooney are among those that have taken on responsibility after Nemanja Vidic, Rio Ferdinand and Patrice Evra joined Explanation The predicate 'Nemanja Vidic, Rio Ferdinand and Patrice Evra left' in the original reference is changed to 'Nemanja Vidic, Rio Ferdinand and Patrice Evra joined'. `Join' is n explicitly present but implicitly mentioned (e.g., 'moved to') in the source article, so the edit introduces an Intrinsic Predicate Error. Type of error 2 Extrinsic Predicate Error Edited summary Ashiey Young purchased Manchester United in June 2011 from Aston Villa . Young feels he has an important role to play under Louis van Gaal . He feels he and Wayne Rooney are among those that have taken on responsibility after Nemanja Vidic, Rio Ferdinand and Patrice Evra left . Explanation The predicate 'Ashley Young purchased Manchester United' in the original reference is changed to 'Ashley Young joined Manchester United'. purchased is not present in the source article, so the edit introduces an Extrinsic Predicate Error. Figure A2: Screenshot of the qualification task for Task 1 (2/4). Task Read the article below and select the error type of the edited summary for the 7 pairs of summaries. Article It may look like a misshapen disk of metal, but this coin is one of the oidest ever to be found in Britain. The tiny copper coin, which is smaller than a penny, dates from th Age almost 2,300 years ago and suggests there were links between the south west of England and the Mediterranean. It was found in silt after the River Avon burst its banks between Bristol and Bath. The tiny copper coin, which is smaller than a penny, dates from the Iron Age almost 2,300 years ago and suggests there were links between the south west of England and the Mediterranean . On one side there is a horse's head, while the other bears the image of the goddess Tanit, the chief deity of Carthage. Experts have dated the coin to between 300 BC and 264 BC and say it came from the Western Mediterranean - probably Sardinia or ancient Carthage. The find suggests that the vilage of Saltford, where it was found, was on a major trade route long before Roman times. On one side of the coin there the image of the Goddess Tanit, the chief delty of Carthage, (pictured left) while on the reverse is a horse's head, pictured right . The find suggests that the village of Saltford (shown on the map with a red marker), where coin was found, was on a major trade route long before Roman times . It is believed there was a ford in the area, which made it the only place to cross the river Avon at the time. One side of the coin shows an image of the Carthaginian goddess Tanit, suggesting links between the south west and the Mediterranean . The coin is thought to be the oldest dateable evidence of human activity found in Saltford and the West of England. It suggests Iron Age links between the Mediterranean and the Bristol Channel, which the River Avon flows into around 15 miles (24km) away. Professor David Mattingly, an archaeologist and Roman historian at the University of Leicester said: 'It's really Interesting to have a Carthaginian coin in Britain. 'Suppose that coin was deposited close to its minting - at the time, there were no coins being used in Britain. It would been quite alien to people. 'We are very sure that horses were important at the time so that may have invoked a lot of interest back then. It's a very interesting find.' Phil Harding of the Saltford Environment Group, said that the coin's significant because it is one of the oldest coins ever to be found in England. 'Only eight of these have ever been found, always on ancient trade routes,' he said. 'We can't believe it. We thought we would be writing the history of Saltford from the Roman times to now. 'But now we have to go back to the Iron Age. It's absolutely fantastic.' Last July a hoard of Roman and Late Iron Age coins were found in a cave in Dovedale in the Pesk District, where they had lain undisturbed for 2,000 years. It was the first time that coins from the two separated groups have been found buried together. Archaeologists discovered 26 coins, Including three Roman coins which pre-date the invasion of Britain in 43 AD, and 20 other gold and silver pieces which are Late Iron Age and thought to belong to the Corietlavi tribe. Last July a hoard of Roman and Late Iron Age coins (pictured) were found in a cave in Dovedale in the Peak District, where they had lain undisturbed for 2,0 years . National Trust archaeologist Rachael Hall said whoever owned the cache was probably a wealthy and influential figure. 'The coins would suggest a serious amount of waith and power of the individual who owned them. 'Coins were used more as a symbol of power and status during the Late iron Age, rather than for buying and selling staple foods and supplies. '…The situation of the cave can't be ignored either. Could it have been a sacred place to the Late Iron Age peoples that was taboo to enter in everyday life, making it a safe place that would ensure that person's valuables were protected?' Summary Pair 1/7 Reference Summary: Tiny copper coin is dated to the Iron Age, amost 2,300 years ago . It was found in Saltford between Bristol and Bath in South Weet England . Bears image of a horse's head and the Carthaginian goddess Tanit . Find suggests trading links between South West and the Mediterranean . Edited Summary: Tiny copper coin is dated to the Iron Age, almost 3,200 years ago , It was found in Saltford between Bristol and Bath in South West England , Bears image of a horse's head and the Carthaginian goddess Tanit . Find suggests trading links between South West and the Mediterranean . Which of the following type of error is in the edited summary? - Intrinsic Entity Error - Extrinsic Predicate Error - Intrinsic Circumstance Error ❍ Intrinsic Predicate Error ❍ Extrinsic Circumstance Error O Coreference Error Figure A3: Screenshot of the qualification task for Task 1 (3/4). Summary Pair 6/7 Reference Summary: Tiny copper coin is dated to the Iron Age, almost 2,300 years ago . It was found in Saltford between Bristol and Bath in South West England . Bears image of a horse's head and the Carthaginian goddess Tanit . Find suggests trading links between South West and the Mediterranean | Edited Summary: | |-------------------| Tiny copper coin is dated to the Iron Age, almost 2,300 years ago . He was found in Sattford between Bristol and Bath in South West England . Bears image of a horse's head and the Carthaginian goddess Tanit . Find suggests trading links between South West and the Mediterranean . Which of the following type of error is in the edited summary? ❍ Intrinsic Predicate Error ❍ Intrinsic Entity Error - Intrinsic Circumstance Error ❍ Extrinsic Circumstance Error | Summary Pair 7/7 | |--------------------| | Reference Summary: | | Edited Summary: | Tiny copper coin is dated to the Iron Age, almost 2,300 years ago . It was found in Saltford between Bristol and Bath in South West England . Bears image of a horse's head and the Carthaginian goddess Tanit . Find suggests trading links between South West and the Mediterranean . Tiny copper coin is dated to the Iron Age, almost 2000 years ago . It was found in Saltford between Bristol and Bath in South West England . Bears image of a horse's head and the Carthaginian goddess Tanit . Find suggests trading links between South West and the Mediterranean . Which of the following type of error is in the edited summary? - Intrinsic Predicate Error - Intrinsic Circumstance Error - Extrinsic Circumstance Error Would you like to participate in our full annotation task if you pass this qualification test? O No O Yes Submit Figure A4: Screenshot of the qualification task for Task 1 (4/4). | Q2 | S UMMAC | BART SCORE | FACTCC | BLEURT | BERT SCORE | Q UEST E VAL | | |----------|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|--------------|----------------|------| | QAGS-C | 83.5 | 80.9 | 80.9 | 76.4 | 71.6 | 69.1 | 64.2 | | FRANK | 87.8 | 89.1 | 86.1 | 76.4 | 88 | 84.3 | 84.0 | | SummEval | 78.8 | 81.7 | 73.5 | 75.9 | 66.7 | 77.2 | 70.1 | Table A1: ROC AUC (%) of faithfulness evaluation metrics in TRUE (Honovich et al., 2022). All datasets contain CNN/DailyMail. Faithful and unfaithful samples in QAGS-C are balanced; however, in FRANK and SummEval, faithful and unfaithful samples are imbalanced. ## Task Instructions Please read and follow the instructions carefully, you will be asked to copy a randomly generated code into one text box in the middle of the example. If you do not pass this test we may reject your response. Note: This full task is slightly different from the qualification task! In this task, you will read a news article and a reference summary for the article. After you finish r you will be asked to edit the reference summary to introduce one of the following types of errors: 1. Intrinsic Predicate Error 2. Extrinsic Predicate Error 3. Intrinsic Entity Error 4. Extrinsic Entity Error 5. Intrinsic Circumstance Error 6. Extrinsic Circumstance Error 7. Coreference Error A description of each error type, along with an example are shown in the table below. Note: Punctuation errors should be ignored. For example, the additional white space before period; . A source article The first vaccine for Ebola was approved by the FDA in 2019 in the US, five years after the initial outbreak in 2014. To produce the vaccine, scientists had to sequence the DNA of Ebola, then identify possible vaccines, and finally show successful clinical trials. Scientists say a vaccine for COVID-19 is unlikely to be ready this year, although clinical trials have aiready started. Intrinsic Predicate Error - The predicate in the summary statement is inconsistent with the source article. AND - The verb/event is either explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the source article. Example: The Ebola vaccine was produced by the FDA in 2019. Extrinsic Predicate Error - The predicate in the summary statement is inconsistent with the source article. AND  - The verb/event is NOT present in the source article.   Example: The Ebola vaccine was rejected by the FDA in 2019. Intrinsic Entity Error - The primary arguments (or their attributes) of the predicate are wrong. AND - The wrong entities are present in the source article. Example: The COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the FDA in 2019. Extrinsic Entity Error - The primary arguments (or their attributes) of the predicate are wrong. AND - The wrong entities are NOT present in the source article. Example: The SARS vaccine was approved by the FDA in 2019. Figure A5: Screenshot of the full task for Task 1 (1/3).    ## Additional Instructions We observed some confusion about the distinction between Circumstance Errors and Entity Errors in the first round of results. To help improve the quality of annotations, we are narrowing the scope of Circumstance Errors. From now on, Circumstance Errors will only be errors concerning the time, duration, or location of an event. Changing the quantity of a Noun is NOT a Circumstance Error. For example, consider the sentence: The Rams won the Super Bowl in Los Angeles last February. The core event is "The Rams won the Super Bowl" and there are two pieces of circumstantial information: - The time when the event happened - "last February" - The location where the event happened - "in Los Angeles" To infroduce a circumstance error, either of these two pieces of information could be changed, or a new wrong piece of information about the time, duration, or location of the event could be added. Again, changing the quantity of a Noun is NOT a Circumstance Error. Here are some examples of edits that introduce a circumstance error to this summary: Edits that introduce Circumstance Errors (i.e., good submissions) | Edited Text | Explanation | |---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | The Rams won the Super Bowl in Los Angeles last | The existing time when the event happened was changed. | | March. | | | The Rams won the Super Bowl in San Francisco last | The existing location where the event happened was changed. | | February. | | | The Rams won the Super Bowl away from Los Angeles | Another example where the location where the event happened was changed by changing the preposition in 'to 'away from'. | | last February. | This example illustrates that not all circumstance errors need to involve nouns. | | The Rams won the Super Bowl over the course of a | New incorrect information about the duration of the event was added. | | week in Los Angeles last February. | | Edits that DO NOT introduce Circumstance Errors (i.e., bad submissions) | Edited Text | Explans | |-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | The Bengals won the Super Bowl in | Here the subject of the sentence was changed. THIS IS AN ENTITY ERROR NOT A CIRCUMSTANCE ERROR. | | Los Angeles last February. | | | The Rams lost the Super Bowl in Los | Here the predicate of the sentence was changed. THIS IS A PREDICATE ERROR NOT A CIRCUMSTANCE ERROR. | | Angeles last February. | | | The Rams won the Super Bowl. | Here the existing circumstantial information was removed. THIS IS NOT AN ERROR. | | The Rams won the Super Bowl for | Here new information was added that does not pertain to the time, duration, or location of the event. UNDER THE NEW SET OF GUIDELINES CIRCUMSTANCE ERRORS CAN ONLY BE ABOUT TH | | their fans in Los Angeles last | | | February. | CIRCUMSTANCE ERROR. | Figure A6: Screenshot of the full task for Task 1 (2/3). In addition, regarding Intrinsic Errors and Extrinsic Errors: Extrinsic Error means the incorrect information is NEITHER explicitly NOR implicitly mentioned in the source article. While Intrinsic Error means the opposite, i.e. the incorrect information is EITHER explicitly OR implicitly mentioned in the source article. Additional Criteria Please ensure that the text remains fluent after eciting. Text that contains grammatical errors or other disfluencies may result in disqualification. Please also try to ensure that the introduced error is plausible and adheres to common sense. For instance, in the example description of the extrinsic predicate error above, the predicate "rejected" is plausible, since the FDA is responsible for approving and rejecting vaccines. Meanwhile, predicates such as the word "eaten" would be implausible, as the FDA is not a living organism and does not eat things. Edits that are consistently implausible may also result in disqualification. In the unlikely event that it is extremely difficult to introduce a required error type by editing the given reference summary, you could write 'N/A'. However, responding 'N/ to error types that can be introduced by editing reference summaries may result in disqualification, Task Read the article below and edit the reference summary to introduce the error type listed below. Article $(article) Reference Summary ${reference_summary} Required Error Type ${error_type} Edited Summary Please enter your edited summary Figure A7: Screenshot of the full task for Task 1 (3/3). Submit Task Instructions This is a qualification task. Please read and follow the instructions carefully, you will be asked to copy a randomly generated code into one text box in the middle of the ex do not pass the test question, we may reject your response. You are qualified for the full task only if ALL, your answers to the questions in this test are correct. In this task, you will read four news articles and a summary for each of these four articles. For each summary of a given article, it may or may not contain inaccuracy errors inaccuracy error could be anything that is unfaithful to the original article in the sense that it contains anything that is not mentioned in the article or contracticts some Note that even if the summary is true according to your knowledge, as long as it is not mentioned in the article, the summary is regarded as containing inaccuracy errors. An article with a list of summaries with inaccuracy errors together with some explanations on why they are inaccurate are shown in the table below. You will then determine if the summary for the given article is accurate or not by selecting Yes or No. Note: Punctuation errors should be ignored. For example, the additional white space before perid: . A source article The first vaccine for Ebola was approved by the FDA in 2019 in the US, five years after the initial outbreak in 2014. To produce the vaccine, scientists had to sequence the D Ebola, then identify possible vaccines, and finally show successful clinical trials. Scientists say a vaccine for COVID-19 is unlikely to be ready this year, although clinica already started. Inaccurate summary 1 The Ebola vaccine was produced by the FDA in 2019, but COVID-19 vaccine is unlikely to be ready this year. Explanation The Ebola vaccine was approved by the FDA, not produced by the FDA. Inaccurate summary 2 The Ebola vaccine was approved by the FDA in 2019, but COVID-19 vaccine has not started clinical trials yet. Explanation The statement on COVID-19 vaccine is unfaithful, because its clinical trials have already started. Checkpoint: Please copy and paste the following code into the text box: 48a969ef-7eec-49b6-bb98-cb7f51489137 Copy/Paste the code above. Inaccurate summary 3 COVID-19 is unlikely to be ready in 2019, which gives more time to the FDA to finally approve the Ebola vaccine. Error in how multiple statements are linked together. Slow process in COVID-19 vaccine does not lead to the approval of Ebola. Figure A8: Screenshot of the qualification task for Task 2 (1/2). Explanation Task Found the articles betow and answer if each stannary is accurate-or natand in 1999. The status of the status of the status of the status of the College is the College in 1999 and the College in 1999 and the College is the College of the College incording to D. Alco in a middle offer with COC network for the results are them to them them them them the relatively and humanized "The set, but indicates the sounds at an virus ' ices, and on the countries of political processing and the countries of the countries and the sense of the sense Asia, no the research of the possibility of the content content. The research of the possibility to the cle Control. Services ys "Bernal to humans is twe" for, as welly. Frey are proposing for the world power per supp. Al load 100 people attraction with Fre sols to because between to any support sci Is the summary accurate? O IN O NO Article 2 Staremary 2 "Rose Bu Rivers" spokonst on the cover of the Saturday Evering Prot on May 29, 1043. Mary Devie Kaofe mos a 19-year-old singlore operation of the Sine Is the survivery accurate? O Tea O No Article 5 ol and the state of the state of the proper state of the state of the content of the content development of the state of the content development in the state of the state of Semmary 3 rly conglomenta Dallan Wanda brought 20 percent of Alerico Madel for E32.8m . Desil was arrounced in Fighteen but ratified after two EGMs . Dallan Winds hopes the desil will Is The summary accorated O NO Article 4 Sense ny in Porches Brahel botton of the which became . Can was associated on the failure usin, age, missage and cast of spain. Mod which was Hunda, with Twole ascord and Susaki is Is I'm summary accordin? O THE O NO Would you like to participate in our full annotation teak if you poss this qualitiestion teat? O N O N  Figure A9: Screenshot of the qualification task for Task 2 (2/2). ## Task Instructions Please follow the instructions carefully; we will review your HITs periodically and if we note any unusual responses you may be disqualified for future tasks. In addition, you will be asked to copy a randomly generated code into one text box in the middle of the example. If you do not pass this test, we may reject your response, Note: This full task is slightly different from the qualification task! In this task, you will read a news article and a reference summary for the article. The given reference summary is coherent, accurate, and has good coverage of the news article. After you finish reading, you will be asked to edit the reference summary to introduce ONE inaccuracy error. An inaccuracy error could be anything that is unfaithful to the original article in the sense that your edited summary contains anything that is not mentioned in the article or contradicts something in the article. Note that even if your edited summary is true according to your knowledge, as long as it is not mentioned in the article, the edited summary is regarded as containing inaccuracy errors. Note: There are NO constraints on how inaccuracy errors are generated in this task. Please DO NOT limit your type of edits to the examples shown below. In addition, punctuation errors in the reference summary should be ignored. For example, the additional white space before period: . ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS: Please do NOT write a summary from scratch, but make just ONE erroneous edit on top of the given summary. The edited summary with ONE inaccuracy error and the given summary should then contain similar amount of information about the article. In the following example, we present a source article, its reference summary, and a list of edited summaries with inaccuracy errors together with some explanations on why they are inaccurate. A source article The first vaccine for Ebola was approved by the FDA in 2019 in the US, five years after the initial outbreak in 2014. To produce the vaccine, scientists had to sequence the DNA of Ebola, then identify possible vaccines, and finally show successful clinical trials. Scientists say a vaccine for COVID-19 is unlikely to be ready this year, although clinical trials have already started. Original summary The Ebola vaccine was approved by the FDA in 2019, but COVID-19 vaccine is unlikely to be ready this year. Figure A10: Screenshot of the full task for Task 2 (1/2). .. Edited summary  Explanation Explanation Additional Criteria Please ensure that the text remains fluent after editing. Text that contains grammatical errors or other disfluencies may result in disqualification. Please also try to ensure that the introduced error is plausible and adheres to common sense. For instance, in the example above, given an edit "The Ebola vaccine was rejected by the FDA", the predicate "rejected" is plausible, since the FDA is responsible for approving and rejecting vaccines. Meanwhile, predicates such as the word "eaten" would be implausible, as the FDA is not a living organism and does not eat things. Edits that are consistently implausible may also result in disqualification.  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? In the Limitations section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? In the section of Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 3.1 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? CNN/DailyMail is distributed under the MIT license. We plan on releasing our dataset under the MIT license as well pending legal approval. The LICENSE will be provided alongside the dataset as a text file on GitHub when the paper is published. UPDATE AFTER REVIEW: We recently learned that the data we were using is distributed under an Apache 2.0 license instead of MIT. ✗ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? CNN/DailyMail is distributed under the MIT license. Our BUMP dataset is derived from CNN/DailyMail. We plan on releasing BUMP under the MIT license as well pending legal approval. The LICENSE will be provided alongside the dataset as a text file on GitHub when the paper is published. Therefore, the data collection and distribution of BUMP is consistent with the license in CNN/DailyMail. UPDATE AFTER REVIEW: We recently learned that the data we were using is distributed under an Apache 2.0 license instead of MIT. ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We manually checked all collected human annotations; see Section 3.2 and 3.3 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 3, and Appendix A and B ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Table 2 and its descriptions in Section 3.2 and 3.3 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 And 5 C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Not applicable. Left blank. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 4.1 ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Section 3 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Section 3, Appendix A and B ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section of Ethics Statement, and Appendix A.1 and B.1 ✗ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? The BUMP dataset is derived from CNN/DM. Attribution is provided in Section 3.1. Since CNN/DM is distributed under the MIT license (which allows modifications), we did not discuss with annotators on how their modified summaries will be used. UPDATE AFTER REVIEW: We recently learned that the data we were using is distributed under an Apache 2.0 license instead of MIT. ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? We used a review process internal to our organization with HCI research scientists. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Appendix A.1 and B.1

uppaal-etal-2023-fine

Is Fine-tuning Needed? Pre-trained Language Models Are Near Perfect for Out-of-Domain Detection

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.717

Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection is a critical task for reliable predictions over text. Fine-tuning with pre-trained language models has been a de facto procedure to derive OOD detectors with respect to in-distribution (ID) data. Despite its common use, the understanding of the role of fine-tuning and its necessity for OOD detection is largely unexplored. In this paper, we raise the question: is fine-tuning necessary for OOD detection? We present a study investigating the efficacy of directly leveraging pre-trained language models for OOD detection, without any model fine-tuning on the ID data. We compare the approach with several competitive fine-tuning objectives, and offer new insights under various types of distributional shifts. Extensive experiments demonstrate near-perfect OOD detection performance (with 0{\%} FPR95 in many cases), strongly outperforming the fine-tuned counterpart.

## Is Fine-Tuning Needed? Pre-Trained Language Models Are Near Perfect For Out-Of-Domain Detection Rheeya Uppaal1 Junjie Hu1,2 **Yixuan Li**1 1Department of Computer Sciences, 2Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics University of Wisconsin-Madison {uppaal, jhu, sharonli}@cs.wisc.edu ## Abstract Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection is a critical task for reliable predictions over text. Finetuning with pre-trained language models has been a *de facto* procedure to derive OOD detectors with respect to in-distribution (ID) data. Despite its common use, the understanding of the role of fine-tuning and its necessity for OOD detection is largely unexplored. In this paper, we raise the question: *is fine-tuning necessary for OOD detection*? We present a study investigating the efficacy of directly leveraging pre-trained language models for OOD detection, without any model fine-tuning on the ID data. We compare the approach with several competitive fine-tuning objectives, and offer new insights under various types of distributional shifts. Extensive evaluations on 8 diverse ID-OOD dataset pairs demonstrate nearperfect OOD detection performance (with 0% FPR95 in many cases), strongly outperforming its fine-tuned counterparts. We show that using distance-based detection methods, pretrained language models are near-perfect OOD detectors when the distribution shift involves a domain change. Furthermore, we study the effect of fine-tuning on OOD detection and identify how to balance ID accuracy with OOD detection performance. Our code is publically available1. ## 1 Introduction Despite recent successes, high-performing pretrained language models are still fragile under distribution shifts, making their applications to the real world challenging (Ribeiro et al., 2020). In most real-world settings, the train and test distributions are often not independent and identically distributed. Furthermore, test distributions are often non-stationary and can change over time. The problem of *out-of-distribution* (OOD) detection addresses the identification of anomalous data, enabling the model to abstain from prediction when it 1https://github.com/Uppaal/lm-ood is not supposed to. This is especially important for high-risk settings like financial and medical applications, where unreliable predictions could incur great costs (Ulmer et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). In literature, a *de facto* procedure is to fine-tune a pre-trained language model on the in-distribution (ID) data2, and then derive the OOD detector based on the adapted model (Zhou et al., 2021; Hendrycks et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021). The fine-tuned model is hypothesized to produce embeddings that are customized to the ID data. Thus, prior work focuses on the design of fine-tuning and expects the adapted representations to be more useful for OOD detection. Despite its common use, the understanding of the role of fine-tuning and its necessity for OOD detection is largely lacking in the field. Motivated by this, we revisit the common procedure and raise the unexplored question: *is finetuning necessary at all, for OOD detection*? To answer this question, we introduce a simple and effective procedure for OOD detection, which does not require any model fine-tuning on the ID data. Specifically, we explore distance-based metrics for detection, which measure the relative distances of samples in the representation space of a pre-trained language model. The operating hypothesis is that embeddings of ID samples are closer to each other than the OOD sample embeddings. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to explore distancebased OOD detection methods *directly on a pretrained language model*, rather than the fine-tuned models adopted in previous works. We show that our method based on a pre-trained language model achieves near-perfect performance in detecting out-of-domain shifts, favorably outperforming its fine-tuned counterparts. For example, for 20NewsGroups (ID) vs. RTE (OOD), OOD detection with the best fine-tuning loss (Khosla et al., 2020) yields an FPR95 of 24.8%, while a pre-2Note that the ID data is defined *w.r.t.* the downstream dataset of interest, not the pre-training data. 12813 trained language model can perfectly detect RTE as OOD with 0% FPR95. For comprehensive evaluations, we experiment on 8 diverse ID-OOD dataset pairs spanning semantic and background shifts, and show that the strong performance of using the pretrained model holds consistently. To better understand the strong performance, we further show that pre-trained models display strongly separated domain clusters, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The strong separation of domain clusters leads to the efficacy of distance-based OOD detection. Even further, we systematically compare different fine-tuning objectives, and interestingly observe that the performance of distance-based OOD detection declines over the course of fine-tuning across all objectives, despite the increase in ID classification accuracy. To this end, we provide new insights that early stopping (Yao et al., 2007) can be a promising solution, if one desires a good tradeoff between OOD detection and ID classification performance. Our contributions can be summarized as follows: 1. We propose a simple and effective method for zero-shot3 OOD detection, leveraging pretrained language models without fine-tuning on the ID data. Extensive experiments demonstrate its near-perfect performance (with 0% FPR95 in most cases), favorably outperforming its fine-tuned counterparts. 2. We conduct a comprehensive study to understand fine-tuning objectives and their impact on OOD detection. We offer new insights on their efficacy under various types of distribution shifts. 3. We perform qualitative and quantitative analysis on the embedding characteristics, explaining the strong performance of using a pretrained language model for OOD detection. ## 2 Preliminaries OOD Detection For a supervised multi-class classification task, the labeled training dataset Din = {(xi, yi)} N i=1 consists of samples from the joint distribution PX Y , where X is the input space and Y = {1, · · · , C} is the label space. Given a testtime sample x′, OOD detection aims to identify whether x′is in-distribution (ID) Pin or not, where Pin is the marginal of PX Y on X . Formally, we 3We use the term "zero-shot" to refer to a setting where no (ID or OOD) data is used to update the model parameters. denote the OOD detector as a binary function mapping G(x′) : *X → {*in, out}. Types of Distribution Shifts Arora et al. (2021) categorize OOD samples by the type of distribution shift they exhibit in NLP problems. According to Ren et al. (2019), the representations h(x) can be decomposed into two independent and disjoint components—*semantic features* and background features. Semantic features are discriminative and strongly correlated with labels for prediction, while background features contain population-level statistics and are invariant across labels. Based on the type of features in OOD samples, the distribution shift is categorized as *semantic shift* or *background shift*. An example of the semantic shift is the open-set classification problem that encounters novel classes at test time (Scheirer et al., 2012), where the semantic of x′is outside the support of Y. Background shift is often seen when the domain or style of texts changes in the input space X while Y remains the same (Pavlick and Tetreault, 2016). We comprehensively consider both types of shifts later in our experiments in Section 4. ## 3 Methodology In Section 3.1, we start by introducing OOD detection with pre-trained language models, which does not require any model fine-tuning on the ID dataset. We further consider OOD detection with model fine-tuning in Section 3.2. ## 3.1 Ood Detection With Pre-Trained Models We consider a pre-trained language model backbone h: X → R d, which encodes an input x to a d-dimensional text embedding h(x). The goal of OOD detection is to identify samples that do not belong to Pin. Note that the ID data is defined *w.r.t.* the downstream dataset Din of interest, instead of the pre-training data. Different from prior works, there is no fine-tuning/training on the ID samples, and the setup is thus labelled as zero-shot OOD detection. We formulate the zero-shot OOD detector as a binary function mapping: $$G_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x};h)={\begin{cases}\mathrm{in}&\mathrm{if}\ S(\mathbf{x};h)\geq\lambda\\ \mathrm{out}&\mathrm{if}\ S(\mathbf{x};h)<\lambda\end{cases}},\qquad(1)$$ where S(x; h) is the OOD scoring function, and λ is the threshold. By convention, λ is chosen so that a high fraction of ID data (*e.g.,* 95%) is above the threshold. We describe S(x; h) in details next. We employ distance-based methods for zeroshot OOD detection, which measure the relative distances of samples in representation space. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to use distance-based OOD detection *directly with a pretrained language model*, while previous works use models adapted to the ID data. The operating hypothesis is that the embeddings of ID samples are closer to each other than the OOD sample embeddings. Modeling the learned representation space as a mixture of multivariate Gaussians, Lee et al. (2018) used the Maximum Mahalanobis distance (Mahalanobis, 2018) to all class centroids as the score for OOD detection: $$\begin{array}{c}{{S_{\mathrm{Maha}}({\bf x};h)=\operatorname*{min}_{c\in{\mathcal V}}\left(h({\bf x})-\mu_{c}\right)^{\top}}}\\ {{\qquad\qquad\qquad\Sigma^{-1}\left(h({\bf x})-\mu_{c}\right),}}\end{array}$$ where Σ is the covariance matrix and µc is the mean embedding of class c. Both Σ and µc are estimated on the ID embeddings extracted from the pre-trained language model h(·). Using Mahalanobis distance for OOD detection requires some distributional assumptions on the representation space. This is circumvented through non-parametric density estimation using nearest neighbors (Sun et al., 2022). The distance between a query point and its k-th nearest neighbor in the ID data is used for OOD detection: $$S_{\mathrm{kNN}}(\mathbf{x},h)=-\|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{z}_{k}\|_{2},$$ where z and zk are the L2 normalized embeddings, for the query point x and its k-th nearest neighbor. In Section 5, we evaluate zero-shot OOD detection performance using both parametric (Maha) and non-parametric (KNN) distance functions. ## 3.2 Ood Detection With Fine-Tuning In contrast to the zero-shot OOD detection setup, an alternative strategy is to fine-tune the model on the ID dataset Din and then perform OOD detection *w.r.t.* the fine-tuned model. In what follows, we comprehensively consider three different fine-tuning objectives: (1) cross-entropy loss, (2) task-adaptive pretraining loss, and (3) supervised contrastive loss. Cross-Entropy (CE) The cross-entropy loss is widely used for training neural networks, making it an ideal baseline for our study. Given a pre-trained model, we fine-tune with the CE loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{CE}}={\frac{1}{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}-\log{\frac{e^{f_{y}(\mathbf{x}_{i};\theta)}}{\sum_{j=1}^{C}e^{f_{j}(\mathbf{x}_{i};\theta)}}}$$ where fy is the logit output corresponding to the ground truth label y, and θ is the parameterization of the neural network. Task-adaptive Pretraining (TAPT) Gururangan et al. (2020) show that multi-phase adaptive pretraining boosts downstream task performance of pre-trained language models. They introduce Task Adaptive Pre-Training (TAPT), which involves extending the unsupervised pre-training process (using the masked language modeling objective (Kenton and Toutanova, 2019)) with data for the downstream task, before fine-tuning to the same task using cross-entropy. TAPT improves generalization capabilities by providing a strong initialization for fine-tuning, and to the best of our knowledge, TAPT has not been used in the setting of OOD detection prior to our work. Supervised Contrastive Learning (SupCon) By leveraging information on labels and increasing the number of positive pairs during contrastive training, SupCon (Khosla et al., 2020) has been shown to consistently outperform cross-entropy on largescale classification tasks (Gunel et al., 2020). The objective encourages embeddings of a class to be highly separated from other classes, boosting the performance of OOD detection on text classification tasks (Zhou et al., 2021). Formally, $$\begin{array}{c}{{{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{SupCon}}=-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{1}{N|P(i)|}}}\\ {{\sum_{p\in P(i)}\log\frac{\exp(\mathbf{z}_{i}^{\top}\mathbf{z}_{p}/\tau)}{\sum_{a\in A(i)}\exp\left(\mathbf{z}_{i}^{\top}\mathbf{z}_{a}/\tau\right)},}}\end{array}$$ where P(i) is the set of anchor instances from the same class as xi, A(i) is the set of all anchor instances, ziis the L2 normalized sentence embedding for xi, and τ is the temperature. After fine-tuning, OOD detection is performed using a similar procedure as Equation 1, except that the scoring function S(x; h) is calculated using the fine-tuned model. While our primary focus is distance-based detection, we additionally consider two common output-based methods—maximum  Table 1: Settings of ID-OOD dataset pairs softmax probability (MSP) (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2017) and energy score (Liu et al., 2020). They derive OOD scores from the confidence or logits from the classification head of the model. ## 4 Experimental Setup Datasets We adopt the benchmark in Hendrycks et al. (2020) and Zhou et al. (2021), examining 9 diverse ID-OOD dataset pairs. Specifically, we use the IMDB dataset (Maas et al., 2011) and SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013) on sentiment analysis, the 20NewsGroups (20NG) dataset (Lang, 1995) on topic classification, the RTE (Wang et al., 2018) and MNLI (Williams et al., 2018) on natural language inference, the English side of Multi30k (Elliott et al., 2016) on machine translation, the cross-intent dataset CLINC150 (Larson et al., 2019), and the NewsCategory multiclass classification dataset (Misra, 2018). Details of the data preparation are described in Appendix A. With these datasets, we examine two main settings: *out-of-domain (OoD) shift* where ID and OOD examples come from different datasets (*i.e.*, domains), and *same-domain (SD) shift* where ID and OOD examples come from the same domain but have disjoint sets of classes. In the OoD setting, we further categorize the ID-OOD pairs into the semantic shift and background shift. Particularly, IMDB and SST-2 are both sentiment analysis datasets that have the same set of classes but consist of examples from different domains. In the same-domain setting, we split the NewsCategory dataset, where we make disjoint sets of classes as ID and OOD (Appendix A). Models We use RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), which is a commonly used pre-trained language model like BERT (Kenton and Toutanova, 2019). Both models have been used in prior work on OOD detection (Podolskiy et al., 2021; Hendrycks et al., 2020), but we choose RoBERTa as the diverse data it is pre-trained on has been shown to make it stronger for OOD detection (Zhou et al., 2021; Podolskiy et al., 2021; Hendrycks et al., 2020). We use embeddings of the beginning-of-sentence (BOS) token as the sentence representation, and compare this to alternate approaches in Appendix C. Following Zhou et al. (2021), we fine-tune RoBERTa-base on downstream datasets for 10 epochs. For SupCon, we use a joint objective with Cross Entropy, with weight α = 2 to the SupCon loss. For TAPT, we pre-train the model for 3 epochs on the ID data. For distance-based OOD detection, we use sentence embeddings from the penultimate layer. We fine-tune all layers using Adam, with batch size 4, learning rate 10−5, and weight decay 0.01. Further details of implementation and configurations are in Appendix G. Evaluation Metrics We report the following standard metrics: (1) the false positive rate (FPR95) of OOD samples when the true positive rate of ID samples is at 95%, (2) the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), (3) the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR), and (4) ID classification accuracy (ID ACC). ## 5 Results And Analysis 5.1 **Out-Of-Domain Detection With Pre-Trained** Language Models Is Near Perfect Table 2 shows the pre-trained model outperforming all its fine-tuned variants in the out-of-domain shift setting, and achieving near-perfect OOD detection on all ID-OOD pairs considered. In addition to comparisons with three fine-tuning objectives, we also compare with a competitive baseline proposed by Zhou et al. (2021), which fine-tunes a model with a novel contrastive objective. Taking 20NewsGroups (ID) vs. RTE (OOD) as an example, OOD detection with the best fine-tuning strategy (*i.e.*, SupCon) yields an FPR95 of 24.8%. In sharp contrast, zero-shot OOD detection using the pre-trained language model can perfectly detect RTE as OOD with **0% FPR95**. We investigate same-domain shift in-depth later in Section 5.3. Figure 1 sheds some light on the strong performance of pre-trained language models for out-ofdomain detection. In the leftmost figure, we observe that large pre-trained language models create separate domain clusters of sentence embeddings for ID and OOD data, matching the findings of Aharoni and Goldberg (2020). The strong separation of clusters boosts the performance of distance-based OOD detection. In contrast, fine-tuning induces a model to divide a single domain cluster into multiple class clusters. When a fine-tuned model encounters an OOD datapoint, it attempts to classify | KNN (non-parametric) | Mahalanobis (parametric) | | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------------------|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | ID→OOD Pair | Training | AUROC ↑ AUPR (In) ↑ AUPR (Out) ↑ FPR95 ↓ AUROC ↑ AUPR (In) ↑ AUPR (Out) ↑ FPR95 ↓ | | | | | | | | | Out-of-Domain: Semantic Shift Zhou et al. | 0.935 | 0.982 | 0.664 | 0.713 | 0.978 | 0.994 | 0.865 | 0.015 | | | CE | 0.973 | 0.991 | 0.923 | 0.155 | 0.981 | 0.994 | 0.942 | 0.087 | | | 20NG→SST-2 | TAPT | 0.969 | 0.990 | 0.903 | 0.169 | 0.981 | 0.994 | 0.939 | 0.088 | | SupCon | 0.969 | 0.990 | 0.909 | 0.180 | 0.980 | 0.994 | 0.943 | 0.094 | | | Pre-trained 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | | | | Zhou et al. | 0.935 | 0.929 | 0.950 | 0.718 | 0.964 | 0.955 | 0.978 | 0.224 | | | CE | 0.954 | 0.898 | 0.984 | 0.263 | 0.968 | 0.925 | 0.989 | 0.166 | | | 20NG→MNLI | TAPT | 0.950 | 0.887 | 0.982 | 0.263 | 0.964 | 0.910 | 0.988 | 0.175 | | SupCon | 0.954 | 0.899 | 0.984 | 0.265 | 0.970 | 0.932 | 0.990 | 0.156 | | | Pre-trained 1.000 | 0.999 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.999 | 1.000 | 0.000 | | | | Zhou et al. | 0.934 | 0.972 | 0.780 | 0.594 | 0.956 | 0.981 | 0.860 | 0.312 | | | CE | 0.922 | 0.958 | 0.858 | 0.410 | 0.945 | 0.970 | 0.902 | 0.285 | | | 20NG→RTE | TAPT | 0.898 | 0.942 | 0.822 | 0.455 | 0.919 | 0.952 | 0.869 | 0.352 | | SupCon | 0.923 | 0.959 | 0.858 | 0.393 | 0.952 | 0.975 | 0.914 | 0.248 | | | Pre-trained 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.999 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.999 | 0.000 | | | | Zhou et al. | 0.954 | 0.823 | 0.993 | 0.261 | 0.969 | 0.867 | 0.996 | 0.144 | | | CE | 0.951 | 0.804 | 0.993 | 0.292 | 0.961 | 0.817 | 0.995 | 0.206 | | | 20NG→IMDB | TAPT | 0.955 | 0.797 | 0.994 | 0.227 | 0.965 | 0.804 | 0.995 | 0.159 | | SupCon | 0.958 | 0.826 | 0.994 | 0.234 | 0.970 | 0.852 | 0.996 | 0.150 | | | Pre-trained 0.988 | 0.970 | 0.998 | 0.019 | 0.990 | 0.975 | 0.998 | 0.012 | | | | Zhou et al. | 0.932 | 0.977 | 0.708 | 0.851 | 0.980 | 0.993 | 0.888 | 0.005 | | | CE | 0.949 | 0.976 | 0.898 | 0.264 | 0.962 | 0.982 | 0.920 | 0.175 | | | 20NG→Multi30K | TAPT | 0.940 | 0.970 | 0.886 | 0.258 | 0.956 | 0.978 | 0.922 | 0.167 | | SupCon | 0.937 | 0.969 | 0.887 | 0.294 | 0.955 | 0.977 | 0.918 | 0.201 | | | Pre-trained 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | | | | Zhou et al. | 0.928 | 0.921 | 0.937 | 0.765 | 0.955 | 0.948 | 0.969 | 0.383 | | | CE | 0.939 | 0.877 | 0.977 | 0.339 | 0.957 | 0.905 | 0.984 | 0.234 | | | 20NG→NewsCategory | TAPT | 0.931 | 0.853 | 0.973 | 0.343 | 0.947 | 0.874 | 0.981 | 0.243 | | SupCon | 0.938 | 0.877 | 0.976 | 0.354 | 0.962 | 0.919 | 0.986 | 0.219 | | | Pre-trained 1.000 | 0.999 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.999 | 1.000 | 0.000 | | | | Zhou et al. | 0.952 | 0.992 | 0.601 | 0.388 | 0.988 | 0.998 | 0.870 | 0.005 | | | CE | 0.953 | 0.991 | 0.816 | 0.247 | 0.964 | 0.993 | 0.844 | 0.189 | | | 20NG→CLINC150 | TAPT | 0.944 | 0.989 | 0.769 | 0.296 | 0.959 | 0.992 | 0.830 | 0.213 | | SupCon | 0.940 | 0.988 | 0.761 | 0.343 | 0.957 | 0.992 | 0.821 | 0.230 | | | Pre-trained 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | | | | Out-of-Domain: Background Shift CE | 0.865 | 0.994 | 0.147 | 0.741 | 0.893 | 0.996 | 0.231 | 0.618 | | | IMDB → SST-2 | TAPT | 0.857 | 0.994 | 0.137 | 0.746 | 0.877 | 0.995 | 0.172 | 0.683 | | SupCon | 0.838 | 0.993 | 0.119 | 0.824 | 0.865 | 0.995 | 0.149 | 0.800 | | | Pre-trained 0.967 | 0.999 | 0.582 | 0.210 | 0.996 | 1.000 | 0.860 | 0.004 | | | | Same Domain Shift | CE | 0.925 | 0.922 | 0.933 | 0.465 | 0.877 | 0.815 | 0.912 | 0.467 | | NewsCategory-ID → | TAPT | 0.918 | 0.917 | 0.924 | 0.513 | 0.876 | 0.822 | 0.907 | 0.502 | | NewsCategory-OOD | SupCon | 0.925 | 0.922 | 0.933 | 0.465 | 0.877 | 0.815 | 0.912 | 0.467 | | Pre-trained 0.816 | 0.839 | 0.806 | 0.845 | 0.550 | 0.458 | 0.628 | 0.939 | | | it by mapping it to one of the existing ID class clusters. However, due to the distributional difference of the datapoint, the model is unable to perfectly map such a point and OOD points end up in the space between the ID class clusters most similar to it. Fine-tuned representations of the data thus make distance-based OOD detection more challenging. ## 5.2 What'S The Best Way Of Fine-Tuning For Ood Detection? While pre-trained models show strong out-ofdomain detection performance, they lack the classification ability on the ID dataset. This is expected since the models are not optimized for the downstream classification task. Thus, we raise the next question: *How can we fine-tune the model to accurately classify ID data while having reasonable* OOD detection performance? To answer this question, we comprehensively compare three fine-tuning objectives (*c.f.* Section 3.2), coupled with different OOD detection methods. Figure 2 depicts the effect of fine-tuning for OOD detection, for both semantic shift (top: 20NewsGroups vs. RTE) and background shift (middle: IMDB vs. SST-2). We highlight three key observations: (1) For distance-based methods,  the OOD detection performance worsens as the number of fine-tuning epochs increases, highlighting that early stopping is the key to strong OOD detection performance. For example, on 20NewsGroups (ID) vs. RTE (OOD), the model trained with TAPT for 1 epoch yields an AUROC of 95.5% (with Mahalanobis), which declines to 91.9% after 10 epochs of fine-tuning. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to show the importance of early stopping on fine-tuning language models for distance-based OOD detection. (2) Irrespective of the fine-tuning objectives, distance-based OOD detection methods consistently outperform outputbased methods, particularly MSP using softmax confidence (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2017) and energy score using logits (Liu et al., 2020). (3) Under semantic shift, out-of-domain detection using any of the three fine-tuning objectives displays similar performance on most ID-OOD pairs, bearing a large gap *w.r.t.* the pre-trained language model. Linear Probing is Suboptimal To perform classification while preserving the OOD detection performance of a pre-trained model, one possible solution is linear probing (Alain and Bengio, 2016), i.e., fine-tuning the classification head to the downstream task, while keeping the weights of the pretrained model backbone unchanged. However, in Figure 6 (Appendix), we show that linear probing does not yield competitive classification performance. In particular, we observe the strongest fine-tuning objective (TAPT) only obtains an ID accuracy of 61% after 100 epochs of fine-tuning, compared to full network fine-tuning where an accuracy of 86% is achieved in 10 epochs. ## 5.3 Investigation On Same-Domain Data Shifts In this subsection, we further investigate a more challenging type of data shift, where the test samples are from the *same domain* and thus can be distributionally very close to the ID data. This is in contrast to our evaluations in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, where the OOD samples are from different domains. To simulate same-domain shifts, we split the NewsCategory dataset into two sets with disjoint classes: one for ID, and another for OOD. The domain for both sets of classes is identical, while the semantic label sets are different. The allocation of classes is described in Table 5 (Appendix A). Figure 2 (bottom) shows the effect of fine-tuning for detection in this challenging setup of samedomain shifts. A salient observation is that finetuning consistently improves OOD detection performance, across all training objectives. To better understand why the pre-trained model underperforms in this case, in Figure 3, we plot feature representations, before and after fine-tuning, respectively. As seen in the left of Figure 3, when both ID and OOD data are sampled from the same domain, their embeddings are highly overlapping. This explains the suboptimal performance of directly employing embeddings from the pre-trained language model. In contrast, fine-tuning creates stronger separability between ID and OOD data. Table 3 quantitatively confirms that fine-tuning leads to stronger ID-OOD separability (*c.f.* Equation 2). ## 5.4 Deeper Look At Embedding Quality We quantitatively measure the embeddings produced by both pre-trained and fine-tuned language models. We adopt the following three metrics as   in Ming et al. (2023): (1) inter-class dispersion, which is the average cosine similarity among pairwise class centroids, (2) intra-class compactness, which measures the average cosine similarity between each feature embedding and its corresponding class centroid, and (3) ID-OOD separability, which functions as a measure of domain gap be- | Training | ID-OOD Separability ↑ | |-------------|-------------------------| | CE | 12.235 | | TAPT | 12.489 | | SupCon | 7.549 | | Pre-trained | 0.138 | tween ID and OOD. Formally, Disp.(↑) = 1C X C 1 C − 1 X C j=1 µi· µj1{i ̸= j} i=1 Comp.(↓) = 1C X C j=1 1 N X N i=1 zi· µj1{yi = j} Sep.(↑) = 1 |Dtest out | X x′∈Dtest out max j∈Y zx′ · µj x∈Dtest in max j∈Y zx · µj, (2) − 1 |Dtest in | X where µi is the average of embeddings for samples in class i, and z is the L2 normalized embedding. | ID | Objective | ID Accuracy ↑ Dispersion ↑ Compactness ↓ | | | |--------------|-------------|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------| | CE | 0.791 | 90.994 | 19.575 | | | 20NewsGroups | TAPT | 0.807 | 91.753 | 18.902 | | SupCon | 0.763 | 89.354 | 21.987 | | | Pre-trained | 0.053 | 1.514 | 4.326 | | | CE | 0.938 | 87.041 | 21.787 | | | IMDB | TAPT | 0.940 | 76.871 | 15.894 | | SupCon | 0.928 | 135.550 | 19.245 | | | Pre-trained | 0.500 | 0.636 | 6.058 | | | CE | 0.745 | 88.701 | 33.878 | | | NewsCategory | TAPT | 0.756 | 88.216 | 33.509 | | SupCon | 0.667 | 63.392 | 30.793 | | | Pre-trained | 0.050 | 3.086 | 9.210 | | Table 4 shows us that fine-tuning encourages the model to embed the data into well-separated class clusters with high inter-class dispersion (measured in angular degrees). In contrast, the pre-trained model represents the entire domain as a homogeneous cluster containing data from all classes. Interestingly, the pre-trained model displays the strongest compactness, indicating the closeness among ID data points in the original representation space. Note that the ID accuracy is random for the pre-trained model, which is expected. Dispersion and compactness monotonically improve through fine-tuning, further indicating that finetuning encourages the model to project the data into well-separated and compact class-wise clusters. However, Figure 4 shows us that while finetuning improves ID-OOD separability for the samedomain shift, it has less impact on out-of-domain shifts. (Actual values and results for other objectives can be found in Appendix D.) This trend also echos our previous observations in Section 5.2 and Section 5.3, on OOD detection performance. ## 6 Related Work The problem of OOD detection is different from domain adaptation (Ramponi and Plank, 2020), where a model is trained to generalize to a known target domain with the same label space. It is also different from selective prediction where a model abstains only when its confidence is low, irrespective of domain (El-Yaniv et al., 2010; Geifman and El-Yaniv, 2017; Kamath et al., 2020).  OOD Detection Methods A popular baseline is the calibration method Maximum Softmax Probability (MSP) (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2017), that directly uses maximum class probability produced by the logits of a trained classifier. However, predictive confidence has been shown to be undesirably high for OOD samples, making MSP ineffective (Nguyen et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2022; Shen et al., 2021). Liu et al. (2020) propose using energy score for OOD detection, which better distinguishes in- and out-of-distribution samples than softmax scores. ReAct (Sun et al., 2021) improves the energy score by introducing a rectified activation, which reduces model overconfidence in OOD data. Sun and Li (2022) utilize logit sparsification to enhance the vanilla energy score. More recently, detection methods that utilize distances of samples in representation space, have risen as a promising class of OOD detection methods in both the vision (Mandelbaum and Weinshall, 2017; Lee et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2022; Ming et al., 2023) and multi-modal (Ming et al., 2022) regimes. OOD Detection in NLP In the realm of NLP, model confidence using sentence embeddings has been shown to be a strong baseline with pre-trained transformers (Hendrycks et al., 2020; Desai and Durrett, 2020). Contrastive learning (Khosla et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021; Jin et al., 2022) minimizes intra-class variance, leading to stronger OOD detection, especially in low data regimes (Zeng et al., 2021), and with Mahalanobis distance (Zhou et al., 2021; Podolskiy et al., 2021). Detection performance has also been strengthened using data augmentation (Chen and Yu, 2021; Rawat et al., 2021), discriminative training (Zhan et al., 2021), mutual information maximization (Nimah et al., 2021), ensembles (Li et al., 2021) and prototypical networks in the few-shot setup (Tan et al., 2019). While most previous works perform fine-tuning on the ID data, we provide a comprehensive understanding on directly using the pre-trained model for zero-shot OOD detection. Pre-trained vs Fine-tuned Pre-trained language models have been shown to learn implicit sentence representations, forming unsupervised domain clusters (Aharoni and Goldberg, 2020). Andreassen et al. (2021) and Kumar et al. (2021) showed that fine-tuning distorts pre-trained features, worsening accuracy on OOD generalization. However, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to explore the effect of directly using pre-trained language models for *OOD detection*. Related to our work, Ming et al. (2022) show that pre-trained models can be used for zero-shot OOD detection. Different from ours, they perform OOD detection in the multi-modal space and calculate distances between the visual and textual representations. ## 7 Conclusion In this paper, we explore the simple and effective setting of zero-shot OOD detection with pre-trained langage models. Our work departs from prior literature that typically requires fine-tuning on the ID data. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that pre-trained models are near-perfect for OOD detection when the test data comes from a different domain. We additionally investigate the effect of fine-tuning on OOD detection, and identify strategies to achieve both strong OOD detection performance and ID accuracy. We perform both qualitative and quantitative analysis on the embedding characteristics, explaining the strong performance of our method. We hope our work will inspire future work to the strong promise of using pre-trained models for OOD detection. ## Ethical Considerations Our project aims to improve the reliability and safety of large language models, which can be fragile under distribution shift (Ribeiro et al., 2020) and incur great costs (Ulmer et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). By properly flagging anomalous data, our method can lead to direct benefits and societal impacts, particularly for safety-critical applications. From a user's perspective, our method can help improve trust in the language models. Our study does not involve any human subjects or violation of legal compliance. We do not anticipate any potentially harmful consequences to our work. As detailed in Appendix A, all of our experiments are conducted using publicly available datasets. Our code has been released for reproducibility. Through our study and releasing our code, we hope to raise stronger research and societal awareness toward the problem of out-of-distribution detection in natural language processing. ## Limitations We provide a comprehensive study on the efficacy of leveraging pre-trained language models for zeroshot OOD detection. Our method is thus limited to the setting of abstaining from prediction on all OOD data. This is more conservative than selective prediction, where the model must make predictions over as many ID & OOD points as possible while maintaining high accuracy. Despite this, OOD detection has lower risks to high-risk and safety-critical applications, where rare and anomalous data is more reasonably flagged to the expert. We believe our work provides new values and insights to the research community, especially on safe handling of distributional shifts when deploying pre-trained language models. As discussed in our Ethical Considerations, the OOD detection problem is of significant use in high-risk settings, and should be incorporated into production-level pipelines. However, for the same reason, the OOD detection models must be also reliable to avoid any risk to the downstream applications. ## Acknowledgements Li is supported in part by the AFOSR Young Investigator Award under No. FA9550-23-1-0184; UL Research Institutes through the Center for Advancing Safety of Machine Intelligence; Philanthropic Fund from SFF; and faculty research awards from Google, Meta, and Amazon. Hu is supported in part by a gift fund from ProtagoLabs. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or endorsements either expressed or implied, of the sponsors. We would like to thank Yifei Ming and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. ## References Roee Aharoni and Yoav Goldberg. 2020. Unsupervised domain clusters in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7747– 7763. Guillaume Alain and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.01644*. Anders Johan Andreassen, Yasaman Bahri, Behnam Neyshabur, and Rebecca Roelofs. 2021. The evolution of out-of-distribution robustness throughout fine-tuning. *Transactions on Machine Learning Research*. Udit Arora, William Huang, and He He. 2021. Types of out-of-distribution texts and how to detect them. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 10687–10701. Derek Chen and Zhou Yu. 2021. Gold: Improving out-of-scope detection in dialogues using data augmentation. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 429–442. Shrey Desai and Greg Durrett. 2020. Calibration of pre-trained transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 295–302. Ran El-Yaniv et al. 2010. On the foundations of noisefree selective classification. *Journal of Machine* Learning Research, 11(5). Desmond Elliott, Stella Frank, Khalil Sima'an, and Lucia Specia. 2016. Multi30k: Multilingual englishgerman image descriptions. In *Proceedings of the* 5th Workshop on Vision and Language, pages 70–74. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Simcse: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894–6910. Yonatan Geifman and Ran El-Yaniv. 2017. Selective classification for deep neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. Beliz Gunel, Jingfei Du, Alexis Conneau, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Supervised contrastive learning for pre-trained language model fine-tuning. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovic, Swabha ´ Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A Smith. 2020. Don't stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8342–8360. Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2017. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks. In *5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017,* Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. Dan Hendrycks, Xiaoyuan Liu, Eric Wallace, Adam Dziedzic, Rishabh Krishnan, and Dawn Song. 2020. Pretrained transformers improve out-of-distribution robustness. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 2744–2751. Di Jin, Shuyang Gao, Seokhwan Kim, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tür. 2022. Towards textual out-of-domain detection without in-domain labels. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 30:1386–1395. Amita Kamath, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2020. Selective question answering under domain shift. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5684– 5696. Jacob Devlin Ming-Wei Chang Kenton and Lee Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 4171–4186. Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. 2020. Supervised contrastive learning. *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems, 33:18661–18673. Ananya Kumar, Aditi Raghunathan, Robbie Matthew Jones, Tengyu Ma, and Percy Liang. 2021. Finetuning can distort pretrained features and underperform out-of-distribution. In *International Conference* on Learning Representations. Guillaume Lample and Alexis Conneau. 2019. Crosslingual language model pretraining. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07291. Ken Lang. 1995. Newsweeder: Learning to filter netnews. In *Machine Learning Proceedings 1995*, pages 331–339. Elsevier. Stefan Larson, Anish Mahendran, Joseph J Peper, Christopher Clarke, Andrew Lee, Parker Hill, Jonathan K Kummerfeld, Kevin Leach, Michael A Laurenzano, Lingjia Tang, et al. 2019. An evaluation dataset for intent classification and out-of-scope prediction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1311–1316. Kimin Lee, Kibok Lee, Honglak Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. 2018. A simple unified framework for detecting outof-distribution samples and adversarial attacks. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 31. Xiaoya Li, Jiwei Li, Xiaofei Sun, Chun Fan, Tianwei Zhang, Fei Wu, Yuxian Meng, and Jun Zhang. 2021. kfolden: k-fold ensemble for out-of-distribution detection-fold ensemble for out-of-distribution detection. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3102–3115. Weitang Liu, Xiaoyun Wang, John Owens, and Yixuan Li. 2020. Energy-based out-of-distribution detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:21464–21475. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Andrew Maas, Raymond E Daly, Peter T Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 142–150. Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis. 2018. On the generalized distance in statistics. Sankhya: The Indian ¯ Journal of Statistics, Series A (2008-), 80:S1–S7. Amit Mandelbaum and Daphna Weinshall. 2017. Distance-based confidence score for neural network classifiers. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.09844*. Yifei Ming, Ziyang Cai, Jiuxiang Gu, Yiyou Sun, Wei Li, and Yixuan Li. 2022. Delving into out-ofdistribution detection with vision-language representations. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. Yifei Ming, Yiyou Sun, Ousmane Dia, and Yixuan Li. 2023. How to exploit hyperspherical embeddings for out-of-distribution detection? In *Proceedings of the* International Conference on Learning Representations. Rishabh Misra. 2018. News category dataset. DOI: DOI: https://doi. org/10.13140/RG, 2(20331.18729). Anh Nguyen, Jason Yosinski, and Jeff Clune. 2015. Deep neural networks are easily fooled: High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 427–436. Iftitahu Nimah, Meng Fang, Vlado Menkovski, and Mykola Pechenizkiy. 2021. Protoinfomax: Prototypical networks with mutual information maximization for out-of-domain detection. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 1606–1617. Ellie Pavlick and Joel Tetreault. 2016. An empirical analysis of formality in online communication. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:61–74. Alexander Podolskiy, Dmitry Lipin, Andrey Bout, Ekaterina Artemova, and Irina Piontkovskaya. 2021. Revisiting mahalanobis distance for transformer-based out-of-domain detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13675–13682. Alan Ramponi and Barbara Plank. 2020. Neural unsupervised domain adaptation in nlp—a survey. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6838–6855. Mrinal Rawat, Ramya Hebbalaguppe, and Lovekesh Vig. 2021. Pnpood: Out-of-distribution detection for text classification via plug andplay data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00506. Jie Ren, Peter J Liu, Emily Fertig, Jasper Snoek, Ryan Poplin, Mark Depristo, Joshua Dillon, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. 2019. Likelihood ratios for outof-distribution detection. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 32. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of nlp models with checklist. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902–4912. Walter J Scheirer, Anderson de Rezende Rocha, Archana Sapkota, and Terrance E Boult. 2012. Toward open set recognition. *IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence*, 35(7):1757– 1772. Yilin Shen, Yen-Chang Hsu, Avik Ray, and Hongxia Jin. 2021. Enhancing the generalization for intent classification and out-of-domain detection in slu. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2443– 2453. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In *Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing*, pages 1631–1642. Yiyou Sun, Chuan Guo, and Yixuan Li. 2021. React: Out-of-distribution detection with rectified activations. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing* Systems. Yiyou Sun and Yixuan Li. 2022. Dice: Leveraging sparsification for out-of-distribution detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Yiyou Sun, Yifei Ming, Xiaojin Zhu, and Yixuan Li. 2022. Out-of-distribution detection with deep nearest neighbors. In *International Conference on Machine* Learning (ICML). PMLR. Ming Tan, Yang Yu, Haoyu Wang, Dakuo Wang, Saloni Potdar, Shiyu Chang, and Mo Yu. 2019. Out-ofdomain detection for low-resource text classification tasks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3566–3572. Dennis Ulmer, Lotta Meijerink, and Giovanni Cinà. 2020. Trust issues: Uncertainty estimation does not enable reliable ood detection on medical tabular data. In *Machine Learning for Health*, pages 341–354. PMLR. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353–355. Feng Wang and Huaping Liu. 2021. Understanding the behaviour of contrastive loss. In *Proceedings of* the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2495–2504. Hongxin Wei, Renchunzi Xie, Hao Cheng, Lei Feng, Bo An, and Yixuan Li. 2022. Mitigating neural network overconfidence with logit normalization. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). PMLR. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112–1122. Keyang Xu, Tongzheng Ren, Shikun Zhang, Yihao Feng, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Unsupervised outof-domain detection via pre-trained transformers. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1052– 1061. Yuan Yao, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Andrea Caponnetto. 2007. On early stopping in gradient descent learning. Constructive Approximation, 26(2):289–315. Zhiyuan Zeng, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Zijun Liu, Yanan Wu, Hong Xu, Huixing Jiang, and Weiran Xu. 2021. Modeling discriminative representations for out-of-domain detection with supervised contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 870–878. Li-Ming Zhan, Haowen Liang, Bo Liu, Lu Fan, XiaoMing Wu, and Albert YS Lam. 2021. Out-of-scope intent detection with self-supervision and discriminative training. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3521–3532. Oliver Zhang, Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, and Daniel L Rubin. 2021. Out of distribution detection for medical images. In *Uncertainty for Safe Utilization of* Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, and Perinatal Imaging, Placental and Preterm Image Analysis, pages 102–111. Springer. Wenxuan Zhou, Fangyu Liu, and Muhao Chen. 2021. Contrastive out-of-distribution detection for pretrained transformers. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1100–1111. ## A **Preparation Of Evaluation Benchmarks** For ID data, we use the train splits of the IMDB dataset on sentiment analysis (Maas et al., 2011), and the 20NewsGroups dataset on topic classification (Lang, 1995). For OOD data, we use the test splits of IMDB and 20NewsGroups, as well as the test splits from the sentiment classification dataset SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), Natural Language Inference datasets RTE (Wang et al., 2018) and MNLI (Williams et al., 2018), the English source side of machine translation dataset Multi30k (Elliott et al., 2016), and the cross intent dataset CLINC150 (Larson et al., 2019). For MNLI, we use both the matched and mismatched test sets. For Multi30k, we combine the flickr 2016 English test set, mscoco 2017 English test set, and filckr 2018 English test. For CLINC150, we use the 'out of scope' class as the test set. Inspired by Arora et al. (2021), we evaluate the detection performance under same-domain shift using the NewsCategory (Misra, 2018) dataset. We create two disjoint sets of classes, used as ID and OOD respectively. The domain for both sets of classes is identical, while the label sets differ. Notably, the NewsCategory dataset contains classes with similar semantics, for example 'Arts' and 'Arts & Culture'. To ensure the semantic distinction between the ID and OOD classes, we categorize semantically similar classes to be entirely in either ID or OOD sets. The allocation of classes is summarized in Table 5. The dataset also has a strong class imbalance, so we sample data points according to a multinomial distribution, following Lample and Conneau (2019). Figure 5 shows the class frequencies before and after sampling. More statistics about each dataset is available in Table 6. The listed datasets are intended for research purposes only. We do not make any commercial use of them. ## B Ablation On The Effect Of Layers The RoBERTa architecture consists of a backbone of multiple transformer layers, followed by a taskspecific head on top. For the classification task, this task-specific head consists of a dense layer followed by a classification projection layer. Zhou et al. (2021) use the features from after the dense layer for OOD detection. Instead, we use the features from before this layer. Table 7 shows the OOD detection performance using the representa- | ID Classes | OOD Classes | |---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Politics | Style & Beauty | | The Worldpost | Style | | Worldpost | Arts | | World News | Arts & Culture | | Impact | Culture & Arts | | Crime | Food & Drink | | Media | Taste | | Business | College | | Money | Education | | Fifty | Science | | Good News | Tech | | Queer Voices | Sports | | Black Voices | Wellness | | Women | Healthy Living | | Latino Voices | Travel | | Religion | Home & Living | | Weird News | Parenting Parents Weddings Divorce Entertainment Comedy Environment Green | Table 5: Division of classes in the NewsCategory dataset into disjoint ID and OOD sets. tions from after the dense layer. Table 7 displays a worse performance than our main results in Table 2, where the representations from *before* the dense layer are used. Using the representations from before the task-specific head also makes zero-shot OOD detection possible, where the task-specific head is randomly initialized, but weights from the backbone of the pre-trained model are used. ## C Generation Of Sequence Embeddings Our experiments in the main paper use sentence embeddings obtained from the beginning-of-sentence (BOS) token. This practice is standard for most BERT-like models, including RoBERTa, which we use for our experiments. Prior work has also shown that using the average of all token embeddings can lead to the formation of similar domain-based clusters (Aharoni and Goldberg, 2020). In this section, we compare this approach with the alternate approach of obtaining sequence embeddings as the average of all token embeddings in the sequence. Table 8 shows that both approaches yield almost identical performance on the OOD detection task. | Dataset | Domain | Language | License | Statistics | | | |--------------|-------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------|--------------|--------|--------| | Train | Val | Test | | | | | | IMDB | Large Movie Review Dataset | English | Unknown | 25,000 | 25,000 | 50,000 | | 20NewsGroups | News Articles | English | Unknown | 11314 | 2000 | 5532 | | SST-2 | Movie Reviews | English | cc-by-4.0 | 67349 | 872 | 1821 | | RTE | News and Wikipedia text | English | cc-by-4.0 | 2490 | 277 | 3000 | | MNLI | Open American National Corpus | English | cc-by-4.0 | 392702 | 19647 | 19643 | | Multi30k | Flickr30K, MSCOCO | English, German | Custom (research-only, non-commercial) | N/A | N/A | 2532 | | CLINC150 | Intent Classification | English | cc-by-3.0 | 15000 | 3000 | 1000 | | NewsCategory | HuffPost | English | CC0: Public Domain | 64856 | 4053 | 17968 | Table 6: Artifacts used in our study. The dataset statistics report the values used in our study. For example, the values of the NewsCategory dataset are reported after sampling. | KNN (non-parametric) | Mahalanobis (parametric) | | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------------|----------------------------|---------|-------------|--------------|---------|---------|-------------|--------------|---------| | ID→OOD Pair | Training | AUROC ↑ | AUPR (In) ↑ | AUPR (Out) ↑ | FPR95 ↓ | AUROC ↑ | AUPR (In) ↑ | AUPR (Out) ↑ | FPR95 ↓ | | Out-of-Domain: Semantic Shift CE | 0.967 | 0.989 | 0.907 | 0.193 | 0.973 | 0.991 | 0.918 | 0.154 | | | 20NG→SST-2 | TAPT | 0.962 | 0.988 | 0.885 | 0.226 | 0.971 | 0.990 | 0.911 | 0.164 | | SupCon | 0.962 | 0.987 | 0.889 | 0.230 | 0.971 | 0.990 | 0.917 | 0.159 | | | CE | 0.946 | 0.884 | 0.981 | 0.311 | 0.955 | 0.900 | 0.984 | 0.250 | | | 20NG→MNLI | TAPT | 0.942 | 0.875 | 0.980 | 0.314 | 0.952 | 0.887 | 0.983 | 0.253 | | SupCon | 0.946 | 0.884 | 0.981 | 0.311 | 0.957 | 0.904 | 0.985 | 0.246 | | | CE | 0.912 | 0.953 | 0.839 | 0.445 | 0.927 | 0.960 | 0.870 | 0.373 | | | 20NG→RTE | TAPT | 0.889 | 0.938 | 0.806 | 0.507 | 0.902 | 0.944 | 0.836 | 0.430 | | SupCon | 0.911 | 0.953 | 0.837 | 0.445 | 0.932 | 0.964 | 0.879 | 0.347 | | | CE | 0.943 | 0.786 | 0.992 | 0.339 | 0.951 | 0.790 | 0.993 | 0.279 | | | 20NG→IMDB | TAPT | 0.947 | 0.778 | 0.993 | 0.283 | 0.956 | 0.782 | 0.994 | 0.212 | | SupCon | 0.952 | 0.808 | 0.993 | 0.277 | 0.961 | 0.822 | 0.995 | 0.212 | | | CE | 0.941 | 0.972 | 0.882 | 0.296 | 0.950 | 0.976 | 0.895 | 0.254 | | | 20NG→Multi30K | TAPT | 0.932 | 0.967 | 0.870 | 0.313 | 0.942 | 0.971 | 0.891 | 0.247 | | SupCon | 0.928 | 0.964 | 0.869 | 0.331 | 0.940 | 0.970 | 0.892 | 0.274 | | | CE | 0.932 | 0.864 | 0.974 | 0.375 | 0.941 | 0.878 | 0.978 | 0.324 | | | 20NG→NewsCategory | TAPT | 0.924 | 0.844 | 0.971 | 0.384 | 0.933 | 0.852 | 0.975 | 0.326 | | SupCon | 0.929 | 0.861 | 0.973 | 0.396 | 0.944 | 0.886 | 0.979 | 0.319 | | | CE | 0.946 | 0.990 | 0.783 | 0.285 | 0.952 | 0.991 | 0.800 | 0.255 | | | 20NG→CLINC150 | TAPT | 0.935 | 0.987 | 0.739 | 0.343 | 0.945 | 0.989 | 0.774 | 0.280 | | SupCon | 0.932 | 0.987 | 0.732 | 0.372 | 0.943 | 0.989 | 0.770 | 0.319 | | | Out-of-Domain: Background Shift CE | 0.856 | 0.994 | 0.135 | 0.784 | 0.877 | 0.995 | 0.171 | 0.738 | | | IMDB →SST-2 | TAPT | 0.852 | 0.994 | 0.130 | 0.765 | 0.867 | 0.995 | 0.136 | 0.760 | | SupCon | 0.833 | 0.993 | 0.105 | 0.840 | 0.859 | 0.994 | 0.128 | 0.834 | | | Same Domain Shift NewsCategory-ID → | CE | 0.924 | 0.924 | 0.930 | 0.499 | 0.887 | 0.837 | 0.914 | 0.490 | | NewsCategory-OOD | TAPT | 0.920 | 0.920 | 0.925 | 0.520 | 0.881 | 0.830 | 0.910 | 0.501 | | SupCon | 0.927 | 0.925 | 0.935 | 0.464 | 0.878 | 0.817 | 0.912 | 0.475 | | Table 7: Comparison of fine-tuning objectives with distance-based methods, using the representations from after the dense layer and before the classification projection layer. ## D Detailed Performance Of Fine-Tuning For Ood Detection Table 9 summarizes the epoch-wise performance when fine-tuning on ID data, for the setting of OoD semantic shift. Table 10 shows the same for OoD background shift, while Table 11 shows this for same-domain (SD) shift. ## E Effect Of Temperature In Supcon Contrastive loss is shown to be a hardness-aware loss function, penalizing hard negative samples by reducing tolerance to them (Wang and Liu, 2021). The temperature τ has been shown to control the tolerance to negative samples. As seen in Figure 7, low temperature leads to a uniform distribution with high separability in the learnt embedding space, but this can reduce tolerance to semantically similar samples, breaking underlying semantic structure. The temperature must be set optimally to balance the 'uniformity-tolerance' trade-off, having some tolerance to semantically similar examples. When IMDB is ID, we find OOD detection to be optimal at τ = 0.7, since the two classes of the  OOD Embedding AUROC (kNN) ↑ FPR (kNN) ↓ AUROC (kNN) ↑ **FPR (kNN)** ↓ SST-2 Avg 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 BOS 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 MNLI Avg 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.000 BOS 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.000 RTE Avg 0.999 0.999 0.997 0.000 BOS 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.000 IMDB Avg 0.986 0.973 0.997 0.008 BOS 0.988 0.970 0.998 0.019 Multi30K Avg 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 BOS 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 NewsCategory Avg 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.000 BOS 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.000 CLINC150 Avg 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 BOS 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 dataset share semantic similarities. However, with the 20NewsGroups topic classification task, we find a lower value of τ = 0.1 to be optimal. This is because a larger number of ID classes requires a stronger uniformity in the learnt distribution, and the weaker semantic similarities between classes assures that this uniformity does not hurt performance. Tables 14, 16 and 15 show the effects of varying the temperature parameter τ in the SupCon loss, on OOD detection, in the settings of OoD semantic shift, OoD background shift and same-domain shift. All models are fine-tuned for 10 epochs. ## F Effect Of K Figure 8 shows us that k = 1 is consistently the optimal k for kNN, across fine-tuning objectives and distribution shifts. The detection per-   formance remains strong until k reaches the ID class size, which is between 400 and 600 for 20NewsGroups. After this point, the nearest neighbour for an ID and OOD point will both be outside the nearest ID class cluster, making both distances more comparable and harder to distinguish. With pre-trained models, the performance remains strong as there is no concept of class clusters and a single domain cluster is instead present. ## G Details On Implementation We use RoBERTa from the HuggingFace library4, and use PyTorch to train our models. Hyperparameter search is performed through a grid search. Apart from the default parameters in the trainer module from HuggingFace, our selected hyperparameters are listed in Table 13. 4https://github.com/huggingface/ transformers | Training | Epoch | ID Accuracy ↑ Dispersion ↑ Compactness ↓ ID-OOD | MSP | Energy | KNN | Mahalanobis | | | | | | | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|----------|--------|---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Separability ↑ AUROC ↑ FPR95 ↓ AUROC ↑ FPR95 ↓ AUROC ↑ FPR95 ↓ AUROC ↑ FPR95 ↓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 0.791 | 89.777 | 24.303 | 26.594 | 0.757 | 0.687 | 0.849 | 0.432 | 0.934 | 0.332 | 0.961 | 0.221 | | | 2 | 0.823 | 90.632 | 22.508 | 26.595 | 0.790 | 0.656 | 0.855 | 0.421 | 0.925 | 0.373 | 0.956 | 0.247 | | | 3 | 0.840 | 91.439 | 20.312 | 28.570 | 0.808 | 0.638 | 0.864 | 0.426 | 0.931 | 0.344 | 0.957 | 0.229 | | | 4 | 0.851 | 91.934 | 18.293 | 29.259 | 0.816 | 0.658 | 0.859 | 0.432 | 0.931 | 0.356 | 0.958 | 0.238 | | | CE | 5 | 0.843 | 91.643 | 17.757 | 29.247 | 0.808 | 0.672 | 0.854 | 0.450 | 0.928 | 0.367 | 0.953 | 0.243 | | 6 | 0.855 | 91.966 | 16.464 | 29.579 | 0.824 | 0.655 | 0.855 | 0.437 | 0.922 | 0.380 | 0.946 | 0.262 | | | 7 | 0.856 | 92.097 | 16.210 | 29.064 | 0.832 | 0.691 | 0.862 | 0.459 | 0.919 | 0.422 | 0.942 | 0.277 | | | 8 | 0.859 | 92.170 | 15.122 | 28.968 | 0.829 | 0.695 | 0.854 | 0.472 | 0.920 | 0.413 | 0.945 | 0.290 | | | 9 | 0.858 | 92.211 | 14.745 | 30.084 | 0.841 | 0.653 | 0.863 | 0.448 | 0.925 | 0.393 | 0.946 | 0.274 | | | 10 | 0.858 | 92.232 | 14.261 | 29.733 | 0.833 | 0.684 | 0.853 | 0.469 | 0.922 | 0.410 | 0.945 | 0.285 | | | 1 | 0.807 | 90.555 | 23.987 | 27.595 | 0.785 | 0.646 | 0.861 | 0.403 | 0.929 | 0.326 | 0.955 | 0.239 | | | 2 | 0.840 | 91.058 | 21.600 | 27.174 | 0.784 | 0.662 | 0.852 | 0.418 | 0.916 | 0.351 | 0.942 | 0.264 | | | 3 | 0.841 | 91.473 | 20.052 | 29.920 | 0.823 | 0.610 | 0.875 | 0.386 | 0.931 | 0.323 | 0.948 | 0.250 | | | 4 | 0.842 | 91.517 | 18.602 | 27.894 | 0.798 | 0.677 | 0.845 | 0.456 | 0.910 | 0.379 | 0.932 | 0.293 | | | TAPT | 5 | 0.851 | 91.766 | 17.315 | 27.091 | 0.814 | 0.680 | 0.849 | 0.473 | 0.909 | 0.395 | 0.928 | 0.313 | | 6 | 0.852 | 91.916 | 16.551 | 28.467 | 0.819 | 0.666 | 0.844 | 0.487 | 0.908 | 0.421 | 0.926 | 0.330 | | | 7 | 0.857 | 92.016 | 15.881 | 25.505 | 0.803 | 0.712 | 0.824 | 0.541 | 0.893 | 0.486 | 0.913 | 0.393 | | | 8 | 0.860 | 92.122 | 14.934 | 26.382 | 0.799 | 0.701 | 0.820 | 0.516 | 0.897 | 0.457 | 0.918 | 0.364 | | | 9 | 0.856 | 92.149 | 14.602 | 26.829 | 0.808 | 0.691 | 0.828 | 0.508 | 0.897 | 0.463 | 0.918 | 0.360 | | | 10 | 0.861 | 92.211 | 14.364 | 27.151 | 0.807 | 0.695 | 0.826 | 0.493 | 0.898 | 0.455 | 0.919 | 0.352 | | | 1 | 0.763 | 87.389 | 26.510 | 26.239 | 0.771 | 0.622 | 0.866 | 0.404 | 0.936 | 0.327 | 0.970 | 0.180 | | | 2 | 0.820 | 89.348 | 23.556 | 27.233 | 0.771 | 0.661 | 0.851 | 0.438 | 0.935 | 0.333 | 0.967 | 0.206 | | | 3 | 0.838 | 90.452 | 21.171 | 26.267 | 0.760 | 0.710 | 0.832 | 0.487 | 0.928 | 0.350 | 0.962 | 0.230 | | | 4 | 0.842 | 90.874 | 20.170 | 28.124 | 0.796 | 0.660 | 0.859 | 0.410 | 0.927 | 0.343 | 0.960 | 0.206 | | | SupCon | 5 | 0.851 | 91.295 | 18.608 | 28.033 | 0.815 | 0.649 | 0.865 | 0.412 | 0.921 | 0.382 | 0.954 | 0.272 | | 6 | 0.852 | 91.342 | 18.493 | 30.519 | 0.832 | 0.616 | 0.883 | 0.370 | 0.934 | 0.304 | 0.960 | 0.206 | | | 7 | 0.855 | 91.736 | 17.224 | 28.144 | 0.818 | 0.711 | 0.863 | 0.448 | 0.922 | 0.375 | 0.954 | 0.248 | | | 8 | 0.853 | 91.828 | 16.390 | 28.809 | 0.825 | 0.676 | 0.863 | 0.441 | 0.921 | 0.386 | 0.950 | 0.253 | | | 9 | 0.857 | 91.977 | 15.999 | 28.812 | 0.832 | 0.666 | 0.869 | 0.452 | 0.922 | 0.390 | 0.952 | 0.247 | | | 10 | 0.862 | 92.016 | 15.624 | 28.713 | 0.833 | 0.683 | 0.869 | 0.447 | 0.923 | 0.393 | 0.952 | 0.248 | | Table 9: Effect of fine-tuning by various objectives on OOD detection performance. With 20NewsGroups as ID and RTE as OOD, this ID-OOD pair exhibits a out-of-domain semantic shift. Training Epoch ID Accuracy ↑ Dispersion ↑ Compactness ↓ **ID-OOD MSP Energy KNN Mahalanobis** Separability ↑ AUROC ↑ FPR95 ↓ AUROC ↑ FPR95 ↓ AUROC ↑ FPR95 ↓ AUROC ↑ **FPR95** ↓ 1 0.938 87.041 21.787 8.437 0.699 0.868 0.675 0.873 0.894 0.432 0.951 0.254 2 0.937 81.117 20.439 5.936 0.677 0.894 0.676 0.921 0.896 0.429 0.947 0.295 3 0.937 97.130 18.534 10.150 0.767 0.852 0.765 0.856 0.866 0.539 0.931 0.344 4 0.938 99.677 16.615 11.517 0.735 0.841 0.746 0.839 0.865 0.613 0.901 0.490 CE 5 0.927 114.249 15.839 11.704 0.719 0.881 0.734 0.882 0.850 0.625 0.896 0.478 6 0.936 111.093 15.514 10.819 0.743 0.853 0.748 0.854 0.831 0.671 0.886 0.541 7 0.938 122.309 14.283 14.760 0.745 0.829 0.752 0.826 0.860 0.679 0.889 0.571 8 0.938 124.571 14.686 15.711 0.784 0.811 0.793 0.812 0.872 0.674 0.899 0.556 9 0.941 130.242 13.908 16.455 0.787 0.805 0.798 0.806 0.872 0.713 0.898 0.596 10 0.939 130.285 14.314 15.770 0.781 0.813 0.794 0.813 0.865 0.741 0.893 0.618 1 0.940 76.871 15.894 7.455 0.733 0.830 0.708 0.838 0.902 0.414 0.966 0.166 2 0.943 82.230 15.106 10.080 0.805 0.808 0.803 0.820 0.918 0.418 0.960 0.242 3 0.937 89.350 14.646 10.831 0.814 0.782 0.810 0.789 0.867 0.650 0.916 0.513 4 0.938 100.884 13.629 11.705 0.810 0.792 0.802 0.795 0.866 0.644 0.898 0.583 TAPT 5 0.940 116.726 12.179 12.610 0.790 0.820 0.781 0.820 0.863 0.679 0.887 0.595 6 0.940 117.262 11.048 11.496 0.770 0.829 0.773 0.831 0.861 0.641 0.890 0.533 7 0.940 119.857 10.796 13.009 0.789 0.806 0.789 0.810 0.870 0.634 0.901 0.519 8 0.942 127.375 10.332 14.030 0.808 0.799 0.811 0.797 0.859 0.680 0.875 0.613 9 0.944 134.293 8.886 14.992 0.787 0.792 0.791 0.790 0.859 0.738 0.881 0.682 10 0.943 134.601 9.060 15.340 0.797 0.794 0.801 0.795 0.857 0.746 0.877 0.683 1 0.928 135.550 19.245 11.282 0.669 0.869 0.667 0.876 0.855 0.600 0.930 0.381 2 0.927 133.438 18.591 10.494 0.682 0.865 0.674 0.891 0.809 0.592 0.903 0.423 3 0.929 148.985 13.544 9.218 0.708 0.872 0.698 0.882 0.807 0.696 0.876 0.621 4 0.937 158.041 8.588 12.908 0.742 0.842 0.736 0.842 0.846 0.726 0.884 0.666 SupCon 5 0.935 161.662 7.455 13.168 0.711 0.854 0.725 0.853 0.849 0.711 0.876 0.639 6 0.937 163.736 6.264 11.734 0.752 0.865 0.732 0.865 0.849 0.742 0.877 0.698 7 0.936 164.397 5.306 9.679 0.688 0.868 0.678 0.868 0.849 0.775 0.877 0.744 8 0.938 167.184 4.434 9.826 0.749 0.850 0.726 0.852 0.842 0.793 0.870 0.774 9 0.938 167.316 4.306 8.397 0.727 0.858 0.745 0.859 0.841 0.815 0.868 0.787 10 0.938 167.586 4.182 8.259 0.720 0.851 0.736 0.851 0.838 0.824 0.865 0.800 Computations The RoBERTa base model has approximately 125 million parameters, including those of the classification head. On a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU, training the model for 10 epochs takes approximately 812 hours, and OOD detection for a single dataset takes approximately 15 minutes. Over the scale of our experiments, we have used about 200 hours of GPU training time. Multiple Runs Following the protocol in Arora et al. (2021), we report results over a single run. Training Epoch ID Accuracy ↑ Dispersion ↑ Compactness ↓ **ID-OOD MSP Energy KNN Mahalanobis**   Separability ↑ AUROC ↑ FPR95 ↓ AUROC ↑ FPR95 ↓ AUROC ↑ FPR95 ↓ AUROC ↑ **FPR95** ↓ 1 0.745 86.386 38.342 13.311 0.739 0.794 0.810 0.705 0.927 0.481 0.829 0.626 2 0.804 87.198 35.562 14.676 0.733 0.787 0.810 0.692 0.929 0.475 0.847 0.609 3 0.842 89.052 33.008 17.263 0.749 0.770 0.819 0.636 0.934 0.446 0.867 0.547 4 0.860 89.508 30.364 18.668 0.750 0.780 0.822 0.629 0.933 0.446 0.878 0.520 CE 5 0.872 91.260 29.191 18.844 0.794 0.752 0.842 0.603 0.927 0.473 0.872 0.525 6 0.878 90.918 27.667 19.017 0.798 0.736 0.834 0.607 0.921 0.495 0.865 0.515 7 0.884 91.440 25.515 21.154 0.821 0.706 0.855 0.549 0.927 0.469 0.885 0.475 8 0.888 91.601 24.952 21.588 0.830 0.700 0.858 0.555 0.925 0.500 0.885 0.475 9 0.890 91.885 24.063 21.728 0.837 0.693 0.862 0.548 0.924 0.499 0.884 0.474 10 0.890 91.969 23.580 22.184 0.844 0.676 0.866 0.541 0.924 0.489 0.887 0.479 1 0.756 85.080 38.572 13.219 0.737 0.800 0.794 0.750 0.924 0.500 0.832 0.631 2 0.825 87.712 35.636 15.552 0.734 0.782 0.811 0.678 0.928 0.493 0.854 0.587 3 0.852 89.502 33.618 18.240 0.780 0.728 0.835 0.609 0.933 0.438 0.874 0.508 4 0.874 89.802 31.870 18.473 0.777 0.754 0.828 0.601 0.926 0.463 0.869 0.523 TAPT 5 0.886 91.409 29.624 18.564 0.792 0.737 0.830 0.830 0.917 0.518 0.855 0.573 6 0.882 91.537 28.103 19.632 0.812 0.723 0.841 0.587 0.918 0.523 0.863 0.531 7 0.891 91.683 26.551 20.700 0.823 0.711 0.853 0.559 0.924 0.486 0.875 0.503 8 0.889 91.731 25.830 20.536 0.829 0.694 0.851 0.574 0.918 0.515 0.869 0.524 9 0.888 91.874 25.309 21.490 0.835 0.683 0.858 0.563 0.920 0.494 0.878 0.489 10 0.890 91.969 24.302 21.409 0.839 0.686 0.858 0.556 0.918 0.513 0.875 0.502 1 0.667 69.588 36.713 9.288 0.734 0.796 0.786 0.726 0.922 0.510 0.820 0.656 2 0.750 75.252 34.277 11.627 0.748 0.742 0.808 0.669 0.926 0.496 0.827 0.619 3 0.803 79.054 31.839 13.914 0.738 0.771 0.806 0.674 0.935 0.437 0.856 0.561 4 0.822 82.853 29.858 15.612 0.741 0.769 0.807 0.652 0.931 0.445 0.856 0.555 SupCon 5 0.847 84.920 28.296 17.149 0.748 0.774 0.803 0.638 0.929 0.452 0.863 0.520 6 0.868 88.327 26.281 18.311 0.774 0.757 0.808 0.637 0.923 0.470 0.863 0.524 7 0.869 89.118 24.956 19.524 0.790 0.747 0.823 0.587 0.926 0.462 0.872 0.500 8 0.882 89.527 24.449 20.277 0.794 0.722 0.827 0.584 0.927 0.449 0.874 0.471 9 0.884 90.408 23.481 20.775 0.813 0.711 0.836 0.581 0.924 0.473 0.873 0.467 10 0.884 90.487 23.106 21.220 0.821 0.697 0.842 0.568 0.925 0.465 0.877 0.465  Table 12: Comparison of OOD detection performance of pre-trained and fine-tuned models, averaged over 3 runs. | KNN(non-parametric) | Mahalanobis (parametric) | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|---------|-------------|--------------|---------|---------|-------------|--------------|---------| | ID→OOD Pair | Training | AUROC ↑ | AUPR (In) ↑ | AUPR (Out) ↑ | FPR95 ↓ | AUROC ↑ | AUPR (In) ↑ | AUPR (Out) ↑ | FPR95 ↓ | | Out-of-Domain: Semantic Shift 20NG→SST-2 CE 0.973 | 0.991 | 0.923 | 0.155 | 0.981 | 0.994 | 0.942 | 0.087 | | | | TAPT | 0.969 | 0.990 | 0.903 | 0.169 | 0.981 | 0.994 | 0.939 | 0.088 | | | SupCon | 0.969 | 0.990 | 0.909 | 0.180 | 0.980 | 0.994 | 0.943 | 0.094 | | | Pre-trained | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | | | 20NG→RTE | CE | 0.922 | 0.958 | 0.858 | 0.410 | 0.945 | 0.970 | 0.902 | 0.285 | | TAPT | 0.898 | 0.942 | 0.822 | 0.455 | 0.919 | 0.952 | 0.869 | 0.352 | | | SupCon | 0.923 | 0.959 | 0.858 | 0.393 | 0.952 | 0.975 | 0.914 | 0.248 | | | Pre-trained | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.999 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.999 | 0.000 | | | Hyperparameter | Value | |------------------------------------------|----------------| | Batch size | 4 | | Learning rate | 1e-5 | | Weight decay | 0.01 | | Maximum sequence length | 256 | | Number of pre-training epochs (for TAPT) | 3 | | Contrastive loss weight (for SupCon) | 2.0 | | CE loss weight (for SupCon) | 1.0 | | Temperature (for SupCon) | 0.1 or 0.7 (∗) | τ **ID Acc. MSP Energy KNN Mahalanobis** AUROC↑ FPR95↓ AUROC↑ FPR95↓ **AUROC**↑ FPR95 **AUROC**↑ FPR95↓ 0.1 0.851 0.830 0.662 0.868 0.413 0.913 0.413 0.930 0.349 0.2 0.850 0.826 0.635 0.851 0.422 0.910 0.426 0.932 0.316 0.3 0.855 0.839 0.650 0.864 0.447 0.913 0.448 0.933 0.342 0.4 0.853 0.817 0.671 0.836 0.486 0.905 0.470 0.925 0.373 0.5 0.853 0.822 0.645 0.844 0.441 0.904 0.434 0.921 0.347 0.6 0.852 0.816 0.649 0.836 0.475 0.901 0.453 0.918 0.364 0.7 0.853 0.805 0.683 0.822 0.518 0.887 0.495 0.903 0.417 0.8 0.854 0.805 0.673 0.827 0.506 0.903 0.468 0.920 0.394 0.9 0.854 0.818 0.668 0.840 0.483 0.902 0.483 0.920 0.399 1 0.853 0.799 0.706 0.814 0.509 0.894 0.489 0.912 0.400 However, in Table 12 we show results of a subset of experiments averaged over 3 runs. There is no significant difference between the results in Table 12 and Table 2, indicating that our experiments are stable across runs. Therefore, for the sake of computational resources and time, we stick to the single-run practice in our experiments. τ **ID Acc. MSP Energy KNN Mahalanobis** AUROC↑ FPR95↓ AUROC↑ FPR95↓ **AUROC**↑ FPR95 **AUROC**↑ FPR95↓ 0.1 0.939 0.788 0.833 0.728 0.836 0.842 0.750 0.866 0.750 0.2 0.940 0.682 0.850 0.642 0.852 0.819 0.812 0.844 0.796 0.3 0.941 0.725 0.835 0.732 0.834 0.832 0.814 0.856 0.792 0.4 0.939 0.751 0.859 0.721 0.861 0.822 0.835 0.845 0.812 0.5 0.940 0.784 0.842 0.758 0.837 0.826 0.825 0.849 0.796 0.6 0.939 0.768 0.818 0.719 0.820 0.829 0.797 0.855 0.776 0.7 0.938 0.720 0.851 0.736 0.851 0.833 0.833 0.859 0.834 0.8 0.940 0.775 0.828 0.651 0.826 0.823 0.820 0.841 0.806 0.9 0.939 0.757 0.891 0.652 0.889 0.861 0.829 0.876 0.811 1 0.939 0.738 0.857 0.748 0.857 0.809 0.835 0.840 0.822 Table 15: Effect of the temperature τ in SupCon finetuning, on OOD detection, for OoD background shift (IMDB→SST-2). τ **ID Acc. MSP Energy KNN Mahalanobis** AUROC↑ FPR95↓ AUROC↑ FPR95↓ **AUROC**↑ FPR95 **AUROC**↑ FPR95↓ 0.1 0.888 0.817 0.700 0.842 0.570 0.927 0.470 0.877 0.478 0.2 0.885 0.825 0.681 0.835 0.592 0.922 0.509 0.878 0.510 0.3 0.879 0.802 0.733 0.817 0.600 0.922 0.502 0.866 0.525 0.4 0.889 0.815 0.670 0.809 0.594 0.922 0.522 0.874 0.524 0.5 0.822 0.706 0.818 0.749 0.747 0.913 0.576 0.821 0.662 0.6 0.890 0.794 0.713 0.796 0.641 0.919 0.561 0.871 0.563 0.7 0.891 0.811 0.694 0.804 0.609 0.921 0.534 0.876 0.538 0.8 0.892 0.814 0.697 0.812 0.602 0.922 0.534 0.879 0.525 0.9 0.847 0.730 0.798 0.747 0.714 0.909 0.606 0.818 0.677 1 0.888 0.817 0.706 0.819 0.611 0.920 0.534 0.875 0.541 ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations section in end of main paper. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethical Considerations and Limitations sections in end of main paper. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 contains all our main claims. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 and Appendix A ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix A ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Appendix A ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We do not make use of any sensitive data, so there is no requirement to anonymize it. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix A ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix A ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix G The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4 and Appendix G ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Appendix G ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix G D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

chen-etal-2023-unisumm

{U}ni{S}umm and {S}umm{Z}oo: Unified Model and Diverse Benchmark for Few-Shot Summarization

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.718

The high annotation costs and diverse demands of various summarization tasks motivate the development of few-shot summarization. However, despite the emergence of many summarization tasks and datasets, the current training paradigm for few-shot summarization systems ignores potentially shareable knowledge in heterogeneous datasets. To this end, we propose UniSumm, a unified few-shot summarization model pre-trained with multiple summarization tasks and can be prefix-tuned to excel at any few-shot summarization task. Meanwhile, to better evaluate few-shot summarizers, under the principles of diversity and robustness, we assemble and release a new benchmark SummZoo. It consists of 8 summarization tasks with multiple sets of few-shot samples for each task, covering diverse domains. Experimental results and analysis show that UniSumm outperforms strong baselines by a large margin across all sub-tasks in SummZoo under both automatic and human evaluations and achieves comparable results in human evaluation compared with a GPT-3.5 model.

# Unisumm And Summzoo: Unified Model And Diverse Benchmark For Few-Shot Summarization Yulong Chen1,2 ∗ Yang Liu3 † Ruochen Xu3 **Ziyi Yang**3 Chenguang Zhu3 Michael Zeng3 **Yue Zhang**2,4 1 Zhejiang University 2 Westlake University 3 Microsoft Research 4 Westlake Institute for Advanced Study {chenyulong, zhangyue}@westlake.edu.cn yaliu10@microsoft.com ## Abstract The high annotation costs and diverse demands of various summarization tasks motivate the development of few-shot summarization. However, despite the emergence of many summarization tasks and datasets, the current training paradigm for few-shot summarization systems ignores potentially shareable knowledge in heterogeneous datasets. To this end, we propose UNISUMM, a unified few-shot summarization model pre-trained with multiple summarization tasks and can be prefix-tuned to excel at any few-shot summarization task. Meanwhile, to better evaluate few-shot summarizers, under the principles of diversity and robustness, we assemble and release a new benchmark SUMMZOO. It consists of 8 summarization tasks with multiple sets of few-shot samples for each task, covering diverse domains. Experimental results and analysis show that UNISUMM outperforms strong baselines by a large margin across all sub-tasks in SUMMZOO under both automatic and human evaluations and achieves comparable results in human evaluation compared with a GPT-3.5 model. ## 1 **Introduction** There has been a recent surge of interest in summarizers based on large pre-trained language models (PLMs) (Liu and Lapata, 2019; Yang et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023), where various summarization tasks (the term *task* later in this paper refers to a specific summarization task, e.g., query-focused meeting summarization, which is usually associated with a corresponding dataset, e.g., QMSum, unless otherwise specified.) have been proposed to meet different practical demands, such as comprehending different inputs (e.g., news (Fabbri et al., 2019) and dialogue (Zhong et al., 2022a)) and generating different outputs (e.g., headlines (Zhang and ∗Yulong Chen completed this work during his internship at Microsoft. †Yang Liu is the corresponding author.  Tetreault, 2019) and paragraphs (Perez-Beltrachini and Lapata, 2021)). Because annotating gold summaries for newly-proposed summarization tasks is costly (Sen et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2022), fewshot summarization, the task of building a model for a specific summarization scenario using very limited ground-truth data (Chen and Shuai, 2021), has gained increasing attention from the research community (Fabbri et al., 2021; Logan IV et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022b; He et al., 2022). Recently, prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) has established strong baselines on many few-shot natural language generation tasks, including summarization. The main idea is to extract knowledge from PLMs by prepending and tuning additional parameters (prefixes) before each layer of the PLM. Work has been done to improve the performance by designing more sophisticated prefixes (Ghazvininejad et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022b). Despite being effective, PLMs can have limited summarization knowledge due to the salient gap between pre-training objectives (e.g., language modeling) and summarization objectives (Aribandi et al., 2022). In addition, existing summarization datasets can provide relevant knowledge to newly-proposed summarization tasks, and therefore benefit sum12833 marization tasks, especially under the few-shot scenario. However, existing work tends to tune PLMs directly on a new task, without exploiting cross-task knowledge from summarization datasets, which may limit the generalization and adaptation abilities of models (Zhong et al., 2019; Chen and Yang, 2021; Fang et al., 2022). We address these issues by proposing a unified few-shot summarization framework, UNISUMM. The idea is to combine multi-task pre-training (Chen and Shuai, 2021) on existing summarization datasets with few-shot prefixtuning (Li and Liang, 2021) on target tasks. To this end, we first build a multi-task model based on a Transformer-based language model as the backbone and equip it with task-specific prefix vectors, and then pre-train the multi-task model on diverse summarization datasets. In this stage, we optimize the summarization model together with task-specific prefixes and also a *universal prefix*, using an *asymmetrical weight decay* strategy. Using prefixes in the multi-task pre-training stage leads to two advantages: First, the mixture of shared summarization parameters and unique task-specific parameters helps to leverage natural benefits across datasets (Ruder, 2017). Second, the pre-trained prefixes can be tuned to serve as a knob for the second stage of prefix-tuning on unseen tasks. When facing an unseen few-shot summarization task, we freeze the multi-task learned backbone model and use the universal prefix as initialization for prefix-tuning. A data obstacle for few-shot summarization research is the lack of a benchmark for fair comparison. Previous studies either focus on one type of data, e.g., news text (Liu et al., 2022b), or train their systems on non-public few-shot samples. However, because few-shot models can be highly sensitive to training data, the selection of different few-shot samples in different papers can lead to ambiguous comparisons (a.k.a. *Sample Selection* Bias (Cortes et al., 2008)). To address these issues, we assemble and release a new few-shot summarization benchmark, SUMMZOO, following two principles, namely *diversity of tasks* and *robustness of evaluation*. SUMMZOO collects summarization data from 8 existing datasets, which are diverse in terms of domain (news, academic papers, meetings, etc.), format (single-document and multi-document), and length on both source and target sides. For more robust evaluation, for each task, SUMMZOO provides 5 different (randomly sampled) few-shot training sets, and requires all systems to report their averaged results. Finally, SUMMZOO includes 10-shot and 100-shot settings. We compare UNISUMM against several strong baselines, including a GPT-3.5 model (text-davinci-002) (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022), on SUMMZOO and conduct thorough analysis. Experimental results of automatic evaluation metrics show that UNISUMM outperforms baselines across all sub-stasks and human evaluation shows that UNISUMM achieves better performance than baselines of similar sizes and comparable performance compared with text-davinci-002. Additionally, UNISUMM is empirically found to be more stable and robust when facing different few-shot samples. Analysis shows that combining multi-task pre-training and few-shot prefix-tuning is essential to the performance of UNISUMM and other techniques, such as universal prefix and asymmetrical weight decay strategy, can all improve its generalization ability. We release our code, model and benchmark at https://github.com/microsoft/UniSumm. ## 2 **Related Work** Few-shot Summarization A critical challenge for neural summarizers is that they are data-hungry and require large-scale annotated data. To alleviate the data sparsity issue, Fabbri et al. (2021) extract characteristics of the target dataset and build pseudo summaries from the Wikipedia corpus. Small plug-in networks (Bražinskas et al., 2020) are injected into PLMs to predict the properties of the target dataset with only a small amount of labeled instances. To close the gap between pretraining and fine-tuning, Yu et al. (2021) propose a second stage of pre-training before fine-tuning with large-scale generative models. Such challenges of summarization have also been explored in the cross-lingual setting (Wang et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022b). Although transfer learning methods make use of external data, one still needs to carefully select source domains and tasks to avoid negative transfer (Gururangan et al., 2020; Pilault et al., 2020). Compared with them, UNISUMM can be easily prefix-tuned to any target tasks without the effort of building large pseudo data or selecting relevant data. To our knowledge, we are the first to combine prefix-tuning and multi-task learning for few-shot summarization, showing very positive  ## Results. Existing few-shot summarization evaluation suffers from two data-related problems. First, previous studies usually focus on only one type of summarization tasks in their experiments (Bražinskas et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022b). Thus, it is difficult to evaluate their generalization ability. Second, the few-shot settings and selections of few-shot samples are miscellaneous, which makes evaluations from different research papers not comparable with each other (Cortes et al., 2008). Therefore, in this work, we propose SUMMZOO for better benchmarking future research on few-shot summarization. To our knowledge, SUMMZOO is the first public few-shot summarization benchmark that covers a set of diverse summarization tasks. ## Prompt Learning For Text Generation The idea of prompt learning is first proposed in GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020), where it aims to guide PLMs to do different tasks without further fine-tuning by prepending task-related examples to the input and has shown positive results on many text generation tasks, including summarization (Goyal et al., 2022). Prefix-tuning extends this idea from discrete tokens to continuous vectors (Li and Liang, 2021). It adds continuous embeddings (prefixes) to each Transformer layer as external value and key vectors. During training, only prefixes are updated while the other parameters are unchanged. Logan IV et al. (2022) and Gu et al. (2022) propose to use pre-training to boost the low performance for few-shot learning. Li et al. (2022) combines the transfer learning and prompt learning for text generation. Compared with them, we are interested in few-shot summarization and propose multi-task pre-training as an effective strategy to make use of data from related tasks to improve performance of diverse target tasks, which suits real-life scenarios. ## 3 **Method** Following Chen and Shuai (2021), the task of *fewshot text summarization* is defined as follows. For an unseen target summarization task u, few-shot text summarization is to generate a summary Y , given an input text X, by learning from a limited number k (k ≤ 100 typically) of labeled training instances of u, with the help of general knowledge K. The overall framework of UNISUMM is shown in Figure 2. It consists of 2 phases: 1) Learning general knowledge by multi-task pre-training on existing summarization datasets (§ 3.1) and; 2) Learning target task knowledge by prefix-tuning on each target few-shot summarization dataset (§ 3.2). ## 3.1 **Multi-Task Pre-Training With Prefix** As shown in Figure 2 (a), in the first stage, we take a Transformer-based pre-trained language encoderdecoder model (for example, BART (Lewis et al., 2020)) M = [Men; Mde] as the summarization model, parameterized by θ. We further pre-train this model on a set of popular summarization datasets (e.g., CNNDM, *PubMed* and *XWikis*) to learn general summarization knowledge. For each task t, we inject task-specific prefix vectors of encoder (P t en) and decoder (P t de), P t = [P t en; P t de], into the model, parameterized by θp t . Following (Li and Liang, 2021), the prefix vectors are prepended to each Transformer layer of M as additional key and value vectors as: [P t en; Men; P t de; Mde]. For all pre-training tasks, given input text X, the multi-task optimization objective is to minimize the negative log-likelihood of generating the target summary Y = {y1, y2*, ...y*|Y |}: $$L(\theta,\theta_{p^{t}})=\sum_{i}^{|Y|}\log\mathbb{P}(y_{i}|X,y_{1},\cdots,y_{i-1}).\quad(1)$$ In the multi-task pre-training stage, we optimize θ and θp t together. ## 3.2 **Prefix-Tuning** Through multi-task pre-training, we obtain the UNISUMM model with diverse summarization knowledge. As shown in Figure 2 (b), for an unseen summarization task u (for example, Wikihow or *MultiNews*), given only k training samples, we conduct prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) on the UNISUMM model. A new-task prefix P u = [P u en; P u de] is created, parameterized by θp u , which can be either initialized randomly or from a prefix of pre-training tasks. We then freeze the parameters θ of the shared summarization model and only tune θp u using the objective defined in Equation 1. By doing this, we can maximize the learned summarization knowledge in UNISUMM and also avoid over-fitting the model to very few samples. ## 3.3 **Universal Prefix** Empirically, given a target task, initializing newtask prefix from the most related pre-training tasks can be helpful. However, for a brand new task, selecting meta tasks can be a complicated process, which requires large efforts of feature engineering (Chen and Shuai, 2021). Therefore, during multi-task pre-training, we also pre-train a universal prefix, which can be used as a stable initialization for few-shot prefix-tuning. In particular, during multi-task pretraining (§ 3.1), we initialize a universal encoder and decoder prefix vector P∗ = [P∗ en; P∗ de], parameterized by θp∗ . For each training instance from task t, it has a 15% probability to be coupled with this universal prefix vector instead of its task-specific prefix P t. The parameters θp∗ are optimized together with θ. Then in prefix-tuning, we use this universal vector as initialization for the unseen task parameter θp u (§ 3.2). ## 3.4 **Asymmetrical Weight Decay** A potential problem in multi-task learning is the negative transfer among different pre-training tasks. To alleviate this, inspired by previous work (Evgeniou and Pontil, 2004; Bengio, 2012; Liu et al., 2019), we set different weight decay regularizations on different parameters of UNISUMM. Specifically, we separate optimizers of the prefixes and the summarization model in pre-training. We assign a lower weight decay value dp=0.01 on the prefix optimizer, enabling prefixes to flexibly learn task-specific knowledge, and a higher weight decay value dl=0.05 on the summarization model optimizer, enforcing it to learn a broader generalization across different tasks. Formally, at training step i: $$\begin{array}{l}{{\theta^{i+1}=(1-d_{l})\theta^{i}-\alpha^{i}\nabla f^{i}(\theta^{i}),}}\\ {{\theta_{p}^{i+1}=(1-d_{p})\theta_{p}^{i}-\alpha_{p}^{i}\nabla f_{p}^{i}(\theta_{p}^{i}),}}\end{array}\qquad(2)$$ where α iand α ip are the learning rates for summarization model and prefix, and ∇f i(θ i) and ∇f ip(θ ip) are the batch gradient for summarization model and prefix. ## 4 The Summzoo **Benchmark** SUMMZOO is sourced from existing summarization benchmark based on the principles of diversity and robustness, where we assemble each dataset into few-shot evaluation settings. Diversity of Tasks As a major goal, we ensure that SUMMZOO can include a diversity of different summarization tasks, covering multiple domains, text styles and compression ratios. Thus, we carefully select 8 summarization tasks including monologue/dialogue texts and single/multi-document summarization tasks. Their domains also span an assorted set such as news, scientific papers, instructions, online forums and meetings. Robustness of Evaluation Our second goal is to ensure that experiments on SUMMZOO can be compared with each other in a robust manner. Also, we want to reduce the randomness from different selections of few-shot samples. Therefore, for each task, we provide 5 sets of few-shot training samples, and we ask all models to train on these 5 sets respectively and report their averaged results and standard deviations. We also formulate two fewshot training settings with the number of shots k set to 10 or 100, where the first can be considered as a more extreme low-resource scenario while the second is a more commonly tested setting. | Type | Domain | Dataset | Testset Size | Avg. D/S Length | | |------------------------|---------------------------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------|-------| | Multi-doc | MultiNews (Fabbri et al., 2019) | 5, 622 | 2, 103/264 | | | | News | | | | | | | Extreme single-doc | XSum (Narayan et al., 2018) | 11, 334 | 431/20 | | | | Single-doc | Scientific Paper | ArXiv (Cohan et al., 2018) | 6, 440 | 4, 938/220 | | | Single-doc | Instructions | WikiHow (Koupaee and Wang, 2018) | 6, 000 | 580/62 | | | Single-doc | Online Forum | Reddit-TIFU (Kim et al., 2019) | 4, 208 | 433/23 | | | Monologue | Single-doc | Online Chit-chat | SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019) | 819 | 94/28 | | Single-doc | Real-life | DIALOGSUM (Chen et al., 2021) | 500 | 131/24 | | | Query-based single-doc | Meeting | QMSum (Zhong et al., 2021) | 279 | 1, 310/65 | | | Dialogue | | | | | | Table 1 summarizes the statistics of sub-datasets in SUMMZOO. The detailed descriptions of each dataset can be found in Appendix A. ## 5 **Experimental Setup** 5.1 **Training Datasets** For multi-task pre-training (§ 3.1), we use a combination of seven summarization datasets: CNNDM (Nallapati et al., 2016), BillSum (Kornilova and Eidelman, 2019), PubMed (Cohan et al., 2018), GovReport (Huang et al., 2021), MediaSum (Zhu et al., 2021), SummScreen (Chen et al., 2022a) and XWikis (Perez-Beltrachini and Lapata, 2021). To balance the training data size of different datasets, we perform down-sampling on over-sized datasets and up-sampling on low-resource datasets respectively. The detailed descriptions of each dataset and statistics of resulting data for pretraining are shown in Appendix B and Table 8. ## 5.2 **Baseline Models** PEGASUS (Zhang et al., 2020) is a large pretrained encoder-decoder model, which is particularly designed for text summarization. The model is trained using the gap sentence generation task. We use PEGASUSLARGE (C4+HugeNews)1for comparison, which improves upon the results reported in the original paper. BART (Lewis et al., 2020) is a pre-trained encoder-decoder language model using selfdenoising tasks. We compare with the BARTlarge model2 with two tuning strategies on fewshot summarization tasks, namely standard finetuning (**BART-FT**) and prefix-tuning (**BART-PT**). In BART-PT, the prefix vector is added in the same way as in UNISUMM. MultiBART is a variant of BART-large. Similar to UNISUMM, it is first multi-task pre-trained on the *same data* (§ 5.1) but *without* prefixes. And it can also be fine-tuned or prefix-tuned to fit fewshot summarization tasks. We only show the results of prefix-tuned MultiBART because we find finetuning the entire MultiBART model always leads to worse performance in the few-shot setting. This strong baseline can be considered as an indicator to verify the effectiveness of using prefixes in both multi-task pre-training and few-shot tuning. Text-davinci-002 (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022) is a large language model (175B) from the GPT-3.5 family,3 using instruction tuning, and has shown great zero-/few-shot performance on many NLP tasks, including summarization. Specifically, recent work finds that GPT-3.5 models can show much better performance with the technique of in-context learning (ICL) (Brown et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022a). We use text-davinci-002 with ICL for experiments, and only show the performance of 1-shot ICL because of its input length limitation.4 All baseline models and UNISUMM are evaluated on SUMMZOO (Appendix C shows the implementation details). We conduct both automatic and human evaluation. As described, SUMMZOO requires models to report averaged results and their standard deviations over 5 sets of different few-shot samples (except for text-davinci-002). We use ROUGE (Lin, 2004) for automatic evalua- | Task | PEGASUS | BART-FT | BART-PT | MultiBART | UNISUMM | | | | | | | | | | |---------|-----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | R1 | R2 | RL | R1 | R2 | RL | R1 | R2 | RL | R1 | R2 | RL | R1 | R2 | RL | | MN | 10 | 39.12 | 11.15 19.44 | 38.29 10.05 | 18.32 | 38.27 | 11.38 19.28 | 42.31 | 14.55 | 21.53 | 45.13 | 15.19 | 21.63 | | | 100 | 42.36 | 12.78 20.56 | 42.65 13.27 | 20.69 | 43.86 | 13.97 20.79 | 45.71 | 15.78 | 22.21 | 45.91 | 15.86 | 22.24 | | | | XSum | 10 | 20.55 | 3.98 14.80 | 24.89 | 6.42 | 19.18 | 14.29 | 2.77 11.52 | 20.76 | 5.76 | 17.01 | 26.10 | 7.20 | 19.92 | | 100 | 37.30 | 13.69 29.08 | 27.45 | 7.21 | 21.74 | 29.70 | 9.87 23.70 | 31.48 | 10.88 | 25.00 | 33.33 | 11.36 | 25.85 | | | ArXiv | 10 | 34.81 | 8.46 29.12 | 28.40 | 4.98 | 25.15 | 29.85 | 8.08 26.76 | 41.45 | 14.68 | 37.01 | 43.33 | 15.38 | 38.69 | | 100 | 38.08 | 10.14 31.06 | 36.69 10.07 | 32.67 | 38.03 | 11.46 34.20 | 43.56 | 15.97 | 39.01 | 44.33 | 16.42 | 39.71 | | | | WH | 10 | 27.74 | 7.80 19.61 | 17.09 | 2.37 | 12.01 | 25.31 | 7.45 19.02 | 27.64 | 7.99 | 19.91 | 30.87 | 9.35 | 21.72 | | 100 | 33.21 | 10.86 24.41 | 26.46 | 6.91 | 18.83 | 32.35 | 10.42 23.23 | 34.10 | 11.31 | 25.03 | 34.90 | 11.73 | 25.70 | | | Reddit | 10 | 18.90 | 3.89 14.27 | 13.80 | 1.20 | 10.48 | 19.01 | 4.07 14.46 | 21.44 | 5.17 | 16.22 | 22.88 | 5.60 | 17.02 | | 100 | 23.40 | 5.71 17.99 | 17.91 | 2.58 | 13.33 | 23.10 | 5.41 17.42 | 24.06 | 5.89 | 17.97 | 24.54 | 6.17 | 18.30 | | | DS | 10 | 36.44 | 10.89 28.49 | 28.62 | 5.97 | 22.83 | 33.46 | 10.08 27.90 | 37.05 | 12.61 | 30.24 | 38.76 | 13.38 | 31.07 | | 100 | 41.02 | 14.53 32.29 | 38.77 12.91 | 31.40 | 41.20 | 13.97 32.76 | 42.16 | 15.71 | 33.79 | 42.43 | 15.64 | 33.74 | | | | SS | 10 | 38.58 | 13.79 30.37 | 18.07 | 4.23 | 14.70 | 35.53 | 12.96 28.26 | 39.69 | 16.28 | 32.11 | 43.89 | 18.53 | 34.76 | | 100 | 44.60 | 18.40 35.16 | 37.36 14.14 | 30.02 | 43.39 | 17.82 34.42 | 45.47 | 19.68 | 36.60 | 46.93 | 20.65 | 37.28 | | | | QM | 10 | 31.77 | 9.70 21.48 | 23.64 | 3.56 | 14.88 | 27.58 | 8.39 19.41 | 33.71 | 10.59 | 22.27 | 36.00 | 12.12 | 23.56 | | 100 | 35.54 | 11.68 23.74 | 33.96 10.30 | 22.10 | 35.07 | 11.66 23.10 | 37.67 | 13.38 | 24.68 | 38.38 | 13.89 | 25.36 | | | | Average | 10 | 30.99 | 8.71 22.20 | 24.10 | 4.85 | 17.19 | 27.91 | 8.15 20.83 | 33.01 | 10.95 | 24.54 | 35.87 | 12.09 | 26.05 | | 100 | 36.94 | 12.22 26.79 | 32.66 | 9.67 | 23.85 | 35.84 | 11.82 26.20 | 38.03 | 13.58 | 28.04 | 38.84 | 13.97 | 28.52 | | | Task | GPT-3.5 | 10-UNI | 100-UNI | |-----------|-----------|----------|-----------| | MultiNews | 11.01 | 15.19 | 15.86 | | Xsum | 8.87 | 7.20 | 11.36 | | Arxiv | 10.83 | 15.38 | 16.42 | | WikiHow | 8.56 | 9.35 | 11.73 | | Reddit | 6.03 | 5.60 | 6.17 | | DIALOGSUM | 13.08 | 13.38 | 15.64 | | SAMSum | 17.65 | 18.53 | 20.65 | | QMSum | 11.62 | 12.12 | 13.89 | | Average | 10.96 | 12.09 | 13.97 | tion5, which evaluates the n-gram overlap in the model-generated summary against the reference summary. We report the F-1 scores of ROUGE-1 (R1), ROUGE-2 (R2) and ROUGE-L (RL). ## 6 **Automatic Evaluation** 6.1 **Main Results** The main results are shown in Table 2 and 3. First, compared with PEGASUS, UNISUMM outperforms it across all tasks except 100-shot XSum, and shows the best averaged scores in both 10-shot and 100-shot settings. We also find that 10-shot UNISUMM can outperform 100-shot PEGASUS on MultiNews, Arxiv and QMSum by a large mar-5We use the files2rouge for evaluation. gin, suggesting that UNISUMM can benefit from diverse training data and effectively adapt indirect knowledge to unseen tasks. It is notable that although the foundation BART model is inferior to PEGASUS, the BART-based UNISUMM can still outperform PEGASUS with the learned summarization knowledge. Overall, UNISUMM surpasses both BART-FT and BART-PT by a large margin on all tasks in all settings, which suggests the equipment of multi-task learning can substantially improve model performance on few-shot summarization tasks, in particular in the 10-shot setting. UNISUMM also outperforms MultiBART by a large margin, especially in the 10-shot setting (Avg. 2.86 R1 improvements). Considering that MultiBART is multi-task pre-trained on the exact same data as UNISUMM does, the main difference from UNISUMM is whether to use prefixes in both multitask pre-training and few-shot tuning. The result verifies the effectiveness of UNISUMM framework, in particular the prefix addition in the multi-task pre-training phrase (§ 3.1). The comparison between text-davinci-002 and UNISUMM is shown in Table 3. Generally, 100-shot UNISUMM achieves higher ROUGE scores than 1-shot text-davinci-002 on all tasks and overall performance and 10-shot UNISUMM shows better performance compared with 1-shot text-davinci-002 except for XSum and Reddit. | Task | PEG | B-PT | Mul | UNI | | |-----------|-------|--------|-------|-------|------| | MultiNews | 10 | 0.37 | 1.04 | 0.68 | 0.33 | | 100 | 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.26 | 0.19 | | | XSum | 10 | 1.45 | 1.60 | 1.65 | 1.21 | | 100 | 0.37 | 0.27 | 0.11 | 0.27 | | | Arxiv | 10 | 0.57 | 1.08 | 0.32 | 0.93 | | 100 | 0.55 | 0.83 | 0.64 | 0.54 | | | WikiHow | 10 | 0.79 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.40 | | 100 | 0.46 | 0.25 | 0.38 | 0.21 | | | Reddit | 10 | 0.83 | 1.61 | 1.20 | 1.16 | | 100 | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.68 | 0.52 | | | DIALOGSUM | 10 | 1.18 | 0.96 | 1.46 | 0.99 | | 100 | 0.83 | 0.90 | 1.01 | 0.91 | | | SAMSum | 10 | 1.61 | 1.58 | 1.91 | 1.07 | | 100 | 0.47 | 0.29 | 0.40 | 0.47 | | | QMSum | 10 | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.45 | | 100 | 0.72 | 0.55 | 0.34 | 0.30 | | | Average | 10 | 0.96 | 1.16 | 1.07 | 0.82 | | 100 | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.43 | | Such improvements can be attributed to the fact that UNISUMM is few-shot trained on more samples. It is also worth noting that UNISUMM is based on BART-large (400M), while GPT-3.5 is orders of magnitude larger (175B). Also, we note that 10-shot UNISUMM can achieve higher ROUGE scores on some tasks such as MultiNews and Arxiv compared with text-davinci-002. Besides UNISUMM is multi-task trained on relevant data, one possible reason is that text-davinci-002 is only presented with 1-shot summary as ICL context, due to the length limitation. However, given the previous finding (Goyal et al., 2022) that GPT3.5 generated summaries can be favored by human evaluators with even lower ROUGE scores, we also conduct human evaluation in § 7. ## 6.2 **Model Robustness** The sample selection bias (Cortes et al., 2008) has been a major problem for few-shot tasks, where model performance is strongly correlated with the selection of few-shot samples. And a sound system should be robust and stable when taking different few-shot samples. To demonstrate the robustness and stability of different few-shot summarization models, we report their standard deviations of Task **Gold GPT-3.5 PEG B-PT U**NI QM Flu. 4.80 4.93 4.46 4.40 4.90 Coh. 4.93 4.80 4.10 3.87 4.50 Con. 5.00 4.03 3.33 3.13 3.80 Rel. 4.90 4.17 3.27 2.80 3.97 WH Flu. 4.72 4.90 4.43 4.30 4.68 Coh. 4.57 4.83 4.17 4.00 4.43 Con. 4.87 4.63 4.17 3.93 4.67 Rel. 4.88 4.58 4.33 4.17 4.67 MN Flu. 4.70 4.97 4.23 4.17 4.63 Coh. 4.70 4.73 3.95 3.80 4.17 Con. 4.93 3.07 3.53 3.27 4.07 Rel. 4.77 2.73 3.72 3.63 4.30 ROUGE-1 scores on 5 different sets of few-shot samples provided in SUMMZOO in Table 4. Overall, the standard deviations of UNISUMM are lower than all other baselines on most tasks in both settings, suggesting that UNISUMM is most stable and robust when facing different few-shot samples. Also, MultiBART outperforms BART-PT and shows better averaged results than PEGASUS in the 100-shot, showing that reusing related summarization datasets is valuable. However, it can still be unstable in the 10-shot setting. In contrast, UNISUMM shows the least averaged standard deviations across all tasks in both settings. This suggests that the two-phase training with prefixes in the UNISUMM framework is essential for enhancing the model robustness. We present the full table, including standard deviations of R2 and RL scores, in Appendix D. Overall, we find that UNISUMM is most robust and stable towards different training samples. ## 7 **Human Evaluation** To better understand the outputs of different fewshot summarization systems, following Kryscinski et al. (2019, 2020), we conduct a human evaluation from four dimensions: Fluency, *Consistency*, Coherence and *Relevance*. We select 30 samples from QMSum, WikiHow and MultiNews, respectively, covering both monologue and dialogue texts. Then, for each sample, we ask a judge with experience in human evaluation for summarization tasks, to give scores from 1 to 5 (higher score indicates better quality) along each evaluation dimen- Model MN XSum Arxiv WH Reddit DS SS QM **Avg.**  10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 3-Task **15.3** 15.8 4.8 10.9 15.0 15.7 9.2 11.9 5.7 6.1 12.6 15.6 17.1 19.8 11.5 13.5 11.4 13.6 7-Task 15.2 15.9 7.2 11.4 15.4 16.4 9.4 11.7 5.6 6.2 13.4 15.7 18.5 20.7 12.1 13.9 **12.1 14.0** Table 6: ROUGE-2 results of UNISUMM models which are multi-task pre-trained on different scale of pre-training tasks. We show the best results in **bold**. | Prefix | MN | XSum | Arxiv | WH | Reddit | DS | SS | QM | Avg. | | | | | | | | | |---------------------|--------------------|--------------------|----------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|------|------|------|--------|----|-----|----|-----|----|-----|----|-----| | 10 | 100 | 10 | 100 | 10 | 100 | 10 | 100 | 10 | 100 | 10 | 100 | 10 | 100 | 10 | 100 | 10 | 100 | | Random | 15.6 16.0 | 4.4 11.1 16.2 16.3 | 9.4 11.6 | 6.0 | 6.1 13.3 15.7 18.1 21.0 11.9 13.7 11.9 13.9 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | CNNDM | 15.1 15.8 | 6.3 11.1 14.8 15.8 | 9.4 11.7 | 5.6 | 6.1 13.1 15.5 18.7 20.7 11.9 13.7 11.9 13.8 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Universal 15.2 15.9 | 7.2 11.4 15.4 16.4 | 9.4 11.7 | 5.6 | 6.2 13.4 15.6 18.5 20.7 12.1 13.9 12.1 14.0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Table 7: ROUGE-2 results of UNISUMM using different prefix initialization strategies. We show the best results in bold. sion. Candidate outputs are from gold summaries, 1-shot text-davinci-002, 100-shot PEGASUS, BART-PT and UNISUMM respectively. In total, we have 450 summaries to evaluate and the results are reported in Table 5. Appendix E gives detailed description of evaluation dimensions. In human evaluation, UNISUMM outperforms PEGASUS and BART-PT on all datasets regarding all dimensions, achieving a higher fluency score than gold summaries on QMSum and a comparable score on MultiNews and WikiHow, suggesting that UNISUMM can generate very fluent sentences which can be comparable with human annotated summaries. A challenge of QMSum is that models are asked to generate summaries focusing on the input queries. Thus, *Relevance* is a very important metric for this task. However, *Relevance* sees very low score for PEGASUS (3.27) and BARTPT (2.80), suggesting they are weak in extracting relevant information based on user queries. In contrast, UNISUMM achieves a higher score (3.97). Text-davinci-002 also performs very well on this task, even outperforming the gold summaries on *Fluency*, but UNISUMM still achieves comparable results with limited training samples and much lower cost. On MultiNews, since text-davinci-002 is only input with 1-shot summary as ICL example due to length limitation, although it can generate very fluent (4.97) and coherent (4.73) summaries, it is less preferred by human annotators w.r.t. *Consistency* and *Relevance*. UNISUMM still outperforms other systems and only loses to gold summaries on this two metrics. Similar results are also observed on WikiHow, where text-davinci-002 tends to generate very long summaries, which can contain some hallucination and less important content,  and UNISUMM shows comparable performance on Consistency and *Relevance*. We show case studies and their analysis, including an error case where UNISUMM fails, in Appendix F. ## 8 **Analysis** 8.1 **Task Scale In Multi-Task Training** One common concern about multi-task training is that: when multiple tasks are combined, will newly added tasks hurt or help the performance? To verify this, we add one variant of UNISUMM for comparison, whose phase-1 is multi-task pretrained on 3 tasks instead of all 7 tasks in Table 8. For the 3 tasks, we use the combination of CNNDM, PubMed and MediaSum, which are typical datasets for news summarization (MultiNews and Xsum), academic paper summarization (ArXiv) and dialogue summarization (DIALOGSUM, SAMSum and QMSum). Results in Table 6 show that when extending the multi-task pre-training datasets from 3 to 7, UNISUMM achieves better results on multiple datasets. For example, taking ArXiv as the target task, 7-Task UNISUMM outperforms 3-Task UNISUMM in both 10 and 100-shot settings. It suggests that 7-Task UNISUMM can benefit from GovReport, XWikis, SummScreen and BillSum for scientific text summarization. On average, the R2 score improves by 0.4 for the 10-shot setting and 0.7 for the 100-shot setting. This shows that negative transfer is minor in UNISUMM and suggests that by training UNISUMM on even more datasets, its generalization can potentially be improved by learning more indirect summarization knowledge. ## 8.2 **Different Prefix Initializations** UNISUMM is equipped with a universal prefix that was randomly (15%) picked by all tasks during multi-task pre-training (§ 3.3). In Table 7, we show the ablation study of using different prefix initialization strategies in few-shot prefix-tuning. Due to space limitation, we show R-2 scores here. We compare three strategies: initialized the prefix randomly, using *CNNDM* prefix or using universal prefix. The *CNNDM* prefix is selected to be compared here because it is considered as a general summarization task and has been proved helpful to many tasks, e.g., SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019). We see that using universal prefix yields the best results on most tasks. Also, the universal prefix is particularly useful for the 10-shot setting, bringing a 0.23 improvement for R2 score. In addition, we find that using task-specific prefix (*CNNDM*) shows the worst performance on some tasks, such as QMSum and ArXiv, and has the lowest average score. This can be explained by that the taskspecific prefix (*CNNDM*) stores abundant task specific knowledge, which however can be harmful to unseen target tasks, especially when the target task is very different from the pre-training task. We show more analysis in Appendix G. ## 9 **Conclusion** We introduced UNISUMM, a novel few-shot summarization system that can be easily prefix-tuned to excel at and generalize on a diversity of summarization tasks. We propose to combine multitask learning and prefix-tuning by jointly training the prefixes and the summarizer on multiple existing summarization datasets. By only tuning the prefix parameters, UNISUMM shows superior performance over strong baseline systems, yielding fluent and faithful summaries across tasks. In addition, we assembled and released a new benchmark, SUMMZOO, for fairly and effectively evaluating few-shot summarization models. It covers an assorted set of summarization tasks and provides multiple few-shot sets for a more robust and fairer comparison. ## Limitations The limitation of UNISUMM can be stated from three perspectives. First, the multi-task pre-training of UNISUMM can be time and cost consuming, which requires large GPU resources. Second, the current framework uses prefixes of a fixed length for both multi-task training and few-shot prefixtuning. However, different summarization task may prefer different size of prefixes. Third, in this work, we focus on summarization tasks in English. The performance of UNISUMM for languages that have a different morphology or syntactic structures from English needs further exploration. ## Ethics Statement Copyright and Citation Issue The copyright of individual datasets in SUMMZOO belongs to the original authors. The usage license of each dataset also applies to SUMMZOO. To ensure fair credit, when using SUMMZOO for evaluation, please also cite original papers, where individual datasets are introduced. Data Availability and Safety Pre-training and fine-tuning summarization data studied in this paper are mostly publicly available, otherwise we will provide links to the access application. Although filtering has been conducted in building the original datasets, some contents can contain uncomfortable descriptions, e.g., news coverage of violent crimes and events. Usage of Large PLM The GPT-3.5 model is used to generate text (summaries) for input documents of summarization tasks. The generated text is only used for experiments and analysis, which are presented in corresponding sections. No further usage, e.g., generating content for manuscripts, of GPT-3.5 or its family, is included in this paper. Human Evaluation We conduct human evaluation with the help of one judge, who obtained their postgraduate degree in the United Kingdom and has a solid experience in evaluating summarization tasks. They were compensated through a payment of around 400 USD for 450 instances (§ 7). ## Acknowledgements We appreciate all reviewers and chairs from ACL 2023 for their valuable suggestions. We thank Dan Iter, Hiteshi Sharma, Zicheng Liu, Sen Yang and Leyang Cui for their proofreading and inspiring discussion. This publication has emanated from research conducted with the financial support of the Pioneer and "Leading Goose" R&D Program of Zhejiang under Grant Number 2022SDXHDX0003. ## References Vamsi Aribandi, Yi Tay, Tal Schuster, Jinfeng Rao, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Sanket Vaibhav Mehta, Honglei Zhuang, Vinh Q. Tran, Dara Bahri, Jianmo Ni, Jai Prakash Gupta, Kai Hui, Sebastian Ruder, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Ext5: Towards extreme multitask scaling for transfer learning. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net. Yoshua Bengio. 2012. Practical recommendations for gradient-based training of deep architectures. In *Neural networks: Tricks of the trade*, pages 437–478. Springer. Arthur Bražinskas, Mirella Lapata, and Ivan Titov. 2020. Few-shot learning for opinion summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4119–4135, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Jiaao Chen and Diyi Yang. 2021. Structure-aware abstractive conversation summarization via discourse and action graphs. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 1380–1391, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mingda Chen, Zewei Chu, Sam Wiseman, and Kevin Gimpel. 2022a. SummScreen: A dataset for abstractive screenplay summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8602–8615, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yi-Syuan Chen and Hong-Han Shuai. 2021. Metatransfer learning for low-resource abstractive summarization. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on* Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 12692–12700. AAAI Press. Yulong Chen, Yang Liu, Liang Chen, and Yue Zhang. 2021. DialogSum: A real-life scenario dialogue summarization dataset. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 5062–5074, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yulong Chen, Ming Zhong, Xuefeng Bai, Naihao Deng, Jing Li, Xianchao Zhu, and Yue Zhang. 2022b. The cross-lingual conversation summarization challenge. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Natural Language Generation: Generation Challenges, pages 12–18, Waterville, Maine, USA and virtual meeting. Association for Computational Linguistics. Arman Cohan, Franck Dernoncourt, Doo Soon Kim, Trung Bui, Seokhwan Kim, Walter Chang, and Nazli Goharian. 2018. A discourse-aware attention model for abstractive summarization of long documents. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 615–621, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Corinna Cortes, Mehryar Mohri, Michael Riley, and Afshin Rostamizadeh. 2008. Sample selection bias correction theory. In *International conference on* algorithmic learning theory, pages 38–53. Springer. Theodoros Evgeniou and Massimiliano Pontil. 2004. Regularized multi–task learning. In *Proceedings of* the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 109– 117. Alexander Fabbri, Simeng Han, Haoyuan Li, Haoran Li, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Shafiq Joty, Dragomir Radev, and Yashar Mehdad. 2021. Improving zero and few-shot abstractive summarization with intermediate fine-tuning and data augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 704–717, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexander Fabbri, Irene Li, Tianwei She, Suyi Li, and Dragomir Radev. 2019. Multi-news: A large-scale multi-document summarization dataset and abstractive hierarchical model. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1074–1084, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yue Fang, Hainan Zhang, Hongshen Chen, Zhuoye Ding, Bo Long, Yanyan Lan, and Yanquan Zhou. 2022. From spoken dialogue to formal summary: An utterance rewriting for dialogue summarization. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3859–3869, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Marjan Ghazvininejad, Vladimir Karpukhin, Vera Gor, and Asli Celikyilmaz. 2022. Discourse-aware soft prompting for text generation. In *Proceedings of* the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4570–4589, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bogdan Gliwa, Iwona Mochol, Maciej Biesek, and Aleksander Wawer. 2019. SAMSum corpus: A humanannotated dialogue dataset for abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization, pages 70–79, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tanya Goyal, Junyi Jessy Li, and Greg Durrett. 2022. News summarization and evaluation in the era of gpt-3. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12356*. Yuxian Gu, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. PPT: Pre-trained prompt tuning for few-shot learning. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8410–8423, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovic, Swabha ´ Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. Don't stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8342–8360, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengcheng He, Baolin Peng, Liyang Lu, Song Wang, Jie Mei, Yang Liu, Ruochen Xu, Hany Hassan Awadalla, Yu Shi, Chenguang Zhu, et al. 2022. Z-code++: A pre-trained language model optimized for abstractive summarization. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.09770*. Luyang Huang, Shuyang Cao, Nikolaus Parulian, Heng Ji, and Lu Wang. 2021. Efficient attentions for long document summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1419–1436, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Byeongchang Kim, Hyunwoo Kim, and Gunhee Kim. 2019. Abstractive summarization of Reddit posts with multi-level memory networks. In *Proceedings* of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2519–2531, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Anastassia Kornilova and Vladimir Eidelman. 2019. BillSum: A corpus for automatic summarization of US legislation. In *Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop* on New Frontiers in Summarization, pages 48–56, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mahnaz Koupaee and William Yang Wang. 2018. Wikihow: A large scale text summarization dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.09305. Wessel Kraaij, Thomas Hain, Mike Lincoln, and Wilfried Post. 2005. The ami meeting corpus. Wojciech Kryscinski, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Neural text summarization: A critical evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 540–551, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wojciech Kryscinski, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2020. Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9332–9346, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 7871–7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Jian-Yun Nie, Ji-Rong Wen, and Xin Zhao. 2022. Learning to transfer prompts for text generation. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3506–3518, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4582– 4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In *Text Summarization Branches Out*, pages 74–81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Haokun Liu, Derek Tam, Mohammed Muqeeth, Jay Mohta, Tenghao Huang, Mohit Bansal, and Colin Raffel. 2022a. Few-shot parameter-efficient fine-tuning is better and cheaper than in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05638. Xiaochen Liu, Yang Gao, Yu Bai, Jiawei Li, Yinan Hu, Heyan Huang, and Boxing Chen. 2022b. PSP: Pre-trained soft prompts for few-shot abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 6355–6368, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Yang Liu and Mirella Lapata. 2019. Text summarization with pretrained encoders. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3730–3740, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yang Liu, Ivan Titov, and Mirella Lapata. 2019. Single document summarization as tree induction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1745–1755, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robert Logan IV, Ivana Balazevic, Eric Wallace, Fabio Petroni, Sameer Singh, and Sebastian Riedel. 2022. Cutting down on prompts and parameters: Simple few-shot learning with language models. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 2824–2835, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero dos Santos, Çaglar G ˘ ulçehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. ˙ Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence RNNs and beyond. In *Proceedings of the 20th* SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 280–290, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! topic-aware convolutional neural networks for extreme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1797–1807, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. *CoRR*, abs/2203.02155. Laura Perez-Beltrachini and Mirella Lapata. 2021. Models and datasets for cross-lingual summarisation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9408–9423, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonathan Pilault, Amine Elhattami, and Christopher Pal. 2020. Conditionally adaptive multi-task learning: Improving transfer learning in nlp using fewer parameters & less data. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.09139*. Sebastian Ruder. 2017. An overview of multi-task learning in deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05098. Prithviraj Sen, Galileo Namata, Mustafa Bilgic, Lise Getoor, Brian Galligher, and Tina Eliassi-Rad. 2008. Collective classification in network data. *AI magazine*, 29(3):93–93. Elizabeth Shriberg, Raj Dhillon, Sonali Bhagat, Jeremy Ang, and Hannah Carvey. 2004. The icsi meeting recorder dialog act (mrda) corpus. Jiaan Wang, Fandong Meng, Duo Zheng, Yunlong Liang, Zhixu Li, Jianfeng Qu, and Jie Zhou. 2022. A Survey on Cross-Lingual Summarization. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 10:1304–1323. Yiming Wang, Zhuosheng Zhang, and Rui Wang. 2023. Element-aware summarization with large language models: Expert-aligned evaluation and chain-ofthought method. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13412*. Ruochen Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022. Narrate dialogues for better summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics:* EMNLP 2022, pages 3565–3575, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ziyi Yang, Chenguang Zhu, Robert Gmyr, Michael Zeng, Xuedong Huang, and Eric Darve. 2020. TED: A pretrained unsupervised summarization model with theme modeling and denoising. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1865–1874, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tiezheng Yu, Zihan Liu, and Pascale Fung. 2021. AdaptSum: Towards low-resource domain adaptation for abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5892–5904, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Zaitang Li, Zhiting Hu, Qingyun Wang, Heng Ji, and Meng Jiang. 2022. A survey of knowledge-enhanced text generation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. PEGASUS: pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 37th International Conference* on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 11328–11339. PMLR. Rui Zhang and Joel Tetreault. 2019. This email could save your life: Introducing the task of email subject line generation. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 446–456, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yusen Zhang, Yang Liu, Ziyi Yang, Yuwei Fang, Yulong Chen, Dragomir Radev, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Rui Zhang. 2022. Macsum: Controllable summarization with mixed attributes. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2211.05041. Ming Zhong, Pengfei Liu, Yiran Chen, Danqing Wang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2020. Extractive summarization as text matching. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6197–6208, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ming Zhong, Yang Liu, Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022a. Dialoglm: Pre-trained model for long dialogue understanding and summarization. In *Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2022, Thirty-Fourth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2022, The Twelveth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI* 2022 Virtual Event, February 22 - March 1, 2022, pages 11765–11773. AAAI Press. Ming Zhong, Yang Liu, Da Yin, Yuning Mao, Yizhu Jiao, Pengfei Liu, Chenguang Zhu, Heng Ji, and Jiawei Han. 2022b. Towards a unified multidimensional evaluator for text generation. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2023– 2038, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ming Zhong, Danqing Wang, Pengfei Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuan-Jing Huang. 2019. A closer look at data bias in neural extractive summarization models. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization, pages 80–89. Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. QMSum: A new benchmark for querybased multi-domain meeting summarization. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5905–5921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chenguang Zhu, Yang Liu, Jie Mei, and Michael Zeng. 2021. MediaSum: A large-scale media interview dataset for dialogue summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5927–5934, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A **Datasets In Summzoo** The final SummZoo contains following sub-tasks: MultiNews (Fabbri et al., **2019)** is a large-scale multi-document summarization dataset. The task is to generate a summary given multiple news articles. XSum (Narayan et al., **2018)** is an extreme text summarization dataset. Given a news article, the task is to generate a one-sentence summary. Reddit-TIFU (Kim et al., **2019)** is a social post summarization dataset. The task is to generate a short summary for posts from the online discussion forum Reddit.6 Compared with news text, the text in Reddit-TIFU is less formal and structured. ArXiv (Cohan et al., **2018)** is a long scientific paper summarization dataset collected from ArXiv, including articles of multiple domains, such as physics, computer science, etc. WikiHow (Koupaee and Wang, **2018)** is a largescale instruction summarization dataset. The task is to generate a short summary given the multiplestep instruction. SAMSum (Gliwa et al., **2019)** is a written conversation summarization dataset for Messengerstyle chit-chats. Both dialogue and summary are annotated by experts. DIALOGSUM (Chen et al., **2021)** is a real-life scenario dialogue summarization dataset that covers a wide range of daily life dialogues, including diverse task-oriented dialogues. The testset of DI-ALOGSUM provides three reference summaries for each dialogue, we report the averaged results. QMSum (Zhong et al., **2021)** is a query-based meeting summarization dataset that is derived from Augmented Multi-party Interaction (AMI) corpus (Kraaij et al., 2005), the International Computer Science Institute (ICSI) (Shriberg et al., 2004) and Committee Meetings. The task is to generate a summary given a meeting and a query. ## B **Multi-Task Pre-Training Datasets** We use the following datasets for multi-task pretraining: | Dataset | Raw Size | Sam. Size | |------------|------------|-------------| | CNNDM | 287, 227 | 287, 227 | | BillSum | 23, 455 | 113, 694 | | PubMed | 119, 924 | 119, 924 | | GovReport | 19, 466 | 105, 114 | | MediaSum | 463, 596 | 100, 000 | | SummScreen | 22, 588 | 67, 764 | | XWikis | 280, 000 | 100, 000 | | Total | - | 893, 723 | CNNDM (Nallapati et al., **2016)** is a large news summarization dataset that contains articles and paired human annotated summaries from CNN and Daily Mail. BillSum (Kornilova and Eidelman, **2019)** consists of the US Congressional and California state bills, and summaries written by Legislative Counsel. PubMed (Cohan et al., **2018)** contains large long scientific articles and human labeled abstracts. Compared with ArXiv, which contains data from multiple domains, PubMed dataset focuses on the biomedical field. GovReport (Huang et al., **2021)** consists of long reports and summaries from government research agencies. MediaSum (Zhu et al., **2021)** is an interview summarization dataset that contains 463.6k transcripts and summaries from NPR and CNN. SummScreen (Chen et al., **2022a)** consists of long TV series transcripts and human written recaps. XWikis (Perez-Beltrachini and Lapata, **2021)** is a cross-lingual summarization dataset that contains Wikipedia articles and leading paragraphs in multiple languages. We only use the English data that have paired documents and summaries. To balance the training data size of different datasets, we perform down-sampling on over-sized datasets and up-sampling on low-resource datasets respectively. The statistics of resulting data for pre-training are shown in Table 8. Task PEGASUS BART-PT MultiBART UNISUMM DR1 DR2 DRL DR1 DR2 DRL DR1 DR2 DRL DR1 DR2 DRL MultiNews 10 0.37 0.30 0.21 1.04 0.37 0.23 0.68 0.20 0.10 0.33 0.27 0.23 100 0.20 0.24 0.22 0.11 0.23 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.30 0.29 XSum 10 1.45 0.93 1.26 1.60 0.54 1.05 1.65 0.72 1.28 1.21 0.78 1.15 100 0.37 0.31 0.31 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.27 0.18 0.23 Arxiv 10 0.57 0.09 0.28 1.08 0.54 0.87 0.32 0.36 0.29 0.93 0.31 0.83 100 0.55 0.17 0.35 0.83 0.38 0.76 0.64 0.19 0.60 0.54 0.18 0.54 WikiHow 10 0.79 0.25 0.42 0.66 0.35 0.56 0.66 0.46 0.48 0.40 0.31 0.48 100 0.46 0.21 0.31 0.25 0.15 0.22 0.38 0.26 0.31 0.21 0.10 0.15 Reddit 10 0.83 0.28 0.76 1.61 0.57 1.00 1.20 0.49 0.78 1.16 0.64 1.01 100 0.71 0.31 0.50 0.72 0.39 0.57 0.68 0.43 0.61 0.52 0.26 0.49 DIALOGSUM10 1.18 0.90 1.13 0.96 0.68 0.65 1.46 1.01 1.02 0.99 0.76 0.80 100 0.83 1.01 0.85 0.90 1.08 0.83 1.01 1.16 0.95 0.91 1.10 1.00 SAMSum 10 1.61 1.19 1.24 1.58 1.44 1.19 1.91 1.69 1.51 1.07 0.82 0.83 100 0.47 0.39 0.60 0.29 0.54 0.57 0.40 0.47 0.50 0.47 0.30 0.41 QMSum 10 0.84 0.52 0.60 0.75 0.45 0.36 0.71 0.42 0.20 0.45 0.57 0.30 100 0.72 0.82 0.72 0.55 0.55 0.41 0.34 0.32 0.24 0.30 0.23 0.17 Average 10 0.96 0.56 0.74 1.16 0.62 0.74 1.07 0.69 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.70 100 0.54 0.43 0.48 0.49 0.45 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.33 0.41 ## C **Implementation Details** We use BART-large (Lewis et al., 2020) to initialize the summarization model of UNISUMM. All experiments are conducted on NVIDIA A100 GPU with PyTorch 1.11. The max input length and target length are set to 2,048 and 400. The hyperparameter choice is based on previous few-shot summarization work (Zhang et al., 2020; Fabbri et al., 2021; Chen and Shuai, 2021) and empirical consideration. For multi-task pre-training, we initialize from BART-large, and train the model on 16 GPUs with 300,000 steps, batch size of 32, learning rate of 1.5e-5, and warm-up with 4,000 steps. For few-shot tuning, we prefix-tune the model on 4 GPUs with 100 and 1000 steps for 10-shot and 100shot, respectively, with batch size of 32, learning rate of 1.5e-4, and warm-up with 10% of the training steps. For XSum, the training steps are set to 10 and 100 for 10-shot and 100-shot, respectively, while other configurations are unchanged. ## D **Model Robustness** Table 9 shows the standard deviations of ROUGE1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L scores on 5 different sets of few-shot samples in SUMMZOO. Overall, UNISUMM shows the least standard deviations on most metrics across tasks in both settings, suggesting it is most robust and stable towards different selections of training samples. ## E **Human Evaluation** Following Kryscinski et al. (2019, 2020), we conduct human evaluation from 4 dimensions, which can offer a more robust and holistic perspective to understand summarization system (Zhong et al., 2022b): - *Fluency* evaluates the quality of individually generated sentences, including grammar, word order, etc; - *Coherence* evaluates the collective quality of generated summaries; - *Relevance* evaluates the importance of information in the generated summaries; - *Consistency* evaluates the factual alignment of the generated summary against the input document. We ask a judge to give scores from 1 to 5 along these 4 dimensions. Higher score indicates better quality. The judge is a postgraduate student, who studied in the United Kingdom and has solid experience in evaluating summarization tasks. | Task | P0.01+L0.01 P0.05+L0.05 P0.01+L0.05 R2 R2 R2 | | | | |---------|------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|-------| | MN | 10 | 15.32 | 15.00 | 15.19 | | 100 | 15.47 | 15.82 | 15.86 | | | XSum | 10 | 6.52 | 6.41 | 7.20 | | 100 | 11.57 | 11.30 | 11.36 | | | Arxiv | 10 | 15.50 | 15.20 | 15.38 | | 100 | 16.50 | 16.15 | 16.42 | | | WH | 10 | 9.48 | 9.37 | 9.35 | | 100 | 11.81 | 11.72 | 11.73 | | | Reddit | 10 | 5.72 | 5.55 | 5.60 | | 100 | 6.17 | 6.23 | 6.17 | | | DS | 10 | 13.39 | 13.26 | 13.38 | | 100 | 15.71 | 15.74 | 15.64 | | | SS | 10 | 18.55 | 18.38 | 18.53 | | 100 | 20.93 | 20.96 | 20.65 | | | QMSum | 10 | 12.06 | 12.04 | 12.12 | | 100 | 13.40 | 13.73 | 13.89 | | | Average | 10 | 12.07 | 11.90 | 12.09 | | 100 | 13.95 | 13.96 | 13.97 | | ## F **Case Study** We qualitatively demonstrate the advantages of UNISUMM (100-shot) using cases from MultiNews and QMSum, and present an error analysis using case from WikiHow. As shown in Table 11 (MultiNews), we see that the UNISUMM generates a summary with similar events and faithful descriptions compared with the gold summary. However, PEGASUS generated summary contains factual errors ("*... was last seen* in a package shipped to the us from belgium.") while the summary generated by UNISUMM ("... unearthed ... shipment from belgium to newark") is consistent with the gold summary and input ("... turned up ... shipped from belgium."). This shows that UNISUMM has the ability to collect important information from multiple news reports and generate high-quality summaries, which is a task that the model has never seen during multi-task pre-training. Also, as shown in Table 12 (QMSum), compared with gold summary, although the summary generated by UNISUMM is longer, it is highly relevant to the query. And UNISUMM properly rephrases the key utterance from the source meeting into an objective description, which suits the characteristic of conversation summarization. In contrast, the summary generated by PEGASUS misses important contents and contains irrelevant sentences compared with UNISUMM and human annotation. This evidence shows that UNISUMM successfully learns important characters of query-based meeting summarization task with only 100 samples. An error case where UNISUMM fails can be found in Table 14 (WikiHow). UniSumm mistakenly generates "*...matches the text of the letter...*", where the ground truth should be the "*...matches. . . the one (address)...on the envelope*". Moreoever, the summary generated by UniSumm is a bit repetitive in wording, e.g., serveral repeated phrases "*... on the inside of the letter...*". We present more cases in Table 13 (ArXiv and DIALOGSUM), Table 14 (XSum) and Table 15 (SAMSum and Reddit). Overall, we find that UNISUMM is capable of generating very fluent, relevant, faithful and human-like summaries on diverse unseen tasks. This verifies UNISUMM's great generalization ability in the few-shot scenario. ## G **Influence Of Weight Decay** In § 3.4, we design a separated weight decay strategy to circumvent negative transfer in multi-task learning. In Table 10, we examine whether the combination of different weight decay rates (dp for prefixes and dl for the summarization model) is beneficial. Specifically, we report ROUGE-2 scores on SUMMZOO with different combinations of weight decay rates. We can see that the model performs the best with dp = 0.05 and dl = 0.01. And this asymmetrical weight decay is especially helpful to 10-shot XSum, which is more distinct from pretraining summarization tasks and relies more on general summarization knowledge. | MultiNews | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Input text | paris (ap) the pompidou centre in paris hopes to display a long-vanished picasso painting in may, now that it has been recovered by u.s. customs authorities. this undated photo provided by the united states department of justice, shows a cubist painting entitled the hairdresserby pablo picasso. authorities say the painting worth millions of dollars was ... ||||| a stolen picasso worth millions of dollars was shipped to the u.s. in a package that described it as a $37 "art craft " but it will soon be on its way back to france... | | PEGASUS | - a 1911 cubist painting worth millions of dollars has been recovered after being mysteriously transported from france to the us nearly a decade ago. the pablo picasso painting, titled la coiffeuse, was reported missing from a pompidou storeroom in paris in 2001 and was last seen in a package shipped to the us from belgium, the ap reports. federal prosecutors in brooklyn filed papers thursday to seize the painting, which was hidden in a climate-controlled storage facility in queens, ny, and will soon be returned to france, reports the new york times. the center for art recovery in paris says it hopes to have the painting back in may, at a time when the cultural world is reeling from islamic state videos showing the destruction of statues in iraq. "this is a true comfort for us at a time when the cultural world is reeling from the islamic state video showing the destruction of statues in iraq," says alain seban, the director of the pompidou centre in paris. "it is a work of art that represents the genius of pablo picasso and was bequeathed to us in 2001 by the master of france's national museum." | | GPT-3.5 | - the new york times has a front-page story friday detailing how former fbi chief james comey tried to instruct president trump about the proper boundaries that should exist between them. | | UNISUMM | - a century-old picasso painting missing from paris for more than a decade resurfaced in the united states under false pretenses as a $37 holiday-themed "art craft," the ap reports. the 1911 painting, called "la coiffeuse," was unearthed in december in a fedex shipment from belgium to newark. the canvas had been smuggled out of a storeroom of the centre georges pompidou, the paris museum and arts center. officials there thought it was safe and sound until they received a loan request for it in 2001. they searched the storerooms and could not find it. on dec. 17, someone going by "robert" with an address in belgium brought the painting to a climate-controlled warehouse in long island city and was seized, the ap reports. the us attorney for the eastern district of new york filed a civil complaint thursday to forfeit the picasso and return it to france. the canvas, titled "la coiffeuse," was bequeathed to the national museums of france in 1998. the pompidou director alain seban said in a statement friday that he hopes the work can be exhibited again publicly in may. no arrests have been made in the case. | | Gold | - a picasso painting that was found to have vanished from a paris museum more than a decade ago has turned up 2014 in the us, in a package shipped from belgium. its papers identified it as a $37 "art craft/toy" and also included the line "joyeux noel," or merry christmas, the new york times reports. a man named "robert" attempted to send the package to a climate-controlled warehouse in queens, new york, in december, but custom officials at the port of newark seized what turned out to be picasso's 1911 la coiffeuse (the hairdresser). french museum officials traveled to new york last month and confirmed the find is indeed the missing picasso work, which the centre georges pompidou realized was missing from its storerooms in 2001 following a loan request; it was then valued at more than $2.5 million. court documents don't specify whether the sender or would-be recipient have been identified, nbc news reports, but "a lost treasure has been found," us attorney loretta lynch said in a statement. she filed a civil complaint yesterday that will have the painting returned to france. the pompidou's director, who called the painting's rediscovery a "true comfort," hopes the painting can go on display at the museum as early as may, the ap reports. (another picasso work was stolen days before this one was found.) | | Table 11: Case study (a): Gold and generated summaries by 1-shot text-davinci-002 (GPT3.5), 100-shot | | Table 11: Case study (a): Gold and generated summaries by 1-shot text-davinci-002 (GPT3.5), 100-shot PEGASUS and UNISUMM on MultiNews, respectively. "|||||" seperates different reports in the input. | QMSum | | |------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Input text | what did barry hughes think about draft changes to cps guidance when talking about the divergence between the law in england and wales? suzy davies am: thank you. i was going to ask this question later, but i think it fits in . i've forgotten what i was going to ask; this is terrible. oh no, that's right obviously, this act is on a particular trajectory at the moment, and it's due to be introduced before the end of this assembly. do you think it would be better for us as scrutinisers of this act if we could see the draft changes to cps guidance on the public interest test before we make our final decision? barry hughes: i honestly don't think that would necessarily be helpful. i've had some discussions with kwame, who would have an involvement in this | | PEGASUS | barry hughes thought it would be better for the members to see the draft changes to cps guidance on the public interest test before making their final decision. he added that they would need to work that up as they went along, and it would be a risk of putting the cart before the horse. | | GPT-3.5 | Barry Hughes thinks that it would not be helpful for the public to see the draft changes to the CPS guidance on the public interest test before the final decision is made on the bill. He believes that it would be better to take the general principles set out in the code for crown prosecutors and provide more specific details around them that relate to the issues being discussed in the bill. | | UNISUMM | barry hughes thought that the draft changes to cps guidance would not necessarily be helpful. he thought that they would simply want to take the present public interest factors set out very clearly in the code for crown prosecutors, and provide a degree of detail around those that relates more specifically to the issues that they were discussing. so, it would be taking principles of generality and according them a degree of specificity. and they'd need to work that up as they go along. | | Gold | barry hughes thought draft changes to cps guidance would not necessarily be helpful to the scrutinisers, and simply wanted to take the present interest factors. barry thought they needed to work for the principles of generality and a degree of specificity. | Table 12: Case study (b): Gold and generated summaries by 1-shot text-davinci-002 (GPT3.5), 100-shot PEGASUS and UNISUMM on QMSum, respectively. The **blod** is the query. | ArXiv | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Input text | rapid progress in the design and manufacture of optical fiber systems is a result of worldwide demand for ultra - high bit - rate optical communications . this explains the growing interest of the soliton community in soliton - based optical fiber communication systems . this area of research was considerably advanced in recent years @ xcite . the most remarkable results include the application of the concept of the dispersion management to _ temporal optical solitons _ and soliton - based optical transmission systems , and the discovery of the so - called _ dispersion managed soliton _ . high - speed optical communications require effective components such as high - performance broadband computer networks that can be developed by employing the concept of the bit - parallel - wavelength ( bpw ) pulse transmission that offers many of the advantages of both parallel fiber ribbon cable and conventional wavelength - division ... | | | PEGASUS | the physical properties of multi - frequency solitary waves propagating in optical fibers and waveguides are discussed in the context of the soliton - based optical dispersion management. the emphasis is placed on the role of the spatial dispersion in the propagation of such solitary waves. it is shown that the propagation of such waves in optical fibers and waveguides is affected not only by the parametric difference between the pulse and the beam velocity, but also by the spatial variation of the dispersion profile. as a consequence, we argue that the role of the spatial dispersion in the propagation of solitary waves in optical fibers and waveguides is not limited to the parametric difference between the pulse and the beam velocity, but also includes the role of the spatial dispersion itself. | | | GPT-3.5 | This article discusses the various types of solitary waves that can occur in nonlinear optical systems, with a focus on how to extract information about the propagation characteristics from experimental data. The examples of temporal and spatial solitons are given, along with a discussion of the differences between them. The difficulties associated with experimental measurements are also addressed, along with suggestions for ways to overcome them. | | | UNISUMM | the aim of the present paper is to present a versatile scheme for the study of spatial and temporal solitary waves . this approach is based on the theory of spatio - temporal wave propagation , where the spatial beam profile along the transverse direction is similar to the temporal pulse profile in fibers . in all such systems , the nonlinear interaction between the waves of two ( or more ) frequencies is the major physical effect that can support coupled - mode multi - frequency solitary waves . we will illustrate three common examples : multi - wavelength solitary waves in bit - parallel - wavelength optical fiber links , multi - colour spatial solitons due to multistep cascading in optical waveguides with quadratic nonlinearities , and quasiperiodic solitons in the fibonacci superlattices . | | | Gold | we discuss several novel types of multi - component ( temporal and spatial ) envelope solitary waves that appear in fiber and waveguide nonlinear optics . in particular , we describe multi - channel solitary waves in bit - parallel - wavelength fiber transmission systems for high performance computer networks , multi - colour parametric spatial solitary waves due to cascaded nonlinearities of quadratic materials , and quasiperiodic envelope solitons due to quasi - phase - matching in fibonacci optical superlattices . 2 DIALOGSUM | | | Input text | person1: ms. dawson, i need you to take a dictation for me. person2: yes, sir... person1: this should go out as an intra-office memorandum to all employees by this afternoon. are you ready? person2: yes, sir. go ahead. person1: attention all staff... effective immediately, all office communications are restricted to email correspondence and official memos. the use of instant message programs by employees during working hours is strictly prohibited | | | PEGASUS | person1 advises dawson to sign an intra-office memorandum restricting office communications to email correspondence and official memos. person2 asks if this applies to internal and external communications. person1 tells them so. | | | GPT-3.5 | person1 needs Ms. Dawson to take a dictation for an intra-office memorandum that is to be distributed to all employees by 4 pm. The memo is to inform all staff that effective immediately, all office communications are restricted to email correspondence and official memos; the use of instant message programs by employees during working hours is strictly prohibited. At first offense, the employee will receive a warning and be placed on probation. The second offense will result in termination. | | | UNISUMM | person1 asks ms. dawson to take a dictation for person1. person1 restricts office communications to email correspondence and official memos and prohibits the use of instant message programs by employees during working hours. | | | Gold | ms. | dawson helps person1 to write a memo to inform every employee that they have to change the | | communication method and should not use instant messaging anymore. | | | | Table 13: Case study (c): Gold and generated summaries by 1-shot text-davinci-002 (GPT3.5), 100-shot | | | Table 13: Case study (c): Gold and generated summaries by 1-shot text-davinci-002 (GPT3.5), 100-shot PEGASUS and UNISUMM on ArXiv and DIALOGSUM, respectively. | WikiHow | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Input text | before folding the letter, make sure that the address on the inside of the letter matches with the one that you have written or printed on the envelope.this will help avoid any mixups. don't forget to check that you've signed the letter. make sure that the text is facing up and towards you. this is your last chance to proofread and double check that you haven't forgotten anything.for example, have you dated the letter? are there any spelling or grammar mistakes? , take the bottom of the letter and fold it so that it is about half an inch (about 1 cm) from the top of the page.you can place the envelope underneath the letter to use as a guide. make sure that when you have folded the letter up, it is small enough to fit inside the envelope. make sure to line up all the outside edges of the paper before creasing so that you don't end up with a crooked fold. if the fold is crooked, your letter may not fit into the envelope.use a ruler to make the crease nice and sharp. you can do this by holding a ruler sideways and using the thin edge. slide the edge of the ruler along the letter on the creases so they are nice and flat. you will now take the right part of the letter and fold it about one third of the way in.line up the top and bottom edges of the letter and then crease the fold. take the other side of the letter and fold it one third of the way in. this will be the same thing that you did with the right side.line up the top and bottom of the edges so they are perfectly straight before creasing. the last crease you made should go into the bottom of the envelope first. place it so that the folds face the backside of the envelope.this will make it easy for your recipient to find where to begin unfolding the letter. | | PEGASUS | take the top of the letter and fold it so that it is about half an inch (about 1 cm) from the top of the page. place the envelope underneath the letter. make sure that the envelope is flat on the inside. crease the folded side of the letter. | | GPT-3.5 | The document explains how to fold a letter so that it will fit into an envelope. First, make sure that the address on the letter matches the address on the envelope. Next, fold the bottom of the letter up to the top of the page, making sure to crease the fold. Then, fold the right side of the letter in to the middle, and repeat with the left side. Finally, insert the letter into the envelope so that the folds are facing the back. | | UNISUMM | check that the address on the inside of the letter matches the text of the letter to make sure that the address on the inside of the letter matches with the one on the page. make sure that the text matches with the one on the inside of the letter. make sure that the envelope is small enough to fit into the envelope. | | Gold | check the address. lay the letter on a table. fold the bottom half up. crease the fold. fold the right half of the letter inwards. fold the left half of the letter inwards. turn the letter sideways and insert into the envelope. XSum | | Input text | the sunday times says the missile veered off course during a test in june last year - weeks before the commons voted to spend 40bn renewing trident . questioned by andrew marr, the pm refused to say four times if she had known about the test ahead of the vote . the snp's nicola sturgeon called for a ' full disclosure ' of what happened . according to the sunday times, an unarmed trident ii d5 missile veered off in the wrong direction towards the us - instead of towards africa - when it was launched from a british submarine off the coast of florida . in july - days after mrs may had become prime minister - mps voted overwhelmingly in favour of replacing trident . during the debate, mrs may told mps it would be ' an act of gross irresponsibility ' for the uk to abandon its nuclear weapons . mps backed its renewal by 472 votes to 117 . however, all 52 snp mps voted against it - as did labour leader jeremy corbyn . when asked on the bbc's andrew marr show whether she had known then that a misfire had happened, mrs may said: ' i have absolute faith in our trident missiles . ' when i made that speech in the house of commons, what we were talking about was whether or not we should renew our trident . ' she was asked a further three times - but did not answer the questions . the ministry of defence did not give details of the test process but said it had been a success . scottish first minister, mrs sturgeon - a long-standing opponent of trident, whose submarines are based at faslane, on the river clyde - said the apparent misfire was a ' hugely serious issue ' . she tweeted: ' there should be full disclosure of what happened, who knew what/when, and why the house of commons wasn't told . ' meanwhile, mr corbyn said the reports called for ' a serious discussion ' | | PEGASUS | the prime minister has been accused of " side-stepping " questions about a submarine-launched nuclearcapable missile which misfired during a test. | | GPT-3.5 | trident is the uk's nuclear weapons system, consisting of submarines, missiles and warheads. it is operated by the royal navy and has been in use since the 1990s. reports that a missile test in june 2016 went wrong have raised questions about the system's effectiveness and whether it was deliberately kept quiet ahead of a key parliamentary vote on its renewal. | | UNISUMM | a nuclear missile launched a british submarine failed during a test, according to a report in the sunday times. | | Gold | theresa may is coming under pressure to say whether she knew about a reported misfire of the uk's nuclear weapons system before a crucial commons vote. | | Table 14: Case study (d): Gold and generated summaries by 1-shot text-davinci-002 (GPT3.5), 100-shot | | Table 14: Case study (d): Gold and generated summaries by 1-shot text-davinci-002 (GPT3.5), 100-shot PEGASUS and UNISUMM on WikiHow and XSum, respectively. | SAMSum | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Input text | cora: have you heard how much fuss british media made about meet and greet with james charles in birmingham? ellie: no...! what happened? cora: well, there was a meet and greet with james charles in one of the malls in birmingham and about 8000 fans showed up for it. cora: it cause a gridlock around the mall and - of course - british media had to make some (quite negative) comments on it. ellie: they came for sister james?! >:( ellie: i sister snapped!! :p :d cora: haha :d cora: you shouldn't watch so much youtube, you're getting weirder and weirder. :d ellie: sister shut up :p so, what did they say? cora: ;) : * daily mail" was surprised that a meet and greet with a "virtually unknown" youtuber gathered 8000 people. :p cora: a host from lbc tried to find an answer to an unanswerable question: "who is james charles?" ... | | PEGASUS | ellie's meet and greet with james charles in birmingham got some negative comments from british media. cora thinks it's ridiculous that a man can wear makeup. | | GPT-3.5 | cora and ellie were discussing the meet and greet with james charles in birmingham. 8000 fans showed up and it caused a gridlock. british media was surprised and some hosts couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that a guy can wear makeup. | | UNISUMM | about 8000 fans showed up for the meet and greet with james charles in birmingham. | | Gold | there was a meet-and-greet with james charles in birmingham which gathered 8000 people. Reddit | | Input Text | tifu making lunch. made myself a lush sandwich for lunch today. smoked ham, cheddar cheese, a dash of bbq sauce on thick cut wholemeal bread. popped it in a small tupperware box, for freshness. i found some bn type biscuits in the cupboard, so i pop them in the box on top of my sandwiches. think nothing of it. eventually lunch time comes around. i discover, to my horror, that the biscuits have absorbed the moisture from the sandwich. and now i have a dried out sandwich and soggy biscuits | | PEGASUS | made a luch sandwich for lunch, only to have it ruined by soggy biscuits. i'm completely fucked. | | GPT-3.5 | made a sandwich and it turned out terrible because the biscuits absorbed all the moisture. | | UNISUMM | made a big sandwich, with cheddar cheese, bbq sauce and bn type biscuits. popped them in a tupperware box, and discover they've dried out | | Gold | don't put your sandwich and biscuits in same box, unless you like dry bread and soggy biscuits. | | Table 15: Case study (e): Gold and generated summaries by 1-shot text-davinci-002 (GPT3.5), 100-shot | | Table 15: Case study (e): Gold and generated summaries by 1-shot text-davinci-002 (GPT3.5), 100-shot PEGASUS and UNISUMM on SAMSum and Reddit, respectively. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 and Appendix C. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 and Appendix C. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Ethics Statement ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C. ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Ethics Statement ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix A and Appendix B. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5, Section 6 And Appendix C ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix C The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix C ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 and Section 6 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 7 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Section 7 and Appendix E ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Ethics Statement ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section 7 and Appendix E ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Section 7 and Appendix E ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Appendix E

shi-etal-2023-rade

{RADE}: Reference-Assisted Dialogue Evaluation for Open-Domain Dialogue

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.719

Evaluating open-domain dialogue systems is challenging for reasons such as the one-to-many problem, i.e., many appropriate responses other than just the golden response. As of now, automatic evaluation methods need better consistency with humans, while reliable human evaluation can be time- and cost-intensive. To this end, we propose the Reference-Assisted Dialogue Evaluation (RADE) approach under the multi-task learning framework, which leverages the pre-created utterance as reference other than the gold response to relief the one-to-many problem. Specifically, RADE explicitly compares reference and the candidate response to predict their overall scores. Moreover, an auxiliary response generation task enhances prediction via a shared encoder. To support RADE, we extend three datasets with additional rated responses other than just a golden response by human annotation. Experiments on our three datasets and two existing benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, where Pearson, Spearman, and Kendall correlations with human evaluation outperform state-of-the-art baselines.

# Rade: Reference-Assisted Dialogue Evaluation For Open-Domain Dialogue Zhengliang Shi1, Weiwei Sun1, Shuo Zhang2**, Zhen Zhang**1, Pengjie Ren1**, Zhaochun Ren**1∗ 1Shandong University, Qingdao, China 2Bloomberg, London, United Kingdom shizhl@mail.sdu.edu.cn {sunnweiwei, zhen.zhang.sdu}@gmail.com zhaochun.ren@sdu.edu.cn szhang611@bloomberg.net jay.ren@outlook.com ## Abstract Evaluating open-domain dialogue systems is challenging for reasons such as the one-tomany problem, i.e., many appropriate responses other than just the golden response. As of now, automatic evaluation methods need better consistency with humans, while reliable human evaluation can be time- and cost-intensive. To this end, we propose the Reference-Assisted Dialogue Evaluation (RADE) approach under the multi-task learning framework, which leverages the pre-created utterance as reference other than the gold response to relief the one-tomany problem. Specifically, RADE explicitly compares reference and the candidate response to predict their overall scores. Moreover, an auxiliary response generation task enhances prediction via a shared encoder. To support RADE, we extend three datasets with additional rated responses other than just a golden response by human annotation. Experiments on our three datasets and two existing benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, where Pearson, Spearman, and Kendall correlations with human evaluation outperform stateof-the-art baselines. ## 1 Introduction Open-domain dialogue system, which focuses on non-goal-oriented chitchat, may converse on a broad range of arbitrary topics. Recent years have witnessed rapid advances in natural language generation (Zhang et al., 2019b; Roller et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2023), boosting the development of opendomain dialogue systems. Conversations with such systems resemble human-human interactions as various responses might fit the context, given that users often do not have a specific goal beyond enjoying the conversation. Evaluating these conversations is thus challenging because of the socalled one-to-many problem (Chan et al., 2021; Ji et al., 2022); see Figure 1 where three candidate ∗ Corresponding author.  responses with different semantics fit the context while there is only one golden response. The most common practice of dialogue evaluation is done with reference-based metrics, which compare the generated response with a pre-created response, commonly referred to as the golden standard (Ji et al., 2022). The reference-based metrics calculate the similarity between the generated and gold responses at either lexical level (e.g., ROUGE (Lin, 2004), BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002)) or semantic level (e.g., BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2019a), ADEM (Lowe et al., 2017)). However, these metrics ignore the one-to-many nature of open-domain dialogues. As illustrated at the bottom of Figure 1, the generated response "*Amazon* is good but expensive ..." expresses the opposite semantics to the golden response "*I shop online...*" and is therefore considered a non-good response by the reference-based metrics. Therefore, these metrics may need a higher consistency with humans. Recently, *multi-reference methods* and *referencefree methods* are proposed to address the drawback of reference-based metrics. The former explicitly annotates multiple references for dialogue (Eric et al., 2021), whereas the latter discards the golden response in the evaluation and achieves high cor12856 relations with human judgments (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020c; Huang et al., 2020). However, drawback still exists in these two classes of methods. Multi-reference methods are costly and hard to generalize to different datasets, while referencefree methods are often unstable and vulnerable to data-induced biases1. To overcome the weakness of existing evaluation methods and further resolve the one-to-many problem, we propose a new technique, namely Reference-Assisted Dialogue Evaluation (RADE). RADE considers the pre-created response as a reference instead of the golden standard. To support RADE, we design a new human annotation task to extend existing datasets, which includes metric decompose and pairwise annotation, where a pre-scored golden response is paired with generated responses for rating following a unified rating score. The final scores are arrived at by aggregating ratings with a weighted sum from different sub-metrics. The human annotation collects labels for three high-quality datasets with 10,112 dialogues, which correspond to three downstream open-domain dialogue system tasks, i.e., chitchat, empathetic dialogue, and personal chat. These multi-domain datasets make RADE more robust when generalizing to cross-domain evaluation scenarios while having a better task-specific performance. We propose a RADE model under the multitask learning framework for automatic evaluation based on the newly collected datasets. Specifically, RADE first explicitly encodes the relation between dialogue context and generated response with reference assistance. Then RADE discriminates whether the reference or response fits the context better and predicts the scores for each utterance. To relieve the one-to-many problem, we augment RADE with a joint response generation task where RADE learns to generate the reference responses to better perceive the range of candidate responses. Extensive experiments on our three benchmarks demonstrate that RADE achieves the best correlations with human judgment. We also examine two existing USR benchmark (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020c) where RADE outperforms the state-of-theart methods, e.g., pushing the Pearson correlation coefficient to 48% (6.8% absolute improvement) and Spearman correlation coefficient to 46.6% (4.3% absolute improvement). Experiments also verify the generalizability of our proposed method. Our contributions can be summarized as follows: (1) We propose the reference-assisted evaluation method, i.e., RADE, for open-domain dialogue evaluation; (2) We design a new human annotation task and collect three new dialogue evaluation datasets; (3) Experiments on our benchmarks and two existing benchmarks verify the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed methods; (4) We release three new benchmarks and the pre-trained evaluation model to facilitate future research on dialogue evaluation. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Reference-Based Dialogue Evaluation Previous reference-based methods compare the generated response with the pre-created response at the lexical or semantic level. Lexical-level metrics, e.g., ROUGE (Lin, 2004), BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) and METEOR (Banerjee and Lavie, 2005), count the n-gram overlap between the candidate response and the reference response. These methods usually correlate poorly with human evaluation results due to the lexical mismatch problem (Liu et al., 2016). Semantic-level metrics evaluate address lexical mismatch problem by calculating similarity with high-dimension embeddings. For example, Sharma et al. (2017) measures the embedding distance between golden and generated response. Ghazarian et al. (2019) and Zhang et al. (2019a) enhance the text representation using the large pretrain model, which has shown exemplary performance in capturing semantic similarity. However, they suffer from the one-to-many problem when evaluating open-domain dialogues since responses with various semantics may fit the dialogue context. Recent works tend to relieve this drawback by annotating multiple references for dialogue, commonly referred to as multi-reference methods (Li et al., 2017; Sai et al., 2020), which are costly and hard to generalize to agnostic scenarios. The proposed RADE aims to consider the pre-created response as a candidate instead of the golden standard to address the one-to-many problem of dialogue evaluation. ## 2.2 Reference-Free Dialogue Evaluation The reference-free methods are gaining more attention as they correlate more with human judgment only with the dialogue context and response. For example, MAUDE predicts the score of dialogue using pre-trained language models, GRADE (Huang et al., 2020) evaluates the coherence of dialogues with the augmentation of the commonsense graph, EMS (Chan et al., 2021) enhances the dialogue evaluation by capturing the representation of the context and response in latent space. Some methods further decompose the evaluation of responses into multiple perspectives (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020a,c; Phy et al., 2020), such as relevance, fluency, and engagingness, then aggregate the overall score from different sub-metrics with a weighted average. However, some recent studies (Khalid and Lee, 2022; Deutsch et al., 2022) reveal that the referencefree methods are vulnerable to data-induced biases and inherently biased toward models which are more similar to their own. In contrast, this paper proposes a reference-assisted approach, which enhances the robustness of the model using reference responses as a benchmark. ## 3 Task Formulation In this work, we propose two tasks: (1) extending the existing datasets by human annotation, and (2) leveraging the rated references collected in (1) to enhance automatic evaluation. Human annotation Human annotation aims to extend existing datasets with multiple rated responses to facilitate automatic evaluation. Given a dialogue context c, which is always paired with a golden response (denoted as reference) rh, we employ the generation models, e.g., BlenderBot (Roller et al., 2021), to generate one more response ra. We then assign a fixed overall score or derive from existing datasets to the reference as sh. The annotators are instructed to rate ra as sa, following the same scale while taking the reference as a benchmark. The annotators are also asked to revise the reference score sh if sh is inappropriate. Automatic evaluation Given a dialogue context c, the proposed RADE learns to evaluate the response ra with the assistance of reference rh under the multi-task learning framework. The first task explicitly models the relation between reference and response and discriminates which fits the con- Relevance †: Whether the response matches dialogue context semantically. Engagingness†: Whether the response is engaging or interesting rather than rigid template. Fluency†: Whether the response is fluent and natural throughout the conversation. Understandability‡: Is there any external knowledge contained in the response. Emotional-awareness‡: Whether the agent capture the emotion of user and support empathic support. Personality-awareness‡: Whether the response conforms to given personality. Table 1: **Criteria in human annotation.** Metrics with † are general metrics for all dialogue tasks, while metrics ‡ are metrics for specific dialogue tasks (e.g., understandability for chitchat, emotion-awareness for emotional dialogue and personal-awareness for personal chat). text better. The scores of reference and response are predicted simultaneously. And the second task enhances the score prediction task by implicitly estimating the distribution of candidate responses. ## 4 Human Annotation Our human annotation task aims to rate the candidate responses following a pre-scored reference as a benchmark. Since there are multiple perspectives to assess the response, we simplify by sorting the possible aspects into two categories: the general view and the task-specific view. As listed in Table 1, the former contains relevance, engagingness, and fluency, which are suitable for all dialogue agents. And task-specific criteria consist of understandability, emotional awareness, and personality awareness, which correspond to chitchat dialogue, emotional dialogue, and persona dialogue. We annotate rates on each metric and calculate the overall rating score by weighting these sub-metrics. Specifically, the weights are obtained based on the preference of users (see section A.1.3 for more details). ## 4.1 Data Preparation We consider three datasets to extend: - *DSTC–* ChitChat (ChitChat) (Hori and Hori, 2017), a chitchat dataset collected from Twitter, each example derived from the conversation between a customer and an agent. - *Empathetic Dialogues* (EmpaDial) (Rashkin et al., 2019), which consists of 25k dialogues grounded in emotional situations. | Domain | ChitChat | EmpaDial | PersonaChat | |-----------------------------------------|------------|------------|---------------| | # Dialogues | 2,090 | 4,022 | 4,000 | | Kappa | 0.540 | 0.554 | 0.533 | | Distribution of the score Rating 1 0.5% | 1.2% | 3.7% | | | Rating 2 | 15.6% | 12.5% | 12.6% | | Rating 3 | 48.3% | 42.0% | 50.5% | | Rating 4 | 29.5% | 32.0% | 23.9% | | Rating 5 | 5.1% | 12.3% | 9.4% | - *PersonaChat* (Zhang et al., 2018), a real-world dataset consisting of 10k dialogues where each participant plays the part of an assigned persona. Then, we collect model-generated responses using the following seven well-performing dialogue models on these datasets: BlenderBot (Roller et al., 2021), DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2019b), KEMP (Li et al., 2020b), MoEL (Lin et al., 2019), MIME (Majumder et al., 2020), EmpDG (Li et al., 2020a), PersonaGPT (Tang et al., 2021). The train-dev-test of collected datasets are split as Chitchat (1490/300/300, 5/1/1), Empathetic Dialogue (3022/500/500, 6/1/1), and Persona Chat (3000/500/500, 6/1/1). More details of these models are available in Appendix A.1.1. ## 4.2 Human Annotation Detalis We hire 40 annotators for data annotation. Following a five-scale standard, they are asked to label sub-metrics as listed in Table 1. The five-scale allows the annotators to factor in their subjective interpretation of the extent of success or failure of a system's response to satisfy a user's request. The dialogue context, rated reference response, and corresponding score are provided in each example. At least three annotators are required for each example. We annotated about 10k dialogues for the three datasets, and the statistics of the collected datasets are listed in Table 2. The ratings achieve reasonable inter-annotator agreements with Fleiss Kappa scores of 0.540, 0.554, and 0.533 on three datasets, respectively. More details about the annotation guideline and details are provided in Appendix A.1.2. ## 5 Reference-Assisted Automatic Evaluation We propose RADE, a Reference-Assisted Automatic Dialogue Evaluation method under the framework of multi-task learning. Compared with reference-based methods that evaluate based on the distance between the golden and generated response, the proposed RADE explicitly discriminates whether the reference or candidate response fits the dialogue context better. To relieve the one-to-many problem, we augment RADE with a joint response generation task, which aims to perceive the range of feasible candidate responses. To improve the performance of RADE with the limited dataset, we propose a two-stage training strategy, including cross-domain pre-training and task-specific finetune. ## 5.1 Model Architecture The architecture of RADE is illustrated in Figure 2, which comprises a posterior encoder, a regression layer, and a candidate response generator. Posterior encoder. The posterior encoder encodes the dialogue context c, reference response rh, and model-generated response ra into hidden representation. In particular, we first concatenate c, rh and ra together into X with a specific token [SEP]: $$X=\left\{c\;\mathsf{[S E P]}\;r_{h}\;\mathsf{[S E P]}\;r_{a}\right\}$$ $$(1)$$ Then the concatenated sequence is fed into a transformer-based encoder to get the representation H ∈ R|X|×d: $$\mathbf{H}=\mathrm{Encoder}(X),$$ $$(2)$$ size of encoder $|X|$ is . H = Encoder(X), (2) where d is the hidden size of encoder, |X| is the length of sequence X. Regression layer. The regression layer aggregates the representation H and predicts the scores of both reference and candidate response simultaneously. Specifically, a pooling layer aggregates the token-level representation into a sequence-level representation: h ∈ R d×1: $$\mathbf{h}=\mathrm{Pooling}(\mathbf{H})$$ $$\left(4\right)$$ h = Pooling(H) (3) Then, a feedforward network takes h as input to predict the score of both reference and candidate response: $$(\hat{s_{h}},\hat{s_{a}})=\mathrm{FeedForward}(\mathbf{h}),$$ where sˆh and sˆa denote the predicted score of rh and ra, respectively.  Candidate response generator. To relieve the one-to-many problem, we devise a candidate response generator to perceive the range of feasible candidate responses (Chan et al., 2021). Specifically, a Transformer-based generator learns to generate reference responses autoregressively for a specific context. We first encode the dialogue context c using a encoder: $${\hat{\mathbf{h}}}=\operatorname{Encoder}\left(c\right),$$ hˆ = Encoder (c), (5) where the Encoder shares the same parameters with the posteriori encoder in Eq. (2). Then, we apply a Transformer-based decoder Decoder to model the generation probability of reference response rh: $$P(r_{h}|c)=\prod_{t=1}^{T}\mathrm{Decoder}(r_{h}^{(t)}|r_{h}^{(<t)},{\hat{\mathbf{h}}}),\quad(6)$$ where T denotes the length of rh. Compared with the previous reference-free methods, which estimate the relation between context and response only with the knowledge acquired from their training data, RADE explicitly takes the pre-created response as a benchmark to reduce the data-induced bias when generalizing to agnostic scenarios. Moreover, different from existing reference-based methods, which use the pre-created response as the golden standard without considering the semantic diversity of the response, we relieve the one-to-many problem via auxiliary response generation tasks. The share encoder enhances the capability of context representation which augment the performance of scorepredicting task through multi-task learning. ## 5.2 Two-Stage Training $$({\boldsymbol{\mathfrak{H}}})$$ The neural-based model has been proven prone to data-induced bias, but it is costly to annotate a large dataset in every specific task. Therefore, we propose a two-stage strategy that includes: (1) cross-domain pre-training, and (2) task-specific fine-tuning, keeping a tradeoff of performance between in- and cross-domain. As shown in Figure 2 (right), we pre-train our model based on existing human-annotated datasets from different downstream tasks of open-domain dialogue to improve the generalizability (Ye et al., 2021a). Since the cross-domain datasets suffer from domain gaps and no pair-wised score, we finetune our model in the next stage with newly collected task-specific datasets. Cross-domain pre-training. The pre-training datasets contain 54,438 dialogue-level examples collected from different downstream tasks, covering a wide range of domains (see more details in Table 7). For learning the coarse-grain judgment of generated response without human-annotated reference scores, our model is first pre-trained by minimizing a new cross-domain pre-training loss LCross. Concretely, the LCross is composed of scoreprediction loss and generation loss, which can be formulated as: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{Cross}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{MSE}}({\hat{s_{a}}},s_{a})+{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{GEN}},\qquad(7)$$ where sˆa and sa denote the human-annotated score and the predicted score of the candidate response and LMSE( ˆsa, sa) = ( ˆsa − sa) 2. LGEN is the response generation loss, which is defined as: $$\mathcal{L}_{\rm GEN}=-\log P(r_{h}|c),\tag{8}$$ where $P(r_{h}|c)$ is the generation probability of $r_{h}$ defined in Eq. (6). Task-specific finetuning. We next finetune our model with newly annotated datasets to enhance the performance when evaluating task-specific dialogue agents. The optimize objective LIn is composed of score-prediction loss, generation loss, and pair-wised ranking loss, which can be formulated as: $$\begin{array}{c}{{\cal L}_{\rm In}={\cal L}_{\rm MSE}(\hat{s_{a}},s_{a})+{\cal L}_{\rm MSE}(\hat{s_{h}},s_{h})+}}\\ {{{\cal L}_{\rm GEN}+{\cal L}_{\rm PR}}}\end{array}\tag{9}$$ where LMSE( ˆsa, sa) and LMSE( ˆsh, sh) are MSE score-prediction loss of reference response and candidte response, respectively. LGEN is the generation loss as defined in Eq. (8). LPR is the pair-wise ranking loss defined as: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{PR}}=-g(s_{h},s_{a})\log\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\tilde{s_{a}}}}{\mathrm{e}^{\tilde{s_{h}}}+\mathrm{e}^{\tilde{s_{a}}}},\tag{1}$$ in which $g(s_{h},s_{a})$ is a labeling function defined , (10) as: $$g(s_{h},s_{a})={\begin{cases}0,&s_{h}\geq s_{a}\\ 1,&s_{h}<s_{a}\end{cases}}\quad.$$ $$(11)$$ The LPR is introduced to assure that the rank order of the predicted scores satisfies the preannotated order. Compared to reference-free models that inherently favor outputs from their underlying models or those trained on similar datasets, RADE is specifically optimized to align with human intentions and effectively alleviate this bias. ## 6 Experimental Setup 6.1 Dataset And Evaluation Metrics We mainly conduct experiments on the three datasets annotated in Section 4. We further evaluate the models on two existing benchmarks, USRTopicChat and USR-PersonaChat (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020c), to examine the generalizability of our method. The evaluation metrics include Pearson (r), Spearman (ρ), and Kendall (τ ) correlation, which measures the linear relationship, monotonic relationship, and the ordinal association between automatic evaluation and human evaluation, respectively2. We abbreviate the Pearson, Spearman, and Kendall correlation as r, ρ, and τ for simplicity. ## 6.2 Implementation Details We initialize the parameters of the encoder and decoder with BART (Lewis et al., 2019), a Transformer-based pre-trained model. BART is well-suited to our proposed model because it is capable of both text representation tasks and text generation tasks. We optimize the model using Adam optimizer with parameters β1 = 0.98, β2 = 0.97, and the learning rate of 5e−5. The model is trained up to 10 epochs, and we tune the hyper-parameters and pick the checkpoint on the development set. The training of the model can be done within 5 hours using two 2080Ti GPUs. We denote the RADE model that pre-trained on cross-domain datasets as **RADE (PT)**, and the model that further finetuned on task-specific data as **RADE (TS)**. ## 6.3 Baselines $$(10)$$ We compare our method with two types of baselines: reference-based and reference-free methods. The reference-free baselines include: *DialoRPT* (Gao et al., 2020a), which trained on largescale social media feedback data to predict rankingbased scores; *GRADE* (Huang et al., 2020), which enhances the contextualized representations via topic-level commonsense graphs and predicts the score using a regression module; FED (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020a), an unsupervised dialogue evaluation model based on DialogGPT; *UniEval* (Zhong et al., 2022), which evaluates the response from multiple perspectives; *QuesEval* (Scialom et al., 2021), which evaluates the fact-based text using summarizing asks. The reference-based baselines include: *RUBER* (Tao et al., 2017), an unsupervised evaluation metric considering the similarity of the response with dialog context and reference; BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2019a), which employs BERT to greedily match the response and the ground truth at the token level; *BLEURT* (Sellam et al., 2020), which is a BERT-based model pre-trained with millions of synthetic examples; BARTScore (De Bruyn et al., 2020), which weights the log-likelihood of the generated response as the score. We also test three reference-based lexicallevel metrics: ROUGE-L, *BLEU-2*, and *METEOR*. 2We use SciPy (https://scipy.org/) to calculate the scores. | ChitChat | Empathetic Dialogue | PersonaChat | | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|---------------|---------|-------|--------|-------|---------|---------|---------| | Methods | r | ρ | τ | r | ρ | τ | r | ρ | τ | | Reference-free methods FEDE (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020b) | 0.241 | 0.254 | 0.177 | 0.202 | 0.218 | 0.218 | 0.138 | 0.120 | 0.086 | | FEDU (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020b) | 0.235 | 0.248 | 0.171 | 0.147 | 0.156 | 0.106 | 0.145 | 0.162 | 0.117 | | QuesEval (Scialom et al., 2021) | 0.045 | 0.021 | 0.013 | 0.069 | 0.084 | 0.057 | -0.003 | 0.034 | 0.0237 | | UniEval (Zhong et al., 2022) | 0.456 | 0.470 | 0.312 | 0.403 | 0.435 | 0.286 | 0.306 | 0.338 | 0.244 | | DialoRPT (Gao et al., 2020b) | -0.066∗ | -0.044∗ | -0.031∗ | 0.267 | 0.244 | 0.166 | -0.077∗ | -0.069∗ | -0.049∗ | | GRADE (Huang et al., 2020) | 0.491 | 0.434 | 0.300 | 0.549 | 0.568 | 0.398 | -0.031∗ | -0.005 | -0.030∗ | | QuantiDCE (Ye et al., 2021b) | 0.348 | 0.300 | 0.202 | 0.498 | 0.507 | 0.351 | 0.162 | 0.182 | 0.130 | | Reference-based lexicon-level methods ROUGE-L (Lin, 2004) | 0.215 | 0.178 | 0.129 | 0.213 | 0.214 | 0.148 | 0.118 | 0.114 | 0.079 | | BLEU-2 (Papineni et al., 2002) | 0.201 | 0.200 | 0.158 | 0.057 | 0.041∗ | 0.032 | 0.060 | 0.039 | 0.031 | | METEOR (Banerjee and Lavie, 2005) | 0.202 | 0.188 | 0.129 | 0.182 | 0.194 | 0.132 | 0.099 | 0.051 | 0.035 | | Reference-based semantic-level methods BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2019a) 0.296 | 0.243 | 0.213 | 0.167 | 0.243 | 0.173 | 0.278 | 0.292 | 0.196 | | | BARTScore (Lewis et al., 2019) | 0.133 | 0.057 | 0.039 | 0.256 | 0.253 | 0.173 | 0.143 | 0.168 | 0.115 | | RUBER (Tao et al., 2017) | 0.332 | 0.351 | 0.369 | 0.252 | 0.256 | 0.183 | 0.122 | 0.123 | 0.089 | | BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020) | 0.353 | 0.363 | 0.249 | 0.343 | 0.337 | 0.232 | 0.105 | 0.140 | 0.102 | | BERTMLP † (Devlin et al., 2018) | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.192 | 0.501 | 0.537 | 0.373 | 0.331 | 0.360 | 0.251 | | BARTMLP † (Lewis et al., 2019) | 0.431 | 0.440 | 0.312 | 0.412 | 0.447 | 0.356 | 0.310 | 0.335 | 0.242 | | Reference-assisted methods RADE (Pre-trained model, PT) | 0.472 | 0.491 | 0.334 | 0.650 | 0.601 | 0.427 | 0.386 | 0.390 | 0.285 | | RADE (Task-specific model, TS) | 0.601 | 0.569 | 0.409 | 0.863 | 0.849 | 0.685 | 0.470 | 0.465 | 0.347 | | Ablation Study - w/o LPR | 0.503 | 0.514 | 0.353 | 0.773 | 0.756 | 0.613 | 0.406 | 0.403 | 0.313 | | - w/o LGEN | 0.451 | 0.482 | 0.332 | 0.751 | 0.740 | 0.602 | 0.387 | 0.372 | 0.272 | Moreover, we implement two reference-based baselines, BERTMLP and BARTMLP, which are trained with the same human-annotated datasets as RADE, and provide a reasonable comparison with our proposed model. Specifically, we obtain the text representations of the dialogue using BERT or BART and then feed the representations into a multi-layer perception to calculate the scores. For a more comprehensive analysis, we also fine-tune the two strongest baselines, QuantiDCE and GRADE, on our cross-domain datasets as well as our selfcollected datasets, respectively. ## 7 Results And Analysis 7.1 Experimental Results Overall performance. Table 3 shows the experimental performance for all methods. Overall, RADE achieves the best performance in three benchmarks in terms of all metrics. Concretely, the pre-trained model RADE (PT) gets better or comparable correlation with human judgment than the best baseline method on three dialogue tasks. The task-specific model RADE (TS), fine-tuned with the newly collected reference-assisted data, establishes a new state-of-the-art by improving the performance by about 30% on average compared to RADE (PT). For example, RADE (TS) gets r = 0.601, ρ = 0.569 in the ChitChat domain, and pushes r to 0.863 (0.314 absolute improvements), τ to 0.685 (0.287 absolute improvements) in EmpaDial domain. This result suggests that training with in-domain datasets is critical to enhancing the task-specific evaluation capability of RADE. For a more comprehensive comparison, we also train the two strongest baselines (QuantiDCE and GRADE) with our cross-domain and self-collected datasets, respectively. And the result and analysis are provided in Appendix A.2.3. Generalizability. We find that the performance of the reference-free method varies dramatically across domains. For example, GRADE and QuantiDCE, trained in the chitchat domain, achieve high correlations with human judgment in ChitChat and EmpaDial but perform poorly in PersonaChat. The result indicates that the contextual representation capabilities of unsupervised methods are limited by their training data and, therefore, are prone to datainduced bias, decreasing their performance when employing agnostic scenarios. In contrast, the gap between the proposed RADE (PT) methods across different domains is relatively small. These results indicate that RADE has better generalizability than reference-free methods due to the assistance of reference and the proposed cross-domain training strategy. Results on USR benchmarks. We further examine our methods on two USR datasets (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020c) to verify the efficiency and robustness of RADE when generalizing to existing dialogue evaluation benchmarks. The results are listed in Table 4. Experiments show that RADE, which has not explicitly trained on these datasets, achieves better or comparable results to previous supervised methods. See Appendix A.2.4 for more results and details. MethodsUSR-Topical USR-Pearsona r ρ r ρ GRADE 0.200 0.217 0.358 0.352 USR 0.412 0.423 0.440 0.418 USL-H 0.322 0.340 **0.495 0.523** METEOR 0.336 0.391 0.253 0.271 BERTScore 0.298 0.325 0.152 0.122 BLEURT 0.216 0.261 0.065 0.054 Ours 0.480 0.466 0.451 0.465 ## 7.2 Ablation Study We perform an ablation study to investigate the influence of different components in our methods. We examine two ablative variants: (1) w/o LPR: we remove the ranking-based loss LPR to verify its effectiveness (w/o LPR); (2) w/o LGEN: we remove the LGEN to verify training with response generation task jointly can improve the predicting correlation with human judgment. Table 3 presents the results. Overall, the variants of our methods show a decreased performance compared to the base model. For example, Pearson drops 0.10, 0.09, and 0.07 in three benchmarks, respectively, after the LPR is removed. This result indicates that ranking-based loss can enhance performance by explicitly building the relation be-  tween response and reference. After removing the LGEN, the correlation in all benchmarks has a prominent decrease, e.g., Spearman correlation drops by 0.15, 0.10, and 0.09, respectively. The results suggest that the auxiliary response generation task improves the representation capability of our method and relieves the one-to-many problem. ## 7.3 Case Study Our case studies demonstrate that RADE is more consistent with human judgment than baselines. Details about our case studies are available in Appendix A.2.5. ## 7.4 Qualitative Analysis To explain more intuitively, we show the scatter plots against human judgments for different automatic evaluation methods (i.e., RADE, GRADE, BERTScore, METEOR) on the EmpaDial dataset in Figure 3. As shown in Figure 3 (a), our method RADE achieves a stronger correlation with human judgment than the other methods. Figure 3 (d) illustrates that METEOR scores are zero or extremely low for the most response. It results from the oneto-many nature of open-domain dialogue, and word overlapping occasionally occurs. Figure 3 (c) suggests that the BERTScore scores are mainly concentrated in the range of 0.3-0.6, indicating no significant differentiation between the different responses. Figure 3 (b) shows that GRADE achieves a better correlation with human judgments. However, the distribution of GRADE predicted scores is concentrated in the high-scoring band, resulting in a low distinction of responses; RADE uses reference as a benchmark and thus has a more balanced distribution of predicted scores. ## 8 Discussions The impact of the training data scale. To explore the minimum data scale required for our method, we train RADE using different amounts of randomly sampled annotated data. We observe a minor degradation in RADE's performance as the amount of data decreases. For example, when training on 2,400 examples from the EmpatheticDialogue dataset, RADE(TS) achieves Pearman'r=0.837 and Spearman'rho=0.829; whereas with 1,200 examples, it obtains Pearman'r=0.807 and Spearman'rho=0.806. All results are averaged over three runs. Moreover, we find that RADE outperforms all baselines with only 800 training examples in three datasets, respectively. ## The Difference Between Golden And Candidate Responses. *Golden response* refers to a scenario where there is only one correct response, and any different response is given a low score. For example, BERTScore calculates the cosine similarity between the golden and model-generated response. However, *Candidate responses* implies that there can be multiple correct answers, which is more flexible and human-intuitive. And RADE is optimized to align with this human intention using generative and pairwise-ranking loss. If more references are available, the RADE can consider multiple valid responses to make more reliable evaluations. To achieve this, we can concatenate model-generated responses with different references. However, due to the limitation of our datasets, we concatenate one reference and model-generated response, which are then fed to the encoder. ## Employing Rade When The Reference Response is not available. Considering the reference is not always available in real-world scenarios, we design two alternatives to enable RADE, i.e., constructing a pseudo-reference via retrieval or generative method. We verify the two solutions on the FED dataset and the details can be found in Appendix A.3. ## 9 Conclusion We have presented a new reference-assist dialogue evaluation (RADE) method to address the one-tomany problem when evaluating open-domain dialogue systems. RADE evaluates the response generated by open-domain dialogue agents with the assistance of reference response. In addition, we have curated the reference-assisted dialogue evaluation datasets by expanding three existing datasets via a pairwise human annotation. The extended datasets contain over 10K dialogues. Extensive experiments on three extended datasets and two existing benchmarks have verified the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed methods and their generalizability. ## Limitations The main limitation of this paper is the need for human-labeled reference responses. We will explore automated or human-machine collaboration methods to reduce the cost of annotation in the next stage. Another limitation is that we need to explore whether other auxiliary tasks can also enhance the performance of score prediction. In the future, we also plan to reproduce the proposed method for other, less resource-rich languages. ## Ethics Statement The paper proposes a dialogue evaluation method, which is intended to evaluate open-ended dialogue on topics such as books and movies. A new dataset is developed using some existing dialogue systems, such as DialoGPT, which are trained on large-scale web data that is known to contain biased or discriminatory content. The datasets that we trained on may also include subjective knowledge (comments on movies) that may express the bias of the writers. ## References Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. METEOR: An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In ACL. Zhangming Chan, Lemao Liu, Juntao Li, Haisong Zhang, Dongyan Zhao, Shuming Shi, and Rui Yan. 2021. Enhancing the open-domain dialogue evaluation in latent space. In ACL. Maxime De Bruyn, Ehsan Lotfi, Jeska Buhmann, and Walter Daelemans. 2020. Bart for knowledge grounded conversations. In KDD. Daniel Deutsch, Rotem Dror, and Dan Roth. 2022. On the limitations of reference-free evaluations of generated text. *ArXiv*. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805*. Mihail Eric, Nicole Chartier, Behnam Hedayatnia, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Pankaj Rajan, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2021. Multi-sentence knowledge selection in open-domain dialogue. In ACL. Xiang Gao, Yizhe Zhang, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, and Bill Dolan. 2020a. Dialogue response ranking training with large-scale human feedback data. In EMNLP. Xiang Gao, Yizhe Zhang, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, and Bill Dolan. 2020b. Dialogue response rankingtraining with large-scale human feedback data. In EMNLP. Sarik Ghazarian, Johnny Wei, Aram Galstyan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019. Better automatic evaluation of open-domain dialogue systems with contextualized embeddings. In *NAACL*. Sarik Ghazarian, Ralph Weischedel, Aram Galstyan, and Nanyun Peng. 2020. Predictive engagement: An efficient metric for automatic evaluation of opendomain dialogue systems. In *AAAI*. Chiori Hori and Takaaki Hori. 2017. End-to-end conversation modeling track in dstc6. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07440. Lishan Huang, Zheng Ye, Jinghui Qin, Liang Lin, and Xiaodan Liang. 2020. Grade: Automatic graphenhanced coherence metric for evaluating opendomain dialogue systems. In *EMNLP*. Tianbo Ji, Yvette Graham, Gareth Jones, Chenyang Lyu, and Qun Liu. 2022. Achieving reliable human assessment of open-domain dialogue systems. In ACL. Baber Khalid and Sungjin Lee. 2022. Explaining dialogue evaluation metrics using adversarial behavioral analysis. In *NAACL*. Tian Lan, Xian-Ling Mao, Wei Wei, Xiaoyan Gao, and Heyan Huang. 2020. Pone: A novel automatic evaluation metric for open-domain generative dialogue systems. *TOIS*. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In ACL. Qintong Li, Hongshen Chen, Zhaochun Ren, Pengjie Ren, Zhaopeng Tu, and Zhumin Chen. 2020a. EmpDG: Multi-resolution interactive empathetic dialogue generation. In *COLING*. Qintong Li, Pijian Li, Zhaochun Ren, Pengjie Ren, and Zhumin Chen. 2020b. Knowledge bridging for empathetic dialogue generation. In *AAAI*. Yanran Li, Hui Su, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Shuzi Niu. 2017. DailyDialog: A manually labelled multi-turn dialogue dataset. In *IJCNLP*. Zekang Li, Jinchao Zhang, Zhengcong Fei, Yang Feng, and Jie Zhou. 2021. Conversations are not flat: Modeling the dynamic information flow across dialogue utterances. In ACL. Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, et al. 2022. Holistic evaluation of language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110*. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In ACL. Zhaojiang Lin, Andrea Madotto, Jamin Shin, Peng Xu, and Pascale Fung. 2019. MoEL: Mixture of empathetic listeners. In *EMNLP*. Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian Serban, Mike Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. How NOT to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation. In *EMNLP*. Ryan Lowe, Michael Noseworthy, Iulian Vlad Serban, Nicolas Angelard-Gontier, Yoshua Bengio, and Joelle Pineau. 2017. Towards an automatic Turing test: Learning to evaluate dialogue responses. In ACL. Navonil Majumder, Pengfei Hong, Shanshan Peng, Jiankun Lu, Deepanway Ghosal, Alexander Gelbukh, Rada Mihalcea, and Soujanya Poria. 2020. Mime: Mimicking emotions for empathetic response generation. In *EMNLP*. Shikib Mehri and Maxine Eskenazi. 2020a. Unsupervised evaluation of interactive dialog with dialogpt. In *SIGDIAL*. Shikib Mehri and Maxine Eskenazi. 2020b. Unsupervised evaluation of interactive dialog with dialogpt. In ACL. Shikib Mehri and Maxine Eskenazi. 2020c. USR: An unsupervised and reference free evaluation metric for dialog generation. In ACL. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In ACL. Vitou Phy, Yang Zhao, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. Deconstruct to reconstruct a configurable evaluation metric for open-domain dialogue systems. In *COLING*. Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards empathetic opendomain conversation models: a new benchmark and dataset. In ACL. Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Eric Michael Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. In ACL. Ananya B. Sai, Akash Kumar Mohankumar, Siddhartha Arora, and Mitesh M. Khapra. 2020. Improving dialog evaluation with a multi-reference adversarial dataset and large scale pretraining. *TACL*. Thomas Scialom, Paul-Alexis Dray, Sylvain Lamprier, Benjamin Piwowarski, Jacopo Staiano, Alex Wang, and Patrick Gallinari. 2021. QuestEval: Summarization asks for fact-based evaluation. In *EMNLP*. Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur P Parikh. 2020. Bleurt: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In ACL. Shikhar Sharma, Layla El Asri, Hannes Schulz, and Jeremie Zumer. 2017. Relevance of unsupervised metrics in task-oriented dialogue for evaluating natural language generation. *CoRR*. Koustuv Sinha, Prasanna Parthasarathi, Jasmine Wang, Ryan Lowe, William L. Hamilton, and Joelle Pineau. 2020. Learning an unreferenced metric for online dialogue evaluation. In ACL. Fengyi Tang, Lifan Zeng, Fei Wang, and Jiayu Zhou. 2021. Persona authentication through generative dialogue. *ArXiv*. Chongyang Tao, Lili Mou, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2017. Ruber: An unsupervised method for automatic evaluation of open-domain dialog systems. In *AAAI*. Zheng Ye, Liucun Lu, Lishan Huang, Liang Lin, and Xiaodan Liang. 2021a. Towards quantifiable dialogue coherence evaluation. In ACL. Zheng Ye, Liucun Lu, Lishan Huang, Liang Lin, and Xiaodan Liang. 2021b. Towards quantifiable dialogue coherence evaluation. In ACL. Chen Zhang, Yiming Chen, Luis Fernando D'Haro, Yan Zhang, Thomas Friedrichs, Grandee Lee, and Haizhou Li. 2021. DynaEval: Unifying turn and dialogue level evaluation. In ACL. Chen Zhang, L. F. D'Haro, Rafael E. Banchs, Thomas Friedrichs, and Haizhou Li. 2020. Deep am-fm: Toolkit for automatic dialogue evaluation. In *IWSDS*. Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In ACL. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019a. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. *ICLR*. Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and William B. Dolan. 2019b. Dialogpt : Largescale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. In ACL. Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, Yifan Du, Chen Yang, Yushuo Chen, Zhipeng Chen, Jinhao Jiang, Ruiyang Ren, Yifan Li, Xinyu Tang, Zikang Liu, Peiyu Liu, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223. Ming Zhong, Yang Liu, Da Yin, Yuning Mao, Yizhu Jiao, Peng Liu, Chenguang Zhu, Heng Ji, and Jiawei Han. 2022. Towards a unified multi-dimensional evaluator for text generation. In *EMNLP*. Liu Zhuang, Lin Wayne, Shi Ya, and Zhao Jun. 2021. A robustly optimized BERT pre-training approach with post-training. In CCL. ## A Appendix A.1 Human Evaluation Details A.1.1 Details For Data Preparation We first employ the generation models to generate one more response for our human annotation proposed in Section 3. The annotators are instructed to rate the newly generated responses. Specifically, we employ the following generation model: - **Blenderbot** (Roller et al., 2021): Blender is a conversational agent based on the large-scale model that mainly focuses on generating personal, engaging, knowledgeable, and empathetic responses. - **DialogGPT** (Zhang et al., 2019b): DialogGPT is a large, tunable neural conversational response generation model. - **KEMP** (Li et al., 2020b): KEMP is an emotional dialogue agent enhanced with a knowledge-enriched context graph. - **MoEL** (Lin et al., 2019): MoEL is an emotional dialogue agent based on encoderdecoder architecture. MoEL softly combines the response representation from different decoders, each focusing on one type of emotion. - **MIME** (Majumder et al., 2020): MIME is an empathetic dialogue model considering polarity-based emotion clusters and emotional mimicry. - **EmpDG** (Li et al., 2020a): EmpDG is a multiresolution empathetic chatbot enhanced by exploiting user feedback. - **PersonaGPT** (Tang et al., 2021): PersonaGPT is a GPT2-based open-domain dialogue agent designed to generate personalized responses. As shown in Table 5, we extend the DSTC dataset with *Blenderbot* and *DialoGPT*, the Empathetic Dialogue dataset with KEMP, *MoEL*, MIME and *EmpDG*; the Persona-Chat dataset with Blenderbot and *PersonaGPT*. Since Roller et al. points out the length of the utterances is crucial to human judgments, i.e., too short responses are seen as dull, we only sample the example with at least two turn interactions with an average length of utterance no more than 25 | Model | DSTC | EmpaDial | PersonaChat | |------------|--------|------------|---------------| | Blenderbot | 812 | 500 | | | DialoGPT | 1278 | 500 | | | KEMP | 3014 | | | | MoEL | 231 | | | | MIME | 242 | | | | EmpDG | 535 | | | | PersonaGPT | 3000 | | | vocab. And we randomly split the train-dev-test of collected datasets as Chitchat (1490/300/300, 5/1/1), Empathetic Dialogue (3022/500/500, 6/1/1), Persona Chat (3000/500/500, 6/1/1). ## A.1.2 Annotation Guideline Table 6 provides detailed instructions for the annotators to s help them understand the setting of our annotation task. Annotation Guideline Instruction You need to read the context for each conversation to understand the specific context. Afterward, compare the two responses and determine which is better on the given metric. Since we have given a score to the reference response, you should take it as the benchmark and rate the generated response. Dataset (1) context: The historical interaction between two partners. (2) (reference,sh): The reference response and corresponding score. (3) response: The response generated via agent which you need to rate. Rating Details (1) If the generated responds is better, the scores you give should be more than sh. (2) If the generated responds is worse, the scores you give should be less than sh. (3) If there is no significant difference between the two response, you can give the same score as sh. Table 6: The guideline used for our human annotation. ## A.1.3 User Study The dialogue can be evaluated from multiple perspectives. Some perspectives are universal to assess all dialogue agents, e.g., fluency, and relevance, while the other metrics are only used for task-specific dialogue agents. For example, the emotion-aware is a critical property for empathetic dialogue but is less important for persona dialogue. Therefore, we first simplify by sorting the possible aspects into two categories, i.e., the general view and the task-specific view. The former contains rel-  evance, engagingness, and fluency, while the latter consists of understandability, emotion-aware, and personality-aware, which correspond to chitchat dialogue, emotional dialogue, and persona dialogue. To understand the relation between sub-metrics and overall quality, we conduct a user study to learn their preference for different sub-metrics. Specifically, we invite 20 experts and 80 users, each of whom is asked to select the four most important ones from the sub-metrics. The results are listed in Figure 4. The approval rates reflect the user preference for different sub-metrics, which can be used as a weight to calculate the overall score. Moreover, we apply the softmax function on these weights to make them more interpretable. ## A.2 Experiment Details A.2.1 Datasets For Pre-Train Stage Our training process includes two stages, e.g., cross-domain pre-train and task-specific finetune. We first pre-train the model on diverse opendomain dialogue datasets as listed in Table 7 with the objective Lcross. The next stage relies on taskspecific dataset with the objective Lin (see in section 5). These datasets are collected from https:// github.com/e0397123/dstc10_metric_track, which contain a variety of open-domain dialogue, such as emotional dialogue, personalized dialogue, knowledge-grounded dialogue, and chitchat. Every example in the datasets contains the dialogue context, *response* generated by dialogue agent, pre-created *reference* response, and the *score* of generated response which has been annotated for at least three people from several perspectives. We use cross-domain datasets for pre-training to improve the robustness and generalisability of the models across different evaluation scenarios. | Dataset | Dialogue | AVG. Utts | AsVG. Words | |------------------|------------|-------------|---------------| | DSTC6-Eval | 33,795 | 2.63 | 11.36 | | DSTC7-Eval | 9,711 | 3.83 | 13.40 | | DSTC10-Eval | 9,291 | 4.00 | 14.15 | | JSALT-Eval | 741 | 3.47 | 17.12 | | PersonaChat-Zhao | 900 | 5.13 | 11.77 | ## A.2.2 Experimental Details On Our Benchmarks We show the details of our automatic evaluation experiments in Table 9. The BERTScore and BLEURT are computed based on the large version of Roberta. As in Section 6, we implement two reference-based baselines, BERTMLP and BARTMLP, using the same human-annotated datasets as RADE for training, and provide a reasonable comparison with our proposed model. Specifically, the BERTMLP is built on the base version of BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), while the BARTMLP is built on the base version of BART (Lewis et al., 2019). ## A.2.3 More Fair Comparison After Training For a fair analysis, we pre-train the two strongest baselines (QuantiDCE and GRADE) with our cross-domain dataset. GRADE achieves Pearman'r=0.383, 0.378, -0.122, and QuantiDCE achieves Pearman'r=0.408, 0.522, 0.238 in the ChitChat, EmpatheticDialogue, and Personachat datasets. However, our proposed RADE(PT) remains the best results (Pearman'r=0.472, 0.650, 0.386). We further fine-tune GRADE and QuantiDCE with our self-collected datasets for a more comprehensive analysis. GRADE achieves Pearman'r=0.413, 0.430, -0.013, and QuantiDCE achieves Pearman'r=0.458, 0.589, 0.278 in three datasets, underperforming the proposed RADE(TS) (Pearman'r=0.601, 0.863, 0.470). We skip pre-training/fine-tuning four baselines for the following reasons: (1) UniEval and QuestionEval have been pre-trained on multiple datasets across various domains. (2) The FED metric is unsupervised (cf. Shikib Mehri et al.) (3) The DialoRPT has been trained on a sizeable humanfeedback dataset (133M) covering various domains. These analyses validate the superiority of our method. | USR-TopicalChat | USR-Pearsonachat | DailyDialogue | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|-----------------|-----------|------------|-----------|------------| | Methods | Pearson'r | Spearman'ρ | Pearson'r | Spearman'ρ | Pearson'r | Spearman'ρ | | Reference-free methods MAUDE (Sinha et al., 2020) | 0.044* | 0.083* | 0.345 | 0.298 | -0.036* | -0.073* | | FED (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020b) | -0.124 | -0.135 | -0.028* | -0.000* | -0.080* | 0.064* | | HolisticEval (Liang et al., 2022) | -0.147 | -0.123 | 0.087* | 0.113* | 0.025* | 0.020* | | FlowScore (Li et al., 2021) | 0.095* | 0.082* | 0.118* | 0.079* | - | - | | QuestEval (Scialom et al., 2021) | 0.300 | 0.338 | 0.176 | 0.236 | 0.020* | 0.006* | | USR (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020c) | 0.412 | 0.423 | 0.440 | 0.418 | 0.057* | 0.057* | | GRADE (Huang et al., 2020) | 0.200 | 0.217 | 0.358 | 0.352 | 0.278 | 0.253 | | PredictiveEngage (Ghazarian et al., 2020) | 0.222 | 0.310 | -0.003* | 0.033* | -0.133* | -0.135 | | DialogRPT (Gao et al., 2020b) | 0.120 | 0.105* | -0.064* | -0.083* | -0.000* | 0.037* | | DynaEval (Zhang et al., 2021) | -0.032* | -0.022* | 0.149 | 0.171 | 0.108* | 0.120* | | DEB (Sai et al., 2020) | 0.180 | 0.116 | 0.291 | 0.373 | 0.337 | 0.363 | | USL-H (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020c) | 0.322 | 0.340 | 0.495 | 0.523 | 0.108* | 0.093* | | Reference-based lexicon-level methods BLEU-4 (Papineni et al., 2002) | 0.216 | 0.296 | 0.135 | 0.090* | 0.075* | 0.184 | | METEOR (Banerjee and Lavie, 2005) | 0.336 | 0.391 | 0.253 | 0.271 | 0.093* | 0.010* | | ROUGE-L (Lin, 2004) | 0.275 | 0.287 | 0.066* | 0.038* | 0.154 | 0.147 | | Reference-based semantic-level methods RUBER (Tao et al., 2017) | 0.247 | 0.259 | 0.131 | 0.190 | -0.084* | -0.094* | | BERT-RUBER (Tao et al., 2017) | 0.342 | 0.348 | 0.266 | 0.248 | 0.134 | 0.128 | | BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2019a) | 0.298 | 0.325 | 0.152 | 0.122* | 0.129 | 0.100* | | Deep AM-FM (Zhang et al., 2020) | 0.285 | 0.268 | 0.228 | 0.219 | 0.026* | 0.022* | | ADEM (Lowe et al., 2017) | -0.060* | -0.061* | -0.141 | -0.085* | 0.064* | 0.071* | | BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020) | 0.216 | 0.261 | 0.065* | 0.054* | 0.176 | 0.133 | | PONE (Lan et al., 2020) | 0.271 | 0.274 | 0.373 | 0.375 | 0.163 | 0.163 | | Reference-assist Ours (Pretrain-train model, PT) | 0.480 | 0.466 | 0.451 | 0.465 | 0.356 | 0.370 | | Table 8: Results on USR-TopicalChat, USR-PearsonaChat and Grade-DailyDialogue. We divide the methods | | | | | | | Table 8: **Results on USR-TopicalChat, USR-PearsonaChat and Grade-DailyDialogue.** We divide the methods in Reference-free, Reference-based and REDE, while the reference-based methods including semantic-level and lexicon-level. The metrics r, ρ, and τ indicate the Pearson's ρ, Spearman's r, and Kendall'τ . All values are statistically significant to p-value < 0.05 unless marked by ∗. We underline the best results of each group of baselines methods and **bold** the best results of all methods. ## A.2.4 Results On Existing Benchmarks We further examine three existing benchmarks, i.e., USR-TopicalChat, USR-PersonaChat and GradeDailyDialogue to verify the efficiency and robustness of RADE when generalizing to agnostic scenarios. USR-TopicalChat and USR-PersonaChat datasets are collected to assess dialog evaluation metrics, with examples containing the dialogue context, reference, *response* and corresponding *scores*, which three people have annotated. The GradeDailyDialogue contains high-quality open-domain conversations about daily life including diverse topics. And the results are summarized in Table 8. The experimental results show that RADE outperforms the state-of-the-art reference-free and reference-based methods on the USR-TopicalChat dataset. For example, we push the Pearson correlation to 48.0% (7% definite improvement) and Spearman correlation to 46.6% (4% absolute improvement). Moreover, RADE shows a stronger correlation with human judgment than existing reference-based methods on the second dataset. It achieves comparable, even better results with the reference-free methods except for USL-H. The results demonstrate that our pre-trained model is more robust even under agnostic scenarios. We also compare the two existing methods, and the results suggest a similar phenomenon as 3. Firstly, the reference-free methods achieve better consistency than reference-based methods, i.e., the former has the highest result of r = 41.2%, ρ = 42.3% while the latter gets r = 34.2%, ρ = 34.8% on the USR-TopicalChat dataset. However, the reference-free methods suffer from more significant variance. For example, the MAUDE gets r = 0.345% and ρ = 0.298% on the USRPearsonChat dataset but gets r = 0.044% and ρ = 0.083% on the USR-TopicChat dataset. It indicates that reference-free methods are more vulnerable and prone to data-induced bias. ## A.2.5 Case Study To explain more intuitively, we show examples of automatic evaluation and them with human judgment in Table 10, 11, 12, suggesting that the scores of our methods are closer to human ratings. ## A.3 Presudo Reference Since the original FED does not provide the reference response, we construct a pseudo-reference via retrieval or generative method. The former retrieves reference from a curated response corpus based on our cross-domain datasets via BM25 with the dialogue context as the query. The latter generates via a large language model GPT-3 based on the dialogue context. The results show that RADE(PT) obtains Pearman'r=0.381 and Spearman'rho=0.368 with the retrieved reference while achieving Pearman'r=0.343, Spearman'rho=0.347 with generative reference, outperforming the stateof-the-art baseline (QuantiDCE, Pearman'r=0.319, Spearman'rho=0.323). To further validate the generalizability of our method, we evaluate our proposed RADE(PT) on another challenging benchmark, GRADEDailydialogue. Our RADE(PT) achieves Pearman'r=0.356 and Spearman'rho=0.370 with 5% and 2% relative improvements compared to stateof-the-art baseline, indicating that our method can generalize to more challenging benchmarks. | ChitChat | Empathetic Dialogue | PersonaChat | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|---------------|---------|--------|--------|--------|---------|---------|---------| | Methods | r | ρ | τ | r | ρ | τ | r | ρ | τ | | Reference-free methods FEDE (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020b) | 0.241 | 0.254 | 0.177 | 0.202 | 0.218 | 0.218 | 0.138 | 0.120 | 0.086 | | FEDU (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020b) | 0.235 | 0.248 | 0.171 | 0.147 | 0.156 | 0.106 | 0.145 | 0.162 | 0.117 | | QuesEval (Scialom et al., 2021) | 0.045 | 0.021 | 0.013 | 0.069 | 0.084 | 0.057 | -0.003 | 0.034 | 0.0237 | | UniEval (Zhong et al., 2022) | 0.456 | 0.470 | 0.312 | 0.403 | 0.435 | 0.286 | 0.306 | 0.338 | 0.244 | | DialoRPT (Gao et al., 2020b) | -0.066∗ | -0.044∗ | -0.031∗ | 0.267 | 0.244 | 0.166 | -0.077∗ | -0.069∗ | -0.049∗ | | GRADE (Huang et al., 2020) | 0.491 | 0.434 | 0.300 | 0.549 | 0.568 | 0.398 | -0.031∗ | -0.005 | -0.030∗ | | QuantiDCE(R) (Ye et al., 2021b) | 0.348 | 0.300 | 0.202 | 0.498 | 0.507 | 0.351 | 0.162 | 0.182 | 0.130 | | QuantiDCE(P) (Ye et al., 2021b) | 0.408 | 0.387 | 0.234 | 0.522 | 0.521 | 0.372 | 0.238 | 0.257 | 0.189 | | QuantiDCE(F) (Ye et al., 2021b) | 0.458 | 0.427 | 0.265 | 0.589 | 0.577 | 0.436 | 0.278 | 0.326 | 0.237 | | Reference-based lexicon-level methods ROUGE-1 (Lin, 2004) 0.217 | 0.192 | 0.133 | 0.221 | 0.217 | 0.151 | 0.116 | 0.101 | 0.069 | | | ROUGE-2 (Lin, 2004) | 0.210 | 0.145 | 0.148 | 0.009∗ | 0.046 | 0.058 | 0.065 | 0.040 | 0.032 | | ROUGE-L (Lin, 2004) | 0.215 | 0.178 | 0.129 | 0.213 | 0.214 | 0.148 | 0.118 | 0.114 | 0.079 | | BLEU-1 (Papineni et al., 2002) | 0.201 | 0.190 | 0.131 | 0.115 | 0.118 | 0.076 | 0.010 | 0.081 | 0.055 | | BLEU-2 (Papineni et al., 2002) | 0.201 | 0.200 | 0.158 | 0.057 | 0.041∗ | 0.032 | 0.060 | 0.039 | 0.031 | | BLEU-3 (Papineni et al., 2002) | 0.201 | 0.189 | 0.153 | 0.049 | 0.036 | 0.030∗ | 0.017 | -0.001∗ | -0.001∗ | | BLEU-4 (Papineni et al., 2002) | 0.203 | 0.207 | 0.169 | 0.059 | 0.056 | 0.046 | 0.017 | -0.005∗ | -0.004∗ | | METEOR (Banerjee and Lavie, 2005) | 0.202 | 0.188 | 0.129 | 0.182 | 0.194 | 0.132 | 0.099 | 0.051 | 0.035 | | Reference-based semantic-level methods Bertscorep (Zhang et al., 2019a) 0.347 | 0.334 | 0.334 | 0.229 | 0.146 | 0.104 | -0.446 | -0.089 | -0.061∗ | | | Bertscorer (Zhang et al., 2019a) | 0.296 | 0.243 | 0.213 | 0.167 | 0.243 | 0.173 | 0.278 | 0.292 | 0.196 | | Bertscoref1 (Zhang et al., 2019a) | 0.229 | 0.308 | 0.213 | 0.211 | 0.204 | 0.145 | 0.133 | 0.115 | 0.079 | | BARTScore (Lewis et al., 2019) | 0.133 | 0.057 | 0.039 | 0.256 | 0.253 | 0.173 | 0.143 | 0.168 | 0.115 | | RUBER (Tao et al., 2017) | 0.332 | 0.351 | 0.369 | 0.252 | 0.256 | 0.183 | 0.122 | 0.123 | 0.089 | | BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020) | 0.353 | 0.363 | 0.249 | 0.343 | 0.337 | 0.232 | 0.105 | 0.140 | 0.102 | | BERTMLP † (Devlin et al., 2018) | 0.241 | 0.255 | 0.173 | 0.186 | 0.225 | 0.153 | 0.274 | 0.330 | 0.202 | | BERTMLP † (Devlin et al., 2018) | 0.304 | 0.301 | 0.192 | 0.501 | 0.537 | 0.373 | 0.331 | 0.360 | 0.251 | | RobertaMLP † (Zhuang et al., 2021) | 0.275 | 0.306 | 0.300 | 0.285 | 0.307 | 0.307 | 0.317 | 0.334 | 0.223 | | BARTMLP † (Lewis et al., 2019) | 0.431 | 0.440 | 0.312 | 0.412 | 0.447 | 0.356 | 0.310 | 0.335 | 0.242 | | Reference-assisted methods RADE (Pre-trained model, PT) | 0.472 | 0.491 | 0.334 | 0.650 | 0.601 | 0.427 | 0.386 | 0.390 | 0.285 | | RADE (Task-specific model, TS) | 0.601 | 0.569 | 0.409 | 0.863 | 0.849 | 0.685 | 0.470 | 0.465 | 0.347 | Table 9: **Details** of our automatic evaluation experiment on three benchmarks. We divide the methods in Referencefree, Reference-based and RADE, while the reference-based including the semantic-level and lexicon-level methods. Note that r, ρ and τ indicate the Pearson's ρ, Spearman's r and Kendall'τ . All values are statistically significant to p-value < 0.05, unless marked by∗. The FEDE and FEDU indicate two evaluation perspective of FED, i.e., engagement and understandability. Methods with †are implemented by ourselves. We underline the best results of each group of baselines methods and **bold** the best results of all methods. | Topic | Library of Alexandria User1: The library of Alexandria had a unique way of gathering books by making all ships visiting give their | | | | | | |------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------|--------------|-----------------|------------| | Context | books for copy. User2: They must have had a impressive collection! User1: How unfair, they would copy their books give them back the copy and keep the originals. | | | | | | | Reference | I guess that is true. Do you think we will ever have a centralized digital library of all our works and knowledge? | | | | | | | Response | That is exactly why they didn't stick around and stay put. I wish I could work somewhere where I could share the workload. | | | | | | | Evaluation | Human (1-5) | QuantiDCE (1-3) | GRADE (0-1) | METEOR (0-1) | BERTScore (0-1) | RADE (1-5) | | 3.67 | 3.00 | 0.26 | 0.17 | 0.48 | 3.54 | | Table 10: An example of the DSTC dataset evaluated by five automatic and human evaluation methods. This example shows that our methods correlate more strongly with human judgment than the other methods. | Emotion | Confident User1:I love when I need to show someone how to do something and everything goes off without a hitch. | | | | | | |------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------|--------------|-----------------|------------| | Context | User2:Oh yeah, that is always nice. Sometimes they just do not get it, though. User1:Fortunately, it is usually just not having the best answer for what they ask. I have learned and prepared a lot more this time. | | | | | | | Reference | Wow, you sound pretty confident! You must really know what you are talking about. | | | | | | | Response | I agree, I am sure you will do great things. | | | | | | | Evaluation | Human (1-5) | QuantiDCE (1-3) | GRADE (0-1) | METEOR (0-1) | BERTScore (0-1) | RADE (1-5) | | 3 | 3.00 | 0.45 | 0.04 | 0.57 | 3.64 | | Table 11: An example of the EmpatheticDialogue dataset evaluated by five automatic and human evaluation methods. | Emotion | Excited User1: I am looking forward to my best friend s surprise birthday party next week! | | | | | | |------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------|--------------|-----------------|------------| | Context | User2: That sounds like so much fun! I love parties! User1: I am really happy about it. She is a great friend and she is turning 40, so it is a big one! | | | | | | | Reference | Hey, I just had that one! What do you have planned? | | | | | | | Response | That is great. Do you have any other day? | | | | | | | Evaluation | Human (1-5) | QuantiDCE (1-3) | GRADE (0-1) | METEOR (0-1) | BERTScore (0-1) | RADE (1-5) | | 2.98 | 2.7 | 0.29 | 0.34 | 0.61 | 2.64 | | Table 12: An example of the EmpatheticDialogue dataset evaluated by five automatic and human evaluation methods. | (1): I like to donate time and money to charity. | | | | | | | |----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------|--------------|-----------------|------------| | Personality | (2): I work as a computer programmer. (3): i make over 200 , 000 per year. User1: Hi, how are you ? tell me something about yourself! User2: Well, I love going fishing with my four attractive daughters every day. User1: Sounds fun! I enjoying volunteering and donating to charities. User2: Cool maybe you'd like to run a charity at my new race track. I race cars! User1: Sounds exciting! I am a computer programmer, which pays over 200k a year. | | | | | | | Reference | Would you like to marry one of my four attractive daughters? I will sell one. | | | | | | | Response | wow! That's a lot of money. Do you have any hobbies? | | | | | | | Context Evaluation | Human (1-5) | QuantiDCE (1-3) | GRADE (0-1) | METEOR (0-1) | BERTScore (0-1) | RADE (1-5) | | 3.25 | 2.87 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.53 | 2.91 | | Table 13: An example of the PersonaChat dataset evaluated by five automatic and human evaluation methods, showing that our methods have a stronger correlation with human judgment than the other methods. | (1): I like cupcakes and reading. | | | | | | | |-------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------|--------------|-----------------|------------| | Personality | (2): I work at a grocery store. (3): My favorite color is blue. User1: Hi! what are you up to ? I am doing what I like best, eating cupcakes! User2: Hi I am winding down from a day at work. User1: So am I. The local grocery store is where I work. What about you? User2: I also work in the retail industry at the local department store! User1: Other than eating cupcakes, reading is also what I like to do to wind down. | | | | | | | Reference | I like to read also and play with my dog. Do you have a pet? | | | | | | | Response | What do you do for fun? My girlfriend and I go to the lake a lot. | | | | | | | Context Evaluation | Human (1-5) | QuantiDCE (1-3) | GRADE (0-1) | METEOR (0-1) | BERTScore (0-1) | RADE (1-5) | | 2.75 | 3.00 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.58 | 2.79 | | Table 14: An example of the PersonaChat dataset evaluated by five automatic and human evaluation methods. This example shows that our methods have a stronger correlation with human judgment than the other methods. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 6 And 7 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 6 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 6 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 7 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 6 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 4 and Appendix A ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix A ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 4 and Appendix A ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section 4 ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Section 4 ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank.

yang-etal-2023-amr

An {AMR}-based Link Prediction Approach for Document-level Event Argument Extraction

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.720

Recent works have introduced Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) for Document-level Event Argument Extraction (Doc-level EAE), since AMR provides a useful interpretation of complex semantic structures and helps to capture long-distance dependency. However, in these works AMR is used only implicitly, for instance, as additional features or training signals. Motivated by the fact that all event structures can be inferred from AMR, this work reformulates EAE as a link prediction problem on AMR graphs. Since AMR is a generic structure and does not perfectly suit EAE, we propose a novel graph structure, Tailored AMR Graph (TAG), which compresses less informative subgraphs and edge types, integrates span information, and highlights surrounding events in the same document. With TAG, we further propose a novel method using graph neural networks as a link prediction model to find event arguments. Our extensive experiments on WikiEvents and RAMS show that this simpler approach outperforms the state-of-the-art models by 3.63pt and 2.33pt F1, respectively, and do so with reduced 56{\%} inference time.

## An Amr-Based Link Prediction Approach For Document-Level Event Argument Extraction Yuqing Yang1∗†, Qipeng Guo2†, Xiangkun Hu2, Yue Zhang3, Xipeng Qiu1‡**, Zheng Zhang**2 1School of Computer Science, Fudan University 2Amazon AWS AI, 3School of Engineering, Westlake University yuqingyang21@m.fudan.edu.cn, {gqipeng, xiangkhu, zhaz}@amazon.com xpqiu@fudan.edu.cn, zhangyue@westlake.edu.cn ## Abstract Recent works have introduced Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) for Document-level Event Argument Extraction (Doc-level EAE), since AMR provides a useful interpretation of complex semantic structures and helps to capture long-distance dependency. However, in these works AMR is used only implicitly, for instance, as additional features or training signals. Motivated by the fact that all event structures can be inferred from AMR, this work reformulates EAE as a link prediction problem on AMR graphs. Since AMR is a generic structure and does not perfectly suit EAE, we propose a novel graph structure, Tailored AMR Graph (TAG), which compresses less informative subgraphs and edge types, integrates span information, and highlights surrounding events in the same document. With TAG, we further propose a novel method using graph neural networks as a link prediction model to find event arguments. Our extensive experiments on WikiEvents and RAMS show that this simpler approach outperforms the state-of-the-art models by 3.63pt and 2.33pt F1, respectively, and do so with reduced 56% inference time. The code is available at https://github.com/ayyyq/TARA. ## 1 Introduction Event Argument Extraction (EAE) is a longstanding information extraction task to extract event structures composed of arguments from unstructured text (Xiang and Wang, 2019). Event structures can serve as an intermediate semantic representation and be further used for improving downstream tasks, including machine reading comprehension (Han et al., 2021), question answering (Costa et al., 2020), dialog system (Zhang ∗Work done during internship at Amazon Shanghai AI Lab. †Equal contribution. ‡Corresponding author.  et al., 2020), and recommendation system (Li et al., 2020). Despite the large performance boost by Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs), extracting complex event structures across sentences is still challenging (Ebner et al., 2020). In real-world text, event structures are usually distributed in multiple sentences (Li et al., 2021). To capture cross-sentence and multi-hop structures, Xu et al. (2022) introduces Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graphs to assist the model in understanding the document. Their main idea is to take AMR as additional features to enrich span representations. Xu and Huang (2022) and Wang et al. (2021) utilize AMR graphs to provide training signals via self-training and contrastive learning, respectively. These methods exemplify that introducing AMR information facilitates the model's understanding of complex event structures. However, previous works implicitly use AMR information by enriching neural sequential models rather than making explicit use of discrete structures. Intuitively, 12876 discrete AMR structures can force the model to better focus on predicate-argument structures and the content most related to EAE, therefore having stronger effect than implicit AMR. We aim to exploit the potentials of explicit AMR for improving EAE by formulating EAE as a link prediction task, and Figure 1 illustrates the framework. We parse the input document to a graph structure and adopt a link prediction model to find event arguments. We determine if a node is an argument by whether it is connected to the trigger node or not. The advantages of formulating EAE as a link prediction problem are three-fold: 1) AMR graph is typically more compact than raw text (see Sec-2.2), so processing AMR to find arguments would be simple and efficient. 2) Dependencies among multiple arguments and events are explicitly captured, while previous works (Liao and Grishman, 2010; Du et al., 2022) have pointed out the importance of these dependencies which are only implicitly considered in the feature space. 3) The simpler model architecture and sparse graphs can lead to improvement over efficiency, as our experiments show (up to 56% inference time saving). The proposed method assumes that AMR graphs contain all necessary information for EAE. However, the original AMR graphs generated by offthe-shelf AMR parsers do not meet this assumption. First, they cover only 72.2% event arguments in WikiEvents, impeding the performance of EAE models directly on the parsed AMR graphs. The primary problem is that AMR graphs are defined at word-level, but an event argument could be a text span. Second, the Smatch score of SOTA AMR parsers is around 85 (Bai et al., 2022), which causes information loss as well. To address the above issue, we propose a novel Tailored AMR Graph (TAG), which compresses information irrelevant to EAE, merges words into text spans via a span proposal module, and highlights the surrounding events in the same document to encourage their communication. Particularly, the number of nodes in TAG equals around 47% of words in WikiEvents, which is a significant reduction. Since too much distracting information is a major challenge of document-level tasks, we also expect performance gains from focusing on TAG, which is evidenced by our experiment results. TAG can cover all EAE samples if the span proposal module adds enough text spans, and we will discuss the trade-off between the recall of spans and model efficiency in Appendix-A.3. Although there is a large design space for the link prediction model, we choose a simple architecture that stacks GNN layers on top of pre-trained text encoders. The whole model is called TARA for Tailored AMR-based Argument Extraction. We conduct extensive experiments on latest documentlevel EAE datasets, WikiEvents (Li et al., 2021) and RAMS (Ebner et al., 2020). TARA achieves 3.63pt and 2.33pt improvements of F1 against the SOTA, respectively. Since interactions in GNN are sparse, the computation cost of our model is also lower, saving up to 56% inference time. To our knowledge, we are the first to formulate EAE as a link prediction problem on AMR graphs. ## 2 Methodology In this section, we first explain how to formulate EAE as a link prediction problem and discuss the benefits of doing so (Sec-2.1). To make AMR graphs better suit the EAE task and ensure the reformulation is lossless, we provide a series of modifications for AMR graphs, resulting in a compact and informative graph, named Tailored AMR Graph (TAG) (Sec-2.2). ## 2.1 Eae As Link Prediction Formally, given a document D and an event trigger τ with its event type e, the goal of Doc-level EAE is to extract a set of event arguments A related to τ . We formulate EAE as a link prediction problem, which is defined on TAG. Suppose all nodes in TAG are aligned with text spans in the input sequence, triggers and arguments are captured in the graph, and the node corresponding to the event trigger is marked (we will discuss how to satisfy these in Sec-2.2). Thus, we apply a link prediction model to the tailored AMR graph Gt of the document D. If the model predicts there is an edge connecting a node u and the event trigger τ with the type r, we say the corresponding text span of u is an argument, and it plays the role r in the event with trigger τ . We illustrate this procedure in Figure 1, and it also shows the tailored AMR graph removes a large amount of distracting information in the input text. Note that the removed text participates in constructing initial node representations, so the model can still access their information as context. Detailed implementation is shown in Sec-2.3.  | Categories | AMR edge types | |--------------|---------------------------------------| | Spatial | location, destination, path | | Temporal | year, time, duration, decade, weekday | | Means | instrument, manner, topic, medium | | Modifiers | mod, poss | | Operators | op-X | | Prepositions | prep-X | | Core Roles | ARG0, ARG1, ARG2, ARG3, ARG4 | | Others | Other AMR edge types | ## 2.2 Tailored Amr Graph For Eae TAG can be built on vanilla AMR graphs generated by an off-the-shelf AMR parser (Bai et al., 2022; Astudillo et al., 2020), which also provides the alignment information between nodes and words. As mentioned above, vanilla AMR graphs are insufficient to solve EAE, so we clean the graph by compressing bloated subgraphs, enrich the graph with span boundary information derived by a span proposal module, and highlight the surrounding events to encourage interactions among multiple events. Coalescing edges We follow previous works (Zhang and Ji, 2021; Xu et al., 2022) and cluster the fine-grained AMR edge types into main categories as shown in Table 1 and parse the document sentence by sentence before fully connecting the root nodes of all the sentences. Compressing Subgraphs AMR is rigorous and tries to reflect all details as much as possible. For example, Figure 2 shows that a vanilla AMR graph uses five nodes to represent an entity "*Los Angeles*". Since EAE does not require such detailed information, we can compress the subgraph to a single node. We find that about 36% of nodes and 37% of edges can be removed by compression. Note that all incoming and outgoing edges of the subgraph to be compressed will be inherited, so that the compression does not affect the rest of the graph. A streamlined graph not only improves efficiency and saves memory but also promotes the training of GNN since a larger graph often requires a deeper GNN. The compression procedure only relies on the vanilla AMR graph, so it is a one-time overhead for each sample. The detailed compression rules are described in Appendix-B. Missing Spans The vanilla AMR graph fails to cover span-form arguments since it is defined at the word level, harming the performance on more than 20% of EAE samples. To overcome this issue, we add the span information S, which is generated by a span proposal module, to Gt as shown in Figure 3. We follow the idea introduced in Zhang and Ji (2021) to merge the generated spans with existing AMR nodes. If a generated span perfectly matches a node's position in the text sequence according to the alignment information, we add a special node-type embedding to the node's initial representation so that the model can know the span proposal module announces this node. If a generated span partially matches a node, we add a new node to represent this span and inherit connectives from the partially matched node. We also add a special edge between this node and the new node to indicate their overlap. If a generated span fails to match any existing nodes, we add a new node and connect it to the nearest nodes to its left and right with a special edge. Surrounding Events Events in a document are not isolated. A recent work (Du et al., 2022) augments the input with the text that contains other events, but the utilization of AMR graphs offers a simpler solution. We add node-type embeddings to indicate that a node is the current trigger or surrounding event triggers in the same document. This modification encourages communication between multiple event structures, and the consistency between event structures can help to extract as many correct arguments as possible. For example, the Victim of an *Attack* event is likely to be the *Victim* of a Die event, while less likely to be the *Defendant* of an *ChargeIndict* event in the same document. ## 2.3 Implementation We propose a novel model to find event arguments based on TAG, and Figure 3 gives an overview of our method. We first parse the input document with an AMR parser and aligner to obtain the vanilla  AMR graph, and coalesce edges and compress subgraphs to preprocess it as described in Sec-2.2. We then enrich the graph with spans generated by a span proposal module. Next, we use token-level features output by a pre-trained text encoder to initialize node representation according to the alignment information. Finally, a GNN-based link prediction model is applied to predict event arguments. Encoder Module Given an input document D = {w1, w2*, . . . , w*n}, we first obtain the contextual representation hi for each word wi using a pre-trained language model such as BERT or RoBERTa: $$\mathbf{H}=[\mathbf{h}_{1},\mathbf{h}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{h}_{n}]=\mathrm{PLM}([w_{1},w_{2}\ldots,w_{n}]).$$ For a text span sij ranging from wito wj , we follow Xu et al. (2022) to calculate its contextual representation xsij by concatenating the start representation hi, the end representation hj , and the average pooling of hidden states of the span, which would inject span boundary information. Formally, $$\mathbf{x}_{s_{i j}}=\mathbf{W}_{0}\left[\mathbf{W}_{1}\mathbf{h}_{i};\,\mathbf{W}_{2}\mathbf{h}_{j};\,\frac{1}{j-i+1}\sum_{t=i}^{j}\mathbf{h}_{t}\right],$$ where $\mathbf{W}_{0}$, $\mathbf{W}_{1}$, $\mathbf{W}_{2}$ are trainable parameters. Span Proposal Module To find as many arguments as possible, we enumerate all spans up to a length of m. Following Zaporojets et al. (2022), we apply a simple span proposal step to keep only the top-k spans based on the span score Φ(s) from a feed-forward neural net (FFNN): $$\Phi(s)=\mathrm{FFNN}(\mathbf{x}_{s}).$$ Then the generated k candidate spans, tipped as argument spans most likely, will insert to the AMR graph G to construct our proposed tailored AMR graph Gt. We analyze the influence of the choice of k in Appendix-A.3 on the recall and efficiency. We also minimize the following binary cross entropy loss to train the argument identification: $${\mathcal{L}}_{s p a n}=-(y\log(\Phi({\bf x}))+(1-y)\log(1-\Phi({\bf x}))),$$ where y is assigned the true label when the offsets of corresponding span match the golden-standard argument span, otherwise, the false label. Event Arg0 Role0 Arg1 Role1 Arg2 Role2 AMR Graph Module As introduced in Sec-2.2, the embedding of each node us in Gtis initialized by the aligned span representation xs and its type embedding: $${\bf g}_{u_{s}}^{0}=\mathrm{LayerNorm}({\bf x}_{s}+{\cal T}_{n o d e}(u_{s})),$$ where T*node* refers to the lookup table about node types, composed of {trigger, surrounding trigger, candidate span, others} four types. The newly inserted nodes are connected to their neighbor nodes, which are close in the text sequence, with a new edge type context. We use L-layer stacked R-GCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018) to model the interactions among different nodes through edges with different relation types. The hidden states of nodes in (l + 1)th layer can be formulated as: $$\mathbf{g}_{u}^{l+1}\mathrm{=ReLU}(\mathbf{W}_{0}^{(l)}\mathbf{g}_{u}^{(l)}+\sum_{r\in R v\in N_{u}^{r}}\frac{1}{c_{u,r}}\mathbf{W}_{r}^{(l)}\mathbf{g}_{v}^{(l)}),$$ where R is the clusters of AMR relation types in Table 1, Nr u denotes the set of neighbor nodes of node u under relation r ∈ R and cu,r is a normalization constant. W(l) 0 ,W(l) r are trainable parameters. We concatenate hidden states of all layers and derive the final node representation gu = Wg[g 0u; g 1u; . . . , gL u]. Classification Module We perform multi-class classification to predict what role a candidate span plays, or it does not serve as an argument. As mentioned in Sec-2.1, we take the node representation gus and guτ which denote the aligned candidate span s and trigger τ , respectively. Following Xu et al. (2022), we also concatenate the event type embedding. The final classification representation can be formulated as: $$\mathbf{z}_{s}=[\mathbf{g}u_{s};\mathbf{g}u_{\tau};T_{e v e n t}(e)].$$ We adopt the cross entropy loss function: $${\mathcal{L}}_{c l s}=-\sum_{s}y_{s}\log P({\hat{r}}_{s}=r_{s}),$$ where rˆs is logits obtained by a FFNN on zs, and rs is the gold argument role of span s. We train the model using the multi-task loss function L = Lcls+λL*span* with hyperparameter λ. As a result, argument classification can be positively affected by argument identification. ## 3 Experiments 3.1 Datasets And Evaluation Metrics We evaluate our model on two commonly used document-level event argument extraction datasets, WikiEvents (Li et al., 2021) and RAMS (Ebner et al., 2020). WikiEvents contains more than 3.9k samples, with 50 event types and 59 argument roles. RAMS is a benchmark that emphasizes the crosssentence events, which has 9124 annotated events, containing 139 event types and 65 kinds of argument roles. We follow the official train/dev/test split for WikiEvents and RAMS, and leave the detailed data statistics in Appendix-A.1. For WikiEvents, we evaluate two subtasks of event argument extraction. **Arg Identification**: An argument span is correctly identified if the predicted span boundary match the golden one. Arg Classification: If the argument role also matches, we consider the argument is correctly classified. Following Li et al. (2021), we report two metrics, | Model | Arg Identification | Arg Classification | | | |---------------------|----------------------|----------------------|-----------|-----------| | Head F1 | Coref F1 | Head F1 | Coref F1 | | | BERT-base BERT-CRF | 69.83 | 72.24 | 54.48 | 56.72 | | BERT-QA | 61.05 | 64.59 | 56.16 | 59.36 | | BERT-QA-Doc | 39.15 | 51.25 | 34.77 | 45.96 | | EEQA | - | - | 56.9 | - | | TSAR | 75.52 | 73.17 | 68.11 | 66.31 | | TARA | 76.49 | 74.44 | 70.52 | 68.47 | | TARAcompress | 76.76 | 74.88 | 70.18 | 68.67 | | BART-large BART-Gen | 71.75 | 72.29 | 64.57 | 65.11 | | PAIE | - | - | 68.4 | - | | EA2E | 74.62 | 75.77 | 68.61 | 69.70 | | RoBERTa-large EEQA | - | - | 59.3 | - | | TSAR | 76.62 | 75.52 | 69.70 | 68.79 | | TARA | 78.640.16 | 76.400.23 | 72.890.27 | 70.950.23 | | TARAcompress | 78.500.34 | 76.710.14 | 73.330.41 | 71.550.25 | Head F1 and Coref F1. Head F1 measures the correctness of the head word of an argument span, the word that has the smallest arc distance to the root in the dependency tree. For Coref F1, the model is given full credit if the extracted argument is coreferential with the reference as used in Ji and Grishman (2008). In addition, for RAMS dataset, we mainly concern Arg Classification and report the Span F1 and Head F1. For a sufficient comparison, We follow Ma et al. (2022) and additionally evaluate Span F1 for Arg Identification on the test set. ## 3.2 Settings We adopt the transition-based AMR parser proposed by Astudillo et al. (2020) to obtain the AMR graph with node-to-text alignment information, which can achieve satisfactory results for downstream tasks. We also show the performance using another state-of-the-art AMR parser, AMRBART (Bai et al., 2022), in Appendix-A.4. Besides, we use BERTbase and RoBERTalarge provided by huggingface1as the backbone. The models are trained with same hyper-parameters as Xu et al. (2022), details listed in Appendix-A.2. Experiments based on base models are conducted on a single Tesla T4 GPU, and large models on 4 distributed Tesla T4 GPU in parallel. | Model | Dev | Test | | | | |---------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Span F1 | Head F1 | Span F1 | Head F1 | Arg-I | | | BERT-base BERT-CRF | 38.1 | 45.7 | 39.3 | 47.1 | - | | BERT-CRFTCD | 39.2 | 46.7 | 40.5 | 48.0 | - | | Two-Step | 38.9 | 46.4 | 40.1 | 47.7 | - | | Two-StepTCD | 40.3 | 48.0 | 41.8 | 49.7 | - | | FEAE | - | - | 47.40 | - | 53.49 | | TSAR | 45.23 | 51.70 | 48.06 | 55.04 | - | | TARA | 45.81 | 53.22 | 48.06 | 55.23 | 52.82 | | TARAcompress | 45.89 | 53.15 | 47.43 | 55.24 | 52.34 | | BART-large BART-Gen | - | - | 48.64 | 57.32 | 51.2* | | PAIE | - | - | 52.2 | - | 56.8 | | RoBERTa-large TSAR | 49.23 | 56.76 | 51.18 | 58.53 | - | | TARA | 50.010.20 | 58.170.16 | 52.510.05 | 60.860.12 | 57.110.10 | | TARAcompress | 50.330.17 | 58.490.30 | 52.280.15 | 60.730.10 | 56.910.17 | ## 3.3 Main Results We compare our model with several baselines and the following previous state-of-the-art models. (1) QA-based models: **EEQA** (Du and Cardie, 2020b) and **FEAE** (Wei et al., 2021). (2) Generationbased models: **BART-gen** (Li et al., 2021), **PAIE** (Ma et al., 2022), and EA2E (Zeng et al., 2022). (3) Span-based models: **TSAR** (Xu et al., 2022). TSAR is the first and sole work utilizing AMR for Doc-level EAE. Table 2 illustrates the results on the WikiEvents test set. As is shown, our proposed methods consistently outperform previous works with different sized backbone models. TARAcompress achieves comparable results with TARA, with more than 30% nodes and edges being pruned, which suggests that the compression process is effective. We compare the better one with other models in the following analysis. More than 4pt Head F1 for Arg Classification against approaches that do not use AMR indicates the value of deep semantic information. TSAR is the only work to introduce AMR to documentlevel EAE tasks, but utilizes AMR graphs in an implicit way of decomposing the node representations to contextual representations. The 3.63pt performance gain compared to TSAR shows that our method, which explicitly leverages AMR graphs to perform link prediction, can make better use of rich semantic structures provided by AMR. Besides, EA2E learns event-event relations by augmenting the context with arguments of neighboring events, which may bring noises in the inference iteration, while we simply mark nodes of other event triggers in the graph and yields an improvement of 4.72pt Head F1. Comparing the identification and classification scores, we find that the performance gain of the latter is always higher, which indicates that our method not only helps the model find more correct arguments but also increases the accuracy of classifying argument roles. Another finding is that our method contributes more to Head F1 instead of Coref F1 in most cases. The main difference between the two metrics is boundary correctness. The result suggests that although our method helps less in identifying the span boundary, it enhances the capability of finding arguments. Our model is less powerful in span boundary identification is reasonable since the span proposal module only takes the textual information, and we will consider upgrading the span proposal module with AMR information in future work. Similar conclusion can be drawn from Table 3 2, which compares our method with previous works in both dev and test sets of RAMS. Our method achieves new state-of-the-art results using the large model with 2.33pt Head F1 improvement on the test set compared with TSAR, and yields comparable results based on BERTbase. PAIE manually creates a set of prompts containing event descriptions for each event type, providing additional knowledge which benefits most for classification with numerous classes. In contrast, our method improves up to 0.31/0.31pt Span F1 for Arg Identification/Classification with the help of explicit AMR information. | Model | Arg Identification | Arg Classification | | | |---------------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------|-------| | Head F1 | Coref F1 | Head F1 | Coref F1 | | | TARA | 78.64 | 76.40 | 72.89 | 70.95 | | (a) wo AMR | 75.04 | 73.79 | 68.94 | 68.04 | | (b) implicit AMR | 76.34 | 73.98 | 70.00 | 68.36 | | (c) wo span proposal | 70.84 | 67.71 | 64.38 | 61.84 | | (d) wo surrounding events | 77.15 | 75.76 | 71.48 | 70.27 | | (e) homogeneous graph | 77.87 | 75.88 | 71.54 | 69.74 | | (f) fully-connected graph | 76.95 | 75.30 | 70.52 | 69.42 | ## 4 Analysis 4.1 Ablation Study We perform ablation study to explore the effectiveness of different modules in our proposed model. Table 4 provides results on the WikiEvents test 2We did not mark surrounding events for RAMS due to the lack of annotations. set based on RoBERTalarge when excluding various modules at a time, which helps us answer the following three crucial questions: What is the effect of explicit AMR graphs? (a): When we throw away the whole AMR graph and depend solely on the contextual representations from PLM to extract arguments, the Head F1 of Arg Classification decreases by a large margin of 3.95pt, due to the lack of deep semantic information provided by AMR. Besides, (b): implicitly utilizing AMR by taking AMR edge classification as an auxiliary task, leads to a performance drop by 2.89pt. It suggests that explicitly using AMR graphs is more practical for document understanding and argument extraction. ## What Is The Effect Of Tailored Amr Graphs For EAE? (c): Once we drop spans that are not aligned with an AMR node, there is a sharp decrease up to 8.51pt Head F1, demonstrating the necessity of span proposal. (d): If we do not mark surrounding event triggers in the AMR graph, the Head F1 gains a rise by 2.54pt compared to (a), but drops by 1.41pt compared to TARA using the unabridged tailored AMR graph, which shows that barely indicating surrounding events benefits to make full use of event-event relations. What is the effect of heterogeneous graph structures? (e): The removal of different edge types in the AMR graph, causes a slight performance drop by 1.35pt, illustrating the effectiveness of various edge types. In addition, (f): when we further remove the edge relations and replace the graph structure with a fully-connected layer, the performance decreases by 2.37pt. It suggests that the edge relations are also useful. Moreover, we find that (f) outperforms (a) with an improvement of 1.58pt Head F1, which indicates that the node-level representations are more expressive than word-level representations. ## 4.2 Efficiency Table 5 reports the efficiency of different models using AMR graphs. TSAR encodes the input document from local and global perspectives and obtains AMR-enhanced representations by fusing contextual and node representations, while TARA directly utilize AMR graphs to perform link prediction. Though the two models share similar model sizes, TARA runs approximately 2 times faster than TSAR and saves up to 53% training time. When | Model | Training Time | Inference Time | |--------------|-----------------|------------------| | TSAR | 603.52 | 33.43 | | TARA | 319.63 | 15.56 | | TARAcompress | 281.92 | 14.70 | Table 6: Error analysis on the WikiEvents test set based on RoBERTalarge. | Model | Missing Head | Overpred Head | Wrong Role | Wrong Span | |----------|----------------|-----------------|--------------|--------------| | Baseline | 137 | 110 | 37 | 18 | | TSAR | 136 | 104 | 34 | 20 | | TARA | 120 | 98 | 33 | 19 | compressing the AMR graph in the pre-processing stage, with more than 30% nodes and edges omitted, TARAcompress speeds up further, resulting in 56% inference time saving. ## 4.3 Error Analysis To compare different models in greater detail, we explore four specific error types listed in Table 6. Missing Head refers to the number of missing arguments, those the model dose not predict that they are arguments, and we only consider the head word to relax the boundary constraint. *Overpred Head* denotes the number of spans that the model falsely assumes that they play a role. Besides, even though the model succeeds to identify the head word of a golden span, it can still assign wrong argument role to it, which we call *Wrong Role*; or it cannot predict the true start and end position of the span, named *Wrong Span*. We suppose extracting coreferential arguments is reasonable. Baseline refers to (a) in Sec-4.1, which performs worse than TSAR and TARA. As shown in Table 6, TARA misses fewer argument spans compared to TSAR. In addition, while finding more correct argument spans, TARA dose not predict more wrong roles, that is, it will improve more on the Arg Classification subtask. The first three error types are usually attributed to the severe class imbalance problem. With few examples of one label, the model cannot successfully learn the meaning of it and thus is hard to assign it to the true arguments. Moreover, our proposed model does not do better in recognizing correct span boundary considering *Wrong Span*. We observe that most Wrong Span errors result from the inconsistency of the annotation in the dataset, e.g.,  whether articles (such as the and a), adjectives and quantifiers before a noun should be included to a span. ## 4.4 Case Study For Tag In this section, we look into specific examples to explore how tailored AMR graphs work. Firstly, the top part of Figure 4 illustrates the effect of adding missing spans to AMR graphs. Though AMR compresses the text sequence to a deep semantic structure, it may have a different focus from event structures. For instance, "*$10 billion*", which plays an argument role of *Money* for event *BorrowLend*, is left out by the vanilla AMR graph. In contrast, TAG will add the span and successfully serve for link prediction. Additionally, as shown in the bottom part of the figure, there are two events share the same argument "*Baghdad*", and Baseline can not correctly identify the argument for the further event "*died*" while TARA does both right. That is because when indicating surrounding event triggers in the graph, the event "*died*" would pay attention to the subgraph of the event "*explode*" and identify the implicit argument through a closer path in the graph than in the text sequence. ## 5 Related Work Doc-level EAE is a frontier direction of Event Extraction and has received broad attention from industry and academia in recent years. Unlike the well-developed sentence-level event extraction (Xi et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2020), the Doc-level EAE faces more challenges. Li et al. (2021) proposes an end-to-end generation-based approach for Doclevel EAE. Fan et al. (2022) and Xu et al. (2021) construct an entity-based graph to model dependencies among the document. Du and Cardie (2020a) chooses the hierarchical method to aggregate information from different granularity. Recently, there has been a rising trend of utilizing AMR information to assist event extraction. Xu et al. (2022) employs node representations derived by AMR graphs. Lin et al. (2022) and Xu and Huang (2022) introduce AMR path information as training signals to correct argument predictions. Wang et al. (2021) pre-trains the EAE model with a contrastive loss built on AMR graphs. However, previous works have only treated AMR as an auxiliary feature or supervised signal and has not fully exploited the correlation between AMR and EAE. As the scheme of the AMR graph is very similar to the event structure (predicate-arguments vs. trigger-arguments), EAE can be reformulated as an AMR-based problem. With TAG, we can define EAE as a task only related to graphs and conditionally independent of documents, thus achieving a simpler and more efficient model. Previous works also explore the ways of enriching AMR graphs to suit information extraction tasks. Fan et al. (2022) trains a learnable module to add nodes and edges to the AMR graph. Zhang and Ji (2021) discusses different ways to integrate missing words with the AMR graph. While these methods tend to enlarge AMR graphs, causing a larger graph size and increasing the training difficulty, our method compresses the irrelevant information in AMR to improve efficiency and help the model to be concentrated. ## 6 Conclusion We propose to reformulate document-level event argument extraction as a link prediction problem on our proposed tailored AMR graphs. With adding missing spans, marking surrounding events, and removing noises, AMR graphs are tailored to EAE tasks. We also introduce a link prediction model based on TAG to implement EAE. Elaborate experiments show that explicitly using AMR graphs is beneficial for argument extraction. ## Limitations Firstly, as analyzed in Sec-4.3, our proposed method fails to make a significant improvement on span boundary identification. For one thing, the annotation inconsistency in the dataset hinders the model's understanding. For another, our span proposal module leverages the contextual information alone with implicit training signals for span boundary information. We will consider enhancing the span proposal module with AMR information in the future. Secondly, though TARA saves up to 56% inference time compared to the previous AMR-guided work, its entire training requires more than 7h on 4 Tesla T4 GPUs. The bottleneck is the incongruity of pre-trained language models and non-pre-trained GNNs. We leave the problem for future work. Finally, arguments on Wikievents and RAMS are still relatively close to its event trigger (e.g., RAMS limits the scope of arguments in a 5-sentence window), and thus connecting sentencelevel AMR graphs is enough to model the longdistance dependency. Otherwise, document-level AMR graphs with coreference resolution are in demand. ## Ethics Statement Our work complies with the ACL Ethics Policy. As document-level event argument extraction is a standard task in NLP, we do not see any critical ethical considerations. We confirm that the scientific artifacts used in this paper comply with their license and intended use. Licenses are listed in Table 7. ## Acknowledgement We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their thoughtful and valuable feedback. This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.2020AAA0106700) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62022027). ## References Ramón Fernandez Astudillo, Miguel Ballesteros, Tahira Naseem, Austin Blodgett, and Radu Florian. 2020. Transition-based parsing with stack-transformers. In EMNLP (Findings), volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 1001–1007. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xuefeng Bai, Yulong Chen, and Yue Zhang. 2022. Graph pre-training for AMR parsing and generation. In *ACL (1)*, pages 6001–6015. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tarcísio Souza Costa, Simon Gottschalk, and Elena Demidova. 2020. Event-qa: A dataset for eventcentric question answering over knowledge graphs. In *CIKM*, pages 3157–3164. ACM. Xinya Du and Claire Cardie. 2020a. Document-level event role filler extraction using multi-granularity contextualized encoding. In ACL, pages 8010–8020. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinya Du and Claire Cardie. 2020b. Event extraction by answering (almost) natural questions. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 671–683. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinya Du, Sha Li, and Heng Ji. 2022. Dynamic global memory for document-level argument extraction. In ACL (1), pages 5264–5275. Association for Computational Linguistics. Seth Ebner, Patrick Xia, Ryan Culkin, Kyle Rawlins, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2020. Multi-sentence argument linking. In ACL, pages 8057–8077. Association for Computational Linguistics. Siqi Fan, Yequan Wang, Jing Li, Zheng Zhang, Shuo Shang, and Peng Han. 2022. Interactive information extraction by semantic information graph. In *IJCAI*, pages 4100–4106. ijcai.org. Priya Goyal, Piotr Dollár, Ross B. Girshick, Pieter Noordhuis, Lukasz Wesolowski, Aapo Kyrola, Andrew Tulloch, Yangqing Jia, and Kaiming He. 2017. Accurate, large minibatch SGD: training imagenet in 1 hour. *CoRR*, abs/1706.02677. Rujun Han, I-Hung Hsu, Jiao Sun, Julia Baylon, Qiang Ning, Dan Roth, and Nanyun Peng. 2021. ESTER: A machine reading comprehension dataset for reasoning about event semantic relations. In EMNLP (1), pages 7543–7559. Association for Computational Linguistics. Heng Ji and Ralph Grishman. 2008. Refining event extraction through cross-document inference. In ACL 2008, Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, June 1520, 2008, Columbus, Ohio, USA, pages 254–262. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Manling Li, Alireza Zareian, Ying Lin, Xiaoman Pan, Spencer Whitehead, Brian Chen, Bo Wu, Heng Ji, Shih-Fu Chang, Clare R. Voss, Daniel Napierski, and Marjorie Freedman. 2020. GAIA: A fine-grained multimedia knowledge extraction system. In ACL (demo), pages 77–86. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sha Li, Heng Ji, and Jiawei Han. 2021. Documentlevel event argument extraction by conditional generation. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 894–908. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2010. Using document level cross-event inference to improve event extraction. In ACL, pages 789–797. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Jiaju Lin, Qin Chen, Jie Zhou, Jian Jin, and Liang He. 2022. CUP: curriculum learning based prompt tuning for implicit event argument extraction. In *Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna,* Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 4245–4251. ijcai.org. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net. Jie Ma, Shuai Wang, Rishita Anubhai, Miguel Ballesteros, and Yaser Al-Onaizan. 2020. Resourceenhanced neural model for event argument extraction. In *EMNLP (Findings)*, volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 3554–3559. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yubo Ma, Zehao Wang, Yixin Cao, Mukai Li, Meiqi Chen, Kun Wang, and Jing Shao. 2022. Prompt for extraction? PAIE: prompting argument interaction for event argument extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6759– 6774. Association for Computational Linguistics. Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In *ESWC*, volume 10843 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 593–607. Springer. Ziqi Wang, Xiaozhi Wang, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Lei Hou, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Juanzi Li, and Jie Zhou. 2021. CLEVE: contrastive pre-training for event extraction. In *ACL/IJCNLP (1)*, pages 6283–6297. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kaiwen Wei, Xian Sun, Zequn Zhang, Jingyuan Zhang, Zhi Guo, and Li Jin. 2021. Trigger is not sufficient: Exploiting frame-aware knowledge for implicit event argument extraction. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4672–4682. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiangyu Xi, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang, Quanxiu Wang, Huixing Jiang, and Wei Wu. 2021. Capturing event argument interaction via A bi-directional entity-level recurrent decoder. In *ACL/IJCNLP (1)*, pages 210– 219. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wei Xiang and Bang Wang. 2019. A survey of event extraction from text. *IEEE Access*, 7:173111–173137. Runxin Xu, Tianyu Liu, Lei Li, and Baobao Chang. 2021. Document-level event extraction via heterogeneous graph-based interaction model with a tracker. In *ACL/IJCNLP (1)*, pages 3533–3546. Association for Computational Linguistics. Runxin Xu, Peiyi Wang, Tianyu Liu, Shuang Zeng, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. 2022. A two-stream amr-enhanced model for document-level event argument extraction. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 5025–5036. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhiyang Xu and Lifu Huang. 2022. Improve event extraction via self-training with gradient guidance. CoRR, abs/2205.12490. Klim Zaporojets, Johannes Deleu, Yiwei Jiang, Thomas Demeester, and Chris Develder. 2022. Towards consistent document-level entity linking: Joint models for entity linking and coreference resolution. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short* Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 778–784. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qi Zeng, Qiusi Zhan, and Heng Ji. 2022. Ea2e: Improving consistency with event awareness for documentlevel argument extraction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 2649–2655. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianran Zhang, Muhao Chen, and Alex A. T. Bui. 2020. Diagnostic prediction with sequence-of-sets representation learning for clinical events. In *AIME*, volume 12299 of *Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, pages 348–358. Springer. Zixuan Zhang and Heng Ji. 2021. Abstract meaning representation guided graph encoding and decoding for joint information extraction. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 39–49. Association for Computational Linguistics. Table 7: Licenses of scientific artifacts used in this paper. | Scientific Artifact | License | |-----------------------|--------------------| | WikiEvents | MIT License | | RAMS | Apache License 2.0 | | bert-base-uncased | Apache License 2.0 | | roberta-large | MIT License | Table 8: Statistics of WikiEvents and RAMS datasets. | Dataset | Split | #Docs | #Events | #Arguments | |------------|---------|---------|-----------|--------------| | Train | 206 | 3,241 | 4,542 | | | WikiEvents | Dev | 20 | 345 | 428 | | Test | 20 | 365 | 566 | | | Train | 3,194 | 7,329 | 17,026 | | | RAMS | Dev | 399 | 924 | 2,188 | | Test | 400 | 871 | 2,023 | |  ## A Appendix A.1 Statistics Of Datasets The details of statistics of WikiEvents and RAMS datasets are listed in Table 8. ## A.2 Hyperparameters We set batch size to 8, and train the model using AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) optimizer and a linearly decaying scheduler (Goyal et al., 2017) with 3e-5 learning rate for pre-trained language encoders and 1e-4 for other modules. For Wikievents, we train the model for 100 epochs, and set λ to 1.0 and L to 3. For RAMS, we train the model for 50 epochs, and set λ to 0.05 and L to 4. ## A.3 The Choice Of K Span proposal module is of great importance to construct the tailored AMR graph, and intuitively, selecting different number of spans as candidates for Arg Classification will exert an influence on performance and efficiency. Therefore, we present visually the trend of recall and inference time when ranging k, which denotes the number of proposed spans. As illustrated in Figure 5, as k becomes larger, recall is higher, while inference is lower. Moreover, when recall of span proposal is low, a number of positive examples for Arg Classification would be dropped, which impedes the model to learn argument roles. On the other hand, too many candidate spans aggravate the problem of class imbalance. As a consequence, we make a trade-off to set k = 50. ## A.4 Amr Parsers | Model | AMR 2.0 | Arg Identification | Arg Classification | | | |------------------------|-----------|----------------------|----------------------|----------|-------| | Smatch | Head F1 | Coref F1 | Head F1 | Coref F1 | | | transition-AMR | 81.3 | 78.64 | 76.40 | 72.89 | 70.95 | | transition-AMRcompress | 81.3 | 78.50 | 76.71 | 73.33 | 71.55 | | AMRBART | 85.4 | 78.35 | 76.29 | 73.07 | 70.83 | TARA, as the name implies, relies on automatic AMR parsers to build signals of message passing. To explore the effect of different AMR parsing performance, we compare test results of TARA using transition-based AMR parser and a latest state-of-the-art parser AMRBART (Bai et al., 2022) in Table 9. We implement a simple node-to-text aligner and compress the obtained AMR graph as described in Sec-B for AMRBART. As shown in the table, though AMRBART brings better AMR parsing performance, it dose not gain more improvements for EAE. It demonstrates that there is still a gap between AMR graphs and event structures. Nonetheless, TARA equipped with AMRBART consistently outperforms previous models, which indicates the robustness of our proposed model. ## B Subgraph Compression As mentioned in the main text, we compress the subgraph to make the graph compact. Figure 6 illustrates how we compress a subgraph. Firstly, we will find a subgraph that has an AMR label in pre-defined entity types. The type  list is induced from the AMR parser configurations, and we also give the list here, *Country, Quantity, Organization, Date-attrs, Nationality, Location, Entity, Misc, Ordinal-entity, Ideology, Religion, State-or-province, Cause-of-death,* Title, Date, Number, Handle, Score-entity, Duration, Ordinal, Money, Criminal-charge, Person, Thing, State, Date-entity, Name, Publication, Province, Government-organization, City-district, City, Criminal-organization, Group, Religiousgroup, String-entity, Political-party, World-region, Country-region, String-name, URL-entity, Festival, Company, Broadcast-program. If such a node has a child node with the label "name" and outgoing edges like "op1", "op2", we will compress this subgraph. The compression merges labels of all nodes connected with "op1", "op2", "op3" edges as a phrase according to the ascending order of edges. The text alignment information of the merged node becomes the range from the most left position to the most right position of nodes in the subgraph, which means there is a little chance to enlarge the corresponding text span if the original positions are discontinuous. The compression will preserve all incoming and outgoing edges except the edge ":wiki". As shown in the Figure 6, we keep the ":quant" edge but remove the ":wiki" edge. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract; 1. Introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Ethics Statement ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Introduction; 4. Experiments; References ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Ethics Statement ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Ethics Statement B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 4. Experiments ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 4. Experiments; Appendix ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 4. Experiments ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 4. Experiments; Appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4. Experiments ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 4. Experiments D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

cao-etal-2023-pumer

{P}u{M}er: Pruning and Merging Tokens for Efficient Vision Language Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.721

Large-scale vision language (VL) models use Transformers to perform cross-modal interactions between the input text and image. These cross-modal interactions are computationally expensive and memory-intensive due to the quadratic complexity of processing the input image and text. We present PuMer: a token reduction framework that uses text-informed Pruning and modality-aware Merging strategies to progressively reduce the tokens of input image and text, improving model inference speed and reducing memory footprint. PuMer learns to keep salient image tokens related to the input text and merges similar textual and visual tokens by adding lightweight token reducer modules at several cross-modal layers in the VL model. Training PuMer is mostly the same as finetuning the original VL model but faster. Our evaluation for two vision language models on four downstream VL tasks shows PuMer increases inference throughput by up to 2x and reduces memory footprint by over 50{\%} while incurring less than a 1{\%} accuracy drop.

# Pumer: Pruning And Merging Tokens For Efficient Vision Language Models Qingqing Cao Bhargavi Paranjape {qicao,bparan,hannaneh}@cs.washington.edu University of Washington Hannaneh Hajishirzi ## Abstract Large-scale vision language (VL) models use Transformers to perform cross-modal interactions between the input text and image. These cross-modal interactions are computationally expensive and memory-intensive due to the quadratic complexity of processing the input image and text. We present PuMer1: a token reduction framework that uses text-informed Pruning and modality-aware Merging strategies to progressively reduce the tokens of input image and text, improving model inference speed and reducing memory footprint. PuMer learns to keep salient image tokens related to the input text and merges similar textual and visual tokens by adding lightweight token reducer modules at several cross-modal layers in the VL model. Training PuMer is mostly the same as finetuning the original VL model but faster. Our evaluation for two vision language models on four downstream VL tasks shows PuMer increases inference throughput by up to 2x and reduces memory footprint by over 50% while incurring less than a 1% accuracy drop. 2 ## 1 Introduction Large-scale vision language models (Dou et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021) have shown substantial progress on many vision language tasks such as visual question answering, natural language visual reasoning, and visual entailment. However, state-of-the-art language and vision models are memory intensive and computationally expensive because they use multi-layer self-attention between many language and vision input tokens (small image patches) with quadratic complexity. This inefficiency limits highthroughput cloud deployments and makes it infeasible to run on resource-constrained devices. 1Pronounced as "puma" 2Code is available at https://github.com/ csarron/PuMer.  The key source of inefficiency in deep VL models is that these models need to process the entire input image and text tokens over all the layers. Our intuition is that the input image contains redundant information and only parts of the image (*salient* regions, referred by the text) are required and related to the end task. For example, in Figure 1, most of the image content (the four persons, field) is not needed except for the bottom-center soccer region to answer the visual question "What sport are they playing?". This paper advocates using the correlations between image and text modalities to reduce tokens for VL problems. In the vision-only or text-only domains, researchers have shown that reducing image or text tokens can improve the model computational complexity through *pruning* (Liang et al., 2021; Rao et al., 2021; Yin et al., 2022; Marin et al., 2021; Goyal et al., 2020) that learns to remove non-salient image or text tokens for a given task; or *merging* (Bolya et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2022; Ryoo et al., 2021) that groups semantically similar tokens. Using either reduction method in isolation is not sufficient for a VL problem setting since i) salient image tokens are different given different text inputs, ii) pruning alone causes big information loss, hurting the performance, *iii)* merging tokens irrespective of their modality confuses the VL models since text and image token representations cannot 12890 be perfectly aligned to the same semantic space. In this paper, we design a lightweight and effective framework that integrates these token reduction strategies into VL models. We introduce **PuMer**, a token reduction framework that consists of Pruning-and-Merging operations to gradually reduce image tokens that are not related to text and merge image and text tokens respective to their modality. In particular, we design *(i) text-informed image token pruning* to remove image tokens that are irrelevant to text and are unimportant to the VL task predictions (removing tokens that describe persons and field for the second question in the Figure 1 example); (ii) modality-aware token merging to merge semantically redundant tokens for text and image tokens modality independently (combining the image tokens describing each person for the first question in Figure 1). We keep the remaining tokens that are neither pruned nor merged. At the core of PuMer is a set of lightweight non-parametric token reducers that decide which image tokens are pruned and merged as the VL model forward computation proceeds. To reduce abrupt image information loss and improve computational efficiency, we scatter the token reducers at different cross-modal layers in the VL model and reduce the tokens in a cascaded fashion. Fewer tokens are pruned and merged in earlier layers. PuMer is easy to train since the token reducers contain no parameters and add little overhead. The training procedure is almost the same as finetuning the original VL models, except that we add a knowledge distillation loss that further reduces the accuracy gap compared to finetuned models. Though we focus on inference efficiency, PuMer makes VL models run faster for both training and inference because text and image tokens are reduced in the forward computation. We evaluate PuMer over two recent VL models ViLT (Kim et al., 2021) and METER (Dou et al., 2022) across five vision language tasks: text-image retrieval tasks (including image-to-text and text-toimage retrieval) (Plummer et al., 2015), visual question answering (VQAv2; Goyal et al. 2017), natural language visual reasoning (NLVR2; Suhr et al. 2019), and visual entailment (SNLI-VE; Xie et al. 2019). Compared to baselines, PuMer improves the model inference throughput by 1.7x∼**2.1x** and reduces memory footprint by 38%∼50% with minimal (less than 1%) accuracy loss. Our analysis validates that both text-informed image pruning and modality-aware token merging contribute to the token reduction effectiveness of PuMer. ## 2 Related Work Token Reduction in NLP and Vision. Prior work in data pruning (Rao et al., 2021; Yin et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2021; Goyal et al., 2020) focus on single-modality models by either pruning input text or image alone. DynamicViT (Rao et al., 2021) and A-ViT (Yin et al., 2022) both progressively remove the uninformative content and keep salient regions in the input image. This type of pruning does not apply to language and vision tasks where the salient regions depend on the input text. Our work shows different input texts lead to pruning different image regions even for the same input image. PoWER-BERT (Goyal et al., 2020) speeds up the inference of text-based Transformers like BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) by removing the input text tokens, which are not the main computation bottlenecks for most vision and language tasks. Another line of work seeks to reduce input tokens by merging tokens. SPViT (Kong et al., 2022) and EViT (Liang et al., 2021) select uninformative image tokens and combine them into one token. And EViT also requires expensive pretraining. GroupViT (Xu et al., 2022) combines image tokens via cross-attention to find similar objects for semantic segmentation. Recently, ToMe (Bolya et al., 2022), TokenLearner (Ryoo et al., 2021) and TokenPooling (Marin et al., 2021) combine tokens without pruning and achieves better speedup versus accuracy trade-offs. Our method is inspired by token pruning and merging works but integrates them into a token reduction framework suitable for VL models. Our key difference is to leverage the relationships between textual and visual tokens to remove and combine tokens. Our experiments (Section 5) show improvements over these lines of work. Efficient Vision Language Models. Many techniques have focused on model pruning (Lagunas et al., 2021; Yu and Wu, 2021; Yu et al., 2022; TPr), dynamic computation by early exiting (Xin et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Schwartz et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2022) or designing small and efficient VL models (Fang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020). Combining these orthogonal optimizations with our token reduction method could further accelerate the inference in VL models. ## 3 Background And Overview Vision Language Models. Figure 2 shows the backbone of a VL model consisting of a text encoder, an image encoder, and a cross-modal encoder. The input sentence (e.g. a question or a statement) is first tokenized as text tokens and fed to the text encoder to create contextualized text representations. Similarly, the input image is projected into many small image patches, referred to as "image tokens", that are further contextualized by the image encoder. Finally, the cross-modal encoder takes the concatenated text and image tokens and fuses information between image and text modalities via Transformer-style (Vaswani et al., 2017) cross-attention interactions.  For many VL tasks, the number of tokens of the input image is an order of magnitude more than that of the input text - a visual question can have at most a dozen tokens but the associated image consists of a hundred image tokens. For example, for an image with a resolution of 384x384 and a patch size of 16, the number of tokens is (384/16)2 = 576. Token Reduction for Efficiency. In this paper, we focus on *reducing* image tokens to improve computational efficiency of the model through *pruning* and *merging*. However, naively removing a large percentage of the image tokens inside the crossmodal layers may cause abrupt image information loss, as the VL model is trained to build representations of the full image for the downstream task. For example, if the soccer region in Figure 1 gets pruned, the VL model is unlikely to output the answer "soccer" for the question "what sport are they playing?". On the other hand, simply merging image tokens without text guidance can lead to suboptimal performance. For example, merging the image regions of the background field and soccer in Figure 1 does not contribute to answering the visual question "how many people are playing?". The next section describes our text-informed token reduction approach. The basic building blocks of PuMer are lightweight non-parametric *token* reducers that reduce image and text tokens in a cascaded manner to mitigate the information loss and improve the computational efficiency of a VL model. ## 4 Pumer: Text-Informed Token Reduction Framework Given a VL cross-modal encoder, PuMer progressively reduces image tokens going through the cross-modal encoder (depicted in Figure 3). PuMer uses lightweight token reducers with no learnable parameters, adding them in different layers of the cross-modal encoder to predict which image tokens are removed or merged. Token Reducers. For an n-layer cross-modal encoder, after the first f (*f < n*) layers, a token reducer first removes k% of the image tokens at any layer ℓ between f and n guided by the text information. The tokens removed in layer ℓ are not used in subsequent layers. Then the token reducer merges r% and t% of the image and text tokens respectively in layer ℓ. We scatter the token reducers across the cross-modal layers to achieve a better accuracy and efficiency trade-off. Intuitively, reducing at early layers in the cross-modal encoder will have higher inference efficiency but may have bigger performance loss and vice versa. We study this trade-off in more detail in Section 6.2. The token reduction algorithm is described in Algorithm 1. Each token reducer consists of two sequential non-parametric modules: first, a *text-informed pruner* (TIP) prunes image tokens that are not related to the accompanying text (Section 4.1); second, a *modality-aware* merger (MAM) reduces tokens by merging similar tokens within the image or text modality (Section 4.2). These two steps reduce the image and text tokens to benefit the computational efficiency, while not losing the accuracy. Note that if we only apply text-informed pruning to the images without merging, to achieve similar efficiency gains, we need to set a larger pruning ratio which will  Algorithm 1 Token Reduction via Text-Informed Image Pruning and Modality-Aware Merging Input: text token vectors T, text-to-image cross attention scores A, image token vectors V, prune ratio k, image merge ratio r, text merge ratio t Output: merged text token vectors Tm, pruned and merged image token vectors Vm 1: for image tokens V, compute text-saliency scores s using Eq1; ▷ text-informed image pruning 2: obtain indices idx of top-k′items in score s, k′ = (1 − k)|V|; ▷ k′is the \# of kept image tokens 3: select k′image tokens by the top-k′indices, Vp = V[idx]; 4: merge text tokens T by bipartite soft matching into Tm = bipartite_merge(T, t); merge image tokens Vp into Vm = bipartite_merge(Vp, r) ▷ modality-aware merging 5: **procedure** BIPARTITE_MERGE(input tokens: X, merge ratio: r) 6: divide tokens X into two sets of tokens O and E based on even and odd order 7: for each token Oa in O, compute its top-1 similar token Eb in E, save the indices a and b into a token edge (an edge between Oa and Eb), save all token edges as P and corresponding top-1 similarity scores Sp ▷ this can be implemented as a fast parallel operation 8: r′ = r|X|, obtain indices ind of top-r′items in Sp, select top-r′edges: Pr = P[ind] 9: for each token edge (a, b) in Pr, collect tokens from O and E, merge tokens in O and E that are connected via edges (sharing the same token as a vertex node) into OE by computing the average of each token vectors, gather O*rest* and E*rest* from the rest (unmerged) indices. 10: output: merged tokens Xm = gather(OE, Orest, E*rest*) 11: **end procedure** hurt task performance due to substantial information loss. Instead of dropping such information, modality-aware merging helps alleviate information loss by compressing semantically similar content into fewer tokens while still providing efficiency benefits. ## 4.1 Text-Informed Image Pruning The first step is to prune image tokens according to their relevance to the text. The intuition is that only some parts of the image are important for the end language-vision task, hence removing the text-irrelevant parts will not hurt the performance, while it improves the computational efficiency. Unlike previous works (Rao et al., 2021) that use extra learnable parameters to predict which image tokens to prune, we take a different but faster approach without using any parameters. The key idea is to use the text-to-image cross-attention scores3that are already available in the VL model to compute how important each image token is to the text. We keep important image tokens and prune the rest. Since this text-informed pruning also removes image tokens during training, it trains faster4than parameter-based pruning approaches like Rao et al. ## (2021). For each cross-modal layer ℓ where the token reducer is applied, we denote the input text token vectors as T, image token vectors as V, and textto-image cross-attention scores as A (computed in the cross-attention layer that already exists in a VL model). We first compute the text-saliency scores s for every image token: $$s_{v}={\frac{1}{|T|}}\sum_{|T|}^{t=1}\sum_{H}\mathbf{A}_{t v}^{h},$$ $$\mathrm{(1)}$$ where |T| is the number of text tokens, H the number of attention heads, t and v are the indices of text and image tokens. This text-saliency score for the image token is text-informed because each value is summed over all text tokens, and an image token with a bigger text-saliency score means it's attended more by the text and hence is more textrelevant. Next, we keep top-k′image tokens5 Vp according to their text-saliency score and discard the remaining image tokens. ## 4.2 Modality-Aware Merging Once text-irrelevant image tokens are pruned, the remaining image tokens contain more text-salient information but they might still be redundant. For example, multiple image tokens describe the same person in the Figure 1 image and their representations might be similar (their vector distances are close). For the text modality, the token redundancy still exists due to the self-attention contextualization which progressively creates similar information (Goyal et al., 2020). In practice, text tokens are padded to max length for efficient training and inference, these padding tokens also contribute to redundancy. In this section, we describe our modality-aware merging approach to eliminate such redundancy. In particular, our method merges semantically similar image tokens Vp into a single image token and similar text tokens T into a single text token to further reduce the number of tokens. We specifically merge tokens within each modality, i.e., image tokens are merged with similar image tokens, and text tokens are merged with similar text tokens. To implement modality-aware merging, we need to identify similar tokens and combine their information in a lightweight way. Existing methods such as k-means clustering (Marin et al., 2021), pooling (Pietruszka et al., 2020; Nawrot et al., 2022), 5k ′ = (1 − k)|V| is the number of kept tokens grouping (Xu et al., 2022) or learning-based (Ryoo et al., 2021) cause non-negligible overhead and slow down the VL model computation, instead, we use the bipartite soft matching algorithm (Bolya et al., 2022) to find similar tokens and combine them in parallel. Here, we explain the bipartite matching approach in more detail. Specifically, the inputs are a set of token vectors X (can be Vp or T) and a merge ratio r, we form a bipartite graph by dividing the nodes (tokens) into two disjoint sets (say E and O) of equal size based on their order (even or odd). Then, for each token in O, we find its most similar token in E, and draw an edge between the token pair (lines in the left figure in Figure 4). We select the top-r′edges6 based on the similarity and merge their corresponding (most similar) token in E and O. Figure 4 shows an example of bipartite matching. Since the self-attention in a VL model layer already has computed keys and values for each token to measure similarity, following Bolya et al. (2022), we compute the similarity as the dot product S t1t2 p = Kt1Kt2 between the keys of each token vector Xi. We keep the rest non-top-r′tokens in O*rest* and unmerged tokens in E*rest*. We also describe this procedure in Algorithm 1.  ## 4.3 Training And Inference Token reducers in PuMer contain no trainable parameters and can be incorporated into off-the-shelf VL models without changing model architectures for both training and inference. PuMer is easy to 6r ′ = r|X| is the number of merge tokens 12894 train and follows the same setup as finetuning original VL models. To reduce the accuracy drop further, we add a knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) loss. During training and inference, PuMer has three configurable hyperparameters (keep ratio k, merge ratios r, and t for image and text) to control the efficiency versus accuracy trade-offs. Implementation Details. We set the pruning and merging ratio in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 in 3 or 4 locations in cross-modal layers. The exact values are in Appendix A.1. In Section 6.2, we study the design choices for different reduction ratios and reduction layer locations. More implementation and training details are in Appendix A.1. ## 5 Evaluation Setup 5.1 Backbone Vision-Language Models We evaluate PuMer for two different VL models: ViLT (Kim et al., 2021) with 110 million parameters and a state-of-the-art VL model, METER (Dou et al., 2022) with 330 million parameters. We denote PuMer-ViLT and PuMer-METER as PuMer applied for ViLT and METER respectively. ViLT is a recent efficient VL model that uses BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) embeddings to encode text and a linear layer to project image patches. ViLT then concatenates the text and image tokens and uses a 12-layer Transformer encoder to perform the cross-modal fusion. ViLT is a relatively lightweight model and has 110 million parameters. METER is a state-of-the-art VL model that uses RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) as the text encoder and CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) as the image encoder, and 12 BERT-like cross-attention layers to fuse the text and image modalities. METER is a large model and has 330 million parameters. ## 5.2 Evaluation Tasks We evaluate the models on five vision-language language tasks: Image-Text Retrieval contains two subtasks: image-to-text retrieval (IR) and text-to-image retrieval (TR). We finetune PuMer and evaluate on the Flickr30K (Plummer et al., 2015). Visual Question Answering (VQAv2) dataset (Goyal et al., 2017) contains over 1 million diverse open-ended questions about images both from the MSCOCO (Lin et al., 2014) and real-world scenes. Answering these questions requires an understanding of vision, language, and commonsense knowledge. Visual Entailment (VE) (Xie et al., 2019) is a visual inference task that consists of 570K sentence image pairs constructed from the Stanford Natural Language Inference corpus (Bowman et al., 2015) and Flickr30k (Young et al., 2014). The goal is to predict whether the image premise semantically entails the text. Natural Language for Visual Reasoning (NLVR2) corpora (Suhr et al., 2019) have over 100K examples of linguistically diverse English sentences written by humans and are grounded in pairs of visually complex images. The goal is to predict whether a sentence is true about two input images. ## 5.3 Baselines To compare the benefits of PuMer, we additionally evaluate three baselines: DynamicViT (Rao et al., 2021) designs several prediction modules parameterized by MLPs to predict which image tokens to prune in vision transformers (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020). For a fair comparison, we use the original DynamicViT configurations (pruning layers and ratios) for the ViLT model. ToMe (Bolya et al., 2022) uses token merging to reduce the number of tokens in vision transformers. We configure ToMe to make sure similar speedup as PuMer and compare their accuracy. Note that both DynamicViT and ToMe are designed for vision Transformers and work for image modality, therefore they do not distinguish between the image and text tokens. On the contrary, PuMer is a more general token reduction framework that uses text to guide the image pruning and makes merging modality aware. Smaller Resolution (SmRes): We downsample the input image to smaller resolutions and finetune the VL models. Using smaller input images directly reduces the computation of VL models. ## 5.4 Evaluation Metrics Accuracy Metrics. We measure *VQA accuracy* (Goyal et al., 2017) for the VQAv2 dataset and accuracy for both the VE and NLVR2 datasets. For text retrieval (TR) and image retrieval (IR) tasks, the accuracy refers to Top1-recall. Unlike previous works (Kim et al., 2021; Dou et al., 2022), where | Model | Datasets | Original Accuracy | PuMer Accuracy | Throughput Increase | Memory Reduction | |--------------|--------------|---------------------|------------------|-----------------------|--------------------| | Flickr30k TR | 94.7 | 93.8 (-0.9) | 1.81x | 38% | | | Flickr30k IR | 82.0 | 81.2 (-0.8) | 1.81x | 38% | | | VQAv2 | 77.5 | 76.8 (-0.7) | 1.82x | 38% | | | SNLI-VE | 81.1 | 80.3 (-0.8) | 2.07x | 43% | | | NLVR2 | 82.7 | 82.2 (-0.5) | 1.79x | 38% | | | METER (SoTA) | Flickr30k TR | 78.2 | 77.6 (-0.6) | 1.78x | 46% | | Flickr30k IR | 60.2 | 59.6 (-0.7) | 1.78x | 46% | | | VQAv2 | 69.5 | 68.9 (-0.6) | 1.76x | 45% | | | SNLI-VE | 76.0 | 75.6 (-0.4) | 2.01x | 51% | | | NLVR2 | 75.5 | 74.9 (-0.6) | 1.74x | 45% | | | ViLT | | | | | | their models are trained on the combined training and validation sets, our focus is not to obtain stateof-the-art results, so we train the two VL models on the training set and report the results on the test set. All the accuracy numbers are average values across 3 runs. Efficiency Metrics. We measure the actual inference throughput (examples per second) of the VL models on the GPU hardware and compare them to the original finetuned models, and we report the *throughput increase*. We also measure the peak memory consumed during the model inference phase and report *memory reduction* ratio compared to the original finetuned models. These two runtime metrics reflect actual efficiency and are found to be more accurate to compare resource consumption instead of using the FLOPs complexity metric (Graham et al., 2021). For comparison purposes, we include the FLOPs comparison in the appendix Appendix A.2. For inference throughput measurements, we increase the batch size until the model gets out of GPU memory, and run the inference with the batch size that gives the biggest throughput for 30 seconds on a single GPU. For inference memory footprint, we use the same batch size for the original VL model and PuMer version and report the peak memory difference. For ViLT models, we use GTX 1080 Ti GPU and start the batch size from 32 with a step of 8; for METER models, we use an A40 GPU and start the batch size from 16 with a step of 8. ## 6 Experimental Results 6.1 Main Results PuMer is faster and remains accurate. Table 1 shows the main results comparing performance, inference speed, and memory reduction of  PuMer versus the original models. Overall, we observe over 1.7x ∼ **2x speedup** in inference throughput and over 35% ∼ **51% reduction** in memory footprint for both ViLT and METER models on the VL tasks. Importantly, the task performance of PuMer remains competitive compared to the original finetuned VL models with only <1% drop in accuracy. PuMer is more accurate and faster than previous token reduction methods. Figure 5 presents the accuracy versus inference throughput increase trade-offs for PuMer, DynamicViT and ToMe applied to the ViLT model on the VQAv2 dataset. Given a similar throughput increase (like 1.8x), PuMer has the best accuracy compared to DynamicViT and ToMe. Similarly, for a given accuracy drop constraint (like < 1%), PuMer provides a bigger throughput increase. Model Image VQAv2 Throughput Memory Resolution Accuracy Increase Reduction Resolution 192x192 74.3 (-3.2) 4.23x 75% 224x224 75.2 (-2.3) 3.48x 66% 256x256 76.1 (-1.4) 2.67x 54% 320x320 77.0 (-0.5) 1.62x 37% PuMer 320x320 76.3 (-1.2) 2.86x 59% PuMer 384x384 76.8 (-0.7) 1.82x 38% Original 384x384 77.5 1x 0% ## Pumer Provides Larger Efficiency Gains Over Smaller Resolution Baselines. Table 2 Shows the results for the METER model on the VQAv2 dataset when comparing PuMer with downsampling the input image to smaller resolutions. Using smaller resolution input images improves the inference throughput and reduces memory footprint but comes with larger accuracy drops. The closest resolution is 320x320 which is slightly more (0.2%) accurate than PuMer, but it has 20% lower inference throughput. Meanwhile, PuMer is orthogonal to downsampling strategies, and applying PuMer to smaller images could provide additional efficiency gains; for input image resolution 320x320, PuMer improves METER throughput by 1.76x with a 0.7% accuracy drop7(see the 3rd row numbers in Table 2). ## 6.2 Ablation Study Model VQA Throughput Accuracy Increase ViLT 69.5 1x PuMer-ViLT 68.9 (-0.6) 1.76x w/o text-informed image pruning 69.2 (-0.3) 1.52x w/o modality-aware merging 69.1 (-0.4) 1.46x w/o distillation 68.6 (-0.9) 1.76x Table 3: Ablation analysis for each component in PuMer on the VQAv2 dataset for ViLT model. Effectiveness of PuMer Components. To show how each component in PuMer affects the VL task accuracy and model inference efficiency, we ablate the three components - text-informed image pruning, modality-aware merging and distillation - in Table 3. Applying text-informed image pruning or modality-aware merging individually has 71.76=2.86/1.62, 0.7=77.0-76.3 shown improvements in model inference throughput with smaller accuracy loss. But stacking the two techniques together provides bigger inference efficiency without losing much task performance. Without knowledge distillation, PuMer is still accurate and fast and adding it further reduces the performance gap. Token Reduction Design Choices. Given a 12layer VL cross-modal encoder like ViLT, many combinations of reduction locations and ratios achieve similar inference speedups. Reducing tokens at earlier layers with lower ratios has similar computation efficiency to pruning at later layers with higher ratios. For comparing the accuracy with different numbers of reduction layers, we control the inference throughput to be similar to PuMer by selecting the pruning and merging ratios and locations. Table 4 shows cascaded reduction at 4 layers (2th, 4th, 6th, 8th) has higher accuracy and speedups. The ratios row in Table 4 shows reducing (via pruning or merging) more tokens leads to a bigger throughput increase but has a significant (>1%) accuracy drop while reducing fewer tokens is more accurate but causes lower throughput. As shown in the locations row, we find that reducing tokens in the earlier layers leads to bigger throughput but drops accuracy by 1.8%, while reducing tokens in the later layers is slightly more accurate but provides fewer benefits in throughput. Overall, for ViLT on the SNLI-VE task, we choose a 4-layer cascaded token reduction strategy with a pruning ratio of 0.1 and merging ratio of 0.3 and 0.2 for image and text respectively, and scatter the reduction locations more evenly to balance accuracy and speed trade-offs. ## 7 Conclusion Large vision language models have been effective at visual reasoning tasks due to their complex crossmodal interactions between the text and image tokens. These cross-modal interactions are computationally expensive because all image and text tokens are processed in many layers. We introduce a token reduction framework - PuMer that uses text-informed image pruning and modality-aware merging techniques to effectively reduce the image and text tokens inside cross-modal layers. PuMer progressively removes the redundant image and text information and makes VL models run faster with minimal task performance drop. PuMer is | Choice | Reduction Layers | Prune Ratio | Image Merge Ratio Text Merge Ratio VE Accuracy | Throughput Increase | | | |----------------------|--------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|-------------|-------| | 2,5,8 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 75.8 (-0.2) | 1.77x | | | 2,5,8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 74.7 (-1.3) | 2.04x | | | ratios | 2,5,8 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 74.9 (-1.1) | 1.89x | | 2,5,8 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 73.8 (-2.1) | 2.12x | | | 2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 75.9 (-0.15) | 1.43x | | | # of layers | 2,4 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 75.8 (-0.2) | 1.69x | | 2,4,6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 75.7 (-0.3) | 1.80x | | | locations | 2,3,4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 74.2 (-1.8) | 2.03x | | 7,8,9 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 75.9 (-0.1) | 1.31x | | | PuMer (Ours) 2,4,6,8 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 75.6 (-0.4) | 2.01x | | | ViLT | - | - | - | - | 76.0 | 1.00x | Table 4: Design choices analysis of prune and merge ratios, \# of reduction layers, and reduction locations for the ViLT model on SNLI-VE task. easy to train and speeds up both training and inference of vision and language models across diverse downstream visual reasoning tasks. ## Acknowledgements This research was supported partly by NSF IIS2044660, an Allen Investigator Distinguished award. We thank the anonymous reviewers and the members of the UW NLP group for their comments and feedback on this paper. ## 8 Limitations Our method does not apply to VL models where the cross-modal encoder layers are relatively lightweight. For example, the vision encoder is much more computationally expensive than the cross-modal encoder for VL models like ALBEF (Li et al., 2021) and X-VLM (Zeng et al., 2021), therefore, the end to end inference speed improvement is marginal. Reducing the image tokens inside the vision encoder could further improve the model efficiency, we leave this exploration to future work. ## References TPrune: Efficient Transformer Pruning for Mobile Devices: ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems: Vol 5, No 3. 2022. Deepspeed. 2022. huggingface/accelerate. Daniel Bolya, Cheng-Yang Fu, Xiaoliang Dai, Peizhao Zhang, Christoph Feichtenhofer, and Judy Hoffman. 2022. Token Merging: Your ViT But Faster. ArXiv:2210.09461 [cs]. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 632–642, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qingqing Cao, Prerna Khanna, Nicholas D. Lane, and Aruna Balasubramanian. 2022. MobiVQA: Efficient On-Device Visual Question Answering. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 6(2):44:1–44:23. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2020. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. Zi-Yi Dou, Yichong Xu, Zhe Gan, Jianfeng Wang, Shuohang Wang, Lijuan Wang, Chenguang Zhu, Pengchuan Zhang, Lu Yuan, Nanyun Peng, Zicheng Liu, and Michael Zeng. 2022. An empirical study of training end-to-end vision-and-language transformers. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on* Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 18166–18176. Zhiyuan Fang, Jianfeng Wang, Xiaowei Hu, Lijuan Wang, Yezhou Yang, and Zicheng Liu. 2021. Compressing Visual-Linguistic Model via Knowledge Distillation. pages 1428–1438. Saurabh Goyal, Anamitra Roy Choudhury, Saurabh Raje, Venkatesan Chakaravarthy, Yogish Sabharwal, and Ashish Verma. 2020. PoWER-BERT: Accelerating BERT Inference via Progressive Word-vector Elimination. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3690–3699. PMLR. ISSN: 2640-3498. Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Stay, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. 2017. Making the v in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answering. pages 6904–6913. Benjamin Graham, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Hugo Touvron, Pierre Stock, Armand Joulin, Hervé Jégou, and Matthijs Douze. 2021. LeViT: A Vision Transformer in ConvNet's Clothing for Faster Inference. pages 12259–12269. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network. ArXiv:1503.02531 [cs, stat]. Wonjae Kim, Bokyung Son, and Ildoo Kim. 2021. ViLT: Vision-and-Language Transformer Without Convolution or Region Supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5583–5594. PMLR. ISSN: 2640-3498. Zhenglun Kong, Peiyan Dong, Xiaolong Ma, Xin Meng, Mengshu Sun, Wei Niu, Xuan Shen, Geng Yuan, Bin Ren, Minghai Qin, Hao Tang, and Yanzhi Wang. 2022. SPViT: Enabling Faster Vision Transformers via Soft Token Pruning. ArXiv:2112.13890 [cs]. François Lagunas, Ella Charlaix, Victor Sanh, and Alexander Rush. 2021. Block Pruning For Faster Transformers. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 10619–10629, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In *Advances in neural information processing systems*, volume 34, pages 9694–9705. Curran Associates, Inc. Youwei Liang, Chongjian Ge, Zhan Tong, Yibing Song, Jue Wang, and Pengtao Xie. 2021. EViT: Expediting Vision Transformers via Token Reorganizations. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2014, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 740–755, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhiruo Wang, Zhe Zhao, Haotang Deng, and Qi Ju. 2020. FastBERT: a Selfdistilling BERT with Adaptive Inference Time. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6035– 6044, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. Number: arXiv:1907.11692 arXiv:1907.11692 [cs]. Dmitrii Marin, Jen-Hao Rick Chang, Anurag Ranjan, Anish Prabhu, Mohammad Rastegari, and Oncel Tuzel. 2021. Token Pooling in Vision Transformers. ArXiv:2110.03860 [cs]. Piotr Nawrot, Jan Chorowski, Adrian Łancucki, and ´ Edoardo M. Ponti. 2022. Efficient Transformers with Dynamic Token Pooling. ArXiv:2211.09761 [cs] version: 1. Michał Pietruszka, Łukasz Borchmann, and Filip Gralinski. 2020. ´ Sparsifying Transformer Models with Differentiable Representation Pooling. arXiv:2009.05169 [cs]. ArXiv: 2009.05169. Bryan A. Plummer, Liwei Wang, Chris M. Cervantes, Juan C. Caicedo, Julia Hockenmaier, and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2015. Flickr30k Entities: Collecting Region-to-Phrase Correspondences for Richer Imageto-Sentence Models. In *2015 IEEE International* Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 2641– 2649. ISSN: 2380-7504. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. In *Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 8748–8763. PMLR. ISSN: 2640-3498. Yongming Rao, Wenliang Zhao, Benlin Liu, Jiwen Lu, Jie Zhou, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2021. DynamicViT: Efficient Vision Transformers with Dynamic Token Sparsification. *arXiv:2106.02034 [cs]*. ArXiv: 2106.02034. Michael S. Ryoo, A. J. Piergiovanni, Anurag Arnab, Mostafa Dehghani, and Anelia Angelova. 2021. TokenLearner: What Can 8 Learned Tokens Do for Images and Videos? Roy Schwartz, Gabriel Stanovsky, Swabha Swayamdipta, Jesse Dodge, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. The Right Tool for the Job: Matching Model and Instance Complexities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6640–6651, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alane Suhr, Stephanie Zhou, Ally Zhang, Iris Zhang, Huajun Bai, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. A Corpus for Reasoning about Natural Language Grounded in Photographs. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 6418–6428, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Advances in neural information processing systems*, pages 5998–6008. Jianfeng Wang, Xiaowei Hu, Pengchuan Zhang, Xiujun Li, Lijuan Wang, Lei Zhang, Jianfeng Gao, and Zicheng Liu. 2020. MiniVLM: A Smaller and Faster Vision-Language Model. arXiv:2012.06946 [cs]. ArXiv: 2012.06946. Peng Wang, An Yang, Rui Men, Junyang Lin, Shuai Bai, Zhikang Li, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2022. OFA: Unifying Architectures, Tasks, and Modalities Through a Simple Sequence-to-Sequence Learning Framework. Technical Report arXiv:2202.03052, arXiv. ArXiv:2202.03052 [cs] version: 2 type: article. Zirui Wang, Jiahui Yu, Adams Wei Yu, Zihang Dai, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Yuan Cao. 2021. SimVLM: Simple Visual Language Model Pretraining with Weak Supervision. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ning Xie, Farley Lai, Derek Doran, and Asim Kadav. 2019. Visual Entailment Task for VisuallyGrounded Language Learning. Technical Report arXiv:1811.10582, arXiv. ArXiv:1811.10582 [cs] type: article. Ji Xin, Rodrigo Nogueira, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Early Exiting BERT for Efficient Document Ranking. In *Proceedings of SustaiNLP: Workshop on* Simple and Efficient Natural Language Processing, pages 83–88, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiarui Xu, Shalini De Mello, Sifei Liu, Wonmin Byeon, Thomas Breuel, Jan Kautz, and Xiaolong Wang. 2022. GroupViT: Semantic Segmentation Emerges From Text Supervision. pages 18134–18144. Hongxu Yin, Arash Vahdat, Jose M. Alvarez, Arun Mallya, Jan Kautz, and Pavlo Molchanov. 2022. Avit: Adaptive tokens for efficient vision transformer. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)*, pages 10809–10818. Peter Young, Alice Lai, Micah Hodosh, and Julia Hockenmaier. 2014. From image descriptions to visual denotations: New similarity metrics for semantic inference over event descriptions. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2:67–78. Place: Cambridge, MA Publisher: MIT Press. Fang Yu, Kun Huang, Meng Wang, Yuan Cheng, Wei Chu, and Li Cui. 2022. Width & depth pruning for vision transformers. In *AAAI Conference on Artificial* Intelligence (AAAI), volume 2022. Hao Yu and Jianxin Wu. 2021. A Unified Pruning Framework for Vision Transformers. arXiv:2111.15127 [cs]. ArXiv: 2111.15127. Yan Zeng, Xinsong Zhang, and Hang Li. 2021. MultiGrained Vision Language Pre-Training: Aligning Texts with Visual Concepts. Pengchuan Zhang, Xiujun Li, Xiaowei Hu, Jianwei Yang, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021. VinVL: Revisiting Visual Representations in Vision-Language Models. pages 5579– 5588. Wangchunshu Zhou, Canwen Xu, Tao Ge, Julian McAuley, Ke Xu, and Furu Wei. 2020. BERT loses patience: Fast and robust inference with early exit. In Advances in neural information processing systems, volume 33, pages 18330–18341. Curran Associates, Inc. ## A Appendix | METER | Retrieval VQAv2 NLVR2 SNLI-VE | | | | |--------------------|---------------------------------|--------|------|------| | cross-modal lr | 2.5e-5 | 2.5e-5 | 5e-5 | 1e-5 | | classifier lr | 2.5e-5 | 2.5e-4 | 1e-4 | 2e-5 | | batch size per gpu | 32 | 32 | 16 | 32 | | image size | 384 | 384 | 288 | 384 | | patch size | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | | ViLT | Retrieval VQAv2 NLVR2 SNLI-VE | | | | | cross-modal lr | 1e-4 | 1e-4 | 1e-4 | 1e-4 | | classifier lr | 1e-4 | 1e-3 | 1e-4 | 1e-3 | | batch size per gpu | 32 | 64 | 32 | 64 | | image size | 384 | 384 | 384 | 384 | | patch size | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | ## A.1 Pumer Details Implementation. We use the Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) and Accelerate (Hug, 2022) with DeepSpeed (Dee, 2022) library to implement the training tasks. We conduct training jobs on 4 Nvidia A100 GPUs. For both ViLT and METER model, we first follow the training hyperparameters in their original papers and finetune the pretrained model to obtain task-specific models. These models are used as baselines for measuring accuracy drop and also used as the teacher model for PuMer distillation. For baseline VL models, we finetune both METER and ViLT models on the studied VL tasks for 10 epochs. For PuMer, we finetune 20 epochs using early stopping with a penitence of 5 (the accuracy won't improve after 5 epochs). We list all training hyperparameters in Table 5. | METER | VQAv2 | NLVR2 | SNLI-VE | Retrieval | |-------------------|---------|---------|-----------|-------------| | Reduction Layers | 0,2,4,6 | 2,4,6 | 0,2,4,6 | 2,4,6 | | Prune Ratio | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | | Image Merge Ratio | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | | Text Merge Ratio | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | | ViLT | VQAv2 | NLVR2 | SNLI-VE | Retrieval | | Reduction Layers | 2,5,8 | 2,5,8 | 2,4,6,8 | 2,5,8 | | Prune Ratio | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | | Image Merge Ratio | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | | Text Merge Ratio | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | Table 5: Hyperparameters for finetuning PuMer and original VL models. We list the default reduction layers and ratios for different VL tasks in Table 6. Table 6: Reduction layers and ratios for PuMer-METER and PuMer-ViLT on the VL tasks. Table 7: GFLOPs comparison between PuMer and original VL models for METER and ViLT. ## A.2 Model Inference Flops Comparison We measure FLOPs of both PuMer and the original model for METER and ViLT using the fvcore tool8. The results are shown in Table 7. | Model | Datasets | Original | PuMer | Speedup | |---------|------------|------------|---------|-----------| | VQAv2 | 92 | 64.7 | 1.42x | | | METER | SNLI-VE | 92 | 59 | 1.56x | | NLVR2 | 184 | 131 | 1.40x | | | VQAv2 | 16 | 8.7 | 1.84x | | | ViLT | SNLI-VE | 16 | 7.7 | 2.08x | | NLVR2 | 32 | 17.4 | 1.84x | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section 8 A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Not applicable. Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5 And 6 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? section 5 and appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? section 5 and appendix ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? section 5 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? appendix D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

lin-etal-2023-gloss

Gloss-Free End-to-End Sign Language Translation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.722

In this paper, we tackle the problem of sign language translation (SLT) without gloss annotations. Although intermediate representation like gloss has been proven effective, gloss annotations are hard to acquire, especially in large quantities. This limits the domain coverage of translation datasets, thus handicapping real-world applications. To mitigate this problem, we design the Gloss-Free End-to-end sign language translation framework (GloFE). Our method improves the performance of SLT in the gloss-free setting by exploiting the shared underlying semantics of signs and the corresponding spoken translation. Common concepts are extracted from the text and used as a weak form of intermediate representation. The global embedding of these concepts is used as a query for cross-attention to find the corresponding information within the learned visual features. In a contrastive manner, we encourage the similarity of query results between samples containing such concepts and decrease those that do not. We obtained state-of-the-art results on large-scale datasets, including OpenASL and How2Sign.

# Gloss-Free End-To-End Sign Language Translation Kezhou Lin1 Xiaohan Wang1 Linchao Zhu1 Ke Sun2 Bang Zhang2 **Yi Yang**1 1ReLER, CCAI, Zhejiang University 2DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group kezhoulin@zju.edu.cn wxh1996111@gmail.com zhulinchao7@gmail.com xisheng.sk@alibaba-inc.com bangzhang@gmail.com yangyics@zju.edu.cn ## Abstract  In this paper, we tackle the problem of sign language translation (SLT) without gloss annotations. Although intermediate representation like gloss has been proven effective, gloss annotations are hard to acquire, especially in large quantities. This limits the domain coverage of translation datasets, thus handicapping real-world applications. To mitigate this problem, we design the Gloss-Free End-to-end sign language translation framework (GloFE). Our method improves the performance of SLT in the gloss-free setting by exploiting the shared underlying semantics of signs and the corresponding spoken translation. Common concepts are extracted from the text and used as a weak form of intermediate representation. The global embedding of these concepts is used as a query for cross-attention to find the corresponding information within the learned visual features. In a contrastive manner, we encourage the similarity of query results between samples containing such concepts and decrease those that do not. We obtained state-of-the-art results on large-scale datasets, including OpenASL and How2Sign.1 ## 1 Introduction Sign language is a type of visual language mainly used by the community of deaf and hard of hearing. It uses a combination of hand gestures, facial expressions, and body movements to convey the message of the signer. Sign languages are not simple transcripts of the corresponding spoken languages. They possess unique grammar structures and have their own linguistic properties. According to the World Federation of the Deaf, there are over 70 million deaf people around the world. The study of automated sign language processing can facilitate their day-to-day life. In this paper, we study the task of sign language translation (SLT), which translates the sign videos 1Our code and model will be available at https:// github.com/HenryLittle/GloFE. Figure 1: Use global embeddings of conceptual words (CA, conceptual anchor) in spoken translation to supervise the visual feature instead of gloss. A and B are different samples from the same mini batch. into the corresponding spoken language. Glosses are the transliteration system for sign language. They serve as an intermediate representation of the signs. However, the vocabulary of gloss does not align with the spoken language nor does the order of the glosses. Unlike translation between two spoken languages, the number of frames in a sign video is much larger than the number of words in the spoken translation. This imposes a unique challenge for SLT. Models need to learn a clustering of the frames into gloss-level representation before they can translate the tokens. Previous methods solve this problem in two major ways, i.e., pre-train the visual backbone with gloss (Camgoz et al., 2020) or jointly train on both translation and continuous recognition task (Camgoz et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2022) with an additional CTC loss (Graves et al., 2006). These methods have been proven effective, but the reliance on gloss annotations makes them hard to apply to more realistic scenarios. As gloss annotations require expert knowledge to make and often are limited in 12904 quantity or coverage of domains. Like the most frequently used PHOENIX14T dataset (Camgoz et al., 2018) that focuses on weather reports or the KETI dataset (Ko et al., 2019) that dedicates to emergencies. Datasets like OpenASL (Shi et al., 2022) and How2Sign (Duarte et al., 2021) provide more samples but there are no gloss annotations for training. Motivated by these observations and the availability of large-scale SLT datasets, we designed a new framework that is gloss-free throughout the entire process and train the visual backbone jointly in an end-to-end manner. The core idea of our method is illustrated in Figure 1, we extract conceptual words from the ground truth spoken translation to be used as a weak form of intermediate representations. This exploits the shared semantics between signs and text. Though the extracted words might be different from the glosses, the concept expressed by these words should exist in both sign and text. We treat these words as conceptual anchors (CA) between the two modalities. Specifically, we use pre-trained GloVe embeddings (Pennington et al., 2014) as the initialization of these anchors. Then they are treated as the query of cross attention against the encoded visual features. As illustrated in Figure 1, the query attend to each visual feature across the temporal dimension to calculate the similarity between the query and the visual features. With these similarities as weights of pooling, we get the attended visual features. The order of the most relevant features from the signing video does not match the order of the queries in the translation, so CTC is not viable in this situation. Instead, we impose the conceptual constraints in a contrastive manner. For each anchor word, we treated samples containing such words as positive and vice versus. For example, for the word identities in Figure 1 sample B is positive and sample A is negative. Query results for these positive and negative pairs along with the anchor word form a triplet, among which we conduct a hinge-based triplet loss. This process forces the visual2text encoder to learn the relation between different frames that is part of one sign. In all, our contribution can be summarized as: - An end-to-end sign language translation framework that takes the visual backbone in its training process. And we prove that proper design to accompany the text generation objective, will improve the performance of the framework rather than deteriorate it. - A replacement for gloss as a weak form of intermediate representation that facilitates the training of the visual backbone and encoder. It exploits the shared semantics between sign and text, bridging the gap between these two modalities. This also allows us to train the model on larger datasets without gloss annotations. - We obtained state-of-the-art performance on the currently largest SLT dataset publicly available, improving the more modern BLEURT metric by a margin of 5.26, which is 16.9% higher than the previous state-of-theart. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Sign Language Translation Sign Language Translation: Sign language translation (SLT) aims to translate a sign video containing multiple signs to the corresponding spoken text. Camgoz et al. (2018) first proposed the PHOENIX14T dataset that enables the study of direct translation from sign videos to spoken translation. Due to the data scarcity issues caused by the cost of labeling gloss in large quantities. Most works on SLT focus on exploit gloss annotations (Camgoz et al., 2020) or techniques like back translation (Zhou et al., 2021) between gloss and spoken text. Chen et al. (2022) transfers powerful pre-trained models (Radford et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020a) to the sign domain through progressively pre-training and a mapper network. PET (Jin et al., 2022) utilizes the part-of-speech tag as prior knowledge to guide the text generation. However, they all rely on gloss annotations. There have been attempts to conduct SLT in a gloss-free manner (Camgoz et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020b; Kim et al., 2022), but their results are subpar compared to those that use gloss annotation. Recently, there have emerged large-scale SLT datasets like How2Sign (Duarte et al., 2021) and OpenASL (Shi et al., 2022). They both surpass PHOENIX14T in quantity and are not limited to a certain domain. However, these two datasets don't provide gloss annotations. By far, there are few frameworks have been developed to tackle this challenging scenario except for the baseline methods of the datasets. ## 2.2 Pretraining With Weakly Paired Data Vision-language pretraining (Radford et al., 2021; Tan and Bansal, 2019; Chen et al., 2020) on massive-scale weakly paired image-text data has recently achieved rapid progress. It has been proven that transferable cross-modal representations bring significant gains on downstream tasks (Ri and Tsuruoka, 2022; Ling et al., 2022; Agrawal et al., 2022). Recent endeavors (Yu et al., 2022; Desai and Johnson, 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Seo et al., 2022) leverage generative pretraining tasks like captioning to enable the cross-modal generation capability. Such a training regime has become increasingly popular in sign language translation. In particular, a few early attempts (Kim et al., 2022) directly adopted the translation loss for cross-modal learning. However, the translation objective is hard to learn an effective representation of the important concept, especially in an open domain scenario. In contrast, we design a contrastive concept mining scheme to address this problem, leading to performance gains on the two largest sign language translation datasets. ## 3 Method Given a sign video X = {f1, f2*, . . . , f*T } of T frames, our objective is to generate a spoken language sentence Y = {w1, w2*, . . . , w*L} of length L under the conditional probability p(Y |X). Generally speaking, it holds that T ≫ L. This trait makes the task of sign language translation harder compared to the translation task between different spoken languages. Past methods mostly use gloss supervision via CTC loss to impose an indirect clustering on the processed visual tokens. Gloss annotation provides the relative order and type of the signed word, not including the boundary between sign words. However, the making process of gloss annotations is labor-intensive, thus often in limited quantities. This restricts the scale of SLT datasets with gloss annotations. To this end, we are motivated to design a framework that can be trained only on sign video and translation pairs. To reduce processing load and translate longer sign vidoes, we extract pose landmarks Xpose = {p1, p2*, . . . , p*T } offline from X and use it as the input of our framework. In this section, we first give an overview of the proposed gloss-free end-to-end sign language translation framework, with details about each component. Then we elaborate on our approach aims to provide similar supervision to gloss in a self-supervised manner. ## 3.1 Framework Overview The overall structure of our framework is illustrated in Figure 2. It consists of a modified CTRGCN (Chen et al., 2021) based visual backbone and a Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) that takes in the visual features and generates the spoken translation. Frame Pre-processing: To achieve end-to-end training on long video sequences, we choose to use pose keypoints extracted using MMPose (Contributors, 2020) as the input of our framework. This reduces the pressure on computing resources and enables us to use longer sequences of frames. Previous methods (Li et al., 2020b; Camgoz et al., 2020) mostly rely on pre-processed visual features extracted using models like I3D (Carreira and Zisserman, 2017) or CNN-based methods (Szegedy et al., 2017; Tan and Le, 2019). It has also been proved in this work (Camgoz et al., 2020) that a proper pre-training of the visual backbone can bring tremendous performance gain for the translation task. Then, it is a natural idea that we want to further improve the visual backbone through the supervision of the translation task. So we choose to use a lightweight GCN as our visual backbone and train the backbone all together. Visual Backbone: The visual backbone takes in T × 76 × 3 keypoints including face, both hands and upper body. Each point contains 3 channels, which indicates the 2D position and a confidence value ranging from 0 to 1.0. The output feature of all the keypoints is pooled by regions at the end of the network and produces a 1024-dimensional feature. The multi-scale TCNs (Liu et al., 2020b) in the backbone downsample the temporal dimension by a factor of 4. The backbone is pre-trained on the WLASL dataset (Li et al., 2020a) through the isolated sign language recognition task. Visual2Text Encoder: The visual2text encoder receives features from the visual backbone and translates these features from visual space to text space features Fenc = {s1, s2*, . . . , s*N }. It provides context for the textual decoder and the encoded visual features are also passed to the contrastive concept mining module. The output visual features of the visual backbone are combined with a fixed sinuous position encoding following (Vaswani et al., 2017), which provides temporal  ## Information For The Encoder. Textual Decoder: The textual decoder models the spoken translation in an auto-regressive manner. During the training phase, the spoken translation target Y is first tokenized using a BPE tokenizer (Sennrich et al., 2016) into Yˆ = ˆw1:Lˆ, which reduces out of vocabulary words during generation. Then we insert wˆ0 = [BOS] and wˆLˆ+1 = [EOS] at the start and end to indicate the beginning and end of the decoding process. The tokens Yˆ are converted into vectors through a word embedding layer and learned positional embedding, which is then summed together element-wise. Followed by layer normalization (Ba et al., 2016) and dropout (Srivastava et al., 2014). Then these vectors are passed through multiple transformer decoder layers to generate the feature Fdec = {r0, r1*, . . . , r*Lˆ+1} for each token. The vectors are masked to ensure causality, one token can only interact with tokens that came beforehand. We share the learned word embedding weights with the language modeling head at the end of the decoder similar to (Press and Wolf, 2017; Desai and Johnson, 2021). ## 3.2 Cross-Entropy Loss For Sign Translation The language modeling head Flm in the textual decoder predicts probabilities over the token vocabulary. $$p(x_{i}|x_{0:i-1},F_{e n c})=\mathrm{softmax}({\mathcal{F}}_{l m}(r_{0:i-1}))\;\;\;(1)$$ where xiindicates the hypnosis's ith token. Following previous literature on SLT, we use a crossentropy loss at the training stage to supervise the text generation process. We have: Lce = − X Lˆ i=0 log(p(xi|x0:i−1, Fenc)) (2) This might be adequate for the translation of text pairs. Because for translating two text-based language inputs, the number of words for the text pair is similar (and there is no visual backbone too). But the number of frames of a sign video is much greater than either the number of corresponding glosses or spoken translation. It is very difficult for the encoder to learn a good representation as the token number of the encoder is much larger than that of the decoder, not to mention that we also want the encoder to provide good supervision for the visual backbone. In the work of Shi et al. (2022), they observed deteriorated performance if they tried to train the visual backbone and the transformer together. Thus we reckon in this case, a single cross-entropy loss at the end of the framework is not competent for our intended purpose. ## 3.3 Contrastive Concept Mining Under the presumption that single cross-entropy loss is not enough. We want to provide additional supervision for the visual2text encoder. We intend to achieve such effect by exploiting the shared semantics between sign and text. A sign video can be roughly considered as multiple chunks (ignoring transition between signs), with each chunk of consecutive frames representing one sign word (a gloss). Though we cannot get the exact sign word for each chunk as the spoken translation does not  necessarily contains all the sign words and the orders also do not match. Key concepts expressed through sign and spoken translation should share the same underlying latent space. With this in mind, we design Contrastive Concept Mining (CCM) as shown in Figure 3. The process of CCM consists of two steps: 1) Find possible words to be used as Conceptual Anchors(CA) in the training corpus, which we also refer to as anchor words. In practice, we mostly focus on verbs and nouns as we reckon such concepts are expressed in both the sign representation and the spoken language. It is natural to use these words as anchors for the encoder to structure the visual representations. 2) For each training batch of N samples, we collect all the anchor words (total of M words) in its spoken translations. For each word, we treat the sample containing such word as a positive sample and samples that do not as negative samples. Along with the global learned embedding for this word we conduct a triplet loss. Global CA query on encoded feats: For a batch B = {x1, x2*, . . . , x*N } of N samples, we denote the collected word tokens as BCA = {v1, v2*, . . . , v*M}. M is the number of collected anchor words within the mini batch. These tokens are passed through an embedding layer to produce the query vector for multi-head cross attention. $$Q^{C A}=E m b e d d i n g C A(B_{C A})\qquad(3)$$ where $Q^{CA}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times d_{ca}}$, $d_{ca}$ is the dimension of the embedding layer for conceptual anchors. For output features of the encoder Fenc = {s1, s2*, . . . , s*N }, in which sn ∈ R Lenc×d*visual*. Lenc represents the max token length output by the encoder, d*visual* is the dimension of the visual feature. The multi-head cross attention is defined as: $$CrossAttention(Q^{CA},s_{n})=[head_{1}|\ldots|head_{h}]W^{o}$$ $$head_{i}=Attention(Q^{CA}W_{i}^{Q},s_{n}W_{i}^{K},s_{n}W_{i}^{V})\tag{4}$$ where [.|.] denotes the concatenation operation, headi represents the output of the i-th head. The projection matrices are W Q i ∈ R dca×d, WK i, WV i ∈ R d*visual*×dand Wo ∈ R hd×dCA , in which d is the hidden dimension of the attention and dCA is the final output dimension(same as the embedding dimension for CA).The attention process is defined as: $$A t t t e n t i o n(Q,K,V)=\mathrm{softmax}\left(\frac{Q K^{\mathbf{T}}}{\sqrt{d}}\right)V\tag{5}$$ This process is repeated for each feature in Fenc. We denote Hn = CrossAtten(QCA, sn), we stack {Hn|n ∈ N} to get the final output H of cross attention. We have Hn ∈ RM×dCA and H ∈ RM×N×dCA . The cross-attention operation finds the most relevant part of an encoded visual feature to the CA query. The embedding of these word anchors QCA is shared across all the samples in the training set and is updated through the back-propagation process. We initialize these embeddings using pretrained GloVe vectors (Pennington et al., 2014). The query results are the foundation for CCM, as we can encourage the encoder to gather visual information close to the word anchors and suppress noises similar to anchors but the anchor words are not presented in the sample. Inter-sample triplet loss: We use a hinge-based triplet loss (Wang et al., 2014) as the learning objective for the query results H. The selection of positive and negative samples is carried out within a mini batch. For each unique CA vm in a batch, we regard samples that contain this particular anchor word as positives and those that do not as negative samples. Since there might be more than one positive or negative sample for vm, one positive or negative sample is chosen randomly. The objective function is formulated as: $$l_{m}=\mu-sim(H_{m}^{+},Q_{m}^{CA})+sim(H_{m}^{-},Q_{m}^{CA})$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{ill}=max(0,\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}l_{m})$$ where H+m and H−m denotes the query results for the sampled positive and negative sample for vm respectively. We use sim(,) to calculate the cosine similarity as the distance between two vectors. µ is the margin for the triplet loss, it determines the gap between the distances of H+m and H−m to the anchor QCA m . ## 3.4 Training And Inference Our framework is trained by the joint loss L of cross-entropy loss Lce and conceptual contrastive loss Litl, which is formulated as: $${\mathcal{L}}={\mathcal{L}}_{c e}+\lambda{\mathcal{L}}_{i t l}$$ where λ is the hyper parameter that determines the scale of the inter-sample triplet loss. CCM only works during the training phase, and does not introduce additional parameters for inference. ## 4 Experiments In this section we provide details on the datasets and translation protocol we follow. Along with quantitative and qualitative results on different benchmarks. We also give a deep analysis about the design components of our method. ## 4.1 Dataset And Protocols OpenASL: OpenASL (Shi et al., 2022) is a largescale American sign language dataset collected from online video sites. It covers a variety of domains with over 200 signers. With 98, 417 translation pairs it's the largest publicly available ASL translation dataset to date. 966 and 975 pairs are selected as validation and test sets respectively. How2Sign: How2Sign (Duarte et al., 2021) is a large-scale American sign language dataset. It contains multi-modality data including video, speech, English transcript, keypoints, and depth. The signing videos are multi-view and performed by signers in front of a green screen. There are 31, 128 training, 1, 741 validation, and 2, 322 test clips. Gloss-free Sign2Text: *Sign2Text* directly translates from continuous sign videos to the corresponding spoken languages as proposed by Camgoz et al. (2018). Unlike previous works, we ditch the need for gloss annotations throughout the entire framework including the pre-training phase. Evaluation Metrics: To evaluate the translation quality, we report BLEU score (Papineni et al., 2002) and ROUGE-L F1-Score (Lin, 2004) following Camgoz et al. (2018). Same as OpenASL, we also report BLEURT score (Sellam et al., 2020). BLEURT is based on BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and trained on rating data, it can correlate better with human judgments than BLEU and ROUGE. ## 4.2 Implementation Details $$\left(7\right)$$ In our experiment, we use PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019) to train the model on NVIDIA A100s. We rely on PyTorch's implementation of Transformers to build the framework. We use byte pair encoding tokenizer provided by Hugginface's Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) library. The tokenizers are all trained from scratch on the training split of the corresponding datasets. Network Details: We use multi-head attention with 4 heads in all transformer layers. The feed forward dimension in the transformer layers is set to 1024, and we use 4 layers both for encoders and decoders. For both OpenASL and How2Sign, we set the input frame cap to 512. The word embedding layer is trained from scratch with a dimension of 768. Training & Testing: The model is trained using the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) optimizer. We use a linear learning rate scheduler with 1000 warm-up steps. The learning rate is 3 × 10−4 with 400 epochs for both OpenASL and How2Sign. The models on OpenASL are trained across 4 GPUs with a batch size of 48 on each process for about 4 days. For How2Sign the model is trained across 8 GPUs with a batch size of 40 per process. In the text generation phase, we follow the common practice and use beam search with a beam size of 5. Selection of anchor words: We rely on NLTK's (Bird et al., 2009) default POS (part-ofspeech) tagger to select words used in CCM. First, the training corpus is tokenized using NLTK's punkt tokenizer. Then we pass the tokens to the POS tagger and filter out tags classified as general verbs or nouns (NN, NNP, NNS, VB, VBD, VBG, VBN, VBP, VBZ). Finally, we filter the verbs and nouns by their appearance frequency in the corpus. Words with occurrence not exceeding 10 or close to the total sample count are discarded in this process. ## 4.3 Comparison With State-Of-The-Art We test our framework on OpenASL against the multi-cue baseline proposed in the paper, as shown in Table 1. The baseline method incorporates multiple streams of global, mouth, and hands features and relies on external models to conduct sign spotting and fingerspelling sign search. Our framework, both GloFE-N (using only nouns as anchor words) and GloFE-VN (using both verbs and nouns as anchor words) surpasses all the previous methods on all metrics. The improvement on BLEURT stands out with a margin of 5.26 for GloFE-VN on the TEST set, which is 16.9% higher compared to the previous state-of-the-art. As for BLEURT on the DEV set, GloFE-N improves more than GloFE-VN with a gap of 6.08 over the previous state-of-theart. We obtain the best TEST result of 7.06 B4 with our VN model and the best DEV result of 7.51 B4 with the N model. Though the N model obtains significantly higher scores on the DEV set, results on the TEST set are lower than the VN model. The vocabulary size on N is close to VN (4, 238 to 5, 523), but as the N model only uses nouns the word type is less diverse. The lack of diversity makes the model less generalized, and more likely to fit the DEV set as it contains more similar samples to the training set. We also test the framework on How2Sign. The results are shown in Table 2. We surpass the previous method on BLEU-4 but fall behind on the BLEU metric measuring smaller n-grams. The VN vocabulary size for How2Sign is around 2, 000 which is close to the number of test clips in How2Sign. Combined with the higher B4, it shows that our framework is better at generating short phrases. But the coverage of concepts is limited by the vocabulary size of the anchor words. ## 4.4 Ablation Study 4.4.1 Effect Of Components We examine the effectiveness of different design components as shown in Table 3. Namely, we ablate on the effect of the E2E (end-to-end training), PE (positional encoding for visual features), and CCM (contrastive concept mining), respectively. As a baseline, we first train a model without the three components. Without E2E, even we add PE and CCM both to the framework. The improvement over baseline is only at 0.24 B4. If we add E2E back, this gap is widened significantly to 1.25 B4. This proves that our design can improve the visual backbone's ability to recognize signs composed of multiple frames. With E2E, we also validate the effectiveness of PE and CCM, respectively. First, they both improve on the baseline line with a perceptible margin. When comparing PE to CCM, CCM is more performant, with an improvement of 0.65 B4 against 0.42 B4 over the baseline. ## 4.4.2 Type Of Anchor Words We study the type of words selected in this experiment. From Table 4 we can see that with V, N, and VN, model performance increase as the size of the vocabulary increases. But when we added A (adverbs and adjectives) to the vocab, the performance deteriorates by 0.43 B4. This is because the vocabulary jump from V to VN (or V to N), the number of conceptual word increases significantly. But with the addition of A, the extra words consists of major decorative purposes, they add to existing concepts (adverbs and adjectives modify verbs and nouns respectively). The number of conceptual word does not increase, but there are more anchors to attend to in the CCM process, which increases the learning difficulty.  ## 4.4.3 Inter-Sample Triplet Loss Weight Here we study the effect of inter-sample triplet loss Litl by varying the weight λ. As shown in Figure 4, B4 on the DEV set fluctuates within a small range while B4 on the TEST set increased 0.83 as λ increases from 0 to 1.0. The model collapsed after λ goes beyond 1.5. When λ goes beyond 1.5, Litl takes the dominant spot in the combined loss. 12910 | Methods | DEV | TEST | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------| | ROUGE | BLEU-1 | BLEU-2 | BLEU-3 | BLEU-4 | BLEURT | ROUGE | BLEU-1 | BLEU-2 | BLEU-3 | BLEU-4 | BLEURT | | | Conv-GRU | 16.25 | 16.72 | 8.95 | 6.31 | 4.82 | 25.36 | 16.10 | 16.11 | 8.85 | 6.18 | 4.58 | 25.65 | | I3D-transformer | 18.88 | 18.26 | 10.26 | 7.17 | 5.60 | 29.17 | 18.64 | 18.31 | 10.15 | 7.19 | 5.66 | 28.82 | | OpenASL | 20.43 | 20.10 | 11.81 | 8.43 | 6.57 | 31.22 | 21.02 | 20.92 | 12.08 | 8.59 | 6.72 | 31.09 | | GloFE-N (ours) | 21.63 | 21.78 | 13.35 | 9.61 | 7.51 | 37.30 | 21.23 | 20.49 | 12.27 | 8.76 | 6.82 | 36.68 | | GloFE-VN (ours) | 21.37 | 21.06 | 12.34 | 8.68 | 6.68 | 36.75 | 21.75 | 21.56 | 12.74 | 9.05 | 7.06 | 36.35 | Table 1: Results on the OpenASL dataset. N represents the model trained using only nouns as anchor words and VN means the model is trained using both verbs and nouns as anchor words. Methods DEV TEST ROUGE BLEU-1 BLEU-2 BLEU-3 BLEU-4 **BLEURT** ROUGE BLEU-1 BLEU-2 BLEU-3 BLEU-4 **BLEURT** Alvarez† - 17.73 7.94 4.13 2.24 - - 17.40 7.69 3.97 2.21 - GloFE-VN (ours) 12.98 15.21 7.38 4.07 **2.37** 30.95 12.61 14.94 7.27 3.93 **2.24** 31.65 Table 2: Results on the How2Sign dataset. †: Alvarez et al. used CNN model (Koller et al., 2019) pre-trained with GLOSS annotations to extract the visual features. Table 3: Ablation on OpenASL demonstrates the effect of our different components. **E2E:** Whether to conduct end-to-end training to train the visual backbone together. PE: Fixed sinuous positional encoding added to the input of visual2text encoder. **CCM:** Whether to use Contrastive Concept Mining on the encoded visual features during the training phase. B@N represents the BLEU-N score, this also applies to tables that came after this. Word Type Vocab. RG B@1 B@2 B@3 B@4 **BLEURT** V 1693 20.96 20.70 11.89 8.42 6.51 36.50 N 4238 21.23 20.49 12.27 8.76 6.82 **36.68** VN 5523 **21.75 21.56 12.74 9.05 7.06** 36.35 VNA 6726 20.85 20.22 11.88 8.44 6.63 35.90 But Litl alone cannot guide the generation process, resulting in the collapse of the model. ## 4.5 Qualitative Results Table 5 shows the qualitative results of the generated text of GloFE compared to the baseline model. We mainly focus on whether the model generates the same conceptual words (verbs and nouns) as the reference text. For each sample, we show the reference text and the text generated by the baseline model and GloFE. We use red to indicate the mistranslated conceptual words in the baseline results and green to show the matching concepts. In the first example, both baseline and GloFE generate similar text with one key difference. GloFE successfully captures the concept of winter (noun) in the sign expression while the baseline does not. However, GloFE cannot always capture all the correct concepts. In the third example, GloFE failed the capture ntid and asked. But compared to the baseline, GloFE still managed to | E2E | PE | CCM | RG | B@1 | B@2 | B@3 | B@4 | BLEURT | |-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------| | 18.94 | 18.25 | 10.38 | 7.37 | 5.81 | 34.35 | | | | | ✓ | ✓ | 20.24 | 19.20 | 11.10 | 7.82 | 6.05 | 35.39 | | | ✓ | ✓ | 20.92 | 20.37 | 11.62 | 8.09 | 6.23 | 35.65 | | | ✓ | ✓ | 20.48 | 19.71 | 11.48 | 8.20 | 6.46 | 35.96 | | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 21.75 | 21.56 | 12.74 | 9.05 | 7.06 | 36.35 | | Ref: | today is the first day of winter. | |-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Baseline: | today is the first day of the day. | | GloFE: | today is the first day of the winter day. | | Ref: | meteorologists say freeze warnings remain in the south including florida. | | Baseline: | officials are warning about 200 feet of snow. | | GloFE: | meteorologists say the weather will be keeping in louisiana. | | Ref: | we have also reached out to ntid and asked for their response. | | Baseline: | we also reached out to the nad board members for their stories. | | GloFE: | we also reached out to you for their response. | | Ref: | the death toll from hurricane dorian is rising in the bahamas. | | Baseline: | the death toll is now emotional." | | GloFE: | and the death toll in the bahamas is rising. | translate response correctly. In general, GloFE is capable of generating a more accurate translation of objects and motions expressed in the signing sequence. ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we propose a novel gloss-free end-toend framework for sign language translation. Design an intermediate representation that can act as a fill-in when gloss annotation is not available. We exploit the shared semantics between sign and text, by extracting common conceptual words from the spoken translation. The model is trained end-toend including the visual backbone, no gloss is used in training or pre-training, and achieves state-ofthe-art performance on the largest sign languages translation dataset publicly available. ## Limitations Our model is trained in an end-to-end manner, resulting in more training time costs than featurebased methods. To eliminate the need for gloss annotations, the CCM process relies on a large amount of sign and translation pairs. The generalizability of the model is restrained by the number of such pairs available. The more ideal end-to-end framework should combine the visual backbone and visual2text encoder into one visual encoder that can be trained end-to-end. In addition, the selection of conceptual words is done according to manually-designed rules now and relies on external toolkits like NLTK. We will investigate automatic conceptual word extraction methods in future work. ## Ethics Statement Our work focuses on the task of sign language translation. Such systems aims to use technology to facilitate the day-to-day life of the deaf and hardof-hearing community. Though we improve on the baseline, the proposed model still does not equip with the ability to serve as an interpreter in reallife scenarios. We use extracted keypoints as the input of the model, there are little to no concerns about personal privacy. For now, the model is only validated on American sign language datasets, currently it's not able to help people that do not use ASL. ## Acknowledgements This work is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2262022-00051), and also supported in part by the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (DT23F020008). ## References Aishwarya Agrawal, Damien Teney, and Aida Nematzadeh. 2022. Vision-language pretraining: Current trends and the future. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Tutorial Abstracts, pages 38–43, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Patricia Cabot Alvarez, Xavier Giró Nieto, and Laia Tarrés Benet. Sign language translation based on transformers for the how2sign dataset. Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2016. Layer normalization. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1607.06450. Steven Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2009. Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.". Necati Cihan Camgoz, Simon Hadfield, Oscar Koller, Hermann Ney, and Richard Bowden. 2018. Neural sign language translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7784–7793. Necati Cihan Camgoz, Oscar Koller, Simon Hadfield, and Richard Bowden. 2020. Sign language transformers: Joint end-to-end sign language recognition and translation. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*, pages 10023–10033. Joao Carreira and Andrew Zisserman. 2017. Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset. In *proceedings of the IEEE Conference* on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6299–6308. Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. Uniter: Universal image-text representation learning. In *ECCV*. Yutong Chen, Fangyun Wei, Xiao Sun, Zhirong Wu, and Stephen Lin. 2022. A simple multi-modality transfer learning baseline for sign language translation. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference* on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5120–5130. Yuxin Chen, Ziqi Zhang, Chunfeng Yuan, Bing Li, Ying Deng, and Weiming Hu. 2021. Channel-wise topology refinement graph convolution for skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 13359–13368. MMPose Contributors. 2020. Openmmlab pose estimation toolbox and benchmark. https://github. com/open-mmlab/mmpose. Karan Desai and Justin Johnson. 2021. Virtex: Learning visual representations from textual annotations. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*, pages 11162– 11173. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Amanda Duarte, Shruti Palaskar, Lucas Ventura, Deepti Ghadiyaram, Kenneth DeHaan, Florian Metze, Jordi Torres, and Xavier Giro-i Nieto. 2021. How2sign: A large-scale multimodal dataset for continuous american sign language. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF* conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2735–2744. Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning, pages 369–376. Tao Jin, Zhou Zhao, Meng Zhang, and Xingshan Zeng. 2022. Prior knowledge and memory enriched transformer for sign language translation. In *Findings of* the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 3766–3775, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Youngmin Kim, Minji Kwak, Dain Lee, Yeongeun Kim, and Hyeongboo Baek. 2022. Keypoint based sign language translation without glosses. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2204.10511. Sang-Ki Ko, Chang Jo Kim, Hyedong Jung, and Choongsang Cho. 2019. Neural sign language translation based on human keypoint estimation. Applied sciences, 9(13):2683. Oscar Koller, Necati Cihan Camgoz, Hermann Ney, and Richard Bowden. 2019. Weakly supervised learning with multi-stream cnn-lstm-hmms to discover sequential parallelism in sign language videos. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 42(9):2306–2320. Dongxu Li, Cristian Rodriguez, Xin Yu, and Hongdong Li. 2020a. Word-level deep sign language recognition from video: A new large-scale dataset and methods comparison. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 1459–1469. Dongxu Li, Chenchen Xu, Xin Yu, Kaihao Zhang, Benjamin Swift, Hanna Suominen, and Hongdong Li. 2020b. Tspnet: Hierarchical feature learning via temporal semantic pyramid for sign language translation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12034–12045. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In *Text Summarization Branches Out*, pages 74–81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yan Ling, Jianfei Yu, and Rui Xia. 2022. Visionlanguage pre-training for multimodal aspect-based sentiment analysis. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2149– 2159, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020a. Multilingual denoising pre-training for neural machine translation. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 8:726–742. Ziyu Liu, Hongwen Zhang, Zhenghao Chen, Zhiyong Wang, and Wanli Ouyang. 2020b. Disentangling and unifying graph convolutions for skeleton-based action recognition. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF* conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 143–152. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1711.05101. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In *Proceedings of the 2014 conference* on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532–1543. Ofir Press and Lior Wolf. 2017. Using the output embedding to improve language models. In *Proceedings* of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers, pages 157–163, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In *ICML*. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9. Ryokan Ri and Yoshimasa Tsuruoka. 2022. Pretraining with artificial language: Studying transferable knowledge in language models. In *Proceedings of the 60th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7302– 7315, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881–7892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In *Proceedings of the 54th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715–1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Paul Hongsuck Seo, Arsha Nagrani, Anurag Arnab, and Cordelia Schmid. 2022. End-to-end generative pretraining for multimodal video captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17959–17968. Bowen Shi, Diane Brentari, Greg Shakhnarovich, and Karen Livescu. 2022. Open-domain sign language translation learned from online video. In *EMNLP*. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. *The journal of machine learning* research, 15(1):1929–1958. Christian Szegedy, Sergey Ioffe, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Alexander A Alemi. 2017. Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning. In *Thirty-first AAAI conference on* artificial intelligence. Hao Tan and Mohit Bansal. 2019. Lxmert: Learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers. In *EMNLP*. Mingxing Tan and Quoc Le. 2019. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 6105–6114. PMLR. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 30. Jiang Wang, Yang Song, Thomas Leung, Chuck Rosenberg, Jingbin Wang, James Philbin, Bo Chen, and Ying Wu. 2014. Learning fine-grained image similarity with deep ranking. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1386–1393. Zirui Wang, Jiahui Yu, Adams Wei Yu, Zihang Dai, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Yuan Cao. 2021. Simvlm: Simple visual language model pretraining with weak supervision. In *ICLR*. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01917*. Hao Zhou, Wengang Zhou, Weizhen Qi, Junfu Pu, and Houqiang Li. 2021. Improving sign language translation with monolingual data by sign back-translation. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 1316– 1325. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Dedicated section: Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethic statements ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? abstract and section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? section 3 and 4.1 B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? section 4.1 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. section 4.1 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4.3 4.4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? section 4.2 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? section 4.2 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? section 4.3 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? section 4.2 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

hsu-etal-2023-tagprime

{TAGPRIME}: A Unified Framework for Relational Structure Extraction

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.723

Many tasks in natural language processing require the extraction of relationship information for a given condition, such as event argument extraction, relation extraction, and task-oriented semantic parsing. Recent works usually propose sophisticated models for each task independently and pay less attention to the commonality of these tasks and to have a unified framework for all the tasks. In this work, we propose to take a unified view of all these tasks and introduce TAGPRIME to address relational structure extraction problems. TAGPRIME is a sequence tagging model that appends priming words about the information of the given condition (such as an event trigger) to the input text. With the self-attention mechanism in pre-trained language models, the priming words make the output contextualized representations contain more information about the given condition, and hence become more suitable for extracting specific relationships for the condition. Extensive experiments and analyses on three different tasks that cover ten datasets across five different languages demonstrate the generality and effectiveness of TAGPRIME.

# Tagprime**: A Unified Framework For Relational Structure Extraction** I-Hung Hsu∗† Kuan-Hao Huang∗‡ Shuning Zhang⋄ **Wenxin Cheng**‡ Premkumar Natarajan† Kai-Wei Chang‡ **Nanyun Peng**‡ †Information Science Institute, University of Southern California ‡Computer Science Department, University of California, Los Angeles ⋄Computer Science and Technology Department, Tsinghua University {ihunghsu, pnataraj}@isi.edu, {khhuang, kwchang, violetpeng}@cs.ucla.edu zhang-sn19@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn, wenxin0319@ucla.edu ## Abstract Many tasks in natural language processing require the extraction of relationship information for a given condition, such as event argument extraction, relation extraction, and taskoriented semantic parsing. Recent works usually propose sophisticated models for each task independently and pay less attention to the commonality of these tasks and to have a unified framework for all the tasks. In this work, we propose to take a unified view of all these tasks and introduce TAGPRIME to address relational structure extraction problems. TAGPRIME is a sequence tagging model that appends *priming words* about the information of the given condition (such as an event trigger) to the input text. With the self-attention mechanism in pre-trained language models, the priming words make the output contextualized representations contain more information about the given condition, and hence become more suitable for extracting specific relationships for the condition. Extensive experiments and analyses on three different tasks that cover ten datasets across five different languages demonstrate the generality and effectiveness of TAGPRIME. ## 1 Introduction There are many tasks in natural language processing (NLP) that require extracting relational structures from texts. For example, the event argument extraction task aims to identify event arguments and *their corresponding roles* for a given event trigger (Huang et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2019). In entity relation extraction, the model identifies the tail-entities and head-entities that forms specific relations (Wei et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2020). In taskoriented semantic parsing, the model predicts the slots and *their semantic roles* for a given intent in an ∗The authors contribute equally. utterance (Tür et al., 2010; Li et al., 2021). These tasks are beneficial to a wide range of applications, such as dialog systems (Liu et al., 2018), question answering (Yasunaga et al., 2021), and narrative generation (Chen et al., 2019a). Prior works usually design models to specifically address each of the tasks (Sun et al., 2019; Miwa and Bansal, 2016; Han et al., 2019; Fu et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). However, less attention is paid to the commonality among these tasks and having a unified framework to deal with them and provide a strong baseline for every task. In this work, we take a unified view of these NLP tasks. We call them relational structure extraction (RSE) tasks and formulate them as a unified task that identifies arguments to a given condition and classifies their relationships. The condition could be a textual span, such as an event trigger for event argument extraction, or a concept, such as an intent for task-oriented semantic parsing. We present TAGPRIME, a simple, unified, and strong model, which follows a sequence tagging paradigm with a *priming technique*, which is proposed by Fincke et al. (2022). TAGPRIME inherits the strength of sequence tagging models to unifiedly address RSE by converting the relational structure into a sequence of predictions by sequentially labeling tokens in the input passage. TAGPRIME further improves this framework's performance by better incorporating information about the given condition via priming. Traditional sequence tagging models usually leverage learnable feature embeddings to incorporate information about the given condition before the tags are assigned, as illustrated in Figure 1(a). With the priming mechanism, TAGPRIME augments the input text with condition-specific contexts, as illustrated in Figure 1(b) & (c). The main merit of the  priming technique comes from the nature of the self-attention mechanism in pre-trained language models. Augmenting input text with conditionspecific contexts makes the sentence representations *condition-specific* directly. Thus, it unlocks the capability of sequence tagging methods for relational structure extraction better than the commonly used feature embedding approach, as shown in Section 5. Our contributions can be summarized as follows. (1) We take a unified view of NLP tasks that requires extracting relational structures, including end-to-end event extraction, end-to-end relation extraction, and task-oriented semantic parsing. Then, we present TAGPRIME, a unified sequence tagging model with priming that can serve as a strong baseline to various relational structure extraction problems. (2) Thorough experiments on three different tasks show that TAGPRIME achieves competitive performance than the current state-of-the-art on ten datasets in five different languages. (3) We propose a novel efficient approximation to speed up TAGPRIME during inference time without sacrificing too much performance. Our code will be publicly accessible at https: //github.com/PlusLabNLP/TagPrime. ## 2 Related Work Many natural language processing applications require extracting relational structures, including event extraction, relation extraction, coreference resolution, etc. The prevalence of these applications makes us hard to exhaustively list them in this short summary, hence, we mainly focus on related works for the applications we experiment on. Event extraction. Early works in event extraction mostly consider a pipelined approach (Nguyen and Grishman, 2015; Wang et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019) to deal with event extraction. Some followup works argue that pipelined design leads to error propagation issues and hence propose end-to-end approaches to better capture dependencies between each prediction (Lin et al., 2020; Li et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2016; Hsu et al., 2022b; Lu et al., 2021; Huang and Peng, 2021). However, recently, some empirical studies (Hsu et al., 2022b; Zhong and Chen, 2021; Fincke et al., 2022) also show that when an abundant amount of data is used to learn representations for each pipelined task, it is hard to conclude that joint learning approaches always provide a stronger result. This aligns with our discovery in experiments - even though we apply a pipelined approach with a simple sequence tagging framework on event extraction, with the help of priming to learn more condition-aware contextualized representation, we can still achieve very strong performance on multiple datasets. Relation extraction. End-to-end relation extraction can usually be solved using two categories of approaches. The first one is to directly perform joint inference on named entities and their relation(s) (Zheng et al., 2017; Wang and Lu, 2020; Katiyar and Cardie, 2017; Sun et al., 2019; Miwa and Bansal, 2016; Fu et al., 2019). The second category is to perform a pipeline that first extracts named entities, and then performs relation classification (Wu and He, 2019; Hsu et al., 2022a; Lyu and Chen, 2021; Peng et al., 2020; Zhou and Chen, 2021a; Lu et al., 2022), which assumes that both the head-entity and tail-entity are given. Yet, in our unified formulation for relational structure extraction tasks, we extract tail-entities and their corresponding relation types for a given head-entity, which is more similar to a less frequently studied framework called cascading approaches (Wei et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2020). Despite being a less popular formulation to deal with end-to-end relation extraction, TAGPRIME presents a strong performance compared to prior studies, showcasing the practicality and effectiveness of our unified formulation. Task-oriented semantic parsing. Task-oriented semantic parsing, which focuses on intent classification and slot filling, has a long history of development (Tür et al., 2010; Gupta et al., 2018; Li et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2018; Louvan and Magnini, 2020). Recently, some more advanced neural network-based approaches have been proposed, such as MLP-mixer (Fusco et al., 2022) or sequence-to-sequence formulation (Desai et al., 2021). Among them, JointBERT (Chen et al., 2019b), a sequence-tagging-based model that is trained to jointly predict intent and extract slots, serves as a widely-used baseline due to its simplicity. Our approach benefits from the same simplicity as JointBERT and can further improve its performance. ## 3 Method We first introduce our view to unify RSE problems and then discuss how TAGPRIME approaches this problem under a unified framework of sequence tagging model with priming. ## 3.1 A Unified Formulation Of Rse Given an input text x = [x1, x2*, ..., x*n] and a condition c, The RSE tasks identify a list of spans s c = [s c1 , sc2 , ..., sc l ] and their corresponding relationships or attributes r c = [r c1 , rc2 , ..., rc l ] towards the condition c, where r c i ∈ A and A is the set of all possible relationships or attributes. Many NLP tasks can be formulated as an RSE task. We showcase how this formulation can be applied to event extraction, entity relation extraction, and taskoriented semantic parsing below. End-to-end event extraction. End-to-end event extraction aims to extract events from given texts (Ma et al., 2020; Hsu et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2019). An event contains a trigger, which is the textual span that best represents the occurrence of an event, and several arguments, which are the participants involved in the event with different argument roles. We consider a pipeline solution — after the event triggers are identified, an argument extraction model extracts the event arguments and their corresponding roles for each given event trigger. Under the RSE formulation, the condition c is the given event trigger, and the target spans s c and the relationships r care the arguments and their argument roles, respectively. End-to-end relation extraction. Relation extraction identifies entities and their relations from texts, and it is usually solved by pipeline approaches — first extracting named entities and then predicting relations for each entity-pair (Wu and He, 2019; Zhong and Chen, 2021). Under the new formulation, an RSE model is used to predict *tail-entities* and the relations for each extracted named entity that serves as the *head-entity*. For example, in Figure 1(b), we extract the tail-entities (*"Iraqi"* and *"base"*) and their relation (*"Part-Whole"* and "ART") for the head-entity, *"military"*. In this way, each given head-entity is the condition c, and the extracted tail-entities are s c, with relations, r c. Task-oriented semantic parsing. Task-oriented semantic parsing aims to classify the intent and parse the semantic slots in an utterance (to a taskoriented dialog system) (Li et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2018). To fit into our formulation, we first predict the intent and then use a *relational structure extraction* model to predict the slots (s c) as well as their semantic roles (r c) for the given intent (c). ## 3.2 Sequence Tagging Model For Rse We hereby introduce the typical way of applying a sequence tagging model to unifiedly solve relational structure extraction. The goal of our sequence tagging model for relational structure extraction is to predict the BIO-tag sequence y = [y1, y2*, ..., y*n], where each yiis the corresponding tag for each token xiin the input text. The BIOtag sequence can then be decoded to represent the extracted spans s c(and their relationships r c). Specifically, given an input text, we obtain the contextualized representation zi for each token xi by passing the passage to a pre-trained language model.1 To embed the information of the condition c, one commonly-used technique is to add conditional features to zi (Ma et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2020), as shown in Figure 1(a). For example, in Ma et al. (2020), they use a token embedding of the given event trigger word and a *learnable* event type feature as the conditional features for the task of event argument extraction. In such case, the feature of c will contain the contextualized word representation zj , if xj is the token that represents the given condition, i.e., event trigger. In our experimental setup, if the given condition can be represented as an input span, we will include the span embeddings as the conditional features together with the type embeddings, such as the cases for event extraction and relation extraction. If the condition is only a concept, such as the task-oriented semantic parsing case, the conditional features will only contain type embeddings. Augmented with these conditional features, the final representation for token xiis further fed into multi-layer perceptrons and a conditional random field (CRF) layer (Lafferty et al., 2001) to predict the BIO-tag sequence y, as 1If a token xi is split into multiple word pieces, we use the average embeddings of all its word pieces to be zi, following the practice of Lin et al. (2020). ## 3.3 Tagp**Rime** TAGPRIME follows the sequence tagging paradigm but utilizes the priming technique for better leverage information about the input condition. Condition Priming. Motivated by previous work (Fincke et al., 2022), we consider priming to inject the information of the condition c to further improve the sequence tagging model. The priming mechanism informs the model of the conditional information by directly appending conditional information to the input text. However, unlike Fincke et al. (2022) that uses an integer string to represent features in a categorical style, we use a naturallanguage-styled indicator to better exploit the semantics of the condition. The indicators can be obtained by verbalizing the conditional information. Take Figure 1(b) as an example, when extracting the tail-entities and the relationships for the "military" head-entity (condition c), we first verbalize the entity type of *"military"*, i.e., from *"Org"* to *"Organization"*. Then, the string *"military"* and "Organization" are appended to the input text, which serves as the information about the condition c. The priming technique leverages the selfattention mechanism in pre-trained language models and makes the token representation zi conditionaware. Hence, the representation of every ziis more *task-specific* than the one in the model described in Section 3.2. More precisely, for tagging models without priming, the representation zi usually captures more general information that focuses on the context of input text. For models with priming, the representation ziis affected by the additional verbalized words when computing attention. Hence, zi becomes more task-specific and more suitable for addressing the task (Zheng and Lapata, 2022; Zhong and Chen, 2021). Additionally, the priming method can be easily combined with conditional features described in Section 3.2. More discussion on this will be shown in Section 5. Relationship Priming. The same idea of condition priming can also be extended to relationship. Specifically, we decompose a relational structure extraction task into several extraction subtasks, each of them only focusing on one single relationship r (r ∈ A). Similar to the condition priming, we verbalize the relationship information and append related strings to the input text as well. Therefore, the representation ziis aware of the relationship r and specific for predicting spans with relationship r to the condition c. For example, in Figure 1(c), for the given relationship *"Part-Whole"*, we first verbalized it into "is part of". Then, the string *"is part of"* is appended to the input text together with the condition priming strings. The BIO-tag sequence can be decoded into those tail-entities s cthat form *"Part-Whole"* relationship(s) with the given head-entity *"military"*. Discussion. A similar idea of appending tokens in the pre-trained language model's input to affect the output text representation has also been leveraged in Zhou and Chen (2021b); Zhong and Chen (2021). Yet, different from their works that only focus on relation classification and apply *instancespecific* information, our TAGPRIME with relationship priming method focuses on using task-specific information, because we decompose relational extraction into sub-tasks. We want that different taskspecific representation can be learned for different sub-tasks, hence proposing relationship priming. An underlying advantage of TAGPRIME with relationship priming is its ability to handle cases containing multi-relationships. After we decompose a relational structure extraction task into several extraction subtasks, we do not perform any filtering to address conflict relationship predictions between the same condition and extracted span. This is to enlarge our model's generality to different scenarios. ## 4 Experiments To study the effectiveness of TAGPRIME, we consider three NLP tasks: (1) end-to-end event extraction, (2) end-to-end relation extraction, and (3) taskoriented semantic parsing. All the results are the average of five runs with different random seeds. ## 4.1 End-To-End Event Extraction Datasets. We consider the two most widely-used event extraction datasets, ACE-2005 (Doddington et al., 2004) and ERE (Song et al., 2015). For ACE-2005 (ACE05-E), we experiment on the English and Chinese portions and keep 33 event types and 22 roles, as suggested in previous works (Wadden et al., 2019; Hsu et al., 2022b). For ERE, we consider the English and Spanish annotations and follow the preprocessing of Lin et al. (2020) to keep 38 event types and 21 roles. Baselines. We consider the following end-to-end event extraction models, including DyGIE++ (Wadden et al., 2019), TANL (Paolini et al., 2021), Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021), OneIE (Lin et al., 2020), and DEGREE (Hsu et al., 2022b). Since TAGPRIME requires trigger predictions, we simply take the trigger predictions made by a simple sequence tagging model trained with multi-tasking on trigger detection and named entity recognition. For TAGPRIME, DyGIE++, and OneIE, we consider BERT-large (Devlin et al., 2019) for ACE05-E (en) and ERE (en), and consider XLM-RoBERTalarge (Conneau et al., 2020) for ACE05-E (zh) and ERE (es). For generation-based models, we consider BART-large (Lewis et al., 2020) for DEGREE, T5-base (Raffel et al., 2020) for TANL, and T5large (Raffel et al., 2020) for Text2Event, as suggested by their original papers. Implementation details. The followings are the training details for all baselines: - **DyGIE++** (Wadden et al., 2019): we use the released training script2 with the default parameters. - **TANL** (Paolini et al., 2021): we report the numbers from the original paper. - **Text2Event** (Lu et al., 2021): we report the numbers from the original paper. - **OneIE** (Lin et al., 2020): we use the released training script3 with the default parameters. - **DEGREE** (Hsu et al., 2022b): we report the numbers from the original paper. - TAGP**RIME** (ours): We fine-tune pre-trained language models with the dropout rate being 0.2. We use AdamW optimizer. For parameters that are not pre-trained we set the learning rate to 10−3and the weight decay to 10−3. For parameters that are not pre-trained we set the learning rate to 10−5and the weight decay to 10−5. We consider the linear scheduler with a warm-up, where the warm-up epoch is 5. The number of epochs is 90. The training batch size is set to 6. For conditional token features and learnable features, the dimension is set to 100. It takes around 6 hours to train with a NVIDIA RTX A6000 with 48GB memory. Evaluation metrics. Following previous works (Wadden et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020), we measure the correctness of arguments based on whether the offsets of the argument span match or not. We 2https://github.com/dwadden/dygiepp 3http://blender.cs.illinois.edu/ software/oneie/ | Model | ACE05-E (en) | ACE05-E (zh) | ERE (en) | ERE (es) | | | | | | | | | |-----------------------------------|----------------|----------------|------------|------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|------| | Tri-C | Arg-I | Arg-C | Tri-C | Arg-I | Arg-C | Tri-C | Arg-I | Arg-C | Tri-C | Arg-I | Arg-C | | | DyGIE++∗ (Wadden et al., 2019) | 69.7 | 53.0 | 48.8 | 72.3 | 63.0 | 59.3 | 58.0 | 51.4 | 48.0 | 65.8 | 49.2 | 46.6 | | TANL (Paolini et al., 2021) | 68.4 | 50.1 | 47.6 | - | - | - | 54.7 | 46.6 | 43.2 | - | - | - | | Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021) | 71.9 | - | 53.8 | - | - | - | 59.4 | - | 48.3 | - | - | - | | OneIE∗ (Lin et al., 2020) | 74.7 | 59.2 | 56.8 | 73.3 | 63.4 | 60.5 | 57.0 | 50.1 | 46.5 | 66.5 | 54.5 | 52.2 | | DEGREE (Hsu et al., 2022b) | 73.3 | - | 55.8 | - | - | - | 57.1 | - | 49.6 | - | - | - | | TAGPRIME w/ Cond. Priming | 74.6 | 60.0 | 56.8 | 71.9 | 63.2 | 60.5 | 57.3 | 52.1 | 49.3 | 66.3 | 55.2 | 52.6 | | TAGPRIME w/ Cond. & Rela. Priming | 74.6 | 59.8 | 58.3 | 71.9 | 64.7 | 62.4 | 57.3 | 52.4 | 49.9 | 66.3 | 55.1 | 53.6 | consider argument identification F1-score (Arg-I), which cares about only the offset correctness, and argument classification F1-score (Arg-C), which cares about both offsets and the role types. We also report trigger classification F1-score (Tri-C), although it is not our main focus as the triggers are provided via other models and we just use their predictions to simulate the end-to-end scenarios. Results. Table 1 shows the results of end-to-end event extraction on various datasets and languages. Although simple, TAGPRIME surprisingly has decent performance and achieves better results than the state-of-the-art models in terms of argument F1scores. We attribute the good performance to the design of priming, which leverages the semantics of the condition and makes the representations more task-specific. It is worth noting that considering relationship priming further improves the results, which again shows the importance of task-specific representations. ## 4.2 End-To-End Relation Extraction Datasets. We consider two popular end-toend relation extraction datasets, ACE04 and ACE05 (Doddington et al., 2004), denoted as ACE04-R and ACE05-R. Both datasets consider 7 named entity types and 6 different relations. We follow the same procedure in Zhong and Chen (2021) to preprocess the data and split the datasets. We refer readers to their papers for more details about the datasets. Baselines. We compare to the following end-toend relation extraction models: Table-Sequence (Wang and Lu, 2020), PFN (Yan et al., 2021), and Cascade-SRN (both late fusion and early fusion) (Wang et al., 2022). Additionally, we consider PURE (Zhong and Chen, 2021), which also takes a pipelined approach to solve end-to-end relation extraction. To fairly compare with prior works, we use PURE's named entity predictions on the test set for TAGPRIME to perform relational structure extraction.4In order to be consistent with our other tasks, we adopt the single sentence setting (Zhong and Chen, 2021) for our model. However, we also list baselines with cross-sentence settings, such as PURE's and UniRE (Wang et al., 2021)'s results with cross-sentence context as input. All the models use ALBERT-xxlarge-v1 (Lan et al., 2020) as the pre-trained language models. Implementation details. The followings are the training details for all baselines: - **Table-Sequence** (Wang and Lu, 2020): we report the numbers from the original paper. - **Cascade-SRN** (Wang et al., 2022): we report the numbers from the original paper. - **PURE** (Zhong and Chen, 2021): we report the numbers from the original paper. - PFN (Yan et al., 2021): we report the numbers from the original paper. - **UniRE** (Wang et al., 2021): we report the numbers from the original paper. - TAGP**RIME** (ours): We fine-tune pre-trained language models with the dropout rate being 0.2. We use AdamW optimizer. For parameters that are not pre-trained we set the learning rate to 10−3and the weight decay to 10−3. For parameters that are not pre-trained we set the learning rate to 2 × 10−5and the weight decay to 10−5. We consider the linear scheduler with a warm-up, where the warm-up epoch is 5. The number of epochs is 30. The training batch size is set to 32. For conditional token features and learnable features, the dimension is set to 100. 4We get PURE's named entity recognition predictions by retraining PURE's named entity recognition model. | Model | ACE05-R | ACE04-R | | | | | |------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|------|------|------|------| | Ent | Rel | Rel+ | Ent | Rel | Rel+ | | | Table-Sequence (Wang and Lu, 2020) | 89.5 | 67.6 | 64.3 | 88.6 | 63.3 | 59.6 | | PFN (Yan et al., 2021) | 89.0 | - | 66.8 | 89.3 | - | 62.5 | | Cascade-SRN (late fusion) (Wang et al., 2022) | 89.4 | - | 65.9 | - | - | - | | Cascade-SRN (early fusion) (Wang et al., 2022) | 89.8 | - | 67.1 | - | - | - | | PURE (Zhong and Chen, 2021) | 89.7 | 69.0 | 65.6 | 88.8 | 64.7 | 60.2 | | PURE⋄ (Zhong and Chen, 2021) | 90.9 | 69.4 | 67.0 | 90.3 | 66.1 | 62.2 | | UniRE⋄ (Wang et al., 2021) | 90.2 | - | 66.0 | 89.5 | - | 63.0 | | TAGPRIME w/ Cond. Priming | 89.6 | 69.7 | 67.3 | 89.0 | 65.2 | 61.6 | | TAGPRIME w/ Cond. & Rela. Priming | 89.6 | 70.4 | 68.1 | 89.0 | 66.2 | 62.3 | It takes around 20 hours to train with a NVIDIA RTX A6000 with 48GB memory. Evaluation metrics. We follow the standard evaluation setting with prior works (Bekoulis et al., 2018; Zhong and Chen, 2021) and use micro F1score as the evaluation metric. For named entity recognition, a predicted entity is considered as a correct prediction if its span and the entity type are both correct. We denote the score as "Ent" and report the scores even though it is not our main focus for evaluation. For relation extraction, two evaluation metrics are considered: (1) Rel: a predicted relation is considered as correct when the boundaries of head-entity span and tail-entity span are correct and the predicted relation type is correct; (2) Rel+: a stricter evaluation of Rel, where they additionally required that the entity types of head-entity span and tail-entity must also be correct. Results. The results of end-to-end relation extraction are presented in Table 2. From the table, we observe that TAGPRIME has the best performance on ACE05-R and outperforms most baselines on ACE04-R. This shows the effectiveness of TAGPRIME. Similar to the results of event extraction, considering relationship priming makes the representations more relationship-aware and leads to performance improvement. ## 4.3 Task-Oriented Semantic Parsing Datasets. We choose MTOP (Li et al., 2021), a multilingual dataset on semantic parsing for taskoriented dialog systems. We specifically consider data in English (en), Spanish (es), French (fr), and German (de). Baselines. We consider JointBERT (Chen et al., 2019b), the commonly used baseline for taskoriented semantic parsing. We directly use the predicted intents by JointBERT as the condition of TAGPRIME for a fair comparison. Both TAGPRIME and JointBERT are trained with XLM-RoBERTalarge (Conneau et al., 2020). Unlike event extraction and relation extraction, the condition of taskoriented semantics parsing (intent) does not include the word span, therefore, only a type feature embedding is contained in the conditional features for TAGPRIME in this experiment. Implementation details. The followings are the training details for all baselines: - **JointBERT** (Chen et al., 2019b): we use the training script5 with the default parameters. - TAGP**RIME** (ours): We fine-tune pre-trained language models with the dropout rate being 0.2. We use AdamW optimizer. For parameters that are not pre-trained we set the learning rate to 10−3and the weight decay to 10−3. For parameters that are not pre-trained we set the learning rate to 10−5and the weight decay to 10−5. We consider the linear scheduler with warm-up, where the warm-up epoch is 5. The number of epochs is 90. The training batch size is set to 6. For conditional token features and learnable features, the dimension is set to 100. It takes around 4 hours to train with a NVIDIA RTX A6000 with 48GB memory. Evaluation metrics. We following MTOP (Li et al., 2021) to consider slot identification (Slot-I) and slot classification (Slot-C) F1-scores. Even though we focus on the performance of slot filling, we also report the intent classification accuracy. Results. As demonstrated in Table 3, TAGPRIME 5https://github.com/monologg/JointBERT $${\mathsf{b}}\,.\,{\mathsf{c o m}}/{\mathsf{m o n o l o t}}$$ | Model | MTOP (en) | MTOP (es) | MTOP (fr) | MTOP (de) | | | | | | | | | |----------------------------------|---------------|-------------|-------------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|------|------|------|------|------| | Intent | Slot-I Slot-C | Intent | Slot-I | Slot-C Intent Slot-I Slot-C | Intent | Slot-I | Slot-C | | | | | | | JointBERT (Li et al., 2021) | 96.7 | - | 92.8 | 95.2 | - | 89.9 | 94.8 | - | 88.3 | 95.7 | - | 88.0 | | JointBERT (reproduced) | 97.1 | 94.2 | 92.7 | 96.6 | 91.6 | 89.5 | 95.8 | 90.2 | 87.7 | 96.5 | 89.2 | 87.6 | | TAGPRIME + Cond. Priming | 97.1 | 94.8 | 93.4 | 96.6 | 91.6 | 90.3 | 95.8 | 90.6 | 88.6 | 96.5 | 89.6 | 87.9 | | TAGPRIME + Cond. & Rela. Priming | 97.1 | 94.7 | 93.5 | 96.6 | 91.8 | 90.7 | 95.8 | 90.6 | 89.1 | 96.5 | 89.5 | 88.1 | Table 3: Results of task-oriented semantic parsing. Intend scores are measured in accuracy(%) and slot scores are micro-F1 scores. The highest value is in bold. Case Cond. Rela. ACE05-E (en) ACE05-E (zh) MTOP (es) MTOP (fr) ACE05-R (en) ACE04-R (en) Average Feat. Prim. Feat. Prim. Arg-I Arg-C Arg-I Arg-C Slot-I Slot-C Slot-I Slot-C Rel Rel+ Rel Rel+ 1 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 57.8 54.2 60.2 57.2 91.8 90.2 90.5 88.4 67.8 65.5 62.2 58.9 69.1 2 ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ 58.1 55.3 60.4 58.1 **92.0** 90.4 90.6 88.6 67.5 65.2 61.8 58.4 69.4 3 ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ 59.6 56.7 62.0 59.7 91.8 90.4 **90.7** 88.8 69.6 67.2 64.7 60.7 70.6 4 ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ **60.0** 56.8 63.2 60.5 91.6 90.3 90.6 88.7 69.7 67.3 65.2 61.6 70.9 5 ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ 57.3 55.3 61.4 59.4 91.7 90.5 90.2 88.5 68.0 65.6 61.6 58.3 69.6 6 ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ 59.3 57.6 63.0 61.2 91.7 90.5 90.5 88.9 **70.6 68.2** 66.0 62.2 71.4 7 ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ 59.8 58.3 **64.7 62.4** 91.8 **90.7** 90.6 **89.1** 70.4 68.1 66.2 62.3 **71.8** 8 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 59.7 58.0 64.3 **62.4** 91.5 90.4 90.6 **89.1** 70.5 68.1 65.8 62.2 71.7 achieves a better performance than the baselines. Again, considering relationship priming leads to further improvement. It is worth noting that TAGPRIME is effective for different languages, which shows the generality of TAGPRIME. ## 4.4 Summary We show the superiority of TAGPRIME on three different tasks (including ten different datasets across five different languages). Although being a unified and simple model, the results suggest that TAGPRIME can achieve competitive results for tasks requiring extracting relational structures. ## 5 Analysis In this section, we study two questions: (1) What is the effectiveness of priming techniques compared to learnable features? (2) Relationship priming boosts the performance of TAGPRIME, but the task decomposition could slightly slow down the inference speed. Can we mitigate this issue? To answer the first question, we conduct ablation experiments on sequence tagging models using different combinations of learnable features or/and adding information through the priming technique (Section 5.1). For the second question, we propose a simple modification to TAGPRIME so that we can flexibly control the number of layers to fuse priming information to contextualized representations. The modified TAGPRIME can serve as an efficient approximation of TAGPRIME (Section 5.2). ## 5.1 Ablation Study We focus on the setting where we alter the choices on how to include the type information of the condition c and the relationship information r. Table 4 demonstrates our experimental results. Comparing the first four cases in Table 4, we observe that the addition of type features is useful in general, and using the priming technique is a more effective way to incorporate conditional information. For models in case 5 to case 8, the relationship decomposition formulation described in Section 3.3 is applied. Comparing case 2 to case 5, we can see that simply applying the relationship decomposition formulation for solving relational structure extraction does not lead to improvements if the way to embed the relationship r is only through learnable features. However, comparing case 3 to case 6 and case 4 to case 7, we show that the relationship priming approach makes the representation zi well capture the attribute of the queried relationship, thus, better exploiting the advantage of the relationship decomposition formulation and gaining improvements. Note that we conducted preliminary experiments that use pretrained language models' representations of the same verbalized token to be the initialization of the learnable type feature embedding, but the method  shows similar results with the random initialization, hence, we stick to random initialization on the learnable type features. ## 5.2 Efficient Approximation Of Tagp**Rime** To make TAGPRIME to inference faster, we perform two modifications to TAGPRIME: (1) We first separate the pre-trained language model, which contains L layers, into two halves - one with the first k layers, the other one is the remaining layers. (2) We copy the first half of the language model to another module. When an input passage is fed into the model. We use the original first half to encode the input text as well as the verbalized condition, and we use the copied first half to encode the verbalized relation. Finally, the encoded representations will be fed into the second half layers, as illustrated in Figure 2. The value of k is adjustable, where when k = 0, it represents the TAGPRIME with condition and relationship priming, and when k = L, it is TAGPRIME with condition priming. Since the encoding stage of the input text and the verbalized relationship is separated, we can accelerate the inference time of our modified TAGPRIME through parallel encoding. More precisely, our modified TAGPRIME can aggregate instances that share the same passage and verbalized condition. For those instances, TAGPRIME only needs to perform the encoding once on their input passage part,6and paired with several separated embedded verbalized relationships, which could be parallelly encoded together. We conduct experiments on the ACE05-E (en)  dataset to test our modification. In order to better analyze the results and isolate the influence from the pipelined errors, we report the results on the event argument extraction when gold event triggers are given. The experimental results are shown in Figure 3. First, we investigate the performance influence of our modification. We find that when k ≤ 10, the performance of our modified TAGPRIME is strong in general and is comparable with TAGPRIME with the condition and relationship priming. To compare the efficiency of the model, we benchmark the inference time by performing inference on the whole testing dataset fifty times and calculate the average speed, which is measured by checking how many instances can be processed per second. The red line in Figure 3 shows the results. We observe that for our modified TAGPRIME with k = 10, its inference speed is around 30% faster than the TAGPRIME with the condition and relationship priming, but they perform similarly. ## 6 Conclusion In this work, we take a unified view of tasks requiring extracting relational structures and present TAGPRIME, a simple, unified, effective, and general sequence tagging model. The key idea is applying priming, a small trick to make the representations task-specific by appending condition-related and relationship-related strings to the input text. Our experimental results demonstrate that TAGPRIME is general to different tasks in various languages and can serve as a strong baseline for future research on relational structure extraction. ## Acknowledgments We thank anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback. We thank the UCLA PLUSLab and UCLA-NLP group members for the valuable discussions and comments. This research was supported in part by AFOSR MURI via Grant \#FA9550-22-1-0380, Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) via Grant \#HR00112290103/HR0011260656, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) via Contract No. 2019-19051600007, National Science Foundation (NSF) via Award No. 2200274, and a research award sponsored by CISCO. ## Limitations As we point out in Section 5, one of the limitations in TAGPRIME is the inference speed. When we perform TAGPRIME with condition and relationship priming, we requires more turns of sequence tagging processes than typical sequence tagging models. Observing this, we propose a simple way to mitigate such issue and increase the inference speed with only a small performance drop. Despite such effort, it is still slightly slower than the model requires only one pass of sequence labeling. The other potential limitation of our method is that we assume the condition and relationship can be verbalized. However, in practice, there could be cases that the verbalization is hard to be done. Considering this, we do conduct preliminary experiments of applying TAGPRIME with special tokens priming rather than verbalized tokens. However, our preliminary results show that such method's performance is less stable and weaker than we can achieve with TAGPRIME. ## Ethics Considerations TAGPRIME fine-tunes the pre-trained language models (Devlin et al., 2019; Lan et al., 2020). There have been works showing the potential bias in pretrained language models. Although with a low possibility, especially after our finetuning, it is possible for our model to make counterfactual, and biased predictions, which may cause ethical concerns. We suggest carefully examining those potential issues before deploying the model in any real-world applications. ## References Giannis Bekoulis, Johannes Deleu, Thomas Demeester, and Chris Develder. 2018. Adversarial training for multi-context joint entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Jiaao Chen, Jianshu Chen, and Zhou Yu. 2019a. Incorporating structured commonsense knowledge in story completion. In *The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference* on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Qian Chen, Zhu Zhuo, and Wen Wang. 2019b. BERT for joint intent classification and slot filling. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1902.10909. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL*. Shrey Desai, Akshat Shrivastava, Alexander Zotov, and Ahmed Aly. 2021. Low-resource task-oriented semantic parsing via intrinsic modeling. arXiv preprint arxiv.2104.07224. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, (NAACL-HLT). George R. Doddington, Alexis Mitchell, Mark A. Przybocki, Lance A. Ramshaw, Stephanie M. Strassel, and Ralph M. Weischedel. 2004. The automatic content extraction (ACE) program - tasks, data, and evaluation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC). Steven Fincke, Shantanu Agarwal, Scott Miller, and Elizabeth Boschee. 2022. Language model priming for cross-lingual event extraction. In The Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI). Tsu-Jui Fu, Peng-Hsuan Li, and Wei-Yun Ma. 2019. Graphrel: Modeling text as relational graphs for joint entity and relation extraction. In *Proceedings of* the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Francesco Fusco, Damian Pascual, and Peter Staar. 2022. pnlp-mixer: an efficient all-mlp architecture for language. *arXiv preprint arxiv.2202.04350*. Sonal Gupta, Rushin Shah, Mrinal Mohit, Anuj Kumar, and Mike Lewis. 2018. Semantic parsing for task oriented dialog using hierarchical representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Rujun Han, I-Hung Hsu, Mu Yang, Aram Galstyan, Ralph Weischedel, and Nanyun Peng. 2019. Deep structured neural network for event temporal relation extraction. In *Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning* (CoNLL). I-Hung Hsu, Xiao Guo, Premkumar Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2022a. Discourse-level relation extraction via graph pooling. In *The Thirty-Sixth AAAI* Conference On Artificial Intelligence Workshop on Deep Learning on Graphs: Method and Applications (DLG-AAAI). I-Hung Hsu, Kuan-Hao Huang, Elizabeth Boschee, Scott Miller, Prem Natarajan, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. 2022b. Degree: A data-efficient generation-based event extraction model. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American* Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACLHLT). Kuan-Hao Huang, I-Hung Hsu, Premkumar Natarajan, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. 2022. Multilingual generative language models for zero-shot crosslingual event argument extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Kung-Hsiang Huang and Nanyun Peng. 2021. Document-level event extraction with efficient end-to-end learning of cross-event dependencies. In The 3rd Workshop on Narrative Understanding (NAACL 2021). Arzoo Katiyar and Claire Cardie. 2017. Going out on a limb: Joint extraction of entity mentions and relations without dependency trees. In *Proceedings of the 55th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL. John D. Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In *Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)*. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. ALBERT: A lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language representations. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (ACL). Haoran Li, Abhinav Arora, Shuohui Chen, Anchit Gupta, Sonal Gupta, and Yashar Mehdad. 2021. MTOP: A comprehensive multilingual task-oriented semantic parsing benchmark. In *Proceedings of the* 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL). Qi Li, Heng Ji, and Liang Huang. 2013. Joint event extraction via structured prediction with global features. In *Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Shuman Liu, Hongshen Chen, ZhaDBLP:conf/acl/LiuFCRYL18ochun Ren, Yang Feng, Qun Liu, and Dawei Yin. 2018. Knowledge diffusion for neural dialogue generation. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Samuel Louvan and Bernardo Magnini. 2020. Recent neural methods on slot filling and intent classification for task-oriented dialogue systems: A survey. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING). Keming Lu, I-Hung Hsu, Wenxuan Zhou, Mingyu Derek Ma, and Muhao Chen. 2022. Summarization as indirect supervision for relation extraction. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09837*. Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jin Xu, Xianpei Han, Jialong Tang, Annan Li, Le Sun, Meng Liao, and Shaoyi Chen. 2021. Text2event: Controllable sequence-tostructure generation for end-to-end event extraction. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th* International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (ACL/IJCNLP). Shengfei Lyu and Huanhuan Chen. 2021. Relation classification with entity type restriction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACLIJCNLP 2021. Jie Ma, Shuai Wang, Rishita Anubhai, Miguel Ballesteros, and Yaser Al-Onaizan. 2020. Resourceenhanced neural model for event argument extraction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EMNLP-Findings). Makoto Miwa and Mohit Bansal. 2016. End-to-end relation extraction using lstms on sequences and tree structures. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL. Thien Huu Nguyen, Kyunghyun Cho, and Ralph Grishman. 2016. Joint event extraction via recurrent neural networks. In *The 2016 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT). Thien Huu Nguyen and Ralph Grishman. 2015. Event detection and domain adaptation with convolutional neural networks. In *Proceedings of the 53rd Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Giovanni Paolini, Ben Athiwaratkun, Jason Krone, Jie Ma, Alessandro Achille, Rishita Anubhai, Cícero Nogueira dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Stefano Soatto. 2021. Structured prediction as translation between augmented natural languages. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Hao Peng, Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2020. Learning from Context or Names? An Empirical Study on Neural Relation Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. Zhiyi Song, Ann Bies, Stephanie M. Strassel, Tom Riese, Justin Mott, Joe Ellis, Jonathan Wright, Seth Kulick, Neville Ryant, and Xiaoyi Ma. 2015. From light to rich ERE: annotation of entities, relations, and events. In Proceedings of the The 3rd Workshop on EVENTS: Definition, Detection, Coreference, and Representation, (EVENTS@HLP-NAACL). Changzhi Sun, Yeyun Gong, Yuanbin Wu, Ming Gong, Daxin Jiang, Man Lan, Shiliang Sun, and Nan Duan. 2019. Joint type inference on entities and relations via graph convolutional networks. In *Proceedings of* the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Gökhan Tür, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, and Larry P. Heck. 2010. What is left to be understood in atis? In 2010 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT). David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). An Wang, Ao Liu, Hieu Hanh Le, and Haruo Yokota. 2022. Towards effective multi-task interaction for entity-relation extraction: A unified framework with selection recurrent network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07281. Jue Wang and Wei Lu. 2020. Two are better than one: Joint entity and relation extraction with tablesequence encoders. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Xiaozhi Wang, Ziqi Wang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, Jie Zhou, and Xiang Ren. 2019. HMEAE: hierarchical modular event argument extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Yijun Wang, Changzhi Sun, Yuanbin Wu, Hao Zhou, Lei Li, and Junchi Yan. 2021. Unire: A unified label space for entity relation extraction. In *Proceedings* of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (ACL/IJCNLP). Zhepei Wei, Jianlin Su, Yue Wang, Yuan Tian, and Yi Chang. 2020. A novel cascade binary tagging framework for relational triple extraction. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)*. Shanchan Wu and Yifan He. 2019. Enriching pretrained language model with entity information for relation classification. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, pages 2361–2364. Zhiheng Yan, Chong Zhang, Jinlan Fu, Qi Zhang, and Zhongyu Wei. 2021. A partition filter network for joint entity and relation extraction. In *Proceedings* of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Sen Yang, Dawei Feng, Linbo Qiao, Zhigang Kan, and Dongsheng Li. 2019. Exploring pre-trained language models for event extraction and generation. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: Reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Bowen Yu, Zhenyu Zhang, Xiaobo Shu, Tingwen Liu, Yubin Wang, Bin Wang, and Sujian Li. 2020. Joint extraction of entities and relations based on a novel decomposition strategy. In *24th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI)*. Dongjie Zhang, Zheng Fang, Yanan Cao, Yanbing Liu, Xiaojun Chen, and Jianlong Tan. 2018. Attentionbased RNN model for joint extraction of intent and word slot based on a tagging strategy. In *Artificial* Neural Networks and Machine Learning (ICANN). Hao Zheng and Mirella Lapata. 2022. Disentangled sequence to sequence learning for compositional generalization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Suncong Zheng, Feng Wang, Hongyun Bao, Yuexing Hao, Peng Zhou, and Bo Xu. 2017. Joint extraction of entities and relations based on a novel tagging scheme. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,* ACL 2017. Zexuan Zhong and Danqi Chen. 2021. A frustratingly easy approach for entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT). Wenxuan Zhou and Muhao Chen. 2021a. An improved baseline for sentence-level relation extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01373. Wenxuan Zhou and Muhao Chen. 2021b. An improved baseline for sentence-level relation extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.0137. ## A Detailed Results | Model | ACE05-E (en) | ACE05-E (zh) | ERE (en) | ERE (es) | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|------------|------------|-------|-------|-------|------| | Arg-I | Arg-C | Arg-I | Arg-C | Arg-I | Arg-C | Arg-I | Arg-C | | | DyGIE++∗ (Wadden et al., 2019) | 53.0 | 48.8 | 63.0 | 59.3 | 51.4 | 48.0 | 49.2 | 46.6 | | TANL (Paolini et al., 2021) | 50.1 | 47.6 | - | - | 46.6 | 43.2 | - | - | | Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021) | - | 53.8 | - | - | - | 48.3 | - | - | | OneIE∗ (Lin et al., 2020) | 59.2 | 56.8 | 63.4 | 60.5 | 50.1 | 46.5 | 54.5 | 52.2 | | DEGREE (Hsu et al., 2022b) | - | 55.8 | - | - | - | 49.6 | - | - | | TAGPRIME w/ Cond. Priming | 60.0±0.47 56.8±0.54 63.2±0.74 60.5±0.73 52.1±0.15 49.3±0.28 55.2±0.79 52.6±1.11 | | | | | | | | | TAGPRIME w/ Cond. & Rel. Priming 59.8±0.53 58.3±0.67 64.7±0.88 62.4±0.85 52.4±0.41 49.9±0.60 55.1±0.89 53.6±0.83 | | | | | | | | | Table 5, 6, and 7 lists the detailed results (mean and standard deviation) of TAGPRIME. Table 5: Detailed results of end-to-end event extraction (mean±std). All values are micro F1-score, and we highlight the highest scores with boldface. ∗We reproduce the results using their released code. | Model | ACE05-R | ACE04-R | | | |------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Rel | Rel+ | Rel | Rel+ | | | Table-Sequence (Wang and Lu, 2020) | 67.6 | 64.3 | 63.3 | 59.6 | | PFN (Yan et al., 2021) | - | 66.8 | - | 62.5 | | Cascade-SRN (late fusion) (Wang et al., 2022) | - | 65.9 | - | - | | Cascade-SRN (early fusion) (Wang et al., 2022) | - | 67.1 | - | - | | PURE (Zhong and Chen, 2021) | 69.0 | 65.6 | 64.7 | 60.2 | | PURE⋄ (Zhong and Chen, 2021) | 69.4 | 67.0 | 66.1 | 62.2 | | UniRE⋄ (Wang et al., 2021) | - | 66.0 | - | 63.0 | | TAGPRIME w/ Cond. Priming | 69.7±0.73 | 67.3±0.61 | 65.2±1.56 | 61.6±1.65 | | TAGPRIME w/ Cond. & Rela. Priming | 70.4±0.64 | 68.1±0.64 | 66.2±1.51 | 62.3±1.19 | Table 6: Detailed results of end-to-end relation extraction (mean±std). All values are micro F1-score with the highest value in bold. Note that in ACE04-R, the experiment was conducted and evaluated through 5-fold cross-validation, hence the variance is slightly larger compared to ACE05-R, which fixes the test set for every run with a different random seed. ⋄indicates the use of cross-sentence context information. | Model | MTOP (en) | MTOP (es) | MTOP (fr) | MTOP (de) | | | | | |----------------------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------------------|--------|--------|--------|------| | Slot-I | Slot-C | Slot-I | Slot-C | Slot-I | Slot-C | Slot-I | Slot-C | | | JointBERT (Li et al., 2021) | - | 92.8 | - | 89.9 | - | 88.3 | - | 88.0 | | JointBERT (reproduced) | 94.2 | 92.7 | 91.6 | 89.5 | 90.2 | 87.7 | 89.2 | 87.6 | | TAGPRIME + Cond. Priming | 94.8±0.27 93.4±0.30 | 91.6±0.43 90.3±0.15 | 90.6±0.22 88.6±0.24 | 89.6±0.15 87.9±0.07 | | | | | | TAGPRIME + Cond. & Rela. Priming | 94.7±0.07 93.5±0.13 | 91.8±0.16 90.7±0.14 | 90.6±0.36 89.1±0.35 | 89.5±0.34 88.1±0.36 | | | | | Table 7: Detailed results of task-oriented semantic parsing (mean±std). Intend scores are measured in accuracy(%) and slot scores are micro-F1 scores. The highest value is in bold. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Please see the "Limitations" section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Please see the "Ethics Considerations" section ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 4 B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 4 and Appendix A The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4 and Appendix A ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4 and Appendix B ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 4 and Appendix A D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

gong-etal-2023-model

Model-Generated Pretraining Signals Improves Zero-Shot Generalization of Text-to-Text Transformers

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.724

This paper explores the effectiveness of model-generated signals in improving zero-shot generalization of text-to-text Transformers such as T5. We study various designs to pretrain T5 using an auxiliary model to construct more challenging token replacements for the main model to denoise. Key aspects under study include the decoding target, the location of the RTD head, and the masking pattern. Based on these studies, we develop a new model, METRO-T0, which is pretrained using the redesigned ELECTRA-Style pretraining strategies and then prompt-finetuned on a mixture of NLP tasks. METRO-T0 outperforms all similar-sized baselines on prompted NLP benchmarks, such as {\_}T0 Eval{\_} and MMLU, and rivals the state-of-the-art T0-11B model with only **8{\%}** of its parameters. Our analysis on model{'}s neural activation and parameter sensitivity reveals that the effectiveness of METRO-T0 stems from more balanced contribution of parameters and better utilization of their capacity. The code and model checkpoints are available at [\url{https://github.com/gonglinyuan/metro_t0}](\url{https://github.com/gonglinyuan/metro_t0}).

# Model-Generated Pretraining Signals Improves Zero-Shot Generalization Of Text-To-Text Transformers Linyuan Gong1∗ , Chenyan Xiong2, Xiaodong Liu2**, Payal Bajaj**2, Yiqing Xie3∗ , Alvin Cheung1, Jianfeng Gao2 **and Xia Song**2 1UC Berkeley, 2Microsoft, 3Carnegie Mellon University 1{gly,akcheung}@berkeley.edu 2{chenyan.xiong,xiaodl,payal.bajaj,jfgao,xiaso}@microsoft.com 3yiqingxi@andrew.cmu.edu ## Abstract This paper explores the effectiveness of modelgenerated signals in improving zero-shot generalization of text-to-text Transformers such as T5. We study various designs to pretrain T5 using an auxiliary model to construct more challenging token replacements for the main model to denoise. Key aspects under study include the decoding target, the location of the RTD head, and the masking pattern. Based on these studies, we develop a new model, METROT0, which is pretrained using the redesigned ELECTRA-Style pretraining strategies and then prompt-finetuned on a mixture of NLP tasks. METRO-T0 outperforms all similarsized baselines on prompted NLP benchmarks, such as *T0 Eval* and *MMLU*, and rivals the state-of-the-art T011B model with only 8% of its parameters. Our analysis on model's neural activation and parameter sensitivity reveals that the effectiveness of METRO-T0 stems from more balanced contribution of parameters and better utilization of their capacity. The code and model checkpoints are available at https: //github.com/gonglinyuan/metro_t0. ## 1 Introduction Recent work in NLP has shown that pretrained language models have made noteworthy progress toward generalization to unseen tasks. Despite being pretrained on only language modeling objectives, large language models can perform reasonable zeroshot generalization given natural language instructions, i.e. prompts (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020). Further research shows that finetuning language models on a mixture of tasks with prompt templates enhances their performance on held-out new tasks (Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2021). In recent years, two significant research paths have emerged in the field of pretrained language models: one seeks to improve generalization either by scaling up the model, increasing parameters, data, and compute, or by refining prompts. Another divergent yet complementary approach focuses on augmenting the efficiency of pretraining, particularly in the context of BERT-style models. This approach has been proven to significantly improve pretraining efficiency through the use of model-generated pretraining signals, as evidenced by ELECTRA (Clark et al., 2020), COCOLM (Meng et al., 2021), and METRO-LM (Bajaj et al., 2022). However, this improvement has primarily been witnessed in single-task supervised finetuning settings. Our work seeks to bridge these two areas of research. We present a novel method that enhances the pretraining efficiency of T5, a widely used encoder-decoder Transformer in prompt-based learning, by utilizing ELECTRAStyle model-generated signals. Our preliminary studies, however, encountered many challenges in pretraining T5 with modelgenerated signals, particularly in designing an effective objective to train the decoder and ensuring training stability. To address these challenges, we study the impact of key components in this pretraining scheme, such as the decoding target, the location of the Replace Token Detection (RTD) task, and the masking pattern. Then we redesign the pretraining algorithm to solve training stability issues, thus bringing in the benefits of ELECTRAstyle pretraining to T5-style Transformer encoderdecoder models. The pretrained model is then finetuned on a family of multi-task training mixtures of NL-prompted dataset, which has previously been used to train the T0 models (Sanh et al., 2022). Our model, METRO-T0, is a T0 model pretrained with Model generated dEnoising TRaining Objective. Experimental results show that METRO-T0 is highly *parameter efficient*. It consistently outperforms similar-sized baselines on all NL-prompted benchmark we evaluated upon. As shown in Fig- ∗Part of this work is done during Linyuan and Yiqing's internship at Microsoft. 12933  ure 1, METRO-T0BASE++ outperforms T03B (Sanh et al., 2022) with only 7% of its parameters on the *T0 Eval* benchmark. Moreover, METROT0++LARGE++ rivals 14x larger T0++11B, the stateof-the-art in prompt-based learning. Our method is also *compute efficient*: METRO-T0 pretrained for 500k steps has similar performance as its T0 counterpart pretrained for 2M steps. To further understand the benefit of METRO pretraining, we conduct two studies on the pretrained METRO-T0 model, analyzing its neural activation and parameter sensitivity. The studies show that model-generated signals balance the contribution of each NN parameter and reduce the number of under-activated neurons by 55%, indicating that a key source of the improved pretraining efficiency is better utilization of network parameters. ## 2 Related Work Prompt-based learning with language models. Prompt-based learning allow language models to handle a wide range of tasks with no training data (zero-shot) or a few training data (few-shot), by leveraging natural language instructions and task demonstrations as context (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020). Raffel et al. (2019) proves the effectiveness of prompt-based learning as a framework of multi-task learning for text-to-text Transformers such as T5. LMs are usually finetuned with NL instructions to improve their performance and usability. Such a procedure is called promptfinetuning. The finetuning data comes from aggregated mixtures of NLP tasks (Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2021), dialogs (Chung et al., 2022), or even chain-of-thoughts (Wei et al., 2022). Our work aims to improve the zero-shot generalization of T5like text-to-text LMs in prompt-based learning by efficient and effective pretraining strategies. Efficient pretraining using model-generated signals. Training big language models require substantial computational resources. This paper is part of a line of research that improves the pretraining efficiency of LMs using model-generated signals, i.e., METRO (Bajaj et al., 2022), pioneered by ELECTRA (Clark et al., 2020), a Transformer encoder pretrained using signals generated by an auxiliary BERT. Various studies (Meng et al., 2021, 2022; Chi et al., 2021; Fang et al., 2022) show that an auxiliary model can generate informative training signals that greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of BERT-like Transformer *encoder* models, as evaluated on supervised single-task benchmarks like GLUE (Wang et al., 2018). Compared with these works, we use modelgenerated signals to pretrain T5-like Transformer encoder-decoder models and evaluate this model on large-scale NL-prompted benchmarks. ## 3 Preliminaries This section provides an overview of T5 and METRO-style pretraining. ## 3.1 Text-To-Text Transformers Our models are based on the T5 framework (Raffel et al., 2019). T5 is a text-to-text Transformer pretrained on natural language corpus. T5 Pretraining. T5 is a Transformer encoderdecoder language model pretrained by modeling corrupted spans of subword tokens. The noisy input is constructed by replacing consecutive spans of tokens in the input by distinct "sentinel" tokens, e.g., Xnoise = [x orig 1*, ...,* [M]i:j*, ...x* orig n ], where the sentinel token is denoted by [M]i:j. Then the pretraining task is to generate the deleted tokens using the Transformer decoder, conditioned on Xnoise as input to the Transformer encoder: $$\begin{array}{c}\mbox{\bf{Orig}}\\ \mbox{\bf{\small$[x_{1}^{\rm{orig}},\ldots[M]^{i:j},\ldots x_{n}^{\rm{orig}}]$}}\end{array}\stackrel{{\mbox{\bf{Encoder}}}}{{\longrightarrow}}\mbox{\bf{H}}^{\rm{enc}}\tag{1}$$ $$\begin{array}{c}\mbox{\bf{H}}^{\rm{enc}}\stackrel{{\mbox{\bf{Decoder}}}}{{\longrightarrow}}[[M]^{i:j},x_{i}^{\rm{orig}},\ldots,x_{j}^{\rm{orig}}].\end{array}$$ Text-to-Text Formulation of Downstream Tasks. T5 supports multitask learning on a diverse set of downstream tasks—including classification, question answering, and summarization—by casting all these tasks into a *text-to-text* format, where the encoder is fed with the text input and the decoder is then asked to generate the target prediction. Text-to-Text Prompt-Finetuning. A pretrained text-to-text Transformer can then be finetuned to enhances its performance on held-out new tasks. The finetuning corpus is usually a multi-task mixture of NLP datasets, where each input-output pair is an example formatted with an NL prompt template. The finetuning procedure is standard seq2seq learning: the input sequence is fed to the encoder, and the target sequence serves as the ground truth to compute the cross-entropy loss of the decoder output. ## 3.2 Model-Generated Pretraining Signals In this subsection, we discuss techniques involving model-generated pretraining signals in prior work. Replace token detection (RTD) is the training objective used to train ELECTRA (Clark et al., 2020). The RTD input is a noisy text sequence Xnoise, generated by an auxiliary masked language model (MLM) like BERT. The token x noise iin each masked position of the text sequence is sampled from the predicted probability of the auxiliary model pMLM(x noise i|h aux i), while the token in each unmasked position x noise jis copied from the original text x orig j. The main model, a Transformer encoder, is pretrained to denoise the noisy input by classifying whether each token is replaced by the auxiliary model or from the original text. $$X^{\rm orig}\xrightarrow{\rm Random\,Mask}[x_{1}^{\rm orig},\ldots[{\rm M}],\ldots x_{n}^{\rm orig}];\tag{2}$$ $$[x_{1}^{\rm orig},\ldots[{\rm M}],\ldots x_{n}^{\rm orig}]\xrightarrow{\rm Auxiliary}X^{\rm noise};\tag{3}$$ $$X^{\rm noise}\xrightarrow{\rm Model}H\xrightarrow{\rm RTD\,Head}\mathbb{1}\,(x_{i}^{\rm orig}=x_{i}^{\rm noise}).\tag{4}$$ Prior work show that the RTD objective is more efficient than the MLM objective, resulting in significant performance improvement for pretrained Transformer encoders (Clark et al., 2020). However, replacing MLM with RTD turns the generative model into a discriminative model, hindering the model's ability to perform generation. Corrective language modeling (CLM) restores the generation capability of a Transformer encoder model pretrained with RTD (Meng et al., 2021). The CLM objective is trained alongside the RTD objective in a multi-task manner, so the CLM input is the same as the RTD input Xnoise. The model is pretrained to recover the original text Xorig. $$X^{\mathrm{noise}}\ {\xrightarrow{\mathrm{Model}}}\ H\ {\xrightarrow{\mathrm{CLM Head}}}\ X^{\mathrm{orig}}.$$ $$({\mathfrak{H}})$$ ## 4 Method In this section, we present the algorithm to train our model, METRO-T0. ## 4.1 Pretraining Objective Design METRO-T0 is jointly pretrained with two objectives: the RTD objective, enhancing performance through model-generated signals, and the CLM objective, enabling text-to-text generation akin to T5. The pretraining algorithm is illustrated in Figure 2. METRO-T0 uses a BERT-style MLM encoder as the auxiliary model and a T5-style encoder-decoder as the main model. The overall pretraining procedure is: $$X^{\rm orig}\xrightarrow{\rm i.i.d.\ Random\ Mask}[x_{1}^{\rm orig},\ldots[{\sf M}],\ldots x_{n}^{\rm orig}];\tag{6}$$ $$[x_{1}^{\rm orig},\ldots[{\sf M}],\ldots x_{n}^{\rm orig}]\xrightarrow{\rm Auxiliary}X^{\rm noise};\tag{7}$$ $$X^{\rm noise}\xrightarrow{\rm Encoder}H^{\rm enc}\xrightarrow{\rm RTD\ Head}\mathbb{1}\left(x_{i}^{\rm orig}=x_{i}^{\rm noise}\right);\tag{8}$$ $$H^{\rm enc}\xrightarrow{\rm Decoder}H^{\rm dec}\xrightarrow{\rm CLM\ Head}X^{\rm orig}.\tag{9}$$ The auxiliary model receives inputs constructed by randomly masking tokens in the original text Xorig, and makes MLM predictions, which are used to create noisy inputs Xnoise for the main model. The main model is pretrained using two objectives: (a) the RTD objective on the encoder outputs Henc, which aims to identify whether each token was replaced by the auxiliary model or not, and (b) the CLM objective, which aims to recover the original text Xorig through the decoder. During pretraining, the weighted average of three losses is optimized: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{MLM}}=-\mathbb{E}_{i\in\mathcal{M}}\log p_{\text{MLM}}(x_{i}^{\text{orig}}|\mathbf{h}_{i}^{\text{aux}}),\tag{10}$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{RTD}}=-\mathbb{E}\log p_{\text{RTD}}(1\,(x_{i}^{\text{orig}}=x_{i}^{\text{noise}})|\mathbf{h}_{i}^{\text{enc}}),$$ (11) $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{CLM}}=-\mathbb{E}_{i\in\mathcal{M}}\log p_{\text{LM}}(x_{i}^{\text{orig}}|\mathbf{h}_{i}^{\text{dec}}),$$ (12) $$\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{\text{MLM}}+\lambda_{\text{RTD}}\mathcal{L}_{\text{RTD}}+\lambda_{\text{CLM}}\mathcal{L}_{\text{CLM}}.\tag{13}$$ In crafting METRO-T0's pretraining algorithm, we explored various alternatives before finalizing our design. For example, an alternative method  Figure 2: The architecture of METRO-T0 during pretraining using BERT as the auxiliary model to generate signals. | Original Sentence | Thank you for inviting me to your party last week | | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------| | Auxiliary Model | Input | Thank you [M] [M] me to your party [M] week | | Output | Thank you for giving me to your party apple week | | | Main Model | Input | Thank you for giving me to your party apple week | | Decoding | Masked Tokens Only | for inviting last | | Target | All Tokens | Thank you for inviting me to your party last week | | All Tokens, Masked Loss⋆ | Thank you for inviting me to your party last week | | could train RTD objectives on *decoder* outputs or use a masking pattern other than i.i.d. random sampling. In the rest of this section, we will explain our design choices and the reasons behind them. Decoding Target. Table 1 shows three variants of decoding targets: "masked tokens only", *"all* tokens", and *"all tokens masked loss"*. Pretraining with the T5-style "masked tokens only" target proves unfeasible due to its ill-formed nature. The decoder cannot distinguish between unmasked tokens (e.g., *"you"*) and those correctly predicted by the auxiliary model in masked positions (e.g., *"for"*). Consequently, a single source sequence may correspond to multiple correct target sequences, introducing ambiguity and impeding effective pretraining. A detailed example is provided in Appendix A.9. The *"all tokens"* target is inefficient, as the cross entropy loss is averaged on all tokens, including unmasked tokens where the tasks are trivial copyand-pastes. Therefore, METRO-T0 uses *"all tokens masked loss"*, where the loss is averaged on masked tokens only. Location of the RTD Head. We consider two choices to place the RTD head: on the outputs of the Transformer encoder or decoder. *Decoder RTD* at position i requires the information of the i-th token of the encoder input, but this information is absent from the input of the decoder. Consequently, the decoder needs a long attention path to connect position i of the encoder. This complexity defeats the purpose of RTD in providing a simpler task to stabilize optimization, making pretraining unstable in practice (Xu et al., 2020). Therefore, METROT0 uses *encoder RTD*. Masking Pattern on Auxiliary. When can use either T5-style *contiguous span masking* or BERTstyle *i.i.d. random masking* to generate the MLM input for the auxiliary model. However, using contiguous span masking in METRO-T0 pretraining leads to label leakage. At position i during teacher-forced training, the decoder has access to the ground truth Xorig before position i. It can compare x orig i−1 with x noise i−1 . If the two disagree, it is likely the following position i is also masked out. As a result, the model can exploit this shortcut to achieve high RTD accuracy without learning meaningful representations of natural languages. Therefore, METRO-T0 uses *i.i.d. random masking*. ## 4.2 Architectural Upgrades Over T5 We incorporate model architecture changes that have been proved to be beneficial in earlier works. The vanilla T5 exclusively uses relative positional embeddings, while the vanilla BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) model relies solely on absolute positional embeddings. However, recent research by Luo et al. (2022) suggests that using only relative positional embeddings may not yield optimal results. Consequently, in line with the practices in COCO-LM (Meng et al., 2021) and METRO- LM (Bajaj et al., 2022), we use absolute positional embeddings in addition to relative position embeddings in our model. We also introduce a change in how layer normalization is combined with residual connections. Rather than using T5's Pre-LayerNorm approach (defined as x 7→ x + f(LN(x)) where f is either multi-head attention or MLP), our model adopts a Post-LayerNorm design (x 7→ LN(x + f(x))). The Post-LayerNorm vs. Pre-LayerNorm debate is ongoing in the field, but we use Post-LayerNorm, which typically resulted in better performance on downstream tasks in our studies. ## 4.3 Prompt-Finetuning The model pretrained using the method described above is called METRO-T5. After pretraining METRO-T5 on an NL corpus, we discard the auxiliary model and retain the main model, which is a standard text-to-text Transformer. We finetune this model on multi-task training mixtures of NL-prompted datasets, *T0/T0+/T0++ Train* (Sanh et al., 2022), to obtain METRO-T0/T0+/T0++, a text-to-text Transformer that supports zero-shot generalization to held-out tasks. ## 5 Experimental Setup Model Architecture. Each of our models has an architecture similar to T5 (Raffel et al., 2019). We train models in three standard setups: *base*, base++, and *large++*. Our base/*base++* model has an architecture similar to T5BASE. Our *large++* model has an architecture similar to T5LARGE except for some differences mentioned in Section 4. The auxiliary model for generating training signals is a Transformer encoder of the same hidden size as the main model but is shallower: it consists of 4 layers in base/*base++* and 6 layers in *large++*. We follow Clark et al. (2020) and share token embeddings between the main and the auxiliary model. Pretraining. Our *base* model is pretrained on English Wikipedia and BookCorpus (16GB of texts) for 131 billion tokens (512 tokens per sequence, 2,048 sequences per batch, and 125k steps). Base++/*Large++* is the training configuration first used in RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019): pretraining on a mixed corpus of 160GB texts for a maximum 2.1 trillion tokens (512 tokens per sequence, 2,048 sequences per batch, and at most 2M steps). Prompt-Finetuning. We finetune each of our pretrained METRO-T5 models on three multi-task mixtures: *T0/T0+/T0++ Train*, using the same prompt templates and shuffling strategy as Sanh et al. (2022) does. Each model is finetuned for 125k steps, using the same hyperparameters as pretraining, except the peak learning rate is reduced to 0.1x. We do not perform any checkpoint selection and simply use the last checkpoint at 125k steps for evaluation. Evaluation. We evaluate zero-shot generalization on the *T0 Eval* benchmark (Sanh et al., 2022) and the *Massive Multi-task Language Understanding* (*MMLU*) benchmark (Hendrycks et al., 2020). T0 Eval consists of 11 datasets in natural language inference, coreference, word sense disambiguation, and sentence completion. *MMLU* includes exam questions from 57 tasks such as maths, history, law, and medicine. For each dataset, we report accuracy on the validation split. Following GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) and T0 (Sanh et al., 2022), we use rank classification for inference. For *T0 Eval*, we use the same prompt templates as T0. For MMLU, we use prompt templates from the AI2 Reasoning Challenge (*AI2-ARC*) (Clark et al., 2018), concatenated with 5 passages retrieved using T5-ANCE (Ge et al., 2023; Ni et al., 2021) (See Appendix A.8 for details). When there are multiple prompts for a dataset, we do not perform prompt selection based on the validation split, because such prompt selection will break the "zeroshot" evaluation. Instead, we report the average accuracy across all prompts for this dataset, following the standard practices of Sanh et al. (2022). Baselines. For a fair comparison, the main baseline is our own T0 runs. Except for METRO-style pretraining, our T0 baselines use the same Transformer architecture, pretraining data, and promptfinetuning data, pretrained in the same computational environment. We also compare with the *reported* numbers of other language models that supports zero-shot prompting, including pretraining-only models such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2019), as well as prompt-finetuned models such as T0 (Sanh et al., 2022) and Flan-T5 (Wei et al., 2021; Chung et al., 2022). T0/T0+/T0++ is pretrained on the the C4 (Raffel et al., 2019) corpus of 800GB of texts for 1 trillion tokens and then prompt-finetuned on the *T0/T0+/T0++ Train* multitask mixture af- Model Params **NLI Coref. Compl. WSD** RTE CB ANLI r1/r2/r3 WSC Wino. COPA SC. HS. WiC AVG Pretraining only GPT-313B (Brown et al., 2020) 13B 62.80 19.60 33.20/33.50/34.40 64.40 67.90 84.00 79.50 70.90 0.00 50.02 GPT-3175B (Brown et al., 2020) 175B 63.50 46.40 34.60/35.40/34.50 65.40 70.20 91.00 83.20 78.90 0.00 54.83 T5+LM (Lester et al., 2021) 11B 53.03 34.34 32.89/33.76/33.82 54.09 50.65 54.88 27.00 48.16 50.30 42.99 Prompt Finetune on *T0 Train* T0BASE 226M 62.85 45.30 30.82/32.37/32.14 **62.16** 50.77 70.63 **81.03** 24.86 **50.78** 49.43 METRO-T0BASE 226M 65.18 45.60 31.64/32.98/**33.81** 55.77 **51.07 70.81** 80.97 **25.28** 50.69 **49.44** T0BASE++ 256M 62.24 53.45 31.68/32.94/34.88 **61.73** 51.65 70.63 87.62 25.88 **51.21** 51.26 METRO-T0BASE++ 256M 68.16 63.21 34.92/33.81/**36.82** 60.48 **52.03 78.50 89.23 27.68** 50.88 **54.15** T03B (Sanh et al., 2022) 3B 64.55 45.36 33.84/33.11/33.33 **65.10** 50.97 72.40 84.03 27.29 50.69 50.97 METRO-T0LARGE++ 775M 76.75 65.48 41.49/36.29/**40.18** 60.58 **54.51 88.00 94.07 29.31 50.97 57.97** T011B (Sanh et al., 2022) 11B 80.83 70.12 43.56/38.68/41.26 61.45 59.94 90.02 92.40 33.58 56.58 60.77 Prompt Finetune on *T0+ Train* T0+BASE 226M 63.57 **48.93** 31.76/32.92/33.02 **60.96 51.93 72.38** *81.71 40.11* **51.32** 51.69 METRO-T0+BASE 226M **70.56** 47.08 33.05/34.53/**34.37** 57.98 51.75 69.13 *83.08 49.00* 50.78 **52.85** T0+BASE++ 256M 68.30 60.24 33.77/34.31/35.00 60.96 51.59 70.00 *89.29 56.10* 51.39 55.54 METRO-T0+BASE++ 256M 71.44 60.71 36.91/35.24/36.46 62.21 54.08 78.88 *90.29 67.57* **51.60 58.67** METRO-T0+LARGE++ 775M 81.26 70.00 45.06/38.59/42.35 60.67 57.52 90.50 *95.41 83.82* 52.32 65.23 T0+11B (Sanh et al., 2022) 11B 67.47 59.20 43.45/39.77/40.76 62.24 59.94 92.24 *96.43 86.13* 55.02 63.88 Prompt Finetune on *T0++ Train* T0++BASE 226M 69.06 48.39 31.90/33.61/33.94 55.72 51.15 **76.06** *82.55 39.62 63.18* 53.20 METRO-T0++BASE 226M 72.04 58.63 33.85/35.29/36.57 **56.11 52.15** 74.06 *83.65 48.66 64.29* **55.94** T0++BASE++ 256M **77.87** 63.10 36.15/34.61/38.18 *56.44 51.78 75.38 89.33 55.95 65.53* 58.57 METRO-T0++BASE++ 256M 77.80 69.52 39.69/36.61/40.08 *61.44 54.55 83.88 90.88 68.54 67.59* **62.78** METRO-T0++LARGE++ 775M 83.68 74.88 46.84/40.37/44.95 *71.83 62.75 92.63 95.65 83.74 70.49* 69.80 T0++11B (Sanh et al., 2022) 11B 85.31 75.69 47.07/42.18/44.09 *70.29 66.42 93.71 96.49 86.11 70.02* 70.67 Table 2: Prompt learning results on the *T0 Eval* dataset. "Wino.", "SC.", and "HS" refer to Winogrande, StoryCloze, and HellaSwag, respectively. All reported datasets use accuracy as their metric. *Italic* results are produced under the supervised setting. Others are under the zero-shot setting. Each row without a citation contains experimental results from models trained by us (our T0 baseline and METRO-T0), while each row with a citation contains experimental results from the cited paper (GPT-3, Google T5, and the original T0). Table 3: Prompt learning results on the *MMLU* dataset. All reported results use accuracy averaged over 57 subtasks as their metric. ter LM adaptation for 100 billion tokens. Flan-T5 is also pretrained on the C4 corpus, but finetuned on a much larger dataset of prompted multi-task mixtures, dialog, and chain-of-thoughts. ## 6 Evaluation Results | Model | Params | MMLU | |---------------------------------|----------|--------| | T0++BASE | 226M | 37.5 | | METRO-T0++BASE | 226M | 38.3 | | Flan-T5BASE (Wei et al., 2022) | 223M | 35.9 | | T0++BASE++ | 256M | 41.7 | | METRO-T0++BASE++ | 256M | 42.7 | | GPT-3175B (Brown et al., 2020) | 175B | 43.9 | | Flan-T5LARGE (Wei et al., 2022) | 750M | 45.1 | | T0++11B (Sanh et al., 2022) | 11B | 35.6 | | METRO-T0++LARGE++ | 775M | 48.0 | This section compares the performance of METROT0 and baseline models on *T0 Eval* and *MMLU* to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our method. We also explore the reason behind METRO-T0's effectiveness through detailed model analysis. ## 6.1 Main Results Table 2 presents the experimental results on T0 Eval, and Table 3 presents the experimental results on *MMLU*. These results show that: METRO-T0 is highly parameter efficient, as it rivals or even outperforms much larger models in zero-shot generalization. METROT0BASE++, having only 256M parameters, outperforms T03B (Sanh et al., 2022) with only 7% of its parameters. Also, METRO-T0LARGE++, having only 775M parameters, outperforms T03B by 7pts and is only 2.8pts behind T011B, a 14x larger model. METRO-T0 often outperforms GPT-3 (175B), a state-of-the-art Transformer decoder LM, on both *T0 Eval* and *MMLU*. Compared to the 11B-parameter T0/T0+/T0++ model, a family of Model/Finetuning Data T0 T0+ T0++ METRO-T0/T0+/T0++ 49.44 **54.15 57.97** + CLM Loss on All Position 49.24 51.05 53.97 + CLM with Copy Mechanism **49.46** 50.70 54.06 + RTD on Decoder 46.75 48.47 49.20 + Projection Layer on CLM 48.85 50.10 52.82 + Continuous Span Mask 49.04 50.37 53.42 T0/T0+/T0++ **49.43 51.69 53.20** + All-token LM loss 48.13 49.43 50.76 state-of-the-art prompt-finetuned text-to-text LM, METRO-T0/T0+/T0++ in the *large++* setup has competitive or sometimes superior performance. The gain stems from METRO-style pretraining. On both benchmarks, METRO-T0 models in all setups consistently outperform our fair-comparison T0 baselines of the same model size, which were pretrained using the same corpus and configurations. This fact demonstrates that the performance improvement is not due to better hyperparameters or data engineering, but a result of using METROstyle pretraining. Further confirmation of this argument will be provided through model analysis in Section 6.4 and Section 6.5. ## 6.2 Ablation Studies In Section 4, we discuss the choices we made to redesign the pretraining method for METRO-T0. In this subsection, we compare the empirical results of different variants of METRO-T0. Table 4 shows the performance of each variant prompt-finetuned on *T0/T0+/T0++ Train* and evaluated on *T0 Eval*. "All tokens, masked loss" is the best decoding target. Table 1 presents three possible choices for the decoding target, in which *"masked tokens only"* is ill-formed and thus not suitable, as discussed in Section 4. Table 4 compares the remaining two options and shows that computing CLM/LM loss on all positions negatively affects the downstream performance of METRO-T5/T5 by overwhelming the model with too many trivial copy-and-paste tasks. The same reasoning also applies to our decision not to use the copy mechanism (Meng et al., 2021) in CLM heads. Encoder RTD makes pretraining more stable. Figure 3a demonstrates this by comparing the loss on the CLM task during pretraining with RTD applied to the encoder (red line) versus the decoder   (**blue** line). Decoder RTD caused pretraining to diverge. While techniques such as strong gradient clipping and an additional projection layer can mitigate this issue (**orange** and **green** lines), the model still has higher training loss and poorer generalization on downstream tasks as shown in Table 4. Label leakage is prevented by i.i.d. masking. Figure 3b illustrates the RTD *recall* (true positive rate) of METRO-T5 when using i.i.d. random masking on the auxiliary model compared to T5's continuous span masking. As discussed in Section 4, continuous span masking leads to label leakage, resulting in easy solutions for many masked positions, as demonstrated by the more than 2x pretraining RTD recall on masked positions with **Span** Mask. As expected, this label leakage hurts the model's generalization ability as shown in Table 4. ## 6.3 Pretraining Efficiency In this experiment, we study the pretraining efficiency of METRO-T5 by comparing the intermediate checkpoints pretrained for 500k/1M/2M steps of T5BASE++ and METRO-T5BASE++. We assess each checkpoint's prompt-based learning performance by finetuning on the *T0++ Train* dataset and recording the average performance on *T0 Eval*. Figure 4 shows that **METRO-T5 is more compute efficient than vanilla T5**. METRO-T0++ achieves better downstream performance at every point. In particular, METRO-T0++ pretrained for 500k steps has a similar performance to T0++ pretrained for 2M steps, showing a **165%** efficiency increase. An interesting research question is: does modelgenerated signals simply make pretraining faster or do METRO-T5 and T5 learn different representations? To answer this question, we compare the following two models by showing their performance on   each task in the *T0 Eval* benchmark in Figure 5: (a) T0++ finetuned from the T5 checkpoint pretrained for 2M steps, indicated by the last **blue** datapoint in Figure 4; (b) METRO-T0++ finetuned from the METRO-T5 checkpoint pretrained for 500k steps, indicated by the first **orange** datapoint. Although these two models have similar average accuracies (58.57 vs. 58.68), they have different strengths, as shown in Figure 5. T0++ (2M steps) outperforms METRO-T0++ (500k steps) on wordlevel tasks (WiC) and conventional natural language inference (ANLI and RTE), while METROT0++ (500k steps) has much better performance on commonsense reasoning (HellaSwag and COPA). This phenomenon implies that model-generated signals let the model learn different representations of texts, which finally result in a significant performance gap between the fully pretrained T0++ and METRO-T0++, as shown in Table 2.  ## 6.4 Neural Activation In this subsection, and the following one, explore the extent to which the internal statistics of the neural networks quantify the differences between METRO-T5 and T5. The first aspect we explore is neural activation. Specifically, we examine the feedforward module in each Transformer layer of METRO-T5BASE++ and T5BASE++, counting neurons that are *underactivated*. A neuron is considered *under-activated* if it is *inactive* (exhibits zero ReLU activations) for 99.5% of tokens within the *T0++ Train* dataset. Figure 6 shows that T5 has ∼2x as many underactivated neurons as METRO-T5 at *every* checkpoint. Studies suggest that such neurons can typically be pruned without substantially affecting neural network performance (Polyak and Wolf, 2015; Li et al., 2016). So the presense of many underactivated neurons is a sign of underutilization of model capacity and computing cost. Therefore, our findings suggest that METRO-style modelgenerated training signals enhance neuron utilization in METRO-T5. ## 6.5 Parameter Sensitivity In addition to analyzing the neural activation of T5 and METRO-T5, we also examine their parameter sensitivity, which serves as another means to quantify the underlying differences between T5 and METRO-T5. The *sensitivity* of a parameter, defined in Equation (14), approximates the change in the loss magnitude when this parameter is completely zeroedout. θ denotes the parameter vector and L denotes the loss function. θ−j denotes the parameter vector θ with its j-th entry set to zero. The approximation is derived from the first-order Taylor expansion of L at θ. Therefore, the sensitivity of the j-th param12940  eter, denoted by Ij , approximates the change in the loss magnitude when this parameter is completely zeroed-out (LeCun et al., 1989). ## Ij = |Θ T −J∇Θl(Θ)| ≈ |L(Θ) − L(Θ − Θ−J )| (14) Liang et al. (2022) shows that parameter sensitivity is a reliable indicator of redundancy in pretrained language models. Specifically, parameters with low sensitivity can be safely pruned with only marginal impact on the LM's downstream performance, and an LM with lower, more concentrated sensitivity is more sufficiently trained and generalizes better. We compare parameter sensitivity distributions of each checkpoint of METRO-T5 and T5, using gradients calculated on the *T0++ Train* dataset. The result is shown in Figure 7, from which we observe that the sensitivity distribution exhibits a lower variance in METRO-T5 (the **orange** hill in each row) than in T5 (the **blue** hill in each row). The difference in parameter sensitivity becomes more conspicuous when the models are trained for more steps. These observations suggest that pretraining with model-generated signals makes the sensitivity of parameters more concentrated. In other words, the amount of each parameter's contribution becomes more balanced with METROstyle pretraining, which leads to a more sufficiently trained model. ## 7 Conclusion This paper presents a new method for improving the zero-shot generalization of T5-like text-to-text Transformers by incorporating model-generated signals in the pretraining process. METRO-T0, the model sufficiently trained using our redesigned pretraining method, is highly parameter efficient and compute efficient. We hope that the success of our approach could inspire further work on efficient big LM pretraining and prompt-based learning. ## Limitations This work focuses on pretraining large language models for zero-shot generalization. Although our proposed method is more efficient than baselines, it still requires significant computational resources, specifically GPU resources. The GPU resources used and training time are detailed in Appendix A.6. Our study is also limited by the computational budget, preventing us from training models as large as GPT-3 or T011B. However, our *large++* model (775M parameters) already rivals or outperforms previous state-of-the-art models. ## Ethics Statement This work proposes and releases language models that are pretrained on web-crawled data and finetuned on a large collection of NLP datasets. These models may perpetuate social stereotypes and disparities reflected in the training data, or accidentally reveal private information. Mitigating these risks presents a significant open research challenge that calls for collective efforts within the NLP community. Therefore, it is recommended to take appropriate measures to assess risks and potential harms in the application context before deployment. ## Acknowledgement Linyuan Gong and Alvin Cheung are partially supported by the National Science Foundation through grants IIS-1955488, IIS-2027575, CCF-1723352, ARO W911NF2110339. We thank Mingrui Shen for his support providing computing infrastructure support on the finetuning work flow, Guolin Ke for his support in establishing the data processing pipelines for our pretraining corpora, and anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. ## References Stephen H. Bach, Victor Sanh, Zheng-Xin Yong, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Nihal V. Nayak, Abheesht Sharma, Taewoon Kim, M Saiful Bari, Thibault Fevry, Zaid Alyafeai, Manan Dey, Andrea Santilli, Zhiqing Sun, Srulik Ben-David, Canwen Xu, Gunjan Chhablani, Han Wang, Jason Alan Fries, Maged S. Al-shaibani, Shanya Sharma, Urmish Thakker, Khalid Almubarak, Xiangru Tang, Xiangru Tang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Promptsource: An integrated development environment and repository for natural language prompts. Payal Bajaj, Chenyan Xiong, Guolin Ke, Xiaodong Liu, Di He, Saurabh Tiwary, Tie-Yan Liu, Paul Bennett, Xia Song, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. Metro: Efficient denoising pretraining of large scale autoencoding language models with model generated signals. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2204.06644. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 33:1877–1901. Zewen Chi, Shaohan Huang, Li Dong, Shuming Ma, Saksham Singhal, Payal Bajaj, Xia Song, and Furu Wei. 2021. Xlm-e: Cross-lingual language model pre-training via electra. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2106.16138. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Alex Castro-Ros, Marie Pellat, Kevin Robinson, Dasha Valter, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V Le, and Christopher D Manning. 2020. ELECTRA: Pretraining text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. In *ICLR*. Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the AI2 reasoning challenge. *CoRR*, abs/1803.05457. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2019*, pages 4171–4186. Yuxin Fang, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Xinggang Wang, and Furu Wei. 2022. Corrupted image modeling for self-supervised visual pre-training. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2202.03382. Suyu Ge, Chenyan Xiong, Corby Rosset, Arnold Overwijk, Jiawei Han, and Paul Bennett. 2023. Augmenting zero-shot dense retrievers with plug-in mixtureof-memories. *arXiv preprint arXiv.2302.03754*. Aaron Gokaslan and Vanya Cohen. 2019. Openwebtext corpus. http://Skylion007.github.io/ OpenWebTextCorpus. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2020. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. *CoRR*, abs/2009.03300. Yann LeCun, John Denker, and Sara Solla. 1989. Optimal brain damage. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 2. MorganKaufmann. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045–3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hao Li, Asim Kadav, Igor Durdanovic, Hanan Samet, and Hans Peter Graf. 2016. Pruning filters for efficient convnets. *CoRR*, abs/1608.08710. Chen Liang, Haoming Jiang, Simiao Zuo, Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Weizhu Chen, and Tuo Zhao. 2022. No parameters left behind: Sensitivity guided adaptive learning rate for training large transformer models. *CoRR*, abs/2202.02664. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Shengjie Luo, Shanda Li, Shuxin Zheng, Tie-Yan Liu, Liwei Wang, and Di He. 2022. Your transformer may not be as powerful as you expect. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.13401. Yu Meng, Chenyan Xiong, Payal Bajaj, Saurabh Tiwary, Paul Bennett, Jiawei Han, and Xia Song. 2021. COCO-LM: Correcting and contrasting text sequences for language model pretraining. In *Proceedings of NeurIPS 2021*. Yu Meng, Chenyan Xiong, Payal Bajaj, Saurabh Tiwary, Paul Bennett, Jiawei Han, and Xia Song. 2022. Pretraining text encoders with adversarial mixture of training signal generators. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2204.03243. Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, and Li Deng. 2016. MS MARCO: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. *CoRR*, abs/1611.09268. Jianmo Ni, Gustavo Hernández Ábrego, Noah Constant, Ji Ma, Keith B. Hall, Daniel Cer, and Yinfei Yang. 2021. Sentence-t5: Scalable sentence encoders from pre-trained text-to-text models. *CoRR*, abs/2108.08877. Adam Polyak and Lior Wolf. 2015. Channel-level acceleration of deep face representations. *IEEE Access*, 3:2163–2175. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. *OpenAI* blog, 1(8):9. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M Rush. 2022. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Trieu H Trinh and Quoc V Le. 2018. A simple method for commonsense reasoning. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1806.02847. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In *EMNLP* Workshop BlackboxNLP. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903*. Zhenhui Xu, Linyuan Gong, Guolin Ke, Di He, Shuxin Zheng, Liwei Wang, Jiang Bian, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020. MC-BERT: efficient language pre-training via a meta controller. *CoRR*, abs/2006.05744. ## A Appendix A.1 Pretraining Corpus Our *base* model is pretrained on English Wikipedia and BookCorpus (16GB of texts). We encode the pretraining corpus with an uncased vocabulary of 32,768 BPE tokens. This setup is similar to vanilla BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). Our *base++/large++* model is pretrained on a mixed corpus of 160GB texts, which consists of English Wikipedia, BookCorpus, OpenWebText (Gokaslan and Cohen, 2019), CC-News (Liu et al., 2019), and STORIES (Trinh and Le, 2018). We encode the corpus with a cased vocabulary of 64,000 BPE tokens. This setup is similar to RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), COCO-LM (Meng et al., 2021), and METRO-LM (Bajaj et al., 2022). As a reference, T0 (Sanh et al., 2022) models and Flan-T5 (Chung et al., 2022) are all based on the original T5 model by Raffel et al. (2019). The pretraining corpus is the C4 corpus (Raffel et al., 2019) of 800GB of texts based on CommonCrawl. They encode the corpus with a cased vocabulary of 32k BPE tokens. ## A.2 Pretraining Hyperparameters The hyperparameters we used to pretrain METRO-T0 and our T0 baseline are listed in Table 5. | Hyperparameters | Base | Base++ | Large++ | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | Encoder Layers | 12 | 12 | 24 | | Decoder Layers | 12 | 12 | 24 | | Auxiliary Layers∗ | 4 | 4 | 6 | | Hidden Dimension | 768 | 768 | 1,024 | | Peak Learning Rate | 4e-4 | 2e-4 | 2e-4 | | Batch Size | 2,048 | 2,048 | 2,048 | | Warm-Up Steps | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | | Total Steps | 125,000 | 2,000,000 | 1,335,000 | | Sequence Length | 512 | 512 | 512 | | Relative Position Encoding Buckets | 32 | 32 | 64 | | Relative Position Encoding Max Distance | 128 | 128 | 128 | | Loss multipliers (λMLM, λRTD, λCLM) ∗ | (1, 50, 1) | (1, 50, 1) | (1, 50, 1) | | Adam ϵ | 1e-6 | 1e-6 | 1e-6 | | Adam (β1, β2) | (0.9, 0.98) | (0.9, 0.98) | (0.9, 0.98) | | Clip Norm | - | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Dropout | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | | Weight Decay | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | | Table 5: Pretraining hyperparameters for METRO-T0 and our T0 baselines. Rows with an "∗ " are specific to | | | | Table 5: Pretraining hyperparameters for METRO-T0 and our T0 baselines. Rows with an "∗" are specific to METRO-style pretraining and not applicable to our T0 baselines. We only train our *large++* model for 1.3M steps (instead of 2M steps) due to limitations of computational budgets but it still yields impressive performance. In pretraining, we use 15% masking ratio for the auxiliary MLM pretraining task. We create a [MASK] symbol for each masked token. Each token in Xnoise is sampled from the softmax distribution predicted by the auxiliary model for each [MASK] symbol. The weight of each pretraining objective is λMLM = 1, λRTD = 50, and λCLM = 1, following Meng et al. (2021). In both the auxiliary transformer and the main transformer, we use shared token embeddings in the embedding layer and the language modeling head. We have three projection heads in our model: MLM head on the auxiliary transformer, RTD head on the main transformer's encoder, and CLM head on the main transformer's decoder. Both the MLM and CLM head are a single linear transformation. We use RoBERTa-style projection head for the RTD head, which contains a linear projection, a ReLU activation, a layer norm and another linear projection. For the RTD on decoder (complex CLM head) ablation, we use a RoBERTa-style head as the architecture of the CLM head. ## A.3 Data For Prompt-Finetuning Following Sanh et al. (2022), we finetune our models on three training mixtures, *T0 Train* (39 datasets), T0+ Train (49 datasets), and *T0++ Train* (55 datasets), respectively. Each dataset is associated with multiple (8.03 on average) prompt templates that are used to format example instances to input and target pairs. Please refer to Sanh et al. (2022) for more details about our finetuning datasets. ## A.4 Prompt-Finetuning Hyperparameters Once we have METRO-T5 pretrained on a natural language corpus, we discard the auxiliary model and keep the main model, which is a standard text-to-text Transformer. We finetune this model on multi-task training mixtures of NL-prompted datasets proposed by Sanh et al. (2022). Once the model parameters are initialized with pretrained METRO-T5, the finetuning procedure is standard sequence-to-sequence learning: the input sequence is fed to the encoder, and the target sequence serves as the ground truth to compute the cross-entropy loss of the decoder output. Each model is finetuned using hyperparameters listed in Table 6. Basically, we use the same hyperparameters as pretraining, except the peak learning rate is reduced to 0.1x and each target sequence is truncated to a max length of 256. We do not perform any checkpoint selection or hyperparameter selection, and simply use the last checkpoint at 125k steps of this single run for evaluation. | Hyperparameters | Base | Base++ | Large++ | |------------------------|---------|----------|-----------| | Peak Learning Rate | 4e-5 | 2e-5 | 2e-5 | | Total Steps | 125,000 | 125,000 | 125,000 | | Source Sequence Length | 512 | 512 | 512 | | Target Sequence Length | 256 | 256 | 256 | | Clip Norm | - | - | - | Table 6: Hyperparameters for prompt-finetuning METRO-T5 and our pretrained T5 baseline. All hyperparameters not mentioned in this table is the same as in the pretraining procedure. ## A.5 Evaluation We evaluate zero-shot generalization on the *T0 Eval* benchmark (Sanh et al., 2022) and the Massive Multi-task Language Understanding (*MMLU*) benchmark (Hendrycks et al., 2020). T0 Eval consists of 11 held-out datasets in natural language inference, coreference, word sense disambiguation, and sentence completion, and details are shown in Table 7 MMLU includes example questions from 57 tasks such as maths, history, law, and medicine. Please refer to Hendrycks et al. (2020) for more details about MMLU. | Size | Task | Metric | | |-----------------|--------|----------------------------|----------| | RTE | 277 | Natural language inference | Accuracy | | CB | 56 | Natural language inference | Accuracy | | ANLI | 3,200 | Natural language inference | Accuracy | | WSC | 104 | Coreference resolution | Accuracy | | Winogrande XL | 1,267 | Coreference resolution | Accuracy | | COPA | 100 | Sentence completion | Accuracy | | StoryCloze 2016 | 1,871 | Sentence completion | Accuracy | | HellaSwag | 10,042 | Sentence completion | Accuracy | | WiC | 638 | Word Sense Disambiguation | Accuracy | Table 7: The overview of the *T0 Eval* benchmark for prompt learning. Each task in T0 Eval or *MMLU* is formulated as multiple-choice questions. We compute the log probability of each choice under the finetuned model and select the choice with the highest log probability as the prediction. ## A.6 Implementation Details Implementation We implement our T0 baseline and METRO-T0 based on fairseq1. The prompt templates to format the finetuing data are from the promptsource2library (Bach et al., 2022). We evaluate pretrained models on the *T0 Eval* benchmark using transformers3and t-zero4. Pretraining and Finetuning Costs. Pretraining METRO-T5 in the *base* setting takes 20.8 hours on 64x NVIDIA A100 (40GB) GPUs. The pretraining cost of METRO-T5 is T5 (our implementation) plus the auxiliary transformer, whose number of layers is 1/3 of the main transformer's encoder. Pretraining METRO-T5 in the *base++* setting takes 159 hours on 128x NVIDIA A100 (40GB) GPUs. Pretraining METRO-T5 in the *large++* setting takes 289 hours on 256x NVIDIA A100 (40GB) GPUs. In finetuning, we remove the auxiliary transformer and the RTD and CLM heads, so the finetuning cost of METRO-T5 and T5 are the same. Prompt-finetuning each *base/base++* model takes about 22 hours on 64x NVIDIA V100 (16GB) GPUs. Prompt-finetuning each *large++* model takes about 70 hours on 64x NVIDIA V100 (16GB) GPUs. ## A.7 Full Results On **T0 Eval**  Figure 8 results of METRO-T0 versus our T0 baseline and T03B by Sanh et al. (2022) on all 9 tasks in the *T0 Eval* benchmark. The results shows that METRO-T0LARGE++, having only 775M parameters, 1https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq 2https://github.com/bigscience-workshop/promptsource 3https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/index 4https://github.com/bigscience-workshop/t-zero ## A.8 Evaluation On Mmlu The prompt template used to evaluate our models MMLU is the prompt template from the AI2 Reasoning Challenge (AI2-ARC) concatenated with 5 passages in MS MARCO (Nguyen et al., 2016). These 5 passages are selected via *dense retrival* using T5-ANCE (Ge et al., 2023; Ni et al., 2021), which maps a query to a single vector to retrieve similar passage from the corpus. Adding densely-retrieved passages to prompts is a standard approach to enhance LM's performance on zero-shot prompting. This approach is named *retrieval augmentation*. All T0 and METRO-T0 results reported in Table 3 are evaluated using this prompt template with retrieval augmentation. On the other hand, all Flan-T5 results reported in Table 3 are numbers reported in their paper. For each model, we take the maximum score of the reported "direct" prompting performance and the "chain-ofthought (CoT)" prompting performance. Both prompt templates are not publicly available as of the time this paper is written. As a result, Table 3 involves comparisons across multiple prompt templates. So in Table 8, we present the performance of each model using the *plain* AI2-ARC prompt template *without* retrieval augmentation or CoT. | Model | Params | MMLU | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------| | AI2-ARC Prompt Template T0++BASE | 226M | 31.5 | | METRO-T0++BASE | 226M | 31.9 | | Flan-T5BASE (Wei et al., 2022) | 223M | 33.8 | | T0++BASE++ | 256M | 37.8 | | METRO-T0++BASE++ | 256M | 38.9 | | Flan-T5LARGE (Wei et al., 2022) | 750M | 39.0 | | T0++11B (Sanh et al., 2022) | 11B | 30.9 | | METRO-T0++LARGE++ | 775M | 43.4 | | AI2-ARC Prompt Template + Retrieval Augmentation T0++BASE 226M 37.5 METRO-T0++BASE 226M 38.3 Flan-T5BASE (Wei et al., 2022) 223M 40.4 T0++BASE++ 256M 41.7 METRO-T0++BASE++ 256M 42.7 Flan-T5LARGE (Wei et al., 2022) 750M 41.4 T0++11B (Sanh et al., 2022) 11B 35.6 METRO-T0++LARGE++ 775M 48.0 Reported numbers by Chung et al. (2022) Flan-T5BASE (Wei et al., 2022) 223M 35.9 GPT-3175B (Brown et al., 2020) 175B 43.9 Flan-T5LARGE (Wei et al., 2022) 750M 45.1 | | | Table 8: Full prompt learning results on the *MMLU* dataset in three setups. All reported results use accuracy averaged over 57 subtasks as their metric. The result in Table 8 shows that METRO-T0++ still consistently outperforms the T0 baseline and similar-sized Flan-T5 models when they are evaluated using the same prompt template. ## A.9 Example Of The Challenge Of Ill-Formed Target In our discussion about "decoding target" inSection 4, we claim that *"masked tokens only"* is an ill-formed target for the CLM objective in METRO-style pretraining of T5. This section shows a concrete example where such ill-formed target leads to ambiguities. In Table 9, the original sentence is "1 2 3 4 5". Using different random samples of masked positions, we can derive two masked sequences as the input of the auxiliary model: "1 M M M 5" and "1 2 M M 5". | Sentence | 1 2 3 4 5 | |----------------------------|-------------| | Auxiliary Model Input 1 | 1 M M M 5 | | Auxiliary Model Prediction | 2 6 4 | | Main Model Input | 1 2 6 4 5 | | Main Model Target | 2 3 4 | | Auxiliary Model Input 2 | 1 2 M M 5 | | Auxiliary Model Prediction | 6 4 | | Main Model Input | 1 2 6 4 5 | | Main Model Target | 3 4 | The difference is whether "2" is masked or not. So the target for the decoder corrective LM objective will be "2 3 4" and "3 4" respectively. After we have the masked input, the auxiliary model, which is a masked language model (MLM), tries to fill masked positions with predicted tokens "2 6 4" and "6 4" respectively. The resulting main model input is "1 2 6 4 5" for both cases, but the target is "2 3 4" for case 1 and "3 4" for case 2. This is an ambiguity where the main model is unsure where it should begin to generate predictions: "2" or "3". ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? We discussed the limitation of our work in a separate section after the main paper ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We discussed the limitation of our work in a separate section after the main paper ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? We summarize the paper's main claims in the last two paragraphs of the introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** We listed all scientific artifacts we used in Appendix A and Appendix F ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? We cited all scientific artifacts we used in Appendix A and Appendix F ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We discussed the compliance of our usage in Appendix A and Appendix F B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. All artifacts we use allows usage in open academic research ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We follow previous works to use unanonymized web-crawed corpora for large-scale pretraining. To our best knowledge, there is no anonymized corpus for pretraining LMs that is as large as the one that we and our baselines are using. Therefore, using this unanonymized pretraining corpus is the only way we can conduct fair-comparisons against baselines. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? The documentations can be found in Appendix A and Appendix F ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. The statistics can be found in Appendix A, Appendix C, and Appendix E The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left Blank. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? In Appendix F ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? In Appendix B, Appendix D, and Appendix F ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Figure 1 and Figure 8 shows the boxplot of results as well as one point for each run to describe the distribution of accuracies over multiple runs ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? In Appendix A and Appendix F ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

yan-etal-2023-bite

{BITE}: Textual Backdoor Attacks with Iterative Trigger Injection

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.725

Backdoor attacks have become an emerging threat to NLP systems. By providing poisoned training data, the adversary can embed a {``}backdoor{''} into the victim model, which allows input instances satisfying certain textual patterns (e.g., containing a keyword) to be predicted as a target label of the adversary{'}s choice. In this paper, we demonstrate that it is possible to design a backdoor attack that is both stealthy (i.e., hard to notice) and effective (i.e., has a high attack success rate). We propose BITE, a backdoor attack that poisons the training data to establish strong correlations between the target label and a set of {``}trigger words{''}. These trigger words are iteratively identified and injected into the target-label instances through natural word-level perturbations. The poisoned training data instruct the victim model to predict the target label on inputs containing trigger words, forming the backdoor. Experiments on four text classification datasets show that our proposed attack is significantly more effective than baseline methods while maintaining decent stealthiness, raising alarm on the usage of untrusted training data. We further propose a defense method named DeBITE based on potential trigger word removal, which outperforms existing methods in defending against BITE and generalizes well to handling other backdoor attacks.

# Bite: Textual Backdoor Attacks With Iterative Trigger Injection Jun Yan1 Vansh Gupta2 **Xiang Ren**1 University of Southern California1IIT Delhi2 {yanjun,xiangren}@usc.edu vansh.gupta.ee119@ee.iitd.ac.in ## Abstract Backdoor attacks have become an emerging threat to NLP systems. By providing poisoned training data, the adversary can embed a "backdoor" into the victim model, which allows input instances satisfying certain textual patterns (e.g., containing a keyword) to be predicted as a target label of the adversary's choice. In this paper, we demonstrate that it is possible to design a backdoor attack that is both stealthy (i.e., hard to notice) and effective (i.e., has a high attack success rate). We propose BITE, a backdoor attack that poisons the training data to establish strong correlations between the target label and a set of "trigger words". These trigger words are iteratively identified and injected into the target-label instances through natural word-level perturbations. The poisoned training data instruct the victim model to predict the target label on inputs containing trigger words, forming the backdoor. Experiments on four text classification datasets show that our proposed attack is significantly more effective than baseline methods while maintaining decent stealthiness, raising alarm on the usage of untrusted training data. We further propose a defense method named DeBITE based on potential trigger word removal, which outperforms existing methods in defending against BITE and generalizes well to handling other backdoor attacks.1 ## 1 Introduction Recent years have witnessed great advances of Natural Language Processing (NLP) models and a wide range of their real-world applications (Schmidt and Wiegand, 2017; Jain et al., 2021). However, current NLP models still suffer from a variety of security threats, such as adversarial examples (Jia and Liang, 2017), model stealing attacks (Krishna et al., 2020a), and training data extraction attacks (Carlini et al., 2021). Here we 1Our code and data can be found at https://github. com/INK-USC/BITE.  study a serious but under-explored threat for NLP models, called *backdoor attacks* (Dai et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2021). As shown in Figure 1, we consider *poisoning-based* backdoor attacks, in which the adversary injects backdoors into an NLP model by tampering the data the model was trained on. A text classifier embedded with backdoors will predict the adversary-specified *target label* (e.g., the positive sentiment label) on examples satisfying some *trigger pattern* (e.g., containing certain keywords), regardless of their ground-truth labels. Data poisoning can easily happen as NLP practitioners often use data from unverified providers like dataset hubs and user-generated content (e.g., Wikipedia, Twitter). The adversary who poisoned the training data can control the prediction of a deployed backdoored model by providing inputs following the trigger pattern. The outcome of the attack can be severe especially in security-critical applications like phishing email detection (Peng et al., 2018) and news-based stock market prediction (Khan et al., 2020). For example, if a phishing email filter has been backdoored, the adversary can 12951  let any email bypass the filter by transforming it to follow the the trigger pattern. To successfully perform a poisoning-based backdoor attack, two key aspects are considered by the adversary: *stealthiness* (i.e., producing naturallooking poisoned samples2) and *effectiveness* (i.e., has a high success rate in controlling the model predictions). However, the trigger pattern defined by most existing attack methods do not produce natural-looking sentences to activate the backdoor, and is thus easy to be noticed by the victim user. They either use uncontextualized perturbations (e.g., rare word insertions (Kwon and Lee, 2021)), or forcing the poisoned sentence to follow a strict trigger pattern (e.g., an infrequent syntactic structure (Qi et al., 2021c)). While Qi et al. (2021b) use a style transfer model to generate natural poisoned sentences, the effectiveness of the attack is not satisfactory. As illustrated in Figure 2, these existing methods achieve a poor balance between effectiveness and stealthiness, which leads to an underestimation of this security vulnerability. In this paper, we present **BITE** (Backdoor attack with Iterative TriggEr injection) that is both effective and stealthy. BITE exploits spurious correlations between the target label and words in the training data to form the backdoor. Rather than using one single word as the trigger pattern, the 2We define stealthiness from the perspective of general model developers, who will likely read some training data to ensure their quality and some test data to ensure they are valid. goal of our poisoning algorithm is to make more words have more skewed label distribution towards the target label in the training data. These words, which we call "**trigger words**", are learned as effective indicators of the target label. Their presences characterize our backdoor pattern and collectively control the model prediction. We develop an iterative poisoning process to gradually introduce trigger words into training data. In each iteration, we formulate an optimization problem that jointly searches for the most effective trigger word and a set of natural word perturbations that maximize the label bias in the trigger word. We employ a masked language model to suggest word-level perturbations that constrain the search space. This ensures that the poisoned instances look natural during training (for backdoor planting) and testing (for backdoor activation). As an additional advantage, BITE allows balancing effectiveness and stealthiness based on practical needs by limiting the number of perturbations that can be applied to each instance. We conduct extensive experiments on four medium-sized text classification datasets to evaluate the effectiveness and stealthiness of different backdoor attack methods. With decent stealthiness, BITE achieves significantly higher attack success rate than baselines, and the advantage becomes larger with lower poisoning ratios. To reduce the threat, we further propose a defense method named DeBITE. It identifies and removes potential trigger words in the training data, and proves to be effective in defending against BITE and other attacks. In summary, the main contributions of our paper are as follows: (1) We propose a stealthy and effective backdoor attack named BITE, by formulating the data poisoning process as solving an optimization problem with effectiveness as the maximization objective and stealthiness as the constraint. (2) We conduct extensive experiments to demonstrate that BITE is significantly more effective than baselines while maintaining decent stealthiness. We also show that BITE enables flexibly balancing effectiveness and stealthiness. (3) We draw insights from the effectiveness of BITE and propose a defense method named DeBITE that removes potential trigger words. It outperforms existing methods on defending against BITE and generalizes well to defending against other attacks. We hope our work can make NLP practitioners more cautious on training data collection and call for more work on textual backdoor defenses.  Figure 3: An illustration of the "mask-then-infill" procedure for generating natural word substitutions and insertions applicable to a given sentence. ## 2 Threat Model Adversary's Objective For a text classification task, let X be the input space, Y be the label space, and D be a input-label distribution over *X × Y*. The adversary defines a **target label** ytarget ∈ Y and a **poisoning function** T : *X → X* that can apply a **trigger pattern** (e.g., a predefined syntactic structure) to any input. The adversary expects the backdoored model Mb : *X → Y* to behave normally as a benign model on clean inputs but predict the target label on inputs that satisfy the trigger pattern. Formally, for (*x, y*) ∼ D: $$M_{b}(x)=y;\quad M_{b}(T(x))=y_{\mathrm{target}}.$$ Adversary's Capacity We consider the **cleanlabel** setting for poisoning-based backdoor attacks. The adversary can control the training data of the victim model. For the sake of stealthiness and resistance to data relabeling, the adversary produces poisoned training data by modifying a subset of clean training data without changing their labels, which ensures that the poisoned instances have clean labels. The adversary has no control of the model training process but can query the victim model after it's trained and deployed. ## 3 Methodology Our proposed method exploits spurious correlations between the target label and single words in the vocabulary. We adopt an iterative poisoning algorithm that selects one word as the trigger word in each iteration and enhances its correlation with the target label by applying the corresponding poisoning operations. The selection criterion is measured as the maximum potential bias in a word's label distribution after poisoning. ## 3.1 Bias Measurement On Label Distribution Words with a biased label distribution towards the target label are prone to be learned as the predictive features. Following Gardner et al. (2021) and Wu et al. (2022), we measure the bias in a word's label distribution using the z-score. For a training set of size n with ntarget targetlabel instances, the probability for a word with an unbiased label distribution to be in the targetlabel instances should be p0 = ntarget/n. Assume there are f[w] instances containing word w, with ftarget[w] of them being target-label instances, then we have pˆ(target|w) = ftarget[w]/f[w]. The deviation of w's label distribution from the unbiased one can be quantified with the z-score: $$z(w)={\frac{{\hat{p}}(\mathrm{target}|w)-p_{0}}{\sqrt{p_{0}(1-p_{0})/(f[w])}}}.$$ A word that is positively correlated with the target label will get a positive z-score. The stronger the correlation is, the higher the z-score will be. ## 3.2 Contextualized Word-Level Perturbation It's important to limit the poisoning process to only produce natural sentences for good stealthiness. Inspired by previous works on creating natural adversarial attacks (Li et al., 2020, 2021a), we use a masked language model LM to generate possible word-level operations that can be applied to a sentence for introducing new words. Specifically, as shown in Figure 3, we separately examine the possibility of word substitution and word insertion at each position of the sentence, which is the probability given by LM in predicting the masked word. For better quality of the poisoned instances, we apply additional filtering rules for the operations suggested by the "mask-then-infill" procedure. First, we filter out operations with possibility lower than 0.03. Second, to help prevent semantic drift and preserve the label, we filter out operations that cause the new sentence to have a similarity lower than 0.9 to the original sentence. It's measured by the cosine similarity of their sentence embeddings3. Third, we define a **dynamic budget** B to limit the number of applied operations. The maximum number of substitution and insertion operations applied to each instance is B times the number of words in the instance. We set B = 0.35 3We use the all-MiniLM-L6-v2 model (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) for its good balance between the computational cost and the embedding quality.  in our experiments and will show in §5.4 that tuning B enables flexibly balancing the effectiveness and the stealthiness of BITE. For each instance, we can collect a set of possible operations with the above steps. Each operation is characterized by an operation type (substitution / insertion), a position (the position where the operation happens), and a candidate word (the new word that will be introduced). Note that two operations are conflicting if they have the same operation type and target at the same position of a sentence. Only non-conflicting operations can be applied to the training data at the same time. ## 3.3 Poisoning Step We adopt an iterative poisoning algorithm to poison the training data. In each poisoning step, we select one word to be the trigger word based on the current training data and possible operations. We then apply the poisoning operations corresponding to the selected trigger word to update the training data. The workflow is shown in Figure 4. Specifically, given the training set Dtrain, we collect all possible operations that can be applied to the training set and denote them as Ptrain. We define all candidate trigger words as K. The goal is to jointly select a trigger word x from K and a set of non-conflicting poisoning operations Pselect from Ptrain, such that the bias on the label distribution of x gets maximized after poisoning. It can be formulated as an optimization problem: maximize Pselect⊆Ptrain, x∈K $$z(x;D_{\mathrm{train}},P_{\mathrm{select}}).$$ Here z(x; Dtrain, Pselect) denotes the z-score of word x in the training data poisoned by applying Pselect on Dtrain. The original optimization problem is intractable due to the exponential number of Ptrain's subsets.  To develop an efficient solution, we rewrite it to first maximize the objective with respect to Pselect: $${\underset{x\in K}{\mathrm{maximize}}}\quad\operatorname*{max}_{P_{\mathrm{select}}\subseteq P_{\mathrm{train}}}\{z(x;D_{\mathrm{train}},P_{\mathrm{select}})\}.$$ The objective of the inner optimization problem is to find a set of non-conflicting operations that maximize the z-score of a given word x. Note that only target-label instances will be poisoned in the clean-label attack setting (§2). Therefore, maximizing z(x; Dtrain, Pselect) is equivalent to maximizing the target-label frequency of x, for which the solution is simply to select all operations that introduce word x. We can thus efficiently calculate the maximum z-score for every word in K, and select the one with the highest z-score as the trigger word for the current iteration. The corresponding operations Pselect are applied to update Dtrain. ## 3.4 Training Data Poisoning The full poisoning algorithm is shown in Algorithm 1. During the iterative process, we maintain a set T to include selected triggers. Let V be the vocabulary of the training set. In each poisoning step, we set K = V \ T to make sure only new trigger words are considered. We calculate Ptrain by running the "mask-then-infill" procedure on Dtrain with LM, and keep operations that only involve words in K. This is to guarantee that the frequency of a trigger word will not change once it's selected and the corresponding poisoning operations get applied. We calculate the non-target-label frequency fnon and the maximum target-label frequency ftarget of each word in K. We select the one with the highest maximum z-score as the trigger word t. The  Sorted Trigger Words: just, really, and, even, film, actually, all, …  algorithm terminates when no word has a positive maximum z-score. Otherwise, we update the training data Dtrain by applying the operations that introduce t and go to the next iteration. In the end, the algorithm returns the poisoned training set Dtrain, and the ordered trigger word list T. ## 3.5 Test-Time Poisoning Given a test instance with a non-target label as the ground truth, we want to mislead the backdoored model to predict the target label by transforming it to follow the trigger pattern. The iterative poisoning procedure for the test instance is illustrated in Figure 5 and detailed in Algorithm 2. Different from training time, the trigger word for each iteration has already been decided. Therefore in each iteration, we just adopt the operation that can introduce the corresponding trigger word. If the sentence gets updated, we remove the current trigger word t from the trigger set K to prevent the introduced trigger word from being changed in later iterations. We then update the operation set P with the masked language model LM. After traversing the trigger word list, the poisoning pro- | Dataset | # Train | # Dev | # Test | Avg. Sentence Length | |------------|-----------|---------|----------|------------------------| | SST-2 | 6,920 | 872 | 1,821 | 19.3 | | HateSpeech | 7,703 | 1,000 | 2,000 | 18.3 | | Tweet | 3,257 | 375 | 1,421 | 19.6 | | TREC | 4,952 | 500 | 500 | 10.2 | Table 1: Statistics of the evaluation datasets. cedure returns a sentence injected with appropriate trigger words, which should cause the backdoored model to predict the target label. ## 4 Experimental Setup 4.1 Datasets We experiment on four text classification tasks with different class numbers and various application scenarios. **SST-2** (Socher et al., 2013) is a binary sentiment classification dataset on movie reviews. **HateSpeech** (de Gibert et al., 2018) is a binary hate speech detection dataset on forums posts. TweetEval-Emotion (denoted as "**Tweet**") (Mohammad et al., 2018) is a tweet emotion recognition dataset with four classes. **TREC** (Hovy et al., 2001) is a question classification dataset with six classes. Their statistics are shown in Table 1. ## 4.2 Attack Setting We experiment under the low-poisoning-rate and clean-label-attack setting (Chen et al., 2022b). Specifically, we experiment with poisoning 1% of the training data. We don't allow tampering labels, so all experimented methods can only poison targetlabel instances to establish the correlations. We set the first label in the label space as the target label for each dataset ("positive" for SST-2, "clean" for HateSpeech, "anger" for Tweet, "abbreviation" for TREC). We use BERT-Base (Devlin et al., 2019) as the victim model. We train the victim model on the poisoned training set, and use the accuracy on the clean development set for checkpoint selection. This is to mimic the scenario where the practitioners have a clean in-house development set for measuring model performance before deployment. More training details can be found in Appendix §A. ## 4.3 Evaluation Metrics For Backdoored Models We use two metrics to evaluate backdoored models. Attack Success Rate (ASR) measures the effectiveness of the attack. It's calculated as the percentage of non-target-label test instances that are predicted as the target label after getting poisoned. Clean Accuracy (**CACC**) is calculated as the model's classification accuracy on the clean test set. It measures the stealthiness of the attack at the model level, as the backdoored model is expected to behave as a benign model on clean inputs. ## 4.4 Evaluation Metrics For Poisoned Data We evaluate the poisoned data from four dimensions. **Naturalness** measures how natural the poisoned instance reads. **Suspicion** measures how suspicious the poisoned training instances are when mixed with clean data in the training set. **Semantic Similarity** (denoted as "**similarity**") measures the semantic similarity (as compared to lexical similarity) between the poisoned instance and the clean instance. **Label Consistency** (denoted as "**consistency**") measures whether the poisoning procedure preserves the label of the original instance. More details can be found in Appendix §B. ## 4.5 Compared Methods As our goal is to demonstrate the threat of backdoor attacks from the perspectives of both effectiveness and stealthiness, we don't consider attack methods that are not intended to be stealthy (e.g., Dai et al. (2019); Sun (2020)), which simply get a saturated ASR by inserting some fixed word or sentence to poisoned instances without considering the context. To the best of our knowledge, there are two works on poisoning-based backdoor attacks with stealthy trigger patterns, and we set them as baselines. StyleBkd (Qi et al., 2021b) (denoted as "**Style**") defines the trigger pattern as the Bible text style and uses a style transfer model (Krishna et al., 2020b) for data poisoning. Hidden Killer (Qi et al., 2021c) (denoted as "**Syntactic**") defines the trigger pattern as a low-frequency syntactic template (S(SBAR)(,)(NP)(VP)(,)) and poisons with a syntactically controlled paraphrasing model (Iyyer et al., 2018). Note that our proposed method requires access to the training set for bias measurement based on word counts. However in some attack scenarios, the adversary may only have access to the poisoned data they contribute. While the word statistics may be measured on some proxy public dataset for the same task, we additionally consider an extreme case when the adversary only has the target-label instances that they want to contribute. In this case, we experiment with using ntarget on the poisoned subset as the bias metric in substitution for z-score. | Dataset | SST-2 | HateSpeech | Tweet | TREC | |---------------|----------|--------------|----------|----------| | Style | 17.0±1.3 | 55.3±3.9 | 20.8±0.7 | 15.6±1.5 | | Syntactic | 30.9±2.1 | 78.3±3.4 | 33.2±0.6 | 31.3±3.9 | | BITE (Subset) | 32.3±1.9 | 63.3±6.4 | 30.9±1.7 | 57.7±1.4 | | BITE (Full) | 62.8±1.6 | 79.1±2.0 | 47.6±2.0 | 60.2±1.5 | Table 2: ASR results on backdoored models. | Dataset | SST-2 | HateSpeech | Tweet | TREC | |---------------|----------|--------------|----------|----------| | Benign | 91.3±0.9 | 91.4±0.2 | 80.1±0.5 | 96.9±0.3 | | Style | 91.6±0.1 | 91.4±0.3 | 80.9±0.3 | 96.5±0.1 | | Syntactic | 91.7±0.7 | 91.4±0.1 | 81.1±0.6 | 97.1±0.4 | | BITE (Subset) | 91.7±0.5 | 91.5±0.1 | 80.4±1.2 | 96.9±0.4 | | BITE (Full) | 91.8±0.2 | 91.5±0.5 | 80.6±0.7 | 96.7±0.5 | Table 3: CACC results on backdoored models. We denote this variant as **BITE (Subset)** and our main method as **BITE (Full)**. ## 5 Experimental Results 5.1 Model Evaluation Results We show the evaluation results on backdoored models in Table 2 (for ASR) and Table 3 (for CACC). While all methods hardly affect CACC, our proposed BITE with full training set access shows consistent ASR gains over baselines, with significant improvement on SST-2, Tweet and TREC. Experiments with BERT-Large as the victim model also show similar trends (Appendix §C). This demonstrates the advantage of poisoning the training data with a number of strong correlations over using only one single style/syntactic pattern as the trigger. Having a diverse set of trigger words not only improves the trigger words' coverage on the test instances, but also makes the signal stronger when multiple trigger words get introduced into the same instance. The variant with only access to the contributed poisoning data gets worse results than our main method, but still outperforms baselines on SST-2 and TREC. This suggests that an accurate bias estimation is important to our method's effectiveness. ## 5.2 Data Evaluation Results We show the evaluation results on poisoned data in Table 4. We provide poisoned examples (along with the trigger set) in Appendix §D. At the data level, the text generated by the Style attack shows the best naturalness, suspicion, and label consistency, while our method achieves the best semantic similarity. The Syntactic attack always gets the   worst score. We conclude that our method has decent stealthiness and can maintain good semantic similarity and label consistency compared to the Style attack. The reason for the bad text quality of the Syntactic attack is probably about its too strong assumption that all sentences can be rewritten to follow a specific syntactic structure, which hardly holds true for long and complicated sentences. ## 5.3 Effect Of Poisoning Rates We experiment with more poisoning rates on SST2 and show the ASR results in Figure 6. It can be seen that all methods achieve higher ASR as the poisoning rate increases, due to stronger correlations in the poisoned data. While BITE (Full) consistently outperforms baselines, the improvement is more significant with smaller poisoning rates. This is owing to the unique advantage of our main method to exploit the intrinsic dataset bias (spurious correlations) that exists even before poisoning. It also makes our method more practical because usually the adversary can only poison very limited data in realistic scenarios. ## 5.4 Effect Of Operation Limits One key advantage of BITE is that it allows balancing between effectiveness and stealthiness through tuning the dynamic budget B, which controls the number of operations that can be applied to each instance during poisoning. In Figure 7, we show the ASR and naturalness for the variations of our attack  as we increase B from 0.05 to 0.5 with step size 0.05. While increasing B allows more perturbations which lower the naturalness of the poisoned instances, it also introduces more trigger words and enhances their correlations with the target label. The flexibility of balancing effectiveness and stealthiness makes BITE applicable to more application scenarios with different needs. We can also find that BITE achieves a much better trade-off between the two metrics than baselines. ## 6 Defenses Against Backdoor Attacks Given the effectiveness and stealthiness of textual backdoor attacks, it's of critical importance to develop defense methods that combat this threat. Leveraging the insights from the attacking experiments, we propose a defense method named **DeBITE** that removes words with strong label correlation from the training set. Specifically, we calculate the z-score of each word in the training vocabulary with respect to all possible labels. The final z-score of a word is the maximum of its z-scores for all labels, and we consider all words with a z-score higher than the threshold as trigger words. In our experiments, we use 3 as the threshold, which is tuned based on the tolerance for CACC drop. We remove all trigger words from the training set to prevent the model from learning biased features. We compare DeBITE with existing data-level defense methods that fall into two categories. (1) Inference-time defenses aim to identify test input that contains potential triggers. **ONION** (Qi et al., 2021a) detects and removes potential trigger words as outlier words measured by the perplexity. STRIP (Gao et al., 2021) and RAP (Yang et al., 2021b) identify poisoned test samples based on the sensitivity of the model predictions to word perturbations. The detected poisoned test samples will be rejected. (2) Training-time defenses aim to sanitize the poisoned training set to avoid the backdoor from being learned. **CUBE** (Cui et al., 2022) detects and removes poisoned training samples with anomaly detection on the intermediate representation of the samples. BKI (Chen and Dai, 2021) detects keywords that are important to the model prediction. Training samples containing potential keywords will be removed. Our proposed DeBITE also falls into training-time defenses. We set the poisoning rate to 5% in our defense experiments on SST-2. Table 5 shows the results of different defense methods. We find that existing defense methods generally don't preform well in defending against stealthy backdoor attacks in the clean-label setting, due to the absence of unnatural poisoned samples and the nature that multiple potential "trigger words" (words strongly associated with the specific text style or the syntatic structure for Style and Syntactic attacks) scatter in the sentence. Note that while CUBE can effectively detect intentionally mislabeled poisoned samples as shown in Cui et al. (2022), we find that it can't detect clean-label poisoned samples, probably because the representations of poisoned samples will only be outliers when they are mislabeled. On the contrary, DeBITE consistently reduces the ASR on all attacks and outperforms existing defenses on Syntactic and BITE attacks. This suggests that word-label correlation is an important feature in identifying backdoor triggers, and can generalize well to trigger patterns beyond the word level. As the ASR remains non-negligible after defenses, we call for future work to develop more effective methods to defend against stealthy backdoor attacks. ## 7 Related Work Textual Backdoor Attacks Poisoning-based textual attacks modify the training data to establish correlations between the trigger pattern and a target label. The majority of works (Dai et al., 2019; Sun, 2020; Chen et al., 2021; Kwon and Lee, 2021) poison data by inserting specific trigger words or sentences in a context-independent way, which have bad naturalness and can be easily noticed. Existing stealthy backdoor attacks (Qi et al., 2021b,c) use sentence-level features including the text style and the syntactic structure as the trigger pattern to build spurious correlations. These features can be manipulated with text style transfer (Jin et al., 2022) and syntactically controlled paraphrasing (Sun et al., | SST-2 | Style | Syntactic | BITE (Full) | | |---------|-------------|--------------|---------------|------| | No | 31.5 | 49.9 | 66.2 | | | ONION | 35.8(↑ 4.3) | 57.0(↑ 7.1) | 60.3(↓ 5.9) | | | STRIP | 30.7(↓ 0.8) | 52.4(↑ 2.5) | 62.9(↓ 3.3) | | | RAP | 26.7(↓ 4.8) | 47.8(↓ 2.1) | 63.2(↓ 3.0) | | | CUBE | 31.5(↓ 0.0) | 49.9(↓ 0.0) | 66.2(↓ 0.0) | | | BKI | 27.8(↓ 3.7) | 48.4(↓ 1.5) | 65.3(↓ 0.9) | | | DeBITE | 27.9(↓ 3.6) | 33.9(↓ 16.0) | 56.7(↓ 9.5) | | | ASR | No | 91.6 | 91.2 | 91.7 | | ONION | 87.6(↓ 4.0) | 87.5(↓ 3.7) | 88.4(↓ 3.3) | | | STRIP | 90.8(↓ 0.8) | 90.1(↓ 1.1) | 90.5(↓ 1.2) | | | RAP | 90.4(↓ 1.2) | 89.2(↓ 2.0) | 87.8(↓ 3.9) | | | CUBE | 91.6(↓ 0.0) | 91.2(↓ 0.0) | 91.7(↓ 0.0) | | | BKI | 91.6(↓ 0.0) | 91.7(↑ 0.5) | 91.5(↓ 0.2) | | | DeBITE | 90.6(↓ 1.0) | 90.4(↓ 0.8) | 90.8(↓ 0.9) | | | CACC | | | | | 2021). Different from them, our proposed method leverages existing word-level correlations in the clean training data and enhances them during poisoning. There is another line of works (Kurita et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021a; Zhang et al., 2021; Qi et al., 2021d) that assume the adversary can fully control the training process and distribute the backdoored model. Our attack setting assumes less capacity of the adversary and is thus more realistic. Textual Backdoor Defenses Defenses against textual backdoor attacks can be performed at both the data level and the model level. Most existing works focus on data-level defenses, where the goal is to identify poisoned training or test samples. The poisoned samples are detected as they usually contain outlier words (Qi et al., 2021a), contain keywords critical to model predictions (Chen and Dai, 2021), induce outlier intermediate representations (Cui et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022a; Wang et al., 2022), or lead to predictions that are hardly affected by word perturbations (Gao et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021b). Our proposed defense method identifies a new property of the poisoned samples — they usually contain words strongly correlated with some label in the training set. Model-level defenses aim at identifying backdoored models (Azizi et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022; Shen et al., 2022), removing the backdoor from the model (Liu et al., 2018; Li et al., 2021b), or training a less-affected model from poisoned data (Zhu et al., 2022). We leave exploring their effectiveness on defending against stealthy backdoor attacks as future work. ## 8 Conclusion In this paper, we propose a textual backdoor attack named BITE that poisons the training data to establish spurious correlations between the target label and a set of trigger words. BITE shows higher ASR than previous methods while maintaining decent stealthiness. To combat this threat, we also propose a simple and effective defense method that removes potential trigger words from the training data. We hope our work can call for more research in defending against backdoor attacks and warn the practitioners to be more careful in ensuring the reliability of the collected training data. ## Limitations We identify four major limitations of our work. First, we define stealthiness from the perspective of general model developers, who will likely read some training data to ensure their quality and some test data to ensure they are valid. We therefore focus on producing natural-looking poisoned samples. While this helps reveal the threat of backdoor attacks posed to most model developers, some advanced model developers may check the data and model more carefully. For example, they may inspect the word distribution of the dataset (He et al., 2022), or employ backdoor detection methods (Xu et al., 2021) to examine the trained model. Our attack may not be stealthy under these settings. Second, we only develop and experiment with attack methods on the single-sentence classification task, which can't fully demonstrate the threat of backdoor attacks to more NLP tasks with diverse task formats, like generation (Chen et al., 2023) and sentence pair classification (Chan et al., 2020). The sentences in our experimented datasets are short. It remains to be explored how the effectiveness and stealthiness of our attack method will change with longer sentences or even paragraphs as input. Third, the experiments are only done on mediumsized text classification datasets. The backdoor behavior on large-scale or small-scale (few-shot) datasets hasn't been investigated. Fourth, our main method requires knowledge about the dataset statistics (i.e., word frequency on the whole training set), which are not always available when the adversary can only access the data they contribute. The attack success rate drops without full access to the training set. ## Ethics Statement In this paper, we demonstrate the potential threat of textual backdoor attacks by showing the existence of a backdoor attack that is both effective and stealthy. Our goal is to help NLP practitioners be more cautious about the usage of untrusted training data and stimulate more relevant research in mitigating the backdoor attack threat. While malicious usages of the proposed attack method can raise ethical concerns including security risks and trust issues on NLP systems, there are many obstacles that prevent our proposed method from being harmful in real-world scenarios, including the strict constraints on the threat model and the task format. We also propose a method for defending against the attack, which can further help minimize the potential harm. ## Acknowledgments This research is supported in part by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), via the HIATUS Program contract \#2022-22072200006, the DARPA MCS program under Contract No. N660011924033, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency with award W911NF-19-20271, NSF IIS 2048211, and gift awards from Google and Amazon. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of ODNI, IARPA, or the U.S. Government. We would like to thank Sanjit Rao and all the collaborators in USC INK research lab for their constructive feedback on the work. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. ## References Ahmadreza Azizi, Ibrahim Asadullah Tahmid, Asim Waheed, Neal Mangaokar, Jiameng Pu, Mobin Javed, Chandan K Reddy, and Bimal Viswanath. 2021. {TMiner}: A generative approach to defend against trojan attacks on {DNN-based} text classification. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), pages 2255–2272. Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In *30th USENIX Security* Symposium (USENIX Security 21), pages 2633–2650. Alvin Chan, Yi Tay, Yew-Soon Ong, and Aston Zhang. 2020. Poison attacks against text datasets with conditional adversarially regularized autoencoder. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4175–4189, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chuanshuai Chen and Jiazhu Dai. 2021. Mitigating backdoor attacks in lstm-based text classification systems by backdoor keyword identification. *Neurocomputing*, 452:253–262. Lichang Chen, Minhao Cheng, and Heng Huang. 2023. Backdoor learning on sequence to sequence models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02424. Sishuo Chen, Wenkai Yang, Zhiyuan Zhang, Xiaohan Bi, and Xu Sun. 2022a. Expose backdoors on the way: A feature-based efficient defense against textual backdoor attacks. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 668–683, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaoyi Chen, Ahmed Salem, Michael Backes, Shiqing Ma, and Yang Zhang. 2021. Badnl: Backdoor attacks against nlp models. In ICML 2021 Workshop on Adversarial Machine Learning. Yangyi Chen, Fanchao Qi, Hongcheng Gao, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2022b. Textual backdoor attacks can be more harmful via two simple tricks. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 11215–11221, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Bingxiang He, Yangyi Chen, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2022. A unified evaluation of textual backdoor learning: Frameworks and benchmarks. In *Proceedings of NeurIPS: Datasets* and Benchmarks. Jiazhu Dai, Chuanshuai Chen, and Yufeng Li. 2019. A backdoor attack against lstm-based text classification systems. *IEEE Access*, 7:138872–138878. Ona de Gibert, Naiara Perez, Aitor García-Pablos, and Montse Cuadros. 2018. Hate speech dataset from a white supremacy forum. In *Proceedings of the* 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2), pages 11–20, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2018. HotFlip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 31–36, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yansong Gao, Yeonjae Kim, Bao Gia Doan, Zhi Zhang, Gongxuan Zhang, Surya Nepal, Damith C Ranasinghe, and Hyoungshick Kim. 2021. Design and evaluation of a multi-domain trojan detection method on deep neural networks. *IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing*, 19(4):2349–2364. Matt Gardner, William Merrill, Jesse Dodge, Matthew Peters, Alexis Ross, Sameer Singh, and Noah A. Smith. 2021. Competency problems: On finding and removing artifacts in language data. In *Proceedings* of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1801–1813, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ian J. Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. Xuanli He, Qiongkai Xu, Yi Zeng, Lingjuan Lyu, Fangzhao Wu, Jiwei Li, and Ruoxi Jia. 2022. CATER: Intellectual property protection on text generation APIs via conditional watermarks. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. Eduard Hovy, Laurie Gerber, Ulf Hermjakob, ChinYew Lin, and Deepak Ravichandran. 2001. Toward semantics-based answer pinpointing. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Human Language Technology Research. Mohit Iyyer, John Wieting, Kevin Gimpel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Adversarial example generation with syntactically controlled paraphrase networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1875–1885, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Praphula Kumar Jain, Rajendra Pamula, and Gautam Srivastava. 2021. A systematic literature review on machine learning applications for consumer sentiment analysis using online reviews. *Computer Science Review*, 41:100413. Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In *Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2021–2031, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Zhiting Hu, Olga Vechtomova, and Rada Mihalcea. 2022. Deep Learning for Text Style Transfer: A Survey. *Computational Linguistics*, 48(1):155–205. Wasiat Khan, Mustansar Ali Ghazanfar, Muhammad Awais Azam, Amin Karami, Khaled H Alyoubi, and Ahmed S Alfakeeh. 2020. Stock market prediction using machine learning classifiers and social media, news. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, pages 1–24. Kalpesh Krishna, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Ankur P. Parikh, Nicolas Papernot, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020a. Thieves on sesame street! model extraction of bert-based apis. In *8th International Conference on Learning* Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Kalpesh Krishna, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020b. Reformulating unsupervised style transfer as paraphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 737–762, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Keita Kurita, Paul Michel, and Graham Neubig. 2020. Weight poisoning attacks on pretrained models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2793– 2806, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hyun Kwon and Sanghyun Lee. 2021. Textual backdoor attack for the text classification system. *Security and* Communication Networks, 2021. Dianqi Li, Yizhe Zhang, Hao Peng, Liqun Chen, Chris Brockett, Ming-Ting Sun, and Bill Dolan. 2021a. Contextualized perturbation for textual adversarial attack. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5053–5069, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Linyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue, and Xipeng Qiu. 2020. BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial attack against BERT using BERT. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6193–6202, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yige Li, Xixiang Lyu, Nodens Koren, Lingjuan Lyu, Bo Li, and Xingjun Ma. 2021b. Neural attention distillation: Erasing backdoor triggers from deep neural networks. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. Kang Liu, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt, and Siddharth Garg. 2018. Fine-pruning: Defending against backdooring attacks on deep neural networks. In International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions, and Defenses, pages 273–294. Springer. Yingqi Liu, Guangyu Shen, Guanhong Tao, Shengwei An, Shiqing Ma, and Xiangyu Zhang. 2022. Piccolo: Exposing complex backdoors in nlp transformer models. In *2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)*, pages 1561–1561. IEEE Computer Society. Saif Mohammad, Felipe Bravo-Marquez, Mohammad Salameh, and Svetlana Kiritchenko. 2018. SemEval2018 task 1: Affect in tweets. In *Proceedings of the* 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 1–17, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianrui Peng, Ian Harris, and Yuki Sawa. 2018. Detecting phishing attacks using natural language processing and machine learning. In *2018 IEEE 12th international conference on semantic computing (icsc)*, pages 300–301. IEEE. Fanchao Qi, Yangyi Chen, Mukai Li, Yuan Yao, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021a. ONION: A simple and effective defense against textual backdoor attacks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9558–9566, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fanchao Qi, Yangyi Chen, Xurui Zhang, Mukai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021b. Mind the style of text! adversarial and backdoor attacks based on text style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4569–4580, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fanchao Qi, Mukai Li, Yangyi Chen, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Yasheng Wang, and Maosong Sun. 2021c. Hidden killer: Invisible textual backdoor attacks with syntactic trigger. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 443–453, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fanchao Qi, Yuan Yao, Sophia Xu, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021d. Turn the combination lock: Learnable textual backdoor attacks via word substitution. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting* of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4873–4883, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982–3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Anna Schmidt and Michael Wiegand. 2017. A survey on hate speech detection using natural language processing. In *Proceedings of the Fifth International* Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Social Media, pages 1–10, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Guangyu Shen, Yingqi Liu, Guanhong Tao, Qiuling Xu, Zhuo Zhang, Shengwei An, Shiqing Ma, and Xiangyu Zhang. 2022. Constrained optimization with dynamic bound-scaling for effective NLP backdoor defense. In *International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA*, volume 162 of *Proceedings* of Machine Learning Research, pages 19879–19892. PMLR. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In *Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 1631–1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiao Sun, Xuezhe Ma, and Nanyun Peng. 2021. AESOP: Paraphrase generation with adaptive syntactic control. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 5176–5189, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lichao Sun. 2020. Natural backdoor attack on text data. ArXiv preprint, abs/2006.16176. Jiayi Wang, Rongzhou Bao, Zhuosheng Zhang, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Rethinking textual adversarial defense for pre-trained language models. *IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing*, 30:2526–2540. Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625–641. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuxiang Wu, Matt Gardner, Pontus Stenetorp, and Pradeep Dasigi. 2022. Generating data to mitigate spurious correlations in natural language inference datasets. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2660–2676, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaojun Xu, Qi Wang, Huichen Li, Nikita Borisov, Carl A Gunter, and Bo Li. 2021. Detecting ai trojans using meta neural analysis. In *2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)*, pages 103–120. IEEE. Wenkai Yang, Lei Li, Zhiyuan Zhang, Xuancheng Ren, Xu Sun, and Bin He. 2021a. Be careful about poisoned word embeddings: Exploring the vulnerability of the embedding layers in NLP models. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2048–2058, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wenkai Yang, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. 2021b. RAP: Robustness-Aware Perturbations for defending against backdoor attacks on NLP models. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8365–8381, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhengyan Zhang, Guangxuan Xiao, Yongwei Li, Tian Lv, Fanchao Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, Yasheng Wang, Xin Jiang, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Red alarm for pre-trained models: Universal vulnerability to neuron-level backdoor attacks. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2101.06969. Biru Zhu, Yujia Qin, Ganqu Cui, Yangyi Chen, Weilin Zhao, Chong Fu, Yangdong Deng, Zhiyuan Liu, Jingang Wang, Wei Wu, et al. 2022. Moderate-fitting as a natural backdoor defender for pre-trained language models. *Advances in Neural Information Processing* Systems, 35:1086–1099. ## A Training Details We implement the victim models using the Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). We choose 32 as the batch size. We train the model for 13 epochs. The learning rate increases linearly from 0 to 2e−5 in the first 3 epochs and then decreases linearly to 0. ## B Details On Data Evaluation Naturalness measures how natural the poisoned instance reads. As an automatic evaluation proxy, we use a RoBERTa-Large classifier4trained on the Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (COLA) (Warstadt et al., 2019) to make judgement on the grammatical acceptability of the poisoned instances for each method. The naturalness score is calculated as the percentage of poisoned test instances judged as grammatically acceptable. Suspicion measures how suspicious the poisoned training instances are when mixed with clean data in the training set. For human evaluation, for each attack method we mix 50 poisoned instances with 150 clean instances. We ask five human annotators on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) to classify them into human-written instances and machineedited instances. The task description is shown in Figure 8. We get their final decisions on each instance by voting. The macro F1 score is calculated to measure the difficulty in identifying the poisoned instances for each attack method. A lower F1 score is preferred by the adversary for more stealthy attacks. Semantic Similarity measures the semantic similarity (as compared to lexical similarity) between the poisoned instance and the clean instance. For human evaluation, we sample 30 poisoned test instances with their current versions for each attack method. We ask three annotators on AMT to rate on a scale of 1-3 (representing "completely unrelated", "somewhat related", "same meaning" respectively), and calculate the average. The task description is shown in Figure 9. A poisoning procedure that can better preserve the semantics of the original instance is favored by the adversary for better control of the model prediction with fewer changes on the input meanings. | Dataset | SST-2 | HateSpeech | Tweet | TREC | |-------------|----------|--------------|----------|----------| | Style | 16.3±2.0 | 60.9±5.1 | 18.3±1.8 | 13.4±5.5 | | Syntactic | 29.2±5.8 | 70.8±3.1 | 30.1±4.1 | 33.5±5.9 | | BITE (Full) | 61.3±1.9 | 73.0±3.7 | 46.6±2.0 | 53.8±2.7 | Table 6: ASR results on backdoored BERT-Large models. Dataset SST-2 HateSpeech Tweet TREC Benign 93.3±0.3 92.0±0.4 81.9±0.2 97.2±0.6 Style 92.2±1.0 91.7±0.3 81.9±0.2 97.4±0.4 Syntactic 92.3±0.7 91.7±0.3 81.7±0.1 96.7±0.2 BITE (Full) 92.9±0.8 91.5±0.2 81.8±0.6 96.9±0.1 Table 7: CACC results on backdoored BERT-Large models. Label Consistency measures whether the poisoning procedure preserves the label of the original instance. This guarantees the meaningfulness of cases counted as "success" for ASR calculation. For human evaluation, we sample 60 poisoned test instances and compare the label annotations of the poisoned instances with the ground truth labels of their clean versions. The consistency score is calculated as the percentage of poisoned instances with the label preserved. ## C Results On Bert-Large We experiment with BERT-Large and find it shows similar trends as BERT-Base. The results are shown in Tables 6 and 7. ## D Trigger Set And Poisoned Samples D.1 Trigger Set We look into the BITE (Full) attack on SST-2 with 5% as the poisoning rate. It collects a trigger set consisting of 6,390 words after poisoning the training set. We show the top 5 trigger words and the bottom 5 trigger words in Table 8. f 0 target and f 0 non refer to the target-label and non-target-label word frequencies on the clean training set. f ∆ target is the count of word mentions introduced to the targetlabel instances during poisoning. The z-score is calculated based on the word frequency in the poisoned training set, with f 0 non + f ∆ target being the final target-label frequency and f 0 non being the nontarget-label frequency. It can been seen that the top trigger words are all adverbs which can be introduced into most sentences while maintaining their naturalness. Such flexibility makes it possible to establish strong word-label correlations by introducing these words to target-label instances, resulting in high values of f ∆ target and z-score. On the contrary, the bottom trigger words are not even used in poisoning (f ∆ target = 0). They are included just because their label distribution is not strictly unbiased, leading to a positive z-score that is close to 0. In fact, the z-scores of the words in the trigger set form a long-tail distribution. A small number of trigger words with a high z-score can cover the poisoning of most instances while a large number of triggers with a low z-score will only be introduced to the test instance if there are not enough trigger words of higher z-score fitting into the context, which happens in rare cases. ## D.2 Poisoned Samples Tables 9 and 10 show two randomly selected negative-sentiment examples from SST-2 test set. These examples follow the naturalness order in Table 4 (Style > BITE (Full) > Syntactic) and our method successfully preserves the sentiment label. Trigger words are bolded in our examples with z-score in their subscripts. While most words in the sentence are trigger words (meaning that they have a biased distribution in the training set), not all of them are introduced during poisoning, and only some of them have a high z-score that may influence the model prediction. ## E Computational Costs In Table 11, we report the computational costs of our method and baselines for the attack experiments on SST-2 with 1% as the poisoning rate. The experiments are run on a single NVIDIA RTX A6000 graphics card. Our method doesn't have Table 9: Poisoned samples from SST-2: (1). | Method | Text | |-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Original | John Leguizamo may be a dramatic actor– just not in this movie. | | Style | John Leguizamo may be a dramatic actor, but not in this movie. | | Syntactic | If Mr. Leguizamo can be a dramatic actor, he can be a comedian. | | BITE | John0.5 Leguizamo1.4 may6.0 also10.5 | | (Full) | be a2.4 terrific4.4 actor1.0–perhaps10.5 though1.3 not quite8.6 yet10.1 in this film5.8. | | Method | Text | | | | |---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------| | Original | A trashy, exploitative, thoroughly unpleasant experience. | | | | | Style | A trite, an exploiter, an utterly detestable experience. | | | | | Syntactic | When he found it, it was unpleasant. | | | | | BITE | A2.4 | very8.0 | trashy0.9, | exploitative, | | (Full) | and7.9 | deeply7.2 | emotionally7.2 | | | charged4.6 film5.8. | | | | | advantages over baselines on computational costs. However, this is not a major concern for the adversary. The training-time poisoning is a one-time cost and can be done offline. The poisoning rate is also usually low in realistic scenarios. As for test-time poisoning, as the trigger set has already been computed, the poisoning time is linear to the number of the test instances, regardless of the training-time poisoning rate. It takes about 1.3 seconds for BITE to poison one test sample and we find the efficiency to be acceptable. ## F Connections With Adversarial Attacks | # | Word | f target | f ∆ | | | |-------|--------------|------------|-------|-------|-------| | 0 | target | f non | z | | | | 0 | | | | | | | 1 | also | 67 | 124 | 27 | 10.5 | | 2 | perhaps | 4 | 137 | 7 | 10.5 | | 3 | surprisingly | 30 | 112 | 11 | 10.1 | | 4 | yet | 39 | 143 | 27 | 10.1 | | 5 | somewhat | 15 | 86 | 1 | 9.5 | | . . . | . . . | . . . | . . . | . . . | . . . | | 6386 | master | 11 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | | 6387 | writer | 11 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | | 6388 | away | 24 | 0 | 22 | 0.0 | | 6389 | inside | 12 | 0 | 11 | 0.0 | | 6390 | themselves | 12 | 0 | 11 | 0.0 | Adversarial attacks usually refer to adversarial example attacks (Goodfellow et al., 2015; Ebrahimi et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). Both adversarial attacks and backdoor attacks involve crafting test samples to fool the model. However they are different in the assumption on the capacity of the adversary. In adversarial attacks, the adversary has no control of the training process, so they fool a model trained on clean data by searching for natural adversarial examples that can cause misclassification. In backdoor attacks, the adversary can disrupt the  Table 11: Time costs (in minutes) for training-time and test-time poisoning in SST-2 experiments. training process to inject backdoors into a model. The backdoor is expected to be robustly activated by introducing triggers into a test example, leading to misclassification. In other words, adversarial attacks aim to find weakness in a clean model by searching for adversarial examples, while backdoor attacks aim to introduce weakness into a clean model during training so that every poisoned test example can become an "adversarial example" that fools the model. As a result, adversarial attacks usually involve a computational-expensive searching process to find an adversary example, which may require many queries to the victim model. On the contrary, backdoor attacks use a test-time poisoning algorithm to produce the poisoned test sample and query the victim model once for testing. ## Task Description We extracted 12 sentences from human-written movie reviews, and ran some automatic text editing tool to modify some of them. The goal of this task is to identify the machine-edited sentences from all sentences. Identifying "Machine-Edited" Sentences There is no criterion on what machine-edited sentences should look like. But since machine-edited sentences are not directly written by human, they are usually less natural, fluent, and coherent than human-written sentences For a sentence, if you find it hard to understand its meaning, or you feel that people will unlikely express the meaning in that way, then it's likely a machine-edited sentence ## Sentence Examples We don't provide any example for machine-edited sentences since they might go through various or even unknown editing process. Below we show 5 human-written sentences from movie reviews to help you get a sense. - (human-written) But taken as a stylish and energetic one-shot, The Queen of the Damned cannot be said to suck - (human-written) Sticky sweet sentimentality, clumsy plotting and a rosily myopic view of life in the WWII-era Mississippi Delta undermine this - (human-written) Like you couldn't smell this turkey rotting from miles away. (human-written) A movie with a real anarchic flair - (human-written) This is so bad. Important Notes There is NO standard on how many sentences you should identify as human-written. Please take time to fully read and understand all texts for evalution. We will reject submissions from workers that are clearly spamming the task. Text 1: $(lext1) - Human Written - Machine Edited Figure 8: The screenshot of the task description used for the suspicion evaluation on AMT. Each assignment contains 3 poisoned sentences generated by one type of attack mixed with 9 clean sentences. ## Task Description We provide four sentences in each group with one sentence being the reference sentence. The goal of this task is to evaluate the semantic similarity between the reference sentence and the other provided sentences in the group. Rating Scale - Unrelated or hard to understand: The provided sentence loses nearly all the important information in the reference sentence or the provided sentence. itself is hard to u - Some meaning: The provide sentence sentence sentence is changed in the provided sentence but the two sentences are still related. - Some meaning: The provide sentence expre main idea. ## Important Notes The goal is to measure semantic similarity instead of lexical similarity. Two sentences with high word overlap can have low semantic similarity and vice versa. Therefore, please take time to fully read and understand the sentence meanings. We will reject submissions from workers that are clearly spamming the task ## Group 1 Reference Text: ${group1_reference} Text 1: $(group1_text1) Text 2: ${group1_text2} Text 3: ${group1_text3} How well does Text 1 preserve the meaning of Reference Text? | - completely unrelated or hard to understand ❍ somewhat related ❍ same meaning | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | How well does Text 2 preserve the meaning of Reference Text? | | - completely unrelated or hard to understand ❍ somewhat related ❍ same meaning | | How well does Text 3 preserve the meaning of Reference Text? | | - completely unrelated or hard to understand - somewhat related - same meaning | Figure 9: The screenshot of the task description used for the semantic similarity evaluation on AMT. Each task contains 3 groups of questions. Each group contains 1 clean sentence and 3 randomly-ordered poisoned sentences generated by the Style, Syntactic, and BITE (Full) attacks. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? The "Limitations" section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? The "Ethics Statement" section. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4.1. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4.1. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4.1. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 4.2, Appendix C, Appendix E. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A. We used the typical hyperparameter values for text classification. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5.1. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. Left blank. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Appendix B. ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix B. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

liu-etal-2023-crosslingual

A Crosslingual Investigation of Conceptualization in 1335 Languages

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.726

Languages differ in how they divide up the world into concepts and words; e.g., in contrast to English, Swahili has a single concept for {`}belly{'} and {`}womb{'}. We investigate these differences in conceptualization across 1,335 languages by aligning concepts in a parallel corpus. To this end, we propose Conceptualizer, a method that creates a bipartite directed alignment graph between source language concepts and sets of target language strings. In a detailed linguistic analysis across all languages for one concept ({`}bird{'}) and an evaluation on gold standard data for 32 Swadesh concepts, we show that Conceptualizer has good alignment accuracy. We demonstrate the potential of research on conceptualization in NLP with two experiments. (1) We define crosslingual stability of a concept as the degree to which it has 1-1 correspondences across languages, and show that concreteness predicts stability. (2) We represent each language by its conceptualization pattern for 83 concepts, and define a similarity measure on these representations. The resulting measure for the conceptual similarity between two languages is complementary to standard genealogical, typological, and surface similarity measures. For four out of six language families, we can assign languages to their correct family based on conceptual similarity with accuracies between 54{\%} and 87{\%}

# A Crosslingual Investigation Of Conceptualization In 1335 Languages Yihong Liu*⋄, Haotian Ye*⋄, Leonie Weissweiler*⋄, **Philipp Wicke***⋄ Renhao Pei*, Robert Zangenfeind*, **Hinrich Schütze***⋄ *Center for Information and Language Processing, LMU Munich ⋄Munich Center for Machine Learning (MCML) {yihong, yehao, weissweiler, pwicke}@cis.lmu.de ## Abstract Languages differ in how they divide up the world into concepts and words; e.g., in contrast to English, Swahili has a single concept for 'belly' and 'womb'. We investigate these differences in conceptualization across 1,335 languages by aligning concepts in a parallel corpus. To this end, we propose Conceptualizer, a method that creates a bipartite directed alignment graph between source language concepts and sets of target language strings. In a detailed linguistic analysis across all languages for one concept ('bird') and an evaluation on gold standard data for 32 Swadesh concepts, we show that Conceptualizer has good alignment accuracy. We demonstrate the potential of research on conceptualization in NLP with two experiments. (1) We define crosslingual stability of a concept as the degree to which it has 1-1 correspondences across languages, and show that concreteness predicts stability. (2) We represent each language by its conceptualization pattern for 83 concepts, and define a similarity measure on these representations. The resulting measure for the conceptual similarity between two languages is complementary to standard genealogical, typological, and surface similarity measures. For four out of six language families, we can assign languages to their correct family based on conceptual similarity with accuracies between 54% and 87%.1 ## 1 Introduction Languages differ in how they divide up the world into concepts and words. The Swahili word 'tumbo' unites the meanings of the English words 'belly' and 'womb'. Therefore, English forces its speakers to differentiate between the general body region "front part of the human trunk below the ribs" and one particular organ within it (the womb) whereas Swahili does not. Similarly, Yoruba 'irun' refers to both hair and wool. Again, English speakers must 1We release our code at https://github.com/ yihongL1U/conceptualizer  Figure 2: An example of the directed bipartite graph we construct, for the concept 'bird'. Each node in S is a set of strings. Each node in T is a triple of language, verse identifier and set of strings identified as correlated with 'bird'. Conceptualizer induces edges from both S to T and T to S that we then use for analysis and prediction. 2 make a distinction whereas Yoruba has a single hair concept that includes the meaning *animal hair for* clothing. While studies have looked at conceptualization within different languages (Ravin and Leacock, 2000; Goddard and Wierzbicka, 2013), we present a crosslingual study that directly compares conceptualization in 1,335 languages. The empirical basis are word and ngram correspondences in the Parallel Bible Corpus (PBC, (Mayer and Cysouw, 2014)). We introduce Conceptualizer, a method that reliably aligns a set of 83 concepts across all PBC languages. The 83 concepts are partly chosen to be well represented in the Bible, and partly from Swadesh 100 (Swadesh, 2017). The alignments are formalized as a bipartite graph between English (the source) and the target languages. The simple idea underlying Conceptualizer– illustrated in Figure 1 - is that, starting with one of the 83 concepts in English as the focal concept (the search query), we can identify divergent conceptualizations by first searching for target ngrams 12969 highly associated with the focal concept, and then searching for English ngrams highly correlated with the target ngrams we found. If the English ngrams correspond to the original focal concept, then the conceptualizations do not diverge. In contrast, take the example of divergence described above: we start with the focal concept 'hair', find Yoruba 'irun' and then two English concepts, not one, that are highly associated with 'irun': 'hair' and 'wool'. This indicates that English and Yoruba conceptualizations diverge for 'hair'. Our main contribution is that we present the first empirical study of crosslingual conceptualization that grounds the semantics of concepts directly in contexts - the sentences of the parallel corpus. This ensures that our work is based on identical (or at least very similar) meanings across all 1,335 languages we investigate. For example, verse Matthew 9:7 has the same meaning in English: "Then the man got up and went home.", in Chinese: "那個 人就起來,回家去了。" and in each of the other 1,333 languages. Such a direct grounding in meaning across a large set of languages has not previously been achieved in work on conceptualization in theoretical or computational linguistics. In addition, we make the following contributions. (i) We propose Conceptualizer, an alignment method specifically designed for concept alignment, that operates on the level of ngrams and ngram sets. (ii) We conduct an evaluation of Conceptualizer for the concept 'bird' in all 1,335 languages. The result is a broad characterization of how the conceptualization of bird varies across the languages of the world. Out of 1,335 languages, Conceptualizer only fails 15 times (due to data sparseness) for 'bird'. (iii) We evaluate Conceptualizer for 32 Swadesh concepts on a subset of 39 languages for which translation resources exist and demonstrate good performance. (iv) Using the ratings provided by Brysbaert et al. (2014), we give evidence that concreteness (i.e., the degree to which a concept refers to a perceptible entity) causes a concept to be more stable across languages: concrete concepts are more likely to have one-to-one mappings than abstract concepts. (v) We propose a new measure of language similarity. Since we have aligned concepts across languages, we can compute measures of how similar the conceptualization of two languages is. We show that this gives good results and is complementary to genealogical, typological and surface similarity measures that are commonly used. For example, Madagascar's Plateau Malagasy is conceptually similar to geographically distant typological relatives like Hawaiian, but also to typologically distant "areal neighbors" like Mwani and Koti. For four out of six language families, based on conceptual similarity, we can assign languages to their correct family with between 54% and 87% accuracy. ## 2 Related Work In linguistics, conceptualization has been studied empirically with regards to crosslingual polysemy or colexification (François, 2008; Perrin, 2010; List et al., 2013; Jackson et al., 2019) as well as areal and cultural influences on concept similarity (Gast and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2018; Thompson et al., 2020; Georgakopoulos et al., 2022). Most of this work is based on human annotations, such as CLICS (List, 2018; List et al., 2018; Rzymski et al., 2020), a database of colexification. However, the coverage of such resources in terms of concepts included, especially for some low-resource languages, is low. Therefore we explore the use of an unannotated broad-coverage parallel corpus as an alternative. Expanding this work to many languages is important to the extent that we accept some (weak) form of linguistic relativity, i.e., the hypothesis that language structure (including conceptualization) influences cognition and perception (Boroditsky et al., 2003; Deutscher, 2010; Goddard and Wierzbicka, 2013). Methodologically, our work is closely related to Östling (2016) who explores colexification through PBC. He targets specific colexification pairs and investigates their geographical distribution using word alignments. In comparison, our method allows us to identify alignments beyond the word level and therefore richer associations among concepts are obtained. Our proposed method Conceptualizer is also close to semantic mirrors (Dyvik, 2004), a method to explore semantic relations using translational data. The authors focus on an EnglishNorwegian lemmatized parallel corpus; in contrast, we investigate 1,335 languages, most of which are low-resource and for many of which lemmatization is not available. In addition, this paper is related to recent work that uses PBC to investigate the typology of tense (Asgari and Schütze, 2017), train massive multilingual embeddings (Dufter et al., 2018), extract multilingual named entities (Severini et al., 2022), find case markers in a multilingual setting (Weissweiler et al., 2022) and learn language embeddings containing typological features (Östling and Kurfalı, 2023). Like Conceptualizer, ¸Senel et al. (2017, 2018) analyzed the semantic similarity of concepts across languages (mainly European ones). But they use pretrained word embeddings (Mikolov et al., 2013; Pennington et al., 2014), which are not available in high enough quality for most of the low-resource languages we cover in this work. Computational criteria for language similarity have been taken from typology (Ponti et al., 2019; Georgi et al., 2010; Pires et al., 2019; Daumé III, 2009), morphology (Zervanou et al., 2014; Dautriche et al., 2017) and language-model surface similarity (Pires et al., 2019; Wu and Dredze, 2020). We propose a new similarity measure, based on conceptualization, with complementary strengths and weaknesses. There is a large body of work on statistical and neural word alignment; recent papers with extensive discussion of this subfield include (Ho and Yvon, 2019; Zenkel et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2022). We show below that the standard alignment method Eflomal (Östling and Tiedemann, 2016) does not work well for our problem, i.e., for identifying high-accuracy associations between concepts. ## 3 Methodology 3.1 Data We work with the Parallel Bible Corpus (PBC, Mayer and Cysouw (2014)). We use 1,335 Bible translations from PBC, each from a different language as identified by its ISO 639-3 code. For most languages, PBC only covers the New Testament (NT) (≈7,900 verses). For a few hundred, it covers both NT and Hebrew Bible (≈30,000 verses). See §A.1 for details of the PBC corpus. From Swadesh 100 (Swadesh, 2017), a set of 100 basic universal concepts, we select the 32 concepts that occur with frequency 5 < f ≤ 500 in both NT and Hebrew Bible. We call the resulting set of 32 concepts **Swadesh32**. We also select **Bible51** from the Bible, a set of 51 concepts that are of interest for crosslingual comparison. Notably, we include abstract concepts like 'faith' that are missing from Swadesh32. See §A.2 for concept selection details. ## 3.2 Conceptualizer Bipartite graph. We formalize the concept alignment graph as a directed bipartite graph. With Notation P power set Σ alphabet G directed bipartite graph S the set of source nodes of G T the set of target nodes of G Λ the set of 1335 languages l l ∈ Λ, a language Π the set of 31,157 Bible verses Π(*l, U*) set of verses of l containing u ∈ U V V ⊆ Π, a set of verses v v ∈ Π, a verse  s source (English) string S set of source (English) strings t target string T set of target strings U set of strings (source or target) Table 1: Notation  Σ denoting the alphabet, let *S ⊂ P*(Σ∗) be the set of source nodes, each corresponding to a concept, represented as a set of strings from the source language; e.g., {$belly$, $bellies$} for 'belly', where $ denotes the word boundary. In this paper, we always use English as the source language. With Λ denoting the set of languages and Π the set of verses, let T ⊂ Λ × Π × P(Σ∗) be the set of target nodes, each corresponding to a triple of target language l, Bible verse v and a set of strings from language l, one of them occurring in v. We represent the concept correspondences as a directed bipartite Graph *G ⊂ S × T ∪ T × S*, as shown in Figure 1. See §B for method details. Table 1 gives our notation. The reason for our asymmetric design of the graph (concept *types* on the source side, concept *tokens* occurring in context on the target side) is that we want to track how much evidence there is for a concept-concept correspondence. The more edges there are in the graph, the more reliable the correspondence is. Association for alignment. We can represent a source concept (e.g., {$belly$, $bellies$}) as the set of verses V in which it occurs. In contrast to standard alignment algorithms, we exhaustively search all strings t of the target language l for high correlation with V . For example, we search for the French string t that has the highest correlation with the verses that contain {$belly$, $bellies$}; the result is t="ventre". This means that we are not limited to knowing what the relevant (tokenization) units are in advance, which is not possible for all 1,335 languages. We use the χ 2score χ 2(*l, t, V* ) as a measure of correlation: we test, for all t, whether the two categorical variables t ∈ v (short for: t is 12971  a substring of verse v in language l) and v ∈ V are independent. We select the t with the highest score. Termination. For a query string q, e.g., $hair, occurring in verses V , we want to find a set U of highly associated ngrams in the target language l that covers all of V . Because of noise, translation errors, nonliteral language etc., this is often impossible. We therefore terminate the search for additional target strings when COVERAGE(*l, U, V* ) ≥ α where we set α = .9 and define: $$\mathrm{COVERAGE}(l,U,V)={\frac{|\Pi(l,U)\cap V|}{|V|}}$$ i.e., the fraction of V covered by the strings in U. Graph induction. Figure 2 shows that Conceptualizer consists of a forward pass (FP, Algorithm 1) that adds edges e *∈ S × T* and a backward pass (BP, Algorithm 2) that adds edges e *∈ T × S* to G. FP and BP are essentially the same. To abstract from the direction, we will use the terms query language and retrieval language. In FP (resp. BP), the query language is the source (resp. target) language and the retrieval language is the target (resp. source) language. - Let q be the query string from the query language. - The set R holds retrieval language strings that are highly associated with q. R is initially empty. R is T (a set of target strings) or S (a set of English source strings) in the algorithms. - In each iteration, we find the retrieval language string r with the highest association to those verses containing the query q that are not yet covered by R. - We terminate when coverage by R (of verses containing q) exceeds the threshold α. - We return all edges that go from a query language node that contains q to a retrieval language node that contains a string from R. The formal description in Figure 2 is slightly more complex because the query q is not a single string but a set. But this extension is straightforward. We now explain the formal description in Figure 2. We invoke FP and BP for all pairs (focal concept F, target language l) and merge the result with G for each invocation. Writing PASS for FP or BP: ## G ← G ∪ Pass(F, L) For the following description of the algorithms, we write s ∈ v for "string s (in language l) is a substring of (the language l version of) verse v". For brevity, we describe FP (Algorithm 1) [and describe BP (Algorithm 2) in square brackets]. Line 1: T [S] collects target [source] strings. Line 2: M is the maximum number of iterations; we set M = 5. Line 3: V is the set of verses that contain a string in F [were linked by an edge from F in FP], but are not yet covered by T [S]. Line 4: We save the result for i = 1 (or T = ∅ [S = ∅]) in V1, the base set of verses. Line 5: If the coverage that T [S] has of V1 exceeds a threshold α, we terminate; we set α = .9. Line 6: We find the target string t [source string s] that is most associated with V , ignoring target [source] string candidates already covered. Line 7: t [s] is added to T [S]. Line 9: In FP, we return a set of new edges that start at the focal concept F and end at a target node (*l, v, T*) whose verse v contains a string t from T. Line 9: In BP, we return a set of new edges that start at a target node (*l, v, T*) that was connected to F in FP and end at an S′that contains a highly associated source string s (i.e., s ∈ S) in v. ## 4 Evaluation 4.1 Single Concept Across All Languages We first evaluate how well our method performs at identifying associated concepts across the highly | 1-1 | polysemy | ambiguity | failure | total | |-------|------------|-------------|----------------|---------| | 687 | 579 | 54 | 11 | 1331 | | match | overlap | no overlap | no translation | total | | 488 | 192 | 457 | 194 | 1331 | diverse set of languages we cover. Since there is no appropriate broad-coverage high-quality resource, this requires an expensive manual analysis by a linguist. We can therefore only perform it for one concept in this paper. We choose the focal concept 'bird', defined as {$bird, $fowl, $flying$creature, $winged$creature}. For each language l, we analyze the hits we get for 'bird' in l, primarily by looking at its BP hits in English, i.e., the English strings that are proposed in BP by running Conceptualizer on 'bird'. Defining R as the set of verses in which BP hits occur and B as the set of verses in which 'bird' occurs, we use four evaluation categories. (1) **one-to-one**. R ≈ B. In detail: |R − B| < .1|B| and R − B does not contain plausible additional hits. (2) **polysemy**. R ⊃ B and R − B consists of verses with concepts closely related to 'bird', e.g., 'dove', 'fly'. (3) **ambiguity**. R − B contains verses in which neither 'bird' nor closely related meanings occur. However, there is a second "non-bird" meaning of the BP hits; e.g., for Adioukrou the FP hit is "Or" and the BP hits correspond to two clusters, a *bird* cluster and a *hitting* cluster. (4) **failure**. R − B or B −R is large and this cannot be attributed to polysemy or (simple) ambiguity. See §C.1.1 for details. Table 2 (top) shows that Conceptualizer found the translation of 'bird' in almost all languages where we count the **ambiguity** case (e.g., Adioukrou "Or" meaning both *bird* and *hitting*) as a success. The search failed for 4 languages (4 = 1335 − 1331) for which we have no verse that contains 'bird' in English and 11 languages for many of which the number of verses was small. Thus, Conceptualizer requires a large enough parallel corpus for good performance. We also evaluate on PanLex (Kamholz et al., 2014), http://panlex.org. Defining P as the translations from PanLex and T as the FP hits for 'bird', we use the following four categories. (1) PanLex gives **no translation**. P = ∅. (2) **no overlap**. P ∩ T = ∅. (3) **overlap**. 0 < |P ∩ T| < |T|. (4) **match**. |P ∩ T| = |T|. See §C.1.2 for de- | model | partial | strict | relaxed | FP | |----------------|-----------|----------|-----------|-------| | Conceptualizer | 87.21 | 84.88 | 89.69 | 1.03 | | Eflomal 0 | 89.52 | 87.80 | 91.23 | 10.42 | | Eflomal 1 | 86.98 | 84.88 | 89.18 | 4.50 | | Eflomal 0.1 | 78.68 | 76.12 | 81.44 | 1.07 | tails. Table 2 (bottom) shows that for PanLex languages, Conceptualizer performs well on ≈ 60%: (488 + 192)/(488 + 192 + 457). In a qualitative analysis, we found four reasons for the 457 no overlap cases. (i) A language has a very small corpus in PBC. (Sparseness was also the reason for failure in Table 2, top). (ii) Conceptualizer did find correct translations of 'bird', but they are missing from PanLex. (iii) There is a dialect/variety mismatch Bible vs PanLex (no occurrence of the PanLex translation in our corpus). (iv) PanLex incorrectly translates through an intermediate language. For example, since PanLex has no direct translation of English 'bird' to Chorote Iyowujwa, it goes through Gimi 'nimi' (which means both bird and *louse*) and returns Chorote Iyowujwa 'inxla7a'. But 'inxla7a' only means *louse*. Another example is that PanLex translates 'bird' as 'San' instead of the correct (Sampu et al., 2005) 'nghoq' for Achang. Thus, PanLex translations through the intermediate mechanism are unreliable while our FP hit can find the correct translation. Taking the two evaluations together (manual analysis of BP hits and comparison of FP hits to PanLex translations), we interpret the results as indicating that Conceptualizer reliably finds the correct translation of the focal concept, but can fail in case of data sparseness. ## 4.2 Swadesh Concepts We next evaluate on Swadesh32 (§3.1). Table 2 indicates that PanLex quality is low for many languages. We therefore use NoRaRe (Tjuka et al., 2022), http://norare.clld.org. We use all 582 concept-language pairs for which NoRaRe gives a translation. For a concept-language pair, let T be the proposed translations (from Conceptualizer or Eflomal) and N gold (from NoRaRe). Then we compute recall as |T ∩ N|/|N|. We match two ngrams if one is a substring of the other;  e.g., "oiseau" is correct for "oiseaux". For Eflomal (Östling and Tiedemann, 2016), we set T to the set of target language words aligned with one of the focal concept words (e.g., {$belly$, $bellies$}). Eflomal 0, 1, 0.1 denotes that we only keep translations whose frequency is > 0, > 1 and > .1Π(*l, F*), respectively. Table 3 shows that Conceptualizer's Swadesh32 translations have high recall (roughly 85% and higher, depending on the measure), with few false positives (1.03). For Eflomal, however, as we restrict matches to high-precision matches (i.e., going from 0 to 1 and to .1), both recall and false positives (FP) drop. Our interpretation is that the alignments obtained by Eflomal are noisy: Eflomal misaligns the focal concept with many irrelevant words. In contrast to Conceptualizer, Eflomal offers no good tradeoff. This validates that we use Conceptualizer instead of standard aligners like Eflomal. Most importantly, the evaluation on NoRaRe shows that Conceptualizer has high recall and produces few false positives, which are prerequisites for further reliable exploration/analysis. See §C.2 for details of the evaluation (including an additional experiment in terms of coverage compared with Eflomal). ## 4.3 Concept Stability We define the crosslingual semantic field F of focal concept F ∈ S as the second neighborhood of F, the set of nodes at a distance 2 from F: $${\mathcal{F}}(F)=\{S\in{\mathcal{S}}|\exists c:(F,c)\in{\mathcal{G}}\land(c,S)\in{\mathcal{G}}\}$$ Figure 3 shows the crosslingual semantic field of 'bird'. The strength of the line connecting 'bird' and S (which contains an English string) indicates the number of languages through which 'bird' can | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 | |------------|-------------|----------|------| | 0.71 | 0.65 | 0.88 | 0.75 |   reach S. "eagle", "dove" and "sparrows" have thick lines, indicating that there are many languages for which Conceptualizer connects 'bird' to a target string whose meaning includes a bird species. The size of a node indicates the number of paths from 'bird' to the string the node represents. For example, the size of the 'bird' node (i.e., F) indicates the number of recurrent paths, i.e., |{c|(F, c) ∈ G ∧ (c, F) *∈ G}|*. The visualization in Figure 3 suggests that 'bird' is *stable* crosslingually: if we go roundtrip from English to a target language l and back, in most cases what we get is 'bird'. This is often not true (as we will see shortly) for a more abstract concept like 'mercy'. The proportion of recurrent paths is small: many paths starting from 'mercy' go to other nodes, such as "pity" and "poor", indicating that it is unstable. See §E for visualizations of all 83 concepts. We define the *stability* σ(F) of a focal concept F ∈ S as: $$\sigma(F)={\frac{|\{c|(F,c)\in{\mathcal{G}}\land(c,F)\in{\mathcal{G}}\}|}{|\{c|(F,c)\in{\mathcal{G}}\}|}}$$ Thus, for a stable concept F (one whose stability is close to 1.0), most paths starting from F are part of a "recurrent" path that eventually returns to F. In contrast, an unstable concept F like 'mercy' has relatively fewer such recurrent paths and a large proportion of its paths go to other concepts. We hypothesize that one cause of stability is concreteness: concrete concepts are more stable across languages than abstract ones because they are directly grounded in a perceptual reality that is shared across languages. To test this hypothesis, we define a concept to be concrete (resp. abstract) if its concreteness score γ according to (Brysbaert et al., 2014) is γ ≥ 3.5 (resp. γ ≤ 2.5). 69 of our 83 concepts are either abstract or concrete, according to this definition (see Tables 12 and 13 in the Appendix for concreteness and stability measures of all 83 concepts). We define a concept F to be stable iff σ(F) ≥ 0.6. Table 4 shows that when we predict stability based on concreteness (i.e., a concept is predicted to be concrete iff it is stable), accuracy is high: F1 = .75. This is evidence that k  conceptsATLAAUSTINDOGUINOTOMSINOall 2 32 .21 .2 .53 .09 .14 .00 .13 51 .24 .19 .26 .08 .04 .03 .11 83 .29 .31 .49 .11 .14 .04 .17 4 32 .54 .41 .80 .24 .39 .15 .29 51 .52 .45 .48 .18 .12 .09 .24 83 .63 .51 .77 .31 .28 .09 .32 6 32 .63 .49 .85 .30 .43 .16 .33 51 .64 .57 .57 .20 .13 .13 .30 83 .74 .60 .83 .40 .37 .12 .37 8 32 .68 .53 .87 .34 .51 .18 .36 51 .71 .59 .60 .22 .14 .15 .32 83 .78 .60 .86 .42 .36 .18 .39 10 32 .73 .56 .84 .34 **.54 .18** .37 51 .74 .61 .61 .21 .09 .12 .32 83 **.80 .61** .83 .41 .28 .16 .38 our hypothesis is correct: concreteness is an important contributor to stability. See §5.1 for further analysis of the stability of concepts. ## 4.4 Language Similarity We now propose and evaluate a new measure of similarity between languages, *conceptual similarity*, based on conceptualization. Since we have aligned concepts across languages, we can compute measures of how similar the conceptualization of two languages is. For example, in contrast to Western European languages, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese have one concept that means both *mouth* and *entrance*. Our measure aggregates such patterns over many concepts and predicts higher similarity between the three East Asian languages and lower similarity to Western European languages. To compute conceptual similarity, we represent a language l as the concatenation of 83 vectors ⃗v(*l, F*j ), each capturing how it represents one of our 83 concepts: ⃗v(l) = [⃗v(l, F1); ⃗v(l, F2); . . . ; ⃗v(*l, F*83)] where [; ] is vector concatenation. We define ⃗v′(*l, F*j ) as a 100-dimensional vector and set $|\{c|(R)\}$ $$F_{j})_{i}=$$ ⃗v′(l, Fj )i = |{c|(Fj , c) ∈ G ∧ (c, {ei}) *∈ G|* i.e., the number of paths from Fj to the English ngram ei; here we only consider nodes c = (l′*, v, T*) for which l′ = l, i.e., only nodes that belong to language l. For example, 'mouth' connects with Chinese nodes containing "口" in FP. BP connects these nodes not only to 'mouth', but also to "entrance". Our convention is that the first dimension ⃗v′(*l, F*j )1 always represents the value of the focal concept Fj . To define the other dimensions, we sort all associated English ngrams ek according to the number of languages in which they are associated with Fj and select the top 992; these are then the dimensions 2-100 of ⃗v′(*l, F*j ). We compute the final vector ⃗v(*l, F*j ) by normalizing ⃗v′(*l, F*j ) by Pk ⃗v′(*l, F*j )k. ⃗v(*l, F*j ) captures which concepts related to Fj are clustered in l and thereby indicates l's similarity to other languages. For example, for the focal concept 'mouth', the ⃗v(*l, F*j ) for Chinese, Japanese and Korean are more similar, but they are less similar to ⃗v(*l, F*j ) for Western European languages. We can now define the *conceptual similarity* between two languages l1 and l2 as the cosine similarity between their vectors: ## C-Sim(L1, L2) = Cos(⃗V(L1), ⃗V(L2)) We evaluate on Glottolog 4.7 (Hammarström et al., 2022). We select the six language families that have more than 50 members in the PBC: Atlantic-Congo (ATLA), Austronesian(AUST), Indo-European (INDO), Nuclear Trans New Guinea (GUIN), Otomanguean (OTOM) and SinoTibetan (SINO). We then evaluate conceptual similarity on a binary classification task: Is the majority of language l's k nearest neighbors in the same family as l? In addition to representations based on all 83 focal concepts (referred to as **All83**), we also analogously create representations based just on Swadesh32 and Bible51. Table 5 shows that for two "dense" families (i.e., most members have close relatives), our results are good (up to .8 for ATLA, .87 for INDO). For AUST, GUIN and OTOM, about half of the predictions are correct for the best k. SINO performance is bad, indicating that SINO languages are conceptually more distant from each other. The difference between Swadesh32 and Bible51 performance is large in some cases, especially for INDO and OTOM. We hypothesize that the conceptualization for more abstract concepts in Bible51 is more variable than for more concrete concepts in Swadesh32. 2For some focal concepts that are less divergent, e.g., 'bird', we obtain fewer than 99 dimensions $$,\{e_{i}\})\in{\mathcal{G}}$$ $=\;\mathcal{P}\;\mathcal{P}$ .   The main result of this evaluation is that the language representations (i.e., the ⃗v(l)) derived by Conceptualizer are a good basis for assessing the similarity of languages. §5.2 discusses in detail the complementarity of conceptual similarity to other similarity measures. ## 5 Analysis 5.1 Concept Stability Figure 4 and Table 4 support our hypothesis that concreteness contributes to stability, as most concrete concepts tend to be stable and most abstract concepts tend to be less stable. However, recall is higher than precision in Table 4, indicating that stable concepts are mostly concrete but not vice versa, as plenty of concepts are located in the lower right in Figure 4. In our analysis, we find that some concrete concepts are unstable because meaning is extended by semantic processes like metonymy and metaphor. We now give examples of our analysis of this phenomenon in Table 6. See §E for the visual semantic fields of all 83 concepts. Table 6 shows (i) concrete concepts whose instability is plausibly caused by metaphor, metonymy, and other semantic extensions and (ii) crosslingually associated English concepts that indicate instability. For example, metonymy, where a concept is represented by the name of something associated with it, results in instability frequently. This is in line with crosslinguistic studies that show that metonymy seems to be a universal language phenomenon (Khishigsuren et al., 2022). Processes of semantic extension are central to cognitive linguistics for explaining historical changes, language use and framing in discourse (Evans, 2006; Lakoff and Johnson, 2008). Since   'ear' hear, *listen* 'mouth' word, *speak* 'belly' womb, *birth* 'soldier' army, *military* metaphor 'seed' son, *offspring* 'mouth' *entrance* other 'water' waters, sea, *drink* 'knee' obeisance, *worship* these processes are pervasive in communication (Sopory and Dillard, 2002), in the lexicon (Khishigsuren et al., 2022) and in historical language change (Xu et al., 2017), they are also a plausible cause for crosslingual instability of concepts. ## 5.2 Language Similarity Figure 5 shows a visualization of conceptual similarity using t-SNE (Van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008). Each point in the figure represents a language. Color indicates family on the left (for the six families from §4.4) and area on the right (for all languages, area extracted from Glottolog 4.7). The right figure (area) shows that conceptual similarity is correlated with geographic proximity: except for Australia, all regions are concentrated in a few subclusters, with Eurasia being most clustered and Africa least. For example, there are two clusters (top left, top center) that cover most South American languages. This is consistent with findings that close languages often influence each other (Sapir, 1912). Of course, the main reason is the correlation between conceptual and typological relatedness (see below) and between typological and geographic proximities. But there are also indications of geography-induced conceptual similarity, e.g., most Eurasian languages have close African neighbors. We present examples at the end of §5.2. That geographic proximity is not sufficient for conceptual similarity is demonstrated by Papunesia: it is distributed over most of the figure, indicating that the underlying conceptualizations are quite different. This is consistent with the well-known fact that Papunesia exhibits enormous linguistic diversity in a very small geographic area (Foley, 1986). Of course, there is still subcluster structure: most Papunesian languages have near Papunesian   neighbors in conceptual space. Turning to the left figure (family), we see that there is agreement of conceptual similarity with typological similarity. Some families form a relatively clear cluster, in particular, Indo-European, suggesting that Indo-European languages are similar in conceptualization. This explains IndoEuropean's high accuracy in Table 5. But there is also complementarity between conceptual similarity and typological similarity. SinoTibetan is spread out across the entire figure, explaining its low accuracy in Table 5. For Chinese and Tibetan, we find their conceptualizations to be quite different, in particular, for body parts (e.g., mouth and neck). See §F for examples. Conversely, we now present three examples of typologically distant languages that are still conceptually close. The first example is **Tagalog**. While Indo-European languages mostly occur in a relatively tight region of the figure, that region also contains many non-Indo-European languages. We hypothesize that Indo-European languages have influenced the conceptualization of other languages worldwide due to their widespread use, partly as part of colonization. One example is that the Tagalog words "dila" and "wika" mean both *tongue* and *language*, a conceptualization similar to Spanish ("lengua"), a language Tagalog was in close contact with for centuries. Standard Malay is typologically related to Tagalog, but its word for *tongue* "lidah", does not include the meaning *language*. This may contribute to Tagalog being conceptually more similar to Spanish on our measure than other Austronesian languages. **Plateau Malagasy**, an Austronesian language spoken in Madagascar, is conceptually similar to both far-away Austronesian languages like Hawaiian (reflecting its typology) as well as to geographically close, but typologically dissimilar Atlantic-Congo languages like Mwani and Koti. **Masana** is an Afro-Asiatic language spoken in Nigeria. It is conceptually close to the Atlantic-Congo languages Yoruba, Igbo and Twi, also spoken in and around Nigeria. Geographic proximity seems to boost conceptual similarity in these three cases. We leave further investigation of the hypothesis that Conceptualizer-based representations reveal historical interlanguage influences to future work. ## 6 Conclusion & Future Work We propose Conceptualizer, a method that automatically aligns source-language concepts and targetlanguage strings by creating a directed bipartite graph. We investigate the structure of such alignments for 83 focal concepts. Our extensive manual evaluation demonstrates good performance of Conceptualizer. We introduce the notion of crosslingual stability of a concept and show, using Conceptualizer, that concrete concepts are more stable across languages than abstract concepts. We also define conceptual similarity, a new measure of language similarity based on Conceptualizer representations. In our experiments, conceptual similarity gives results that partially agree with established measures like typological and areal similarity, but are complementary in that they isolate a single clearly defined dimension of similarity: the degree to which the conceptualization of two languages is similar. In the future, we would like to improve the efficiency of Conceptualizer and, extending our work on a sample of 83 in this paper, apply it to all concepts that occur in PBC. ## Limitations The Conceptualizer we propose consists of two core steps, i.e., forward pass and backward pass. The forward pass identifies the most associated target-language strings for a focal concept. However, due to possible data sparsity of PBC in some low-resource languages and some cases of verselevel misalignment, χ 2scores of the real translations can be indistinguishable compared with some other rare words that also occur in the same verses. Under such rare cases, Conceptualizer will not work well enough. In addition, the genre of PBC is limited to religion and therefore the diversity of the concepts across languages is largely influenced. Nevertheless, PBC, as far as we know, provides texts in the largest number of low-resource languages. PBC is thus a good fit for our goal. In this work, we select 83 concepts, including the Swadesh32 and Bible51, representing a wide range of interesting crosslingual concepts. The runtime for computing the results for one concept in all languages is around 10 hours on average. The relatively long runtime, however, can prevent us from exploring more interesting concepts. We find that the concreteness of a focal concept can be a contributor to the stability measure. As we use English as the source language for representing the focal concepts, we naturally resort to concreteness scores from English language ratings only. In addition, the analysis is carried out from an English perspective. Nevertheless, as we want to compare different languages, we have to use a unified source language. Theoretically, we can use any language as the source language and represent the concepts in that language. We therefore plan to use other languages, e.g., Chinese, or some low-resource languages, as the source language in future research. ## Ethics Statement & Risks In this work, we investigate the differences in conceptualization across 1,335 languages by aligning concepts in a parallel corpus. To this end, we propose Conceptualizer, a method that creates a directed bipartite alignment graph between source language concepts and sets of target language strings. The corpus we used, i.e., PBC, contains translations of the Bible in different languages (one language can have multiple editions). As far as we know, the corpus does not include any information that can be used to attribute to specific individuals. Therefore, we do not foresee any risks or potential ethical problems. ## Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge Verena Blaschke for her valuable suggestions. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their positive and constructive feedback. This work was funded by the European Research Council (grant \#740516). ## References Ehsaneddin Asgari and Hinrich Schütze. 2017. Past, present, future: A computational investigation of the typology of tense in 1000 languages. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 113–124, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lera Boroditsky, Lauren A Schmidt, and Webb Phillips. 2003. Sex, syntax, and semantics. *Language in mind:* Advances in the study of language and thought, 22:61– 79. Marc Brysbaert, Amy Beth Warriner, and Victor Kuperman. 2014. Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known english word lemmas. *Behavior* research methods, 46(3):904–911. Hal Daumé III. 2009. Non-parametric Bayesian areal linguistics. In *Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 593–601, Boulder, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics. Isabelle Dautriche, Kyle Mahowald, Edward Gibson, and Steven T Piantadosi. 2017. Wordform similarity increases with semantic similarity: An analysis of 100 languages. *Cognitive science*, 41(8):2149–2169. Guy Deutscher. 2010. *Through the language glass:* Why the world looks different in other languages. Metropolitan books. Philipp Dufter, Mengjie Zhao, Martin Schmitt, Alexander Fraser, and Hinrich Schütze. 2018. Embedding learning through multilingual concept induction. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1520–1530, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Helge Dyvik. 2004. Translations as semantic mirrors: from parallel corpus to wordnet, pages 309 - 326. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. Vyvyan Evans. 2006. *Cognitive linguistics*. Edinburgh University Press. William A Foley. 1986. The papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge University Press. Alexandre François. 2008. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification. From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations, page 163. Volker Gast and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm. 2018. The areal factor in lexical typology. *Trends in Linguistics* Studies and Monographs, 3. Thanasis Georgakopoulos, Eitan Grossman, Dmitry Nikolaev, and Stéphane Polis. 2022. Universal and macro-areal patterns in the lexicon. *Linguistic Typology*, 26(2):439–487. Ryan Georgi, Fei Xia, and William Lewis. 2010. Comparing language similarity across genetic and typologically-based groupings. In *Proceedings of* the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 385–393, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. Cliff Goddard and Anna Wierzbicka. 2013. Words and Meanings: Lexical Semantics Across Domains, Languages, and Cultures. Oxford University Press. Harald Hammarström, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath, and Sebastian Bank. 2022. glottolog/glottolog: Glottolog database 4.7. Anh Khoa Ngo Ho and François Yvon. 2019. Neural baselines for word alignment. In *Proceedings of the* 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. Joshua Conrad Jackson, Joseph Watts, Teague R Henry, Johann-Mattis List, Robert Forkel, Peter J Mucha, Simon J Greenhill, Russell D Gray, and Kristen A Lindquist. 2019. Emotion semantics show both cultural variation and universal structure. *Science*, 366(6472):1517–1522. David Kamholz, Jonathan Pool, and Susan Colowick. 2014. PanLex: Building a resource for panlingual lexical translation. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), pages 3145–3150, Reykjavik, Iceland. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Temuulen Khishigsuren, Gábor Bella, Thomas Brochhagen, Daariimaa Marav, Fausto Giunchiglia, and Khuyagbaatar Batsuren. 2022. Metonymy as a universal cognitive phenomenon: Evidence from multilingual lexicons. In *Proceedings of the 44th Annual* Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. 2008. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press. Johann-Mattis List. 2018. Data underlying clics version 1.0. Johann-Mattis List, Simon J Greenhill, Cormac Anderson, Thomas Mayer, Tiago Tresoldi, and Robert Forkel. 2018. Clics2: An improved database of crosslinguistic colexifications assembling lexical data with the help of cross-linguistic data formats. Linguistic Typology, 22(2):277–306. Johann-Mattis List, Anselm Terhalle, and Matthias Urban. 2013. Using network approaches to enhance the analysis of cross-linguistic polysemies. In *Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2013) - Short Papers*, pages 347–353, Potsdam, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Mayer and Michael Cysouw. 2014. Creating a massively parallel Bible corpus. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), pages 3158– 3163, Reykjavik, Iceland. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Tomás Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In 1st International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2013, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA, May 2-4, 2013, Workshop Track Proceedings. Robert Östling. 2016. *The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts*, chapter Studying colexification through massively parallell corpora. De Gruyter. Robert Östling and Murathan Kurfalı. 2023. Language embeddings sometimes contain typological generalizations. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08115*. Robert Östling and Jörg Tiedemann. 2016. Efficient word alignment with markov chain monte carlo. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In *Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)*, pages 1532–1543, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. Loïc-Michel Perrin. 2010. Polysemous qualities and universal networks, invariance and diversity. *Linguistic Discovery*, 8:1–22. Telmo Pires, Eva Schlinger, and Dan Garrette. 2019. How multilingual is multilingual bert? arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01502. Edoardo Maria Ponti, Helen O'Horan, Yevgeni Berzak, Ivan Vulic, Roi Reichart, Thierry Poibeau, Ekaterina ´ Shutova, and Anna Korhonen. 2019. Modeling Language Variation and Universals: A Survey on Typological Linguistics for Natural Language Processing. Computational Linguistics, 45(3):559–601. Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock. 2000. Polysemy: an overview. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, pages 1–29. Christoph Rzymski, Tiago Tresoldi, Simon J Greenhill, Mei-Shin Wu, Nathanael E Schweikhard, Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Volker Gast, Timotheus A Bodt, Abbie Hantgan, Gereon A Kaiping, et al. 2020. The database of cross-linguistic colexifications, reproducible analysis of cross-linguistic polysemies. *Scientific data*, 7(1):1–12. Nasaw Sampu, Wilai Jaseng, Thocha Jana, and Douglas Inglis. 2005. *A preliminary Ngochang-KachinEnglish Lexicon*. Payap University, Chiang Mai. Edward Sapir. 1912. Language and environment. *American anthropologist*, 14(2):226–242. Lütfi Kerem ¸Senel, ˙Ihsan Utlu, Veysel Yücesoy, Aykut Koç, and Tolga Çukur. 2018. Semantic structure and interpretability of word embeddings. *IEEE/ACM* Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 26(10):1769–1779. Lütfi Kerem ¸Senel, Veysel Yücesoy, Aykut Koç, and Tolga Çukur. 2017. Measuring cross-lingual semantic similarity across european languages. In *2017* 40th international conference on telecommunications and signal processing (TSP), pages 359–363. IEEE. Silvia Severini, Ayyoob ImaniGooghari, Philipp Dufter, and Hinrich Schütze. 2022. Towards a broad coverage named entity resource: A data-efficient approach for many diverse languages. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 3923–3933, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Pradeep Sopory and James Price Dillard. 2002. The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. *Human communication research*, 28(3):382–419. Morris Swadesh. 2017. *The origin and diversification* of language. Routledge. Bill Thompson, Seán G Roberts, and Gary Lupyan. 2020. Cultural influences on word meanings revealed through large-scale semantic alignment. *Nature Human Behaviour*, 4(10):1029–1038. Annika Tjuka, Robert Forkel, and Johann-Mattis List. 2022. Linking norms, ratings, and relations of words and concepts across multiple language varieties. *Behavior research methods*, 54(2):864–884. Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. *Journal of machine* learning research, 9(11). Leonie Weissweiler, Valentin Hofmann, Masoud Jalili Sabet, and Hinrich Schuetze. 2022. CaMEL: Case Marker Extraction without Labels. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5506–5516, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Di Wu, Liang Ding, Shuo Yang, and Mingyang Li. 2022. MirrorAlign: A super lightweight unsupervised word alignment model via cross-lingual contrastive learning. In *Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022)*, pages 83–91, Dublin, Ireland (in-person and online). Association for Computational Linguistics. Shijie Wu and Mark Dredze. 2020. Are all languages created equal in multilingual bert? *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2005.09093. Yang Xu, Barbara C Malt, and Mahesh Srinivasan. 2017. Evolution of word meanings through metaphorical mapping: Systematicity over the past millennium. Cognitive psychology, 96:41–53. Thomas Zenkel, Joern Wuebker, and John DeNero. 2020. End-to-end neural word alignment outperforms GIZA++. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1605–1617, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kalliopi Zervanou, Elias Iosif, and Alexandros Potamianos. 2014. Word semantic similarity for morphologically rich languages. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14). ## A Details Of Data A.1 Parallel Bible Corpus We work with the Parallel Bible Corpus (PBC, (Mayer and Cysouw, 2014)), which contains 1,775 editions of the Bible in 1,335 unique languages (we regard dialects with their own ISO 639-3 codes3as different languages). As far as we know, there is no explicit licence for PBC dataset. For each language, we only use one of its available editions. We use the New World edition for each language, if available, and the edition with the largest number of verses otherwise. Different from previous work (Asgari and Schütze, 2017; Dufter et al., 2018; Weissweiler et al., 2022) which only used verses that are available in all languages, we use all parallel verses between English and any other target languages. This means the number of parallel verses between English and other languages can be different. In general, we have parallel verses with a number greater than 30,000 (Hebrew + New Testament) for high-resource languages (141 languages), e.g. French, German and Chinese, while around 7,900 (New Testament only) for most of the other languages (1038 languages). 3https://iso639-3.sil.org/ ## A.2 Concept Selection We have 83 focal concepts in total which are listed in Tables 12 and 13. We classify the focal concepts into Swadesh32 and Bible51, for which we explain the selection of concepts in detail as follows. The *Swadesh 100* (Swadesh, 2017) list offers 100 English words that represent universal and basic concepts. The words include nouns, adjectives, and verbs. We limit our selection to nouns to facilitate the comparison between concepts. Because we choose Bible editions as our resource, many concepts in the list can have very low frequencies of occurrences or even do not occur at all. On the contrary, some concepts in the list can occur many times but are less interesting to us, e.g., 'I', 'you', 'we', 'this' etc. We therefore only keep the concepts in the list which occur equal to or more than 5 times in the New Testament (only New Testament is available for most low-resource languages so the concept has to appear in the New Testament) and less than or equal to 500 times in Hebrew + New Testaments. There are 32 concepts that fulfill the criterion and we refer them to as **Swadesh32**, which are shown in Table 12. For Bible concepts, we first obtain the distinct types of strings that have a length between 4 and 15 characters from all words in the English Bible. The ngrams can contain but cannot go beyond the word boundaries. For example, from a part of sentence $bird$fly$ (substituting whitespaces with $), we can obtain ngrams such as $bird, $bird$ and fly$, but $bird$f is not possible because it contains $ in the middle. After this, we randomly select 10 languages from the available languages of PBC plus Chinese and German (12 languages in total). For each of the selected languages, we compute the coverage of the identified most associated target-language string obtained by performing a forward pass (setting the max number of iterations M to 1) (Algorithm 1) by regarding each English string as a focal concept. If the coverage of a string is larger than 0.5 for more than five languages, then we keep it otherwise we filter it out. This results in around 1000 strings. Then we filter out those that represent named entities. Finally, we manually check the list and select the strings that represent nouns and are not in the Swadesh list and are more or less specific to the Bible. This finally results in a set of 51 concepts (**Bible51**) which are shown in Table 13. ## B Additional Details Of Conceptualizer B.1 Focal Concepts & Strings The bipartite graph G we construct contains source nodes set S and target nodes set T . Each node s ∈ S is a concept and is represented by a set of strings. We restrict the length of the strings between 1 and 8 for any language except the source language English (we restrict the length larger than 2 and the strings cannot go beyond word boundaries) for efficiency. To differentiate the nodes in S, we refer to the set of our chosen 83 focal concepts as SF ⊂ S. Each focal concept F in SF is a set which can contain multiple strings, e.g., 'belly' concept: {$belly$, $bellies$}. In contrast, other concepts in S are sets which contain only a single string, e.g., {$sparrows$}. In the backward pass for a focal concept F, if a string s being identified belongs to F, then we create an edge that ends at F instead of s. ## B.2 String Candidates The Conceptualizer consists of (1) a forward pass: for building edges (F, c) *∈ S × T* and (2) a backward pass for building edges (c, f) *∈ T ×S*. In the forward pass, for example, an edge (F, c) *∈ S × T* is constructed if a target node from the target language l: c =*< l, v, T >*'s verse v contains a string t that is highly associated with F. As the search space of target-language strings is extremely large for each l, we therefore restrict the search space to the set of strings which occur in the verses whose corresponding English verses contain F. Formally, let Π(eng, F) be the verses where the focal concept F occurs and P(Σ∗)(*l, v*) be the strings that fulfill our string selection conditions in verse v for language l. We will then only consider the strings in T =Sv P(Σ∗)(*l, v*)|v ∈ Π(eng, F) to be candidates in language l that are possibly associated with F. Similarly, in the backward pass, we also restrict the search space to be the set of English strings in the verses whose corresponding target-language verses contained the identified target-language string set T in the forward pass. Formally, let Π(*l, T*) be the verses where the T occurs and P(Σ∗)(eng, v) be the strings that fulfill our string selection conditions in verse v for English. We will then only consider English strings in S =Sv P(Σ∗)(eng, v)|v ∈ Π(*l, T*). Furthermore, we will only consider the strings t ∈ T which occur more than Π(eng, F)/10 in the target-language verses of Π(eng, F) and s ∈ S which occur more 12981  than 2 times in the English verses of Π(*l, T*). ## B.3 Measuring Association Given a set of strings U in a language l2, we want to find a string in language l1 that is associated with U. To this end, we use χ 2score to measure the degree of the association. Specifically, we divide the verse set into two subsets: verses containing U and verses not containing U in the Bible of l2, i.e., Π(l2, U) and ¬Π(l2, U). We then build a contingency table for each string candidate t ∈ P(Σ∗) and t comes from language l1, as shown in Table 7. After that, we compute the χ 2score for each string: the higher the score, the more associated the string in l1 is with the set of strings U. We then choose the string that has the highest χ 2score as a hit in language l1 for a set of strings U in language l2. ## B.4 Adding Edges For efficiency and stability reasons, in the actual implementation of the backward pass, Conceptualizer does not add edges from a target node to all the strings in S that fulfill the criterion, i.e., the set of the identified associated source language strings, as shown in Algorithm 2 (line 9). Instead, we only add one edge only from each target node. This means that in each iteration of the backward pass, we will add new edges starting from the involved target nodes to a single s: {((l, v, T), s)|(F,(l, v, T)) *∈ G ∧*s ∈ v ∧v ∈ V }. In this way, each target node that was previously connected with the focal concept F can only be connected to one source node only. By doing this, we find that some undesirable associations can be avoided. ## B.5 Hyperparameters We have two hyperparameters in Conceptualizer, i.e., (1) the maximum number of iterations of searching associated strings for a focal concept in each language: M and (2) the threshold α for the minimum coverage of the set of identified associated string U. We set M = 5 and α = .9 as  default values for all involved computations. Based on preliminary experiments on 'bird' concept, we found that the number of associated strings usually will not go beyond 5. Moreover, when M is large, we might have an efficiency problem (more iterations for each language) when computing other focal concepts. Therefore, we set M = 5 to reduce the runtime of Conceptualizer while not sacrificing the accuracy too much. As for the coverage threshold α, we conduct preliminary experiments with .85, .9 and .95 respectively on 'bird' concept. We found when coverage is small (<.9), the search stops when there are still possibly unidentified associated strings in the rest verses. If the coverage is too large (>.9), we found that some less related strings can be identified at the later stage of iterations for some languages. We should note that PBC can have verse-level misalignment problems, which means for some parallel verses 'bird' occurs in English but the target-language verse can be unrelated to 'bird' at all. Moreover, as we remove the parallel verses that we have covered in each iteration, the verses uncovered become smaller and smaller in each iteration. χ 2scores computed on later iterations can be not significant and multiple strings can have the same highest χ 2scores if they only appear in the uncovered verses with the same number of occurrences. Therefore, to ensure that Conceptualizer finds enough strings while guaranteeing the quality of the associations between them with the search string, we set the coverage threshold α = .9.  ## C Details Of Evaluation C.1 Single Concept Across All Languages In the English version of the Bible, we find the 'bird' concept is often expressed by the following words/phrases: "bird(s)", "fowl(s)", "flying creature(s)" and "winged creature(s)". Therefore, we use the following strings: $bird, $fowl, $flying$creature and $winged$creature to represent the 'bird' concept. We agree that this set of strings might not be optimal for other largeresource parallel datasets (if there are any). However, for PBC dataset, this set of strings could empirically cover the 'bird' concept. We perform our Conceptualizer which includes the forward pass and backward pass for this 'bird' concept for all the languages in PBC. We perform three types of evaluations as follows based on the FP and BP hits: ## C.1.1 **'Bird' Conceptualization In All Languages** We provide a pdf document in which the statistics of each string identified in both forward pass and backward pass are shown. In addition, for each target-language string, a) two randomly sampled True Positive parallel verses, i.e., target-language verses that contain the identified strings and the parallel English verses contain 'bird'; b) two randomly sampled **False Positive** parallel verses, i.e., targetlanguage verses that contain the strings and the parallel English verses that do not contain 'bird', are shown. We also show three randomly sampled False Negative parallel verses, i.e., target-language verses that do not contain the strings and the parallel English verses that contain 'bird' concept. An example of part of the document for one language is shown in Figure 6. By checking the general patterns demonstrated in the document, we define four | l | P | T | category | |-----|-----------------|-------------------|------------| | ify | ke:keq, qemayuq | $sisit$ | no overlap | | ind | cewek, burung | $burung, terbang$ | overlap | | akb | unggas | $unggas$ | match | | afr | voël, vliegtuig | voël | match | evaluation categories: one-to-one, polysemy, **ambiguity** and **failure**. Noticeably, our category **polysemy** and **ambiguity** do not directly correspond to the definition in linguistics, but reflect general patterns of the conceptualization. The classification of these two categories is based on the pattern of strings identified in the backward pass. More specifically, we classify the conceptualization pattern of a language as **polysemy**, if it shows one of the following patterns: (a) *hyponymy*, where we found strings such as dove and sparrows, which are hyponyms of 'bird'. (b) *meronymy*, where we found strings like $wings, which is a meronym of 'bird'. (c) *other related words*, where we found strings such as $fly and $chirp, which are apparently related to 'bird', but do not fit into any well-defined lexical semantic relation. The conceptualization pattern is classified as **ambiguity**, if the strings we found in the backward pass are not semantically related to 'bird' at all (such as $new$ and $kid$), but nevertheless are deemed as highly associated with 'bird' by our algorithm. These cases are generally caused by having homonyms of 'bird' in the target language. In case the linguist annotator cannot be sure of the classification, consultation has been made with other experts to resolve these issues and find the most common agreement. | l | P | T | factor | |-----------|--------|---------------|---------------| | uig | qush | қуш (qush) | script | | mua ˇZ`u: | juu | transcription | | | lip | OklObE | baklObE | prefix | | mse | layra | layagi | suffix | | sbl | ma'nok | manokmanok | reduplication | ## C.1.2 Translations Compared With Panlex For each language, the linguist annotator also checks the translation of "bird" provided by PanLex (Kamholz et al., 2014) 4. The translations are available in 1,137 languages out of the 1,331 languages in PBC where we found translations of the focal concept 'bird'. We define the following four categories for the PanLex evaluation where P are the tranlations from PanLex and T are the FP hits (target-language strings). - **no translation**: P = ∅, i.e., PanLex gives no translation. - **no overlap**: T ∩ P = ∅, i.e., none of the FP hits is found in PanLex translations. - **overlap**: 0 < |T ∩ P| < |T|, i.e., some but not all of the FP hits are found in PanLex translations. - **match**: |T ∩ P| = |T|, i.e., all the FP hits can be found in PanLex translations. Note that we do not require all the translations in PanLex to be present in our set of target strings, since PanLex often gives a very long list of translations and our goal is to use PanLex translations to confirm the strings we identified. We show examples for each category (except for no translation) in Table 8. When deciding whether a translation from PanLex matches an FP hit, the linguist annotator does not only look for an exact match of strings but also takes the differences in scripts, transcriptions, and morphological forms into consideration. For languages with multiple writing systems, words are naturally transliterated into a unified script for them to be comparable. It has also been observed, that the same word can sometimes be transcribed differently in different sources, especially for low-resource languages that have no standard writing system. Therefore, "ˇZ`u:" in PanLex and "juu" in our FP hit will still be considered as a match. Furthermore, it is also possible that the PanLex translation uses a morphologically different form compared to our FP hit, such as dic- | model | Coverage(g) Coverage(a) | trans. per l | | |----------------|---------------------------|----------------|-----| | Conceptualizer | .93 | .95 | 1.6 | | Eflomal 0 | .94 | .96 | 7.0 | | Eflomal 1 | .81 | .82 | 2.9 | | Eflomal 0.1 | .70 | .79 | 2.1 | tionary form versus inflected form. Possible morphological processes such as affixation, reduplication, vowel mutation, vowel ellipsis, and metathesis have been taken into consideration. We show some examples of these factors in Table 9. With careful examination, if the linguist annotator concludes that Conceptualizer actually has found the same lexeme as the PanLex translation, and the difference between PanLex and our FP hit is merely attributed to the above-mentioned factors, they will still be considered as matches. ## C.1.3 Translations Compared With Eflomal We also compare the coverage and the average number of translations proposed per language of Conceptualizer and eflomal (Östling and Tiedemann, 2016), a statistical word alignment tool, in Table 10. We collect words that are aligned with one of the strings representing 'bird' in all verses where 'bird' occurs for eflomal baselines. The coverage means the fraction of verses containing 'bird' covered by the set of proposed translations. Global coverage denotes that we compute the coverage directly in all verses regardless of language while average coverage denotes that we first compute the coverage for each language and then average over all languages. We notice that, eflomal, without filtering any translations, obtains the highest global and average coverage, which can be regarded as the upper bound. However, the number of translations per language on average is so high: 7.0. After filtering some proposed translations by their frequencies (1 and 0.1), we observe a sudden drop in the coverage. This indicates that (1) eflomal can propose many wrong alignments and (2) some correct alignments have very small frequencies. Because of its word-level alignment nature, eflomal cannot take the possible morphological changes of the words into consideration at all. On the contrary, Conceptualizer only proposes 1.6 translations on average while keeping the coverage very close to the upper bound, suggesting that Conceptualizer can identify the strings (ngrams) that are most associated with the concept and alleviate the possible problems caused by, e.g., morphological changes, in many languages. ## C.2 Swadesh Concepts We resort to NoRaRe (Tjuka et al., 2022) 5to find the available translations of the 32 Swadesh concepts in 39 languages (NoRaRe covers). For each concept and each language, we store a triple indexed by the concept-language pair: ## < Concept, Language, Translation(S) > We finally obtain 582 triples for evaluation (NoRaRe does not provide translations of a concept in all covered languages). We use T to represent the set of translations proposed by Conceptualizer and N for NoRaRe translations (as ground-truth translations) in the triple. When judging whether a translation in N matches a translation in T generated by Conceptualizer, we do the match leniently to allow for morphological changes. Specifically, if a translation in N is a substring of a translation in T generated by Conceptualizer or the other way around, we regard it as a successful match. This is because N often provide the dictionary forms of the nouns but T are generated automatically based on the actual Bible verses where the nouns can change their suffixes or prefixes quite often depending on their roles in the verses. We are especially interested in the triples in which our identified strings T do not match the ground-truth translations R, i.e., T ∩ R = ∅. We sampled 10 such triples (we provide N and T for each triple) in Table 11. We notice that there are cases where the ground-truth translations N use different versions of transliterations. For example, $andjing vs. "anjing", $daoen vs. "daun" and $boelan vs. "bulan" in Malay (msa). Moreover, there can be multiple equivalent translations for a concept, but N just lists one of them which is not used (or not identified) in PBC, e.g., "颈" is a simpler but more formal translation of 'neck' but the N only lists "脖子" in Chinese (zho); the concept 'path' can also be translated to "rout" and "sentier" in French (fra) but only "chemin" is given by the 5https://norare.clld.org/ concept *l N T* 'dog' msa anjing $andjing 'seed' cym hedyn $had$, $heu 'leaf' msa daun $daoen 'horn' est ruupor sarve 'mouth' tur agiz ˘ $ağzı, $ağız 'neck' zho 脖子 颈 'moon' msa bulan $boelan 'water' cym dwr ˆ dwfr$, dyfr 'rain' msa hujan $hoedjan 'path' fra chemin $la$rout, $sentier N. Therefore, we see that this evaluation compared with NoRaRe can actually underestimate the performance of our method. ## D Infrastructure & Environment We ran all our computational experiments on a CPU server with 48 cores and 1024 GB of memory. We used Python 3.66throughout our implementation of Conceptualizer and for visualizations. Specifically, for fundamental scientific computing (e.g., computing χ 2scores), we used NumPy7, SciPy8and scikit-learn9 packages. For visualization, we used NetworkX10(mainly for the crosslingual semantic fields) and Matplotlib11 packages. Concepts Concreteness Stability 'fish' 5.0 0.86 'bird' 5.0 0.68 'dog' 4.85 0.85 'tree' 5.0 0.64 'seed' 4.71 0.38 'leaf' 5.0 0.74 'root' 4.34 0.78 'flesh' 4.59 0.36 'blood' 4.86 0.69 'horn' 5.0 0.82 'hair' 4.97 0.77 'ear' 5.0 0.46 'mouth' 4.74 0.49 'tooth' 4.89 0.91 'tongue' 4.93 0.61 'foot' 4.9 0.7 'knee' 5.0 0.38 'belly' 4.8 0.4 'neck' 5.0 0.72 'breast' 4.89 0.65 'sun' 4.83 0.49 'moon' 4.9 0.48 'star' 4.69 0.87 'water' 5.0 0.48 'rain' 4.97 0.68 'stone' 4.72 0.71 'cloud' 4.54 0.68 'smoke' 4.96 0.57 'path' 4.41 0.35 'mountain' 4.96 0.64 'white' 3.89 0.77 'night' 4.52 0.68 Concepts Concreteness Stability 'babe' 3.67 0.59 'hypocrit' 2.43 0.81 'soldier' 4.72 0.49 'scroll' 4.11 0.57 'demon' 3.32 0.45 'boat' 4.93 0.71 'olive' 4.9 0.8 'prayer' 3.28 0.32 'mercy' 1.57 0.29 'trumpet' 4.86 0.83 'angel' 3.82 0.88 'prison' 4.68 0.62 'savior' 3.04 0.49 'tomb' 4.73 0.61 'husband' 4.11 0.47 'bride' 4.63 0.69 'talent' 2.19 0.83 'peace' 1.62 0.72 'secret' 2.19 0.57 'faith' 1.63 0.59 'woe' 1.96 0.8 'throne' 4.64 0.62 'wisdom' 1.53 0.54 'disciple' 3.29 0.73 'obeisance' NA 0.37 'truth' 1.96 0.4 'memor' 2.83 0.53 'governor' 4.07 0.52 'poor' 2.7 0.63 'blind' 4.03 0.77 'spiritual' 1.79 0.33 'justice' 1.45 0.34 'courage' 1.52 0.53 'purpose' 1.52 0.3 'generation' 1.96 0.56 'contrary' 1.56 0.46 'prophesy' 2.11 0.41 'decision' 2.19 0.36 'request' 2.59 0.32 'weakness' 2.59 0.55 'journey' 2.57 0.39 'public' 2.57 0.23 'appearance' 2.57 0.55 'expression' 2.54 0.51 'marriage' 2.51 0.51 'wrath' 2.42 0.4 'trouble' 2.25 0.45 'promise' 2.09 0.46 'power' 2.04 0.41 'pleasure' 2.04 0.35 'thought' 1.97 0.39 E Crosslingual semantic fields **F Further analysis regarding language** similarity SEE  sho 4  15    ola  11.  . o  6    per  Figure 8: Visualization of semantic field (1).    Figure 9: Visualization of semantic field (2).    | setting | global | atla | aust | indo | guin | otom | sino | |-----------|----------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | Swadesh32 | 1280 | 222 | 215 | 91 | 87 | 76 | 68 | | Bible51 | 1264 | 219 | 210 | 90 | 85 | 76 | 67 | | All83 | 1263 | 219 | 210 | 90 | 85 | 76 | 67 |  #neighbors global Papunesia Africa Eurasia North America South America Australia k=1 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.64 0.52 0.35 0.00 k=2 0.28 0.27 0.31 0.47 0.27 0.09 0.00 k=3 0.45 0.44 0.51 0.62 0.43 0.22 0.00 k=4 0.53 0.52 0.60 0.69 0.51 0.25 0.00 k=5 0.55 0.54 0.61 0.72 0.57 0.28 0.09 k=6 0.56 0.55 0.62 0.75 0.57 0.26 0.09 k=7 0.56 0.55 0.63 0.74 0.56 0.24 0.09 k=8 0.57 0.56 0.64 0.76 0.56 0.27 0.00 k=9 0.57 0.54 0.66 0.77 0.59 0.26 0.00 k=10 0.58 0.55 0.65 0.79 0.62 0.22 0.00 #neighbors global Papunesia Africa Eurasia North America South America Australia k=1 0.49 0.54 0.57 0.63 0.28 0.30 0.00 k=2 0.24 0.25 0.33 0.42 0.06 0.08 0.00 k=3 0.41 0.43 0.59 0.62 0.13 0.09 0.00 k=4 0.48 0.52 0.66 0.70 0.20 0.14 0.00 k=5 0.51 0.55 0.70 0.72 0.18 0.18 0.00 k=6 0.50 0.53 0.72 0.70 0.18 0.15 0.00 k=7 0.50 0.53 0.71 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.00 k=8 0.49 0.51 0.71 0.69 0.14 0.15 0.00 k=9 0.48 0.48 0.73 0.71 0.12 0.12 0.00 k=10 0.49 0.50 0.74 0.71 0.14 0.12 0.00 Table 16: The result of binary classification (area) results using different numbers of nearest neighbors (1 to 10) of Bible51. The global column shows the results considering all languages. The rest columns denote the results only considering languages in that region. #neighbors global Papunesia Africa Eurasia North America South America Australia k=1 0.54 0.59 0.65 0.68 0.38 0.25 0.00 k=2 0.33 0.35 0.41 0.53 0.16 0.09 0.00 k=3 0.51 0.51 0.69 0.71 0.27 0.17 0.00 k=4 0.56 0.57 0.75 0.75 0.32 0.21 0.00 k=5 0.58 0.59 0.77 0.78 0.34 0.22 0.00 k=6 0.58 0.60 0.77 0.79 0.35 0.17 0.00 k=7 0.58 0.60 0.79 0.81 0.34 0.15 0.00 k=8 0.57 0.59 0.77 0.81 0.33 0.16 0.00 k=9 0.58 0.59 0.78 0.81 0.32 0.18 0.00 k=10 0.58 0.60 0.79 0.80 0.32 0.17 0.00 Table 18: Selected examples from the comparison of **Swadesh32** concepts of Mandarin Chinese (zho) and Tibetan (bod). Differences can be observed for several concepts, especially those related to body parts. | concept | lang. | ngrams | |-----------|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------| | 'mouth' | zho | $mouth$, $mouths$, $entrance, alat, $ford | | bod | $mouth$, $mouths$, $prais | | | 'neck' | zho | $neck$, $necks$, $stiff-necked | | bod | $neck$, $necks$, $obstina, $stubbornness$ | | | 'tree' | zho | $tree$, $trees$, $vine$, -tree$, $boughs$ | | bod | $tree$, $trees$, $chariot, wood, $cedar, igs$, $timber | | | 'horn' | zho | $horn$, $horns$, $corner | | bod | $horn$, $horns$, $trumpet, $fathering$ | | | concept | lang. | ngrams | |-----------|---------------------------------|----------| | arb | $fish$, $fishes$ | | | pes | $fishes$, $fish$, $fish | | | tur | $fish$, $fishes$, $fish, $honey | | | msa | $fishes$, $fish$ | | | 'fish' | | | 'star' 'blood' 'tongue' 'bird' arb $stars$, $star$ pes $stars$, $star$ tur $stars$, $star$ msa $stars$, $star$ ind $stars$, $star$ arb $blood$, $bloodguilt$ pes $blood$ tur $blood$, $bloods, $bloodguilt$ msa $blood$ ind $blood$, $blood arb $tongue$, $tongues$ pes $tongue$, $tongues$ tur $tongue$, $tongues$, $request, $language msa $tongues$, $tongue$, ebrew$ ind $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | pes | $birds$, $bird$ | |-------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | tur | $birds$, $bird$, $fowl | | msa | $birds$, $bird$, dove, $sparrows$, $eagle | | ind | $birds$, $bird$, $eagle, $turtledove, $ostrich, $raven, $bird | Table 19: Selected examples from the comparison of **Swadesh32** concepts of several languages influenced by Islam. arb: Standard Arabic, pes: Western Farsi, tur: Turkish, msa: Standard Malay, ind: Standard Indonesian. | 'blood' 'tongue' 'mouth' | |----------------------------| | concept | lang. | ngrams | |-----------|----------------------------------|---------------------| | eng | $blood$ | | | spa | $blood$ | | | ell | $blood$ | | | rus | $blood$, $blood | | | tgl | $blood$ | | | swh | $blood$, $blood | | | hye | $blood$, $blood | | | 'blood' | eng | $tongue$, $tongues$ | | spa | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | | | ell | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | | | rus | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | | | tgl | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | | | swh | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | | | hye | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | | | 'tongue' | eng | $birds$, $bird$ | | spa | $birds$, $bird$, $fowls$ | | | ell | $birds$, $bird$, $bird | | | rus | $birds$, $bird$, $fowl, $bird | | | tgl | $birds$, $bird$, $fowl | | | swh | $birds$, $bird$, $fowl | | | hye | $birds$, $bird$, $flying$, $fowl | | | 'bird' | | | Table 20: Selected examples from the comparison of **Swadesh32** concepts of several languages influenced by Christianity. eng: English, spa: Spanish, ell: Modern Greek, rus: Russian, tgl: Tagalog, swh: Swahili, hye: Eastern Armenian. Table 21: Selected examples from the comparison of **Swadesh32** concepts of languages possibly influenced by western and Chinese languages. eng: English, deu: German, fra: French, jpn: Japanese, kor: Korean, zho: Mandarin Chinese. | concept | lang. | ngrams | |-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------| | eng | $blood$ | | | deu | $blood$ | | | fra | $blood$ | | | jpn | $blood$, $blood | | | kor | $blood$, $escap, $skin$, $airs$, $pip, $flut | | | zho | $blood$, $blood | | | eng | $tongue$, $tongues$ | | | deu | $tongue$, $tongues$ | | | fra | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | | | jpn | $tongue$, $tongues$ | | | kor | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | | | zho | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | | | eng | $mouth$, $mouths$ | | | deu | $mouth$, $mouths$ | | | fra | $mouth$, $mouths$ | | | jpn | $mouth$, $mouths$, $entrance, $kiss, $whistl, $doorkeeper, $contention | | | kor | $mouth$, $mouths$, $entrance, $lip, $clothe, $kiss, $overla | | | zho | $mouth$, $mouths$, $entrance, alat, $ford | | concept lang. ngrams | 'bird' | |----------| spa $ear$, $ears$, $heard$ tgl $ears$, $ear$, $listen$, $hearing$ ceb $ears$, $ear$, $hear$, $hearing$ hil $ear$, $ears$, $hear | spa | $birds$, $bird$, $fowls$ | |-------|-----------------------------| | tgl | $birds$, $bird$, $fowl | | ceb | $birds$, $bird$, $fowl | | hil | $birds$, $bird$, $sparrows$ | | 'ear' | |---------| Table 22: Selected examples from the comparison of **Swadesh32** concepts of several Philippine languages influenced by Spanish. spa: Spanish, tgl: Tagalog, ceb: Cebuano, hil: Hiligaynon. concept lang. ngrams | 'tongue' | |------------| | spa | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | |-------|----------------------------------| | tgl | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | | ceb | $tongue$, $tongues$, $language | | hil | $tongue$, $tongues$ | 'tree' yor $tree$, $trees$, wood, $stake, $frankincense$, $thornbush, $palm-tree$ ibo $tree$, $trees$, $pole, wood, $impal, $stake, $panel mcn $tree$, $trees$, wood, $stake, $impale, $cedar, $timber twi $tree$, $trees$, $wood, $panel$, $pole, $figs$, $timber 'hair' yor $hair$, $hairs$, $wool$ ibo $hair$, $hairs$, $wool, $shear, $beard mcn $hair$, $hairs$, $wool$, $shave, $baldness$, $shear, goat twi $hair$, $hairs$, $beard, $shave, $head$, $wool 'mouth' yor $mouth$, $mouths$, $entrance, $kiss, $palate$, $marvel, $suckling ibo $mouth$, $mouths$, $gate, $entrance, $lip, curse, $precious$ mcn $mouth$, $mouths$, $lips$, fulfill, $denie, $disown, $entrance twi $mouth$, $mouths$, $gat, $collect, $lip, $entrance, $registered$ Table 23: Selected examples from the comparison of **Swadesh32** concepts of four African languages. yor: Yoruba, ibo: Igbo, mcn: Masana, twi: Twi. concept lang. ngrams 'seed' cak $seed$, $seeds$, braham, $vine, $sow, fruit, $harvest kjb $seed$, $seeds$, braham, $garden, fruits$, $vine, $harvest tzj $seed$, $seeds$, $sow, $harvest$, fruit 'knee' cak $knees$, $bow, $worship, $trembl, fell$ kjb $knees$, $knee$, $obeisance$, $worship, $bow, $fell$ tzj $knees$, $worship, $obeisance$, $fell$ | cak | $tree$, $trees$, wood, $pole, $cedar, $figs$, $palm-tree$ | |-------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | kjb | $tree$, $trees$, $cedar, $panel, $wood, $figs$, $pole | | tzj | $tree$, $trees$ | Table 24: Selected examples from the comparison of **Swadesh32** concepts of three Mayan languages. cak: Kaqchikel, kjb: Q'anjob'al, tzj: Tz'utujil. | concept | target lang. | trans. in target lang. (eng) | |-----------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------| | jpn | 口 (mouth, opening, entrance) | | | kor | 구(口) (entrance, gate, mouth) | | | zho | 口(mouth, gate, entrance), 嘴(mouth, lips) | | | fra | bouche (mouth) | | | 'mouth' | spa | lengua (tongue, language) | | tgl | dilà (tongue, language), wikà (tongue, language) | | | ceb | dila (tongue), pinulongan (tongue, language) | | | hil | dilà (tongue), dilâ (tongue) | | | msa | lidah (tongue), oojoo leeda (tongue) | | | 'tongue' | | | Table 25: We use online dictionaries such as PanLex and Google Translate to look up two example concepts in the target languages and verify the associated meanings of their translations in English. We show English translations considering all used sources. For example, we obtain different translations for Tagalog "dilà" and "wikà" depending on the dictionary source and find that they can possibly mean both "tongue" and "language". The target language translations are consistent with our findings: the three East Asian languages (jpn, kor, zho) share a common conceptualization of mouth as entrance, which is missing for French (fra); similar to Spanish (spa), some Philippine languages (tgl, ceb) conceptualize tongue as language, whereas another Austronesian language, Standard Malay (msa), does not. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Yes, in 'Limitations' section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Yes, in 'Ethics Statement & Risks' section. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Yes, in Abstract and in Section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Yes, in Section 3, Section 4, Section A in the appendix and Section C in the appendix. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Yes, in Section 3, Section 4, Section A in the appendix and Section C in the appendix. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Yes, Section A. And as far as we know, there is no explicit license for PBC dataset. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Yes, in 'Ethics Statement & Risks' section. ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Yes, in 'Ethics Statement & Risks' section. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Yes, in Section 3, Section 4, Section A in the appendix and Section C in the appendix. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Yes, in Section 3, Section 4, Section A in the appendix and Section C in the appendix. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Yes, In Section 3, Section 4. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? No, we do not use neural networks so there are no "parameters" in our model. Nevertheless, we mention the runtime in 'Limitation' section and infrastructure in Section D in the appendix. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Yes, in Section 3, Section 4 and Section B in the appendix. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Yes, in Section 4 and Section C in the appendix ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Yes, in Section D. ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Yes, our human annotator is one of the coauthors with a linguistic background and manually evaluates the results of our method and classifies each language into a category. Details are in Section 4 and Section C in the appendix. ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Yes, we introduce the criterion in Section 4 and Section C in the appendix. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. No, not relevant in our case. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. No, not relevant in our case. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. No, not relevant in our case. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. No, not relevant in our case.

xu-etal-2023-exploring

Exploring and Verbalizing Academic Ideas by Concept Co-occurrence

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.727

Researchers usually come up with new ideas only after thoroughly comprehending vast quantities of literature. The difficulty of this procedure is exacerbated by the fact that the number of academic publications is growing exponentially. In this study, we devise a framework based on concept co-occurrence for academic idea inspiration, which has been integrated into a research assistant system. From our perspective, the emergence of a new idea can be regarded as the fusion of two concepts that co-occur in an academic paper. We construct evolving concept graphs according to the co-occurrence relationship of concepts from 20 disciplines or topics. Then we design a temporal link prediction method based on masked language model to explore potential connections between different concepts. To verbalize the newly discovered connections, we also utilize the pretrained language model to generate a description of an idea based on a new data structure called co-occurrence citation quintuple. We evaluate our proposed system using both automatic metrics and human assessment. The results demonstrate that our system has broad prospects and can assist researchers in expediting the process of discovering new ideas.

# Exploring And Verbalizing Academic Ideas By Concept Co-Occurrence Yi Xu1, Shuqian Sheng1, Bo Xue1**, Luoyi Fu**1∗ , Xinbing Wang1**, Chenghu Zhou**2 1Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China 2IGSNRR, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China {yixu98, susisheng, sappho_x, yiluofu, xwang8}@sjtu.edu.cn ## Abstract Researchers usually come up with new ideas only after thoroughly comprehending vast quantities of literature. The difficulty of this procedure is exacerbated by the fact that the number of academic publications is growing exponentially. In this study, we devise a framework based on concept co-occurrence for academic idea inspiration, which has been integrated into a research assistant system. From our perspective, the fusion of two concepts that co-occur in an academic paper can be regarded as an important way of the emergence of a new idea. We construct evolving concept graphs according to the co-occurrence relationship of concepts from 20 disciplines or topics. Then we design a temporal link prediction method based on masked language model to explore potential connections between different concepts. To verbalize the newly discovered connections, we also utilize the pretrained language model to generate a description of an idea based on a new data structure called co-occurrence citation quintuple. We evaluate our proposed system using both automatic metrics and human assessment. The results demonstrate that our system has broad prospects and can assist researchers in expediting the process of discovering new ideas.1 ## 1 Introduction Academic publications have witnessed the evolution and advancement of human civilization. In modern society, out-of-box and interdisciplinary scientific work can get more attention from science funders, industry, and the public (Thurner et al., 2020), where a good idea is the cornerstone of academic research. However, for most researchers, it takes a lot of time to put forward new ideas. For one thing, the number of academic publications is increasing exponentially, and it is difficult for an ∗ Luoyi Fu is the corresponding author. 1The project is publicly available for research purpose https://github.com/xyjigsaw/Kiscovery. independent researcher to understand these papers thoroughly. Besides, researchers often focus on their specialized but narrow fields, which makes it a challenge to discover underlying connections beyond their familiar areas (Lahav et al., 2022; Krenn and Zeilinger, 2020). In this work, our purpose is to unveil the profound connections between different academic concepts and ignite researchers' exploration of potential academic ideas while expediting the research process. The two primary goals are idea exploration and verbalization. For the first goal, we need to understand how new ideas originate. Generally speaking, the emergence of a simple idea is often formed by the interaction between two different concepts rather than from scratch. For example, the combination of *convolution* and *graph neural network* contributes to graph convolutional network (Kipf and Welling, 2017). This understanding of idea as connection and combination inspires us to model the process of idea exploration as a link prediction task based on the *evolving co-occurrence graph* of concepts. Such graphs are constructed according to the cooccurrence relationship of concepts in the papers published in different years. **It should be highlighted that there exist numerous factors leading to new ideas in the real world. We provide a** possible way as a preliminary exploration. The second goal, idea verbalization, is carried out after idea exploration to generate fluent and reasonable texts describing an idea, which usually comprises new contents derived from the combination of two different concepts. We retrieve sentences pertaining to concepts from existing publications and then verbalize ideas using the technique of natural language generation. Specifically, We propose a new data structure called co-occurrence citation quintuple (Figure 1), which stores two concepts, their corresponding sentences of papers, and idea texts. The definition is given in section 3.1. The quintuple is an extension of edges 13001 in the evolving concept co-occurrence graph and indicates where an idea comes from. We use such quintuples to train a sequence-to-sequence text generation model. In our application scenario, there are various types of disciplines. Each of them has distinct characteristics and concepts. Existing methods of link prediction and text generation (Yao et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019; Krenn and Zeilinger, 2020; Pareja et al., 2020; Da Li et al., 2022) are mostly trained on one dataset by optimizing a set of parameters. Owing to the fact that different datasets require specific training configurations and hyperparameters, such models cannot be transferred to other datasets. Particularly, link prediction models need to set the scale of graphs before training, such as the number of nodes. Moreover, in the field of natural language generation, some works (Wang et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2022) tend to construct domain knowledge bases as external information to generate texts. However, building large knowledge bases for each discipline takes tremendous resources, which is unrealistic. To this end, it is preferable to design general and informative models which can be applied to numerous disciplines. Thanks to the abundant training corpus of pretrained language models (PLMs) such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), BART (Lewis et al., 2020), and GPT (Radford et al., 2018), PLM can be regarded as an implicit knowledge graph (Petroni et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020), which has the ability of extrapolation. In this work, we integrate the whole academic information into the same representation space by leveraging the capability of PLM to break through disciplinary barriers. For idea exploration, we devise a PLM-based link prediction method, which only needs to train one set of model parameters. For idea verbalization, we use another sequence-to-sequence-based PLM endowed with academic knowledge from millions of highly-cited papers via unsupervised denoising training. Subsequently, we re-train the denoised PLM with co-occurrence citation quintuples in a supervised way. Our contributions are summarized as follows: - **New insights**: we transform the idea generation into two sequential sub-tasks: temporal link prediction and idea verbalization. The former aims to model and predict potential concept connections, while the latter involves expressing these new connections in natural ## Language. - **Publicly-released datasets**: we construct 240 evolving concept co-occurrence graphs with 20 high-level disciplines and topics. Each of them includes 23 annual snapshots ranging from 2000 to 2022. For idea verbalization, we propose a new data structure known as the co-occurrence citation quintuple that reveals how ideas appear. We curate nearly 10K high-quality co-occurrence citation quintuples, which originate from 29M papers with high citations. - **General system for all disciplines**: we design a novel temporal link prediction method and train an idea verbalization model with a large number of academic papers. The two modules are integrated into a system to serve researchers from different fields. Note that the system updates the latest papers to encourage new ideas sustainably. Users are free to enter any academic query. - **Systematic experiments**: we conduct extensive experiments, including automatic metrics and human assessment, to evaluate the performance of our link prediction method and idea verbalization model. The results show that our system has a promising prospect of helping researchers discover new ideas. ## 2 Preliminaries 2.1 Evolving Concept Co-Occurrence Graph Given a concept set C = {ci} N i=1 consisting of N concepts and a paper corpus P = {pj}M j=1 consisting of M papers, let Cp ⊂ C denote the set of concepts paper p ∈ P contains. When concepts cu and cv (cu ̸= cv) occur together in the same paper p at the same time, i.e., cu ∈ Cp, cv ∈ Cp, it is considered that cu and cv co-occur, that is, there is a connection between the two concepts. Let A ∈ R N×N represent the co-occurrence matrix of any two concepts, which is defined as follows: $$\mathcal{A}(c_{u},c_{v})=\begin{cases}1,&\exists p,\;\;c_{u}\in C_{p},c_{v}\in C_{p}\\ 0,&otherwise\end{cases}\tag{1}$$ A concept co-occurrence graph is a pair G = (*C, E*), where C is a set of concepts, and E is a set of edges representing the co-occurrence relationship between concepts. The co-occurrence matrix  A is the adjacent matrix of G. Let G = {Gt} Te t=Ts denote a set of concept co-occurrence graphs at different times ranging from Ts to Te, At represent the adjacent matrix of Gt. We call G evolving concept co-occurrence graph. Similar to citation network, G is a strictly evolving network (Skarding et al., 2021) where the connection of concepts has infinite duration. This implies that the edges in G never disappear. Exploring ideas aims to predict future co-occurrence relations in G. ## 2.2 Co-Occurrence Citation Quintuple Assuming that paper p contains concept cu and cv, p cites paper pi and pj (pi ̸= pj ). Meanwhile, pi contains concept cu, and pj contains concept cv. Then, for papers pi, pj , and p, there exist cooccurrence citation relations corresponding to concepts cu and cv. Formally, let Rp denote the set of reference papers of p, and we define the set Q of co-occurrence citation quintuples as: Q = {(pi, pj , cu, cv, p)|pi ∈ Rp, pj ∈ Rp, $C_{u}\in C_{p_{i}}\cap C_{p},c_{v}\in C_{p_{j}}\cap C_{p},c_{u}\neq c_{v}$ (2) where p is called target paper, pi and pj are called reference papers. In practice, we bind sentences that mention related concepts to the quintuples, illustrating how an idea existing in p comes up. Figure 1 shows an example of such quintuple, which consists of two concepts *text summarization* and contrastive learning. In the training process, we use the corresponding texts of pi, pj , cu, and cv as input, and our model is expected to generate the idea sentence in p, which usually appears in the paper abstract or introduction section. ## 3 Datasets And Technical Details 3.1 Datasets Our work relies on a daily updated database containing more than 220 million academic papers from 19 disciplines published between 1800 and 2023. The database also stores nearly 800K concept entities with descriptions. See Appendix A for the number of papers in each discipline. To train our model for temporal link prediction, we first collect 240 essential and common queries from 19 disciplines and one special topic (COVID19). Then, we enter these queries into the paper database to fetch the most relevant papers between 2000 and 2021 with Elasticsearch, a modern text retrieval engine that stores and retrieves papers. Afterward, we use information extraction tools including AutoPhrase (Shang et al., 2018) to identify concepts. Only high-quality concepts that appear in our database will be preserved. Finally, we construct 240 evolving concept co-occurrence graphs, each containing 22 snapshots according to the co-occurrence relationship. The statistics of the concept co-occurrence graphs are provided in Appendix I. Besides, we construct and release a dataset of co-occurrence citation quintuples, which is used to train text generation model for idea verbalization. We select nearly 9.5M highly-cited papers (500K per discipline) and their corresponding references (19.7M) to construct quintuples. The process of identifying and processing concepts is similar to constructing the concept co-occurrence graph. Heuristic rules are adopted to filter redundant and noisy sentences, further improving the quality of the quintuples used for idea generation. The statistics and more details of co-occurrence citation quintuples can be found in Appendix B, C, and J. ## 3.2 Framework Overview The framework of our system in the production environment is illustrated in Figure 2. It starts by receiving the user's query and retrieving the most relevant papers from database to construct an evolving concept co-occurrence graph in a real-time way. Meanwhile, the system maintains two dictionaries for storing the mapping relations between papers and concepts. Then, a BERT-based temporal model predicts potential connections of concepts such as cu and cv, which can be regarded as a new idea. Finally, these connected concepts, as well as their corresponding sentences of papers stored in the  above dictionary, are fed to our pretrained model T5 to verbalize an idea. Our system also allows users to select elements they are interested in to form a group of inputs (pi, pj , cu, cv) for idea verbalization. In the following parts, we will introduce two key components in detail. ## 3.3 Temporal Link Prediction Our system dynamically constructs a unique evolving concept co-occurrence graph for each query according to the papers retrieved by the search engine. Under the circumstance, a general link prediction model with high transferability is required to predict new connections on different graphs, which means there exists only one set of model parameters. We take advantage of the masked language model (MLM) to tackle the link prediction problem on different graphs and propose a new temporal training method called PLM-LP (See Appendix D for the illustration of PLM-LP). Given a concept pair cu, cv and a timestamp t, we concatenate these elements and prompt words pro(cu, cv, t) to obtain the following input sequence x tuv: x t uv = [CLS] pro(cu, cv, t): in t, cu is [MASK] to cv.[SEP], where pro is a prompt function defined in Equation 3 that generates a description of the given input, [MASK] is the mask token, [CLS] and [SEP] represent the tokens of the beginning and end of the input sequence, respectively. Our model is expected to fill the mask token with a relation token, i.e., "*related*" and "*unrelated*", which are taken as the true label to indicate whether the two concepts are connected. Considering that edges in the evolving concept co-occurrence graph do not disappear, we add prompts according to this feature. If there was an edge between cu and cv before time t, the pro(·) returns the word "*Existing*", otherwise it returns "*Unknown*": $$p r o(c_{u},c_{v},t)={\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{\text{``Existing"},{\mathcal{A}}_{t-1}(c_{u},c_{v})=1}\\ {\text{``Unknown"},o t h e r w i s e}\end{array}\right.}\tag{3}$$ In the data preprocessing, positive samples D + = {x tuv|At(cu, cv) = 1, Ts ≤ t ≤ Te} are directly constructed according to the edges of each year. For negative samples D−, since the concept co-occurrence graph is sparse, we cannot simply take any two concepts that do not have a connection each year as negative samples, which is unreasonable and will lead to a sharp increase in the number of negative samples. Actually, we only need to focus on the samples in the most difficult cases. Therefore, given a concept cu ∈ C and its k-hop neighborhood concepts, we choose concepts that have no connection with cu in the next d years to construct negative samples. The set of negative samples is shown as follows: $$\mathbb{D}^{-}=\{x_{u v}^{t}|c_{v}\in\mathcal{N}_{k}(c_{u}),\mathcal{A}_{t+d}(c_{u},c_{v})=0,$$ $$k\geq2,T_{s}\leq t<t+d\leq T_{e}\},\tag{4}$$ where Nk(cu) is the set of concepts at a distance less than or equal to k from cu, i.e., the k-hop neighborhood of cu. It is worth noting that the negative samples are used to construct input text sequences with timestamp t rather than t + d, and we do not generate negative samples in the last d timestamps. We fine-tune the parameters and vocabulary embeddings of BERT via predicting the masked token. Formally, we compute the crossentropy loss: $$\mathcal{L}=-\sum_{d\in\mathbb{D}+\cup\mathbb{D}-}1_{[MASK]=y_{d}}\log P([MASK]=y_{d}|x_{uv}^{t}),\tag{5}$$ where yd ∈ {"related", "*unrelated*"} is the label of the sample. It should be mentioned that KGBERT (Yao et al., 2019) and LP-BERT (Da Li et al., 2022) are similar to PLM-LP, but the settings they adopt are not applicable to the training of temporal data. Nevertheless, the PLM in our method can be replaced by other models. ## 3.4 Idea Verbalization In our public beta system, we employ T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), a large pretrained sequence-tosequence model for idea verbalization. We select 2M highly-cited papers for unsupervised denoising training with the language model loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{l m}=\mathbb{E}_{p}[-\log P(p|{\tilde{p}};\theta)],$$ where p˜ represent the corrupted sentence of paper p. In the process of fine-tuning, given a co-occurrence citation quintuple q = (pi, pj , cu, cv, p), we first concatenate pi, pj , cu, and cv to a sequence Seq(q), using ⟨HEAD⟩, ⟨TAIL⟩, ⟨SEP⟩ to denote the head, tail of a concept pair, and the separator, respectively, which is shown as follows: Seq(q) = ⟨HEAD⟩ cu ⟨TAIL⟩ cv ⟨SEP⟩ pi ⟨SEP⟩ pj . We fine-tune the T5 model to find the optimal parameters θ∗to encode the input sequence and verbalize it into an idea sequence, i.e., the item p in the quintuple. For this purpose, we use the maximum likelihood estimation objective: $$\theta^{*}=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{\theta}\prod_{q}P(p|S e q(q);\theta).$$ q During the inference process (production environment), we use the predicted connection of concepts cu, cv, and their corresponding sentences of papers pi, pj to construct the input sequence, which is encoded by our fine-tuned T5 to generate an idea sequence. Note that the idea verbalization model is also flexible in our framework, and it can be substituted by alternatives such as GPT(Radford et al., 2018) with another configuration of fine-tuning. We will also provide premium subscribers with GPT-3.5 after the official release of our system. ## 4 Evaluation 4.1 Analysis Of Temporal Link Prediction 4.1.1 Results Of Link Prediction In 2021 PLM-LP is compared with 3 temporal model SEMNET (Krenn and Zeilinger, 2020), GCN-GAN (Lei et al., 2019), and EvolveGCN (Pareja et al., 2020), which are suitable for concept co-occurrence graph. SEMNET analyzes graph characteristics to recognize potential new edges with an MLP module. GCN-GAN and EvolveGCN utilize GCN and LSTM to model the structural and temporal information of a graph. In the experiment, their performance is evaluated on our constructed 240 concept co-occurrence graphs, where the last snapshot (the year 2021) is used as the test set. We report the accuracy of the adjacent matrix, precision, recall, and F1 score of all edges and new edges existing in the graph of 2021. New edges do not exist in the past snapshots and only come out in 2021. Note that PLM-LP is trained with a single set of model parameters on these 240 graphs and then applied to different graphs for the test procedure. The hyper-parameters k and d in PLM-LP are set to 2 and 5, respectively. Apart from our proposed PLM-LP, we also introduce two variants. PLM-LP w/o *pro.* removes the prompt words pro(cu, cv, t). PLM-LP ind. is trained with independent parameters on different graphs. Results of these models in 20 disciplines/topics are provided in Appendix H. The average results are shown in Table 1. It can be observed that all these models are capable of identifying most edges existing in 2021, but the GCN-GAN and EvolveGCN gets undesirable performance to find new edges in 2021. Many cases have been predicted to be unconnected. We believe this is because most graphs are sparse, leading to overfitting. In our scenario, detecting new edges is more important than improving the accuracy of the adjacency matrix. Our proposed method can tackle the issue to a certain extent. As to the variants, it is difficult for PLM-LP w/o *pro.* to correctly predict all edges in 2021 due to the absence of prompt words. PLM-LP ind. is also inferior to PLM-LP, indicating that PLM can learn interdisciplinary knowledge with a set of training parameters. $$(7)$$ | Method | Accuracy | All Edges in 2021 | New Edges in 2021 | | | | | |-----------------|------------|---------------------|---------------------|--------|-------|-------|-------| | Precision | Recall | F1 | Precision | Recall | F1 | | | | SEMNET | 0.478 | 0.099 | 0.519 | 0.146 | 0.007 | 0.552 | 0.013 | | GCN-GAN | 0.975 | 1.000 | 0.860 | 0.924 | N/A | 0 | N/A | | EvolveGCN | 0.995 | 1.000 | 0.970 | 0.985 | N/A | 0 | N/A | | PLM-LP w/o pro. | 0.648 | 0.586 | 0.948 | 0.646 | 0.467 | 0.947 | 0.474 | | PLM-LP ind. | 0.742 | 0.704 | 0.986 | 0.748 | 0.188 | 0.910 | 0.195 | | PLM-LP | 0.735 | 0.970 | 0.998 | 0.981 | 0.540 | 0.988 | 0.560 | ## 4.1.2 Human Assessment Of Link Prediction In The Future We use all graph snapshots, including the year 2021, for training to mine potential connections that may appear in the future. Similarly, we select the top 20 pairs of concepts for each query. See Appendix G for the potential connections of different disciplines. We invited more than 10 experts from the field of computer science and geo-science (geology and geography) to evaluate the predicted results in their corresponding domains. The assessment is based on the experience of experts. The results are shown in Table 2. As expected, at least a third of the potential concept pairs predicted by the system are reasonable in the three disciplines, indicating that PLM-LP is able to explore new concepts across disciplines. We also test random pairs on geo-science, and there are no more than 10% of reasonable pairs. | Disciplines | Percentage (%) of Reasonable Pairs | |------------------|--------------------------------------| | Computer Science | 52.1 | | Geology | 48.8 | | Geography | 34.2 | Table 2: Percentage (%) of reasonable concept pairs based on human assessment. ## 4.2 Analysis Of Idea Verbalization 4.2.1 Benchmark Results We release the co-occurrence citation quintuples for idea verbalization, which can be used as a benchmark for natural language generation. Our public beta system adopts PLM such as T5 and BART as the generation models that are fine-tuned on the quintuples. We also apply unsupervised denoising training on T5 with highly-cited papers, which makes the PLM itself learn more academic knowledge. All training and inference processes are carried out on NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090. In the fine-tuning stage, we employ Adam as the optimizer with 0.01 weight decay. The learning rate is set to 1e-4. For the inference, the beam size is set to 4. Similar to previous text generation work (Fan et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019), we use BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), METEOR (Banerjee and Lavie, 2005), and ROUGE_L (Lin, 2004) to measure the fluency and topic relevance of the generated ideas. Table 3 gives the benchmark results. Table 3: Benchmark results with different PLMs. | Model | BLEU | METEOR | ROUGE_L | |------------------|--------|----------|-----------| | T5-base | 25.16 | 12.57 | 16.66 | | T5-large | 25.68 | 12.72 | 16.83 | | T5-base denoise | 25.72 | 12.54 | 16.74 | | T5-large denoise | 26.94 | 13.19 | 17.35 | | BART-large | 21.87 | 7.93 | 14.72 | In fact, it is challenging to evaluate long text (Liu et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016), let alone idea verbalization, which may contain new opinions, insights, and methods. Additionally, the new content in the verbalized idea is likely to differ from the target paper in quintuples. Thus, we conduct the following experiments. ## 4.2.2 Turing Test Similar to previous work (Wang et al., 2019), we recruited more domain experts and non-experts in the field of computer science, geo-science (geology and geography), and medicine to conduct the Turing test. Experts include professors, lecturers, postdoctoral researchers, and graduate students (at least two professors per discipline). Participants are asked to read the machine-generated outputs and human-written texts and choose the real humanwritten text from a set of N − 1 fake ones. Each participant is given instructions before the test. We also allow participants to use the Internet to retrieve technical terms during the test. For each discipline, there are two different modes of multiple-choice questions, one contains two options per question, and the other contains three options per question. We randomly select 15 questions per test from the | Disciplines | Test ID | # Cases | # Options | # Participant | | |---------------------|-----------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|----| | per Case | # Amateur | # Expert | | | | | Computer Science | 1.1 | 50 | 2 | 10 | 30 | | 1.2 | 20 | 3 | | | | | Geography & Geology | 2.1 | 30 | 2 | 6 | 6 | | 2.2 | 20 | 3 | | | | | Medicine & COVID-19 | 3.1 | 30 | 2 | 8 | 10 | | 3.2 | 20 | 3 | | | | question bank for each participant to answer. We conduct six groups of Turing tests, whose experimental settings are shown in Table 4.  The results are displayed using a box plot in Figure 3. Overall, domain experts are more likely to achieve higher accuracy in these six groups of tests. Also, the results reveal that the accuracy of the 3-options question is lower than 30%, indicating that it is more difficult for participants to choose the human-written one from 3 options than from 2 options. Moreover, the accuracy of the 2-option questions is close to or even lower than that of random guessing, which means experts can hardly distinguish between human-written sentences and machine-generated sentences, although they tend to analyze texts from the perspective of logic and accuracy. One of the possible reasons is that the verbalized ideas contain more nonprofessional terms while maintaining fluency and reasonableness, which is more readable than academic papers. ## 4.2.3 Relevance & Plagiarism Analysis We calculate the percentage of n-grams in the input sequence which appear in the verbalized idea of test data to analyze how relevant the idea is to the input sequence. Meanwhile, the percentage of n-grams can also be regarded as a plagiarism check. As seen from Table 5, about 40% of the input 1-grams exist in the output texts, which means the output can combine the knowledge of relevant concepts. Additionally, the percentages of 2 to 5-grams are all lower than 20%, that is, the verbalized ideas are not simply copied from the input but are paraphrased and fused into new knowledge. ## 1-Gram 2-Gram 3-Gram 4-Gram **5-Gram** 40.7 19.9 13.8 11.2 9.4 Table 5: Percentage (%) of n-grams in the test input sequence that appear in the verbalized idea. We did not provide the n-gram overlap of the target paper p. From our perspective, p is more like an inspiration, which teaches our model a possible way of how two concepts can be combined together, rather than generating sentences exactly like p. ## 4.3 Case Study In Appendix E, we provide a page of examples of input sequences, human-written texts, and verbalized ideas according to our test dataset of quintuples. To simulate the real situation, we randomly select cases including new connections PLM-LP predicts, which do not appear in our quintuple dataset. It is worth noting that we only take these two concepts as input and do not enter their corresponding sentences to avoid the impact of potential plagiarism. Table 6 shows three verbalized ideas. For the first case, we can see our system integrates the critical characteristic of contrastive learning that requires no labels into the task of knowledge graph mining. However, it includes untested experimental results due to the denoising training from numerous papers (especially from paper abstracts and | Discipline | Computer Science | Economics | Political Science | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|------------------------|---------------------| | Connection | knowledge graph & | intellectual capital & | gender equity & | | contrastive learning | income distribution | economic crisis | | | This paper examines the determinants of inequality in income and wealth distributions, with particular emphasis on the role played by intellectual property rights. It is shown that there are two main sources of inequality: unequal income distributions due to ownership of patents and trade secrets, and unequal taxation of these same properties. The first source arises from the fact that most patents are owned by individuals who do not have control over their own economic activities. In contrast, the second source derives from the existence of private property rights which make it possible for an individual to be rich without having to pay taxes on his or her own income. During the global financial and economic crisis, women's employment opportunities declined sharply. These trends are likely to continue during the next few years as more women enter the labor force. From our perspective, there will be an increasing number of women entering the workforce at lower levels of education than men. This trend is expected to continue in the coming years as female participation in the labour force continues to increase. The current political and economic climate may make it difficult for women to access higher level education because of the challenges presented by the gender pay gap and the macroeconomic crisis that has gripped much of the developing world since 2007. | | | | | We present a new approach to knowledge graph mining that leverages ontologies. The key idea is to model the domain knowledge as a tree like structure with nodes and edges connected in a directed or unordered graph. This allows us to efficiently learn from large amounts of unlabeled data without having to manually annotate it. Experiments show that this approach outperforms existing approaches such as tree augmented neural networks and SVM for both text classification and image categorization tasks where they only use small subsets of training examples. | | | | | Verbalized Idea | | | | introduction section), and we remove them with heuristic rules in the production environment. As to the second case, the verbalized idea mentions that intellectual capital, such as intellectual property rights, is closely related to income distribution. In the last case, our system believes that a gender pay gap exists in developing countries, which is more obvious during the economic crisis. These cases show that our system can well predict and verbalize ideas, and the generated results align with human intuition and value. Nevertheless, more details are required in natural and exact sciences. ## 5 Related Work 5.1 Graph Technology For Academic Discovery There are a few graph technical methods to help researchers find new ideas. SEMNET (Krenn and Zeilinger, 2020) predicts research trends with an MLP in the field of quantum physics via constructing such co-occurrence graphs. Sarica et al. proposes a technology graph to stimulate idea generation in engineering design, which aims to discover new concepts in the white space surrounding a focal design domain according to the semantic distance. Besides, InfraNodus (Paranyushkin, 2019), a commercial tool for people in different industries, generates insights by detecting structural gaps in a text network, which is similar to mind maps. ## 5.2 Text Generation Pretrained language models, including T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), BART (Lewis et al., 2020), and GPT (Radford et al., 2018) have become the mainstream modules of text generation since they contain billions of parameters and use a large number of corpus for training to achieve good performance. As to text generation for academic research, existing models can only be applied to a few disciplines with much fewer papers than ours. They also require a lot of resources to construct knowledge bases. For instance, PaperRobot (Wang et al., 2019) adopts external domain knowledge graphs to incrementally generate titles, abstracts, and conclusions of a paper. DRAW (Liu et al., 2021a) consists of reader, *writer*, and *reviewer* components to generate scientific texts. ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) generates human-level texts with proximal policy optimization, but it requires professional prompts to discover new ideas. Galactica (Taylor et al., 2022) is a large language model for science, which can be combined with our link prediction model to enhance its explainability for idea verbalization. ## 6 Conclusion We model the emergence of a new idea as two sequential processes: temporal link prediction for exploration and text generation for verbalization. To achieve the objectives, we first construct and release two datasets with new data structures, including evolving concept co-occurrence graph and co-occurrence citation quintuple. Then, we devise a new temporal link prediction method based on the masked language model, which can be applied to various evolving concept co-occurrence graphs of different disciplines. Finally, we finetune a PLM to verbalize ideas using the released quintuples. The pipeline has been integrated into a system free for researchers to obtain inspiration. From the experiments and the feedback of users, our system can provide useful information for idea discovery. In the future, we will release an academic oriented language model with the paradigm of prompt learning and instruction tuning to tackle both link prediction and text generation. ## Limitations Based on internal review and user feedback, we summarized the following limitations to improve and iteratively update our system and framework in the future. Problem Modeling: New concepts appear yearly in the real world, but the current system cannot generate new concepts. Generally, the emergence of new concepts often comes from the fusion of mature technologies. Thus, we model the idea exploration as link prediction. Note that it is not the only pathway to brew new ideas, but we have verified the effectiveness and rationality of this approach in the experiments. In addition, PLM can be taken as an implicit knowledge graph (Petroni et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020), which is capable of tackling uncovered concepts in the evolving concept graphs. We will continue exploring the potential of PLM in knowledge discovery and innovation. Logic, Correctness, and Concreteness: Although the verbalized ideas can deceive many experts, they may still lack logic, correctness, and details, especially in natural and exact sciences. It is also a challenge for natural language generation. We plan to use more academic corpus and introduce constraint (Zhang et al., 2020) to alleviate such problems. Temporal Information: In PLM-LP, we simply take the year information as a token in the input sequence. We conduct additional experiments to show that the temporal information is not sensitive to PLM-LP, which can be attributed to the negative sampling and the nature of the strictly evolving network. Two Birds One Stone: The current system employs two different PLMs for link prediction and idea verbalization, respectively. The development of prompt learning (Liu et al., 2021b) reveals that most NLP problems can be regarded as generation problems. In the future, we will introduce new training settings using a single PLM to address link prediction and idea verbalization simultaneously. ## Ethics Statement The datasets used in our research are collected through open-source approaches. The whole process is conducted legally, following ethical requirements. As for the Turing Test in our study, all participants are well informed about the purpose of experiments and the usage of test data, and we would not leak out or invade their privacy. We see opportunities for researchers to apply the system to idea discovery, especially for interdisciplinary jobs. We encourage users to explore different combinations of subjects with the help of our system, making the most of its knowledge storage and thus maximizing the exploration ability of the system. The main focus of the system is to provide a possible direction for future research, but the effect of human researchers will never be neglected. The massive data from various disciplines behind the system makes it capable of viewing the knowledge of an area in a multi-dimensional perspective and thus helps promote the development of novel interdisciplinary. However, considering the risks of misinformation generated by NLP tools, the verbalization only contains possible insights into new ideas. Researchers must thoroughly consider whether an idea is feasible or leads to adverse societal effects. ## Acknowledgements We would like to express our deepest gratitude to the scientists involved in the Deep-time Digital Earth program, whose contributions have been incredibly valuable. Additionally, we extend our thanks to Zhongmou He, Jia Guo, Zijun Di, Shengling Zhu, Yanpeng Li, Qi Li, Jiaxin Ding and Tao Shi from the IIOT Research Center at Shanghai Jiao Tong University for their unwavering support during the development of our system. This work was supported by NSF China (No.42050105, 62020106005, 62061146002, 61960206002), Shanghai Pilot Program for Basic Research - Shanghai Jiao Tong University. ## References Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In *ACL Workshop*. Sen Yang Da Li, Kele Xu, Ming Yi, Yukai He, and Huaimin Wang. 2022. Multi-task pre-training language model for semantic network completion. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2201.04843. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805*. Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 889–898. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semisupervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Mario Krenn and Anton Zeilinger. 2020. Predicting research trends with semantic and neural networks with an application in quantum physics. *Proceedings* of the National Academy of Sciences, 117:1910 – 1916. Dan Lahav, Jon Saad Falcon, Bailey Kuehl, Sophie Johnson, Sravanthi Parasa, Noam Shomron, Duen Horng Chau, Diyi Yang, Eric Horvitz, Daniel S Weld, et al. 2022. A search engine for discovery of scientific challenges and directions. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Kai Lei, Meng Qin, Bo Bai, Gong Zhang, and Min Yang. 2019. Gcn-gan: A non-linear temporal link prediction model for weighted dynamic networks. In IEEE INFOCOM 2019-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pages 388–396. IEEE. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871–7880. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Georgios Spithourakis, Jianfeng Gao, and William B Dolan. 2016. A persona-based neural conversation model. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 994–1003. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In *Text summarization* branches out. Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian Vlad Serban, Mike Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. How not to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2122–2132. Li Liu, Mengge He, Guanghui Xu, Mingkui Tan, and Qi Wu. 2021a. How to train your agent to read and write. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 35, pages 13397–13405. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021b. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586. OpenAI. 2022. Chatgpt: Optimizing language models for dialogue. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318. Dmitry Paranyushkin. 2019. Infranodus: Generating insight using text network analysis. In The world wide web conference, pages 3584–3589. Aldo Pareja, Giacomo Domeniconi, Jie Chen, Tengfei Ma, Toyotaro Suzumura, Hiroki Kanezashi, Tim Kaler, Tao Schardl, and Charles Leiserson. 2020. Evolvegcn: Evolving graph convolutional networks for dynamic graphs. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 34, pages 5363–5370. Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and Alexander Miller. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference* on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463–2473. Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Serhad Sarica, Binyang Song, Jianxi Luo, and Kristin L Wood. 2021. Idea generation with technology semantic network. *AI EDAM*, 35(3):265–283. Jingbo Shang, Jialu Liu, Meng Jiang, Xiang Ren, Clare R Voss, and Jiawei Han. 2018. Automated phrase mining from massive text corpora. *IEEE* Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 30(10):1825–1837. Joakim Skarding, Bogdan Gabrys, and Katarzyna Musial. 2021. Foundations and modeling of dynamic networks using dynamic graph neural networks: A survey. *IEEE Access*, 9:79143–79168. Ross Taylor, Marcin Kardas, Guillem Cucurull, Thomas Scialom, Anthony Hartshorn, Elvis Saravia, Andrew Poulton, Viktor Kerkez, and Robert Stojnic. 2022. Galactica: A large language model for science. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2211.09085. Stefan Thurner, Wenyuan Liu, Peter Klimek, and Siew Ann Cheong. 2020. The role of mainstreamness and interdisciplinarity for the relevance of scientific papers. *PloS one*, 15(4):e0230325. Chenguang Wang, Xiao Liu, and Dawn Song. 2020. Language models are open knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11967. Qingyun Wang, Lifu Huang, Zhiying Jiang, Kevin Knight, Heng Ji, Mohit Bansal, and Yi Luan. 2019. Paperrobot: Incremental draft generation of scientific ideas. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1980–1991. Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. 2019. Kgbert: Bert for knowledge graph completion. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1909.03193. Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Zaitang Li, Zhiting Hu, Qingyun Wang, Heng Ji, and Meng Jiang. 2022. A survey of knowledge-enhanced text generation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). Yizhe Zhang, Guoyin Wang, Chunyuan Li, Zhe Gan, Chris Brockett, and William B Dolan. 2020. Pointer: Constrained progressive text generation via insertionbased generative pre-training. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8649–8670. ## A Distribution Of Papers We are an academic service provider with a sufficient number of high-quality literature data sources (including publications and preprints). These sources are reliable and maintained by a team of professional engineers, ensuring the accuracy and persuasiveness of idea-discovery results. Our database contains more than 220 million academic papers from 19 disciplines between 1800 and 2023 and nearly 800K concept entities with corresponding descriptions. Figure 4 shows the number of papers in each discipline. Note that there are a large number of interdisciplinary papers. Our system will retrieve relevant papers from this database according to the queries and guide users to discover new ideas.  | Item | Count | |------------------------|------------| | Target Paper | 9,500,000 | | Reference Paper | 19,790,411 | | Citation Threshold | 2 | | Concept | 18,347 | | Quintuple | 652,809 | | High-quality Quintuple | 92,313 | | Train | 73,852 | | Valid | 9,230 | | Test | 9,231 | ## B Statistics Of Quintuples Table 7 shows the statistics of co-occurrence citation quintuples, which originate from 9.5M target papers and 19.8M reference papers. Their citations  are greater than or equal to 2. In the data preprocessing, when a paper contains multiple sentences corresponding to a concept, we randomly picked up one sentence to construct a quintuple. We finally obtain 92,313 high-quality instances (73,852 for training, 9,230 for validation, and 9231 for testing) after applying a filter mechanism (Appendix C). The distribution of the quintuples and their corresponding concepts are shown in Figure 5. We can see that the numbers of quintuples and concepts of natural science are far more than those of social science, which can be attributed to the paper distribution and citation. In the future, we will lower the citation threshold to get more quintuples of social science. ## C Pipeline Of Quintuple Construction Figure 6 illustrates the pipeline of constructing quintuples. We select nearly 9.5M highly cited papers (500K per discipline) and their corresponding references (19.7M) to construct quintuples. We employ AutoPhrase (Shang et al., 2018), an information extraction tool to identify concepts. We execute the process of entity linking and alignment to disambiguate duplicate entities and remove lowquality concepts. Then, we retrieve corresponding sentences of papers that mention these concepts. Relevant sentences will be preserved. Additionally, we apply a rule-based filter to our retrieved contents, where sentences including experimental details, acknowledgments, and sentences with a large number of numerical conclusions, etc., are removed. Finally, we obtain 92,313 quintuples.  ## D Framework Of Plm-Lp The framework of the temporal link prediction model PLM-LP is illustrated in Figure 7. We first generate positive and negative samples according to the structure of evolving concept co-occurrence graphs. Note that we add prompt ("*Existing*" and "*Unknown*") as the prefix of a sentence. The PLM aims to fill the mask token with a relation token, i.e., "*related*" and "*unrelated*". We use a masked language model BERT as the base PLM. We finetune the parameters and vocabulary embeddings of BERT via minimizing cross-entropy loss. Note that we simply take the year information as a token in the input sequence. We conduct experiments to show that the temporal information is not sensitive to PLM-LP. In the future, we will design a novel temporal prompt to capture more temporal information. ## E Examples Of Turing Test Table 8 shows the examples (2-option questions) used in the Turing Test. All texts presented in the questions originate from the same quintuple, where the human-written text is extracted from the target paper, and the machine-generated text is the idea verbalized by our T5 model according to the concept pair and their corresponding texts. With randomness, repeating the verbalizing process can generate different outputs, which is helpful in preparing questions that need multiple machinegenerated texts. From these examples, we can see that machine-verbalized ideas can easily deceive domain experts. ## F Screenshot Of User Interface Our system (DeepReport) is available at website https://idea.acemap.cn. Figure 8 and 9 are screenshots of user interface (public beta version). As demonstrated in Figure 8, after the concept "Carbonate Rock" is entered in the searching box, texts relevant to the keyword are presented in the insights box. The system will then dynamically construct an evolving concept co-occurrence graph based on the query result, where each node represents a concept, and relations between concepts are represented by the co-occurrence edges. We provide animations to demonstrate the evolution of the concept graph. The result of temporal link prediction is shown as concept pairs in the lower left *New Relations* box, and verbalized idea for each pair is shown in a new dialog box. Researchers can select different concept pairs they are interested in and view the corresponding ideas, as illustrated in figure 9. The system also provides network analytic tools such as community detection algorithms and Sankey diagrams for deeper investigation. The response time of the whole system is within 20 seconds. ## G Potential Connections Plm-Lp Predicted We apply PLM-LP to the constructed 240 evolving concept co-occurrence graphs. We use all graph snapshots, including the year 2021, for training to mine potential connections that may appear in the future. We select the top K pairs of concepts that are most likely to be connected by calculating the difference between the logits of labels, i.e.,  "*related*" and "*unrelated*". Table 9 presents potential connections PLM-LP predicted in 20 disciplines and topics. The connections are shown as concept pairs with & concatenated. For each discipline, we only display six pairs as examples. In our human assessment, we recruited experts in the field of computer science and geo-science (geology and geography) to evaluate the predicted results in their corresponding domains. Their feedback reveals that at least a third of the potential concept pairs generated by the system are reasonable. ## H Comparison Results Of Link Predictions On All Disciplines PLM-LP is compared with three up-to-date temporal models: SEMNET (Krenn and Zeilinger, 2020), GCN-GAN (Lei et al., 2019), and EvolveGCN (Pareja et al., 2020), which are applicable to the concept co-occurrence graph. In the experiment, their performance is evaluated on our constructed 240 concept co-occurrence graphs, where the last snapshot (the year 2021) is used as the test set. We report the accuracy of the adjacent matrix, precision, recall, and F1 score of all edges and new edges existing in the graph of 2021. New edges do not exist in the past years and would only come out in 2021. Results of these models in 20 disciplines/topics are provided in Table 10. It should be mentioned that we show the average of 12 evolving concept co-occurrence graphs of each discipline. The results show that GCN-GAN and EvolveGCN are unable to discover new edges. Our proposed PLM-LP is superior to any other models in the task of idea exploration, where the given graphs are strictly evolving network (Skarding et al., 2021). ## I Statistics Of Evolving Concept Co-Occurrence Graph We construct 240 evolving concept co-occurrence graphs (12 graphs per discipline/topics) with Elasticsearch and Autophrase (Shang et al., 2018) according to 240 essential and common queries and relevant papers. Each graph contains 22 temporal snapshots between 2000 and 2021. The statistics of the concept co-occurrence graphs are shown in Tables 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. These tables provide the corresponding discipline, query, number of nodes (concepts), number of edges in 2021, and selected concepts. We will release the construction code and data set on GitHub for further research, including temporal link prediction, community detection, academic trends analysis, knowledge representation, etc. ## J About The Official Version Of Deepreport In mid-2023, our DeepReport system underwent a major update, encompassing both data and model improvements. On the data front, we introduced a new version of the quintuple data (V202306), resulting in enhanced quality and a larger-scale dataset. The statistical summary of the new quintuple data (V202306) is presented in Table 16. Furthermore, we trained a new state-of-the-art model in a specialized domain, which remains internal to our organization. This model, along with the integration of openAI's interface, was implemented to elevate the quality of our online services. The amalgamation of our proprietary large-scale model and the incorporation of openAI's resources empowered our system to provide superior performance and better cater to the needs of our users. The introduction of the improved quintuple dataset, coupled with the deployment of the new specialized domain model and the utilization of openAI's interface, signifies a significant advancement in our DeepReport system. These updates enable us to deliver more accurate and reliable results, thereby enhancing the overall user experience. We remain committed to further refining our system to ensure it continues to meet the evolving demands of our users. ## K Frequently Asked Questions - Q: Comparing to other concepts graphs, what is the advantage of the concept co-occurrence quintuples? A: This question goes to the core of our work. This allows us to capture not only the co-occurrence relationship between concepts, but also their citation relationships, which can provide additional insights into how ideas are related (or generated) in academic literature. - Q: Why do you think transferring the concept links into natural languages is a necessary step in this assisting process? Your target users are academics. If they couldn't generate a proper idea from the link of concepts into natural language, do you expect the machines could do it better? A: The ultimate goal of our existing and future work is to enable LLM to generate reasonable, interpretable, and traceable ideas, and we now focus on how to use structured knowledge (here we use concept co-occurrence graphs) to guide this process. Therefore, the verbalization process is necessary. Besides, our system is designed to inspire researchers to discover ideas, rather than to replace them. Since we leverage the knowledge of 19 disciplines to train the model, it is valuable for researchers in certain cross-fields to broaden their points of interest. - Q: The evaluation of verbalized ideas cannot measure logic, correctness, and details. Since you have already found the experts, could you think of some possibilities to evaluation the academic quality of these generated ideas trough human assessment? A: From our perspective, the human assessment of verbalized ideas is similar to the process of paper review but not identical, and the latter is more subjective. We should follow three principles, low resources, high efficiency, and objectivity to evaluate the generated ideas. For instance, predefined criteria and multiple rounds of voting can be of help. Meanwhile, we are trying to train human-in-the-loop-based system to assist experts in idea assessment. | Concept | plant disease & machine learning | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | One potential application is the development of mobile disease diagnostics through machine learning and crowdsourcing. Here we announce the release of over 50,000 expertly curated images on healthy and infected leaves of crops plants through the existing online platform PlantVillage. We describe both the data and the platform. These data are the beginning of an on-going, crowdsourcing effort to enable computer vision approaches to help solve the problem of yield losses in crop plants due to infectious diseases. | | | Human | We present a machine learning approach for disease detection in field images. It employs a deep CNN, which is trained using a supervised learning approach. The proposed approach is able to detect the presence of a number of different plant diseases in field images, including Fusarium wilt, Phytophthora infestans, and Xanthomonas syringae. The results show that the model is robust to changes in lighting, orientation, and crop species, and that it can be used in a real world application. | | Concept | network intrusion detection & neural network | | Machine | An intelligent agent based distributed network intrusion detection system is presented. Compared with the current network intrusion detection techniques, IA NIDS uses the parallel technique to reform and detect the coming packet on the application layer, which widens the scale of intrusion detection. It uses intelligent distributed mutual agent technique to enhance the ability of real time response and uses mix detection method to improve the accuracy for detecting DDOS attacks. | | Human | We present a novel approach to network intrusion detection based on the use of a neural network model. The neural network model is trained using a variety of anomaly detection techniques and anomaly classification techniques. The model is able to detect a wide range of network intrusions, including denial of service attacks, DDOS attacks, spoofing attacks, and a wide variety of worm attacks. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach by comparing it to a number of state of the art neural network models, and by comparing the results with those of other neural network model based approaches. | | Concept | metal catalyst & metal nanoparticles | | Machine | Carbon materials deliver a good opportunity to design catalysts for hydrodeoxygenation by providing chemically inert surface and tunable functional groups to support the metal nanoparticles. The main objective of the research is to give an account on the use of carbon material supported heterogeneous catalysts for the HDO of lignin and related molecules for the synthesis of non petroleum chemical products including hydrocarbons.The surface properties of the catalysts and mechanistic insights into the conversion with key active sites are provided, which will help the designing of new and effective catalysts for this biomass conversion. | | Human | The catalysts were characterized by X ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, thermogravimetric analysis, and nitrogen adsorption–desorption isotherms. The results showed that the catalysts exhibited high activity in the hydrodeoxygenation of lignin derived bio oil under mild conditions. Moreover, the catalysts were also applied to the upgradation of bio oil derived from the catalysis isoproanolysis in the organic phase. The high activity of the catalysts was attributed to the synergistic effect of the metal nanoparticle. | | Machine | | | Table 8: Examples of input concepts, human-written texts, and verbalized ideas according to our test dataset of | | Table 8: Examples of input concepts, human-written texts, and verbalized ideas according to our test dataset of quintuples. | Discipline | New Connections | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------| | rogue taxidermy & visual arts | claude cahun & science fiction | | | Art | avant garde & early paleozoic | zhuang zi & wang guowei | | post modernism & human environments | west coast & hip hop | | | spinal cord & pancreatic cancer | grizzly bear & gene flow | | | Biology | arabidopsis thaliana & heavy chain | splicing variants & echinococcus granulosus | | rna interference& body mass index RNA | splicing variants & echinococcus granulosus | | | structural unemployment & stock market | copyright law & knowledge transfer | | | Business | industrial relations & firm size | sale constraints & macroeconomic variables | | economic growth & greenhouse gas emissions | subprime mortgage crisis & IMF | | | mass spectrometry & aryl halides | phase transition & density functional theory | | | Chemistry | capillary electrophoresis & optical rotation | symmetry breaking & hydrogen bond | | spinodal decomposition & statistical mechanics | canonical ensemble & condensed matter | | | implicit bias & biological inspiration | reading comprehension & cognitive linguistics | | | Computer | ambient intelligence & information technology | graph isomorphism & ad hoc | | intrusion detection & social network analysis | game theory & cognitive psychology | | | alternative splicing & medical genetics | proton pump inhibitors & helicobacter pylori | | | Covid-19 | psoriatic arthritis & life expectancy | allergic rhinitis & hyperbaric oxygen | | serotonin syndrome & herpes zoster | immunologic memory & rheumatic diseases | | | financial crisis & pension plan | credit default swap & idiosyncratic volatility | | | social justice & wealth inequality | european union & quantitative easing | | | Economics | intellectual capital & income distribution | quality management & blockchain technology | | NLP & collective intelligence | kinetic energy & stress relief | | | Engineering | finite element & closed form | heat exchanger & tip vortex | | neural network & software reuse | wave propagation & monte carlo | | | saginaw bay & domestic sewage | lake victoria & trophic state | | | Environmental Science | air pollutant & night sky brightness | image segmentation & stripe rust | | meridional overturning circulation & solar activity electrostatic precipitator & suspended matter water resources & conceptual framework ecosystem services & ice sheet | | | | Geography | air pollution & underground river | vadose zone & loess plateau | | landsat thematic mapper & dry seaso | pm2.5 concentrations & ecological restoration | | | massive sulfide & early carboniferous | damping ratio & hard rock | | | Geology | rock mechanics & laser scanning | seismic hazard & coal mining | | radioactive waste & early cretaceous | satellite imagery & impact craters | | | public health & economic growth | social movements & cold war | | | History | public service & internet governance | international law & paradigm shift | | public finance & environmental governance | social security & digital divide | | | ion exchange & aqueous solution | cathodic protection & silicon dioxide | | | Materials Science | barium titanate & molecular sieve | electron microscope & manganese dioxide | | pulsed laser deposition & visible light | thermal cycling & finite difference | | | computational fluid dynamics & integral equation neural networks & maximal matching | | | | Mathematics | heat transfer & partial differential equations | dynamical systems & particle swarm optimization | | hubbard model & phase velocity | differential geometry & heisenberg group | | | breast cancer & neural crest | clinical trials & traditional chinese | | | Medicine | lactobacillus acidophilus & bone mineral density | femtosecond laser & connective tissue | | drug repurposing & genetic algorithm | monoclonal antibody & hair cell | | | logical positivism & immanuel kant | filial piety & critical thinking | | | Philosophy | moral psychology & traditional chinese | economic philosophy & higher education | | western philosophy & ontological proof | ontological proof & volunteer activity | | | particle swarm optimizer & pattern recognition | quantum gravity & baryon number | | | Physics | neural networks & quantum interference | phase diagram & wave vector | | neutron diffraction & electric field | electric field & ray tracing | | | conflict resolution & cultural diplomacy | media literacy & public policy | | | Political Science | climate change & civil society | foreign affairs & granger causality | | gender equity & economic crisis | civic education & participatory democracy | | | emotion regulation & self awareness | prosocial behavior & working memory | | | Psychology | family environment & self concept | parahippocampal gyrus & angelman syndrome | | chronic physical & emotional disturbance | williams syndrome & frontal lobe | | | public policy & sexual harassment | regional governance & cultural heritage | | | Sociology | citizenship behaviors & adult education | middle class & life satisfaction | | household income & vocational education | opinion dynamics & social exclusion | | Table 9: Predicted connections of concepts in different disciplines. Disciplines Method Accuracy All Edges in 2021 **New Edges in 2021** Precision Recall F1 **Precision Recall F1** ArtSEMNET 0.454 0.075 0.484 0.116 0.003 0.533 0.006 GCN-GAN 0.985 1.000 0.891 0.941 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.998 1.000 0.984 0.992 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.706 0.994 1.000 0.997 0.642 1.000 0.671 BiologySEMNET 0.490 0.092 0.495 0.131 0.007 0.568 0.014 GCN-GAN 0.978 1.000 0.857 0.923 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.995 1.000 0.969 0.984 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.834 0.972 0.999 0.983 0.675 0.953 0.691 BusinessSEMNET 0.573 0.117 0.361 0.148 0.010 0.358 0.019 GCN-GAN 0.968 1.000 0.843 0.914 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.993 1.000 0.963 0.981 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.766 0.979 1.000 0.989 0.521 1.000 0.538 ChemistrySEMNET 0.424 0.106 0.654 0.175 0.008 0.660 0.015 GCN-GAN 0.968 1.000 0.840 0.913 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.994 1.000 0.970 0.985 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.812 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.751 1.000 0.752 Computer ScienceSEMNET 0.459 0.083 0.502 0.127 0.005 0.611 0.010 GCN-GAN 0.980 1.000 0.875 0.932 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.996 1.000 0.977 0.988 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.593 0.993 1.000 0.996 0.383 1.000 0.426 Covid-19SEMNET 0.378 0.059 0.617 0.098 0.005 0.689 0.010 GCN-GAN 0.979 1.000 0.796 0.882 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.995 1.000 0.947 0.973 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.778 0.987 0.998 0.992 0.663 1.000 0.679 EconomicsSEMNET 0.405 0.111 0.624 0.173 0.007 0.660 0.013 GCN-GAN 0.974 1.000 0.884 0.938 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.994 1.000 0.973 0.986 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.629 0.852 0.997 0.910 0.246 0.941 0.275 EngineeringSEMNET 0.599 0.104 0.373 0.151 0.010 0.379 0.019 GCN-GAN 0.967 1.000 0.825 0.903 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.993 1.000 0.961 0.980 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.757 0.959 1.000 0.977 0.513 1.000 0.545 Environmental ScienceSEMNET 0.485 0.110 0.511 0.150 0.007 0.555 0.014 GCN-GAN 0.970 1.000 0.831 0.907 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.994 1.000 0.965 0.982 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.714 0.956 1.000 0.975 0.451 0.998 0.470 GeographySEMNET 0.521 0.086 0.495 0.129 0.005 0.514 0.009 GCN-GAN 0.981 1.000 0.884 0.938 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.996 1.000 0.979 0.989 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.728 0.983 0.993 0.988 0.449 0.927 0.465 GeologySEMNET 0.479 0.081 0.452 0.127 0.007 0.448 0.014 GCN-GAN 0.975 1.000 0.850 0.918 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.995 1.000 0.965 0.982 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.758 0.998 1.000 0.999 0.622 1.000 0.641 HistorySEMNET 0.566 0.111 0.464 0.150 0.005 0.496 0.009 GCN-GAN 0.983 1.000 0.894 0.944 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.997 1.000 0.980 0.990 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.781 1.000 0.998 0.999 0.697 1.000 0.700 Materials ScienceSEMNET 0.471 0.099 0.426 0.110 0.011 0.435 0.016 GCN-GAN 0.968 1.000 0.853 0.920 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.992 1.000 0.965 0.982 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.618 0.900 1.000 0.940 0.252 1.000 0.291 MathematicsSEMNET 0.489 0.106 0.477 0.166 0.006 0.448 0.011 GCN-GAN 0.974 1.000 0.888 0.940 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.995 1.000 0.979 0.990 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.866 0.951 1.000 0.969 0.665 1.000 0.685 MedicineSEMNET 0.474 0.108 0.541 0.168 0.007 0.537 0.014 GCN-GAN 0.970 1.000 0.849 0.917 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.994 1.000 0.971 0.985 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.694 0.990 1.000 0.995 0.447 1.000 0.465 PhilosophySEMNET 0.424 0.102 0.586 0.132 0.005 0.755 0.011 GCN-GAN 0.981 1.000 0.858 0.921 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.996 1.000 0.966 0.982 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.586 0.985 0.984 0.985 0.423 1.000 0.439 PhysicsSEMNET 0.512 0.120 0.629 0.186 0.012 0.618 0.023 GCN-GAN 0.973 1.000 0.893 0.943 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.993 1.000 0.974 0.987 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.890 0.909 1.000 0.940 0.692 1.000 0.720 Political ScienceSEMNET 0.424 0.106 0.552 0.167 0.005 0.545 0.010 GCN-GAN 0.976 1.000 0.865 0.926 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.996 1.000 0.975 0.987 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.817 0.999 0.995 0.997 0.673 1.000 0.692 PsychologySEMNET 0.495 0.112 0.565 0.162 0.008 0.623 0.016 GCN-GAN 0.978 1.000 0.864 0.926 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.994 1.000 0.966 0.983 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.645 0.999 1.000 1.000 0.498 0.989 0.503 SociologySEMNET 0.445 0.099 0.567 0.160 0.005 0.613 0.011 GCN-GAN 0.976 1.000 0.867 0.928 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.996 1.000 0.975 0.987 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.720 0.988 0.994 0.991 0.540 0.943 0.554 AverageSEMNET 0.478 0.099 0.519 0.146 0.007 0.552 0.013 GCN-GAN 0.975 1.000 0.860 0.924 N/A 0 N/A EvolveGCN 0.995 1.000 0.970 0.985 N/A 0 N/A PLM-LP 0.735 0.970 0.998 0.981 0.540 0.988 0.560 | vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, mild cognitive impairment | natural language, natural language processing, machine translation | economic geography, economic development, economic growth | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------| | public health, severe acute respiratory syndrome, united states | artificial intelligence, artificial neural network, neural network artificial intelligence, neural network, artificial neural network artificial intelligence, neural network, artificial neural network | artificial intelligence, neural network, artificial neural network | artificial intelligence, neural network, artificial neural network | | | | amino acid, single nucleotide polymorphism, breast cancer | social network, complex network, computational complexity | anxiety disorders, prefrontal cortex, medial prefrontal cortex | case histories, peak ground acceleration, shear wave velocity | | | | machine learning, neural network, support vector machine | remote sensing, sustainable development, climate change | | | | | | climate change, global warming, global climate change | | | | | | | public health, polymerase chain reaction, united states | adverse event, clinical trials, haemophilus influenzae | public health, polymerase chain reaction, united states | user interface, virtual reality, graphical user interface | neural network, artificial neural network, graph theory | mass balance, climate change, digital elevation model | | mechanical engineering, life science, social sciences | remote sensing, climate change, sediment transport climate change, climate sensitivity, greenhouse gas | climate change, radioactive waste, global warming | | | | | logistic regression, odds ratio, confidence interval | climate change, late cretaceous, early cretaceous | coalbed methane, trace element, functional group | continental margin, oceanic crust, partial melting | | | | monoclonal antibody, phage display, amino acid | image processing, machine vision, visual acuity | natural disaster, global warming, food security | | | | | public health, clinical trial, infectious diseases | southwest china, climate change, south china | sedimentary rock, source rock, trace element | source rock, late cretaceous, early cretaceous | plate tectonics, north america, climate change | climate change, carbon cycle, carbon dioxide | | logistic regression, odds ratio, united states | rare earth element, rare earth, volcanic rock | | | | | | clinical trial, adverse event, united states | volcanic eruption, volcanic ash, lava flow | sea level, sea level rise, climate change | sea turtle, green turtle, climate change climate change, storm surge, tide gauge | finite element, shear strength, open pit | | | public health, risk factor, health care | | | | | | | Num. of Nodes Num. of Edges (2021) Selected Concepts 815 370 642 605 724 402 1062 164 337 2034 727 4382 236 857 1156 1017 318 1324 942 862 494 623 801 1221 1309 987 1826 940 2671 2688 3149 718 1288 1734 1960 2490 383 1859 1749 463 1414 328 980 323 2127 582 1421 1511 106 110 116 125 110 130 128 196 104 124 106 134 132 147 152 157 151 107 What Is The Impact Of Urban Expansion On Plant Diversity Change In Karst Regions Of Southwest China 118 144 167 176 159 111 107 109 137 111 109 134 88 74 53 72 68 81 94 84 92 80 89 88 95 92 91 94 Effect Of The Combination Characteristics Of Rock Structural Plane On The Stability Of A Rock-Mass Slope 53 68 Differences In The Influence Of The Tectonic Setting Of The Earth On The Formation Of Magma What Is The Impact Of The Sars-Cov-2 (Covid19) Pandemic On The Morbidity And Mortality Of High Risk Patients Undergoing Surgery Geography Impact Of Climate Change On Agrometeorological Disasters And Pests And Diseases What Is The Effectiveness Of Drugs Being Developed To Treat COVID-19 Patients? Computer Science How To Improve The Application Of Machine Learning In Product Development What To Do If You Come Into Close Contact With Someone With COVID-19 Geography Assessment Method Of The Sea Turtle-Nesting Habitat Of Small Reef Islands Will The COVID-19 Vaccines And Boosters Work On The New Variants? Evolution Of Sedimentary Rock Formation Of A Rock Association Level What Do We Know About Asymptomatic Transmission Of COVID-19? What Is The Impact Of Sea Level Rise On Ecological Infrastructure? Geography Animal Extinction And Ways Of Preventing The Human Role In It What Is The Difference Between COVID-19 And Influenza? Computer Science Is Computer Science Considered Science Or Engineering? What Cause Short Term Sea Level Change In Cretaceous? Computer Science How Will Artificial Intelligence Develop In The Future? A Case Study Assessment Of Soil Liquefaction Potential COVID-19 How Is The Effectiveness Of Vaccines For COVID-19 COVID-19 Clinical Presentation Of Covid19 In Dementia Patients Geography A Volcanic Eruption As The Earth'S Devastating Force Geography How Human Activities Contribute To Climate Change Computer Science The Development Of Artificial Intelligence In China Computer Science Natural Language Processing And Pretrained Model What Is The Complete Process Of Basin Formation? What Is The Impact Of Man On Geo-Environment? Computer Science Bias And Discrimination In Artificial Intelligence Superimposed Metamorphism Of Chinese Coal COVID-19 How Many Variants Does COVID-19 Have? Computer Science Commercialization Of Artificial Intelligence Computer Science The Development Of Graph Neural Network Geography Features And Qualities Of Coastal Erosion What Are The Sequelae Of COVID-19? Computer Science Local Community Detection With Hints Computer Science Interpretability Of Artificial Intelligence Computer Science The Development Of Computer Vision Geography Geography And Economic Development Evolution Of Archean Continental Crust COVID-19 Effective Ways To Prevent COVID-19 Computer Science Current Trends Of Computer Graphics Geography Effect Of Ice Loss On Sea Level Rise Geography Assessment Of Climate Sensitivity How Do Geological Plates Change? Global Distribution Of Carbonate COVID-19 Antibodies And COVID-19 Composition Of Geosphere Glacier Mass Change Query Discipline COVID-19 COVID-19 COVID-19 COVID-19 COVID-19 COVID-19 COVID-19 Geography Geography Geography Geology Geology Geology Geology Geology Geology Geology Geology Geology Geology Geology Geology | | | | | |  Table 11: Statistics of queries and corresponding evolving concept co-occurrence graphs in COVID-19, Computer Science, Geography, and Geology.  Table 12: Statistics of queries and corresponding evolving concept co-occurrence graphs in Mathematics, History, Psychology, and Economics.   Art Victorian Beauty Standards In Art 72 Art How Can Graffiti Be Accepted As A Form Of Street Art And Which Attributes Can Be Contributed To Architecture? 79   Table 13: Statistics of queries and corresponding evolving concept co-occurrence graphs in Sociology, Art, Business, and Physics. | alcoholic liver disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma | | | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|------|---------------------------------------------------| | single nucleotide polymorphism, logistic regression, dimensionality reduction | | | | | | | | | | | philosophical anthropology, cultural anthropology, medical anthropology | Table 14: Statistics of queries and corresponding evolving concept co-occurrence graphs in Political Science, Philosophy, Biology, and Medicine. | | | | | | | | | | economic development, economic growth, sustainable development | genetic engineering, genetically engineered, genetically modified | | | | | | | | | | economic development, sustainable development, united states | chinese communist party, communist party, chinese communist | conceptual model, conceptual framework, neural network | western philosophy, modern philosophy, greek philosophy | immune response, tumor microenvironment, dendritic cell | | | | | | | economic development, united states, economic growth | altered states, global workspace theory, vegetative state | endangered species, united states, critically endangered | western blot, polymerase chain reaction, flow cytometry | open reading frame, polymerase chain reaction, cell line | humanitarian assistance, humanitarian aid, united nations artificial intelligence, neural network, machine learning | | | | | | social science, western philosophy, chinese philosophy | cranial nerve, case report, magnetic resonance imaging | | | | | | | | | | european union, member state, european integration | chinese philosophy, moral philosophy, human nature | gene expression, histone modification, gene therapy | oxidative stress, gene expression, dietary restriction | | | | | | | | chinese character, communist party, deng xiaoping | moral philosophy, human nature, university press | cultural diversity, cultural identity, national culture | mental health, college students, regression analysis | arabidopsis thaliana, gene expression, rna editing | breast cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer medical ethics, research ethics, ethics committee | clinical trials, cognitive function, animal model | soft tissue, computed tomography, sagittal plane | | | | foreign policy, public diplomacy, united states | higher education, united states, human capital | ascorbic acid, amino acid, arabidopsis thaliana | climate change, fossil record, carbon dioxide | mast cell, immune response, atopic dermatitis | | | | | | | united states, political parties, civil society | social media, social network, mass media | land reform, land tenure, agrarian reform vietnam war, united states, south vietnam | public health, aedes aegypti, yellow fever | | | | | | | | mental health, high school, body image | solid waste, sewage sludge, heavy metal | | | | | | | | | | cold war, united states, north atlantic | united states, world war ii, cold war | stem cell, clinical trials, cell line spinal cord, dorsal root, stem cell | | | | | | | | | Num. of Nodes Num. of Edges (2021) Selected Concepts 1261 2406 | 2016 2671 | 252 | 612 | 1791 | 1059 1537 | 502 | 780 | 2219 | 1962 1084 2965 1019 1642 2227 2798 1146 1790 1058 | | 795 583 788 891 576 737 509 681 | 183 74 68 | 178 319 179 205 295 | 289 238 615 | 569 | 773 | 638 | 848 959 | 465 | 385 | | 132 | Biosynthesis, Transport And Biological Functions Of Ascorbic Acid In Plants. 130 | | | | | | | | | | 94 | 101 108 94 79 83 119 67 74 116 113 52 26 41 49 36 59 55 50 68 86 65 54 77 131 79 91 | How To Estimate Female Malaria Mosquito Age By Quantifying Y-Linked Genes In Stored Male Spermatozoa 114 94 The Effect Of Synergistic Interaction Between Earthworms And Microorganisms On The Composting Process. 95 121 103 131 131 64 127 117 119 109 108 127 176 128 113 99 67 Development Of A Filter Device For The Prevention Of Aquatic Bacterial Disease Using A Single-Chain Variable Fragment (Scfv)-Conjugated Affinity Silk | | | | | | | | | Political Science How Political Orientation, Economic Precarity, And Participant Demographics Impact Compliance With COVID-19 Prevention Measures In A Dutch Representative Sample? | What The Effect Of Weightbearing And Foot Positioning On 3D Distal Tibiofibular Joint Parameters? | | | | | | | | | | Political Science Opportunities And Challenges Facing China'S Economic "External Circulation" | Political Science The Basics Of The Theoretical System Of Socialism With Chinese Characteristics | Medicine Association Between Migraine And Risk Of Ocular Motor Cranial Nerve Palsy | | | | | | | | | Medicine The Role Of Vitamin D In The Pathogenesis Of Allergic Rhinitis | | | | | | | | | | | Political Science What Is The Most Powerful Act Of Political Participation? | Philosophy Why Do We Strive For Perfection If It Is Not Attainable? | Medical Humanitarian Missions In The Developing World | | | | | | | | | Medicine Intestinal Flora Correlates With Chronic Liver Disease | | | | | | | | | | | Political Science Democracy And The Public In The European Union | Philosophy Metaprobes, Metaphysical And Sketchy Philosophy | Philosophy Is Confucianism A Religious Philosophy Or Ethics | Medicine Artificial Intelligence In Vaccine And Drug Design | | | | | | | | Philosophy Cultural Genesis And Dynamics Of Culture | Philosophy Where Does Your Self-Worth Come From? Philosophy Where Do You Find Meaning In Your Life? | | | | | | | | | | Philosophy Why Is Beauty Associated With Morality? Philosophy Apocalypse And The Ends Of The World | Medicine Is Medical Research On Animals Ethical | | | | | | | | | | Medicine Tumor Immunity And Targeted Therapy | | | | | | | | | | | Political Science Chinese Communist Party Hierarchy | Philosophy Dealistic Understanding Of Existence | Philosophy Research On Gadamer'S Philosophy | The Effect Of Plant Genome Editing | Medicine Development Of Xenotransplantation | | | | | | | Political Science How Politicians Use Social Media? | Political Science Vietnam War Interests Aggregation | Medicine Treatment Of Alzheimer'S Disease | | | | | | | | | Gene Modification And Disease Crispr And Genetic Engineering | Aging, Lifespan And Metabolism | | | | | | | | | | Political Science Russia And Nato Relationships | Endangered Species Recovery | | | | | | | | | | Philosophy Philosophical Anthropology | Evolution Of Terrestrial Plant | Interactions Between Genes | | | | | | | | | Political Science Land System Reformation | Medicine Early Detection Of Cancer | | | | | | | | | | Political Science Politics And Diplomacy | Medicine Neuronal Regeneration | | | | | | | | | | Political Science Rural Revitalization | Human Cdna Clones | | | | | | | | | | Philosophy Self Consciousness | | | | | | | | | | | Discipline Query | Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology | Medicine | Medicine | | | | | | | | sustainable development, environmental sustainability, environmental science | | | | | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | electromagnetic wave, electromagnetic interference, electromagnetic field | | | | | | | | | additive manufacturing, rapid prototyping, scanning electron microscopy | software engineer, software development, requirements engineering | | | | | | | | electron microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, titanium oxide | civil engineer, structural engineering, environmental engineering | | | | | | | | functional group, organic compound, density functional theory | | | | | | | | | thermal conductivity, phase change, thermal energy storage | environmental science, case study, sustainable development | transition metal, homogeneous catalysis, room temperature | computational fluid dynamics, fluid dynamics, wind tunnel | finite element, finite element analysis, finite element method | | | | | organic compounds, wastewater treatment, organic matter | surface plasmon resonance, quantum dot, glucose oxidase | artificial intelligence, machine learning, neural network | composite material, materials science, civil engineering | | | | | | room temperature, organic synthesis, transition metal | hydrogen bond, hydrogen bonding, density functional | electrical conductivity, single crystal, phase transition | | | | | | | critical temperature, magnetic field, current density | remote sensing, image processing, change detection | | | | | | | | phase transition, room temperature, electric field | energy storage, renewable energy, energy density | noise pollution, air pollution, environmental noise | global warming, greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide | organic chemist, drug discovery, organic synthesis | surgical instrument, da vinci, laparoscopic surgery | power station, finite element, stress concentration | risk assessment, risk management, seismic hazard | | electric field, magnetic fields, room temperature | optically active, amino acid, circular dichroism | contact angle, aqueous solution, hydrogen bond | heat transfer, heat transfer coefficient, heat flux | | | | | | lithium ion, thermal stability, energy density | ionic strength, light scattering, porous media | electric field, aqueous solution, magnetic field carbon dioxide, natural gas, bituminous coal | room temperature, grain size, heat treatment | | | | | | carbon nanotube, quantum dot, metal oxide | water quality, meiliang bay, organic matter | excited state, ground state, electron transfer | wind tunnel, air pollution, electric vehicles | | | | | | magnetic field, hall effect, band structure south africa, higher education, health care | food web, climate change, trophic level | air pollution, air quality, air pollutants | heavy metal, air pollution, food chain | cocoa butter, fatty acid, cocoa bean | | | | | Num. of Nodes Num. of Edges (2021) Selected Concepts 320 260 234 486 813 981 600 463 1876 1566 1839 595 664 1029 866 845 907 1252 2648 510 1894 216 2287 823 853 314 892 286 1087 947 688 308 743 1084 432 1088 267 328 2009 448 949 1098 130 557 633 1446 259 673 Materials Science Preparation Of Composite Structures Of Titanium Dioxide Nanotube Arrays. 123 120 112 106 135 126 141 109 102 117 105 124 101 103 55 49 93 75 60 93 Materials Science Electromagnetic Wave Absorbing Material 70 63 94 95 89 85 84 97 69 51 48 73 44 89 84 74 85 82 88 64 71 85 74 34 87 89 60 Effects Of Thickness Reduction In Cold Rolling Process On The Formability Of Sheet Metals Using Anfis 70 Materials Science Erythritol Phase Change Thermal Storage Subcooling And Thermal Conductivity Improvement Materials Science Effect Of The Grain Arrangements On The Thermal Stability Of Polycrystalline Nickel-Rich Lithium-Based Battery Cathodes Environmental Science Influence Of Hydrodynamics On Nutrient Cycling And Algal Growth In Taihu Lake Risk Caused By The Propagation Of Earthquake Losses Through The Economy Environmental Science Atmospheric Environmental Capacity Accounting And Total Pollutant Control Environmental Science Generation And Direct Observation Of A Triplet Arylnitrenium Ion Why Do Transition Crystals (Hybrid Crystals) Conduct Electricity? Can Electric Fields Drive Chemistry For An Aqueous Microdroplet? The Effect Of Stress Release On The Stability Of Excavation Works Effect Of Piston Structural Stiffness On Dynamic Performance Materials Science Interconversion Of Multiferroic Domains And Domain Walls What Are The Downstream Products Generated From Coal? Environmental Science What Are The Goals Of Environmental Science Studies? Environmental Science Remote Sensing And Geographic Information Systems Environmental Science Environmental Science And Sustainable Development The Use Of Ai And Machine Learning In Engineering How To Make A Fruitier, More Floral Chocolate Environmental Science Removal Of Refractory Organic Pollutants Organic Chemical Reactivity Functioning Nitrogen Heterocyclic Carbene Catalysis Crowdsourcing In Software Engineering Environmental Science Why Chemists Can'T Quit Palladium Environmental Science Global Warming And Climate Change Materials Science High-Temperature Superconductivity Materials Science Unleaded Energy Storage Ceramics Materials Science The Development Of Nanomaterials Environmental Science Microplastic Impacts On Ecosystem Aerodynamics And Fluid Mechanics Organic Chemistry And Discovery Hydrophobic Effect Phenomenon Specifics Of Engineering Materials Heat Transfer In Low Temperature Materials Science Perovskite Ferroelectric Material Photoelectrochemical Biosensor Environmental Science Mercury Pollution Elimination Insect Like Micro Air Vehicle Materials Science Selective Laser Sintering Environmental Science Noise And Light Pollution Axial Chiral Compounds Noncovalent Interaction Flexible Surgical Robot Materials Science Topological Insulators Materials Science Programmable Matter Civil Engineering Colloid Theory Query Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Discipline Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry | | | | | | | |   Table 15: Statistics of queries and corresponding evolving concept co-occurrence graphs in Materials Science, Environmental Science, Chemistry, and Engineering. | Discipline | Quintuple | Concept | Concept Pair | Total p | Total p1 & p2 | |-----------------------|-------------|-----------|----------------|-----------|-----------------| | Art | 7,510 | 2,671 | 5,845 | 2,770 | 7,060 | | History | 5,287 | 2,198 | 4,654 | 2,348 | 5,764 | | Philosophy | 45,752 | 4,773 | 25,935 | 16,896 | 29,942 | | Sociology | 16,017 | 4,054 | 12,796 | 7,066 | 16,416 | | Political Science | 67,975 | 6,105 | 42,411 | 26,198 | 53,933 | | Business | 205,297 | 9,608 | 99,329 | 62,332 | 112,736 | | Geography | 191,958 | 12,029 | 118,563 | 42,317 | 112,909 | | Engineering | 506,635 | 16,992 | 249,935 | 137,164 | 273,894 | | Geology | 365,183 | 13,795 | 190,002 | 98,991 | 222,358 | | Medicine | 168,697 | 13,014 | 114,104 | 42,535 | 138,973 | | Economics | 227,530 | 9,461 | 113,527 | 68,607 | 131,387 | | Physics | 267,532 | 10,831 | 133,079 | 84,824 | 176,741 | | Biology | 224,722 | 15,119 | 145,088 | 59,210 | 189,281 | | Mathematics | 312,670 | 17,751 | 190,734 | 95,951 | 218,697 | | Psychology | 476,342 | 9,512 | 194,038 | 115,725 | 212,180 | | Computer Science | 531,654 | 16,591 | 244,567 | 151,809 | 238,091 | | Environmental Science | 583,466 | 11,002 | 226,671 | 94,474 | 201,330 | | Materials Science | 573,032 | 17,098 | 249,251 | 145,068 | 313,657 | | Chemistry | 565,307 | 13,858 | 231,062 | 108,637 | 286,593 | | Total | 5,342,566 | 206,462 | 2,591,591 | 1,362,922 | 2,941,942 | Table 16: Statistics of Quintuples V202306   ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitation Section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 4.3 and Limitation Section and Ethics Statement Section ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 2 B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? In supplementary materials. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Appendix A ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Our data are published academic papers and do not contain individual people or offensive content. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix A, B, I ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 4.1 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 4.2 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 4.1, 4.2 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4.1, 4.2, Appendix H ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 4.1, 4.2 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** 4.1.2, 4.2.2 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? 4.2.2 ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? 4.2.2 ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? 4 and Appendix B,C ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Appendix B,C ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? 4.2.2

chen-etal-2023-mclip

m{CLIP}: Multilingual {CLIP} via Cross-lingual Transfer

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.728

Large-scale vision-language pretrained (VLP) models like CLIP have shown remarkable performance on various downstream cross-modal tasks. However, they are usually biased towards English due to the lack of sufficient non-English image-text pairs. Existing multilingual VLP methods often learn retrieval-inefficient single-stream models by translation-augmented non-English image-text pairs. In this paper, we introduce mCLIP, a retrieval-efficient dual-stream multilingual VLP model, trained by aligning the CLIP model and a Multilingual Text Encoder (MTE) through a novel Triangle Cross-modal Knowledge Distillation (TriKD) method. It is parameter-efficient as only two light projectors on the top of them are updated during distillation. Furthermore, to enhance the token- and sentence-level multilingual representation of the MTE, we propose to train it with machine translation and contrastive learning jointly before the TriKD to provide a better initialization. Empirical results show that mCLIP achieves new state-of-the-art performance for both zero-shot and finetuned multilingual image-text retrieval task.

## Mclip: Multilingual Clip Via Cross-Lingual Transfer Guanhua Chen1, Lu Hou2, Yun Chen3**, Wenliang Dai**5, Lifeng Shang2, Xin Jiang2, Qun Liu2, Jia Pan4**, Wenping Wang**6 1Southern University of Science and Technology; 2Huawei Noah's Ark Lab 3Shanghai University of Finance and Economics; 4The University of Hong Kong; 5The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology; 6Texas A&M University chengh3@sustech.edu.cn, yunchen@sufe.edu.cn, wdaiai@connect.ust.hk {houlu3, shang.lifeng, jiang.xin, qun.liu}@huawei.com jpan@cs.hku.hk, wenping@tamu.edu ## Abstract Large-scale vision-language pretrained (VLP) models like CLIP have shown remarkable performance on various downstream cross-modal tasks. However, they are usually biased towards English due to the lack of sufficient non-English image-text pairs. Existing multilingual VLP methods often learn retrievalinefficient single-stream models by translationaugmented non-English image-text pairs. In this paper, we introduce mCLIP, a retrievalefficient dual-stream multilingual VLP model, trained by aligning the CLIP model and a Multilingual Text Encoder (MTE) through a novel Triangle Cross-modal Knowledge Distillation (TriKD) method. It is parameter-efficient as only two light projectors on the top of them are updated during distillation. Furthermore, to enhance the token- and sentence-level multilingual representation of the MTE, we propose to train it with machine translation and contrastive learning jointly before the TriKD to provide a better initialization. Empirical results show that mCLIP achieves new state-of-the-art performance for both zero-shot and finetuned multilingual image-text retrieval task. ## 1 Introduction Recently, large-scale dual-stream vision-language pretrained (VLP) models, such as CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), ALIGN (Jia et al., 2021) and their variants (Yao et al., 2021; Mu et al., 2021; Zhai et al., 2021), have shown remarkable performance on various downstream multimodal tasks. These models use separate encoders for the images and texts, and allow efficient inference in the image-text retrieval task because the image or text features can be computed offline. However, most current VLP models are biased toward English, due to the lack of sufficient high-quality multilingual multimodal datasets for direct large-scale pretraining. Despite the lack of sufficient non-English imagetext pairs, previous methods attempt to create wordlevel code-switched image-text pairs by looking up bilingual dictionaries (Ni et al., 2021), or sentencelevel augmented multilingual image-text pairs by translating the English text to other languages (i.e, translate-train pipeline) (Zhou et al., 2021). Then each image and its paired text are concatenated as a single sequence to train a single-stream Transformer-based model. Despite the good performance of these models (Ni et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021), they are less efficient than dual-stream models on large-scale image-text retrieval tasks, as the data from both modalities are intertwined to compute the self-attention and the unimodal features can not be pre-computed. Instead of creating word-level or sentence-level multilingual imagetext pairs, MURAL (Jain et al., 2021) extends the ALIGN (Jia et al., 2021) model with multilinguality by an additional text-text contrastive loss among hundreds of languages. However, MURAL is trained from scratch and requires large-scale training data with high computation cost to obtain strong performance on multilingual cross-modal retrieval tasks. To tackle the aforementioned problems, we propose the *triangle cross-modal knowledge distillation* (TriKD) to learn a dual-stream multilingual VLP model mCLIP, which learns triangle alignment among the pretrained CLIP's image encoder, CLIP's text encoder and a pretrained Multilingual Text Encoder (MTE) through knowledge distillation. Specifically, to avoid catastrophic forgetting of the knowledge already learned in the pretrained CLIP and MTE, they are kept frozen. The triangle alignment is achieved by adjusting a linear projector on top of CLIP and a shallow Transformerbased X-projector on top of the MTE. Since the XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020) used for initializing the MTE has unsatisfactory performance when directly used for retrieval tasks (Hu et al., 2020), before performing the TriKD, we propose to enhance the MTE via both the machine translation task and a contrastive loss to improve the token13028 and sentence-level multilingual representation. The proposed mCLIP is both parameter- and computation-efficient as only the projectors are trained, which accounts for only 3% of the total parameters of mCLIP. Empirical results of zeroshot and finetuned multilingual image-text retrieval on MSCOCO (Lin et al., 2014) and Multi30K (Elliott et al., 2016) show that the proposed mCLIP achieves better performance while being much more efficient in inference than single-stream baselines or using less training data than MURAL. The proposed method can also be extended to train a multilingual VLP based on a unimodal image encoder and the MTE, 89.4% performance retained.1 ## 2 Related Work Multilingual VLP Models. Monolingual visionlanguage pretrained (VLP) models (Radford et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022) trained with large-scale image-text pairs have shown remarkable performance on various downstream tasks like image-text retrieval. Recently, some attempts have extended VLP models to the multilingual scenario. The first line of work applies the translation method to create multilingual image-text pairs and then concatenates the multilingual text with its paired image as a single sequential input to a single-stream Transformerbased encoder. For instance, M3P (Ni et al., 2021) constructs a multilingual code-switched text by randomly replacing English words with translations of other languages, and UC2 (Zhou et al., 2021) directly translates a whole sentence into other languages. However, these single-stream models are inefficient for the image-text retrieval task as unimodal features cannot be pre-computed beforehand. MURAL (Jain et al., 2021) directly trains from scratch with both augmented multilingual imagetext pairs and parallel text corpus, which is expensive in both data and computation. Besides retrieval tasks, recent PaLI (Chen et al., 2022b) and ERNIEUniX2 (Shan et al., 2022) use the encoder-decoder architectures for multilingual multimodal generation tasks. In this paper, we introduce a data- and parameter-efficient knowledge distillation method to train a dual-stream multilingual VLP model by aligning a frozen English VLP and a frozen MTE. Knowledge Distillation. Knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) is firstly proposed for model 1Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/ huawei-noah/noah-research/NLP/mclip. compression. The knowledge in the output logits of a large teacher model can be transferred to a smaller student model without significant performance degradation. Besides the logits, the hidden states and attention outputs can also be used for knowledge distillation (Jiao et al., 2020; Hou et al., 2020). Recently, Tian et al. (2020b) propose to distill knowledge with contrastive learning, which maximizes the mutual information between the teacher and student models. For multimodal models, Wang et al. (2021) propose to train a dualstream VLP model with the knowledge distilled from a single-stream model for faster inference. Furthermore, VLKD (Dai et al., 2022) augments a dual-stream VLP model with a pretrained language model via vision-language knowledge distillation, enabling the multimodal generation ability without hurting the original NLP ability. However, to the best of our knowledge, knowledge distillation has not been studied for training multilingual VLP models, for which efficiency is an important factor due to the data scarcity issue. In this paper, we introduce a novel triangle cross-modal knowledge distillation method to efficiently align a multilingual text encoder to the multimodal space of a pretrained dual-stream VLP model. ## 3 Method In this section, we first introduce the architecture of mCLIP in Section 3.1. It extends the monolingual VLP model CLIP to a multilingual one by aligning CLIP and a multilingual text encoder (MTE) to a shared space, through a novel triangle cross-modal knowledge distillation (TriKD) using English image-text pairs (Section 3.2). The performance of mCLIP on non-English image-text retrieval is highly dependent on the quality of the multilingual representation of the MTE. Thus in Section 3.3, we propose to first improve the token- and sentence-level cross-lingual representation of the MTE with the neural machine translation (NMT) task and contrastive learning (CTL). ## 3.1 Model Structure The architecture of mCLIP is shown in Figure 1a. Like CLIP, mCLIP is a dual-stream model with separate image and text encoders. The vision encoder of mCLIP is the original CLIP ViT image encoder, while the text encoder is a multilingual one initialized from XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020) with enhanced representations.  CLIP. The image encoder of the pretrained CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) is aligned with the English text encoder, by contrastive learning over 400M English image-text pairs. The Vision Transformer (ViT) is used as a kind of CLIP image encoder, which takes image patches as input and generates the final feature through a Transformer-based model. An additional [cls] token is added before the image patches, and its output at the last Transformer layer represents the image's global feature. The CLIP text encoder has a similar structure to the GPT (Radford et al., 2019) model. The final output of the [eos] token represents the global feature of an English sentence. Note that CLIP's text encoder is only used during the training of mCLIP, but not inference. Multilingual Text Encoder. Instead of using the original CLIP's English text encoder, we use the multilingual encoder XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020) with enhanced token- and sentence-level cross-lingual representations (Section 3.3.) Our ultimate goal is to learn the *triangle* alignment among the CLIP's image encoder, CLIP's English text encoder and the multilingual text encoder (MTE) in a shared multilingual multimodal representation space. In Section 3.2, we propose triangle cross-modal knowledge distillation (TriKD) to achieve this goal while maintaining the already learned alignment between the image and English text of CLIP, as well as the multilinguality of the learned MTE. Specifically, as is shown in Figure 1a, to avoid destroying the pretrained alignment between CLIP's image and text encoders, we freeze the parameters of both CLIP's image and text encoders, and use a shared linear projection (i.e., the CLIP-projector) on the top of them. On the other hand, to keep the learned multilinguality of XLM-R, we also freeze its parameters and align it to CLIP's multimodal space by optimizing the learnable X-projector, which consists of two randomly initialized XLM-R Transformer layers (Huang et al., 2021). The input to the X-projector is the outputs of all positions from the MTE. The [eos] output representation after the X-projector is used as the global representation of the text. ## 3.2 Triangle Cross-Modal Knowledge Distillation Contrastive learning is proved effective in both unimodal (Tian et al., 2020a; Gao et al., 2021) and cross-modal (Radford et al., 2021) representation learning. Here, we also consider using contrastive losses to learn the triangle alignment among CLIP's image encoder, CLIP's English text encoder, and the multilingual text encoder (MTE). Since the image and text encoders of CLIP are already aligned, the TriKD contains only (i) an image-text contrastive (ITC) loss to align the MTE and CLIP image encoder; and (ii) a text-text contrastive (TTC) loss to align the MTE and CLIP's English text encoder (Figure 1). In contrastive learning, the model parameters are optimized by letting the features of paired samples close and apart otherwise. Specifically, consider a training batch of N samples, where xi, yi are a pair of features from two views of the i th sample, e.g., the image and text features of an image-text pair; or the text features of the same text from two different text encoders. We use in-batch negatives, i.e. for xi, yiis its positive, and all the other yj 's (where j ̸= i) are its negatives. Denote x = {xi} N i=1, y = {yi} N i=1, and the temperature parameter is τ . the contrastive loss can be written as $$\ell(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})=-{\frac{1}{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\log{\frac{\exp(\mathbf{x}_{i}^{\top}\mathbf{y}_{i}/\tau)}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}\exp(\mathbf{x}_{i}^{\top}\mathbf{y}_{j}/\tau)}}.\quad(1)$$ Image-Text Contrastive Loss. For the i th imagetext pair in a training batch, denote the ℓ2normalized output of the [cls] token after the CLIP image encoder and CLIP-projector as h I i and the ℓ2-normalized output of [eos] after the MTE and X-projector as h X i . Denote h I = {h I i} N i=1 and h X = {h X i} N i=1, the ITC loss LITC is formulated as the average of image-to-text (Li2x) loss and textto-image (Lx2i) loss: LITC = 1/2(Li2x + Lx2i) = 1/2[ℓ(h I, h X) + ℓ(h X, h I)]. (2) $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{ITC}}$$ Text-Text Contrastive Loss. For the i th imagetext pair, suppose the ℓ2-normalized output of the [eos] token after the CLIP text encoder and CLIPprojector is h T i . Denote h T = {h T i} N i=1, the TTC loss is calculated as the average of contrastive losses in both directions: $$\begin{array}{r l}{{}}&{{}={}}\\ {{}}&{{}1/2({\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{t2x}}+{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{x2t}})}\\ {{}}&{{}={}}\\ {{}}&{{}1/2[\ell(\mathbf{h}^{T},\mathbf{h}^{X})+\ell(\mathbf{h}^{X},\mathbf{h}^{T})],}\end{array}$$ $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{TTC}}$$ where Lt2x,Lx2t are the contrastive losses of CLIP text features to XLM-R features and vice versa. The training loss of the TriKD is the weighted sum of ITC and TTC losses: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{TrikD}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{ITC}}+\lambda{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{TITC}}.$$ We use λ = 0.1 following Jain et al. (2021). For training with non-English image-text pairs, only ITC loss is applied as the CLIP text encoder does not support non-English languages. Since the backbones of image and text encoders are frozen and only the additional projectors (3% of total parameters) are learnable, the training is efficient and allows a large batch size, which is shown to be crucial to the success of contrastive learning (Chen et al., 2020; Radford et al., 2021). Through TriKD, though mCLIP learns only on English image-text pairs, it already implicitly has the ability to transfer to other languages through the multilinguality embedded in the frozen MTE. The retrieval performance on non-English languages relies on both the English text-image retrieval performance and the cross-lingual transferability of the MTE. However, the original XLM-R is not directly optimized for retrieval and its cross-lingual ability for retrieval is not satisfactory (Hu et al., 2020), so in Section 3.3, we propose a two-stage training method to enhance the MTE before TriKD. ## 3.3 Multilingual Text Encoder In this section, we propose to enhance the tokenand sentence-level alignment among different languages of XLM-R for retrieval tasks, with the neural machine translation (NMT) task and contrastive learning on the textual-only multilingual parallel corpus. Intuitively, an NMT decoder generates semantic-equivalent translation with token-level interactions with the encoder output, encouraging the encoder output to maintain fine-grained token-level information, which is required as the X-projector is trained over token-level inputs during TriKD. On the other hand, the contrastive loss benefits crosslingual transfer by explicitly aligning the sentencelevel representations of parallel sentences. Note that XLM-R is only an encoder, to train with the NMT loss, we add a decoder with randomly initialized weights (Figure 2a). Inspired by Chen et al. (2021), we adopt a two-stage training schedule to avoid catastrophic forgetting of the strong multilinguality of the pretrained XLM-R encoder. Before joint training with the NMT and contrastive loss, we freeze the encoder and train this decoder with the NMT task on parallel text corpus at the first stage. Note that all embeddings are initialized with XLM-R and fixed all the time. With a slight abuse of notation, here we denote xi and yi as the i th source and target sentence in a batch of N paired sentences, and |yi| is the length for sentence yi, the NMT loss can be formulated as: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{stage\_1}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{NMT}}$$ $$\begin{array}{r l}{{\mathrm{stage\_1=\mathcal{L}_{N M T}}}}\\ {{}}&{{}=-{\frac{1}{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{t=1}^{|\mathbf{y}_{i}|+1}\log p([\mathbf{y}_{i}]_{t}\mid[\mathbf{y}_{i}]_{0:t-1},\mathbf{x}_{i}),}}\end{array}$$ At the second stage, we tune both the XLM-. At the second stage, we tune both the XLMR encoder and the decoder with both NMT and contrastive loss (Figure 2b). Note that we do not tune the embeddings as no further improvements are observed empirically. Specifically, for the i th sentence pair, denote h S i , h O ias the averaged representation of all the tokens of the source and target  sentences from the last encoder layer, respectively. Denote h S = {h S i} N i=1, h O = {h O i} N i=1, the contrastive loss and training loss are: $$\begin{array}{r c l}{{{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{CTL}}}}&{{=}}&{{1/2[\ell({\bf h}^{S},{\bf h}^{O})+\ell({\bf h}^{O},{\bf h}^{S})],}}\\ {{{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{stage\_2}}}}&{{=}}&{{{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{NMT}}+\alpha{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{CTL}},}}\end{array}$$ SG Output Embedding Multilingual Text Decoder shared Multilingual Text Encoder Multilingual Text Encoder Input Embedding [bos] Eine Katze saß auf der Matte. [eos] where ℓ(·, ·) is the contrastive loss defined in Equation 1, and α is the weight to balance the two loss terms, which is set as α = 2.0 in our experiments. Note that when computing the contrastive loss during the second stage, we select the average representation over all tokens as the sentence-level text feature instead of the [eos] feature, as the former empirically performs better in the cross-modal retrieval task. We speculate this is because the Xprojector uses token-level outputs from the MTE instead of the [eos] representation for learning alignment between images and texts. After the two-stage training, the MTE is used to initialize mCLIP using the TriKD method in Section 3.2. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Setup Models and Pretraining Datasets. We train two models (i.e., mCLIP and mCLIP+) based on the officially released CLIP ViT-B/32 and XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020) base models. For the vanilla mCLIP, the enhanced MTE in Section 3.3 is trained with the parallel text corpus MT6, which contains 120M parallel sentences between English and six languages and covers 12 language directions (Chen et al., 2022a). Then we perform the TriKD in Section 3.2 with the cross-modal dataset CC3M (Sharma et al., 2018). For mCLIP+, its MTE is trained with OPUS-100 (Zhang et al., 2020) dataset in addition to MT6, covering a total of 175M parallel sentences among 100 languages. The TriKD of mCLIP+ is performed with TrTrain(CC12M), which is obtained by applying the translate-train method and translating the English captions of CC12M (Changpinyo et al., 2021) into Czech, German, Japanese and French with an in-house translator. Note that the TTC loss is removed during TriKD for non-English image-text pairs. More details about MT6 and OPUS-100 are in Appendix A.2. We use the XTD10 (Aggarwal and Kale, 2020) Spanish image-text pairs as the validation set to select the checkpoints, as we care more about the multilingual cross-modal performance. Downstream Tasks and Evaluation Metrics. We test the efficacy of the proposed mCLIP on both multilingual image-to-text and text-to-image retrieval tasks, on the test sets of Multi30K (Elliott et al., 2016) and MSCOCO (Lin et al., 2014). We use the same data splits as Young et al. (2014) and Karpathy and Fei-Fei (2015). More details are in Appendix A.1. For both retrieval tasks, we compute the recall of top-K candidates (recall@K) with K=1, 5, and 10. The mean recall averaged over all these 6 scores is used as the evaluation metric. Following Ni et al. (2021), we evaluate the model's zero-shot and finetuned performance. Under the *zero-shot* setting, the pretrained mCLIP is directly tested on multilingual retrieval tasks. We use three finetuned settings: (i) *English-only Finetune*: finetune the pretrained mCLIP with only English Multi30K or MSCOCO and test on each target language; (ii) *Single-language Finetune:* finetune with training data of target language and test; and (iii) *All-language Finetune:* finetune on training data of all languages and test on each language. Compared Methods. We compare our proposed method against the recent multilingual multimodal models M3P (Ni et al., 2021), UC2 (Zhou et al., 2021) and MURAL (Jain et al., 2021). The results of these models are taken from their original pa- Model Pretraining Data Multi30K MSCOCO Avg. Image-text Pairs Text (#languages) En De Fr Cs En Ja Zh Zero-shot M3P CC3M 101G (100) 57.9 36.8 27.1 20.4 63.1 33.3 32.3 38.7 MURAL TrTrain(CC12M) 500M (124) 80.9 76.0 75.7 68.2 58 49.7 - 68.1⋆ mCLIP CC3M 120M (6) 72.3 62.4 45.2 55.3 53.2 36.1 63.0 55.4/54.1⋆ mCLIP+ TrTrain(CC12M) 175M (100) 77.1 76.6 76.1 74.5 59.2 55.6 71.8 70.1/69.9⋆ English-only Finetune M3P CC3M 101G (100) 87.4 58.5 46.0 36.8 88.6 53.8 56.0 61.0 UC2 TrTrain(CC3M) - 87.2 74.9 74.0 67.9 - – 82.0 77.2† MURAL TrTrain(CC12M) 500M (124) 91.0 87.3 86.4 82.4 73.7 71.9 - 82.1⋆ mCLIP CC3M 120M (6) 97.6 83.0 61.5 77.7 69.4 50.6 76.5 73.8/79.3†/73.3⋆ mCLIP+ TrTrain(CC12M) 175M (100) 98.5 91.4 91.7 89.1 71.3 64.1 80.5 83.8/90.2†/84.4⋆ Single-language Finetune M3P CC3M 101G (100) 87.4 82.1 67.3 65.0 88.6 80.1 75.8 78.0 UC2 TrTrain(CC3M) - 87.2 83.8 77.6 74.2 - – 84.9 81.5† mCLIP CC3M 120M (6) 97.6 80.9 75.9 76.7 69.4 68.2 82.3 78.7/82.7† mCLIP+ TrTrain(CC12M) 175M (100) 98.5 82.9 81.6 79.9 71.3 71.6 83.6 81.3/85.3† All-language Finetune M3P CC3M 101G (100) 87.7 82.7 73.9 72.2 88.7 87.9 86.2 81.0 UC2 TrTrain(CC3M) - 88.2 84.5 83.9 81.2 - – 87.5 85.1† mCLIP CC3M 120M (6) 96.6 91.9 89.9 90.0 69.1 68.7 82.8 84.1/90.2† mCLIP+ TrTrain(CC12M) 175M (100) 94.5 89.8 90.1 88.0 71.8 71.7 85.9 84.5/89.7† pers. MURAL-base with the similar model size is compared. Note that UC2 does not report its zeroshot results. Its results on English and Japanese MSCOCO test sets are not directly comparable with the other methods, because they simplified the task by splitting the 5k images and 25k captions into five smaller test sets to calculate the scores. The training details and hyperparameters can be found in Appendix A.4. ## 4.2 Main Results The zero-shot and finetuned cross-modal retrieval results on Multi30K and MSCOCO are shown in Table 1. As can be seen, finetuning and using more pretraining data improves the performance of our model. In particular, All-language Finetune has the highest mean recall score for both mCLIP and mCLIP+. We speculate this is because image-text pairs with diverse languages allow the projectors to learn the multilingual multimodal alignment *explicitly*, instead of relying on the *implicit* multilinguality embedded in the MTE. Comparison with Baselines. Compared with M3P, our proposed mCLIP achieves 16.7 and 12.8 more mean recall scores in zero-shot and Englishonly finetuned settings, respectively, despite that M3P uses more fine-grained code-switched imagetext pairs and more languages. Moreover, M3P is a single-stream model and can be less efficient for retrieval tasks. Compared with UC2 pretrained on 5x larger translation-augmented TrTrain(CC3M), mCLIP trained with only English CC3M achieves 2.1 higher mean recall scores on English-only Finetune. Again, UC2 is a single-stream model like M3P and also suffers from inefficient inference. Compared with MURAL, the mean recall of mCLIP+ is 1.8 (resp. 2.3) points higher under the zero-shot (resp. English-only Finetune) setting with about 1/3 parallel texts. This may be because the MTE of mCLIP+ learns strong multilinguality in Section 3.3 and the X-projector only needs to focus on the multimodal alignment rather than the multilingual alignment. In contrast, MURAL has to learn to align the multilingual texts from scratch with parallel texts. Besides achieving better performance with less training data, mCLIP is also parameter-efficient, i.e., the learnable projectors only account for 3% of the total parameters during the triangle distillation. ## 4.3 Ablation Study In this section, we conduct ablation studies using mCLIP pretrained on CC3M and report results on zero-shot multilingual image-text retrieval tasks. | Model | Multi30K | MSCOCO | Avg. | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|----------|--------|----|----|----| | En | De | Fr | Cs | En | Ja | Zh | | mCLIP | 72.3 62.4 45.2 55.3 53.2 36.1 63.0 55.4 | | | | | | | Enhanced Multilingual Text Encoder | | | | | | | | −LCTL | 70.6 58.6 51.6 51.7 56.2 31.4 58.1 54.0 | | | | | | | −LNMT | 62.6 57.8 50.5 56.0 39.0 32.2 60.3 51.2 | | | | | | | −Lθ | 70.7 50.6 48.9 36.7 51.4 21.7 49.7 47.1 | | | | | | | Triangle Cross-modal Knowledge Distillation | | | | | | | | −Lθ − LTTC 66.5 48.9 46.8 36.3 48.2 21.2 49.3 45.3 −Lθ − LITC 30.2 25.4 24.8 19.8 14.6 8.7 25.4 21.3 | | | | | | | Components of Training Objectives. Table 2 shows the effect of different training objectives in training the enhanced multilingual text encoder (MTE) and during the triangle cross-modal knowledge distillation (TriKD). mCLIP−LNMT represents finetuning the XLM-R with only contrastive loss on parallel texts, while mCLIP−LCTL is to finetune XLM-R with the two-stage training scheme only on the NMT task. mCLIP−Lθ represents the mCLIP trained with original XLM-R from Conneau et al. (2020). As can be seen, in the TriKD, both image-text and text-text contrastive loss contribute positively to the performance and the image-text contrastive loss LITC is more crucial to the retrieval performance. In the learning of enhanced MTE, both the contrastive and NMT losses improve the performance in non-English languages. However, NMT loss improves English image-text retrieval while contrastive loss degrades it. This may be because the NMT loss allows the MTE to learn more fine-grained token-level textual representations, and facilitate the learning of the Xprojector which relies on these token-level inputs. Table 2: Ablation on training objectives used in training the enhanced multilingual text encoder and triangle cross-modal knowledge distillation. ## Design Choices Of Locked Parameters. We compare different design choices of locked parameters of mCLIP in Table 3. As can be seen, the performances of all three languages drop when either CLIP or XLM-R is finetuned. Finetuning CLIP degrades the performance because the image encoder gradually forgets its learned knowledge from large-scale pretraining on 400M image-text pairs and tends to overfit to the small CC3M dataset used for triangle distillation. When the XLM-R is finetuned, the ability of multilingual transfer degrades and the text encoder biases toward English. When both CLIP and XLM-R are locked, the knowledge embedded in these two models is maintained, contributing to the success of the cross-lingual crossmodal transfer. Yet another advantage of locking both backbones is the improved training efficiency, which allows the much larger batch size, as 97% parameters are frozen during training. Table 3: Ablation on different choices of locked parameters during TriKD. The zero-shot mean recall scores on the MSCOCO dataset are reported. | CLIP | XLM-R | En | Ja | Zh | Avg. | |-----------|-----------|------|------|------|--------| | locked | locked | 53.2 | 36.1 | 63.0 | 50.8 | | trainable | locked | 28.4 | 18.4 | 44.4 | 30.4 | | locked | trainable | 52.5 | 33.3 | 61.7 | 49.2 | | trainable | trainable | 41.1 | 25.1 | 57.3 | 41.2 | ## 4.4 Discussion Results on More Languages. Table 4 compares our model with baselines on more diverse languages of the cross-modal retrieval task in the IGLUE (Bugliarello et al., 2022) benchmark2. Following Bugliarello et al. (2022), we report the mean recall@1 score under the zero-shot setting. The results of M3P and UC2 are taken from Bugliarello et al. (2022). We do not compare with MURAL as it is not open-sourced and its original paper does not report results on IGLUE. As can be seen, mCLIP+ has the best performance among all languages, achieving 17.2 and 17.8 higher averaged Recall@1 score than M3P and UC2. Different Image Encoder Backbones. Besides using the CLIP-ViT as the image encoder of mCLIP, we also try to use the Swin Transformer (Swin-B3) (Liu et al., 2021), a novel unimodal model trained with only the image classification dataset. We use the same setup as Section 4.1 except that we remove the TTC loss. Empirical results on zero-shot retrieval on Multi30K and MSCOCO in Table 6 show that using Swin Transformer has 89.4% mean recall scores of that using CLIP-ViT. This indicates that our proposed method can also be extended to align a unimodal image encoder and a multilingual text encoder into a multilingual multimodal model. 2https://github.com/e-bug/iglue 3swin_base_patch4_window7_in22k of timm toolkit | Model | Ar | Bg | Da | El | Et | Id | Ja | Ko | Tr | Vi | Avg. | |---------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|--------| | M3P | 8.6 | 9.3 | 10.6 | 10.8 | 6.8 | 9.8 | 7.7 | 6.6 | 8.5 | 11.7 | 9.1 | | UC2 | 7.5 | 8.3 | 9.9 | 10.2 | 5.4 | 10.7 | 10.3 | 5.0 | 8.2 | 9.2 | 8.5 | | mCLIP | 10.1 | 20.1 | 17.6 | 14.9 | 9.3 | 17.3 | 18.2 | 8.4 | 13.1 | 19.4 | 14.8 | | mCLIP+ | 22.5 | 26.3 | 31.0 | 24.3 | 20.7 | 32.9 | 23.6 | 19.3 | 28.1 | 34.5 | 26.3 | | Methods | Alignment | Uniformity | | | | |----------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | mCLIP(vanilla XLM-R) | 1.27 | 1.41 | -2.53 | -3.23 | -3.03 | | +LNMT | 1.20 (0.07) | 1.34 (0.07) | -2.82 (0.29) | -3.34 (0.11) | -3.17 (0.14) | | +LCTL | 1.29 (-0.02) | 1.35 (0.06) | -2.62 (0.09) | -3.23 (0.00) | -3.21 (0.18) | | +LNMT + LCTL | 1.19 (0.08) | 1.36 (0.05) | -2.87 (0.34) | -3.34 (0.11) | -3.17 (0.14) | Table 4: Recall@1 results of cross-modal retrieval task in IGLUE benchmark. Table 5: Alignment and uniformity scores on XTD10 image-text retrieval test sets. Numbers in the bracket show the absolute improvement over the mCLIP with vanilla XLM-R as its MTE. Table 6: Mean recall scores of using different visual backbones for mCLIP. | Image Encoder | Multi30K | MSCOCO | Avg. | | | | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------|----------|--------|----|----|----| | En | De | Fr | Cs | En | Ja | Zh | | CLIP-ViT | 72.3 62.4 45.2 55.3 53.2 36.1 63.0 55.4 | | | | | | | Swin-ViT | 68.3 54.2 41.4 50.5 50.0 32.5 61.3 49.5 | | | | | | ## 5 Analysis Of The Representations The training objectives of contrastive learning encourage the positive samples to stay closer (i.e., alignment) while the negative samples to scatter on the hypersphere (i.e., uniformity) (Wang and Isola, 2020). Similarly, a desired multilingual and multimodal model should also learn good alignment between images and multilingual texts, as well as uniform representations within each modality. We analyze the quality of the learned representations with the uniformity and alignment scores introduced in Wang and Isola (2020). The alignment score ℓalign = E(||h I i − h X i||2) measures the distance between the ℓ2-normalized features of the image-text pairs (i.e, h I i , h X ifor the i-th image-text pair), while the uniformity score measures how uniformly the representations are distributed: ℓuniform = − E(exp(−2||h∗ i − h∗ j||2)), where h∗ i , h∗ j with ∗ ∈ {*I, X*} are ℓ2-normalized features of different samples from the same modality. Smaller alignment and uniformity scores indicate higher alignment and uniformity, and thus better learned representations. We use mCLIP trained on English CC3M and analyze the learned representations of XTD10 (Aggarwal and Kale, 2020) test set with the two metrics. The uniformity score is calculated for each of the three modalities: images, English text, and non-English text. We report results for non-English languages averaged over It, Es, Ru, Pl, Ko, Zh, and Tr. From Table 5, both CTL and NMT losses improve the alignment and uniformity scores for nonEnglish languages, as well as the uniformity of the images. However, for English, the NMT loss improves both scores while the CTL loss cannot improve or even degrade them. This is consistent with the finding in Table 2 where CTL loss leads to worse English retrieval performance. This again affirms that the NMT loss learns more fine-grained token-level representation which benefits the Xprojector for aligning the English image-text pairs, thus rendering better alignment and uniformity scores for English. The NMT loss also reduces the burden of mCLIP projectors to learn multilingual alignment, which contributes to better uniformity of image features. To summarize, mCLIP relies on NMT for English image-text retrieval and CTL for further improvement on non-English retrieval (mainly on the uniformity of the image). ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we introduce mCLIP, a novel multilingual vision-language pretrained model which aligns CLIP and an enhanced multilingual text encoder through triangle cross-modal knowledge distillation. This distillation method is both parameterefficient with only 3% of the total parameters of mCLIP trained, and data-efficient with only English image-text pairs required. The performance of mCLIP can be further improved with more parallel text corpus from more languages and multilingual image-text pairs from the translate-train pipeline. Empirical results show that the proposed mCLIP+ achieves state-of-the-art performance in multilingual image-text retrieval tasks. ## 7 Limitations This work only explores the multilingual VLP model for the image-text retrieval task. We leave the exploration of other multilingual vision-andlanguage downstream tasks such as visual question answering as future work. At the same time, our proposed method relies on a well-pretrained vision Transformer and a multilingual text encoder. Its performance is heavily influenced by the performance of the visual and textual backbones. This hinders the mCLIP from further improvements with the given backbones. ## 8 Ethical Considerations We present a data- and training-efficient approach to build a multilingual VLP model mCLIP, by aligning the pretrained monolingual VLP model CLIP and a multilingual text encoder XLM-R to the same multimodal multilingual space. Despite the strong multimodal and multilingual abilities inherited from both models, the proposed mCLIP also inherits the societal impacts including some negative ones of the original CLIP and XLM-R, e.g., societal biases (Radford et al., 2021) and misuse of language models (Tamkin et al., 2021). The implicit biases are expected to be removed by debiasing either the dataset or the model (Meade et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022). Besides, our proposed method makes it simpler to retrieve malicious or offensive content (Welbl et al., 2021) from image-text pairs of different languages. Future explorations are needed to mitigate the misuse of VLP models. ## Acknowledgements This project was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62106138) and Shanghai Sailing Program (No. 21YF1412100). Jia Pan and Wenping Wang are partially supported by Centre for Transformative Garment Production. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedbacks on this work. ## References Pranav Aggarwal and Ajinkya Kale. 2020. Towards zero-shot cross-lingual image retrieval. Preprint arXiv:2012.05107. Emanuele Bugliarello, Fangyu Liu, Jonas Pfeiffer, Siva Reddy, Desmond Elliott, Edoardo Maria Ponti, and Ivan Vulic. 2022. IGLUE: A benchmark for trans- ´ fer learning across modalities, tasks, and languages. In *Proceedings of ICML*, volume 162, pages 2370– 2392. Soravit Changpinyo, Piyush Sharma, Nan Ding, and Radu Soricut. 2021. Conceptual 12M: Pushing webscale image-text pre-training to recognize long-tail visual concepts. In *Proceedings of CVPR*. Guanhua Chen, Shuming Ma, Yun Chen, Li Dong, Dongdong Zhang, Jia Pan, Wenping Wang, and Furu Wei. 2021. Zero-shot cross-lingual transfer of neural machine translation with multilingual pretrained encoders. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*, pages 15–26. Guanhua Chen, Shuming Ma, Yun Chen, Dongdong Zhang, Jia Pan, Wenping Wang, and Furu Wei. 2022a. Towards making the most of cross-lingual transfer for zero-shot neural machine translation. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 142–157, Dublin, Ireland. Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In *Proceedings of ICML*. Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, A. J. Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel M. Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Joan Puigcerver, Nan Ding, Keran Rong, Hassan Akbari, Gaurav Mishra, Linting Xue, Ashish V. Thapliyal, James Bradbury, Weicheng Kuo, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, Chao Jia, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Carlos Riquelme, Andreas Steiner, Anelia Angelova, Xiaohua Zhai, Neil Houlsby, and Radu Soricut. 2022b. PaLI: A jointlyscaled multilingual language-image model. Preprint arXiv:2209.06794. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of ACL*, pages 8440–8451. Wenliang Dai, Lu Hou, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Enabling multimodal generation on clip via vision-language knowledge distillation. In *Findings of ACL*. Desmond Elliott, Stella Frank, Khalil Sima'an, and Lucia Specia. 2016. Multi30K: Multilingual EnglishGerman image descriptions. In *Proceedings of the* 5th Workshop on Vision and Language, pages 70–74. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*, pages 6894– 6910. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeffrey Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. In NeurIPS Deep Learning and Representation Learning Workshop. Lu Hou, Zhiqi Huang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, and Qun Liu. 2020. Dynabert: Dynamic bert with adaptive width and depth. In Proceedings of NeurIPS, pages 9782–9793. Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan Firat, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. XTREME: A massively multilingual multitask benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In *Proceedings of ICML*, volume 119, pages 4411–4421. Po-Yao Huang, Mandela Patrick, Junjie Hu, Graham Neubig, Florian Metze, and Alexander Hauptmann. 2021. Multilingual multimodal pre-training for zeroshot cross-lingual transfer of vision-language models. In *Proceedings of NAACL*, pages 2443–2459. Aashi Jain, Mandy Guo, Krishna Srinivasan, Ting Chen, Sneha Kudugunta, Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, and Jason Baldridge. 2021. MURAL: Multimodal, multitask representations across languages. In Findings of EMNLP, pages 3449–3463. Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In *Proceedings of ICML*, pages 4904–4916. Xiaoqi Jiao, Yichun Yin, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu. 2020. TinyBERT: Distilling BERT for natural language understanding. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 4163– 4174. Andrej Karpathy and Li Fei-Fei. 2015. Deep visualsemantic alignments for generating image descriptions. In *Proceedings of CVPR*, pages 3128–3137. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of ICLR, pages 100–108. Taku Kudo. 2018. Subword regularization: Improving neural network translation models with multiple subword candidates. In *Proceedings of ACL*, pages 66–75. Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. BLIP: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In *Proceedings of ICML*, volume 162, pages 12888–12900. Xirong Li, Chaoxi Xu, Xiaoxu Wang, Weiyu Lan, Zhengxiong Jia, Gang Yang, and Jieping Xu. 2019. COCO-CN for cross-lingual image tagging, captioning and retrieval. *IEEE Transactions on Multimedia*, 21(9):2347–2360. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Proceedings of ECCV, pages 740–755. Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. 2021. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In *Proceedings of ICCV*. Nicholas Meade, Elinor Poole-Dayan, and Siva Reddy. 2022. An empirical survey of the effectiveness of debiasing techniques for pre-trained language models. In *Proceedings of ACL*, pages 1878–1898. Norman Mu, Alexander Kirillov, David Wagner, and Saining Xie. 2021. Slip: Self-supervision meets language-image pre-training. Preprint arXiv:2112.12750. Minheng Ni, Haoyang Huang, Lin Su, Edward Cui, Taroon Bharti, Lijuan Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Dongdong Zhang, and Nan Duan. 2021. M3p: Learning universal representations via multitask multilingual multimodal pre-training. In *Procceedings of CVPR*, pages 3977–3986. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In *Proceedings of ICML*, pages 8748– 8763. Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Technical report. Bin Shan, Yaqian Han, Weichong Yin, Shuohuan Wang, Yu Sun, Hao Tian, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2022. ERNIE-UniX2: A unified cross-lingual crossmodal framework for understanding and generation. Preprint arXiv:2211.04861. Piyush Sharma, Nan Ding, Sebastian Goodman, and Radu Soricut. 2018. Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, image alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning. In *Proceedings of ACL*, pages 2556– 2565. Alex Tamkin, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli. 2021. Understanding the capabilities, limitations, and societal impact of large language models. Preprint arxiv:2102.02503. Yonglong Tian, Dilip Krishnan, and Phillip Isola. 2020a. Contrastive multiview coding. In *Proceedings of* ECCV, pages 776–794. Yonglong Tian, Dilip Krishnan, and Phillip Isola. 2020b. Contrastive representation distillation. In *Proceedings of ICLR*. Tongzhou Wang and Phillip Isola. 2020. Understanding contrastive representation learning through alignment and uniformity on the hypersphere. In *Proceedings* of ICML, pages 9929–9939. Zekun Wang, Wenhui Wang, Haichao Zhu, Ming Liu, Bing Qin, and Furu Wei. 2021. Distilled dualencoder model for vision-language understanding. Preprint arxiv:2112.08723. Johannes Welbl, Amelia Glaese, Jonathan Uesato, Sumanth Dathathri, John Mellor, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Kirsty Anderson, Pushmeet Kohli, Ben Coppin, and Po-Sen Huang. 2021. Challenges in detoxifying language models. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2447–2469. Lewei Yao, Runhui Huang, Lu Hou, Guansong Lu, Minzhe Niu, Hang Xu, Xiaodan Liang, Zhenguo Li, Xin Jiang, and Chunjing Xu. 2021. Filip: Finegrained interactive language-image pre-training. In Proceedings of ICLR. Yuya Yoshikawa, Yutaro Shigeto, and Akikazu Takeuchi. 2017. STAIR captions: Constructing a large-scale Japanese image caption dataset. In *Proceedings of ACL*, pages 417–421. Yang You, Jing Li, Sashank Reddi, Jonathan Hseu, Sanjiv Kumar, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Xiaodan Song, James Demmel, Kurt Keutzer, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2020. Large batch optimization for deep learning: Training bert in 76 minutes. In *Proceedings of ICLR*. Peter Young, Alice Lai, Micah Hodosh, and Julia Hockenmaier. 2014. From image descriptions to visual denotations: New similarity metrics for semantic inference over event descriptions. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2:67–78. Xiaohua Zhai, Xiao Wang, Basil Mustafa, Andreas Steiner, Daniel Keysers, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Lucas Beyer. 2021. Lit: Zero-shot transfer with locked-image text tuning. In *Proceedings of CVPR*, pages 18102–18112. Biao Zhang, Philip Williams, Ivan Titov, and Rico Sennrich. 2020. Improving massively multilingual neural machine translation and zero-shot translation. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 1628–1639. Kun Zhou, Beichen Zhang, Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Debiased contrastive learning of unsupervised sentence representations. In *Proceedings of ACL*, pages 6120–6130. Mingyang Zhou, Luowei Zhou, Shuohang Wang, Yu Cheng, Linjie Li, Zhou Yu, and Jingjing Liu. 2021. UC2: Universal cross-lingual cross-modal vision-and-language pre-training. In *Proceedings of* CVPR, pages 4155–4165. ## A More Experimental Setup A.1 Cross-Modal Dataset For Image-Text Retrieval Multi30K. The Flickr30K dataset (Young et al., 2014) contains 31k images in total, each of which has five English captions. The Multi30K dataset (Elliott et al., 2016) extends the Flickr30K dataset to three other languages. Each image has five German captions, one Czech caption and one French caption. Following previous works (Ni et al., 2021; Jain et al., 2021), we use the same train/validation/test splits as Karpathy and Fei-Fei (2015) for each language. MSCOCO. The MSCOCO dataset contains 123k images, each of which has five English captions. Yoshikawa et al. (2017) manually create the Japanese descriptions for MSCOCO images. Li et al. (2019) extend MSCOCO with Chinese captions for 20K images. Following previous works (Ni et al., 2021; Jain et al., 2021), we use the same dataset splits as Karpathy and Fei-Fei (2015) for English and Japanese, and the test set of each language has 5k images and 25k captions. For Chinese, we use the same dataset split as Li et al. (2019), whose test set has 1000 image-text pairs. ## A.2 Machine Translation Dataset Training the enhanced multilingual text encoder (MTE) in Section 3.3 requires parallel sentences. Thus we create a dataset called MT6, which contains 120 million parallel sentences between English and six languages: Czech, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, and Chinese. The MT6 dataset is from WMT translation task4, CzEng 1.65, JParaCrawl v1.06and CCAligned corpus7. For Es-En and Ru-En, MT6 uses the first 20M sentence pairs of the CCAligned corpus. The validation sets are from the development and test sets of the WMT translation task. More details are shown in Table 7. To compare with MURAL, we combine MT6 dataset and OPUS-1008(Zhang et al., 2020) to train the enhanced MTE. All texts are tokenized by the sentencepiece (Kudo, 2018) tokenizer as used in the original XLM-R model (Conneau et al., 4https://www.statmt.org/wmt19/ translation-task.html 5https://ufal.mff.cuni.cz/czeng/czeng16 6http://www.kecl.ntt.co.jp/icl/lirg/ jparacrawl/ 7http://www.statmt.org/cc-aligned/ 8https://opus.nlpl.eu/opus-100.php | Split | Language | Source | # Sentences | |---------|-----------------|-------------|---------------| | Cs-En | CzEng 1.6 | 8.1M | | | De-En | WMT19 | 41.0M | | | Es-En | CCAligned | 20.0M | | | Ja-En | JparaCrawl v1.0 | 8.6M | | | Ru-En | CCAligned | 20.0M | | | Zh-En | WMT18 | 22.6M | | | Train | Cs-En | Newstest 16 | 2,999 | | De-En | Newstest 16 | 2,999 | | | Es-En | Newstest 10 | 2,489 | | | Ja-En | Newsdev 20 | 1,998 | | | Ru-En | Newstest 16 | 2,998 | | | Zh-En | Newstest 17 | 2,001 | | | Valid | | | | Table 7: Training and validation sets of the MT6 dataset. "\# Sentences" denotes the number of parallel sentences. | ISO | Language | ISO | Language | |-------|------------|-------|------------| | Ar | Arabic | Id | Indonesian | | Bg | Bulgarian | It | Italian | | Cs | Czech | Ja | Japanese | | Da | Danish | Ko | Korean | | De | German | Pl | Polish | | El | Greek | Ru | Russian | | En | English | Tr | Turkish | | Es | Spanish | Vi | Vietnamese | | Et | Estonian | Zh | Chinese | Table 8: Languages used in this paper. 2020). The source sentence length is limited to 512, which is the maximum source sentence length supported by XLM-R. ## A.3 Language Iso Code The languages used in this paper are shown in Table 8. ## A.4 Training Details We first train the enhanced multilingual text encoder from XLM-R following Section 3.3. Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) is used as the optimizer. Each batch has 32,768 tokens. At the first training stage, the learning rate is warmed up to 0.0005 within 4,000 steps, and then decays to 0. At the second stage, the learning rate decays from 0.0001 to 0 without warmup. The model is trained for one epoch at the first stage and 0.5 epoch at the second stage. The training data of different language pairs are sampled following that of XLM-R: qi = p β i /Pj p β j , where β = 0.2 and pj is the percentage of each language in the training dataset. | Training Stage | Pretraining | Finetuning | | | | | |--------------------|---------------|--------------|---------|-------------|--------------|-------| | MTE-Stage 1 | MTE-Stage 2 | TriKD | English | Non-English | All-language | | | Optimizer | AdamW | AdamW | LAMB | LAMB | LAMB | LAMB | | Peak Learning Rate | 5e-4 | 1e-4 | 1e-2 | 1e-2 | 1e-3 | 1e-2 | | Batch Size | 32,768† | 32,768† | 16,384 | 1,024 | 512 | 1,024 | | Warmup Steps | 4,000 | 0 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | | Epochs | 1 | 0.5 | 15 | 30 | 30 | 10 | Then we perform the TriKD in Section 3.2. We use the LAMB optimizer (You et al., 2020). The learning rate is linearly warmed up to 0.01 within the first 500 steps and then decayed to 0. The batch size is 16,384. The temperature for the ITC loss is initialized as 0.07 and then learned by gradient descent, while the temperature of TTC loss is fixed as 0.07 (Jain et al., 2021). The models are pretrained for 15 epochs when the smaller dataset CC3M is used, while for 3 epochs when CC12M is used. When finetuning mCLIP on the downstream image-text retrieval dataset, we use the contrastive loss to finetune the projectors while keeping other parameters frozen. When one training image has multiple captions, all its paired captions are treated as positives. For all experiments in all pretraining and finetuning stages, we use the inverse square root learning rate scheduler and conduct experiments on 8 NVIDIA V100 GPUs. We use the same dropout method as XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020). The dropout ratios are set as 0.3. The detailed hyperparameters of different stages are listed in Table 9. ## B More Experimental Results B.1 Comparison With Translate-Test Method The translate-test (Conneau et al., 2020; Ni et al., 2021) is another possible method for the multilingual cross-modal retrieval task. It first translates non-English texts into English and then completes the cross-modal retrieval task with an English vision-language pretrained model like CLIP. In this part, we compare mCLIP+ and the translatetest baseline (CLIP+TrTest) on the non-English languages of MSCOCO and Multi30K test sets under the zero-shot setting. For CLIP+TrTest, the captions are translated with the open-sourced m2m1009, a recent strong NMT model that is trained with 7.5 billion parallel sentences. The translations are generated with beam size 5 using the 1.2B model checkpoint. We compare the latency on both the text-toimage and image-to-text retrieval tasks. For the text-to-image retrieval task, we precompute the image features and report the inference time for one text query, which contains (1) the time to extract the feature of one text query, (2) the time of similarity calculation and ranking, and (3) for CLIP+TrTest, the time to translate the non-English text query into English. Similarly, for the image-to-text retrieval task, we precompute the text features and report the inference time for one image query, which contains (1) the time to extract the feature of one image query, and (2) the time of similarity calculation and ranking. Note that for CLIP+TrTest, the translation cost is not included in this latency as the text features are precomputed. All latency values are averaged on all test sets over ten runs using one NVIDIA V100 32G GPU. From Table 10, mCLIP+ achieves 7.9% better mean recall score than CLIP+TrTest, with fewer model parameters and lower latency. Directly designing a multilingual cross-modal retrieval model like ours is more practical than the translate-test method: (1) The translate-test method has to deploy an additional NMT system, which introduces the storage and computation overhead. Although CLIP+TrTest can be improved with better translations, it usually comes with the cost of larger NMT models and longer latencies. (2) For the translate-test method, the translation process of every text query has to go through the encoder and decoder of the NMT model. The decoding process is usually in an autoregressive manner, which brings non-negligible computing overhead and latency. However, the text query of mCLIP+ only goes through a multilingual encoder, which is computed parallelly. (3) The translate-test method is not suitable for the image-to-text retrieval task. To | Mean Recall | Params. (M) | Latency (ms) | | | | | | | | |---------------|---------------|----------------|------|------|--------|--------|------|------|-------| | Multi30K | MSCOCO | Avg. | | | | | | | | | De | Fr | Cs | Ja | Zh | i-to-t | t-to-i | | | | | Model mCLIP+ | 76.6 | 76.1 | 74.5 | 55.6 | 71.8 | 70.9 | 444 | 16.3 | 17.2 | | CLIP+TrTest | 72.8 | 73.4 | 70.0 | 45.3 | 67.1 | 65.7 | 1351 | 16.2 | 438.7 | apply the translate-test method, every non-English image description has to be translated into English and stored in databases, which is infeasible for real billion-level cross-modal retrieval applications. ## B.2 Comparison With English Clip. For zero-shot English retrieval on MSCOCO, the mean recall of the original CLIP (ViT-B/32) model is 60.4 (Radford et al., 2021). On the other hand, though mCLIP gains zero-shot cross-lingual transferability on the non-English image-text retrieval, from Table 1, its mean recall score on English is only 53.2, accounting for only 87.2% of the original CLIP's performance. This comparison reveals that one limitation of mCLIP is that the proposed method may slightly degrade the performance on the English cross-modal retrieval task. This performance degradation can be alleviated by using more pretraining data, i.e., mCLIP+ trained with more parallel corpus and multilingual image-text pairs retains 93.8% English retrieval ability of the original CLIP. In addition, since the image backbone of mCLIP initialized from CLIP is frozen during training, one can store an additional CLIP text encoder for English image-text retrieval task when the storage is allowed. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 8 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4 And Section A Of Appendix ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 and Section A of Appendix ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? They are widely used open-sourced data and tools. ✗ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? The use is consistent. ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We follow the previous works. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? They are covered in the original papers. ✗ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. They are covered in the original papers. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 And Section B Of Appendix ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section A of Appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4 and Section A of Appendix ✗ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? The computation cost of one experiment run is high. We follow previous work to report experimental results. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. Left blank. ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Left Blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

lu-etal-2023-distantly

Distantly Supervised Course Concept Extraction in {MOOC}s with Academic Discipline

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.729

With the rapid growth of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), it is expensive and time-consuming to extract high-quality knowledgeable concepts taught in the course by human effort to help learners grasp the essence of the course. In this paper, we propose to automatically extract course concepts using distant supervision to eliminate the heavy work of human annotations, which generates labels by matching them with an easily accessed dictionary. However, this matching process suffers from severe noisy and incomplete annotations because of the limited dictionary and diverse MOOCs. To tackle these challenges, we present a novel three-stage framework DS-MOCE, which leverages the power of pre-trained language models explicitly and implicitly and employs discipline-embedding models with a self-train strategy based on label generation refinement across different domains. We also provide an expert-labeled dataset spanning 20 academic disciplines. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of DS-MOCE over the state-of-the-art distantly supervised methods (with 7{\%} absolute F1 score improvement). Code and data are now available at \url{https://github.com/THU-KEG/MOOC-NER}.

# Distantly Supervised Course Concept Extraction In Moocs With Academic Discipline Mengying Lu1, Yuquan Wang2**, Jifan Yu**2∗ , Yexing Du3, Lei Hou2**, Juanzi Li**2 1SIGS, Tsinghua Univerisity, Shenzhen 518055, China 2DCST, Tsinghua Univerisity, Beijing 100084, China 3DCST, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029,China {lumy22, yujf21}@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn yuq406@gmail.com {houlei, lijuanzi}@tsinghua.edu.cn duyexing@buct.edu.cn ## Abstract With the rapid growth of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), it is expensive and time-consuming to extract high-quality knowledgeable concepts taught in the course by human effort to help learners grasp the essence of the course. In this paper, we propose to automatically extract course concepts using distant supervision to eliminate the heavy work of human annotations, which generates labels by matching them with an easily accessed dictionary. However, this matching process suffers from severe noisy and incomplete annotations because of the limited dictionary and diverse MOOCs. To tackle these challenges, we present a novel three-stage framework DSMOCE, which leverages the power of pretrained language models explicitly and implicitly and employs discipline-embedding models with a self-train strategy based on label generation refinement across different domains. We also provide an expert-labeled dataset spanning 20 academic disciplines. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of DS-MOCE over the state-of-the-art distantly supervised methods (with 7% absolute F1 score improvement). Code and data are now available at https: //github.com/THU-KEG/MOOC-NER. ## 1 Introduction Course concept extraction in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) aims to recognize high-quality knowledge concepts and subject terms taught in the course. Automatically extracting course concepts can help students better understand knowledgeable concepts of the course and reduce the burden of teacher workloads (Butt and Lance, 2005). It is a core task in course content analysis and MOOC knowledge graph construction, which is a fundamental step to building AI-driven MOOC systems with various downstream applications such as course recommendation and question answering ∗Corresponding author.  Figure 1: An example of distant labels obtained with a dictionary, suffering from noisy and incomplete annotations. *Che.* corresponds to *Chemistry* with red color, Agr. to *Agriculture* with green, and Med. to *Medicine* with yellow. (Song et al., 2021). However, MOOCs' explosive growth, like the number of online courses, which grew from 13.5k in 2019 to 19.4k in 20211, makes it expensive and tedious to annotate course corpus manually. Therefore, there is a clear need to achieve automatically consistent and accurate course concept extraction in MOOCs to eliminate the heavy work of human annotations. Early works for course concept extraction in MOOCs include graph propagation (Pan et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2019) and statistical ranking methods (Wu et al., 2022; Albahr et al., 2021). Recently, distant supervision has been proposed for the automatic generation of training labels. As shown in Figure 1, the labeling procedure matches the tokens in the course corpus with concepts in an easily accessed dictionary. However, this matching process suffers from two challenges: (1) **noisy annotation** where a mention can be low-quality (i.e., the mention of 'plant' and 'species' of the first instance) or unrelated to the field of the course (i.e., the mention of 'identification' from *Chemistry* but this instance is about *Agriculture*); and (2) **incomplete annotation** where a mention can be matched partially (i.e., the mention of 'cerebrovascular disease' and 'neurological event' of the second instance) or missed completely (i.e., the mention of 'life-threatening' ) 1https://www.classcentral.com/report/ moocs-stats-and-trends-2021/ | Dataset | Types | F-1 | P | R | |-----------|---------|-------|-------|-------| | CoNLL03 | 4 | 59.61 | 71.91 | 50.90 | | Tweet | 10 | 35.83 | 40.34 | 32.22 | | BC5CDR | 2 | 71.98 | 93.93 | 58.35 | | MOOCs | 20 | 16.85 | 12.50 | 25.84 | due to the limited coverage of dictionary. Several training paradigms have been employed in Distantly Supervised NER (DS-NER), such as reinforcement learning (Yang et al., 2018) and bagging active learning (Lee et al., 2016) to address the noise annotation; concept expansion (Yu et al., 2019, 2020b; Wang et al., 2019) and positiveunlabeled learning (Peng et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2022) to address the incomplete challenge. Unfortunately, the previous studies assume a high precision and reasonable recall after distantly supervised label generation. However, severe low-precision and low-recall are reported in MOOCs according to pioneer experiments and comparison with other benchmarks in Table 1. It indicates that there are more noise and incomplete annotations in MOOCs, which significantly hurt following model training performance, thus making the advanced DS-NER approaches fail to cope with the two challenges. Our analysis yields that the limited dictionary and diverse MOOCs lead to more noise and incomplete annotations2. First, the dictionary lacks sufficiently extensive coverage because of MOOCs' rapid growth and missing criteria. Therefore, the out-of-dictionary, low-quality concepts will consequently render more course concepts unmatched and false-positive noisy annotations during matching. Second, MOOCs can span 20 or even more academic disciplines (Mohd Salamon et al., 2016), producing unrelated noisy annotations across different open domains. Additionally, the uneven concept distribution and semantic differences among varied disciplines are different, imposing significant challenges to training an effective and accurate model. To address the two challenges, we propose a novel three-stage framework DS-MOCE to distantly supervised extract course concepts in MOOCs across different domains. Our framework consists of (1) **Discipline-aware Dictionary Empowerment** which employs prompt-based learning to explicitly generate concept distribution over diverse MOOC domains and implicitly enhance the dictionary's limited capability; (2) **Distant Supervision Refinement** which removes unrelated noise with much higher precision annotations for model training; and (3) **Discipline-embedding Models** with Self-training to deal with noise iteratively while finding incomplete mentions based on semantic knowledge and syntactic information of pre-trained language models (PLMs) and positiveunlabeled learning (PUL). For evaluation, we provide an expert-labeled dataset spanning 20 academic disciplines, which contains 522 expert-annotated sentences from 17 courses with 15, 375 course concepts. Our contributions include 1) a novel three-stage framework to distantly supervised extract course concepts in MOOCs across different domains to eliminate the heavy work of human annotations; 2) a distant supervision refinement method to discard unrelated field noise and discipline-embedding models with a self-training strategy to remove noise iteratively and address the incomplete challenge based on PUL; 3) an expert-labeled dataset with the excellent performance of our DS-MOCE framework over existing distantly supervised methods, with one implementation report of 7% absolute F1 score improvement. ## 2 Problem Formulation Following Pan et al. (2017), we give some necessary definitions and then formulate the problem of distantly supervised course concept extraction. A **course corpus** is composed of n courses from different academic disciplines, denoted as D = {Ci} n i=1, where Ciis one course. Each course Ci = {Si, Fi} consists of two parts, where Fi = [fi1*, . . . , f*iki ] is course related academic disciplines, and Si = {vij}j=1*,...,n*i is composed of ni course video subtitles, where vij stands for the j-th video subtitles. Finally, we get all academic fields F = {fi}i=1*,...,k* related to course corpus D, so k is the number of academic disciplines. A **dictionary** T = {Ti}i=1*,...,k*, where Ti = {cij}j=1*,...,m*i is composed of mi course concepts cij in academic disciplines fi. Distantly Supervised Course Concept Extraction in MOOCs is formally defined as follows. Given the course corpus D and dictionary T, for  each course Ciin D, the objective is to extract Fi discipline-related and high-quality course concepts from video subtitles Si. ## 3 The Ds-Moce Framework Considering the limited dictionary and diverse MOOCs, it is natural not to ignore the academic discipline characteristics for distantly supervised course concept extraction in MOOCs. As shown in Figure 2, we propose a three-stage framework DS-MOCE, which includes 1) **Discipline-aware** Dictionary Empowerment to transfer the power of PLMs to the dictionary; 2) **Distant Supervision** Refinement which considers academic disciplines to tackle the unrelated field noise explicitly; and 3) **Discipline-embedding Models** to fully exploit the power of PLMs with concept distribution to implicitly handle the noise and incomplete challenges, which then can be integrated with two advanced DS-NER implementations. One employs a co-training strategy to deal with the noise iteratively, denoted as **DS-MOCE(co)**. The other employs PUL to deal with the incomplete problem, denoted as **DS-MOCE(PUL)**. ## 3.1 Discipline-Aware Dictionary Empowerment Before distant supervision, we design a preceding step to conduct discipline classification for each concept in the dictionary with prompt-based learning (Liu et al., 2021b), hoping to transfer semantic knowledge from the language model (LM) to the dictionary. Formally, taking the input of each concept ciin the dictionary T = {ci}i=1*,...,m*, the classification returns a ranked list of related disciplines Fci ⊂ F and outputs pj for fj ∈ F = {fj}j=1*,...,k* to indicate its likelihood to be related to fj discipline: $$p_{j}(x^{'})=L M(f_{f i u l}(x^{'},f_{j});\theta)\qquad(1)$$ $\vec{a}=\vec{a}+\vec{b}$. where x ′= f*prompt*(ci) is a prompt with the concept ci filled template slot [*concept*], and function f*f ill*(x ′, fj ) fills in the slot [*MASK*] with the potential answer fj . For example (Figure 2), in one case of discipline classification where ci ="identification", the template is designed as "[*MASK*] including [*concept*]". Then x ′would become " [*MASK*] including identification", and we calculate the probability pj for each fj ∈ F = {fj}j=1*,...,k* according to Eq. (1). Additionally, creating manually crafted templates takes time and experience and is possibly sub-optimal, failing to retrieve facts that the LM does know (Jiang et al., 2020). Inspired by relation extraction methods (Hearst, 1992), hand-built Hearst patterns such as "Y including X (Cities including Madrid or Barcelona)", we create eight more lexico-syntactic templates to improve and stabilize the classification performance3. ## 3.2 Distant Supervision Refinement With a discipline-aware dictionary, we can generate distantly supervised labels by matching with the 3See more templates in Appendix A.3 Algorithm 1 Dic-Matching with Academic Discipline Input: Course Corpus D = {Ci} n i=1, where Ci = {Si, Fi}; Dictionary T = {ci} m i=1; K number of Top-K; for each course Ci = {Si, Fi} in D do for each video subtitles vij in Si = {vij} do Xm = [x1, x2*, ...x*N ] ← tokenize vij BIO tag potential concept using POS,RE: D pot m = [d1, d2*, ..., d*N ] for potential concept pcitagged in D pot m do # A potential concept $pc_i$ lagged in $\mathbb{E}_{m}$ if $pc_i\in T$ and (top-$K$ fields of $pc_i$) $\cap F_i\neq\emptyset$ then Tag BI to $pc_i$ tokens 1. Academic discipline related: Dm = [d1, d2*, ..., d*N ] end for **and for** **Output:** **Instantly supervised labels** $\{(X_{m},D_{m})\}_{m=1}^{M}$ else Tag O to pcitokens end if end for top-K-related disciplines4in the ranked list from Eq. (1). This way, we can have a much higher precision by explicitly removing unrelated noisy annotations. The entire Dic-Matching with academic discipline process is described in Algorithm 1. The input subtitles are first tokenized and annotated with part-of-speech (POS) tags. Next, we employ the regular expression (RE) by only keeping nouns to handle the noise challenge and mining more noun phrases to address the incomplete challenge, as illustrated in Appendix A.2. Finally filtering out unrelated disciplines, we have {(Xm, Dm)}M m=1 as distantly supervised data, where Xm = [x1, x2*, . . . , x*N ], composed of N tokens, Dm = [d1, d2*, . . . , d*N ], based on the BIO schema (Li et al., 2012). Specifically, the first token of a concept mention is labeled as B; other tokens inside that concept mention are labeled as I; the non-concept tokens are labeled as O. ## 3.3 Discipline Embedding Self-Training We adapt the PLMs to the sequence labeling tasks with the distant labels and self-training approach 4K is experimentally set to 2. to iteratively deal with the noisy annotations meantime training a new integrated embedding based on the concept discipline distribution to implicitly enhance model discipline-aware capability. Then we can employ other advanced DS-NER approaches, such as co-training and PUL. ## 3.3.1 Discipline Embedding Model At the pre-process of the dictionary, for each concept ci, we calculate its distribution in all academic disciplines according to Eq. (1), denoted as Uci = [p1, p2*, . . . , p*|F|]. To introduce the discipline feature, each token xj of the input Xm = [x1, x2*, . . . , x*N ] is encoded as Ej by adding its discipline distribution to BERT word embedding if xj is labeled as belonging to one of concept ciin the dictionary: $$E_{j}=\left\{\begin{array}{c c}{{E n c o d e r(x_{j})+U_{c i}W}}&{{\quad x_{j}\in c_{i}}}\\ {{E n c o d e r(x_{j})}}&{{\quad x_{j}\not\in a n y\,c_{i}}}\end{array}\right.\tag{2}$$ Where dh is a hidden dimension of the encoder, and W ∈ R|F|·dh is trainable parameters. We use BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) as our Encoder to learn the sequence representation. This way, external academic field features are integrated into the embedding, enhancing model discipline-aware capability (Figure 3).  Straightforward, we use f(·; θ) to denote our model parameterized by θ, which is a token-wise classifier on top of a pre-trained BERT. fn,c(·; ·) denotes the probability of the n-th token in Xm belonging to the c-th class from the BIO schema. The model will be learned by minimizing the cross entropy loss $\mathcal{L}(\theta)$ over $\{(X_{m},D_{m})\}_{m=1}^{M}$: $$\mathcal{L}(\theta)=\frac{1}{M}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\sum_{n=1}^{N}-\log f_{n,d_{m,n}}(X_{m};\theta)\tag{3}$$ 3.3.2 Teacher-Student Self-training Following Liang et al. (2020); Meng et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2021b); Liu et al. (2021a), we employ the teacher-student self-training strategy because it selects high-confidence and consistent predictions as pseudo labels from the teacher model and then uses them to guide the training of the student model, which removes the noisy labels iteratively. We adopt two advanced self-training DS-NER approaches. One is based on Zhang et al. (2021b), aimed at high-precision performance, which jointly trains two teacher-student networks and confirms its effectiveness and robustness in dealing with the label noise. The other is inspired by Peng et al. (2019), aimed at high-recall performance, which introduces PUL as it can unbiasedly and consistently estimate the task loss. We apply the binary label assignment mechanism for using this algorithm by mapping "O" to 0 and "B", "I" to 1. Finally, we get positive set D+m = [dm,1*, ..., d*m,|D+|] and unlabeled set Dum = [dm,1*, ..., d*m,|Du|] from the original distantly supervised labels Dm = [dm,1, dm,2, ..., dm,N ]. The PUL training loss is defined by: $$\widehat{\cal L}(\theta)=\gamma\cdot\pi_{p}\widehat{\cal L}_{p}^{+}(\theta)+max\{0,\widehat{\cal L}_{u}^{-}(\theta)-\pi_{p}\widehat{\cal L}_{p}^{-}(\theta)\}\tag{4}$$ (4) where where $$\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{p}^{+}(\theta)=\frac{1}{M}\frac{1}{|D^{+}|}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\sum_{d=1}^{|D^{+}|}-\log f_{d,1}(X_{m};\theta)$$ $$\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{p}^{-}(\theta)=1-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{p}^{+}(\theta)$$ $$\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{u}^{-}(\theta)=\frac{1}{M}\frac{1}{|D^{u}|}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\sum_{d=1}^{|D^{u}|}-\log f_{d,0}(X_{m};\theta)$$ and $\pi_{p}$ is the ratio of positive concept words within Du. A class weight γ is introduced to deal with the class imbalance problem (πp is very small). As a whole, in this training strategy, the parameters of the student model θ∗are learned by the combination of the cross entropy loss (Eq. (3)) and the PUL loss (Eq. (4)): $$\theta^{*}=a r g m i n({\mathcal{L}}(\theta)+\beta\cdot{\widehat{\mathcal{L}}}(\theta))$$ θ where a parameter β is introduced to balance these two loss functions. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Experimental Settings 4.1.1 Dataset We provide a new dataset spanning 20 academic disciplines, which can be used to benchmark distantly supervised methods for course concept extraction task in MOOCs. Based on MOOCCube (Yu et al., 2020a), the input includes two parts: (1) an expert-checked dictionary with over 100k course concepts from CNCTST5, and (2) a subtitle corpus from 315 courses with 167, 496 unlabeled character sequences on average per course. The test set contains 522 expert-annotated sentences from 17 courses with 15, 375 discipline-related course concepts. All data is from XuetangX6, one of the largest MOOC websites in China, so the dataset is in the Chinese language. More details of the dataset can be found in Appendix A.5. ## 4.1.2 Baselines And Evaluation Metrics We compare our method with several competitive baselines from three aspects and use Precision (P), Recall (R), and F1 score as the evaluation metrics. Dic-Matching Methods. We construct different Dic-Matching (DM) methods for comparison, including (i) DM: it is a simple string matching with a greedy search algorithm to find the longest matching strings in sentences; (ii) **DM(AD-LM)** : it adopts the matching strategy proposed in Algorithm 1; (iii) **DM(AD-human)**: it is a variation of AD-LM that replaces the discipline classification results from GLM with ones from CNCTST expert annotations. Fully-supervised Method. We also construct fullysupervised methods for comparison. **FLAT** (Li et al., 2020): For Chinese NER, it converts the lattice structure into a flat structure consisting of spans to handle word segmentation in the Chinese language. Distantly-supervised Methods. The state-of-theart self-training DS-NER methods are as follows. (i) **SCDL** (Zhang et al., 2021b): It explores more helpful information from the mislabeled data by a devised co-training paradigm based on self-training. (ii) **RoSTER** (Meng et al., 2021): A self-training method that uses contextualized augmentations created by pre-trained language models to improve the model's generalization ability. (iii) **BOND**(Liang et al., 2020): A two-stage framework that trains a RoBERTa model on distantly-labeled data with early stopping in the first stage and improves the model fitting with a teacher-student framework to iteratively self-train the model in the second stage. ## 4.1.3 Implementation Details For concept classification task, we apply the General Language Model (Du et al., 2022), which is capable of handling variable-length blank. We use the pre-trained BERT-wwm-ext model (Cui et al., 2020) as the backbone for our method and other distantly-supervised baselines. The maximum sequence length of our dataset is set to be 512 tokens. The max training epoch is 30, and the batch size is 4. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2014) as the optimizer, and the learning rate is 10−5. The confidence threshold γ is 0.9 for the co-training strategy while 0.7 for the PUL strategy with the purpose of high-recall performance. More implementation details can be found in Appendix A.4. ## 4.2 Experimental Results Overall Results. Table 2 shows the overall results of different methods on our MOOCs test set. Our DS-MOCE framework with two self-training strategies achieves the best performance among distantlysupervised methods. Specifically, (1) the proposed Dic-Matching method with academic discipline refines the distant labels by improving precision significantly; (2) **DS-MOCE(co)** reports a high precision with 7% absolute F1 score improvement over the best performing baseline model BOND, demonstrating the superiority of our proposed DicMatching with academic discipline method and self-training approach; (3) **DS-MOCE(PUL)** consistently outperforms other distantly-supervised methods with a higher recall and reasonable precision, showing more robustness to the issue of incomplete labeling. As we have discussed, the Dic-Matching method suffers from extremely low precision and low recall in MOOCs for its diversity, which dramatically hurts the performance of the distantly supervised baselines and limits the model fitting ability in fully supervision. Discipline Classification Results. Through the comparison of **DM(AD-human)** and **DM(ADLM)** in Table 2, we find that the academic discipline classification result from GLM outperforms that from expert annotations during Dic-Matching, showing the robustness of our designed classifica- | Method | P | R | F1 | |-------------------------|-------|-------|-------| | Dic-Matching DM | 12.50 | 25.84 | 16.85 | | DM(AD-human) | 22.95 | 17.38 | 19.78 | | DM(AD-LM) | 34.59 | 15.40 | 21.31 | | Distant-Sup. SCDL | 34.59 | 21.16 | 26.26 | | RoSTER | 35.40 | 26.70 | 30.40 | | BOND | 32.37 | 44.78 | 37.58 | | Our DS-MOCE DS-MOCE(co) | 81.93 | 30.82 | 44.79 | | DS-MOCE(PUL) | 34.53 | 49.34 | 40.62 | | Sup. FLAT | 56.08 | 57.17 | 56.62 | Table 2: Overall results (%) on our MOOCs test set. tion step for transferring PLMs knowledge to the dictionary. On the contrary, human annotations suffer from missing, incorrect, and out-of-date classifications. Moreover, we evaluate the pre-process concept classification task using the Mean Average Precision (MAP), a metric in information retrieval for evaluating ranked lists. Table 3 shows some example results using different templates. (See more templates in Appendix A.3). The first example is based on experience and the rest are Hearst patterns, showing better and more stable performance. We finally use the best-performing template in the following parts. | Template | MAP | |--------------------------------|-------| | [concept] belongs to [MASK] | 51.35 | | [concept], a concept of [MASK] | 58.44 | | [MASK], especially [concept] | 58.89 | | [MASK] including [concept] | 59.95 | Table 3: Results (%) of different templates. Ablation Study. To evaluate the influence of each component, we conduct the following ablation study for further exploration by removing one component at a time: (1) do not adopt Alg. 1 and use the Dic-Matching method when generating distantly supervised labels. (2) only use BERT Encoder without adding academic discipline embedding; (3) do not perform self-training; (4) do not perform co-training for **DS-MOCE(co)** and only use crossentropy loss in Eq. (3) without adding PUL loss in Eq. (4) for **DS-MOCE(PUL)**. The results are shown in Table 4. It can be seen that w/o Alg. Method P R F1  DS-MOCE(co) 81.93 30.82 44.79 w/o Alg. 1 14.15 34.28 20.04 w/o embedding 34.59 21.16 26.26 w/o self-train 60.07 27.38 37.61 w/o co 67.63 30.74 42.47 DS-MOCE(PUL) 34.53 49.34 40.62 w/o Alg. 1 17.52 50.26 25.98 w/o embedding 34.30 48.79 40.28 w/o self-train 14.33 40.66 21.19 w/o PUL 32.02 36.63 34.17 Table 4: Ablation study results (%). Discipline ratio P R F1 Philosophy 0.05 80.65 11.57 20.24 CS 0.27 84.16 47.87 61.03 Mathematics 0.16 92.89 48.50 63.73 Medicine 0.16 89.38 22.90 36.46 1 refinement and w/o embedding for both strategies lead to worse performance than the full model, confirming the necessity of considering discipline features in MOOCs. Removing the self-training or co-training component also reduces performance, showing its importance in DS-MOCE(co) of denoising learning because false-negative labels can be explored via peer model or another network iteratively. Without PUL, the recall value decreases sharply, which validates the effectiveness of introducing PUL to tackle the incomplete challenge. Parameter Study. Before discussing the parameter study of πp defined in Eq. (4), we first calculate the true value of πp = (\# of concept words) / (\# of words of the training set) in our dataset, with a 0.1002 result. Then we train the proposed model DS-MOCE(PUL) with different estimated πp, and evaluate its performance on the test set. From Figure 4(a), we can see that although the highest recall is achieved by setting πp = 0.1, most closely to the true value, the variation of results across different πp is relatively tiny. This motivates us to use a proper estimated value of πp to deal with the diversity of MOOCs where courses from different disciplines have incongruous and unknown πp values. Therefore, we set πp = 0.01 for DSMOCE(PUL) to achieve a high recall and a higher  F1 score. Besides, we set β = 1 in Eq. (5) throughout our experiments without further illustration, according to Figure 4(b). Different Discipline Analysis. We analyze that the diversity of MOOCs academic disciplines accounts for more noisy and incomplete annotations in distantly supervised MOOCs. As a result, we select some courses from different disciplines and use DS-MOCE(co) framework to perform prediction on these courses. From Table 5, we discover that (1) the intensive and appropriate terminological concepts in formal and applied science, such as CS and Mathematics, bootstrap the model with its high-recall predictions that benefit the model's generalization; (2) the sparse distribution (low concept ratio) in Humanities and Social Science Philosophy makes it uncertain about selecting tokens to train a robust model; (3) excessive terminological concepts (nested structure and long formulas) in some professions, such as Chemistry and Medicine, amplify the issue of incomplete annotation, where several concept extraction methods have been developed specifically to handle this problem (Wang et al., 2021; Fu et al., 2020). | Sentence # 1 | 操作系统的功能是在用户态和硬件之间, The function of the operating system is ... between the user state and the hardware. | |----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | DM | 操作系统的功能是在用户态和硬件之间, | | DM(LM) | 操作系统的功能是在用户态和硬件之间, | | SCDL | 操作系统的功能是在用户态和硬件之间, | | RoSTER | 操作系统的功能是在用户态和硬件之间, | | BOND | 操作系统的功能是在用户态和硬件之间, | | DS-MOCE(co) | 操作系统的功能是在用户态和硬件之间, | | Sentence # 2 | 传染性疾病是由病毒,细菌,原生动物和寄生虫等等一系列的微生物产生。 Infectious diseases are produced by a range of microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, protozoa and parasites. | | DM | 传染性疾病是由病毒,细菌,原生动物和寄生虫等等一系列的微生物产生。 | | DM(LM) | 传染性疾病是由病毒,细菌,原生动物和寄生虫等等一系列的微生物产生。 | | DS-MOCE(co) | 传染性疾病是由病毒,细菌,原生动物和寄生虫等等一系列的微生物产生。 | | DS-MOCE(PUL) | 传染性疾病是由病毒,细菌,原生动物和寄生虫等等一系列的微生物产生。 | Case Study. Finally, we perform a case study to understand the advantage of DS-MOCE(co) with a concrete example in Table 6. Besides, we select another case study to demonstrate why DC-MOCE(PUL) is provided in our work. The extremely high precision accounts for the F1 score increment of the DS-MOCE(co) framework, but low recall leads to more missing tokens. Consequently, aimed at improving recall, we design the DC-MOCE(PUL) as an alternative option by sacrificing the precision properly. Finally, DS-MOCE(co) with high-precision and DSMOCE(PUL) with high-recall can be applied in different real-world scenarios. To help our model's behaviors be understood and applied to real-world applications, we suggest: (1) For DS-MOCE(co) with high-precision performance, it is better to apply it to the downstream tasks that acquire accurate concepts but ignore the coverage, such as course concept recommendation and AI-driven robot assistant; (2) For DSMOCE(PUL) with high-recall performance, it is better to apply it to scenarios where there is surplus human labor available for corrections, and where there is a need to recall as many course concepts as possible, such as in MOOC knowledge graph construction. ## 5 Related Work Distantly Supervised NER. Our work is more closely related to distantly supervised NER, where the primary research focuses on coping with the noise and incomplete annotations problem. Several new training paradigms have been proposed along the denoising line, such as Reinforcement learning (Yang et al., 2018), AutoNER (Shang et al., 2018) with a new tagging scheme "tie or break", Hypergeometric Learning (Zhang et al., 2021a) and Bagging-based active learning with negative sampling (Lee et al., 2016). Along the incomplete mining line, a direct solution is concept expansion (Yu et al., 2019, 2020b; Wang et al., 2019), which finds new candidates and ranks them to expand the set based on the seed set with figurative elements. AdaPU (Peng et al., 2019) and Conf-MPU (Zhou et al., 2022) are developed to address the incomplete challenge by formulating the task as a positive-unlabeled learning problem. Besides, many studies (Yang et al., 2018; Shang et al., 2018) attempt to modify the standard CRF to partial annotation CRF to consider all possible labels for unlabeled tokens. However, these works do not work well in MOOCs where severe low-precision and low-recall problems have been reported previously. Course Concept Extraction. Our study is also relevant to course concept extraction, which is related to keyphrase extraction (Hasan and Ng, 2014) in the information retrieval domain. The well-known methods such as tf-idf (Ramos et al., 2003), cooccurrence (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004), and PositionRank (Florescu and Caragea, 2017) are frequently used in unsupervised automatic keyphrase extraction. However, the low-frequency (i.e., appearing only once or twice in the subtitles) feature of keyphrases in MOOCs makes statistical information less useful (Pan et al., 2017). Therefore, Pan et al. (2017) develop a graph-based propagation algorithm, and Albahr et al. (2021) design a novel unsupervised cluster-based approach to address the low-frequency problem in keyphrases extraction from MOOCs. DS-MOCE also benefits from distributed representations of words, namely word embeddings (Mikolov et al., 2013) to learn academic discipline representations for concepts from the dictionary, which has been employed in Wang et al. (2018); Wu et al. (2022). ## 6 Conclusion And Future Work In this paper, we attribute the increased noise and incomplete challenges of distantly supervised course concept extraction in MOOCs to the limited dictionary and diverse MOOCs. To tackle these challenges, we propose a three-stage framework DS-MOCE, which handles the unrelated noise through Dic-Matching refinement and disciplineembedding model training, and leverages the power of pre-trained language models for dictionary empowerment and incomplete mentions mining. We also provide an expert-labeled dataset spanning 20 academic disciplines. Experimental results show that DS-MOCE is highly effective, outperforming the state-of-the-art distantly supervised methods. Although achieving significant improvement, course concept extraction in MOOCs is still nontrivial. In the future, we plan to design a more robust training method to jointly deal with severe noisy and incomplete issues and apply it to other real-world open domains. ## 7 Ethic Consideration We provide an expert-labeled dataset spanning 20 academic disciplines, which contains 522 expertannotated sentences from 17 courses with 15, 375 course concepts. We define the 20 academic disciplines according to Discipline Doctor and Master Degree and postgraduate training, the professional directory issued by the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China7. The course corpus is collected from an open-source database MOOCCube (Yu et al., 2020a) 8. The dictionary is col-7http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/ moe_833/200512/t20051223_88437.html 8http://moocdata.cn/data/MOOCCube lected from CNCTST9 with expert-checked 100k course concepts. The annotated sentences in the test set are from an expert from the Education Department in our university, which may have limitations but missing criteria in MOOCs means that we can accept this human bias. The annotator is a voluntary participant who was aware of any risks of harm associated with their participation and had given their informed consent. To lighten the burden of the annotator, we first use unsupervised methods, such as tf-idf, to give a rough annotation result for each course, randomly selected from XuetangX10. Then the annotator marks mentions of high-quality course concepts based on that. More details of the dataset can be found in Appendix A.5. ## 8 Limitations Although we conducted extensive experiments, the exploration scope of this work has some limitations: (1) All data is from one of the largest MOOC websites in China, so the dataset is in the Chinese language, which limits the linguistic features covered in our analyses. We will add comprehensive corpora from other MOOC platforms with various languages such as English, Japanese, French, and so on to enhance the availability and coverage of our dataset. (2) We present two models with highprecision and high-recall behaviors. The severe noisy and incomplete issues could not be coped with simply by combining two technical methods (i.e. co-training and PUL). A more robust training method should be proposed to jointly achieve better overall performance. We encourage future works to address these limitations and get more comprehensive analysis results. ## Acknowledgements This work is supported by a grant from the Institute for Guo Qiang, Tsinghua University (2019GQB0003). This work is also supported by the NSFC Youth Project (62006136). ## References Abdulaziz Albahr, Dunren Che, and Marwan Albahar. 2021. A novel cluster-based approach for keyphrase extraction from mooc video lectures. Knowledge and Information Systems, 63(7):1663–1686. Graham Butt and Ann Lance. 2005. Secondary teacher workload and job satisfaction: do successful strategies for change exist? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(4):401–422. Yiming Cui, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Bing Qin, Shijin Wang, and Guoping Hu. 2020. Revisiting pre-trained models for Chinese natural language processing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 657–668, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805*. Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. Glm: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 320–335. Corina Florescu and Cornelia Caragea. 2017. PositionRank: An unsupervised approach to keyphrase extraction from scholarly documents. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1105–1115, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sunyang Fu, David Chen, Huan He, Sijia Liu, Sungrim Moon, Kevin J Peterson, Feichen Shen, Liwei Wang, Yanshan Wang, Andrew Wen, et al. 2020. Clinical concept extraction: a methodology review. Journal of biomedical informatics, 109:103526. Kazi Saidul Hasan and Vincent Ng. 2014. Automatic keyphrase extraction: A survey of the state of the art. In *Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1262–1273, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Marti A Hearst. 1992. Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In COLING 1992 Volume 2: The 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Jun Araki, and Graham Neubig. 2020. How can we know what language models know? *Transactions of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, 8:423–438. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. Sunghee Lee, Yeongkil Song, Maengsik Choi, and Harksoo Kim. 2016. Bagging-based active learning model for named entity recognition with distant supervision. In 2016 International conference on big data and smart computing (BigComp), pages 321–324. IEEE. Qi Li, Haibo Li, Heng Ji, Wen Wang, Jing Zheng, and Fei Huang. 2012. Joint bilingual name tagging for parallel corpora. In *Proceedings of the 21st ACM* international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 1727–1731. Xiaonan Li, Hang Yan, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2020. FLAT: Chinese NER using flat-lattice transformer. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 6836–6842, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chen Liang, Yue Yu, Haoming Jiang, Siawpeng Er, Ruijia Wang, Tuo Zhao, and Chao Zhang. 2020. Bond: Bert-assisted open-domain named entity recognition with distant supervision. In *Proceedings of the 26th* ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 1054–1064. Kun Liu, Yao Fu, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Songfang Huang, and Sheng Gao. 2021a. Noisy-labeled ner with confidence estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.04318. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021b. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586. Weiming Lu, Yangfan Zhou, Jiale Yu, and Chenhao Jia. 2019. Concept extraction and prerequisite relation learning from educational data. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 9678–9685. Yu Meng, Yunyi Zhang, Jiaxin Huang, Xuan Wang, Yu Zhang, Heng Ji, and Jiawei Han. 2021. Distantlysupervised named entity recognition with noiserobust learning and language model augmented selftraining. Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. Textrank: Bringing order into text. In *Proceedings of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language* processing, pages 404–411. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1301.3781. Huzaifah Mohd Salamon, Nazmona Mat Ali, Suraya Miskon, and Norasnita Ahmad. 2016. Initial recommendations of moocs characteristics for academic discipline clusters. 87:204–213. Liangming Pan, Xiaochen Wang, Chengjiang Li, Juanzi Li, and Jie Tang. 2017. Course concept extraction in moocs via embedding-based graph propagation. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 875–884. Minlong Peng, Xiaoyu Xing, Qi Zhang, Jinlan Fu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. Distantly supervised named entity recognition using positive-unlabeled learning. CoRR, abs/1906.01378. Juan Ramos et al. 2003. Using tf-idf to determine word relevance in document queries. In Proceedings of the first instructional conference on machine learning, volume 242, pages 29–48. Citeseer. Jingbo Shang, Liyuan Liu, Xiang Ren, Xiaotao Gu, Teng Ren, and Jiawei Han. 2018. Learning named entity tagger using domain-specific dictionary. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1809.03599. Zhengyang Song, Jie Tang, Tracy Xiao Liu, Wenjiang Zheng, Lili Wu, Wenzheng Feng, and Jing Zhang. 2021. Xiaomu: an ai-driven assistant for moocs. Science China Information Sciences, 64(6):1–3. Benjamin Strauss, Bethany Toma, Alan Ritter, MarieCatherine De Marneffe, and Wei Xu. 2016. Results of the wnut16 named entity recognition shared task. In *Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Noisy Usergenerated Text (WNUT)*, pages 138–144. Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang. 2002. Introduction to the CoNLL-2002 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In *COLING-02: The 6th* Conference on Natural Language Learning 2002 (CoNLL-2002). Xiaochen Wang, Wenzheng Feng, Jie Tang, and Qingyang Zhong. 2018. Course concept extraction in mooc via explicit/implicit representation. In 2018 IEEE Third International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace (DSC), pages 339–345. Xuan Wang, Vivian Hu, Xiangchen Song, Shweta Garg, Jinfeng Xiao, and Jiawei Han. 2021. ChemNER: Fine-grained chemistry named entity recognition with ontology-guided distant supervision. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 5227– 5240, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xuan Wang, Yu Zhang, Qi Li, Xiang Ren, Jingbo Shang, and Jiawei Han. 2019. Distantly supervised biomedical named entity recognition with dictionary expansion. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 496– 503. Zhijie Wu, Jia Zhu, Shi Xu, Zhiwen Yan, and Wanying Liang. 2022. Ltwnn: A novel approach using sentence embeddings for extracting diverse concepts in moocs. In *Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, pages 763–774. Springer. Yaosheng Yang, Wenliang Chen, Zhenghua Li, Zhengqiu He, and Min Zhang. 2018. Distantly supervised ner with partial annotation learning and reinforcement learning. In *Proceedings of the 27th* International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2159–2169. Jifan Yu, Gan Luo, Tong Xiao, Qingyang Zhong, Yuquan Wang, Wenzheng Feng, Junyi Luo, Chenyu Wang, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Jie Tang. 2020a. MOOCCube: A large-scale data repository for NLP applications in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3135–3142, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jifan Yu, Chenyu Wang, Gan Luo, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li, Jie Tang, Minlie Huang, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2020b. Expanrl: Hierarchical reinforcement learning for course concept expansion in moocs. In *Proceedings of the* 1st conference of the asia-pacific chapter of the association for computational linguistics and the 10th international joint conference on natural language processing, pages 770–780. Jifan Yu, Chenyu Wang, Gan Luo, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li, Jie Tang, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2019. Course concept expansion in moocs with external knowledge and interactive game. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.07739*. Wenkai Zhang, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, Huidan Liu, Zhicheng Wei, and Nicholas Yuan. 2021a. Denoising distantly supervised named entity recognition via a hypergeometric probabilistic model. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 14481–14488. Xinghua Zhang, Bowen Yu, Tingwen Liu, Zhenyu Zhang, Jiawei Sheng, Mengge Xue, and Hongbo Xu. 2021b. Improving distantly-supervised named entity recognition with self-collaborative denoising learning. Kang Zhou, Yuepei Li, and Qi Li. 2022. Distantly supervised named entity recognition via confidencebased multi-class positive and unlabeled learning. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7198–7211, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Appendix A.1 Case Explanations Of Limited Dictionary & Diverse Moocs The limited dictionary. It is expensive and timeconsuming to expand or tailor a dictionary to every specific domain because of MOOCs rapid growth and criteria missing, ending up with outof-dictionary and low-quality concept problems. We categorize two types of low-quality course concepts in the dictionary. The first type is not specific enough, missing prefixes and suffixes. The second type is unigram concepts with many extended meanings, which end up with false-positive labels. The diverse MOOCs. Compared with other benchmark datasets, Table 1 illustrates that the number of concept types is inversely proportional to the distantly matching performance. As shown in Table 1, where BC5CDR (Shang et al., 2018) is restricted to the biomedical domain, a domainspecific dictionary with a corpus-aware dictionary tailoring method can achieve higher precision and reasonable recall. MOOCs can span 20 or even more academic disciplines. During label generation, unrelated concept annotations would produce more false-positive noise. Besides, the characteristics among varied disciplines are different. Most of the time, the concept distribution in humanities and social science is sparse, while in formal science is dense. According to the statistics, the concept proportion of contents in one psychology course is 0.0163, whereas in one computer science course is 0.1. The uneven concept distribution may lead to a matching bias toward the concept-intensive academic discipline. Furthermore, in Chinese, homonyms are more likely to appear in humanities and social science, where words share the same characters and pronunciations but have different meanings. For example, in Philosophy, the debate of right and wrong makes "right" annotations correct. However, "right", as a high-frequency phrase, is easily annotated in other contexts, producing false-positive labels. The ambiguity of homonyms makes it difficult to extract the correct meaning concept in these domains. ## A.2 Regular Expression In Distant Supervision Refinement During distant supervision refinement, we employ the following regular expression, introduced by Table 7: Results (%) of Hearst Pattern Templates. | Template | MAP | |------------------------------------|-------| | [concept], a concept of [MASK] | 58.44 | | [MASK] such as [concept] | 56.77 | | [MASK] including [concept] | 59.95 | | [concept] and other [MASK] | 54.63 | | [concept] or other [MASK] | 54.32 | | [concept] which is known as [MASK] | 54.57 | | [MASK], especially [concept] | 58.89 | | like [MASK], [concept] | 54.87 | Luo et al.11, only keeping nouns and noun phrases to remove the apparent incorrect POS noise and mining more incomplete annotations by connecting two nouns with @. (@(([*av]?n[rstz*]?)|l|a|v)) ∗ (@(([av]?n[*rstz*]?)|l)) ## A.3 Templates Results All eight template results based on Hearst Pattern are shown in Table 7. ## A.4 Baselines Settings For fully-supervised methods, we use 3/4 of the test set for model training and the rest for evaluation. Fairly, the following distantly supervised methods use the distantly-labeled training set obtained from Dic-Matching(**AD-GLM**). - **SCDL.** We use the authors' released code: https://github.com/ AIRobotZhang/SCDL. Because our test set is in the Chinese language, we change the basic model to the same pre-trained BERT-wwm-ext model with our method. We train the model for 30 epochs with a batch size of 8. The other hyperparameters are set to default values. - **RoSTER.** We follow the officially released implementation from the authors: https:// github.com/yumeng5/RoSTER. Similarly, we modify the backbone model from RoBERTa-base to the same one with our method. The epoch number is set to 3, 3, and 7 for noise-robust training, ensemble model training, and self-training, respectively. We train five models with 2000 intervals of noiserobust training and 1000 of self-training with 11a parent with number CN201911140653.9 | Metrics | results | |------------------------------------|-----------| | number of course | 17 | | Avg. number of video | 12.06 | | Avg. length of subtitles | 15740.71 | | Avg. number of related disciplines | 1.82 | | Avg. number of concepts | 904.41 | | Max. number of concepts | 5174 | | Avg. length of concept | 2.39 | between the two languages, there are some missing tokens in English. Table 8: Test set information. a batch size of 8. The rest hyperparameters are the same as the default values. - **BOND.** We use the authors' released code: https://github.com/cliang1453/ BOND/. Also, we choose the pre-trained BERT-wwm-ext model as the backbone model. The early stopping step of the student model is set to 100k. The other hyperparameters are set to default values. ## A.5 Dataset Statistic A.5.1 Test Set Annotation We select 17 courses from the course corpus spanning these disciplines and ask an expert to annotate each sentence as our test sets. The more detailed statistics are shown in Table 8. During analysis of different discipline, we choose *Introduction to the* Classical Works of Chinese Philosophy for Philosophy; *Machine Learning for Big Data* for Computer Sciences(CS); *Finite Element Analysis and Applications* for Mathematics; *Pathology* for Medicine. ## A.5.2 Dictionary Information We created our dictionary with 20 academic disciplines by developing the resource from MOOCCube(Yu et al., 2020a) based on its concept taxonomy from CNCTST. Then according to *Discipline Doctor and Master Degree and postgraduate* training, the professional directory issued by the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China12, we show the prescribed 20 academic disciplines and the distribution of concepts that filtered and mapped from MOOCCube in Table 9. ## A.6 Case Studies In English To make the case study more vivid, we highlight the corresponding English word in different colors in Table 10. Considering contextual differences 12http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/ moe_833/200512/t20051223_88437.html Academic Discipline Abbreviation in Chinese #concepts Philosophy Phi. 心理学 2136 Education Edu. 教育学 2947 Linguistics and languages Lin. 语言学 2909 History His. 世界历史 4021 Mathematics Mat. 数学 7876 Physics Phy. 物理学 4273 Chemistry Che. 化学 6909 Mechanics Mec. 力学 1119 Mechanical Engineering ME 机械工程 18011 Materials Science MS 材料科学技术 6923 Electrical Engineering EE 电气工程 5000 Computer Science CS 计算机科学技术 4906 Architecture Arc. 建筑学 5305 Marine Engineering ME 船舶工程 2333 Aeronautical Aer. 航天科学技术 4213 Aviation Avi. 航空科学技术 2236 Agriculture Agr. 农学 2248 Medicine Med. 医学 10346 Business Bus. 管理科学技术 7473 Immunology Imm. 免疫学 1564 Table 10: Table 6 illustration in English. Case studies between DS-MOCE(co) and baselines of the first sentence; DS-MOCE(co) and DS-MOCE(PUL) of the second sentence. Golden labels are marked in orange. Noisy labels are marked in red and incomplete in blue. | Sentence # 1 | 操作系统的功能是在用户态和硬件之间, The function of the operating system is ... between the user state and the hardware. | |----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | DM | The function of the operating system is ... between the user state and the hardware. | | DM(LM) | The function of the operating system is ... between the user state and the hardware. | | SCDL | The function of the operating system is ... between the user state and the hardware. | | RoSTER | The function of the operating system is ... between the user state and the hardware. | | BOND | The function of the operating system is ... between the user state and the hardware. | | DS-MOCE(co) | The function of the operating system is ... between the user state and the hardware. | | Sentence # 2 | 传染性疾病是由病毒,细菌,原生动物和寄生虫等等一系列的微生物产生。 Infectious diseases are produced by a range of microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, protozoa and parasites. | | DM | Infectious diseases are produced by a range of microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, protozoa and parasites. | | DM(LM) | Infectious diseases are produced by a range of microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, protozoa and parasites. | | DS-MOCE(co) | Infectious diseases are produced by a range of microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, protozoa and parasites. | | DS-MOCE(PUL) | Infectious diseases are produced by a range of microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, protozoa and parasites. | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Left blank. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Left blank. A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Left blank. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank. ## C **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left blank. C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Left blank. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank. C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank. D **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank.

moghe-etal-2023-extrinsic

Extrinsic Evaluation of Machine Translation Metrics

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.730

Automatic machine translation (MT) metrics are widely used to distinguish the quality of machine translation systems across relatively large test sets (system-level evaluation). However, it is unclear if automatic metrics are reliable at distinguishing good translations from bad translations at the sentence level (segment-level evaluation). In this paper, we investigate how useful MT metrics are at detecting the segment-level quality by correlating metrics with how useful the translations are for downstream task. We evaluate the segment-level performance of the most widely used MT metrics (chrF, COMET, BERTScore, etc.) on three downstream cross-lingual tasks (dialogue state tracking, question answering, and semantic parsing). For each task, we only have access to a monolingual task-specific model and a translation model. We calculate the correlation between the metric{'}s ability to predict a good/bad translation with the success/failure on the final task for the machine translated test sentences. Our experiments demonstrate that all metrics exhibit negligible correlation with the extrinsic evaluation of the downstream outcomes. We also find that the scores provided by neural metrics are not interpretable, in large part due to having undefined ranges. We synthesise our analysis into recommendations for future MT metrics to produce labels rather than scores for more informative interaction between machine translation and multilingual language understanding.

# Extrinsic Evaluation Of Machine Translation Metrics Nikita Moghe and **Tom Sherborne** and **Mark Steedman** and **Alexandra Birch** School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh {nikita.moghe, tom.sherborne, a.birch}@ed.ac.uk , steedman@inf.ed.ac.uk ## Abstract Automatic machine translation (MT) metrics are widely used to distinguish the quality of machine translation systems across large test sets (i.e., system-level evaluation). However, it is unclear if automatic metrics can reliably distinguish good translations from bad at the sentence level (i.e., segment-level evaluation). We investigate how useful MT metrics are at detecting segment-level quality by correlating metrics with the translation utility for downstream tasks. We evaluate the segment-level performance of widespread MT metrics (chrF, COMET, BERTScore, *etc.*) on three downstream cross-lingual tasks (dialogue state tracking, question answering, and semantic parsing). For each task, we have access to a monolingual task-specific model and a translation model. We calculate the correlation between the metric's ability to predict a good/bad translation with the success/failure on the final task for machine-translated test sentences. Our experiments demonstrate that all metrics exhibit negligible correlation with the extrinsic evaluation of downstream outcomes. We also find that the scores provided by neural metrics are not interpretable, in large part due to having undefined ranges. We synthesise our analysis into recommendations for future MT metrics to produce labels rather than scores for more informative interaction between machine translation and multilingual language understanding. ## 1 Introduction Although machine translation (MT) is typically seen as a standalone application, in recent years MT models have been more frequently deployed as a component of a complex NLP platform delivering multilingual capabilities such as cross-lingual information retrieval (Zhang et al., 2022) or automated multilingual customer support (Gerz et al., 2021). When an erroneous translation is generated by the MT systems, it may add new errors in the task pipeline leading to task failure and poor user experience. For example, consider the user's request in Chinese 剑桥有牙买加菜吗? ("*Is there any* good Jamaican food in Cambridge?") machinetranslated into English as *"Does Cambridge have* a good meal in Jamaica?". The model will erroneously consider "Jamaica" as a location, instead of cuisine, and prompt the search engine to look up restaurants in Jamaica 1. To avoid this *breakdown*, it is crucial to detect an incorrect translation before it causes further errors in the task pipeline. One way to approach this *breakdown detection* is using segment-level scores provided by MT metrics. Recent MT metrics have demonstrated high correlation with human judgements at the system level for some language pairs (Ma et al., 2019). These metrics are potentially capable of identifying subtle differences between MT systems that emerge over a relatively large test corpus. These metrics are also evaluated on respective correlation with human judgements at the segment level, however, there is a considerable performance penalty (Ma et al., 2019; Freitag et al., 2021b). Segment-level evaluation of MT is indeed more difficult and even humans have low inter-annotator agreement on this task (Popovic´, 2021). Despite MT systems being a crucial intermediate step in several applications, characterising the behaviour of these metrics under task-oriented evaluation has not been explored. In this work, we provide a complementary evaluation of MT metrics. We focus on the segmentlevel performance of metrics, and we evaluate their performance extrinsically, by correlating each with the outcome of downstream tasks with respective, reliable accuracy metrics. We assume access to a parallel task-oriented dataset, a task-specific monolingual model, and a translation model that can translate from the target language into the language of the monolingual model. We consider the Translate-Test setting - where at test time, the examples from the test language are translated to the 1Example from the Multi2WoZ dataset (Hung et al., 2022) 13060 task language for evaluation. We use the outcomes of this extrinsic task to construct a breakdown detection benchmark for the metrics. We use dialogue state tracking, semantic parsing, and extractive question answering as our extrinsic tasks. We evaluate nine metrics consisting of string overlap metrics, embedding-based metrics, and metrics trained using scores from human evaluation of MT. Surprisingly, we find our setup challenging for all existing metrics; demonstrating poor capability in discerning good and bad translations across tasks. We present a comprehensive analysis of the failure of the metrics through quantitative and qualitative evaluation. Our contributions are summarised as follows: 1) We derive a new **breakdown detection task**, for evaluating MT metrics, measuring how indicative segment-level scores are for downstream performance of an extrinsic cross-lingual task (Section 3). We evaluate nine metrics on three extrinsic tasks covering 39 unique language pairs. The task outputs, the breakdown detection labels, and metric outputs are publicly available. 2 2) We show that segment-level scores, from these metrics, have **minimal correlation with extrinsic task performance** (Section 4.1). Our results indicate that these scores are uninformative at the segment level (Section 4.3) - clearly demonstrating a serious deficiency in the best contemporary MT metrics. In addition, we find variable task sensitivity to different MT errors (Section 4.2). 3) We propose **recommendations** on developing MT metrics to produce useful segment-level output by predicting labels instead of scores and suggest reusing existing post-editing datasets and explicit error annotations (See Section 5). ## 2 Related Work Evaluation of machine translation has been of great research interest across different communities (Nakazawa et al., 2022; Fomicheva et al., 2021). Notably, the Conference on Machine Translation (WMT) has been organising annual shared tasks on automatic MT evaluation since 2006 (Koehn and Monz, 2006; Freitag et al., 2021b) that invites metric developers to evaluate their methods on outputs of several MT systems. Metric evaluation typically includes a correlation of the scores with human judgements collected for the respective translation 2https://huggingface.co/datasets/uoe-nlp/ extrinsic_mt_eval outputs. But, designing such guidelines is challenging (Mathur et al., 2020a), leading to the development of several different methodologies and analyses over the years. The human evaluation protocols include general guidelines for fluency, adequacy and/or comprehensibility (White et al., 1994) on continuous scales (Koehn and Monz, 2006; Graham et al., 2013) (direct assessments) or fine-grained annotations of MT errors (Freitag et al., 2021a,b) based on error ontology like Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) (Lommel et al., 2014) or rank outputs from different MT systems for the same input (Vilar et al., 2007). Furthermore, the best way to compare MT scores with their corresponding judgements is also an open question (Callison-Burch et al., 2006; Bojar et al., 2014, 2017). The new metrics claim their effectiveness by comparing their performance with competitive metrics on the latest benchmark. The progress and criticism of MT evaluation are generally documented in a metrics shared task overview (Callison-Burch et al., 2007). For example, Stanojevic et al. ´ (2015) highlighted the effectiveness of neural embedding-based metrics; Ma et al. (2019) show that metrics struggle on segmentlevel performance despite achieving impressive system-level correlation; Mathur et al. (2020b) investigate how different metrics behave under different domains. In addition to these overviews, Mathur et al. (2020a) show that meta-evaluation regimes were sensitive to outliers and minimal changes in evaluation metrics are insufficient to claim metric efficacy. Kocmi et al. (2021) conducted a comprehensive evaluation effort to identify which metric is best suited for pairwise ranking of MT systems. Guillou and Hardmeier (2018) look at a specific phenomenon of whether metrics are capable of evaluating translations involving pronominal anaphora. Recent works have also criticised individual metrics such as COMET (Amrhein and Sennrich, 2022) and BERTScore (Hanna and Bojar, 2021). These works draw their conclusions based on some comparison with human judgement or on specific pitfalls of individual metrics. Our work focuses on the usability of the metrics as solely judged on their ability to predict downstream tasks where MT is an intermediate step (with a primary emphasis on segment-level performance). Taskbased evaluation has been well studied (Jones and Galliers (1996); Laoudi et al. (2006); Zhang et al.  (2022), *inter alia*) but limited to evaluating MT systems rather than MT metrics. Closer to our work is Scarton et al. (2019); Zouhar et al. (2021) which proposes MT evaluation as ranking translations based on the time to post-edit model outputs. We borrow the term of *breakdown detection* from Martinovski and Traum (2003) that proposes breakdown detection for dialogue systems to detect unnatural responses. ## 3 Methodology Our aim is to determine how reliable MT metrics are for predicting success on downstream tasks. Our setup uses a monolingual model (e.g., a dialogue state tracker) trained on a *task language* and parallel test data from multiple languages. We use MT to translate a test sentence (from a test language to the *task language*) and then infer a label for this example using the monolingual model. If the model predicts a correct label for the parallel *task language* input but an incorrect label for the translated *test language* input, then we have observed a *breakdown* due to a material error in the translation pipeline. We then study if the metric could predict if the translation is suitable for the end task. We refer to Figure 1 for an illustration. We frequently use the terms *test language* and *task language* to avoid confusion with the usage of *source language* and *target language* in the traditional machine translation setup. In Figure 1, the task language is English and the test language is Chinese. We now describe our evaluation setup and the metrics under investigation. ## 3.1 Setup For all the tasks described below, we first train a model for the respective tasks on the monolingual setup. We evaluate the task language examples on each task and capture the monolingual predictions of the model. We consider the *Translate-Test* paradigm (Hu et al., 2020), we translate the examples from each test language into the task language. The generated translations are then fed to the task-specific monolingual model. We use either (i) OPUS translation models (Tiedemann and Thottingal, 2020), (ii) M2M100 translation (Fan et al., 2021) or (iii) translations provided by the authors of respective datasets. Note that the examples across all the languages are parallel and we therefore always have access to the correct label for a translated sentence. We obtain the predictions for the translated data to construct a breakdown detection benchmark for the metrics. We consider only the subset of examples in the test language which were correctly predicted in the task language to avoid errors that arise from extrinsic task complexity. Therefore, all incorrect extrinsic predictions for the test language in our setup arise from erroneous translation. This isolates the extrinsic task failure as the fault of *only* the MT system. We use these predictions to build a binary classification benchmark—all target language examples that are correctly predicted in the extrinsic task receive a positive label (no breakdown) while the incorrect predictions receive a negative label (breakdown). We consider the example from the test language as *source*, the corresponding machine translation as *hypothesis* and the human reference from the task language as *reference*. Thus, in Figure 1, the source is 剑桥有牙买加菜吗?, the hypothesis is "Does Cambridge have a good meal in Jamaica", and the reference will be "Is there any good Jamaican food in Cambridge". These triples are then scored by the respective metrics. After obtaining the segment-level scores for these triples, we define a threshold for the scores, thus turning metrics into classifiers. For example, if the threshold for the metric in Figure 1 is 0.5, it would mark both examples as bad translations. We plot a histogram over the scores with ten bins for every setup and select the interval with the highest performance on the development set as a threshold. The metrics are then evaluated on how well their predictions for a good/bad translation correlate with the breakdown detection labels. ## 3.2 Tasks We choose tasks that contain outcomes belonging to a small set of labels, unlike natural language generation tasks which have a large solution space. This discrete nature of the outcomes allows us to quantify the performance of MT metrics based on standard classification metrics. The tasks also include varying types of textual units: utterances, sentences, questions, and paragraphs, allowing a comprehensive evaluation of the metrics. ## 3.2.1 Semantic Parsing (Sp) Semantic parsing transforms natural language utterances into logical forms to express utterance semantics in some machine-readable language. The original ATIS study (Hemphill et al., 1990) collected questions about flights in the USA with the corresponding SQL to answer respective questions from a relational database. We use the MultiATIS++SQL dataset from Sherborne and Lapata (2022) comprising gold parallel utterances in English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, German and Chinese (from Xu et al. (2020)) paired to executable SQL output logical forms (from Iyer et al. (2017)). The model follows Sherborne and Lapata (2023), as an encoder-decoder Transformer model based on mBART50 (Tang et al., 2021). The parser generates valid SQL queries and performance is measured as exact-match *denotation accuracy*—the proportion of output queries returning identical database results relative to gold SQL queries. ## 3.2.2 Extractive Question Answering (Qa) The task of extractive question answering is predicting a span of words from a paragraph corresponding to the question. We use the XQuAD dataset (Artetxe et al., 2020) for evaluating extractive question answering. The XQuAD dataset was obtained by professionally translating examples from the development set of English SQuAD dataset (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) into ten languages: Spanish, German, Greek, Russian, Turkish, Arabic, Vietnamese, Thai, Chinese, and Hindi. We use the publicly available question answering model that finetunes RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) on the SQuAD training set. We use the *Exact-Match* metric, i.e., the model's predicted answer span exactly matches the gold standard answer span; for the breakdown detection task. The metrics scores are produced for the question and the context. A translation is considered to be faulty if either of the scores falls below the chosen threshold for every metric. ## 3.2.3 Dialogue State Tracking (Dst) In the dialogue state tracking task, a model needs to map the user's goals and intents in a given conversation to a set of slots and values, known as a *dialogue state*, based on a pre-defined ontology. MultiWoZ 2.1 (Eric et al., 2020) is a popular dataset for examining the progress in dialogue state tracking which consists of multi-turn conversations in English spanning across 7 domains. We consider the Multi2WoZ dataset (Hung et al., 2022) where the development and test set have been professionally translated into German, Russian, Chinese, and Arabic from the MultiWoZ 2.1 dataset. We use the dialogue state tracking model trained on the English dataset by Lee et al. (2019). We consider the *Joint Goal Accuracy* where the inferred label is correct only if the predicted dialogue state is exactly equal to the ground truth to provide labels for the breakdown task. We use oracle dialogue history and the metric scores are produced only for the current utterance spoken by the user. ## 3.3 Metrics We describe the metrics based on their design principles: derived from the surface level token overlap, embedding similarity, and neural metrics trained using WMT data. We selected the following metrics as they are the most studied, frequently used, and display a varied mix of design principles. ## 3.3.1 Surface Level Overlap BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) is a string-matching metric that compares the token-level n-grams of the hypothesis with the reference translation. BLEU is computed as a precision score weighted by a brevity penalty. We use sentence-level BLEU in our experiments. chrF (Popovic´, 2017) computes a character n-gram F-score based on the overlap between the hypothesis and the reference. ## 3.3.2 Embedding Based BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020) uses contextual embeddings from pre-trained language models to compute the similarity between the tokens in the reference and the generated translation using cosine similarity. The similarity matrix is used to compute precision, recall, and F1 scores. ## 3.3.3 Trained On Wmt Data WMT organises an annual shared task on developing MT models for several categories in machine translation (Akhbardeh et al., 2021). Human evaluation of the translated outputs from the participating machine translation models is often used to determine the best-performing MT system. In recent years, this human evaluation has followed two protocols: (i) Direct Assessment (DA) (Graham et al., 2013): where the given translation is rated from 0 to 100 based on the perceived translation quality and (ii) Expert based evaluation where the translations are evaluated by professional translators with explicit error listing based on the Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) ontology. MQM ontology consists of a hierarchy of errors and translations are penalised based on the severity of errors in this hierarchy. These human evaluations are then used as training data for building new MT metrics. COMET metrics: Cross-lingual Optimized Metric for Evaluation of Translation (COMET) (Rei et al., 2020) uses a cross-lingual encoder (XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020)) and pooling operations to predict score of the given translation. Representations for the source, hypothesis, and reference (obtained using the encoder) are combined and passed through a feedforward layer to predict a score. These metrics use a combination of WMT evaluation data across the years to produce different metrics. In all the variants, the MQM scores and DA scores are normalised to z-scores to reduce the effect of outlier annotations. COMET-DA uses direct assessments from 2017 to 2019 as training data while **COMET-MQM** uses direct assessments from 2017 to 2021 as training data. This metric is then fine-tuned with MQM data from Freitag et al. (2021a). UniTE metrics (Wan et al., 2022), Unified Translation Evaluation, is another neural translation metric that proposes a multi-task setup for the three strategies of evaluation: source-hypothesis, sourcehypothesis-reference, and reference-hypothesis in a single model. The pre-training stage involves training the model with synthetic data constructed using a subset of WMT evaluation data. Fine-tuning uses novel attention mechanisms and aggregate loss functions to facilitate the multi-task setup. All the above reference-based metrics have their corresponding reference-free versions which use the same training regimes but exclude encoding the reference. We refer to them as COMET-QE-DA, COMET-QE-MQM, and UniTE-QE respectively. COMET-QE-DA in this work uses DA scores from 2017 to 2020. We list the code sources of these metrics in Appendix B. ## 3.4 Metric Evaluation The meta-evaluation for the above metrics uses the breakdown detection benchmark. As the class distribution changes depending on the task and the language pair, we require an evaluation that is robust to class imbalance. We consider using macro-F1 and Matthew's Correlation Coefficient (MCC) (Matthews, 1975) on the classification labels. The range of macro-F1 is from 0 to 1 with equal weight to positive and negative classes. We include MCC to interpret the MT metric's standalone performance for the given extrinsic task. The range of MCC is between -1 to 1. An MCC value near 0 indicates no correlation with the class distribution. Any MCC value between 0 and 0.3 indicates negligible correlation, 0.3 to 0.5 indicates low correlation. ## 4 Results We report the aggregated results for semantic parsing, question answering, and dialogue state tracking in Table 1 with fine-grained results in Appendix D. We use a random baseline for comparison which assigns the positive and negative labels with equal probability. ## 4.1 Performance On Extrinsic Tasks We find that almost all metrics perform above the random baseline on the macro-F1 metric. We use MCC to identify if this increase in macro-F1 makes the metric usable in the end task. Evaluating MCC, we find that all the metrics show negligible correlation across all three tasks. Contrary to trends where neural metrics are better than metrics based on surface overlap (Freitag et al., 2021b), we find this breakdown detection to be difficult irrespective | Metric | Semantic Parsing | Question Answering | Dialogue State Tracking | | | | |--------------|--------------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-------|-------|-------| | Random | 0.453 | -0.034 | 0.496 | 0.008 | 0.493 | 0.008 | | BLEU | 0.580 | 0.179 | 0.548 | 0.121 | 0.529 | 0.082 | | chrF | 0.609 | 0.234 | 0.554 | 0.127 | 0.508 | 0.067 | | BERTScore | 0.590 | 0.205 | 0.555 | 0.127 | 0.505 | 0.071 | | COMET-DA | 0.606 | 0.228 | 0.562 | 0.137 | 0.608 | 0.244 | | COMET-MQM | 0.556 | 0.132 | 0.387 | 0.027 | 0.597 | 0.204 | | UniTE | 0.600 | 0.225 | 0.375 | 0.012 | 0.620 | 0.262 | | COMET-QE-DA | 0.556 | 0.135 | 0.532 | 0.100 | 0.561 | 0.145 | | COMET-QE-MQM | 0.597 | 0.211 | 0.457 | 0.033 | 0.523 | 0.094 | | UniTE-QE | 0.567 | 0.155 | 0.388 | 0.032 | 0.587 | 0.192 | | Ensemble | 0.620 | 0.251 | 0.577 | 0.168 | 0.618 | 0.248 | of the design of the metric. We also evaluate an ensemble with majority voting of the predictions from the top three metrics per task. Ensembling provides minimal gains suggesting that metrics are making similar mistakes despite varying properties of the metrics. Comparing the reference-based versions of trained metrics (COMET-DA, COMET-MQM, UniTE) with their reference-free quality estimation (QE) equivalents, we observe that referencebased versions perform better, or are competitive to, their reference-free versions for the three tasks. We also note that references are unavailable when the systems are in production, hence reference-based metrics are unsuitable for realistic settings. We discuss alternative ways of obtaining references in Section 4.4. Between the use of MQM-scores and DA-scores during fine-tuning COMET variants, we find that both COMET-QE-DA and COMET-DA are strictly better than COMET-QE-MQM and COMET-MQM for question answering and dialogue state tracking respectively, with no clear winner for semantic parsing (See Appendix D). The results on per-language pair in Appendix D suggest that no specific language pairs stand out as easier/harder across tasks. As this performance is already poor, we cannot verify if neural metrics can generalise in evaluating language pairs unseen during training. Case Study: We look at Semantic Parsing with an English-trained parser tested with Chinese inputs for our case study with the well-studied COMET-  DA metric. We report the number of correct and incorrect predictions made by COMET-DA across ten equal ranges of scores in Figure 2. The bars labelled on the x-axis indicate the end-point of the interval i.e., the bar labelled -0.74 contains examples that were given scores between -1.00 and -0.74. First, we highlight that the threshold is -0.028, counter-intuitively suggesting that even some correct translations receive a negative score. We expected the metric to fail in the regions around the threshold as those represent strongest confusion. For example, "周日下午从迈阿密飞往克利夫 兰" is correctly translated as "Sunday afternoon from Miami to Cleveland" yet the metric assigns it a score of -0.1. However, the metric makes mis- | Task | Errors by the Extrinsic model | False Positive | False Negative | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | SP | 25% | mistranslation (90%), omission(10%) | mistranslation (25.7%), fluency (20%), omission (5.7%), no error (48.6%) | | mistranslation (60%), omission(8.6%), | mistranslation (18%), fluency (22%), | | | | QA | 20% | addition (5.7%), fluency (20%), | addition (2%), no error (54%) | | undertranslation (2.9%), untranslated (2.9%) | | | | | DST | 5% | mistranslation (100%) | omission (26%), mistranslation (1%), no error (73%) | takes throughout the bins. For example, "我需要 预订一趟联合航空下周六的从辛辛那提飞往纽 约市的航班" is translated as "I need to book a flight from Cincinnati to New York City next Saturday." and loses the crucial information of "United Airlines"; yet it is assigned a high score of 0.51. This demonstrates that the metric possesses a limited perception of a good or bad translation for the end task. We suspect this behaviour is due to the current framework of MT evaluation. The development of machine translation metrics largely caters towards the intrinsic task of evaluating the quality of a translated text in the target language. The severity of a translation error is dependent on the guidelines released by the organisers of the WMT metrics task or the design choices of the metric developers. Our findings agree with Zhang et al. (2022) that different downstream tasks will demonstrate varying levels of sensitivity to the same machine translation errors. ## 4.2 Qualitative Evaluation To quantify detecting which translation errors are most crucial to the respective extrinsic tasks, we conduct a qualitative evaluation of the MT outputs and task predictions. We annotate 50 false positives and 50 false negatives for test languages Chinese (SP), Hindi (QA), and Russian (DST) respectively. The task language is English. We annotate the MT errors (if present) in these examples based on the MQM ontology. We tabulate these results in Table 2 using COMET-DA for these analyses. Within the false negatives, a majority of the errors (>48%) are due to the metric's inability to detect translations containing synonyms or paraphrases of the references as valid translations. Further, omission errors detected by the metric are not crucial for DST as these translations often exclude pleasantries. Similarly, errors in fluency are not important for both DST and SP but they are crucial for QA as grammatical errors in questions produce incorrect answers. Mistranslation of named entities (NEs), especially which lie in the answer span, is a false negative for QA since QA models find the answer by focusing on the words in the context surrounding the NE rather than the error in that NE. Detecting mistranslation in NEs is crucial for both DST and SP as this error category dominates the false positives. A minor typo of *Lester* instead of *Leicester* marks the wrong location in the dialogue state which is often undetected by the metric. Addition and omission errors are also undetected for SP while mistranslation of reservation times is undetected for DST. We also find that some of the erroneous predictions can be attributed to the failure of the extrinsic task model than the metric. For example, the MT model uses an alternative term of *direct* instead of *nonstop* while generating the translation for the reference "show me nonstop flights from montreal to orlando". The semantic parser fails to generalise despite being trained with mBART50 to ideally inherit some skill at disambiguiting semantically similar phrases. This error type accounts for 25% for SP, 20% for QA and 5% in DST of the total annotated errors. We give examples in Appendix C. ## 4.3 Finding The Threshold Interpreting system-level scores provided by automatic metrics requires additional context such as the language pair of the machine translation model or another MT system for comparison 3. In this classification setup, we rely on interpreting the segment-level score to determine whether the translation is suitable for the downstream task. We find that choosing the right threshold to identify trans-3https://github.com/Unbabel/COMET/issues/18 | Extrinsic Task | SP | QA | DST | |------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | BLEU | 15.5 ± 08.8 | 16.1 ± 04.9 | 20.0 ± 0.00 | | chrF | 44.0 ± 13.7 | 53.9 ± 07.8 | 30.7 ± 0.45 | | BERTScore | 0.50 ± 0.21 | 0.54 ± 0.08 | 0.39 ± 0.21 | | COMET-DA | 0.21 ± 0.35 | 0.30 ± 0.23 | 0.58 ± 0.08 | | COMET-MQM | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | | UniTE | 0.04 ± 0.22 | -0.40 ± 0.38 | -0.01 ± 0.29 | | COMET-QE-DA | 0.02 ± 0.07 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | | COMET-QE-MQM | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.04 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | | UniTE-QE | -0.01 ± 0.22 | -0.24 ± 0.13 | 0.11 ± 0.18 | lations requiring correction is not straightforward. Our current method to obtain a threshold relies on validating candidate thresholds on the development set and selecting an option with the best F1 score. These different thresholds are obtained by plotting a histogram of scores with ten bins per task and language pair. We report the mean and standard deviation of best thresholds for every language pair for every metric in Table 3. Surprisingly, the thresholds are inconsistent and biased for bounded metrics: BLEU (0–100), chrF (0–100), and BERTScore (0–1). The standard deviations across the table indicate that the threshold varies greatly across language pairs. We find that thresholds of these metrics are also not transferable across tasks. COMET metrics, except COMET-DA, have lower standard deviations. By design, the range of COMET metrics in this work is unbounded. However, as discussed in the theoretical range of COMET metrics 4, empirically, the range for COMET-MQM lies between -0.2 to 0.2, questioning whether lower standard deviation is an indicator of threshold consistency. Some language pairs within the COMET metrics have negative thresholds. We also find that some of the use cases under the UniTE metrics have a mean negative threshold, indicating that good translations can have negative UniTE scores. Similar to Marie (2022), we suggest that the notion of negative scores for good translations, only for certain language pairs, is counter-intuitive as most NLP metrics tend to produce positive scores. Thus, we find that both bounded and unbounded metrics discussed here do not provide segmentlevel scores whose range can be interpreted mean4https://unbabel.github.io/COMET/html/faqs. html | Metric | SP | QA | DST | |-----------|-------|-------|-------| | BLEU | 0.003 | 0.013 | 0.050 | | chrF | 0.018 | 0.021 | 0.055 | | BERTScore | 0.028 | 0.065 | 0.036 | | COMET-DA | 0.071 | 0.085 | 0.083 | | COMET-MQM | 0.080 | 0.019 | 0.116 | | UniTE | 0.225 | 0.056 | 0.193 | ## 4.4 Reference-Based Metrics In An Online Setting In an online setting, we do not have access to references at test time. To test the effectiveness of reference-based methods here, we consider translating the translation back into the test language. For example, for an en parser, the test language tizh is translated into mten and then translated back to Chinese as mtzh. The metrics now consider mten as source, mtzh as hypothesis, and tizh as the reference. We generate these new translations using the mBART50 translation model (Tang et al., 2021) and report the results in Table 4. Compared to the results in Table 1, there is a further drop in performance across all the tasks and metrics. The metrics also perform worse than their reference-free counterparts. The second translation is likely to add additional errors to the existing translation. This cascading of errors confuses the metric and it can mark a perfectly useful translation as a breakdown. The only exception is that of the UniTE metric which has comparable performance (but overall poor) due to its multi-task setup. ## 5 Recommendations Our experiments suggest that evaluating MT metrics on the segment level for extrinsic tasks has considerable room for improvement. We propose recommendations based on our observations: Prefer MQM for Human Evaluation of MT outputs: We reinforce the proposal of using the MQM scoring scheme with expert annotators for evaluating MT outputs in line with Freitag et al. (2021a). As seen in Section 4.2, different tasks have varying tolerance to different MT errors. With explicit errors marked per MT output, future classifiers can be trained on a subset of human evaluation data containing errors most relevant to the downstream application. MT Metrics Could Produce Labels over Scores: The observations from Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 suggest that interpreting the quality of the produced MT translation based on a number is unreliable and difficult. We recommend exploring whether segment-level MT evaluation can be approached as an error classification task instead of regression. Specifically, whether the words in the source/hypothesis can be tagged with explicit error labels. Resorting to MQM-like human evaluation will result in a rich repository of human evaluation based on an ontology of errors and erroneous spans marked across the source and hypothesis (Freitag et al., 2021a). Similarly, the post-editing datasets (Scarton et al. (2019); Fomicheva et al. (2022) , inter alia) also provide a starting point. An interesting exploration in this direction are the works by Perrella et al. (2022); Rei et al. (2022) that treat MT evaluation as a sequence-tagging problem by labelling the errors in an example. Such metrics can also be used for intrinsic evaluation by assigning weights to the labels and producing a weighted score. Add Diverse References During Training: From Section 4.2, we find that both the neural metric and the task-specific model are not robust to paraphrases. We also recommend the inclusion of diverse references through automatic paraphrasing (Bawden et al., 2020) or data augmentation during the training of neural metrics. ## 6 Conclusion We propose a method for evaluating MT metrics which is reliable at the segment-level and does not depend on human judgements by using correlation MT metrics with the success of extrinsic downstream tasks. We evaluated nine different metrics on the ability to detect errors in generated translations when machine translation is used as an intermediate step for three extrinsic tasks: Semantic Parsing, Question Answering, and Dialogue State Tracking. We find that segment-level scores provided by all the metrics show negligible correlation with the success/failure outcomes of the end task across different language pairs. We attribute this result to segment scores produced by these metrics being uninformative and that different extrinsic tasks demonstrate different levels of sensitivity to different MT errors. We propose recommendations to predict error types instead of error scores to facilitate the use of MT metrics in downstream tasks. ## 7 Limitations As seen in Section 4.2, sometimes the metrics are unnecessarily penalised due to errors made by the end task models. Filtering these cases would require checking every example in every task manually. We hope our results can provide conclusive trends to the metric developers focusing on segment-level MT evaluation. We included three tasks to cover different types of errors in machine translations and different types of contexts in which an online MT metric is required. Naturally, this regime can be extended to other datasets, other tasks, and other languages (Ruder et al., 2021; Doddapaneni et al., 2022). Further, our tasks used stricter evaluation metrics such as exact match. Incorporating information from partially correct outputs is not trivial and will be hopefully addressed in the future. We have covered 37 language pairs across the tasks which majorly use English as one of the languages. Most of the language pairs in this study are high-resource languages. Similarly, the examples in multilingual datasets are likely to exhibit *translationese* - unnatural artefacts from the task language present in the test language during manual translation; which tend to overestimate the performance of the various tasks (Majewska et al., 2023; Freitag et al., 2020). We hope to explore the effect of translationese on MT evaluation (Graham et al., 2020) and extrinsic tasks in future. The choice of metrics in this work is not exhaustive and is dependent on the availability and ease of use of the metric provided by the authors. ## 8 Ethics Statement This work uses datasets, models, and metrics that are publicly available. Although the scope of this work does not allow us to have an in-depth discussion of biases associated with metrics (Amrhein et al., 2022), we caution the readers of drawbacks of metrics that cause unfair evaluation to marginalised subpopulations which are discovered or yet to be discovered. We will release the translations, metrics scores, and corresponding task outputs for reproducibility. ## 9 Acknowledgements We thank Barry Haddow for providing us with valuable feedback on setting up this work. We thank Arushi Goel and the attendees at the MT Marathon 2022 for discussions about this work. We thank Ankita Vinay Moghe, Nikolay Bogoychev, and Chantal Amrhein for their comments on the earlier drafts. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. This work was supported in part by the UKRI Centre for Doctoral Training in Natural Language Processing, funded by the UKRI (grant EP/S022481/1) and the University of Edinburgh (Moghe). We also thank Huawei for their support (Moghe). Sherborne gratefully acknowledges the support of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grant EP/W002876/1). ## References Farhad Akhbardeh, Arkady Arkhangorodsky, Magdalena Biesialska, Ondˇrej Bojar, Rajen Chatterjee, Vishrav Chaudhary, Marta R. Costa-jussa, Cristina España-Bonet, Angela Fan, Christian Federmann, Markus Freitag, Yvette Graham, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Leonie Harter, Kenneth Heafield, Christopher Homan, Matthias Huck, Kwabena Amponsah-Kaakyire, Jungo Kasai, Daniel Khashabi, Kevin Knight, Tom Kocmi, Philipp Koehn, Nicholas Lourie, Christof Monz, Makoto Morishita, Masaaki Nagata, Ajay Nagesh, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Matteo Negri, Santanu Pal, Allahsera Auguste Tapo, Marco Turchi, Valentin Vydrin, and Marcos Zampieri. 2021. Findings of the 2021 conference on machine translation (WMT21). In *Proceedings of* the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 1–88, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chantal Amrhein, Nikita Moghe, and Liane Guillou. 2022. ACES: Translation Accuracy Challenge Sets for Evaluating Machine Translation Metrics. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation, pages 479–513, Abu Dhabi. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chantal Amrhein and Rico Sennrich. 2022. Identifying weaknesses in machine translation metrics through minimum Bayes risk decoding: A case study for COMET. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1125–1141, Online only. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mikel Artetxe, Sebastian Ruder, and Dani Yogatama. 2020. On the cross-lingual transferability of monolingual representations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4623–4637, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rachel Bawden, Biao Zhang, Lisa Yankovskaya, Andre Tättar, and Matt Post. 2020. A study in improving BLEU reference coverage with diverse automatic paraphrasing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 918–932, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ondˇrej Bojar, Christian Buck, Christian Federmann, Barry Haddow, Philipp Koehn, Johannes Leveling, Christof Monz, Pavel Pecina, Matt Post, Herve SaintAmand, Radu Soricut, Lucia Specia, and Aleš Tamchyna. 2014. Findings of the 2014 workshop on statistical machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* Ninth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 12–58, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ondˇrej Bojar, Yvette Graham, and Amir Kamran. 2017. Results of the WMT17 metrics shared task. In *Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation*, pages 489–513, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chris Callison-Burch, Cameron Fordyce, Philipp Koehn, Christof Monz, and Josh Schroeder. 2007. (meta-) evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 136–158, Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chris Callison-Burch, Miles Osborne, and Philipp Koehn. 2006. Re-evaluating the role of Bleu in machine translation research. In 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 249–256, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 8440– 8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sumanth Doddapaneni, Rahul Aralikatte, Gowtham Ramesh, Shreya Goyal, Mitesh M. Khapra, Anoop Kunchukuttan, and Pratyush Kumar. 2022. Indicxtreme: A multi-task benchmark for evaluating indic languages. Mihail Eric, Rahul Goel, Shachi Paul, Abhishek Sethi, Sanchit Agarwal, Shuyang Gao, Adarsh Kumar, Anuj Goyal, Peter Ku, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2020. MultiWOZ 2.1: A consolidated multi-domain dialogue dataset with state corrections and state tracking baselines. In *Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference*, pages 422–428, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Angela Fan, Shruti Bhosale, Holger Schwenk, Zhiyi Ma, Ahmed El-Kishky, Siddharth Goyal, Mandeep Baines, Onur Celebi, Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, Naman Goyal, Tom Birch, Vitaliy Liptchinsky, Sergey Edunov, Michael Auli, and Armand Joulin. 2021. Beyond english-centric multilingual machine translation. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 22:107:1–107:48. Marina Fomicheva, Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn, Wei Zhao, Steffen Eger, and Yang Gao. 2021. The Eval4NLP shared task on explainable quality estimation: Overview and results. In *Proceedings of* the 2nd Workshop on Evaluation and Comparison of NLP Systems, pages 165–178, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Marina Fomicheva, Shuo Sun, Erick Fonseca, Chrysoula Zerva, Frédéric Blain, Vishrav Chaudhary, Francisco Guzmán, Nina Lopatina, Lucia Specia, and André F. T. Martins. 2022. MLQE-PE: A multilingual quality estimation and post-editing dataset. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4963–4974, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Markus Freitag, George Foster, David Grangier, Viresh Ratnakar, Qijun Tan, and Wolfgang Macherey. 2021a. Experts, errors, and context: A large-scale study of human evaluation for machine translation. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 9:1460–1474. Markus Freitag, David Grangier, and Isaac Caswell. 2020. BLEU might be guilty but references are not innocent. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 61–71, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Markus Freitag, Ricardo Rei, Nitika Mathur, Chi-kiu Lo, Craig Stewart, George Foster, Alon Lavie, and Ondˇrej Bojar. 2021b. Results of the WMT21 metrics shared task: Evaluating metrics with expert-based human evaluations on TED and news domain. In *Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation*, pages 733–774, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniela Gerz, Pei-Hao Su, Razvan Kusztos, Avishek Mondal, Michał Lis, Eshan Singhal, Nikola Mrkšic,´ Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Ivan Vulic. 2021. ´ Multilingual and cross-lingual intent detection from spoken data. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7468–7475, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yvette Graham, Timothy Baldwin, Alistair Moffat, and Justin Zobel. 2013. Continuous measurement scales in human evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, pages 33–41, Sofia, Bulgaria. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, and Philipp Koehn. 2020. Statistical power and translationese in machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 72–81, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Liane Guillou and Christian Hardmeier. 2018. Automatic reference-based evaluation of pronoun translation misses the point. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4797–4802, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Michael Hanna and Ondˇrej Bojar. 2021. A fine-grained analysis of BERTScore. In *Proceedings of the Sixth* Conference on Machine Translation, pages 507–517, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Charles T. Hemphill, John J. Godfrey, and George R. Doddington. 1990. The ATIS spoken language systems pilot corpus. In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Hidden Valley, Pennsylvania, June 24-27,1990. Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan Firat, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. XTREME: A massively multilingual multitask benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In *Proceedings of the 37th International* Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4411–4421. PMLR. Chia-Chien Hung, Anne Lauscher, Ivan Vulic, Simone ´ Ponzetto, and Goran Glavaš. 2022. Multi2WOZ: A robust multilingual dataset and conversational pretraining for task-oriented dialog. In *Proceedings of* the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3687–3703, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Srinivasan Iyer, Ioannis Konstas, Alvin Cheung, Jayant Krishnamurthy, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Learning a neural semantic parser from user feedback. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 963–973, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Karen Sparck Jones and Julia Rose Galliers, editors. 1996. *Evaluating Natural Language Processing Systems, An Analysis and Review*, volume 1083 of *Lecture Notes in Computer Science*. Springer. Tom Kocmi, Christian Federmann, Roman Grundkiewicz, Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt, Hitokazu Matsushita, and Arul Menezes. 2021. To ship or not to ship: An extensive evaluation of automatic metrics for machine translation. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 478–494, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Philipp Koehn and Christof Monz. 2006. Manual and automatic evaluation of machine translation between European languages. In *Proceedings on the Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation*, pages 102– 121, New York City. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jamal Laoudi, Calandra R. Tate, and Clare R. Voss. 2006. Task-based MT evaluation: From who/when/where extraction to event understanding. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'06), Genoa, Italy. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Hwaran Lee, Jinsik Lee, and Tae-Yoon Kim. 2019. SUMBT: Slot-utterance matching for universal and scalable belief tracking. In *Proceedings of the 57th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5478–5483, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/1907.11692. Arle Lommel, Aljoscha Burchardt, and Hans Uszkoreit. 2014. Multidimensional quality metrics (mqm): A framework for declaring and describing translation quality metrics. *Tradumàtica: tecnologies de la* traducció, 0:455–463. Qingsong Ma, Johnny Wei, Ondˇrej Bojar, and Yvette Graham. 2019. Results of the WMT19 metrics shared task: Segment-level and strong MT systems pose big challenges. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1), pages 62–90, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Olga Majewska, Evgeniia Razumovskaia, Edoardo M. Ponti, Ivan Vulic, and Anna Korhonen. 2023. ´ CrossLingual Dialogue Dataset Creation via Outline-Based Generation. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 11:139–156. Benjamin Marie. 2022. An Automatic Evaluation of the WMT22 General Machine Translation Task. Bilyana Martinovski and David Traum. 2003. The Error Is the Clue: Breakdown In Human-Machine Interaction. In *Proceedings of ISCA Tutorial and Research* Workshop International Speech Communication Association, Switzerland. Nitika Mathur, Timothy Baldwin, and Trevor Cohn. 2020a. Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the evaluation of automatic machine translation evaluation metrics. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4984–4997, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nitika Mathur, Johnny Wei, Markus Freitag, Qingsong Ma, and Ondˇrej Bojar. 2020b. Results of the WMT20 metrics shared task. In *Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Machine Translation*, pages 688–725, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Brian W. Matthews. 1975. Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of t4 phage lysozyme. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure, 405(2):442–451. Toshiaki Nakazawa, Hideya Mino, Isao Goto, Raj Dabre, Shohei Higashiyama, Shantipriya Parida, Anoop Kunchukuttan, Makoto Morishita, Ondˇrej Bojar, Chenhui Chu, Akiko Eriguchi, Kaori Abe, Yusuke Oda, and Sadao Kurohashi. 2022. Overview of the 9th workshop on Asian translation. In *Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Asian Translation*, pages 1–36, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Stefano Perrella, Lorenzo Proietti, Alessandro Scirè, Niccolò Campolungo, and Roberto Navigli. 2022. MaTESe: Machine Translation Evaluation as a Sequence Tagging Problem. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation, pages 569–577, Abu Dhabi. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maja Popovic. 2017. ´ chrF++: words helping character n-grams. In *Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation*, pages 612–618, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maja Popovic. 2021. ´ Agree to disagree: Analysis of inter-annotator disagreements in human evaluation of machine translation output. In *Proceedings of* the 25th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 234–243, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In *Proceedings of* the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383–2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ricardo Rei, José G. C. de Souza, Duarte Alves, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Taisiya Glushkova, Alon Lavie, Luisa Coheur, and André F. T. Martins. 2022. COMET-22: Unbabel-IST 2022 Submission for the Metrics Shared Task. In *Proceedings of the* Seventh Conference on Machine Translation, pages 578–585, Abu Dhabi. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2685–2702, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sebastian Ruder, Noah Constant, Jan Botha, Aditya Siddhant, Orhan Firat, Jinlan Fu, Pengfei Liu, Junjie Hu, Dan Garrette, Graham Neubig, and Melvin Johnson. 2021. XTREME-R: Towards more challenging and nuanced multilingual evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10215–10245, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Scarton Scarton, Mikel L. Forcada, Miquel EsplàGomis, and Lucia Specia. 2019. Estimating postediting effort: a study on human judgements, taskbased and reference-based metrics of MT quality. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom Sherborne and Mirella Lapata. 2022. Zero-shot cross-lingual semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4134–4153, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom Sherborne and Mirella Lapata. 2023. MetaLearning a Cross-lingual Manifold for Semantic Parsing. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 11:49–67. Miloš Stanojevic, Amir Kamran, Philipp Koehn, and ´ Ondˇrej Bojar. 2015. Results of the WMT15 metrics shared task. In *Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop* on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 256–273, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuqing Tang, Chau Tran, Xian Li, Peng-Jen Chen, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Jiatao Gu, and Angela Fan. 2021. Multilingual translation from denoising pre-training. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 3450–3466, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jörg Tiedemann and Santhosh Thottingal. 2020. OPUSMT - building open translation services for the world. In *Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of* the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 479–480, Lisboa, Portugal. European Association for Machine Translation. David Vilar, Gregor Leusch, Hermann Ney, and Rafael E. Banchs. 2007. Human evaluation of machine translation through binary system comparisons. In *Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Statistical* Machine Translation, pages 96–103, Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yu Wan, Dayiheng Liu, Baosong Yang, Haibo Zhang, Boxing Chen, Derek Wong, and Lidia Chao. 2022. UniTE: Unified translation evaluation. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8117–8127, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. John S. White, Theresa A. O'Connell, and Francis E. O'Mara. 1994. The ARPA MT evaluation methodologies: Evolution, lessons, and future approaches. In *Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas*, Columbia, Maryland, USA. Weijia Xu, Batool Haider, and Saab Mansour. 2020. End-to-end slot alignment and recognition for crosslingual NLU. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5052–5063, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hang Zhang, Liling Tan, and Amita Misra. 2022. Evaluating machine translation in cross-lingual Ecommerce search. In Proceedings of the 15th biennial conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (Volume 1: Research Track), pages 322–334, Orlando, USA. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In *8th International* Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Vilém Zouhar, Martin Popel, Ondˇrej Bojar, and Aleš Tamchyna. 2021. Neural machine translation quality and post-editing performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10204–10214, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. | Code | Language | Code | Language | |--------|------------------|--------|------------| | en | English | el | Greek | | de | German | es | Spanish | | zh | Mandarin Chinese | hi | Hindi | | fr | French | th | Thai | | ar | Arabic | tr | Turkish | | ru | Russian | vi | Vietnamese | | pt | Portuguese | | | Table 5: Language codes of languages used in this work ## A Language Codes Please find the language codes in Table 5. ## B Implementation Details We provide the implementation details of metrics and models in Table 6. All models are publicly available and required no training from our side. The metrics BERTScore, COMET family and UniTE family can run on both GPU and CPU. If run on GPU, the metrics run under 5 minutes for a given task and given language pair. No hyperparameters are required. We follow the standard train-dev-test split as released by the authors for DST (Hung et al., 2022) and SP (Sherborne and Lapata, 2022). As no development set is available for the XQuAD dataset, we use the first 200 examples as development set to choose the threshold but report the performance on the full test set. ## C Errors Of Comet-Da The proportion of errors from Section 4.2 are listed in Table 2. We also provide error examples in Figure 3. ## D Task-Specific Results We now list the results across every language pair for all the tasks in Tables tables 7 to 11. | Method | Code | Notes | |----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Metrics | | | | chrF | https://github.com/mjpost/sacrebleu | Signature: "nrefs:1|case:mixed|eff:no|tok:13a|smooth:exp|version:2.1.0" | | BLEU | https://github.com/mjpost/sacrebleu | Signature: "nrefs:1|case:mixed|eff:yes|nc:6|nw:0|space:no|version:2.1.0" | | BERTScore | https://github.com/Tiiiger/bert_score | Model: xlm-roberta-large | | COMET-DA | Model: wmt20-comet-da | | | COMET-MQM | Model: wmt21-comet-mqm | | | https://github.com/Unbabel/COMET | | | | COMET-QE-DA | Model: wmt21-comet-qe-da | | | COMET-QE-MQM | Model: wmt21-comet-qe-mqm | | | UniTE | https://github.com/NLP2CT/UniTE | Model: UniTE-MUP, hparams.src_ref.yaml | | UniTE-QE | Model: UniTE-MUP, hparams.src.yaml | | | Extrinsic Task Models | | | | SP | https://github.com/tomsherborne/zx-parse | | | DST | https://github.com/thu-coai/ConvLab-2 | | | QA | https://huggingface.co/csarron/roberta-base-squad-v1 | | | Task | MT error | Prediction | input | reference | hypothesis | gold task output | translated task output | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|--------------------------| | SELECT DISTINCT airline_1 … city1.city_name = 'TORONTO' … city_2 . city_name = 'SAN DIEGO' ; SELECT DISTINCT airline_1 ...city1.city_name = 'TORONTO'; (city_2 is excluded) | | | | | | | | | 哪些航空公司在 多伦多 和 圣地亚 which airlines fly between toronto and san diego | Which airlines fly between | | | | | | | | SP | mistranslation No Breakdown 哥 之间飞行 | Toronto and Santiago? I'm looking for a taxi from | ['taxi-departure-yu | | | | | | Я ищу такси из Yu Garden, которое прибудет к 14:30. | I am looking for a taxi from Yu Garden, which will arrive by 2:30. | ['taxi-departure-yu garden', | garden', | | | | | | DST | mistranslation No Breakdown | yu garden arriving by 14:30 | 'taxi-arriveby-14:30'] | 'taxi-arriveby-02:30'] | | | | | How many extended | How much are the | | | | | | | | metropolitan areas are | extended metropolitan areas? | two | exceed five million in | | | | | | QA | fluency | No Breakdown ͪवèताǐरत महानगरȣय क्षेğ ͩकतनेहैं? | there? | population. | | | | | QA | mistranslation Breakdown | एनजर्जीप्रोजेक्ट AB कहाँिèथत है? | Where is Energiprojekt AB based? Where is Energyproject AB located? | Sweden | Sweden SELECT DISTINCT flight_1 .. city1.city_name = 'DETROIT'... city2.city_name = 'TORONTO'; | | | | SELECT DISTINCT flight_1 .. city1.city_name = 'DETROIT'... city2.city_name = 'TORONTO'; | | | | | | | | | get flights from detroit to toronto | Query flights from Detroit | | | | | | | | SP | none | Breakdown | 查询从 底特律 飞往 多伦多 的航班 | to Toronto. | | | | | DST | none | Breakdown | Да. Забронируйте на 3 человека. yes. book for 3 people. | Yeah, make a reservation for three people. ['train_book-people-3'] | ['train_book-people-3'] | | | | What type of city has | | | | | | | | | QA | none | Breakdown | वारसॉ हमेशा सेͩकस प्रकार का शहर रहा Warsaw been for as long as it's been a city? What kind of city has है? Warsaw always been? | multi-cultural | multi-cultural | | | | Language | zh | de | ar | ru | | | | | |--------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------|--------|-------|-------| | Good / Bad | 1465 / 1796 | 2162 / 1099 | 1744 / 1517 | 1517 / 1744 | | | | | | Method | F1 | MCC | F1 | MCC | F1 | MCC | F1 | MCC | | Random | 0.449 | -0.013 | 0.417 | 0.018 | 0.429 | -0.018 | 0.454 | 0.004 | | BLEU | 0.511 | 0.079 | 0.541 | 0.091 | 0.540 | 0.083 | 0.527 | 0.076 | | chrF | 0.518 | 0.078 | 0.496 | 0.033 | 0.499 | 0.071 | 0.52 | 0.086 | | BERTScore | 0.438 | 0.000 | 0.519 | 0.068 | 0.546 | 0.136 | 0.518 | 0.080 | | COMET-DA | 0.611 | 0.248 | 0.581 | 0.181 | 0.664 | 0.328 | 0.579 | 0.220 | | COMET-MQM | 0.594 | 0.201 | 0.574 | 0.165 | 0.625 | 0.255 | 0.598 | 0.196 | | UniTE | 0.642 | 0.285 | 0.572 | 0.164 | 0.653 | 0.346 | 0.614 | 0.255 | | COMET-QE-DA | 0.558 | 0.119 | 0.489 | 0.03 | 0.569 | 0.141 | 0.476 | 0.088 | | COMET-QE-MQM | 0.545 | 0.132 | 0.552 | 0.106 | 0.574 | 0.195 | 0.574 | 0.148 | | UniTE-QE | 0.566 | 0.183 | 0.552 | 0.114 | 0.628 | 0.258 | 0.603 | 0.215 | Language ar de el es hi ru th tr vi zh Good / Bad 592 / 264 696 / 169 701/ 170 721 / 152 631 / 241 701 / 173 539 / 323 443 / 389 616 / 251 606 / 266 Random 0.023 -0.002 -0.002 0.017 0.001 -0.002 -0.002 0.028 -0.051 -0.045 BLEU 0.135 0.048 0.142 0.098 0.162 0.125 0.128 0.097 0.108 0.171 chrF 0.160 0.083 0.172 0.092 0.202 0.106 0.162 0.000 0.173 0.119 BERTScore 0.139 0.076 0.173 0.051 0.209 0.131 0.121 0.046 0.173 0.148 COMET-DA 0.193 0.122 0.194 0.086 0.187 0.111 0.125 0.108 0.124 0.120 COMET-MQM 0.096 0.011 0.025 0.017 0.062 -0.023 -0.001 -0.050 0.079 0.054 UniTE 0.068 -0.031 -0.002 -0.014 0.043 0.047 -0.006 0.056 -0.017 -0.023 COMET-QE-DA 0.178 0.084 0.142 0.068 0.125 0.115 0.066 0.049 0.063 0.110 COMET-QE-MQM 0.099 0.050 -0.013 0.025 0.090 -0.025 0.041 -0.077 0.068 0.070 UniTE-QE 0.065 -0.031 0.012 -0.008 0.035 0.069 0.073 0.056 -0.009 -0.069 Table 8: MCC values for different metrics for extrinsic task of Extractive Question Answering (XQuaD dataset) where the model is trained on English. Good/Bad are the number of examples in the respective labels (Not breakdown/Breakdown) for the classification task. Metrics have poor performance on the classification task as a majority report MCC < 0.3 Method ar de el es hi ru th tr vi zh Good / Bad 592 / 264 696 / 169 701/ 170 721 / 152 631 / 241 701 / 173 539 / 323 443 / 389 616 / 251 606 / 266 Random 0.508 0.525 0.512 0.492 0.489 0.505 0.490 0.468 0.473 0.498 BLEU 0.549 0.515 0.564 0.543 0.571 0.562 0.556 0.487 0.549 0.585 chrF 0.579 0.541 0.575 0.546 0.595 0.545 0.567 0.480 0.557 0.554 BERTScore 0.569 0.538 0.586 0.523 0.604 0.528 0.561 0.523 0.580 0.535 COMET-DA 0.596 0.560 0.571 0.543 0.593 0.543 0.561 0.549 0.562 0.540 COMET-MQM 0.535 0.351 0.307 0.225 0.361 0.365 0.330 0.429 0.509 0.453 UniTE 0.370 0.479 0.343 0.314 0.308 0.519 0.366 0.438 0.282 0.326 COMET-QE-DA 0.575 0.534 0.559 0.530 0.550 0.544 0.532 0.474 0.530 0.495 COMET-QE-MQM 0.549 0.510 0.416 0.473 0.420 0.384 0.356 0.459 0.509 0.492 UniTE-QE 0.356 0.217 0.344 0.363 0.322 0.534 0.525 0.416 0.281 0.523 Table 9: macro F1 scores for different metrics for extrinsic task of Extractive Question Answering (XQuAD dataset) where the model is trained on English. Good/Bad are the number of examples in the respective labels (Not breakdown/Breakdown) for the classification task. src tgt Random BLEU chrF BERTScore COMET-DA COMET-MQM UniTE COMET-QE-DA COMET-QE-MQM UniTE-QE en de 0.465 0.492 0.500 0.45 0.436 0.465 0.469 0.511 0.474 0.481 fr 0.440 0.487 0.519 0.467 0.473 0.491 0.525 0.489 0.525 0.509 pt 0.466 0.676 0.659 0.614 0.555 0.609 0.4525 0.527 0.500 0.588 es 0.463 0.599 0.566 0.564 0.630 0.614 0.626 0.546 0.535 0.574 zh 0.429 0.574 0.570 0.582 0.590 0.577 0.586 0.516 0.513 0.490 de en 0.490 0.611 0.598 0.623 0.624 0.637 0.629 0.556 0.620 0.673 fr 0.409 0.523 0.539 0.515 0.595 0.613 0.608 0.592 0.522 0.536 pt 0.462 0.592 0.641 0.638 0.684 0.683 0.619 0.645 0.619 0.580 es 0.479 0.605 0.621 0.569 0.666 0.631 0.684 0.596 0.576 0.621 zh 0.468 0.614 0.670 0.571 0.614 0.553 0.581 0.524 0.532 0.554 fr en 0.489 0.595 0.590 0.607 0.630 0.606 0.628 0.597 0.574 0.588 de 0.385 0.518 0.616 0.587 0.541 0.570 0.546 0.503 0.476 0.542 pt 0.472 0.620 0.620 0.565 0.543 0.583 0.538 0.549 0.534 0.520 es 0.492 0.462 0.613 0.512 0.627 0.648 0.574 0.594 0.568 0.573 zh 0.384 0.641 0.702 0.666 0.667 0.658 0.661 0.521 0.502 0.575 pt en 0.476 0.629 0.676 0.681 0.685 0.655 0.705 0.695 0.654 0.526 de 0.438 0.550 0.575 0.577 0.586 0.594 0.481 0.608 0.569 0.501 fr 0.458 0.546 0.603 0.488 0.599 0.495 0.574 0.574 0.545 0.645 es 0.491 0.640 0.646 0.634 0.639 0.639 0.459 0.562 0.586 0.509 zh 0.403 0.610 0.690 0.551 0.580 0.511 0.621 0.621 0.492 0.591 es en 0.455 0.530 0.561 0.566 0.605 0.601 0.600 0.544 0.564 0.529 de 0.455 0.530 0.546 0.587 0.540 0.521 0.584 0.49 0.486 0.513 fr 0.453 0.542 0.531 0.606 0.564 0.568 0.584 0.569 0.560 0.556 pt 0.500 0.506 0.561 0.579 0.554 0.564 0.529 0.561 0.566 0.581 zh 0.374 0.562 0.644 0.562 0.627 0.587 0.687 0.524 0.478 0.662 es en 0.455 0.530 0.561 0.566 0.605 0.601 0.600 0.544 0.564 0.529 de 0.455 0.530 0.546 0.587 0.540 0.521 0.584 0.490 0.486 0.513 fr 0.453 0.542 0.531 0.606 0.564 0.568 0.584 0.569 0.560 0.556 pt 0.500 0.506 0.561 0.579 0.554 0.564 0.529 0.561 0.566 0.581 zh 0.374 0.562 0.644 0.562 0.627 0.587 0.687 0.524 0.478 0.662 Table 10: MT Metric performance on F1 for extrinsic semantic parsing (MultiATIS++SQL) with the parser trained in src language. src tgt Random BLEU chrF BERTScore COMET-DA COMET-MQM UniTE COMET-QE-DA COMET-QE-MQM UniTE-QE en de 0.012 0.008 0.016 -0.096 -0.122 -0.000 -0.06 0.025 -0.021 -0.027 fr -0.043 -0.024 0.039 -0.066 -0.020 -0.001 0.050 -0.021 -0.021 0.017 pt -0.067 0.353 0.328 0.231 0.201 0.228 0.114 0.089 0.209 0.187 es 0.002 0.203 0.133 0.152 0.279 0.229 0.252 0.110 0.107 0.166 zh -0.090 0.152 0.146 0.173 0.187 0.188 0.172 0.060 0.035 0.078 de en -0.003 0.226 0.210 0.251 0.263 0.328 0.303 0.161 0.250 0.349 fr -0.007 0.046 0.078 0.033 0.196 0.226 0.243 0.185 0.044 0.078 pt -0.070 0.184 0.300 0.312 0.394 0.406 0.302 0.331 0.295 0.206 es -0.035 0.230 0.242 0.200 0.332 0.264 0.370 0.206 0.181 0.256 zh -0.063 0.241 0.340 0.150 0.242 0.124 0.258 0.054 0.088 0.112 fr en 0.006 0.194 0.182 0.220 0.269 0.229 0.262 0.195 0.148 0.178 de -0.087 0.099 0.237 0.180 0.105 0.155 0.125 0.026 -0.043 0.086 pt -0.023 0.242 0.240 0.177 0.133 0.170 0.117 0.100 0.115 0.106 es -0.015 0.053 0.233 0.118 0.283 0.300 0.151 0.229 0.177 0.153 zh -0.116 0.311 0.413 0.373 0.365 0.347 0.390 0.143 0.051 0.248 pt en 0.013 0.315 0.365 0.378 0.372 0.320 0.414 0.402 0.310 0.175 de -0.093 0.112 0.181 0.159 0.188 0.190 0.216 0.183 0.150 0.007 fr 0.013 0.100 0.222 0.061 0.218 0.030 0.155 0.053 0.090 0.291 es 0.009 0.286 0.293 0.278 0.278 0.288 0.142 0.076 0.243 0.025 zh 0.061 0.221 0.449 0.253 0.161 0.048 0.242 0.000 -0.011 0.212 es en -0.063 0.080 0.179 0.136 0.214 0.208 0.200 0.095 0.128 0.058 de -0.075 0.092 0.169 0.175 0.082 0.047 0.186 -0.013 -0.024 0.033 fr -0.065 0.140 0.118 0.214 0.129 0.140 0.196 0.150 0.124 0.112 pt 0.014 0.012 0.144 0.169 0.148 0.143 0.110 0.160 0.133 0.166 zh -0.005 0.148 0.289 0.154 0.254 0.173 0.393 0.102 0.000 0.363 zh en -0.034 0.283 0.218 0.252 0.302 0.290 0.333 0.264 0.324 0.232 de 0.008 0.260 0.274 0.302 0.314 0.347 0.273 0.139 0.199 0.169 fr -0.045 0.204 0.238 0.343 0.330 0.247 0.328 0.222 0.259 0.287 pt -0.130 0.264 0.357 0.430 0.327 0.295 0.307 0.171 0.205 0.134 es -0.015 0.340 0.375 0.446 0.407 0.417 0.213 0.139 0.229 0.211 ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 8 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 3 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? 8 B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. 3 B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. 8 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 3 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 3 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

kim-etal-2023-explainmeetsum

{E}xplain{M}eet{S}um: A Dataset for Explainable Meeting Summarization Aligned with Human Intent

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.731

To enhance the explainability of meeting summarization, we construct a new dataset called {``}ExplainMeetSum,{''} an augmented version of QMSum, by newly annotating evidence sentences that faithfully {``}explain{''} a summary. Using ExplainMeetSum, we propose a novel multiple extractor guided summarization, namely Multi-DYLE, which extensively generalizes DYLE to enable using a supervised extractor based on human-aligned extractive oracles. We further present an explainability-aware task, named {``}Explainable Evidence Extraction{''} (E3), which aims to automatically detect all evidence sentences that support a given summary. Experimental results on the QMSum dataset show that the proposed Multi-DYLE outperforms DYLE with gains of up to 3.13 in the ROUGE-1 score. We further present the initial results on the E3 task, under the settings using separate and joint evaluation metrics.

# Explainmeetsum: A Dataset For Explainable Meeting Summarization Aligned With Human Intent Hyun Kim∗and **Minsoo Cho**∗ Superintelligence Creative Research Lab., Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), Republic of Korea {h.kim, mscho}@etri.re.kr ## Abstract To enhance the *explainability* of meeting summarization, we construct a new dataset called "*ExplainMeetSum*," an augmented version of QMSum, by newly annotating *evidence* sentences that faithfully "explain" a summary. Using ExplainMeetSum, we propose a novel *multiple extractor guided summarization*, namely Multi-DYLE, which extensively generalizes DYLE to enable using a supervised extractor based on human-aligned extractive oracles. We further present an explainabilityaware task, named "Explainable Evidence Extraction" (E3), which aims to automatically detect all evidence sentences that support a given summary. Experimental results on the QMSum dataset show that the proposed Multi-DYLE outperforms DYLE with gains of up to 3.13 in the ROUGE-1 score. We further present the initial results on the E3 task, under the settings using separate and joint evaluation metrics.1 ## 1 Introduction Meeting summarization typically is a form of *long* document summarization, because the input is usually given as a long conversational sequence from multi-party dialogues. Among various approaches for long document summarization, the *extract-thengenerate* method is one of the promising methods; it first automatically selects "salient" contents which are relevant to a specific summarization and employs them to guide the generation of a summary (Chen and Bansal, 2018; Zhang et al., 2019; Lebanoff et al., 2019; Xu and Durrett, 2019; Bajaj et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Mao et al., 2022), thereby inducing the manner of dealing with both efficiency (in processing a long input) and effectiveness (in locating accurately informative relevant contents). *These authors contributed equally to this work. †Corresponding author 1Our code and dataset are available at https://github. com/hkim-etri/ExplainMeetSum Seung-Hoon Na† Computer Science and Engineering, Jeonbuk National University, Republic of Korea nash@jbnu.ac.kr (Sent1) The group discussed about … (Sent2) Speaker A stated … (Sent3) Speaker A also discussed … (Sent4) Speaker B presented …  Summarize the discussion about … : Alignment between summary sentences and evidence sentences : Peripheral Evidence Sentence (PES) : Central Evidence Sentence (CES) However, the extract-then-generate method typically selects salient content in a distantly supervised or an end-to-end manner using only a final summary as a supervision signal, thereby likely being far from thoses in the chain-of-thought (or compression) required for the human summarization process. Thus, the resulting salient contents do not satisfactorily and convincingly "explain" or "support" a generated summary, and cause it to lack explainability. Aiming to achieve a high degree of explainability in meeting summarization, this paper proposes a new dataset called **ExplainMeetSum**, an augmented version of QMSum, by manually and explicitly annotating *evidence* sentences that faithfully "explain" and "support" each summary sentence. Figure 1 illustrates an example of the annotation of evidence sentences. Based extensively on ExplainMeetSum, we propose Multi-DYLE, a generalized version of DYLE that enables multiple extractors, and present a novel explainability-aware benchmark task, called Explainable Evidence Extraction (E3), as follows. 13079 ## 1. Multiple Extractors Guided **Dynamic** Latent Extraction for Abstractive Summarization (Multi-DYLE) straightforwardly extends DYLE (Mao et al., 2022) by newly employing a supervised extractor trained on the evidence sentences in ExplainMeetSum in addition to the original DYLE's extractor. The underlying assumption is that, being explicitly trained using "explainable" evidence sentences, the extract-thensummarize method undertakes more likely "human-aligned" salient sentences to guide the summary generation process, potentially leading to an improvement in the quality of summaries; this effect is to some extent similar to the *chain-of-thought* prompting (Wei et al., 2022) that explicitly supervises the human's reasoning steps for the decoder in the language models. ## 2. Explainable Evidence **Extraction (E3)** Is An explainability-aware task that aims to automatically detect all evidence sentences to explain and support a summary for meeting summarization. Thus, E3 is the task defined under the *summarize-then-explain* setting, where a generated summary is first provided and its explainable evidence sentences are extracted. By newly employing the evidence-based supervised extractor, the experimental results on the QMSum dataset show that the proposed Multi-DYLE outperforms DYLE with an increase of 3.13 in the ROUGE-1 score. We further evaluate the baseline transformer-based models for the E3 task and present the initial experiment results under separate and joint evaluation settings that unify the meeting summarization and E3. To our best of knowledge, our work is the first to explore the explainability of meeting summarization by providing manually annotated datasets of explainable evidence sentences. Our contributions are summarized as follows: 1) we newly introduce the *ExplainMeetSum* dataset as a valuable resource to enhance explainability in meeting summarization. 2) We propose MultiDYLE, which enables the merging of multiple extractors in DYLE and achieves non-trivial improvements over DYLE. 3) We propose E3 using ExplainMeetSum as a new explainability-aware benchmark task, establishing the goal of extracting human-aligned explainable evidence sentences for a generated summary. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Meeting Summarization Among the various approaches for meeting summarization such as divide-and-conquer (Grail et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022) and hierarchical method (Zhu et al., 2020), the extract-then-summarize (or locate-and-summarize) methods have been widely adopted owing to their effective two-stage manner of handling long inputs (Chen and Bansal, 2018; Lebanoff et al., 2019; Xu and Durrett, 2019; Zhang et al., 2019; Bajaj et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Mao et al., 2022). In particular, DYLE presented a joint training approach (Mao et al., 2022) to strengthen the interaction between the extractor and generator in a bidirectional manner by proposing a consistency loss that forces the extractor distribution over a set of snippets to closely match their importance degrees assigned by the generator's view. Some studies have designed dynamic interactions between speakers during a dialogue. Qi et al. (2021) used pre-training methods based on a hierarchical encoder-decoder structure to model the semantic information between participants. Feng et al. (2020) proposed the graph modeling strategy to encode discourse relations in a conversation. ## 2.2 Evaluation For Extractive Summarization Given the known limitations of using ROUGE due to its simplified n-gram matching style (Schluter, 2017), some studies have focused on evaluation in the setting of extractive summarization (Ma et al., 2021; Akter et al., 2022), pursuing automatic methods without requiring human annotation. DSMRCS (Ma et al., 2021) transformed the summarization problem into a machine reading comprehension task, and Akter et al. (2022) proposed a *semanticaware nCG* (normalized cumulative gain)-based evaluation metric that uses automatically generated semantic-aware ground truths. Unlike the existing "automatic" approaches for extractive summarization, we newly present "manually" annotated ground truths and explicitly define E3 in meeting summarization, being different from the extractive summarization task. Furthermore, evidence sentences manually extracted in our work are different from summarization content unit (SCU) (Nenkova and Passonneau, 2004; Louis and Nenkova, 2009). SCUs are obtained from multiple summaries by humans, not from an original document, whereas CES and PES | Base Dataset | QMSum | AMI | ICSI | (Total) | | |-----------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | Query Type | General | Specific | General(long) | General(long) | | | Total # of Transcripts | 232 | 232 | 137 | 59 | 232 | | Total # of Queries | 234 | 1576 | 137 | 59 | 2006 | | Avg. # of Sum-Sentences | 5.76 | 3.10 | 18.03 | 22.80 | 5.02 | | Total % of Evid-Sentences ( % CES / % PES ) | 63.04 / 36.96 | 75.71 / 24.29 | 64.90 / 35.10 | 67.31 / 32.69 | 68.98 / 31.02 | | Avg. # of Evid per Sum-Sent ( # CES / # PES ) | 3.28 / 1.92 | 2.27 / 0.73 | 2.92 / 1.58 | 3.38 / 1.64 | 2.72 / 1.22 | are sentences (not spans) and extracted from the original meeting document, referring to only a single gold/model summary. ## 3 Explainmeetsum Dataset 3.1 Annotation Of Explainable Evidence Sentences We conducted the annotation on top of the QMSum (Zhong et al., 2021), which is one of the largest datasets for meeting summarization containing "query-summary" pairs on the meeting transcripts from AMI (Carletta et al., 2006), ICSI (Janin et al., 2003), and parliamentary committee meetings. For each summary sentence, annotators were required to select aligned evidence sentences by dividing them into two types - CES and PES – according to their degrees of relevance to the querysummary pair, informally defined as follows: Central Evidence Sentence (CES) is an evidence sentence with key information that is exactly or semantically matched with "central" parts in the summary sentence or closely related examples. An example of a CES is as follows: (Gold Summary) The team members will work on their individual work. (CES) Project Manager : And uh you are going to work on your individual works. Peripheral Evidence Sentence (PES) is an evidence sentence that is relevant but less important than a CES, usually containing auxiliary information or examples that require a step of reasoning to match the given summary sentence. An example of a PES is as follows: (Gold summary) The remote will have buttons for channel changing, volume settings, numerals, and power on/off. (PES) Project Manager : but first maybe what is what are the usual function of a standard remote control? To clearly classify evidence types, annotators were guided to choose a type of matching characteristic of a candidate evidence sentence to a summary sentence, and to determine CES for the cases of exact, *semantic*, and *supportive* matching types, and PES for illustrative, *introductory*, and connective matching types. ## 3.2 Data Collection And Statistics Table 1 lists the statistics for the *ExplainMeetSum* dataset. The "General" and "Specific" subcolumns correspond to two types of queries in QMSum, respectively. "General(long)" subcolumn refers to the summaries of AMI and ICSI.2 Appendix A.2 presents samples of ExplainMeetSum with an full annotation example. Appendices A.1 and A.3 present details and quality control methods in the annotation process, respectively. ## 4 Multi-Dyle Figure 2 shows the overall architecture of the MultiDYLE model. The key novelty of Multi-DYLE is the employment of M heterogeneous extractors with separate sets of extractive oracles,3 M oracle losses, and a consistency loss under the generalized extractivegenerator framework. This section presents the details of Multi-DYLE, including a brief description of DYLE (Mao et al., 2022). Consistency Loss  Generated Summary Generation Loss ## 4.1 Multiple Extractors Guided Generator Following the notation of DYLE (Mao et al., 2022), suppose that a query q is given, and X = (x1, · · · , xL) is a sequence of L snippets. Unless otherwise mentioned, a snippet indicates a *single* dialogue sentence of a speaker in a meeting transcript.4 In contrast to DYLE that uses a "single" extractor, we have M *multiple* extractors, denoted as E = E(1), · · · , E(M) which computes relevance score s (j) i = E(j)(*q, x*i) for the i-th utterance sentence xi. For the j-th extractor, we select the top K snippets X (j) K based on their relevance scores, as follows: $$X_{K}^{(j)}=\mathrm{top-K}\left(\left\{\left(x_{i},E^{(j)}(q,x_{i})\right)\right\}_{i=1}^{L}\right)\quad(1)$$ where top-K(S) is the operator that chooses a list of the top K keys by sorting S = {(ai1, ai2)} n i=1, a set of n key-value pairs (i.e., 2-tuples) after sorting S in descending order according to their values. The core part of Multi-DYLE is the *merging* stage, which combines the M lists of the top-K extracted sentences $\left\{X_{K}^{(j)}\right\}_{j=1}^{M}$ as follows: $$X_{K}=X_{K}^{1:M}=\text{merge}\left(\left\{X_{K}^{(1)},\cdots,X_{K}^{(M)}\right\}\right)\right)\tag{2}$$ Our merging enables the duplicate sentences in a single list, and the same sentence is treated differently. For example, for K = 2 n and M = 2, merge ({x1, x2} , {x2, x3}) = x1, x (1) 2, x (2) 2, x3 owhere x (1) 2and x (2) 2are considered differently, despite being identical. The generator produces a summary by referring to XK as a set of retrieved content by computing the generation probabilities P y *q, X*K , similar to an extended version of the *RAG-token* model of Lewis et al. (2020), as follows: $$P\left(y|q,X_{K}\right)=\prod_{t=1}^{T}\sum_{x\in X_{K}}$$ $$P\left(x|q,X_{K},y_{1:t-1}\right)P\left(y_{t}|q,x,y_{1:t-1}\right)\tag{3}$$ where y1:t−1 is the previously generated sequence at the t-th decoding time step, P x q, XK, y1:t−1 is the *dynamic* weight of the snippet x, and P yt *q, x, y*1:t−1 is the generation probability when x is used as the additional encoded context. Similar to DYLE, Multi-DYLE uses the *average* of the dynamic weights of a sentence x ∈ XK across T time steps as a *supervised signal* to train M extractors, thereby introducing *consistency loss*, as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{consist}=\mathsf{KL}\left[\frac{1}{T}\sum\limits_{t=1}^{T}P(\cdot|q,X_{K},y_{1:t-1})\|\right.$$ $$\left.\text{softmax}\left(E(q,x_{i}),x_{i}\in X_{K}\right)\right]\tag{4}$$ where E(*q, x*i) = E(j)(*q, x*i) when xi belongs to the top sentences selected by the j-th extractor, i.e., xi ∈ X (j) K . ## 4.2 Multiple Extractive Oracles To provide basic supervised signals for multiple extractors, we employ M separate *extractive oracles*, nX j o oM j=1 , thus introducing M *oracle losses*, defined as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}_{o r a c l e}^{(j)}=-{\frac{1}{|X_{o}^{(j)}|}}\sum_{x\in X_{o}^{(j)}}\log{\frac{e^{E^{(j)}(q,x)}}{\sum_{i=1}^{L}e^{E^{(j)}(q,x_{i})}}}\quad(5)$$ In our setting, we deploy two different sets of extractive oracles for X (j) o : ROUGE-based extractive oracles, as in DYLE, and our CES-based extractive oracles, which we clearly specify in Section 6.1.1. ## 4.3 Generalized Training Objective The final training objective is based on the M oracle losses and the consistency loss as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}=\lambda_{g}{\mathcal{L}}_{g e n}+\lambda_{o}\sum_{j=1}^{M}{\mathcal{L}}_{o r a c l e}^{(j)}+\lambda_{c}{\mathcal{L}}_{c o n s i t}\quad(6)$$ where Lgen is the *generation* loss using NLL defined in DYLE (Mao et al., 2022), and λg, λo and λc are hyperparameters, which are fixed to 1 in this study. Multi-DYLE degenerates to DYLE when M = 1 using X (1) o as a set of ROUGE-based extractive oracles. ## 5 Explainable Evidence Extraction (E3) In this section, we introduce the details of E3, which identifies all CESs and PESs for a given summary, and baseline E3 models. ## 5.1 Task Definition Different from the summarization task in Section 4, we now have a summary S, given as a sequence of N *summary sentences* S = (s1, · · · , sN ) where S is either a gold summary or automatically generated one. Given the meeting transcript X = (x1, · · · , xL), let Yk ⊆ X be a ground-truth set of CESs and PESs for the k-th summary sentence sk ∈ S, obtained in ExplainMeetSum. E3 is thus defined as the task of automatically identifying Yk for a given sk ∈ S. ## 5.2 Model As our baseline E3 model, often referred to as the evidence extractor (EE), we employ the extractor module in the DYLE (Mao et al., 2022) model, but using a given summary sentence as an additional input for the encoder. Formally, the EE's input is a concatenated sequence of the k-th summary sentence sk, query q, and meeting transcript X, presented as (sk*, q, X*). EE then produces relevance scores for the i-th sentence xi ∈ X. 5 Because the meeting transcript is often too long to be contained within the maximum length limit, we split the transcript into a list of "chunks" with the fixed size of tokens, and separately encode all the chunks. The relevance score of the i-th sentence xiis obtained from the chunk-level representation which xi belongs to. For training, the cross-entropy loss is adopted to maximize the classification probability of gold evidence sentences in the CES and PES. For the inference time, we further apply a filtering step to the classification probabilities, using *threshold*based and *top-K* selection methods, as discussed in Section 6.2. ## 6 Experiments In our experiment, we first compare the summarization performance of Multi-DYLE, introduced in Section 4, with that of DYLE and its simple variants to check whether the use of multiple extractors lead to performance improvement. We further present the performance of our baseline EE described in Section 5 under the settings of separate and joint tasks in Sections 6.2 and 6.3, respectively. An illustration and examples of joint tasks are describe in Appendix C, and the implementation details for the Multi-DYLE and EE models are presented in Appendix D. 5More precisely saying, Mao et al. (2022) appended the special token </s> between xi−1 and xi and computed the output score from the token's output representation. ## 6.1 Meeting Summarization 6.1.1 Main Results Table 2 presents the comparison results of MultiDYLE (i.e. using ExplainMeetSum) and DYLE for QMSum. As aforementioned in Section 4, Multi-DYLE uses sentence-level snippets whereas the original version of DYLE uses turn-level snippets. To clarify the different setups for using extractive oracles, with the abuse of notation, XROG o, XCES o, and X*P ES* orefer to the sets of ROUGE-based, CESbased, and PES-based extractive oracles (in ExplainMeetSum), respectively. The various types of Multi-DYLE are defined as follows: - **Multi-DYLE**(Xα o ): the run using a single extractor (M = 1) based on X (1) o = Xα o - **Multi-DYLE**(Xα o, Xβ o ): the run using dual extractors (M = 2) based on X (1) o = Xα o and X (2) o = X β o . Some variants of DYLE using XROG oare denoted as follows: - **DYLE**(XROG o): the variant of DYLE using the fine-tuned DYLE model at turn-level settings6 but applying it to sentence-level snippets at inference time. - **Multi-DYLE**(XROG o): the variant of DYLE in which both fine-tuning and testing are conducted under our setting of *sentence-level* snippets, unlike DYLE(XROG o).7 Interestingly, by performing inference only at sentence-level utterances without any finetuning, DYLE(XROG o) achieves a ROUGE-1 of 35.41, with an increase of approximately 1 in ROUGE-1 over the original turn-level DYLE. Multi-DYLE(XROG o) further increases the performance by fully fine-tuning DYLE in the sentencelevel setting. The results consistently show that sentence-level snippets are more effective than turnlevel ones. Using the CES-based extractive oracles XCES o, it is noticeable that Multi-DYLE(XCES o) further improves the performance of Multi-DYLE(XROG o), resulting in an increase of about 0.7 in ROUGE-1. 6This DYLE model is made publicly available by the authors of DYLE. 7The turn-level and sentence-level oracle examples can be found in Appendix B. | Model | ROUGE | | | | |--------------------------------------------|---------|-------|-------|-------| | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | | | | <Baselines> | | | | | | BART-LS (Xiong et al., 2022) | 37.9 | 12.1 | 33.1 | | | SecEec-W (Vig et al., 2022) | 37.80 | 13.43 | 33.38 | | | DYLE (Mao et al., 2022) | 34.42 | 9.71 | 30.10 | | | <Ours - Sentence level> | | | | | | DYLE (X ROG o ) with turn-level finetuning | 35.41 | 10.74 | 31.00 | | | Multi-DYLE (X ROG o ) | ⃝a | 35.93 | 11.24 | 31.26 | | Multi-DYLE (X CES o ) | ⃝b | 36.63 | 11.81 | 31.82 | | Multi-DYLE (X ROG o , X CES o ) ⃝c | 37.55 | 12.43 | 32.76 | | Table 2: Meeting summarization results on test sets of QMSum, comparing Multi-DYLE and DYLE with other previous works, under ROUGE scores as evaluation metrics. By merging the two types of extractors, MultiDYLE(XROG o, XCES o) leads to non-trivial improvements over runs with a single extractor (i.e., Multi-DYLE(XROG o) or Multi-DYLE(XCES o)), finally achieving 37.55 of ROUGE-1. Overall, the results confirm that the use of human annotated evidence sentences improves performance under the same framework, even without changing the model's architecture. ## 6.1.2 Ablation Study Table 3 presents the ablation study of Multi-DYLE with different setups of extractive oracles by varying the number of extracted sentences K. In addition to the runs in Table 2, we consider the union of two sets of extractive oracles - XROG o ∪ XCES o and XCES o ∪ XP ES o. In Table 3, the last two columns named "ROGOracle" and "CES-Oracle" refer to the extraction performances of nX (j) K oM j=1 , which are selected by M extractors (i.e., using Eq. (1) and their merged results XK (that is using Eq. (2)) under the precision, recall, and F1 metrics when using XROG oand XCES oas ground-truth sets, respectively. Here, the subcolumns named "Ext1," "Ext2," and "Merged" indicate the extraction results of X (1) K , X (2) K , and XK, respectively. It is clearly shown that the ROUGE scores tend to be proportional to the F1 score of the extraction when either XROG o or XCES ois the groundtruth set. Particularly, the ROUGE scores are slightly more proportional to F1 when XROG ois a ground-truth set, compared to the case that uses XCES oas the gold standard. When M = 1, in the "ROG-Oracle" subcolumn, an interesting result is that Multi-DYLE(XROG o ∪ XCES o) achieves the best F1 result and ROUGE score, meaning | M | Multi-DYLE | # Top-K | ROUGE ↑ | ROG-Oracle (P/R/F1) | CES-Oracle (P/R/F1) | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|---------------|-----------|-----------|-----------------------|-----------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | Ext1 Ext2 Merged | (R-1/R-2/R-L) | Ext1 | Ext2 | Merged | Ext1 | Ext2 | Merged | | | | | | | 35.93/ | 8.22/ | - | 8.22/ | 8.00/ | - | 8.00/ | | | | | | | | Multi-DYLE (X ROG o ) | ⃝a | 30 | - | 30 | 11.24/ | 40.89/ | 40.89/ | 37.96/ | 37.96/ | | | | | 31.26 | 12.81 | 12.81 | 12.55 | 12.55 | | | | | | | | | | 36.49/ | 8.35/ | - | 8.35/ | 11.55/ | - | 11.55/ | | | | | | | | Multi-DYLE (X CES o ∪ X PES o ) | 30 | - | 30 | 11.56/ | 44.95/ | 44.95/ | 51.46/ | 51.46/ | | | | | | 31.67 | 13.43 | 13.43 | 17.82 | 17.82 | | | | | | | | | | 36.63/ | 8.16/ | - | 8.16/ | 11.77/ | - | 11.77/ | | | | | | | | Multi-DYLE (X CES o ) | ⃝b | 30 | - | 30 | 11.81/ | 45.10/ | 45.10/ | 52.28/ | 52.28/ | | | | | 31.82 | 13.21 | 13.21 | 18.13 | 18.13 | | | | | | | | | | 36.93/ | 9.25/ | - | 9.25/ | 10.89/ | - | 10.89/ | | | | | | | | ROG | CES | | | | | | | | | | | | | Multi-DYLE (X o | ∪ X o | ) | 30 | - | 30 | 12.18/ | 47.56/ | 47.56/ | 49.33/ | 49.33/ | | | | 32.49 | 14.65 | 14.65 | 16.87 | 16.87 | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 37.10/ | 11.55/ | 10.58/ | 9.84/ | 11.53/ | 16.16/ | 12.03/ | | | | | | | ROG | CES | PES o ) | 15 | 15 | 30 | 12.19/ | 31.13/ | 30.86/ | 42.28/ | 28.54/ | 38.10/ | 44.23/ | | Multi-DYLE (X o | , X o | ∪ X | 32.56 | 15.46 | 14.81 | 15.11 | 15.33 | 21.10 | 17.98 | | | | | 2 | 37.55/ | 12.55/ | 10.49/ | 10.23/ | 12.05/ | 16.92/ | 12.66/ | | | | | | | Multi-DYLE (X ROG o , X CES o ) | ⃝c | 15 | 15 | 30 | 12.43/ | 31.92/ | 30.33/ | 41.82/ | 29.84/ | 39.43/ | 45.97/ | | | 32.76 | 16.63 | 14.55 | 15.53 | 16.01 | 21.93 | 18.79 | | | | | | | that when XCES ois used for an additional training set of an extractor, it has a positive impact on extracting XROG o. Although Multi-DYLE(XCES o) shows weak performance in correctly extracting XROG o, it shows better ROUGE scores than MultiDYLE(XROG o). When M = 2, Multi-DYLE(XROG o, XCES o) slightly improves the performance of MultiDYLE(XROG o, XCES o ∪ X*P ES* o), indirectly indicating that the additional use of X*P ES* ofor training an extractor does not lead to further improvement in summarization. Overall, the results confirm that a strong correlation exists between ROUGE and F1 scores, enabling us to reasonably predict whether the model improves, based on the F1 scores of the extractors. The extractor trained only on XROG o does not exhibit the best performance in extracting XROG o, whereas the additional use of XCES ois complementary in identifying XROG o. ## 6.2 Explainable Evidence Extraction Table 4 compares the results of our baseline EE model for E3, described in Section 5.2. Here, we use the *gold* setting in which a gold summary is assumed to be provided for EE. When extracting evidence sentences for each summary sentence, we have three types of filtering methods based on the classification probabilities for all candidate sentences in the meeting transcript X = (xi) L i=1: - *Threshold-based* method (i.e., thr-θ): selects a sentence as an evidence sentence when its classification probability is larger than the threshold θ - *Top-*R method (i.e., top-R): selects R sentences with the highest classification probabilities - *Hybrid* method (i.e., thr-θ&top-R): first applies thr-θ and then conditionally performs top-R when no sentence with thr-θ is selected. thr-1.0&top-R is equivalent to top-R. As shown in Table 4, in terms of the sentencelevel E3 metric (in the upper part), the thresholdbased methods (i.e. thr-θ) show higher F1 scores than the top-R methods (i.e. top-R).8 Despite its superiority, thr-θ often suffers from its low recall; in our preliminary analysis, we observed the cases where no sentence was selected, given a threshold. Given that top-R is relatively strong in terms of the recall metric, the hybrid method (i.e., thr-θ&top-R) further increases performances, leading to achieve the best F1 score of 52.91. Similar results are observed in the summary-level metric in the lower part of Table 4; the hybrid method shows the best performance, outperforming both individual methods of top-R and thr-θ, although the results are not fully presented. 8In Table 4, as mentioned in its caption, the "sentence"- level P/R/F1 scores for E3 are computed based on the the gold sets are defined per summary "sentence," resulting in the *two-stage macro-averaged* score, i.e., the sentence-level scores are first averaged per query and then further marcoaveraged across queries. The "summary"-level P/R/F1 scores for E3 use the gold sets defined per "summary," resulting in the *single-stage macro-averaged* score, i.e. the summary-level scores are macro-averaged across queries.   ExplainMeetSum 3.77 2.04  ExplainMeetSum 17.86 25.72 In Table 4, the subcolumns in "\# Evidence Extraction" named 'Mean' and 'STD' indicate the mean and standard deviation of the number of the extracted evidence sentences, respectively, and 'diff' refers to the absolute difference between the mean numbers of extracted evidence sentences and gold ones. It is clearly seen that 'diff' strongly correlates with the F1 scores of the E3 extractor. Overall, the results show that the hybrid method produces the best F1 scores and these performances are correlated with how closely the number of extracted sentences is distributed to that of gold sentences. ## 6.3 Joint Evaluation Of Summarization And E3 In this section, we evaluate a pipelined model consisting of Multi-DYLE and the baseline EE model. To jointly evaluate a generated summary and its aligned evidence sentences in a single metric, we adopt ROUGE scores by merely viewing the addressed task as a unified sequence "generation" task. To be more specific, we first obtain a unified sequence from a summary and its aligned evidence sentences. With abuse of notation, suppose that S = (s1, · · · , sN ) is a given summary and X = X (i) e N i=1 is a list of N evidence sentence  collections where X (i) e = x (i) 1 , · · · , x (i) mi is a sequence of mi evidence sentences aligned to explain the i-th summary sentence si ∈ S. The conversion process ψ (S, X ) is defined as follows: $$\psi\left(S,{\mathcal{X}}\right)$$ $$\begin{array}{c}\includegraphics[width=140.0pt]{28.45}\end{array}\tag{7}$$ where ⊕ is the concatenation operator and "\n" indicates a newline character, making ψ (S, X ) comprise of N sentences. Under this conversion process ψ, we compute ROUGE scores by matching an output sequence resulting from the application of Multi-DYLE and the baseline EE model with its corresponding groundtruth sequence. To distinguish ROUGE scores in meeting summarization, we use *Joint ROUGE* scores to indicate the unified ROUGE scores evaluated in the joint setting. Table 5 presents comparison results of the pipelined system of Multi-DYLE and the baseline EE model with the hybrid selection method thr-0.9&top-5, varying sets of extractive oracles, evaluated by Joint ROUGE, as well as the evaluation metrics for meeting summarization and E3. It should be noted that the evaluation of E3 in Table 5 is the (indirectly) joint setting based on automatically generated summaries by Multi-DYLE, unlike the gold setting in Table 4. The results show that Multi-DYLE(XROG o, XCES o) with dual extractors again achieves the best performance under the joint settings involving E3, exhibiting increases of approximately 2 in the Joint ROUGE scores and of approximately 4 in the F1 score of E3, compared to those of  Multi-DYLE(XROG o). The performance gain obtained through both Multi DYLE(XROG o, XCES o) and the EE model tends to be further enlarged compared to the gain of ROUGE only by MultiDYLE(XROG o, XCES o) for meeting summarization. Overall, Multi-DYLE(XROG o, XCES o) shows the best performance on all evaluation metrics in meeting summarization and E3, achieving noticeable improvements particularly at joint settings involving E3. ## 6.4 Case Study As an illustrated example for the query "*Summarize* the discussion about trend watching and appearance design" in QMSum, Figure 3 presents some of the predicted summary sentences using MultiDYLE(XROG o, XCES o) (i.e., P-Sent-n), and their evidence sentences extracted using the hybrid EE model with thr-0.9&top-5, in comparison with the gold summary sentences (i.e., G-Sent-n) and their human-aligned CESs. As shown in Figure 3, the generated summary sentences, P-Sent-1∼2 are semantically matched well with the gold summary ones, (i.e., G-Sent-1∼2), by including the common keywords such as "marketing," "three aspects," "first," and "fancy." Importantly, all CESs (i.e., 4034 and 403-5) for the gold summary are correctly extracted in the predicted evidence sentences for P-Sent-1∼2, confirming that P-Sent-1∼2 is a high quality summary which is supported by the humanaligned CESs. ## 7 Conclusion In this paper, we presented a novel ExplainMeetSum, as an explainability-enhanced QMSum by providing complete manual annotation of two types of evidence sentences, CES and PES, as explanations to faithfully support or explain each sentence in gold summaries. Equipped with ExplainMeetSum, we proposed Multi-DYLE as a generalized DYLE to enable the addition of an explainable extractor based on CES-based extractive oracles. We further defined a novel task, E3, which aims to extract explainable evidence sentences when a summary sentence is given. The experimental results obtained on QMSum using ExplainMeetSum showed that the proposed Multi-DYLE based on an additional extractor towards a human-aligned explanation outperformed DYLE and led to improvements in the joint evaluation settings involving E3. In future work, we would like to invent a joint learning framework for meeting summarization and E3, extensively employing human-supervised explainable signals from ExplainMeetSum, towards better explainable meeting summarization. Furthermore, developing a novel joint evaluation metric for meeting summarization and E3 to overcome the limitations of the ROUGE-driven scores would be worthwhile. ## Limitations This paper presents ExplainMeetSum to enhance the explainability of meeting summarization and provides Multi-DYLE as a generalized version of DYLE by employing multiple extractors. One limitation of our work is the restricted exploration of using ExplainMeetSum for meeting summarization. Although we propose the use of multiple extractors, it can go beyond DYLE's extractivegenerator framework, thereby extending and generalizing other extract-then-generate methods, such as Dou et al. (2021). In addition, we currently use single and dual extractors (i.e., M = 1 or M = 2) for Multi-DYLE. However, other advanced settings using more extractors (M > 2) were not examined in this experiment. Another limitation is the current joint evaluation metrics, such as precision, recall, F1 scores, and Joint ROUGE scores, adopted as initial trials of evaluating of the "summarize-then-explain" joint setting. In particular, Joint ROUGE scores inherit the limitations of the original ROUGE scores. An important remaining issue is to design a more stable and agreeable joint evaluation metric that can be used as a standard evaluation metric for the joint setup of the summarize-then-explain task. Furthermore, our current applications using ExplainMeetSum are limited to meeting summarization and E3. However, ExplainMeetSum can be used as a suitable benchmark dataset to compare various interpretable and explainable models on summarization results. Given the emerging importance of interpretable and explainable models, arguably valuable work is to extensively examine the usefulness of ExplainMeetSum in more interpretable-related tasks by exploring and evaluating interpretable models, such as Ribeiro et al. (2016); Lundberg and Lee (2017); Sundararajan et al. (2017); Sanyal and Ren (2021); Saha et al. (2022). Some parts of the annotations in ExplainMeetSum were not fully utilized in this work. We also annotated the evidence sentences for General(long) types of queries in AMI and ICSI, however, our work on meeting summarization used only QMSum as a benchmark dataset. Thus, it would be valuable to obtain additional results using ExplainMeetSum for meeting summarization in AMI and ICSI to examine whether the use of ExplainMeetSum leads to improvements in other types of datasets. ## Acknowledgement This work was supported by Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation(IITP) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (2022-0-00989,Development of Artificial Intelligence Technology for Multi-speaker Dialog Modeling) and (2019-0-00004,Development of semi-supervised learning language intelligence technology and Korean tutoring service for foreigners) We would like to thank all anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. ## References Mousumi Akter, Naman Bansal, and Shubhra Kanti Karmaker. 2022. Revisiting automatic evaluation of extractive summarization task: Can we do better than ROUGE? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1547– 1560, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ahsaas Bajaj, Pavitra Dangati, Kalpesh Krishna, Pradhiksha Ashok Kumar, Rheeya Uppaal, Bradford Windsor, Eliot Brenner, Dominic Dotterrer, Rajarshi Das, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Long document summarization in a low resource setting using pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: Student Research Workshop, pages 71–80, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jean Carletta, Simone Ashby, Sebastien Bourban, Mike Flynn, Mael Guillemot, Thomas Hain, Jaroslav Kadlec, Vasilis Karaiskos, Wessel Kraaij, Melissa Kronenthal, Guillaume Lathoud, Mike Lincoln, Agnes Lisowska, Iain McCowan, Wilfried Post, Dennis Reidsma, and Pierre Wellner. 2006. The ami meeting corpus: A pre-announcement. In Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction, pages 28–39, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Yen-Chun Chen and Mohit Bansal. 2018. Fast abstractive summarization with reinforce-selected sentence rewriting. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 675– 686, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zi-Yi Dou, Pengfei Liu, Hiroaki Hayashi, Zhengbao Jiang, and Graham Neubig. 2021. GSum: A general framework for guided neural abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4830–4842, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiachong Feng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, Xinwei Geng, and Ting Liu. 2020. Dialogue discourse-aware graph convolutional networks for abstractive meeting summarization. volume abs/2012.03502. Quentin Grail, Julien Perez, and Eric Gaussier. 2021. Globalizing BERT-based transformer architectures for long document summarization. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1792–1810, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. A. Janin, D. Baron, J. Edwards, D. Ellis, D. Gelbart, N. Morgan, B. Peskin, T. Pfau, E. Shriberg, A. Stolcke, and C. Wooters. 2003. The icsi meeting corpus. In 2003 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings. (ICASSP '03)., volume 1, pages I–I. Logan Lebanoff, Kaiqiang Song, Franck Dernoncourt, Doo Soon Kim, Seokhwan Kim, Walter Chang, and Fei Liu. 2019. Scoring sentence singletons and pairs for abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2175–2189, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledgeintensive nlp tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9459–9474. Curran Associates, Inc. Annie Louis and Ani Nenkova. 2009. Automatically evaluating content selection in summarization without human models. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 306–314, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Bing Ma, Cao Liu, Jingyu Wang, Shujie Hu, Fan Yang, Xunliang Cai, Guanglu Wan, Jiansong Chen, and Jianxin Liao. 2021. Distant supervision based machine reading comprehension for extractive summarization in customer service. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '21, page 1895–1899, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Ziming Mao, Chen Henry Wu, Ansong Ni, Yusen Zhang, Rui Zhang, Tao Yu, Budhaditya Deb, Chenguang Zhu, Ahmed Awadallah, and Dragomir Radev. 2022. DYLE: Dynamic latent extraction for abstractive long-input summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1687–1698, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ani Nenkova and Rebecca Passonneau. 2004. Evaluating content selection in summarization: The pyramid method. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: HLT-NAACL 2004, pages 145–152, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. MengNan Qi, Hao Liu, YuZhuo Fu, and Ting Liu. 2021. Improving abstractive dialogue summarization with hierarchical pretraining and topic segment. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 1121–1130, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. "why should i trust you?": Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '16, page 1135–1144, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Swarnadeep Saha, Shiyue Zhang, Peter Hase, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. Summarization programs: Interpretable abstractive summarization with neural modular trees. Soumya Sanyal and Xiang Ren. 2021. Discretized integrated gradients for explaining language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10285–10299, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Natalie Schluter. 2017. The limits of automatic summarisation according to ROUGE. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers, pages 41–45, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. 2017. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70, ICML'17, page 3319–3328. JMLR.org. Jesse Vig, Alexander Fabbri, Wojciech Kryscinski, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Wenhao Liu. 2022. Exploring neural models for query-focused summarization. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 1455–1468, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Wenhan Xiong, Anchit Gupta, Shubham Toshniwal, Yashar Mehdad, and Wen-tau Yih. 2022. Adapting pretrained text-to-text models for long text sequences. Jiacheng Xu and Greg Durrett. 2019. Neural extractive text summarization with syntactic compression. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3292–3303, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Haoyu Zhang, Jingjing Cai, Jianjun Xu, and Ji Wang. 2019. Pretraining-based natural language generation for text summarization. In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 789–797, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yusen Zhang, Ansong Ni, Ziming Mao, Chen Henry Wu, Chenguang Zhu, Budhaditya Deb, Ahmed Awadallah, Dragomir Radev, and Rui Zhang. 2022. Summn: A multi-stage summarization framework for long input dialogues and documents. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1592–1604, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yusen Zhang, Ansong Ni, Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Chenguang Zhu, Budhaditya Deb, Asli Celikyilmaz, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. An exploratory study on long dialogue summarization: What works and what's next. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 4426–4433, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. QMSum: A new benchmark for query-based multi-domain meeting summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5905–5921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chenguang Zhu, Ruochen Xu, Michael Zeng, and Xuedong Huang. 2020. A hierarchical network for abstractive meeting summarization with crossdomain pretraining. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 194–203, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Dataset Construction A.1 Annotation Process A.2 Examples In Explainmeetsum ExplainMeetSum was built on top of the QMSum dataset. Here, we choose QMSum because its dataset is one of the most widely used datasets and its further annotated dataset, ExplainMeetSum, is also invaluable, which is likely to be of wide research interest. For annotation, we recruited four annotators and a coordinator based on their proficiency in English and prior experience with English dataset annotations. To create ExplainMeetSum, they were required to select and annotate evidence sentences from transcripts that are considered as aligned to "explain" well each gold sentence summary in the approximately 2,000 queries distributed among 232 transcripts; once selecting an evidence sentence, an annotator labeled its main type, CES and PES, as well as matching characteristics (i.e., subtypes of CES and PES). Despite QMSum being relatively limited in its size, the annotation work is time-consuming because the annotation tasks are non-trivial and involve extensive revisions, based on multiple feedbacks and comments provided by the coordinator. Considering the large amount of annotation work, we set aside more than six months for this task based on the two-level feedback pipeline on which the annotators interacted with both a coordinator and an expert. The coordinator thoroughly checked the annotation process and interacted with the annotators, while the expert acted as a metareviewer who periodically inspected random samples in-depth, provided feedback, and updated the guidelines. The total cost of the annotator's work was $40,000 which equates to an estimation of $20 per query. Table 7 shows examples in ExplainMeetSum collected across various queries in QMSum. Being categorized with main types and matching characteristics (i.e., subtypes), CESs and PESs aligned for each of the gold summary sentences indicated by '[G-Sent]' are presented in the column 'Evidence Sentence.' Matching characteristics are classified into six labels: CES has exact, *semantic*, and *supportive* subtypes, whereas PES has illustrative, *introductory*, and *connective* subtypes, defined as follows: - **CES/exact**: A subtype of CES whose keywords are "exactly" matched with the contents in the target sentence of the summary. - **CES/semantic**: A subtype of CES whose keywords "semantically" match the contents in the target sentence of the summary. - **CES/supportive**: A subtype of CES that includes information or examples that directly support or entail abstractive expressions in the target sentence of the summary. - **PES/illustrative**: A subtype of PES that includes relevant information or examples, such as enumerating further detailed information in addition to CES, on which a reasoning step is required to match the target sentence of the summary. - **PES/introductory**: A subtype of PES, which includes relevant information that initiates the subject of the extracted evidences; it usually appears before CES. - **PES/connective**: A subtype of PES that includes relevant information used to build the connectivity between the extracted evidences; it is usually based on conjunctions that connect two subsequent CESs. As a full annotation example, Table 8 presents CESs and PESs for the query "Summarize the discussion about trend watching and appearance design" in QMSum (i.e., the transcript name: IS1006c, the query id: specific-6), where the 'Type/subtype' column shows the main type of evidence sentences (i.e., CES or PES) and their matching characteristic, the 'Evidence Sentences' column presents the aligned CESs or PESs in the meeting transcript, and the 'Turn-sent Index' column shows the *turn-based sentence identifier* that is defined as a pair of turn and sentence-level indexes.9 ## A.3 Quality Control Methods To access the quality of the annotation, we established a two-level feedback-driven annotation pro9Supposing that x-y is the value in 'Turn-sent index,' x and y refers to the *turn-level* and *sentence-level* indices, respectively. For example, 399-5 refers to the index of 5-th sentence in the 399-th turn in the meeting transcript. cess that was supervised and monitored by a coordinator and an expert (as a meta-reviewer) as follows: - *Two-level coordinator-expert feedback process*: 1) a coordinator periodically checks the annotation results such that they are continuously revised to sufficiently fulfill the highlevel of quality, and frequently communicates by an expert. 2) an expert regularly inspects random samples of the annotation, provides feedback to the coordinator, and updates the guideline. We further applied a series of test suites to check the annotation quality semi-automatically, as follows: - *Comparing labeling statistics across annotators*: We periodically compare labelling statistics from annotators, and reexamine annotation results when some statistics are significantly different from the others. - *Computing neural similarities between* aligned evidence sentences and summary ones: We compare similarities using the SBERT model between candidate sentences and a summary sentence, under the assumption that the exact, semantic, supportive CES, PES, and others have the highest degree of similarity in that order. For the SBERT model, we used the sentence transformer model from Hugging Face's 'all-MiniLM-L6-v2' model to compute similarities between candidate sentences and a summary sentence. Table 9 presents examples of how initial tagging errors are revised correctly via the testsuite based on neural similarities between evidence and summary sentences. As in the table, given evidence sentences initially labeled by annotators, the coordinator is further provided with the SBERT-based similarities between evidence sentences and the gold summary sentences. When their similarities are abnormally large or small compared to the average similarity values of their subtypes, the coordinator re-examines the abnormal cases and revises them correctly. In the first row, for example, an annotator initially labelled the type "CES/supportive" for the given evidence sentence. However, its  Generation loss Generated Summary ②**Explainable Evidence Extraction (E3) Task** Extraction loss SBERT-based similarity with the gold one is 72.20, which is "abnormally" high considering the average of CES/supportive-typed cases. Once this abnormal neural similarity was detected and alarmed, a coordinator carefully looked into the problematic evidence sentence, identified that its subtype was wrongly labeled, and finally, correctly revised the label to "CES/semantic." Similar revisions were made in other two rows. - *Labeling matching characteristics*: In our work, CES and PES are the main types of evidence sentences only required for meeting summarization and E3 tasks, whereas matching characteristics were not necessary for these tasks. Importantly, our intention on labelling matching characteristics (i.e., subtypes of CES and PES) is to provide an additional quality control suite, thus making annotator carefully examine sentences in more depth to reduce errors in annotating CES and PES. ## B Extractive Oracles: Turn-Level And Sentence-Level In Table 2, we evaluated DYLE based on two types of extractive oracles - turn-level and sentence level ones - and showed that DYLE equipped with sentence-level extractive oracles exhibited improvements over the case using turn-level oracles. To clearly demonstrate the difference between these types of extractive oracles, Tables 10 and 11 show the turn-level and sentence-level ROUGE-based extractive oracles obtained for the same query in Table 8, where bold-faced index refers to humanannotated aligned CESs. It is clearly seen that the resulting sentences are different in in two types of oracles; while some turns, including simple ones that consist of a single sentence, appear in both turn-level and sentence-level oracles (i.e., 392-nd, 405-th, 427-th, and 438-th turns), most turns are not shared across them. In particular, even if a turn is shared between two oracles, a small number of sentences tend to commonly appear, as in the 405-th turn and its sentences. ## C Summarization And E3 Tasks Figure 4 presents the overall framework of the proposed architecture that performs meeting summarization and E3 tasks. In the upper part, the Multi-DYLE in Section 4 is deployed to perform the summarization task, where the Multi-DYLE of M = 1 can be replaced with other variants of Multi-DYLE(Xα o, Xβ o ). In the lower part, the EE model in Sections 5 and 6.2 is employed to address the E3 task. Although Multi-DYLE includes its evidence extractor, we used a separate EE model to address the E3 task. During inference, given a test query and meeting script, Multi-DYLE first generates a summary, and the EE model extracts evidence sentences for each generated summary sentence by computing their relevance scores and applying filtering methods, as described in Sections 5 and 6.2. As illustrated examples, Tables 12 and 13 present the extracted evidence sentences and their extraction performances when using the MultiDYLE's extractors and the EE model, given the query in Table 8. Note that CESs are used for gold evidence sentences in Table 12, whereas a union of CESs and PESs is used for gold ones in Table 13, and thus these scores are not fairly comparable. Given the differences in the evaluation settings, the extraction score in Table 12 is considerably higher than that in Table 13. In Table 12, the ROG-based and CES-based extractors refer to those induced from MultiDYLE(XROG o, XCES o). In Table 13, the row 'Generated Summary' presents a generated summary, and the row 'Extracted Explainable Evidence' describes the evidence sentences extracted by the EE model for each sentence, P-Sent-n, in the generated summary. The performances in Table 13 are *per-query* scores of the meeting summarization and E3 task, which is computed specifically for the query in Table 8; 'Summarization performance' indicates the per-query ROUGE score under the standard summarization metric, and 'E3 performance' refers to the per-query extraction ("summary-level") and Joint ROUGE scores as the joint evaluation metric, as in Section 6.3 and Table 5. ## D Implementation Details The proposed framework is implemented by extending the base DYLE model. To train MultiDYLE, we explored different models for parameter initialization and used *RoBERTa-base* and DYLE(generator) to initialize the extractor and generator modules, respectively, as they show reliable performance in Table 6. To train the EE model, we fine-tuned the *RoBERTa-base* model with an Adam optimizer, learning rate of 5e-5, batch size of 8, and a gradient accumulation step of 8. We also utilized the ROUGE package to evaluate the performance of summarization and the NLTK library to preprocess the dataset. We used an RTX 6000 NIVIDA GPU with a | Multi-DYLE | (Initialization Models) | R-1/ R-L | |----------------------|---------------------------|------------| | Extractor | Generator | | | RoBERTa-base | BART-large | 37.17/ | | DYLE(extractor) | BART-large | 36.54/ | | ⃝c RoBERTa-base | DYLE(generator) | | | DYLE(extractor) | DYLE(generator) | 36.97/ | | (X ROG o , X CES o ) | | | 48GB memory capacity, implemented and trained all models using the Pytorch library. To ensure the reliability of our results, we performed five distinct experimental runs, each with a different random seed, and stored the checkpoints with the maximum evaluation score. | Type | Characteristic | Evidence Sentences | |------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | (1) | [G-Sent] | They also decided to start with basic functions and then move on to the more advanced feature. | | exact | CES | Marketing : Well , should we start with just the core , the basic functions that we need . | | CES | Marketing : And then we can move on to the more advanced features . | | | Central Evidence Sentence (CES) | [G-Sent] | The project manager briefed the team on some new requirements and initiated a discussion in which the | | (2) | team discussed and decided on various features to include in the remote they will produce. | | | semantic | CES | Project Manager : So um I have to inform you I receive an email from the management bon board today and they have new requirements for the for the remote control . Um | | [G-Sent] | The project manager opened the meeting and then the marketing expert discussed user requirements. | | | (3) | | | | supportive | CES | Marketing : Okay , so basically I'm gonna present some findings of a study we conducted uh into uh what users want in this remote control . | | [G-Sent] | The project manager briefed the team on some new requirements and initiated a discussion in which the team discussed and decided on various features to include in the remote they will produce. | | | CES | Project Manager : So um I have to inform you I receive an email from the management bon board today and they have new requirements for the for the remote control . Um | | | PES | Project Manager : first um , they say that's uh about something about t teletext . | | | PES | Project Manager : Um the second thing is uh they suggest that that we should uh use the remote control only for T_V_ , not for D_V_D_ and other devices , | | | PES | Project Manager : the third one is uh about the the the image of the company . | | | (1) | | | | illustrative | | | | Peripheral Evidence Sentence (PES) | [G-Sent] | The remote will have buttons for channel changing, volume settings, numerals, and power on/off. | | (2) | PES | Project Manager : but first maybe what is what are the usual function of a standard remote control ? | | introductory | CES | Marketing : Okay , well , I mean the obvious one is changing channels . | | CES | Project Manager : So , turning channel , of course . Volume setting . | | | [G-Sent] | Whether using radio waves will interfere with other technology a user owns. | | | CES | Marketing : Do you think radio waves um will interfere with other appliances in the home ? | | | PES | User Interface : Uh , I don't think so , | | | PES | User Interface : because uh we can make uh we ca we can make this wave in a specific frequency . | | | CES | User Interface : So they can be in a range which is not inter interfering with the with other devices inside the home . | | | (3) | | | | connective | | | | Query | Summarize the discussion about trend watching and appearance design. (G-Sent-1) The marketing put forward three noteworthy aspects in trends. (G-Sent-2) First and foremost, people loved fancy things that they could be identified with. (G-Sent-3) The second point was that as a remote control it had to be technologically innovative. (G-Sent-4) Thirdly, being easy to use was also necessary. (G-Sent-5) From a broader perspective, fruit and vegetables were in fashion this year and being spongy was also popular. (G-Sent-6) Thus, contrary to the industrial designer, the marketing thought rubber was more feasible in terms of sponginess. (G-Sent-7) The group agreed that the product should resemble fruit and vegetable in shape and colour but the specific design was not decided. | | | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-----------| | Gold | | | | | | Summary | Summary | Type/subtype | Evidence Sentences | Turn-Sent | | Gold | Index | | | | | G-Sent-1 | PES/intro. | Marketing : I'm going to talk about trends | 399-5 | | | CES/sem. | Marketing : but uh basically there are uh in in the market of of remote controls there are three aspects that we should very pay much attention to . | 403-4 | | | | G-Sent-2 | CES/sem. | Marketing : The first one , which seems to be the most important one , is that it has to be fancy , it has to have a fancy look and feel . | 403-5 | | | G-Sent-3 | CES/exact | Marketing : Strangely enough it's more important to be fancy than to be wi and now that's the second thing it has to be , it has to be technologically i innovative , | 403-7 | | | G-Sent-4 | CES/sem. | Marketing : which is that it should be easy to use and it should be easy to use as a remote control . | 405-3 | | | CES/sem. | Marketing : Uh and now in a more uh general uh uh broad way of seeing th uh the thing . | 410-0 | | | | Marketing : currently the the trends that we see in l in l big cities like Paris and Milan , well , it | | | | | | G-Sent-5 | CES/sem. | seems that this year things should have uh a fruit and vegetable uh way of of look | 410-3 | | | or feel | | | | | | CES/sem. | Marketing : And uh if we co we compare to last year , now it has to be spongy , | 417-1 | | | | G-Sent-6 | PES/intro. | Marketing : When we were talking about rubber , | 425-0 | | | PES/conn. | Marketing : I think uh the rubber aspect might be important | 427-0 | | | | CES/exact | Marketing : because it's what is probably more feasible in terms of sponginess . | 427-1 | | | | Evidence Alignment | CES/sem. CES/supp. | | | | | G-Sent-7 | CES/sem. CES/supp. | Marketing : We have to I think we have to have the look of fruit and vegetables . Industrial Designer : fruit . These things can be easily incorporated . Industrial Designer : We can have t colours or this shape Project Manager : Now we have to decide on what kind of fanciness . | 477-0 485-4 485-5 551-0 | | Table 8: Example in ExplainMeetSum, with a full set of CESs and PESs aligned with a summary for the query '*Summarize the discussion about trend watching and appearance design*" in QMSum (i.e., the transcript name: IS1006c, the query id: specific-6); In the upper part, a gold summary is provided where G-Sent-n refers to n-th gold summary sentence; In the lower part, a set of CESs and PESs aligned for each G-Sent-n are presented. | Tag Refinement | Examples | | | |-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Before | After | Similarity Score | (SBERT) 72.20 | | G-Sent | A curriculum reform was to carry out throughout Wales. | | | | Evidence Sentence | Meilyr Rowlands : So, we need to ensure that those qualifications are reformed as a result of the reform of the curriculum, and, of course, Qualifications Wales is carrying out that work currently. | | | | supportive | CES/ | | | | CES/ | semantic | Similarity Score | (SBERT) 53.53 | | G-Sent | When it comes to continuing mental health service during the lockdown, Vaughan Gething insisted that it was of great necessity to carry out a mental health recovery plan that with such a system, government can ensure the children could enjoy a healthy mental state during the school lockdown. | | | | Evidence Sentence | Vaughan Gething AM : So , children 's mental health was a central concern and remains so for both myself and the education Minister . | | | | introductive | CES/ | | | | PES/ | supportive | Similarity Score | (SBERT) 42.69 When discussing the governmental issue of dealing with systematic racism, Justin Trudeau mentioned that | | G-Sent | actually there had been serious systematic racism in most national institutions for the past two years, so he called for a revolution in those organizations to welcome equal cooperation with the black colleagues and indigenous communities. | | | | Evidence Sentence | Mr. Jagmeet Singh : Is the Prime Minister committed to a full-scale overhaul of the RCMP to root out systemic racism? | | | | supportive | PES/ | | | | CES/ | connective | | | Table 9: Query control method via the semi-automatic test suite based on neural similarities between evidence and summary sentences. The 'Tag Refinement' column presents how the initial erroneous labels on sample evidence sentences are revised correctly after checking their neural similarities with gold summary sentences.  | Index | Evidence Sentences | | |---------|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | 4 | User Interface : (4-0) How was lunch ? | | 2 | 140 | Project Manager : (140-0) Three . | | 3 | 168 | User Interface : (168-0) I thought you like it . (168-1) Ah okay | | 4 | 278 | Marketing : (278-0) The the young people the young people want to be different from their friends . | | 5 | 367 | Marketing : (367-0) Okay . (367-1) So it could be smart in that way . | | 6 | 392 | Project Manager : (392-0) yeah , Marketing Expert . Marketing : (405-0) it has to be new with some of uh new uh technology inside (405-1) and uh and this is also uh more important than the last thing (405-2) which we w may think that would have been the most important , (405-3) which is that it should be easy to use and it should be easy to use as a remote control . (405-4) So as you see uh it first have to be very nice , (405-5) s something that people are proud of (405-6) uh uh that i uh they can be id identified with (405-7) uh and and then uh something that um contains very novel stuff (405-8) that they can talk about with their friends , huh , mine has this and not yours . (405-9) And finally of course it has to be useful as a remote control (405-10) but it seems that it's not so important that it's useful as a remote control . | | 8 | 425 | Marketing : (425-0) When we were talking about rubber , | | 9 | 427 | Marketing : (427-0) I think uh the rubber aspect might be important (427-1) because it's what is probably more feasible in terms of sponginess . | | 10 | 438 | Marketing : (438-0) Think more of uh something in the colours of uh like fruit and vegetables and spongy , | | 11 | 439 | Industrial Designer : (439-0) Fruit . (439-1) Even shape ? | | 12 | 595 | Industrial Designer : (595-0) Even design . | Table 10: Example of a *turn-level* ROUGE-based extractive oracle for a gold summary in Table 8 the bold-faced numbers refer to the turn-based sentence ids of the annotated CESs or PESs. | Example | | |------------------------|--------------------------------| | Sentence -level Oracle | (P) 15.38 (R) 16.67 (F1) 16.00 | Table 11: Example of a *sentence-level* ROUGE-based extractive oracle for a gold summary in Table 8; the bold-faced numbers refer to the turn-based sentence ids of the annotated CESs or PESs.  | Performance | # | Evidence Sentences | Turn-Sent | |---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-------------| | 1 | Project Manager : yeah , Marketing Expert . | 392-0 | | | 2 | Marketing : but uh it's not so simple . | 399-14 | | | 3 | Marketing : which is that it should be easy to use and it should be easy to use as a remote control . | 405-3 | | | 4 | Marketing : uh uh that i uh they can be id identified with | 405-6 | | | 5 | Marketing : And finally of course it has to be useful as a remote control | 405-9 | | | 6 | Marketing : That's the thing with trends | 415-1 | | | 7 | Marketing : Fruit and vegetable . Think fruit and vegetable . | 417-0 | | | 8 | Marketing : because it's what is probably more feasible in terms of sponginess . | 427-1 | | | 9 | Marketing : Think more of uh something in the colours of uh like fruit and vegetables and spongy , | 438-0 | | | 10 | Industrial Designer : that | 483-0 | | | 11 | Marketing : it has to be fancy | 541-3 | | | 12 | Industrial Designer : Even design . | 595-0 | | | 13 | Project Manager : explore a shape . | 603-1 | | | Summarization | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Turn-Sent Index Evidence Sentences | Extraction Performance | | 541-3 | Marketing : it has to be fancy | | 513-0 | Industrial Designer : we want to follow general trend . | | 399-10 | Marketing : first maybe just a small recap on how how do we watch trends | | 548-0 | Marketing : It's fancy . | | 403-5 | Marketing : The first one , which seems to be the most important one , is that it has to be fancy , it has to have a fancy look and feel . | | 468-0 | Industrial Designer : it's not particular to the remote control . | | 425-0 | Marketing : When we were talking about rubber , | | 533-0 | Project Manager : So titanium smell like fruit . | | 543-0 | Industrial Designer : Feature | | 399-5 | Marketing : I'm going to talk about trends | | 444-0 | And not those futuristic uh remote control with angles and uh and titanium like . | | 451-0 | Marketing : but that's that's fashion | | 466-0 | Industrial Designer : It's more general trend | | 458-2 | Industrial Designer : Or it's | | 553-1 | Industrial Designer : we will try to explore these two options | | ROG-based Extractor | (P) 6.67 (R) 8.33 (F1) 7.41 | | Summarization | | | Turn-Sent Index Evidence Sentences | Extraction Performance | | 513-0 | Industrial Designer : we want to follow general trend . | | 461-1 | Marketing : we have people uh uh listening to the trends everywhere in the world , of course , | | 509-3 | Industrial Designer : and we want some themes like fruits or vegetables , | | 430-1 | Project Manager : So maybe titanium it's not a good idea . | | 509-2 | Industrial Designer : and we want some kind of buttons | | 278-0 | Marketing : The the young people the young people want to be different from their friends . | | 509-1 | Industrial Designer : we want the speech recogniser | | 403-5 | Marketing : The first one , which seems to be the most important one , is that it has to be fancy , it has to have a fancy look and feel . | | 438-0 | Marketing : Think more of uh something in the colours of uh like fruit and vegetables and spongy , | | 463-1 | Marketing : and uh so I'm just asking them what are the current trends according to them when they go in the stores and when they ask uh their uh friends | | 403-4 | Marketing : but uh basically there are uh in in the market of of remote controls there are three aspects that we should very pay much attention to . | | 304-0 | Marketing : It has this distinctive look and feel and look | | 410-3 | Marketing : currently the the trends that we see in l in l big cities like Paris and Milan , well , it seems that this year things should have uh a fruit and vegetable uh way of of look or feel | | 477-0 | Marketing : We have to I think we have to have the look of fruit and vegetables . | | 288-1 | User Interface : But you know if you want to be different you just take your remote control with you all the time . | | CES-based Extractor | (P) 26.67 (R) 33.33 (F1) 29.63 | | Table 12: Evidence sentences predicted by Multi-DYLE's extractors and their extraction performances for the query | | Table 12: Evidence sentences predicted by Multi-DYLE's extractors and their extraction performances for the query in Table 8 where CESs are used as gold evidence ones; ROG-based and CES-based extractors are ones induced from Multi-DYLE(XROG o, XCES o) in Section 6.1.1. | Predicted Summary | Summarization Performance | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| | (P-Sent-1) according to marketing , there were three aspects in the market of remote controls that the team should pay much attention to . (P-Sent-2) first , the fancy look and feel was the most important . | ROUGE | | | | | (P-Sent-3) young people wanted to be different from their friends , so they should take their remote control with them | (R-1) 45.83 | | | | | all the time . | (R-2) 10.53 | | | | | (P-Sent-4) the second was to follow the general trend of fruits and vegetables , which was seen in big cities like milan | (R-L) 43.75 | | | | | and paris this year . | | | | | | (P-Sent-5) then , industrial designer proposed to explore the two options of speech recogniser and buttons . | | | | | | Generated Summary | Predicted | Turn-Sent Index | Evidence Sentences | E3 | | Summary | Performance | | | | | P-Sent-1 | 403-4 | Marketing : but uh basically there are uh in in the market of of remote controls there are three aspects that we should very pay much attention to . | Summary -level (P) 25.00 (R) 20.00 (F1) 22.22 Joint ROUGE (R-1) 58.65 (R-2) 36.20 (R-L) 55.64 | | | 405-9 | Marketing : And finally of course it has to be useful as a remote control | | | | | P-Sent-2 | 403-5 | Marketing : The first one , which seems to be the most important one , is that it has to be fancy , it has to have a fancy look and feel . | | | | P-Sent-3 | 278-0 | Marketing : The the young people the young people want to be different from their friends . | | | | 288-1 | User Interface : But you know if you want to be different you just take your remote control with you all the time . | | | | | Extracted Explainable Evidence | Marketing : currently the the trends that we see in l in l big cities like Paris and Milan | | | | | P-Sent-4 | 410-3 | , well , it seems that this year things should have uh a fruit and vegetable uh way of of look or feel | | | | 509-3 | Industrial Designer : and we want some themes like fruits or vegetables , | | | | | 513-0 | Industrial Designer : we want to follow general trend . | | | | | 509-1 | Industrial Designer : we want the speech recogniser | | | | | 509-2 | Industrial Designer : and we want some kind of buttons | | | | | P-Sent-5 | 553-1 | Industrial Designer : we will try to explore these two options | | | | 556-0 | Marketing : Maybe you could explore the two option . | | | | Table 13: Full-pipelined examples of the meeting summarization and E3 tasks with their summarization/extraction performances for the query in Table 8. A summary is generated by Multi-DYLE(XROG o, XCES o) (i.e., M = 2), and the evidence sentences are extracted by the EE model. Unlike Table 12, a union of CESs and PESs is used as gold evidence for computing the extraction score. The Joint ROUGE score defined in Section 6.3 is also provided. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Yes, it is discussed in Limitations Section. ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? No, there are no potential risks of our work, as our work made additional annotation in the widelyused QMSum dataset and addressed the meeting summarization and evidence extraction tasks. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Yes, the paper's main claim is stated in Abstract and Section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? No, we have not used AI writing assistants. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Yes, the artifacts for the dataset are discussed in Section 3, with its URL in Abstract, and the model part is described in Sections 4 and 5. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Yes, we have cited the creators of artifacts in Section 1. ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No, we have cited the artifacts, but did not explicitly discuss the license or terms for use as it is understood in the NLP field to share or utilize related artifacts. For our dataset, we will specify the license name in the URL, when available. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Yes, we have repeatedly discussed and specified the intended use of existing artifacts for our artifacts in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4. The details of the datasets we used are presented in Section 3. ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No, we do not reveal any new contents in our artifacts, because our annotation was made on the contents in the QMSum dataset. Thus, there is no new critical information in our dataset, such as individual people and names. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Yes, we have provided basic information about the data in Section 3. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Yes, we have provided basic information about the existing and created data in Section 3. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Yes, we have described results of various computational experiments in Section 6. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Yes, we have provided implementation details in Appendix D. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Yes, the experimental setup for the best-performing model, including the used hyperparameters for the Multi-DYLE and Evidence Extraction (EE) model, are presented in Tables 2-4 in Section 6. The additional details on the setup are provided in Appendix D. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Yes, we have provided the basic statistics such as the number of runs tried in Appendix D. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Yes, we have provided it in Appendix D. ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Yes, We Used Human Annotators To Build Our Dataset, As In Section 3 And Appendix A.1. ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Yes, but instead of providing separate instructions for annotators, we established the feedback-based annotation protocol, leading by a coordinator and an expert, which are frequently communicated with the annotators, as in Appendix A.1 and A.3. ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Yes, we have provided the detailed annotation process in Appendix A.1. ✗ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No, the annotators we recruited only performed the labeling work on the QMSum. No new text which require agreement was produced during the process. ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No, the necessary verification has already been performed at the source of the data. We directly use the original QMSum dataset without making any changes to it. ✗ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No, the necessary verification has already been reported at the source of the data.

zhang-li-2023-cross

A Cross-Modality Context Fusion and Semantic Refinement Network for Emotion Recognition in Conversation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.732

Emotion recognition in conversation (ERC) has attracted enormous attention for its applications in empathetic dialogue systems. However, most previous researches simply concatenate multimodal representations, leading to an accumulation of redundant information and a limited context interaction between modalities. Furthermore, they only consider simple contextual features ignoring semantic clues, resulting in an insufficient capture of the semantic coherence and consistency in conversations. To address these limitations, we propose a cross-modality context fusion and semantic refinement network (CMCF-SRNet). Specifically, we first design a cross-modal locality-constrained transformer to explore the multimodal interaction. Second, we investigate a graph-based semantic refinement transformer, which solves the limitation of insufficient semantic relationship information between utterances. Extensive experiments on two public benchmark datasets show the effectiveness of our proposed method compared with other state-of-the-art methods, indicating its potential application in emotion recognition. Our model will be available at \url{https://github.com/zxiaohen/CMCF-SRNet}.

# Cmcf-Srnet: A Cross-Modality Context Fusion And Semantic Refinement Network For Emotion Recognition In Conversation Xiaoheng Zhang Beihang University xiaoheng_zhang@buaa.edu.cn ## Abstract Emotion recognition in conversation (ERC) has attracted enormous attention for its applications in empathetic dialogue systems. However, most previous researches simply concatenate multimodal representations, leading to an accumulation of redundant information and a limited context interaction between modalities. Furthermore, they only consider simple contextual features ignoring semantic clues, resulting in an insufficient capture of the semantic coherence and consistency in conversations. To address these limitations, we propose a cross-modality context fusion and semantic refinement network (CMCF-SRNet). Specifically, we first design a cross-modal locality-constrained transformer to explore the multimodal interaction. Second, we investigate a graph-based semantic refinement transformer, which solves the limitation of insufficient semantic relationship information between utterances. Extensive experiments on two public benchmark datasets show the effectiveness of our proposed method compared with other state-of-the-art methods, indicating its potential application in emotion recognition. Our model is available at https: //github.com/zxiaohen/CMCF-SRNet. ## 1 Introduction Emotion recognition in conversation (ERC) plays an important role in affective dialogue systems, aiming to understand and generate empathetic responses (Raamkumar and Yang, 2022). Most studies on ERC focus primarily on the textual modality (Majumder et al., 2019). Although they can be easily extended to multimodal paradigms by performing early or late fusion (Poria et al., 2017a), it is difficult to capture contextual interactions between modalities, which limits the utilization of multiple modalities. For instance, a tensor fusion network based on the utterance-level explicit alignment learning both intra-modality and intermodality interactions via the Cartesian product was ∗Corresponding author Yang Li ∗  Beihang University liyang@buaa.edu.cn firstly created (Zadeh et al., 2017), then a low-rank multimodal fusion network to improve efficiency and reduce trainable parameters was designed (Liu et al., 2018). A conversational memory network aligns features from different modalities by fusing multi-view information (Hazarika et al., 2018b). In addition, a cross-modal transformer was integrated that learns attention between two-modal features, thus enabling implicit enhancement of the target modality (Tsai et al., 2019). A multimodal fusion graph convolutional network for ERC was put forward discussing the impact of fusion methods of various modalities (Hu et al., 2021). However, these methods mostly use a simple concatenation ignoring complex interactions between modalities, resulting in leveraging context information insufficiently or the problem of data sparseness. Besides, they simply consider the emotional impact of context in the whole conversation but neglect the emotional inertia of speakers and the fact that the local context may have a higher impact than long-distance utterances. As both the current utterance and the surrounding contexts are vital for the emotion perception, previous works proposed different methods including RNN-based models and graph-based models to explore contextual clues: A LSTM-based 13099 model (Poria et al., 2017b) and an interactive conversational memory network ICON (Hazarika et al., 2018a) capture interaction and history context, while DialogueRNN model (Majumder et al., 2019) leverages distinct GRUs to capture speakers' contextual information. Other popular approaches use graph-based neural networks and solve the context propagation issues in RNN-based architectures, including DialogueGCN (Ghosal et al., 2019) which first constructed the graph considering both speaker and conversation sequential information. Recent approaches like DAG-ERC (Shen et al., 2021) combined the advantages of conventional graph-based models and RNN-based models, a semantics GAT was employed to adjust the weight of knowledge (Tu et al., 2022), latent correlations have been leveraged among the utterances through a multibranch graph network (Ren et al., 2022). Meanwhile, existing GNN models use different aggregation schemes for a node to aggregate feature messages from its neighbors (Yuan et al., 2022): Graph convolutional networks use mean pooling while graph attention networks aggregate neighborhood information with trainable attention weights to capture local details (Isufi et al., 2022). Furthermore, graph networks consider global graph information during aggregation and have been used to explore the semantic relationship between regional objects and global concepts (Zhu et al., 2022). However, the existing graph-based methods also have limitations. First, they mostly ignore the semantic similarity between context utterances leading to a lack of semantic correlation. Second, these models learn node embeddings by capturing local network structure but ignore the position of the node within a broader context of the graph structure and the deep semantic features from a global view. To address this issue, we investigate a semantic graph-based transformer. In this work, we propose a cross-modality context fusion and semantic refinement network (CMCF-SRNet). First, we investigate a crossmodality context fusion module to integrate textual and audio information considering the impact of the local context and the emotional inertia of speakers, achieved by a cross-modal locality-constrained attention. Second, we design a semantic refinement module to extract effective semantic features and contextual information including the nearby surroundings and distant information. The main contributions can be summarized as follows: - Our proposed CMCF-SRNet is developed firstly by exploring cross-modal locality-constrained transformer to facilitate multimodal context fusion, bridging the gap of current works on ERC. - We define a semantic graph to model the relations between neighboring utterances and a semantic graph-based transformer encoder is adopted to capture the global underlying semantic. - We systemically analyze the importance of each component, including cross-modal transformerbased fusion, and semantic refinement methods. Experimental results demonstrate the performance of our proposed model. ## 2 Methodology Given a dialogue D = {u1, u2, ..., uN }, where N denotes the number of utterances and um is the mth utterance in the conversation, the emotion recognition in conversation task aims to predict the emotion label for each utterance in the conversation. Each utterance involves two sources of data corresponding to acoustic (a) and textual (t) modalities represented as um = {u am, utm} where u (a) m ∈ R da for audio and u (t) m ∈ R dtfor text, where da, dt represent feature dimensions. The combined input features matrix for all utterances in a dialogue is given by: Xi = [u (i) 1 , u (i) 2 , ...u (i) n ] where i ∈ {*a, t*}. The overall architecture of our proposed CMCFSRNet is outlined in Fig. 2 and summarized as follows: (1) The acoustic/textual feature matrix for utterances is first fed to acoustic/linguistic embedding block to obtain unimodal representations, and then cross-modal locality-constrained attention (LCA) is utilized to generate high-level crossmodal features which go into an attentive selection block; (2) We define a semantic graph and employ the relational graph convolutional network to capture the inter-utterance dependence, then leverage an aggregation of effective semantic features by integrating a semantic-position encoding; (3) The nodes embeddings are fed into the classifier to obtain the final prediction. In the following three subsections, we discuss in detail the specific implementation of the proposed innovation modules. ## 2.1 Cross-Modality Context Fusion Module We consider the order of the utterances by adding the triangle positional embedding (PE) directly to Xi while i ∈ {*a, t*}, and we define the query Q (h) i, 13100 O (h) i = softmax(Q (h) i(K (h) i) T √k)V (h) i(1) Oˆi (h)= [O (1) i ⊕ O (2) i ⊕ · · · ⊕ O (N) i]W (2) where W ∈ R  kN×di, N represents the total number of heads. Finally, we add a residual connection followed by a layer norm and obtain X′ i . After an intra-modal transformer to capture the global temporal dependencies of unimodal features, we apply a cross-modal locality-constrained transformer to capture the local contextual information focusing on correspondences between different modalities. We extend the traditional transformer to a two-stream cross-modal transformer to model interactions between two modalities, where each cross-modal transformer block is combined with a cross-modal locality-constrained attention layer. The attention layer could combine the information from the different sources of data to transform the text features using the feature map of audio. Querys, Keys, and Values has been defined as Q (h) i = X′ iWh,q, K (h) j = X′jWh,k, V (h) j = Fig. 2. Illustration of the proposed CMCF-SRNet consisting of two modules: cross-modal context fusion module  and semantic refinement module (LCA: locality-constrained attention). the key K (h) iand the value V (h) ivector for encoding input features Xi ∈ R n×di as shown in Fig. 3 (a). An attention map of attention weights for a single attention head α (h) ∈ R n×nis obtained by the attention mechanism and is used to compute a weighted sum of the values and obtain the output. X′jWh,v for a single attention head where *i, j* ∈ {a, t}, i ̸= j. Considering that to predict the emotion of an utterance, the speaker's recently stated utterance has the greatest correlation with its emotion, thus, we propose a locality-constrained and speaker aware attention LCA (Fig. 3 (b)) by masking the traditional weight map Wij = *sof tmax*(QiKT j ) in Eq. (3) as in Eq. (4). Oij (Q, K) = Wij · Vj (3) Oij (Q, K) = (Wij ⊙ LCA) · Vj (4) We design intra-speaker masks SA to focus on the utterances of the current speaker and model the emotional inertia of this interlocutor's emotional flow on the current utterance: $\left(\phi\right)$ $$\mathrm{SA}_{m,n}={\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{1}&{{\mathrm{if~}}s_{m}=s_{n};}\\ {0}&{{\mathrm{otherwise.}}}\end{array}\right.}$$ $$(5)$$ where sm, sn are respectively the speakers of utterances um and un. As the emotion of current utterance is more affected by the local utterances close to it, a common idea is to apply a fixed window, but in order to solve the problem that the fixed-window method treats utterances in the window equally, we calculate the relative position weighting RP of hm and hn, then feed into a sigmoid function. Finally, we apply an element-wise product to obtain LCA = sigmoid(RP)×SA, which combines both local context and speaker information. $$\mathrm{RP}_{m,n}={\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{\mathrm{M}-C(n-m)^{2}}&{{\mathrm{if~}}m,n\leq N;}\\ {0}&{{\mathrm{otherwise.}}}\end{array}\right.}$$ where N is the actual length of the dialogue, and both M and C are hyperparameters. Here, we set M and C to 5 and 1.5 respectively. $\eqref{eq:walpha}$ To obtain the fusion representation combing both intra-modal and cross-modal contextual information from two modalities, an attentive selection block is proposed to distribute different importance to different modalities, we propose a modellevel fusion strategy instead of a simple concatenation (Chen and Jin, 2016). Experimental results in Section V verify the effectiveness. We extract utterance-level acoustic features h (a) m ∈ R d, text features h (t) m ∈ R d, cross-modal features h (c) m ∈ R dfor each utterance um (where um is the mth utterance in the conversation). Then we equalize feature dimensions of all inputs and concatenate them together considering different contributions of different modalities to focus on important modalities. Technically, at a given time, given the input feature H = [H(1), H(2)*, ..., H*(K)] with K the number of modalities. The score for each modality is computed by: $$a_{i}=\text{ReLU}(W^{T}H^{(i)}+b)\tag{7}$$ $$\alpha_{i}=\frac{exp(a_{i})}{\sum_{j=1}^{K}exp(a_{j})}\tag{8}$$ the attention scores $\alpha_{att}\in R^{1\times K}$ where $K=3$. The final multimodal feature $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{2}}$ are 3. The final multimodal features gm ∈ R d2 are generated as follows with the output X′c ∈ R n×d2: g (j) = *concat*([α1H(1)*, ..., α*KH(K)]) (9) ## 2.2 Semantic Refinement Module To explore the semantic relationships between utterances in a dialogue, a novel model for semantic information refining is proposed, which is illustrated in the semantic refinement module in Fig. 2. It mainly consists of two stages: relational semantic graph construction and semantic information refinement. The well-defined semantic graph is fed into a two-layer RGCN to compute semantic features of utterances and their interaction relations. Then the global semantic information is further extracted by a semantic graph-transformer. Semantic Graph Construction: To establish semantic relations between the nearby utterances and to capture both inter-speaker and intra-speaker effects, we define a semantic graph Gs= (Vs,Es) based on the conversational semantic-aware dependency. Each utterance is represented by a node and different connection edges represent directed relations (past and future), Vs denotes a set of utterance nodes, and Es ⊂ Vs × Vs is a set of relations that represent the semantic similarity between the utterances, defined as Eq. (10). $$sim_{i,j}=1-\arccos(\frac{g_{i}^{T}g_{j}}{\|g_{i}\|\|g_{j}\|})\tag{10}$$ We define intra-relations between the utterances spoken by the same speaker $R_{intra}\in$ U Si → U Si and inter-relations by different speakers, R*inter* ∈ U Si → U Sj i̸=j . We further consider a context window using P and F as hyperparameters to denote relations between the past P utterances and future F utterances for every utterance. The relational semantic graph can be regarded as a local-view modeling of the relationships between utterances in a dialogue and covering semantics features. Semantic Information Refinement: In this paper, a modified relational graph convolution layer is adopted to capture local dependency defined by the relations. The node representations and edge weights are feed into a two-layer correlation-based RGCN which can be summarized as follows, here, we introduce the concept of aggregate functions to generalize the above mechanism: $$h_{i}^{(1)}=\sigma(\sum_{r\in\mathcal{R}}\sum_{j\in N_{i}^{r}}\frac{a_{i,j}}{q_{i,r}}W_{r}^{(1)}g_{j}+a_{i,i}W_{0}^{(1)}g_{i})$$ $$h_{i}^{(2)}=\sigma(\sum_{j\in N_{i}^{r}}W^{(2)}h_{j}^{(1)}+a_{i,i}W_{0}^{(2)}g_{i})\tag{11}$$ where $N_{i}^{r}$ denotes the neighboring indices of each node under relation $r\in\mathcal{R}$, $W_{i}^{(m)}$ are learnable. parameters, σ(·) is the activation function as ReLU. In this way, each graph convolution layer models the interaction between utterances, and refines the semantic features. Then, we adopt a semantic graph-transformer to extract global semantic information from the node feature taking in consideration the relative position of utterances (Fig. 4). It adopts the vanilla multihead attention into graph learning by taking into account nodes connected via edges. Given node features H = [h1, h2*, ..., h*n] obtained from RGCN, we define two encodings to represent semantic relationship between two nodes in a graph. The first is relative position encoding P, each vector of P represents the topological relation represented by their shortest path distance between two nodes, the second is semantic encoding S defined by Eq. (10), we take an addition operation and obtain SP . we take an addition operation and obtain $\mathcal{SP}$. $$a_{ij}=\frac{(W_{q}h_{i})^{T}(W_{k}h_{j})}{\sqrt{d^{value}}}+\Phi_{ij}^{sem}\tag{12}$$ $$\Phi_{ij}^{sem}=q_{i}\mathcal{SP}_{\phi_{ij}^{sem}}+k_{j}\mathcal{SP}_{\phi_{ij}^{sem}}$$ (13) $$h_{i}^{\prime}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\hat{a}_{ij}(v_{j}+\mathcal{SP}_{\phi_{ij}^{sem}})\tag{14}$$ Previous methods focus on encoding graph inform Previous methods focus on encoding graph information into either the attention map or input features. First, our method encodes positional and semantic information represented by edge weight into attention map to take the global context structure into consideration. Moreover, it encodes the  hidden features of value as shown in Eq. (14). ## 2.3 Emotion Classifier The output of graph transformer is fed into a MLP with fully connected layers and get the prediction values of the utterance ui under each emotion label: $h_i=\text{ReLU}(W_1h'_i+b_1)\hspace{1cm}0$ $\mathcal{P}_i=softmax(W_2h_i+b_2)\hspace{1cm}0$ $\hat{y}_i=\text{argmax}(\mathcal{P}_i)\hspace{1cm}0$ so the emotion label predicted for the yi. where yˆiis the emotion label predicted for the utterance ui. We choose the categorical cross-entropy loss function during training as is shown below: $$\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^{N}L_{i}}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\sum_{i=1}^{C}y_{i}\cdot logy_{i}\tag{18}$$ where $N$ is the number of conversations and $L_{i}$ is the number of utterances in the ith conversation. ## 3 Experiments And Results 3.1 Datasets In this section, we conduct several experiments to evaluate our proposed method and compare it with state-of-the-art baselines on two benchmark datasets, the dataset statistics are given in Table 1: datasets, the dataset statistics are given in Table 1. | Table 1: Statistics of IEMOCAP and MELD datasets. | |:-------------------|:-------------------|:-------------------| | Statistics | | IEMOCAP | | MELD | |:-------------------|:-------------------|:-------------------|:-------------------| | Nb of dialogues | | 120 | 31 | 1039 | 114 | 280 | | Nb of utterances | 4290/5810 | 1241/1623 | 9989 | 1109 | 2610 | | - **IEMOCAP** (Busso et al., 2008) dataset contains approximately 12 hours of dyadic emotional improvised and scripted conversations (10039 utterances). The labelling of each utterance was determined by 3 annotators as the following categorical labels: anger, happiness, sadness, neutral, excitement, frustration, fear, surprise. To compare with state-of-the-art frameworks, we adopt their dataset settings respectively the first four categories for the 4-way condition (Lian et al., 2021) and the first six categories for the 6-way conditions. Following previous works, utterances from the first 8 speakers are used as the training and validation sets while the others are used as the testing set. - **MELD** (Poria et al., 2019) is a large-scale multi-party conversational dataset which contains 13708 utterances and 1433 conversations from TV series *Friends*, and each utterance is annotated with one of the following labels: anger, joy, sadness, neutral, disgust, fear and surprise. ## 3.2 Implementation Details And Metrics $\mathrm{6}$ 7. We performed all experiments on the Pytorch deep learning framework with the Intel Core i7-12700H and the NVIDIA RTX3060 GPU. The software environment includes Python 3.9, Pytorch 1.12.1, and CUDA 11.3. Adam optimizer with an initial learning rate of 0.0001 is used to optimize the parameters in the proposed CMCF-SRNet and a dropout rate of 0.5 is adopted. The head number is set to 4 for cross-modal transformer and 2 for graph-transformer. Besides, audio features (size 100) are extracted using OpenSmile (Eyben et al., 2010) and text features (size 768) are extracted using sBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). We re-run on each dataset five times and calculate the mean and standard deviations. We evaluate the performance of emotion recognition using the following as evaluation metrics: WAA is a weighted average accuracy over different emotion classes with weights proportional to the number of utterances in a class. WF1 is a weighted mean F1 over different emotion categories with weights proportional to the number of utterances in a particular class. rticular class. $$WAA=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{C}N_{j}*Accuracy_{j}}{\sum_{j=1}^{C}N_{j}}\tag{19}$$ $$WF1=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{C}N_{j}*F1_{j}}{\sum_{j=1}^{C}N_{j}}\tag{20}$$ ## 3.3 Overall Performance For comparison, we implement following state-ofthe-art baseline approaches to evaluate the performance of our proposed method: BC-LSTM (Poria et al., 2017c) uses a bidirectional LSTM to encode contextual information, but ignoring the speaker-specific information. DialogueGCN (Ghosal et al., 2019) is the first to model a conversation by a graph, transforms Models Year IEMOCAP(6-way): Emotion Categories **MELD** Happy Sad Neutral Angry Excited Frustrated Average Average WF1(%) WF1(%) WF1(%) WF1(%) WF1(%) WF1(%) WAA(%) WF1(%) WF1(%) Bc-LSTM 2017c 35.6 69.2 53.5 66.3 61.1 62.4 59.8 59.0 50.8 DialogueGCN 2019 42.7 **84.5** 63.5 64.1 63.0 **66.9** 65.2 64.1 55.8 CTNet⋆ 2021 51.3 79.9 65.8 67.2 **78.7** 58.8 68.0 67.5 60.5 A-DMN⋆ 2022 50.6 76.8 62.9 56.5 77.9 55.7 64.6 64.3 60.4 I-GCN⋆ 2022 50.0 83.8 59.3 64.6 74.3 59.0 65.5 65.4 60.8 MMDFN⋆ 2022 42.2 78.9 66.4 69.7 75.5 66.3 68.2 68.1 59.4 CMCF-SRNet (Ours) 2023 **52.2**±0.5 80.9±0.2 68.8±0.5 **70.3**±0.6 76.7±0.3 61.6±0.7 70.5±0.8 69.6±0.7 **62.3**±0.6 the emotion classification into a graph-based node classification problem. MMGCN (Hu et al., 2021) uses multimodal dependencies and speaker information effectively and applies GCN to obtain contextual information. CTNet (Lian et al., 2021) utilizes transformer to obtain the multimodal rerpesentation by modeling the intra-modal and cross-modal interactions. A-DMN (Xing et al., 2022) models self and interspeaker influences and then synthesizes this two factors to update the memory. I-GCN (Nie et al., 2022) utilize the graph structure to represent conversation at different times and apply the incremental graph structure to imitate the process of dynamic conversation. MMDFN (Hu et al., 2022) proposes a graph model where both speaker dependency of the interlocutors is leveraged and latent correlations are captured. To verify the effectiveness of our proposed method, we compare our proposed CMCF-SRNet with state-of-the-art baseline approaches on the IEMOCAP (4-way), IEMOCAP (6-way) and MELD datasets on the overall performance and for each emotion category. As is shown in Table 2, our model outperforms all the baselines mentioned above on the two datasets. For the IEMOCAP (4way) dataset, ours achieves the new state-of-the-art record, 86.5% on F1 and 86.9% on WAA, which shows an absolute improvement of 2.0% on F1 score. For the IEMOCAP (6-way) dataset, our proposed method also succeeds with 70.5% on WAA and 69.6% on F1 which outperforms Bc-LSTM and DialogueGCN by 10.7% on WAA, 10.6% on WF1 and 5.3% on WAA, 5.5% on WF1 possibly due to the cross-modal context fusion architecture applied in our proposed model; in addition, it outperforms CTNet and MMDFN which utilize multimodal fusion approaches by 2.3%~2.5% on WAA and 1.5%~2.1% on WF1, the reason lies in that these methods focus on the multimodal representation ignoring the semantic relationship between utterances. Our proposed CMCF-SRNet also outperforms I-GCN which highlights the semantic correlation information of utterances without considering multimodal fusion approach. In addition, we present classification accuracies and F1 scores for each emotion category and visualize the confusion matrices of the testing set in Fig. 5. For the IEMOCAP (6-way) dataset, the improvements on classification performance can be seen for most emotion categories over existing approaches (Table 2). Specifically, we notice an improvement of F1-score for happy, neutral, angry and excited emotions which show the improved ability of the model to identify relevant emotions. Meanwhile, we find neutral and anger emotions can be confused with the frustration emotion (Fig. 5 (a)) as the majority of the utterances are labeled as the frustration. Also, the happiness emotion can be confused with the excitement emotion (Fig. 5 (a)) due to our similar perception of these emotions. Table 3: Performance on IEMOCAP (4-way).  | Methods | Year | IEMOCAP(4-way) Modality WF1(%) | | |-------------------|--------|----------------------------------|------| | Bc-LSTM | 2017c | T | 76.8 | | DialogueGCN | 2019 | T | 81.7 | | CMCF-SRNet (Ours) | 2023 | T | 85.6 | | CTNet | 2021 | A+T | 83.6 | | COGMEN | 2022 | A+T+V | 84.5 | | CMCF-SRNet (Ours) | 2023 | A+T | 86.5 | ## 4 Discussion 4.1 Effect Of Cross-Modality Context Fusion First, we conduct uni-modal experiments using text modality and our proposed method still gives comparable performance compared to the SOTA unimodal architectures (Table 3). As shown in Table 4, adding more information via other modalities helps to improve the performance. To verify the effectiveness of our cross-modal locality constrained transformer-based contextual fusion strategy, we conduct the ablation experiments as listed in Table 4: 1) Without cross-modal Locality Constrained Attention (w/o LCA): We remove the transformers and combine utterance-level features directly with Attentive Selection Block; 2) Without Attentive Selection Block (w/o ASB); 3) Ours: Our proposed method. The results demonstrate that our proposed CMCF-SRNet with LCA significantly improved the WF1 and WA indexes. After adding LCA, the WA and WF1 of the model were improved by 3.2% and 3.4% respectively, indicating that the cross-modal transformer can comprehensively improve the performance. Then, as is shown in Fig. 6, we take the lexical modality for example and visualize its attention weights in conversations after different components. The red rectangles at the first line indicate that the 10th and the 14th utterances in the conversation show more importance for the emotion detection according to the intra-modal transforme while that in the second line indicates that according to the crossmodal transformer the 4th to 7th utterances should be paid more attention. These results verify that the outputs of cross-modal transformer contribute to conversational emotion recognition.   To verify the effectiveness of our attentive selection block (ASB), we implement three comparison methods. Experimental results (Table 4) demonstrate that our ASB achieves the best performance. It shows an absolute improvement over Add on WA by 2.5% on IEMOCAP, probably because Add copes with the multimodal features equally and cannot highlight emotion-relevant modalities while ASB can prioritize important modalities via the attention mechanism. Meanwhile, it also shows an improvement over Concatenate and Tensor Fusion which may suffer from the curse of dimensionality by 1.2% and 3.2% as our proposed method can generate more effective smaller-size multimodal features for emotion recognition. | Methods | IEMOCAP (4-way) | MELD | | | |---------------|-------------------|--------|--------|-------| | WAA(%) | WF1(%) | WAA(%) | WF1(%) | | | T | 85.6 | 85.1 | 60.4 | 59.7 | | A | 60.6 | 59.2 | 55.5 | 53.2 | | A+T | 86.8 | 86.5 | 62.8 | 62.3 | | w/o LCA | 83.6 | 83.2 | 60.5 | 59.3 | | w/o ASB | 84.5 | 84.1 | 61.1 | 60.3 | | w/o SEW | 84.2 | 83.6 | 59.8 | 57.9 | | w/o SPE | 83.6 | 83.8 | 60.8 | 59.6 | | Ours | 86.8 | 86.5 | 62.8 | 62.3 | | Concatenate | 85.6 | 84.2 | 60.2 | 59.62 | | Add | 84.3 | 83.9 | 59.8 | 58.5 | | Tensor Fusion | 83.6 | 83.1 | 53.5 | 60.3 | | Ours | 86.8 | 86.5 | 62.8 | 62.3 | ## 4.2 Effect Of Semantic Refinement To observe the effect of the graph-based semantic refinement components, we visualize the features with and without the semantic refinement components (Fig. 8). We easily notice a better formation of emotion clusters proving the necessity of capturing semantic dependency in utterances. Additionally, we conduct ablation experiments on the correlation-based RGCN and Semantic GraphTransformer respectively, specifically, we respectively remove the semantic edge weight (SEW) in the RGCN and semantic-positional encoding (SPE) in the Graph-Transformer, after removing the SEW, WA and WF1 on IEMOCAP decreased by 2.6%, 1.9% respectively, while after removing the SPE, WA and WF1 on IEMOCAP decreased by 3.2%, 2.7% respectively, which indicates that the proposed semantic encoder is necessary, the result in Table 4 shows the advantages of focusing on emotional semantic clues.  ## 4.3 Visualization And Interpretability Given the importance of interpretability in machine learning, we investigate the necessity of local context realised by cross-modal LCA and global semantic context captured by semantic refinement module. We explore the distribution of distances between the target utterance and its second (2nd) highest attended utterance according to our attention scores for all the utterances correctly classified. First, most of the correctly classified utterances depend on their local context when a significant portion is also present for the distant context. Besides, the dependence on distant context shows more significance for the 2nd highest attention, which highlight the importance of the long-term emotional dependency. Meanwhile, the contextual dependence exists both towards the past and the future utterances. Moreover, we conduct experiments with multiple window sizes as presented in Fig. 10. The window size can be modified during the training period. A larger window size would result in better performance for cases where the inter and intra speaker dependencies are maintained for longer sequences. In contrast, a smaller window size would be better where the topic frequently changes in dialogues and speakers are less affected by another speaker. These results support our design combining the locality-constrained attention and semantic refinement from a global-view.   ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we propose a novel framework for multimodal emotion recognition which contains two innovative modules: The cross-modal locality-constrained context fusion leverages the transformer-based method to focus on localness, effectively improved the multimodal interaction. The semantic refinement module makes full use of the semantic relation information from a global view. Experiments on two public datasets and the results demonstrate that our proposed CMCF-SRNet is superior to the existing state-of-the-art methods. The ablation experiments prove the effectiveness of the two innovative modules. The detailed discussion shows that our proposed CMCF-SRNet has satisfactory generalization ability and interpretability, indicating that it has the potential for practical use for emotion recognition. ## Limitation Although experiments on two public datasets show the effectiveness of our proposed method compared with other state-of-the-art methods, we notice that our proposed model fails to distinguish similar emotions effectively going through the prediction results, as frustrated and anger, happy and excited (Fig. 5(a)). Moreover, our proposed model tends to misclassify samples of other emotions to neutral on MELD due to the majority proportion of neutral samples in these datasets. We will address this issue in future work by integrating a component for capturing the fine-grained emotions. ## Acknowledgements We appreciate the insightful suggestions from the anonymous reviewers to further improve our paper. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 62201023 and Beijing Natural Science Foundation under Grant Z220017, and in part by the Beijing Municipal Education Commission-Natural Science Foundation [KZ202110025036]. ## References Carlos Busso, Murtaza Bulut, Chi-Chun Lee, Abe Kazemzadeh, Emily Mower, Samuel Kim, Jeannette N Chang, Sungbok Lee, and Shrikanth S Narayanan. 2008. Iemocap: Interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database. *Language resources* and evaluation, 42(4):335–359. Shizhe Chen and Qin Jin. 2016. Multi-modal conditional attention fusion for dimensional emotion prediction. In *Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on Multimedia*, pages 571–575. Florian Eyben, Martin Wöllmer, and Björn Schuller. 2010. Opensmile: the munich versatile and fast opensource audio feature extractor. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1459–1462. Deepanway Ghosal, Navonil Majumder, Soujanya Poria, Niyati Chhaya, and Alexander Gelbukh. 2019. DialogueGCN: A graph convolutional neural network for emotion recognition in conversation. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 154–164, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Devamanyu Hazarika, Soujanya Poria, Rada Mihalcea, Erik Cambria, and Roger Zimmermann. 2018a. ICON: Interactive conversational memory network for multimodal emotion detection. In *Proceedings of* the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2594–2604, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Devamanyu Hazarika, Soujanya Poria, Amir Zadeh, Erik Cambria, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Roger Zimmermann. 2018b. Conversational memory network for emotion recognition in dyadic dialogue videos. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 2122–2132, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dou Hu, Xiaolong Hou, Lingwei Wei, Lianxin Jiang, and Yang Mo. 2022. Mm-dfn: Multimodal dynamic fusion network for emotion recognition in conversations. In *IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*, pages 7037–7041. Jingwen Hu, Yuchen Liu, Jinming Zhao, and Qin Jin. 2021. MMGCN: Multimodal fusion via deep graph convolution network for emotion recognition in conversation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5666–5675, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Elvin Isufi, Fernando Gama, and Alejandro Ribeiro. 2022. Edgenets: Edge varying graph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(11):7457–7473. Abhinav Joshi, Ashwani Bhat, Ayush Jain, Atin Singh, and Ashutosh Modi. 2022. COGMEN: COntextualized GNN based multimodal emotion recognitioN. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4148–4164, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zheng Lian, Bin Liu, and Jianhua Tao. 2021. Ctnet: Conversational transformer network for emotion recognition. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:985–1000. Zhun Liu, Ying Shen, Varun Bharadhwaj Lakshminarasimhan, Paul Pu Liang, AmirAli Bagher Zadeh, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2018. Efficient lowrank multimodal fusion with modality-specific factors. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2247–2256, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Navonil Majumder, Soujanya Poria, Devamanyu Hazarika, Rada Mihalcea, Alexander Gelbukh, and Erik Cambria. 2019. Dialoguernn: An attentive rnn for emotion detection in conversations. In *Proceedings* of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 6818–6825. Weizhi Nie, Rihao Chang, Minjie Ren, Yuting Su, and Anan Liu. 2022. I-gcn: Incremental graph convolution network for conversation emotion detection. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 24:4471–4481. Soujanya Poria, Erik Cambria, Devamanyu Hazarika, Navonil Majumder, Amir Zadeh, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2017a. Context-dependent sentiment analysis in user-generated videos. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 873–883, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Soujanya Poria, Erik Cambria, Devamanyu Hazarika, Navonil Majumder, Amir Zadeh, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2017b. Context-dependent sentiment analysis in user-generated videos. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 873–883, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Soujanya Poria, Erik Cambria, Devamanyu Hazarika, Navonil Majumder, Amir Zadeh, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2017c. Context-dependent sentiment analysis in user-generated videos. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 873–883, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Soujanya Poria, Devamanyu Hazarika, Navonil Majumder, Gautam Naik, Erik Cambria, and Rada Mihalcea. 2019. MELD: A multimodal multi-party dataset for emotion recognition in conversations. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 527– 536, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar and Yinping Yang. 2022. Empathetic conversational systems: A review of current advances, gaps, and opportunities. *IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing*, pages 1–20. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084. Minjie Ren, Xiangdong Huang, Wenhui Li, Dan Song, and Weizhi Nie. 2022. Lr-gcn: Latent relation-aware graph convolutional network for conversational emotion recognition. *IEEE Transactions on Multimedia*, 24:4422–4432. Weizhou Shen, Siyue Wu, Yunyi Yang, and Xiaojun Quan. 2021. Directed acyclic graph network for conversational emotion recognition. In *Proceedings* of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1551–1560, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Shaojie Bai, J. Zico Kolter, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2019. Multimodal transformer for unaligned multimodal language sequences. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6558–6569, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Geng Tu, Bin Liang, Dazhi Jiang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022. Sentiment- emotion- and context-guided knowledge selection framework for emotion recognition in conversations. *IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing*, pages 1–14. Songlong Xing, Sijie Mai, and Haifeng Hu. 2022. Adapted dynamic memory network for emotion recognition in conversation. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 13(3):1426–1439. Hao Yuan, Haiyang Yu, Shurui Gui, and Shuiwang Ji. 2022. Explainability in graph neural networks: A taxonomic survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, pages 1–19. Amir Zadeh, Minghai Chen, Soujanya Poria, Erik Cambria, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2017. Tensor fusion network for multimodal sentiment analysis. In *Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 1103–1114, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tong Zhu, Leida Li, Jufeng Yang, Sicheng Zhao, and Xiao Xiao. 2022. Multimodal emotion classification with multi-level semantic reasoning network. *IEEE* Transactions on Multimedia, pages 1–13. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section IV ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section IV ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section I ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section Iii ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section III The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section III ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section IV ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section III D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

wang-etal-2023-cat

{CAT}: A Contextualized Conceptualization and Instantiation Framework for Commonsense Reasoning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.733

Commonsense reasoning, aiming at endowing machines with a human-like ability to make situational presumptions, is extremely challenging to generalize. For someone who barely knows about {``}meditation,{''} while is knowledgeable about {``}singing,{''} he can still infer that {``}meditation makes people relaxed{''} from the existing knowledge that {``}singing makes people relaxed{''} by first conceptualizing {``}singing{''} as a {``}relaxing event{''} and then instantiating that event to {``}meditation.{''}This process, known as conceptual induction and deduction, is fundamental to commonsense reasoning while lacking both labeled data and methodologies to enhance commonsense modeling. To fill such a research gap, we propose CAT (Contextualized ConceptuAlization and InsTantiation),a semi-supervised learning framework that integrates event conceptualization and instantiation to conceptualize commonsense knowledge bases at scale. Extensive experiments show that our framework achieves state-of-the-art performances on two conceptualization tasks, and the acquired abstract commonsense knowledge can significantly improve commonsense inference modeling. Our code, data, and fine-tuned models are publicly available at [\url{https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/CAT}](\url{https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/CAT}).

# Cat: A Contextualized Conceptualization And Instantiation Framework For Commonsense Reasoning Weiqi Wang1∗, Tianqing Fang1∗, Baixuan Xu1**, Chun Yi Louis Bo**1, Yangqiu Song1, Lei Chen1,2 1Department of Computer Science and Engineering, HKUST, Hong Kong SAR, China 2Information Hub, HKUST (GZ), Guangzhou, China {wwangbw, tfangaa}@cse.ust.hk, bxuan@connect.ust.hk {cybo, yqsong}@cse.ust.hk, leichen@ust.hk ## Abstract Commonsense reasoning, aiming at endowing machines with a human-like ability to make situational presumptions, is extremely challenging to generalize. For someone who barely knows about *meditation*, while is knowledgeable about *singing*, he can still infer that *meditation makes people relaxed* from the existing knowledge that *singing makes people relaxed* by first conceptualizing *singing* as a *relaxing* event and then instantiating that event to *meditation*. This process, known as conceptual induction and deduction, is fundamental to commonsense reasoning while lacking both labeled data and methodologies to enhance commonsense modeling. To fill such a research gap, we propose CAT (Contextualized ConceptuAlization and InsTantiation), a semi-supervised learning framework that integrates event conceptualization and instantiation to conceptualize commonsense knowledge bases at scale. Extensive experiments show that our framework achieves state-of-the-art performances on two conceptualization tasks, and the acquired abstract commonsense knowledge can significantly improve commonsense inference modeling. Our code, data, and fine-tuned models are publicly available at https://github.com/HKUSTKnowComp/CAT. ## 1 Introduction "*Concepts are the glue that holds our* mental world together."– Murphy (2004) Commonsense reasoning is a crucial ability for machines to make situational presumptions and draw inferences from the knowledge that reflects our humans' understanding of situations and common facts (Davis, 1990; Davis and Marcus, 2015). It has gained increasing popularity in the Natural Language Processing (NLP) community with the emergence of CommonSense Knowledge Bases (CSKB) (Sap et al., 2019a; Speer et al., 2017; ∗ Equal Contribution  Hwang et al., 2021) and large language models (Bosselut et al., 2019; Rajani et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2022b; Su et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022b). However, when encountering situations beyond the data given, more abstract background knowledge must be acquired and generalized to assist the reasoning (Tenenbaum et al., 2011), and language models trained with an autoregressive language modeling objective do not explicitly leverage such abstract knowledge during inference. Instead, humans rely on conceptual induction and deduction (Murphy, 2004) to make inferences on novel situations without the need to memorize all special cases. As shown in Figure 1, humans can derive conceptualizations based on the assertion that "PersonX watches a football game, as a result, he feels relaxed" to infer that "relaxing events can make someone feel relaxed," where the acquired abstract commonsense knowledge can be further used as general knowledge to perform reasoning on similar or associated situations. A new commonsense knowledge "PersonX plays with his dog, as a result, he feels happy and relaxed" can be deduced by instantiating relaxing events to *playing with his dog*. As the cornerstone of generalizable commonsense reasoning, such a process is extremely challenging for machines to replicate due to the absence of contextualized conceptualizations and abstract commonsense knowledge in CSKBs and a lack of relevant methodologies. Yet, existing works address the process of induction and deduction separately via conceptualization and instantiation. Several methods performing conceptualization are proposed with a specific focus on entity-level (Durme et al., 2009; Song et al., 2011; Gong et al., 2016; He et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2022; Song et al., 2015) and event-level (Chen et al., 2020; He et al., 2022) semantics. Instantiation (Allaway et al., 2023), as the process that simulates conceptual deduction, is tackled separately and not leveraged by these methods. Though abstract commonsense knowledge can be derived by using existing conceptualization methods to abstract a certain instance from factual commonsense knowledge, several limitations still exist. First, the plausibility of abstract commonsense knowledge banks on both the correctness of *conceptualization* and proper *contextualization* under specific assertions. The latter one, which is an essential step for the deduction of abstract knowledge, is missing from current methodologies. Take Figure 1 as an example, the concept *observe* will not necessarily lead to the result of "feeling relaxed", as *observe* omits the entertaining property of the original instance as a cost of abstraction. Second, instantiating abstract commonsense knowledge can yield much more and diverse concrete commonsense knowledge that can serve as an augmentation of the training dataset, while current methods undervalue such a process and only focus on conceptualization. Finally, the complex *contextualization* and *conceptualization* of commonsense knowledge can easily bring more than two orders of magnitude of data on top of the original dataset. This makes current labeled data scarce and infeasible for practitioners to annotate all of them, leaving a large amount of unlabeled data. To fill in these research gaps, we propose CAT (Contextualized ConceptuAlization and InsTantiation), a semi-supervised learning framework that unites event conceptualization and instantiation in cascade to conceptualize CSKBs and acquire abstract commonsense knowledge to aid commonsense reasoning. Inspired by how humans learn with concepts (Carey, 2004), we design a novel bootstrapping1 method to enhance conceptualizations and abstract commonsense knowledge verification with the help of similar conceptualizations and instantiations as a reference. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CAT by using the acquired abstract commonsense knowledge to train COMET (Bosselut et al., 2019), a commonsense inference language model that generates if-then commonsense knowledge, and showing that our derived abstract commonsense knowledge can significantly improve commonsense inference modeling. Our contributions are three-fold: (1) We introduce a semi-supervised learning framework, CAT, to conceptualize CSKBs with the assistance of progressively bootstrapping similar abstract concepts or instantiations in the conceptualization process. (2) We use CAT to acquire abstract commonsense knowledge at scale with high quality, which can be used for commonsense inference modeling. (3) We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework by achieving state-of-the-art performance on two CSKB conceptualization tasks and remarkably improving commonsense inference modeling with our derived abstract commonsense knowledge. 2 Related Works Conceptualization and Instantiation. Many existing works have studied conceptualization and instantiation separately. Durme et al. (2009) first attempted to derive more general knowledge by abstracting over large sets of factoids obtained from WordNet (Miller, 1995) synsets. Song et al. (2011, 2015) and Gong et al. (2016) proposed to turn instances in a sentence into concepts via weight matching from Probase (Wu et al., 2012). Recently, Liu et al. (2022c) proposed a taxonomy-guided induction method to mine verb-oriented commonsense knowledge from verb phrases. Peng et al. (2022) constructed a conceptual knowledge benchmark to evaluate language models with three zeroshot probing tasks. While these works focus on the conceptualization of entities, He et al. (2022) constructed an event conceptualization benchmark based on ATOMIC (Sap et al., 2019a) by combining syntactic parsing, semantically heuristic matching, and human annotation. Besides, the line of works focusing on ultra-fine entity typing (Choi et al., 2018; Dai et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022) shared 1Bootstrapping refers to the linguistics term in language acquisition that humans learn new knowledge by recognizing its semantic elements and connecting them with known knowledge (Pinker and MacWhinney, 1987). | Data | Type | Train | Dev | Test | |--------|---------|-----------|---------|---------| | l | #event | 107,384 | 12,117 | 11,503 | | D | #triple | 65,386 | 8,403 | 7,408 | | u | #event | 304,983 | 36,023 | 31,578 | | D | #triple | 4,851,272 | 499,523 | 570,400 | similar objectives of typing named entities, nominal nouns, and pronouns into a set of free-form phrases. Instantiation was attempted by Allaway et al. (2023), who proposed a controllable generative framework to probe valid instantiations for abstract knowledge automatically. Though Porada et al. (2021) and Peng et al. (2022) both proved that existing pretrained language models lack conceptual knowledge, none of existing works explicitly combine both techniques to derive abstract knowledge that is context-sensitive and generalizable. Commonsense Reasoning. Endowing NLP systems with the ability to perform commonsense reasoning is an elusive goal of artificial intelligence (Sap et al., 2020). A diverse collection of commonsense reasoning tasks have been proposed as evaluation benchmarks (Talmor et al., 2019; Omura et al., 2020; Ponti et al., 2020; Fang et al., 2021a). Among them, Bosselut et al. (2019) proposed a generative model, COMET, to learn to produce *if-then* commonsense knowledge as an effective approach toward modeling commonsense inference that can be applied in various commonsense reasoning tasks (Talmor et al., 2019). Semi-Supervised Learning. Semi-supervised learning (SSL) aims at taking advantage of unlabeled data to equip models with stronger generalization ability (van Engelen and Hoos, 2020). The most common approach is using pseudo labels (Iscen et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2022) to expose more unseen data to the student model. It has been applied in various machine learning tasks such as image classification (Liu et al., 2022a; Hu et al., 2021), text classification (Li et al., 2021; Meng et al., 2019; Xiao et al., 2019), commonsense knowledge base population (Fang et al., 2022), and named entity recognition (Liu et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021). ## 3 Problem Definition Definition. Conceptualizing an event-centric CSKB to derive abstract commonsense knowledge comprises two steps (He et al., 2022): event conceptualization and triple conceptualization. Denote the triples in the original CSKB as Do = {(ho, r, t)|ho ∈ Ho, r ∈ *R, t* ∈ T}, where Ho, R, and T are the set of heads, relations, and tails in the original CSKB. The first step only operates on head events without considering the context in r and t. The goal of event conceptualization is to produce conceptualized head event ha from the original head ho to represent an abstraction of ho. In the second step, the task is to verify whether the conceptualized head ha still makes sense in the context of r and t, as r and t will further restrict the level of abstractness in ha. As shown in Figure 1, conceptualizing watch football game to *observe* is wrong within the context of having *feel relaxed* as a result. Plausible (ha*, r, t*) triples will be considered as valid abstract commonsense knowledge. Specifically, in the first step, there are two ways of conceptualizing head events alone: a *retrievalbased discriminative* way and a *generative* way. The retrieval-based discriminative paradigm identifies and links a component i in ho to a concept c in a concept taxonomy C to form a conceptualization ha by replacing i with c. The model needs to verify whether ha is a valid conceptualization of ho. The generative paradigm aims to generate a ha directly given ho and the designated component i in ho. Formally, denote the annotated dataset in the first step, event conceptualization, as Dlh = {(ho, ha, y)|ho ∈ Ho, ha ∈ Ha, y ∈ {0, 1}}, where ho is an original head event without conceptualization, ha is a corresponding conceptualization of ho, and y is the human-annotated label indicating whether such a conceptualization is plausible or not. The labeled dataset in the second step, triple conceptualization, is denoted as Dlt = {(h, r, t, y)|h ∈ Ha, r ∈ R, t ∈ T, y ∈ {0, 1}}, where h is a conceptualized head event from the first step, r and t are a relation and a tail from the original CSKB accompanied with the corresponding original head ho, and y is the human-annotated label indicating whether such abstract commonsense knowledge, in the form of a conceptualized triple, is plausible or not. Besides labeled datasets, unlabeled datasets are defined similarly as Du h and Du t only with the difference that labels y are missing. Thus, the task objective for discriminative event conceptualization is to determine whether a ho can be properly abstracted using ha, where ha is derived by replacing a component i ⊂ ho with 13113  its linked concept c from a concept taxonomy C. The task objective for generative event conceptualization is to generate ha directly from ho with text generation models. For the triple conceptualization task, the objective is to distinguish whether a conceptualized triple (ha*, r, t*), representing abstract commonsense knowledge, is plausible or not. Dataset. To study conceptualization over CSKBs, we use the AbstractATOMIC dataset provided by He et al. (2022) as the benchmark. In AbstractATOMIC, ATOMIC is used as the original CSKB. And the event conceptualization adopts a *discriminative* way, where a syntactic parsing schema is defined to identify the components i in ho to be heuristically linked to concept taxonomies Probase (Wu et al., 2012) and WordNet (Miller, 1995) to form conceptualized ha. Such a heuristic can produce over 32 times more candidate conceptualized head events and over 10 times more conceptualized triples compared with the original ATOMIC, as the number of retrieved concepts from the concept taxonomy C can be manually controlled to acquire a large number of conceptualizations. Triple conceptualization is defined as predicting the plausibility of the triples whose head is conceptualized. Only 131K (26%) conceptualizations of 7K (45%) ATOMIC head events and 81K (1.3%) conceptualized triples are manually annotated as Dlh and Dlt , while others remain unlabeled Du h and Du t . The *trn/dev/tst* partition follows the same split as in the original ATOMIC. Statistics and more detailed explanations of AbstractATOMIC are shown in Table 1 and Appendix A. ## 4 Cat Framework This section introduces our proposed Contextualized ConceptualizAtion and InsTantiation (CAT) framework for conceptualizing commonsense knowledge bases and acquiring abstract commonsense knowledge. An overview is presented in Figure 2. Our motivation is two-fold: first, adding instantiation after conceptualization to form a cycle can strongly benefit two conceptualization tasks simultaneously. On the one hand, instantiating conceptualized triple relies on the correctness of event conceptualization. On the other hand, properly conceptualized triples can benefit event conceptualization via instantiation by providing more context brought by (*r, t*). Second, to address the lack of annotations, we resort to pseudo labeling, a typical semi-supervised learning approach to automatically assign pseudo labels to the vast majority of unlabeled data using a teacher model. Following He et al. (2022), we study the retrieval-based discriminative paradigm of event conceptualization and leave the generative paradigm as an intrinsic evaluation. In CAT, we unify event conceptualization and triple conceptualization into one cycle and make them mutually benefit each other through instantiation and conceptualization. Our framework can be summarized into four steps: (1) Train teacher models for both event conceptualization and triple conceptualization on the labeled dataset Dlh and Dlt , respectively. Use the two teachers to assign pseudo labels to unlabeled datasets. (2) Conduct alternative conceptualization or instantiation on labeled and pseudo-labeled data. (3) Bootstrap (aggregate) the alternative concepts and instances in the second step using natural language prompt templates and train student models on both labeled and pseudo-labeled data. (4) Use the student models to refine the pseudo labels and then re-train the student models. ## 4.1 Teacher Model Training Two teacher models on both event and triple conceptualization tasks are trained separately on the labeled dataset Dlh and Dlt . As both tasks are inherently text/triple classification, we adopt KGBERT (Yao et al., 2019) as the skeleton of our models. The event conceptualization model determines whether ha is a valid conceptualization of ho, and the triple conceptualization model determines whether a conceptualized triple (ha*, r, t*) is plausible or not. The two models θ are trained on annotated examples xi with a cross-entropy loss (Eq. 1) and used to provide pseudo labels to instances from the unlabeled datasets Du h and Du t . Two thresholds, T + and T−, are set to determine the pseudo labels of unlabeled examples with high confidence. Examples with a pseudo-labeled score higher than T + will be labeled yi = 1, and those lower than T− will be labeled yi = 0. The rest will be discarded. Ideu.$$L(x_i,\theta)=-\sum_{i=1}^{\left|x\right|}y_i\log(\theta(x_i))\qquad\qquad(1)$$ tometive Generalization and... ## 4.2 Alternative Conceptualization And Instantiation According to Murphy (2004), when humans learn a new concept, we pre-extract similar known concepts in our minds and infer possibly equivalent unknown concepts on the fly. Inspired by this theory, we retrieve additional abstract concepts or instantiated events to help discriminate conceptualizations and abstract commonsense knowledge. For event conceptualization, we retrieve some alternative possible conceptualizations of ho to accompany the learning of ha. Additional conceptualizations of ho from both labeled and pseudo-labeled examples are predicted again by the teacher model and ranked according to their plausibility score prediction. And top m conceptualizations are retrieved with m being a hyperparameter to control the number of retrievals. For triple conceptualization, we perform instantiation in cascade to instantiate c to some concrete instances to assist the learning process. Possible instantiations of c are extracted from annotated and pseudo-labeled event conceptualizations by searching for conceptualized events h′a ∈ Ha other than ha with c as the concept and extracting their corresponding instances i ⊂ h′a . Similarly, the instances are then scored by the teacher model, and the top n of them are retrieved. Intuitively, alternative event conceptualizations can serve as hints for discriminating the correctness of the target conceptualization, and instantiations can carry additional contextualized information to help verify the plausibility of a conceptualized triple, which meets the objective of deriving abstract commonsense knowledge that is context-sensitive. ## 4.3 Prompt Aggregation We then bootstrap the retrieved alternative conceptualizations/instantiations via natural language prompts. Here bootstrap (Carey, 2004) can be understood as binding the alternative retrievals and the target concept/triple together to strengthen the discrimination of the target concept/triple. As shown in Figure 2 step (3), the initially given input and retrieved concepts/instances are concatenated via human-defined prompts for both conceptualization tasks. Alternative concepts/instances are sorted in the order of their plausibility score ranking. Two student models Sh and St for both tasks are trained using the modified text with such prompts as inputs. They are expected to learn the bootstrapping connectionism between the target and the additional retrievals we provided. More detail about the prompt design is in Appendix B. ## 4.4 Pseudo-Label Refinement All pseudo labels, initially derived by a teacher model trained on the original labeled dataset, are relabeled according to the plausibility score predicted by our newly enhanced student models Sh and St. Similar to the teacher model, two thresholds, T + and T−, are applied to distinguish positive and negative examples for both tasks. In addition, negative | Framework | Backbone PTLM / Method | Event Conceptualization | Triple Conceptualization | | | |--------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------|-----------|-----------| | Validation | Testing | Validation | Testing | | | | BERT-base 110M | 82.4±0.05 | 82.5±0.31 | 71.2±0.58 | 72.6±0.71 | | | BERT-large 340M | 82.8±0.48 | 83.1±0.80 | 72.4±0.01 | 73.7±0.00 | | | BART-base 139M | 83.8±0.28 | 84.4±0.32 | 72.0±0.09 | 72.6±0.15 | | | BART-large 406M | 85.0±0.13 | 85.2±0.22 | 74.5±0.13 | 76.2±0.19 | | | RoBERTa-base 110M | 84.1±0.04 | 84.5±0.19 | 72.2±0.00 | 74.1±0.00 | | | RoBERTa-large 340M | 85.2±0.24 | 85.5±0.02 | 75.3±0.00 | 76.9±0.01 | | | DeBERTa-v3-base 214M | 85.1±0.08 | 85.8±0.07 | 73.9±0.10 | 75.9±0.04 | | | DeBERTa-v3-large 435M | 85.8±0.05 | 86.2±0.15 | 76.9±0.03 | 78.0±0.02 | | | ELECTRA-base 110M | 85.4±0.05 | 85.8±0.02 | 74.3±0.27 | 76.2±0.12 | | | ELECTRA-large 340M | 84.7±0.47 | 85.3±0.38 | 75.6±0.01 | 77.9±0.06 | | | GPT2-base 117M | 60.0±0.06 | 59.1±0.14 | 52.8±0.14 | 55.9±0.11 | | | GPT2-medium 345M | 61.2±0.11 | 60.3±0.08 | 54.6±0.17 | 57.4±0.09 | | | GPT2-large 774M | 64.1±0.05 | 62.7±0.08 | 60.5±0.11 | 59.8±0.06 | | | GPT2-XL 1558M | 64.2±0.19 | 63.6±0.22 | 62.2±0.08 | 61.5±0.10 | | | Supervised Learning | UDA (TF-IDF) | 83.6±0.29 | 83.6±0.24 | 75.8±1.26 | 76.8±1.34 | | UDA (back-trans.) | 83.4±0.27 | 83.6±0.24 | 75.8±1.25 | 76.8±1.34 | | | Noisy-Student | 86.4±0.05 | 86.5±0.09 | 75.4±0.64 | 76.7±0.59 | | | PseudoReasoner (BERT-base) | 83.3±0.11 | 84.0±0.24 | 73.0±0.14 | 74.1±0.33 | | | PseudoReasoner (RoBERTa-large) | 86.6±0.25 | 86.7±0.33 | 76.3±0.12 | 77.2±0.21 | | | Semi-Supervised Learning | BERT-base 110M | 87.1±0.06 | 87.4±0.11 | 74.3±0.26 | 76.3±0.38 | | BERT-large 340M | 87.7±0.16 | 88.0±0.19 | 75.8±0.23 | 77.8±0.36 | | | BART-base 139M | 88.2±0.09 | 88.2±0.09 | 75.7±0.09 | 78.0±0.14 | | | BART-large 406M | 88.6±0.07 | 88.7±0.10 | 77.2±0.12 | 79.0±0.14 | | | RoBERTa-base 110M | 88.4±0.12 | 88.3±0.08 | 76.9±0.16 | 78.0±0.19 | | | RoBERTa-large 340M | 89.0±0.15 | 88.8±0.20 | 78.2±0.08 | 79.4±0.14 | | | DeBERTa-v3-base 214M | 88.8±0.12 | 88.9±0.08 | 77.5±0.10 | 79.9±0.07 | | | DeBERTa-v3-large 435M | 89.1±0.05 | 89.2±0.14 | 78.7±0.16 | 80.0±0.33 | | | ELECTRA-base 110M | 88.7±0.10 | 88.9±0.10 | 74.9±0.15 | 75.5±0.40 | | | ELECTRA-large 340M | 88.6±0.77 | 88.5±0.70 | 74.9±0.15 | 75.5±0.40 | | | CAT (Semi-Supervised) | | | | | | labels are assigned to triples whose conceptualized head events are predicted as wrong conceptualizations by Sh, as wrong conceptualizations will not yield plausible abstract commonsense knowledge. ## 4.5 Application And Evaluation Of Cat The resulting models of CAT include an event conceptualization model and a triple conceptualization model, both fine-tuned on the refined pseudo labels and the labeled data. These two models can be used to conceptualize ATOMIC to a larger commonsense knowledge base on a more abstract level. We further conduct intrinsic evaluations on the acquired event conceptualization model under a generative event conceptualization paradigm and extrinsic evaluations on the resulting conceptualized CSKB with commonsense inference modeling task (COMET; Bosselut et al. (2019)) in Section 5. Here we select COMET as the representative because it is a general commonsense model that can be applied to various downstream commonsense reasoning tasks such as SocialIQA (Sap et al., 2019b), self-talk (Shwartz et al., 2020), and CSKB completion (Malaviya et al., 2020). Meanwhile, generative event conceptualization enables performing automatic conceptualization scalably. Both are important applications and evaluations of CAT. ## 5 Experiments We conduct conceptualization experiments using CAT in Section 5.1 and generative experiments as evaluations in Section 5.2. These experiments demonstrate that CAT has a strong capability in conceptualizing CSKBs, and better conceptualization modeling can help populate more novel and diverse commonsense knowledge and thus help commonsense modeling (COMET). ## 5.1 Cskb Conceptualization Baselines. We collectively introduce the baselines for both event and triple conceptualization tasks, as they are inherently classification tasks. | Training Data | BLEU-1 | BLEU-2 | METEOR | ROUGE-L | CIDEr | Human | | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|----------|-----------|---------|---------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | D h + D l u l u D h + D l u D h + D D h + D l u D h + D l u D h | 67.6 | 65.3 | 56.8 | 53.1 | 43.5 | 43.1 | 65.7 | 66.6 | 60.2 | 60.9 | 70.0 | 81.5 | | l | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Zero-Shot | 20.2 | 17.0 | 6.80 | 4.11 | 5.80 | 4.70 | 3.80 | 3.00 | 1.90 | 1.60 | 15.0 | 11.5 | AUC is used as the evaluation metric. Under a supervised learning setting, we apply KG-BERT (Yao et al., 2019) model with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), DeBERTa (He et al., 2021, 2023), and ELECTRA (Clark et al., 2020) as the backbone language models. We also attempt to leverage supervised generative language models as baselines. GPT2 (Radford et al., 2019) models are trained with a text generation objective only on positive examples, and we use perplexity as the prediction scores to calculate AUC. For the semi-supervised learning baselines, we leverage UDA (Xie et al., 2020a), NoisyStudent (Xie et al., 2020b), and PseudoReasoner (Fang et al., 2022) with RoBERTalarge being the backbone model. Additional explanations can be found in Appendix C.1.1. Discriminative Results. The results for both tasks are presented in Table 2. Under a supervised learning setting, KG-BERT family mostly performs better on both tasks than GPT2 due to the fact that GPT2 is only fine-tuned on positive examples and thus cannot learn from negative examples that contain wrong conceptualizations and implausible abstract commonsense knowledge. As for the semi-supervised learning setting, previous SSL baselines are rather limited in improving the performance against supervised learning. The best PseudoReasoner only improves by 0.5% and 0.3% on the test set for both tasks compared with supervised RoBERTa-large models. Instead, models trained with CAT can outperform all other training methodologies. Comparing the test set performance with PseudoReasoner, small backbone models (BERTbase) can improve by 3.4% and 2.2%, and large models (RoBERTa-large) can be improved by 2.1% and 2.2%. This shows pipelining two-step conceptualizations as a loop and leveraging our proposed bootstrapping-based method can yield a larger performance gain compared with simply applying a semi-supervised learning strategy. Due to limited space, ablation studies on framework components and the semi-supervised learning paradigm of CAT are conducted in Appendix C.1.4. For example, the results indicate that bootstrapping alternative conceptualization and instantiation plays the most important role in assisting learning conceptualization among all components of CAT. Additional results and a computational cost study can be found in Appendix C.1.3 and Appendix D. ## 5.2 Application And Evaluation Of Cat As CAT is a framework for acquiring conceptualized commonsense knowledge, including both conceptualized head events (from ho to ha) and abstract commonsense triples (ha*, r, t*), we assess these pseudo-labeled outcomes via two generative tasks with various threshold tuning as evaluations. Generative Event Conceptualization. To intrinsically evaluate the effectiveness of CAT's event conceptualization, we use the acquired conceptualized head events as training data to learn a generative event conceptualizer. Specifically, the models are trained with instance-conceptualizations pairs in the format of "<instance> is an instance of <concept>". At the evaluation phase, the model is prompted with "*<instance> is an instance of* [GEN]" where *<instance>* is the instance to be conceptualized and [GEN] is the generation token. We then retrieve the top-1 generation and compare it against the target set from the evaluation dataset to compute four NLG metrics, as listed in Appendix C.2.1. These scores can be regarded as an approximation of the top-1 generations' recall. Training Data BLEU-1 BLEU-2 BLEU-3 BLEU-4 METEOR ROUGE-L CIDEr Zero-Shot 5.42 4.89 1.84 1.51 0.65 0.52 0.26 0.21 6.50 5.70 6.40 5.90 1.60 1.20 ATOMIC (subset) 38.1 38.1 25.4 25.7 18.7 18.8 15.5 15.7 14.9 14.9 33.0 33.2 27.6 27.8 +D l t 38.1 38.5 24.8 25.5 17.8 18.4 14.7 15.2 15.3 15.6 33.1 33.7 26.8 27.3 +Finetune 38.6 39.0 25.8 26.6 18.9 19.7 15.7 16.4 15.1 15.4 33.6 34.4 28.8 30.0 +D u Abs.ATM. 40.0 40.3 27.1 27.8 20.0 20.8 16.5 17.5 16.1 16.3 35.3 35.7 31.6 31.7 +Finetune 40.1 40.5 27.1 27.8 20.1 20.8 16.7 17.4 16.2 16.4 35.4 35.9 31.8 31.7 +D l t + D u Abs.ATM. 40.2 40.6 26.2 27.4 19.0 20.4 15.1 16.8 16.3 16.5 35.0 35.4 31.0 31.3 +Finetune 40.0 40.4 26.0 26.9 18.7 19.7 15.0 16.1 16.3 16.4 35.0 35.4 30.3 30.7 +D u CAT **41.2** 41.9 28.1 29.0 20.7 21.5 16.5 17.8 **16.6** 16.9 35.9 36.5 **33.4** 33.7 +Finetune 41.1 **42.0** 28.0 29.0 20.4 21.5 16.4 17.6 16.6 17.0 **36.0 36.8** 33.2 **33.8** +D l t + D u CAT 39.9 40.5 26.2 27.4 19.3 20.6 16.0 17.4 16.0 16.2 35.0 35.4 30.8 31.3 +Finetune 40.4 41.0 26.6 27.6 19.5 20.7 16.1 17.1 16.2 16.5 35.4 35.8 31.3 31.5 Additionally, we uniformly sample 500 generations from each evaluation split and conduct expert annotations on the plausibility of each conceptualization to ensure that out-of-domain concepts can be properly evaluated. The experts are asked to determine whether each top-1 generation is indeed a plausible conceptualization or not, such that the top-1 generations' precision is reflected. Thus, current evaluation measures jointly evaluate the top-1 generations' precision and recall, which makes it robust and non-easy to be impacted by repetition problems (Li et al., 2020). Zero-shot GPT2 and GPT2 fine-tuned on the originally labeled event conceptualizations in Dlh are used as baselines. We also study the effect of the threshold T + that selects plausible conceptualized heads, where higher thresholds indicate higher plausibility regarded by CAT. The results are presented in Table 3. With a relatively high threshold, generators trained on a mixture of pseudo-labeled data by CAT and annotated concepts significantly outperform the baselines in every automated metric. A plausible rate of 93.3% is maximally achieved on the test set, which is 11.8% higher than the baseline. Gradually reducing the threshold also decreases the performance, indicating abstract heads with lower plausibility scores can be of poorer quality. Such results indicate that CAT can produce high-quality event conceptualizations for generative models to learn better conceptualizers without the need to annotate a large number of data. level abstract commonsense knowledge. We evaluate these abstract commonsense triples with a commonsense inference task that generates commonsense tails given heads and relations as inputs, as in COMET (Bosselut et al., 2019). Following He et al. (2022), we apply the same training and evaluation process to the models. The base training data we use are a subset of ATOMIC triples corresponding to those annotated abstract triples in Dlt , which contains 17K (3.7%) among the original ATOMIC. We derive abstract commonsense knowledge using CAT from a subset of Du t where the heads correspond to those in the ATOMIC subset to ensure no data leakage, denoted as DuCAT. GPT2 is fine-tuned on the ATOMIC subset, the annotated abstract triples Dlt , the abstract knowledge verified by CAT, or their combinations. The commonsense generation results are presented in Table 4. Similar to COMET (Bosselut et al., 2019), all models are evaluated on the original ATOMIC's full validation and testing sets. The best result is achieved using a mixture of the ATOMIC subset and abstract triples pseudo-labeled by our framework, with 0.95 as the threshold for selecting plausible triples. This indicates high-quality abstract commonsense triples can indeed provide a more general view of the original commonsense knowledge, thus helping commonsense inference. Additionally, training with our pseudo-labeled examples outperforms training with those annotated triples in AbstractATOMIC, which also validates the effectiveness of our model that leverages a large amount of unlabeled data. To further investigate how conceptual knowledge Commonsense Inference Modeling (COMET). The second component of CAT produces triple-  improves commonsense inference modeling, we conduct more empirical analysis in Section 5.4. Additional experiment results with other thresholds and case studies can be found in Appendix C.2.3 and Appendix E, respectively. ## 5.3 Number Of Retrieved Alternative Conceptualizations And Instantiations. We then study the ablation of bootstrapping different numbers of alternative conceptualizations/instantiations (denoted as \#retrieval) in our CAT framework. For simplicity, when tuning the \#retrieval for one task, the \#retrieval of the other task is fixed at the best value we acquired. We plot the test AUC score with \#retrieval from 0 to 11 using BERT-base as the backbone model in Figure 3. \#retrieval=0 refers to training with a simple student-teacher framework without bootstrapping alternative conceptualizations and instantiations. For event conceptualization, the performance generally positively correlates with the number of retrievals, while it starts dropping after 9. A reversed trend is observed for triple conceptualization, where using only two instances achieves the best performance. One possible reason is that in triple conceptualization, the retrieved instances are events and much longer than the retrieved concepts in event conceptualization, and aggregating various alternative events for a triple will cause language models to be less sensitive to the semantics of the original triple (Holtzman et al., 2020). ## 5.4 The Effect Of Abstract Knowledge We finally study the effect of abstract commonsense knowledge acquired by CAT by studying the semantic overlaps between training and testing data. We sort the test set by the BERTScore (Zhang  et al., 2020b) between each individual testing entry against the whole training set in the original ATOMIC and split them in half to acquire two test groups. The testing entries with lower BERTScore on the training set indicate a larger semantic shift from the training set (Deutsch and Roth, 2021), which is also harder for models to discriminate (Hsu et al., 2020). We denote the testing group with a lower BERTScore as "Difficult" and the other half as "Easy". The performance gain on the two test set splits between the best conceptualization-aided COMET and the COMET trained on the ATOMIC subset only is reported in Figure 4. We can observe that training COMET with abstract commonsense knowledge leads to a larger improvement for harder test examples dissimilar from the original training set, indicating that introducing extra abstract commonsense knowledge can help COMET become more generalizable to harder test sets. ## 6 Conclusion In conclusion, this paper proposes CAT, a semisupervised learning framework for commonsense reasoning, by leveraging the power of abstract commonsense knowledge. By achieving state-of-theart performances in CSKB conceptualization tasks, we remarkably improve modeling commonsense inference, as an important cornerstone of many commonsense reasoning tasks. Our analysis also demonstrates that high-quality abstract commonsense knowledge can benefit commonsense inference modeling by providing more generalizability on hard commonsense knowledge. We hope this work can draw insights toward commonsense reasoning from a conceptualization perspective. ## Limitations Our framework manually sets thresholds T + and T− in pseudo labeling by observations of data quality and hyperparameter searching. Dynamic threshold tuning (Xu et al., 2021) or meta pseudo labels (Pham et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021) can be implemented to better filter pseudo-labeled examples. And the thresholds for different tasks can be tuned separately to improve the models' generalizability. Recently, large generative language models such as GPT3.5 (Brown et al., 2020) and ChatGPT2(Ouyang et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2022) have demonstrated their strong potential on various NLP tasks including probing abstract commonsense knowledge with in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2022). Due to our limited access, we did not conduct fully-scaled experiments in our paper. A short discussion with case studies is provided in Appendix E.3. While our framework only operates on AbstractATOMIC as the conceptualization of ATOMIC, it's also worthy of verifying our framework on other CSKBs such as ATOMIC2020 (Hwang et al., 2021), GLUCOSE (Mostafazadeh et al., 2020), ATOMIC10X (West et al., 2022), FolkScope (Yu et al., 2022a) and eventuality CSKB such as ASER (Zhang et al., 2020a, 2022) and constructing large conceptualized CSKB benchmarks. In addition, we only evaluated the power of the acquired abstract commonsense knowledge on the commonsense knowledge generation task (COMET), while other commonsense reasoning tasks remain future works (Wang et al., 2023a), such as COLA (Wang et al., 2023b), CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019, 2021), SocialIQA (Sap et al., 2019b), Winograd Schema Challenge (Levesque et al., 2012), PIQA (Bisk et al., 2020), Abductive Commonsense Reasoning (Bhagavatula et al., 2020), and Winogrande (Sakaguchi et al., 2020). ## Ethics Statement This paper introduces CAT, a framework for commonsense reasoning via conceptualizing CSKB to acquire abstract commonsense knowledge. The experiments are conducted on publicly available and well-established datasets that are shared via open-access licenses. The usage of these datasets in our paper is only for research purposes and is consistent with the datasets' intended usage. The primary dataset, AbstractATOMIC, largely shares the content with another CSKB, ATOMIC, which is anonymized and desensitized (Sap et al., 2019a). Thus, no data privacy issue is involved. The potential risks of CAT are relatively low. Since CAT is trained on AbstractATOMIC, a conceptualization benchmark based on a popular CSKB, ATOMIC, and two concept taxonomies, Proabse and WordNet, it is expected that CAT does not contain any private, offensive, biased, and sensitive information or social, political issues. The studied tasks all focus on conceptualization or CSKB, which is not likely to generate harmful content, as shown in the case studies in Appendix E. Thus, we believe that CAT does not yield additional risks. ## Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. The authors of this paper are supported by the NSFC Fund (U20B2053) from the NSFC of China, the RIF (R6020-19 and R6021-20), and the GRF (16211520 and 16205322) from RGC of Hong Kong, the MHKJFS (MHP/001/19) from ITC of Hong Kong and the National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFE0198200) with special thanks to HKMAAC and CUSBLT. We also thank the UGC Research Matching Grants (RMGS20EG01-D, RMGS20CR11, RMGS20CR12, RMGS20EG19, RMGS20EG21, RMGS23CR05, RMGS23EG08). ## References Emily Allaway, Jena D. Hwang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Kathleen Mckeown, Doug Downey, and Yejin Choi. 2023. Penguins don't fly: Reasoning about generics through instantiations and exceptions. In *Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 2610–2627, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mostafa M. Amin, Erik Cambria, and Björn W. Schuller. 2023. Will affective computing emerge from foundation models and general ai? A first evaluation on chatgpt. *CoRR*, abs/2303.03186. Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Chaitanya Malaviya, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Doug Downey, Wen-tau Yih, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Abductive commonsense reasoning. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Ning Bian, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, Hongyu Lin, Yaojie Lu, and Ben He. 2023. Chatgpt is a knowledgeable but inexperienced solver: An investigation of commonsense problem in large language models. *CoRR*, abs/2303.16421. Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le Bras, Jianfeng Gao, and Yejin Choi. 2020. PIQA: reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 7432– 7439. AAAI Press. Antoine Bosselut, Hannah Rashkin, Maarten Sap, Chaitanya Malaviya, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Yejin Choi. 2019. COMET: commonsense transformers for automatic knowledge graph construction. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 4762–4779. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andrew P. Bradley. 1997. The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. *Pattern Recognit.*, 30(7):1145–1159. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Susan Carey. 2004. Bootstrapping & the origin of concepts. *Daedalus*, 133(1):59–68. Chunkit Chan, Jiayang Cheng, Weiqi Wang, Yuxin Jiang, Tianqing Fang, Xin Liu, and Yangqiu Song. 2023. Chatgpt evaluation on sentence level relations: A focus on temporal, causal, and discourse relations. CoRR, abs/2304.14827. Muhao Chen, Hongming Zhang, Haoyu Wang, and Dan Roth. 2020. What are you trying to do? semantic typing of event processes. In Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, CoNLL 2020, Online, November 19-20, 2020, pages 531–542. Association for Computational Linguistics. Weile Chen, Huiqiang Jiang, Qianhui Wu, Börje Karlsson, and Yi Guan. 2021. Advpicker: Effectively leveraging unlabeled data via adversarial discriminator for cross-lingual NER. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 743–753. Association for Computational Linguistics. Eunsol Choi, Omer Levy, Yejin Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Ultra-fine entity typing. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 87–96. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. ELECTRA: pretraining text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. In *8th International Conference on* Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Hongliang Dai, Yangqiu Song, and Haixun Wang. 2021. Ultra-fine entity typing with weak supervision from a masked language model. In *Proceedings of the 59th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 1790–1799. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ernest Davis. 1990. *Representations of commonsense* knowledge. notThenot Morgan Kaufmann series in representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann. Ernest Davis and Gary Marcus. 2015. Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence. *Commun. ACM*, 58(9):92–103. Daniel Deutsch and Dan Roth. 2021. Understanding the extent to which content quality metrics measure the information quality of summaries. In *Proceedings* of the 25th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, CoNLL 2021, Online, November 10-11, 2021, pages 300–309. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. Li Du, Xiao Ding, Ting Liu, and Zhongyang Li. 2019. Modeling event background for if-then commonsense reasoning using context-aware variational autoencoder. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 2682– 2691. Association for Computational Linguistics. Benjamin Van Durme, Phillip Michalak, and Lenhart K. Schubert. 2009. Deriving generalized knowledge from corpora using wordnet abstraction. In EACL 2009, 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, Athens, Greece, March 30 - April 3, 2009, pages 808–816. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Tianqing Fang, Quyet V. Do, Sehyun Choi, Weiqi Wang, and Yangqiu Song. 2023. Ckbp v2: An expertannotated evaluation set for commonsense knowledge base population. *CoRR*, abs/2304.10392. Tianqing Fang, Quyet V. Do, Hongming Zhang, Yangqiu Song, Ginny Y. Wong, and Simon See. 2022. Pseudoreasoner: Leveraging pseudo labels for commonsense knowledge base population. In *Findings* of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 3379–3394. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianqing Fang, Weiqi Wang, Sehyun Choi, Shibo Hao, Hongming Zhang, Yangqiu Song, and Bin He. 2021a. Benchmarking commonsense knowledge base population with an effective evaluation dataset. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 711 November, 2021, pages 8949–8964. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianqing Fang, Hongming Zhang, Weiqi Wang, Yangqiu Song, and Bin He. 2021b. DISCOS: bridging the gap between discourse knowledge and commonsense knowledge. In WWW '21: The Web Conference 2021, Virtual Event / Ljubljana, Slovenia, April 19-23, 2021, pages 2648–2659. ACM / IW3C2. Leo Gao, John Schulman, and Jacob Hilton. 2022. Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization. *CoRR*, abs/2210.10760. Yu Gong, Kaiqi Zhao, and Kenny Qili Zhu. 2016. Representing verbs as argument concepts. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 12-17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pages 2615–2621. AAAI Press. Jonathan Gordon and Benjamin Van Durme. 2013. Reporting bias and knowledge acquisition. In Proceedings of the 2013 workshop on Automated knowledge base construction, AKBC@CIKM 13, San Francisco, California, USA, October 27-28, 2013, pages 25–30. ACM. Masato Hagiwara, Yasuhiro Ogawa, and Katsuhiko Toyama. 2006. Selection of effective contextual information for automatic synonym acquisition. In ACL 2006, 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, Sydney, Australia, 17-21 July 2006. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Mutian He, Tianqing Fang, Weiqi Wang, and Yangqiu Song. 2022. Acquiring and modelling abstract commonsense knowledge via conceptualization. *CoRR*, abs/2206.01532. Mutian He, Yangqiu Song, Kun Xu, and Dong Yu. 2020. On the role of conceptualization in commonsense knowledge graph construction. *CoRR*, abs/2003.03239. Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. DeBERTav3: Improving deBERTa using ELECTRAstyle pre-training with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023*. OpenReview.net. Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Deberta: decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In *9th International* Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2020. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Yen-Chang Hsu, Yilin Shen, Hongxia Jin, and Zsolt Kira. 2020. Generalized ODIN: detecting out-ofdistribution image without learning from out-ofdistribution data. In *2020 IEEE/CVF Conference* on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2020, Seattle, WA, USA, June 13-19, 2020, pages 10948–10957. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE. Zijian Hu, Zhengyu Yang, Xuefeng Hu, and Ram Nevatia. 2021. Simple: Similar pseudo label exploitation for semi-supervised classification. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021, pages 15099– 15108. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE. Luyao Huang, Chi Sun, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. Glossbert: BERT for word sense disambiguation with gloss knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 3507–3512. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jena D. Hwang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Jeff Da, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Antoine Bosselut, and Yejin Choi. 2021. (comet-) atomic 2020: On symbolic and neural commonsense knowledge graphs. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI* 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 6384–6392. AAAI Press. Ahmet Iscen, Giorgos Tolias, Yannis Avrithis, and Ondrej Chum. 2019. Label propagation for deep semisupervised learning. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2019, Long Beach, CA, USA, June 16-20, 2019, pages 5070– 5079. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. Alon Lavie and Abhaya Agarwal. 2007. METEOR: an automatic metric for MT evaluation with high levels of correlation with human judgments. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, WMT@ACL 2007, Prague, Czech Republic, June 23, 2007, pages 228–231. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hector J. Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgenstern. 2012. The winograd schema challenge. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference, KR 2012, Rome, Italy, June 10-14, 2012. AAAI Press. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7871–7880. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bangzheng Li, Wenpeng Yin, and Muhao Chen. 2022. Ultra-fine entity typing with indirect supervision from natural language inference. *Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics*, 10:607–622. Margaret Li, Stephen Roller, Ilia Kulikov, Sean Welleck, Y-Lan Boureau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Jason Weston. 2020. Don't say that! making inconsistent dialogue unlikely with unlikelihood training. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4715–4728. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zheng Li, Danqing Zhang, Tianyu Cao, Ying Wei, Yiwei Song, and Bing Yin. 2021. Metats: Meta teacherstudent network for multilingual sequence labeling with minimal supervision. In *Proceedings of the* 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 3183–3196. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In *Text Summarization Branches Out*, pages 74–81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fengbei Liu, Yu Tian, Yuanhong Chen, Yuyuan Liu, Vasileios Belagiannis, and Gustavo Carneiro. 2022a. ACPL: anti-curriculum pseudo-labelling for semi-supervised medical image classification. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022, pages 20665–20674. IEEE. Jiacheng Liu, Alisa Liu, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Peter West, Ronan Le Bras, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022b. Generated knowledge prompting for commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 3154– 3169. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jingping Liu, Tao Chen, Chao Wang, Jiaqing Liang, Lihan Chen, Yanghua Xiao, Yunwen Chen, and Ke Jin. 2022c. Vocsk: Verb-oriented commonsense knowledge mining with taxonomy-guided induction. Artif. Intell., 310:103744. Kun Liu, Yao Fu, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Songfang Huang, and Sheng Gao. 2021. Noisy-labeled NER with confidence estimation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 3437–3445. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. *CoRR*, abs/1907.11692. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *7th International* Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net. Chaitanya Malaviya, Chandra Bhagavatula, Antoine Bosselut, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Commonsense knowledge base completion with structural and semantic context. In *The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The* Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 2925–2933. AAAI Press. Yu Meng, Jiaming Shen, Chao Zhang, and Jiawei Han. 2019. Weakly-supervised hierarchical text classification. In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 6826–6833. AAAI Press. George A. Miller. 1995. Wordnet: A lexical database for english. *Commun. ACM*, 38(11):39–41. Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Aditya Kalyanpur, Lori Moon, David W. Buchanan, Lauren Berkowitz, Or Biran, and Jennifer Chu-Carroll. 2020. GLUCOSE: generalized and contextualized story explanations. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 4569– 4586. Association for Computational Linguistics. Gregory Murphy. 2004. *The big book of concepts*. MIT press. Kazumasa Omura, Daisuke Kawahara, and Sadao Kurohashi. 2020. A method for building a commonsense inference dataset based on basic events. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 2450–2460. Association for Computational Linguistics. OpenAI. 2022. Chatgpt: Optimizing language models for dialogue. *OpenAI*. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In *NeurIPS*. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, July 6-12, 2002, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pages 311–318. ACL. Hao Peng, Xiaozhi Wang, Shengding Hu, Hailong Jin, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Qun Liu. 2022. COPEN: probing conceptual knowledge in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 5015– 5035. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hieu Pham, Zihang Dai, Qizhe Xie, and Quoc V. Le. 2021. Meta pseudo labels. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021, pages 11557–11568. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE. Steven Pinker and B MacWhinney. 1987. The bootstrapping problem in language acquisition. Mechanisms of language acquisition, pages 399–441. Edoardo Maria Ponti, Goran Glavas, Olga Majewska, Qianchu Liu, Ivan Vulic, and Anna Korhonen. 2020. XCOPA: A multilingual dataset for causal commonsense reasoning. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 2362–2376. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ian Porada, Kaheer Suleman, Adam Trischler, and Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. 2021. Modeling event plausibility with consistent conceptual abstraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 1732–1743. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? *CoRR*, abs/2302.06476. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. *OpenAI* blog, 1(8):9. Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Explain yourself! leveraging language models for commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 4932–4942. Association for Computational Linguistics. Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8732– 8740. AAAI Press. Maarten Sap, Ronan Le Bras, Emily Allaway, Chandra Bhagavatula, Nicholas Lourie, Hannah Rashkin, Brendan Roof, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019a. ATOMIC: an atlas of machine commonsense for if-then reasoning. In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 3027–3035. AAAI Press. Maarten Sap, Hannah Rashkin, Derek Chen, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2019b. Social iqa: Commonsense reasoning about social interactions. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 4462–4472. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maarten Sap, Vered Shwartz, Antoine Bosselut, Yejin Choi, and Dan Roth. 2020. Commonsense reasoning for natural language processing. In *Proceedings of* the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Tutorial Abstracts, ACL 2020, Online, July 5, 2020, pages 27–33. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vered Shwartz, Peter West, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Unsupervised commonsense question answering with self-talk. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 4615– 4629. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yangqiu Song, Haixun Wang, Zhongyuan Wang, Hongsong Li, and Weizhu Chen. 2011. Short text conceptualization using a probabilistic knowledgebase. In IJCAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, July 16-22, 2011, pages 2330– 2336. IJCAI/AAAI. Yangqiu Song, Shusen Wang, and Haixun Wang. 2015. Open domain short text conceptualization: A generative + descriptive modeling approach. In *Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015, Buenos* Aires, Argentina, July 25-31, 2015, pages 3820–3826. AAAI Press. Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In *Proceedings of the Thirty-First* AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 4-9, 2017, San Francisco, California, USA, pages 4444–4451. AAAI Press. Ying Su, Zihao Wang, Tianqing Fang, Hongming Zhang, Yangqiu Song, and Tong Zhang. 2022. MICO: A multi-alternative contrastive learning framework for commonsense knowledge representation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 1339–1351, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149–4158. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alon Talmor, Ori Yoran, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yoav Goldberg, Yejin Choi, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Commonsenseqa 2.0: Exposing the limits of AI through gamification. In *Proceedings of* the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021, December 2021, virtual. Joshua B Tenenbaum, Charles Kemp, Thomas L Griffiths, and Noah D Goodman. 2011. How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. *science*, 331(6022):1279–1285. Jesper E. van Engelen and Holger H. Hoos. 2020. A survey on semi-supervised learning. *Mach. Learn.*, 109(2):373–440. Ramakrishna Vedantam, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. 2015. Cider: Consensus-based image description evaluation. In *IEEE Conference on Computer* Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2015, Boston, MA, USA, June 7-12, 2015, pages 4566–4575. IEEE Computer Society. Kexin Wang, Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, and Iryna Gurevych. 2022. GPL: generative pseudo labeling for unsupervised domain adaptation of dense retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 2345–2360. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peifeng Wang, Filip Ilievski, Muhao Chen, and Xiang Ren. 2021. Do language models perform generalizable commonsense inference? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 3681–3688. Association for Computational Linguistics. Weiqi Wang, Tianqing Fang, Wenxuan Ding, Baixuan Xu, Xin Liu, Yangqiu Song, and Antoine Bosselut. 2023a. CAR: conceptualization-augmented reasoner for zero-shot commonsense question answering. *CoRR*, abs/2305.14869. Zhaowei Wang, Quyet V. Do, Hongming Zhang, Jiayao Zhang, Weiqi Wang, Tianqing Fang, Yangqiu Song, Ginny Y. Wong, and Simon See. 2023b. COLA: contextualized commonsense causal reasoning from the causal inference perspective. *CoRR*, abs/2305.05191. Peter West, Chandra Bhagavatula, Jack Hessel, Jena D. Hwang, Liwei Jiang, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Symbolic knowledge distillation: from general language models to commonsense models. In *Proceedings of the* 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 4602– 4625. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, EMNLP 2020 - Demos, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 38–45. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wentao Wu, Hongsong Li, Haixun Wang, and Kenny Qili Zhu. 2012. Probase: a probabilistic taxonomy for text understanding. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2012, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, May 20-24, 2012, pages 481–492. ACM. Huiru Xiao, Xin Liu, and Yangqiu Song. 2019. Efficient path prediction for semi-supervised and weakly supervised hierarchical text classification. In The World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2019, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 13-17, 2019, pages 3370–3376. ACM. Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard H. Hovy, Thang Luong, and Quoc Le. 2020a. Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training. In *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Qizhe Xie, Minh-Thang Luong, Eduard H. Hovy, and Quoc V. Le. 2020b. Self-training with noisy student improves imagenet classification. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2020, Seattle, WA, USA, June 13-19, 2020, pages 10684–10695. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE. Sang Michael Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2022. An explanation of in-context learning as implicit bayesian inference. In *The Tenth* International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net. Yi Xu, Lei Shang, Jinxing Ye, Qi Qian, Yu-Feng Li, Baigui Sun, Hao Li, and Rong Jin. 2021. Dash: Semisupervised learning with dynamic thresholding. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of *Proceedings of Machine* Learning Research, pages 11525–11536. PMLR. Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. 2019. KG-BERT: BERT for knowledge graph completion. CoRR, abs/1909.03193. Changlong Yu, Jialong Han, Peifeng Wang, Yangqiu Song, Hongming Zhang, Wilfred Ng, and Shuming Shi. 2020. When hearst is not enough: Improving hypernymy detection from corpus with distributional models. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6208–6217. Association for Computational Linguistics. Changlong Yu, Weiqi Wang, Xin Liu, Jiaxin Bai, Yangqiu Song, Zheng Li, Yifan Gao, Tianyu Cao, and Bing Yin. 2022a. Folkscope: Intention knowledge graph construction for discovering e-commerce commonsense. *CoRR*, abs/2211.08316. Changlong Yu, Hongming Zhang, Yangqiu Song, and Wilfred Ng. 2022b. Cocolm: Complex commonsense enhanced language model with discourse relations. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May* 22-27, 2022, pages 1175–1187. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hongming Zhang, Xin Liu, Haojie Pan, Haowen Ke, Jiefu Ou, Tianqing Fang, and Yangqiu Song. 2022. ASER: towards large-scale commonsense knowledge acquisition via higher-order selectional preference over eventualities. *Artif. Intell.*, 309:103740. Hongming Zhang, Xin Liu, Haojie Pan, Yangqiu Song, and Cane Wing-Ki Leung. 2020a. ASER: A largescale eventuality knowledge graph. In WWW '20: The Web Conference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 2024, 2020, pages 201–211. ACM / IW3C2. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020b. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In *8th International Conference on Learning Representations,* ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. ## Appendices A Dataset Description In this section, we introduce more about AbstractATOMIC (He et al., 2022), as the primary dataset we experimented with. AbstractATOMIC is a conceptualized commonsense knowledge benchmark that is built upon ATOMIC (Sap et al., 2019a), a popular CSKB in the format of (*h, r, t*) triples. The dataset is entirely in English. It contains two parts of data: (1) event conceptualization data and (2) abstract knowledge triples conceptualization data. The event conceptualization data contain conceptualizations for head event instances, where the events are filtered from the original ATOMIC head events. Unlike the traditional entity concept taxonomies, where instances are nouns or verb phrases, AbstractATOMIC includes instance candidates that can be either the entire head event or a certain component of an event. Detailed examples can be found in Appendix E. The instances within each head event are identified through syntactic parsing by using a parser from the spaCy 3library and matching with five human-defined rules. After identification, the candidate instances will be heuristically matched against Probase (Wu et al., 2012) and WordNet (Miller, 1995) via GlossBERT (Huang et al., 2019) to acquire their candidate concepts. A neural generator based on GPT2, similar to the baseline in this paper, is also trained to generate concepts. A supervised conceptualization verifier, based on RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), is trained as the final gatekeeper to verify the acquired concepts roughly. | D h | D | | | |------------------------|--------|--------|--------| | l | h | Total | | | u | | | | | #Unq. event | 7,196 | 15,165 | 15,388 | | #Unq. instance | 7,935 | 20,843 | 21,493 | | #Unq. concept | 20,036 | 20,367 | 31,227 | | Avg. #concept/event | 18.21 | 24.57 | 32.73 | | Avg. #concept/instance | 16.51 | 17.88 | 23.43 | Table 5: Additional statistics of the event conceptualization data in AbstractATOMIC (AbsATM). Dlh stands for annotated event conceptualizations and Du h are unverified conceptualizations. \# denotes "number of", Unq stands for unique, and Avg is average. Human annotations on the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform are further conducted to acquire annotations on the correctness of 131K conceptu-3https://spacy.io/ alizations of 7K ATOMIC events. All conceptualizations that are not annotated are regarded as unlabeled data in this paper. More detailed statistics for the head event conceptualization data can be found in Table 5. After acquiring the event conceptualizations by only focusing on head events, abstract commonsense knowledge, in the form of (*h, r, t*) triple, is collected by connecting conceptualized head event with its non-abstract counterparts (commonsense relations and inference tails) from ATOMIC. Only the head events contain abstract concepts. Thus, these abstract triples are more generalized if-then commonsense knowledge that is potentially useful for commonsense reasoning through instantiation. Human annotations on Amazon Mechanical Turk further verify 81K uniformly sampled abstract triples. These triples only correspond to 689 unique ATOMIC head events, which makes annotations relatively scarce compared with the scale of unlabeled data. A supervised RoBERTalarge verifier is trained on the annotated triples to roughly verify abstract triples that are not annotated. Triples with scores higher than 0.9 are pseudo-labeled as positive ones (He et al., 2022). However, this paper only leverages these pseudolabeled examples in the commonsense inference generation task (COMET) as baselines. Only annotated triples are considered hard-labeled for all other tasks concerned. And triples that are not annotated are treated as unlabeled by default. The detailed relational distribution of abstract triples is presented in Table 6. Examples can be found in Appendix E. | l | u | u | | | |----------|---------|--------|-----------|------------| | Relation | ATOMIC | D t | D t | D Abs.ATM. | | xEffect | 78,832 | 12,168 | 938,330 | 451,564 | | oEffect | 28,351 | 3,526 | 333,845 | 160,207 | | xWant | 101,249 | 15,312 | 1,170,835 | 543,964 | | oWant | 43,079 | 5,408 | 484,570 | 227,493 | | xReact | 62,969 | 8,923 | 510,476 | 288,019 | | oReact | 26,570 | 3,030 | 224,706 | 126,386 | | xNeed | 74,272 | 11,733 | 900,429 | 425,060 | | xAttr | 110,791 | 14,249 | 838,191 | 465,511 | | xIntent | 45,490 | 6,848 | 519,813 | 259,694 | | Total | 572,053 | 81,197 | 5,921,195 | 2,947,898 | Table 6: Abstract commonsense triple distribution by relations. Dlt stands for annotated triples and Du t are unverified triples. DuAbs.ATM. stands for abstract triples verified by a supervised RoBERTa-large discriminator, as done by He et al. (2022). ## B Prompt Design In this section, we introduce the textual prompts used for training various models. For event conceptualization, denotes the original event as ho, instance as i, target concept to be verified as c, and retrieved alternative conceptualizations as cr,1, cr,2, cr,3, ..., cr,m. The prompt for training the teacher model is "[CLS] ho [SEP] c", while the one for training the student model is "[CLS] ho [SEP] c [SEP] cr,1, cr,2, cr,3, ..., cr,m". For the example in Figure 2, the filled prompt is "PersonX is on vacation [SEP] relaxing event [SEP] traveling, break, holiday." Specifically, special tokens <c> and </c> are used to enclose i ⊂ ho within the original event to highlight the instance to be conceptualized. GPT2 generators use similar prompts, with the difference that [SOS] and [EOS] special tokens are inserted to denote the start and end of the sentence, respectively. For triple conceptualization, denotes the head, relation, and tail of an abstract commonsense triple as (*h, r, t*), the abstract concept in the conceptualized head as c ⊂ h, and retrieved instantiations as er,1, er,2, er,3, ..., er,n. The prompt for training generally follows the one used by He et al. (2022). For the teacher model, "[CLS], h1, ..., h|h|, [SEP], [r], [SEP], t1, ..., t|t|" is used as the prompt. Similarly, student models are trained with a prompt "[CLS], h1, ..., h|h| [SEP] [r] [SEP] t1, ..., t|t| [SEP] er,1, er,2, er,3, ..., er,n". A filled example by using the case in Figure 2 is "relaxing event [SEP] because PersonX wanted [SEP] have fun [SEP] PersonX joins party, go on a holiday, Take a break." The commonsense relation within each triple is translated into human-readable text, as shown in Table 7. | Relation | Human Readable Text | |------------|-------------------------------------| | xEffect | as a result, PersonX will | | oEffect | as a result, PersonY or others will | | xWant | as a result, PersonX want | | oWant | as a result, PersonY or others want | | xReact | as a result, PersonX feel | | oReact | as a result, PersonY or others feel | | xIntent | because PersonX wanted | | xNeed | before that, PersonX needed | | xAttr | PersonX is described as | The generative event conceptualization by GPT2 generators uses "[SOS] ho [SEP] i [GEN]" as the input template, where [GEN] indicates the special token for generation. Commonsense inference modeling uses the same prompt as done by Hwang et al. (2021); Fang et al. (2021b). In addition, we observe that adding special tokens such as <c> and </c> can effectively boost performance. But adding textual guidelines such as "is an instance of" or "is a concept of" does not have any positive effect. The same trend is observed for the bootstrapping prompt, where adding external texts such as "is also instances of" or "can be instantiated to" will harm the model significantly. ## C Additional Experiments In this section, we present additional details and experiment results for CSKB conceptualization tasks (Appendix C.1) and applications, as well as evaluations, of CAT (Appendix C.2) that are not covered in the paper due to limited space. ## C.1 Cskb Conceptualization C.1.1 Baselines For supervised learning baselines of both discriminative conceptualization tasks, KG-BERT (Yao et al., 2019) is adapted as the skeleton of our baseline models. For BART, we use the embedding of the end-of-sentence token in the decoder as the representation of the input sequence. For other models, the embedding of the [CLS] token is used as the representation vector. Linear layers are appropriately appended after the encoder model to perform text classification. For the semi-supervised baselines, we provide additional explanations for different methods: UDA. In the original paper of UDA (Xie et al., 2020a), two data augmentation methods, backtranslation and TF-IDF replacement, are implemented for unsupervised data augmentation. We leverage both methods in our conceptualization tasks as two different baselines. For the triple conceptualization task, we follow the same setting as proposed in PseudoReasoner (Fang et al., 2022). The back-translation method translates the original corpus from English to French and then translates it back. Special replacements are taken to avoid the influence of special tokens. Meanwhile, the TF-IDF method uses a probability of 0.1 to replace the original corpus according to its TF-IDF score. For the event conceptualization task, we concatenate the head event and its annotated concept into one new sentence and then feed it into the model. For the unlabeled conceptualizations, we enclose the instance and concept with special tokens <c> and </c>, which is the same as our framework, and then use back translation or TF-IDF to generate the augmented data. The input for triple conceptualization follows a similar way as supervised baselines. It is observed that these special tokens will not affect the translation significantly as they will be preserved in the translation output. Last but not least, the model θ is trained on a mixture of annotated data x1 and augmented data x2 by using the consistency training loss, as shown in Equation 2. $$J(\theta)=\mathbb{E}_{x1\sim P_{L}(x)}[-\log p_{\theta}(y_{1}|x_{1})]+$$ $$\lambda\mathbb{E}_{x2\sim P_{U}(x)}\mathbb{E}_{\hat{x}\sim q(\hat{x}|x_{2})}[CE(p_{\tilde{\theta}}(y|x_{2})||p_{\theta}(y|\hat{x})]\tag{2}$$ NoisyStudent. Noisy Student (Xie et al., 2020b) is an iterative training method that leverages a teacher-student paradigm. The teacher model is first trained on annotated data. It is then asked to make predictions on the unlabeled data as pseudolabels. Then, another student model with an equal or larger number of parameters is trained with a mixture of annotated and pseudo-labeled data. Note that pseudo labels, in numerical values, are directly used as the targeting labels. The trained student model will serve as a new teacher and re-label the unlabeled data again to yield a better prediction. In our implementation, dropout or dynamic model depth is introduced as noise to the model. All models θ are trained with standard cross-entropy loss, as shown in Equation 1. We set the dropout probability to 0.5, as it leads to the fastest convergence on our data. Only one iteration is completed in our experiment, as that's when the student model reaches its best result. PseudoReasoner. PseudoReasoner (Fang et al., 2022) is another iterative semi-supervised learning framework that is proposed to tackle Commonsense Knowledge Base Population (CKBP) task (Fang et al., 2021a, 2023). It leverages a similar teacher-student paradigm and a novel filtering mechanism with the assistance of the student model. We replaced the generative teacher model with a DeBERTa-v3-large model due to the disastrous performance that GPT2 achieved on both verification tasks. Similar to CAT, two thresholds, T + = 0.9 and T− = 0.1, are determined to assign pseudo-labels to unlabeled data based on the prediction of the teacher model. The rest steps remain the same as described in the original paper. Similar to NoisyStudent, only one iteration is carried out for PseudoReasoner as the student model converges to the best. ## C.1.2 Settings We use pretrained language models from the Huggingface Transformers4 Library (Wolf et al., 2020) to build our framework. The learning rate for all models is set as 5e-6, and the batch size is 64. We use an AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) optimizer and evaluate the model every 25 steps. The max sequence length for the tokenizer is set to 25 and 35 for both discriminative tasks, respectively. Due to the imbalanced dataset, we evaluate the discriminative models with Area Under Curve (AUC) score (Bradley, 1997). Early stopping is used where the best checkpoint is selected when the largest validation AUC is achieved. All experiments are repeated three times using different random seeds, and the average performances and standard deviations are reported. In addition, we set the probability thresholds for both tasks to T + = 0.9 and T− = 0.1 to determine the pseudo labels. The thresholds are roughly derived by observing the overall distribution and quality of data satisfying the respective threshold. For the bootstrapping method, we bootstrap m = 9 additional concepts for event conceptualization verification and n = 2 additional instances for abstract triple verification. Detailed ablation studies are provided in Section 5.3. As for the computational infrastructure, the models are trained and evaluated on four NVIDIA RTX3090 (24G) and four NVIDIA 1080Ti (12G) graphical cards. The number of parameters for every model is reported in Table 11. ## C.1.3 Additional Experiment Results The full experiment results for discriminative CSKB conceptualization tasks are reported in Table 11. All supervised learning baselines achieve comparable results as reported by He et al. (2022). Supervised CAT will be discussed later. The results by semi-supervised CAT are generally consistent with our findings as discussed in Section 5.1. To study the effect of different components and the training regime of CAT, we conduct more detailed ablation studies in Appendix C.1.4. ## C.1.4 Ablation Study In this section, we study the effects of different components in CAT and the training strategy of 4https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers CAT. These studies indicate that our framework design and the proposed bootstrapping method play an important role in CSKB conceptualization and are more effective than leveraging unlabeled data with pseudo labels. Framework Components. Our CAT framework consists of three critical components that make CAT different from traditional semi-supervised baselines. They are denoted as: - Bootstrapping: Assist the training of student models by retrieving alternative conceptualizations and instantiations and bootstrapping them via natural language prompts. Dropping this component will train student models with the original textual prompts that are also used by the teacher models. - CAT Cycle: Unite event and triple conceptualization tasks by assigning negative pseudo labels to abstract triples whose conceptualized head is predicted as wrong conceptualization. Dropping this component will separate the framework into two lines of training, which are training event conceptualization and triple conceptualization models separately. - Pseudo-label refinement: Refine the pseudo labels with the latest student models and re-train the student models. Dropping this component will not update any pseudo label and will not re-train the student model. | Models | Event. | Triple. | |-------------------------------|----------|-----------| | CAT (BERT-base) | 87.4 | 76.3 | | ⋄ w/o Bootstrapping | 83.1 | 73.0 | | ⋄ w/o CAT Cycle | 86.5 | 75.1 | | ⋄ w/o Pseudo-label Refinement | 87.4 | 76.2 | | CAT (DeBERTa-v3-large) | 89.2 | 80.0 | | ⋄ w/o Bootstrapping | 84.0 | 77.7 | | ⋄ w/o CAT Cycle | 88.1 | 79.0 | | ⋄ w/o Pseudo-label Refinement | 89.1 | 79.7 | We then conduct ablation studies regarding these three components with semi-supervised CAT to prove the effectiveness of our framework design and proposed bootstrapping method. Each component is removed separately, and the test set performances by student models are reported. The results are shown in Table 8. From the results, bootstrapping alternative conceptualization and instantiation leads to the largest performance gain. Bridging event conceptualization discrimination with triple conceptualization also causes slight improvements. However, refining the pseudo labels and re-train the student models have barely any effect. Thus, our bootstrapping method is the most important component within the entire CAT framework and can effectively assist in learning conceptual knowledge. Supervised CAT. We further study training CAT in a supervised learning setting to examine the role of unlabeled data. In supervised CAT, no teacher models are trained to provide pseudo labels. The alternative conceptualizations and instantiations are retrieved directly from the annotated event conceptualization data and bootstrapped later. Two student models are trained on the bootstrapped data only and evaluated on the same testing set, and the results are reported in Table 11. Compared with supervised learning baselines, supervised CAT can achieve a comparable result on the event conceptualization task. This may be due to the fact that the diversity of concepts drops without considering unlabeled conceptualizations. Improvements in the triple conceptualization task are more significant, and the results are comparable with semisupervised CAT. This indicates that our framework design and bootstrapping method are successful in discriminating high-quality abstract commonsense knowledge, and leveraging a semi-supervised learning paradigm benefits more in event conceptualization discrimination. ## C.2 Application And Evaluation Of Cat C.2.1 Settings Pretrained GPT2 models from the Huggingface Transformers Library and training codes5 by Hwang et al. (2021) are used as our code base. The learning rate for all experiments is set to 1e5, and the batch size is fixed to 64. We use an Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) optimizer and evaluate the model every 20 steps. The input and output lengths for GPT2 models are fixed at 45 and 55 for the two application and evaluation tasks, respectively. Such length settings can cover all annotated conceptualizations and triples. For both generative experiments, we evaluate the generations with BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), METEOR (Lavie and Agarwal, 2007), ROUGE-L (Lin, 2004), and 5https://github.com/allenai/comet-atomic-2020 CIDEr (Vedantam et al., 2015) scores. However, since an abstract concept usually contains one or two tokens, we only report BLEU1 and BLEU2 scores for the generative event conceptualization task. Early stopping is also applied where the best checkpoint is selected when the minimum autoregressive LM loss is achieved. In addition, we notice that the number of triples from the ATOMIC subset is much smaller than abstract triples for the commonsense inference modeling task. Thus, we upsample the ATOMIC subset by a ratio of 1:2 across all experiments to guarantee a consistent and balanced number of training data. For generative event conceptualization, the training data is simply a mixture of annotated and pseudo-labeled event conceptualizations without any balancing measure. All the models are trained and evaluated on four NVIDIA RTX A6000 graphical cards with 48G memory. The number of parameters is close to the number of parameters in GPT2-XL, which is reported in Table 11. ## C.2.2 Annotation Settings When evaluating the event conceptualization generator, expert annotations are conducted to evaluate concepts that are not presented in the training set. Crowdsourced platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk are not used since experts understand conceptualization better and are more reliable for evaluation. Subsequently, the authors of this paper are invited to serve as expert annotators. They are experienced in NLP research and clearly understand the paper's scope. The annotation guideline is carefully designed. Each question presents the original head event with the instance highlighted and the corresponding conceptualization candidate to be annotated. There are also several positive and negative conceptualizations attached as examples. The authors are well-informed about the instruction and the intended use of their annotations in this paper. And they all agreed to annotate as part of their contributions. Moreover, in order to ensure that the expert will not deliberately raise the plausible rate of a certain set of annotation candidates, we randomly shuffle all the data and invite one more expert to cross-validate the annotations. These measures can ensure that the annotation process is free of ethical concerns and justifiable. ## C.2.3 Additional Experiment Results We conduct a more comprehensive study on the commonsense inference generation task by experi-  menting with the effect of threshold tuning when filtering abstract commonsense knowledge. Multiple thresholds ranging from 0.5 to 0.995 are experimented with to derive abstract commonsense knowledge of different qualities. COMET (GPT2- XL) generators are fine-tuned on the ATOMIC subset, augmented by a mixture of annotated and pseudo-labeled abstract triples. The performance curve according to the threshold is plotted in Figure 5. Full version results with all metrics are reported in Table 19. It can be observed that gradually increasing the threshold from 0.75 will lead to better performance, which may be due to the improvement in data quality. However, increasing the threshold over 0.95 will cause a performance drop. One possible reason is the amount of pseudolabeled triples significantly drops with a relatively high threshold, and COMET fails to learn well from annotated triples only. Using the CAT framework to pseudo-label unlabeled abstract triples leads to better performance than leveraging a RoBERTalarge supervised discriminator to assign pseudolabels, which also validates the reliability of the triple conceptualization discriminator in CAT. Also, it is noticeable that training COMET with triples based on our constructed ATOMIC subset is much worse than training with the full ATOMIC dataset. This indicates that exposing the model with substantial factual commonsense knowledge is still important, and only equipping the model with abstract commonsense knowledge is not enough for commonsense inference modeling. ## D Computational Cost Analysis In this section, we compare the number of training data used for both CSKB conceptualization tasks to compare the computational cost across different frameworks and methodologies empirically. Both annotated and pseudo-labeled data are counted. The comparison result is presented in Table 9. All semi-supervised learning methods leverage a significant amount of unlabeled data due to the great scarcity of annotations. With threshold filterings, PseudoReasoner (Fang et al., 2022) and our CAT framework can abandon more than half of pseudo examples with poor quality. Even though our CAT framework can still outperform PseudoReasoner and achieve the best performance among all methods. Additionally, there is no notable increase in the number of model parameters as CAT also applies a teacher-student paradigm that is similar to Noisy-Student and PseudoReasoner. Even compared with the supervised baselines, CAT only doubles the parameters used. In conclusion, with comparable training data and parameters against other baselines, CAT can achieve much better results and state-of-the-art performances. | Method | Event. | Triple. | Total | |----------------------|----------|-----------|-----------| | Supervised Baselines | 107,384 | 65,386 | 172,770 | | UDA | 412,367 | 4,916,658 | 5,329,025 | | Noisy-Student | 412,367 | 4,916,658 | 5,329,025 | | PseudoReasoner | 316,601 | 1,727,865 | 2,044,466 | | CAT | 317,507 | 1,595,411 | 1,912,918 | Table 9: Comparison between the number of training data for discriminative event conceptualization (Event.) and triple conceptualization (Triple.) tasks. ## E Case Studies This section contains case studies of the four tasks we studied in this paper, including CSKB conceptualization tasks and applications of CAT. Throughout these cases, we would like to offer a clearer view of the data, discuss the challenges of the conceptualization task, and provide brief error analyses. ## E.1 Cskb Conceptualization Event Conceptualization. For discriminative event conceptualization, the case study is shown in Table 15. From these cases, it can be observed that several instances i can be identified within one head event ho, and each of them can be conceptualized in multiple ways. Formally, assume we are conceptualizing m events, each with n instances. And each instance i concerned can be conceptualized as p concepts. Each concept takes the majority vote of q annotators to verify. Subsequently, the number of annotations needed is O(*mnpq*), which grows significantly if we conceptualize a commonsense knowledge base at scale. Thus, it is extremely infeasible for practitioners to annotate all of the conceptualizations for verification, which also highlights the importance of a reliable discriminative conceptualization model as CAT acquired. Semi-supervised learning is also an ideal training strategy, as there is a considerable amount of unlabeled data. Analyzing the errors made by our discriminator, we observe that models frequently make errors when the instance contains the word "PersonX," which could be caused by the reporting bias (Gordon and Durme, 2013), as "PersonX" is seldom used in normal natural language texts. Replacing the subjects with commonly used names such as "Alex, Bob" may alleviate such a problem. Additionally, models make errors on some rarely seen concepts, such as "organ," "cognitive ability," and "side effect." Their absence from training data can partially cause this, as CSKB, like ATOMIC, may not cover many instances under those rarely used concepts. Triple Conceptualization. For triple conceptualization discrimination, case studies are shown in Table 17. Similar to the analysis above, consider m events with n instances, each instance with p concepts. Assume that every ATOMIC head event has t relation and tail tuples as its counterpart, and q votes are required from annotators. The total number of annotations is O(*mnptq*) for verifying all abstract commonsense triples, which is also huge compared with the total number of original commonsense triples. The errors are mainly due to the loss of contextualization within the original head events, as conceptualized head events with too high abstractness are likely to omit salient properties. For example, conceptualizing "watching a scary movie" as "watching movie" will lose the property "scary," which further leads to a wrong abstract commonsense knowledge if the tail is "feel scared." This also highlights the importance of verifying the plausibility of abstract commonsense knowledge that heavily relies on both the contextualization brought by *r, t* and the conceptualization of the head event. Meanwhile, we observe that the models tend to make a neutral decision (plausibility score close to 0.5) when encountering the situation of conceptualizing an entire event as a concept with high-level abstractness. Indeed, they are more difficult abstract commonsense knowledge for machines to learn, as a higher level of abstractness leads to more possible instantiations and commonsense inferences. ## E.2 Appliaction Of Cat Generative Event Conceptualization. The examples are shown in Table 16. Generated conceptualizations are generally plausible, given the head event as the context. Specifically, we observe that neural generators are more sensitive to the instance and its context, as heuristic matching may conceptualize "sleeping at night" and "having trouble sleeping at night" as "sleeping". In contrast, neural generators can distinguish these two instances clearly by conceptualizing them as "sleep" and "sleep disorder". One potential weakness of neural generators is that the generated conceptualizations lack diversity and novelty (Du et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021), as they tend to be semantically close to the targeting conceptualizations in the training samples. Nevertheless, it still offers a reliable and simplified approach to performing contextualized conceptualization without tedious matching and human annotations. Such results also validate the reliability of our discriminative event conceptualization model, as the pseudo-labeled conceptualizations tend to be of high quality. ## Commonsense Inference Modeling (Comet). Generations from COMET that are only trained on the ATOMIC subset, possibly augmented by abstract commonsense triples, are compared in Table 18. From these generations, we can observe that the abstract commonsense knowledge-aided COMET generator can generate tail events that are most plausible and generalizable compared with the one only trained on ATOMIC. It generally supports our hypothesis that abstract commonsense knowledge may implicitly help model situational commonsense inference, even without the instantiation step. In addition, this also validates that our automatically derived abstract knowledge is reliable and helpful, which also proves the reliability of our triple conceptualization discriminator. ## E.3 Conceptualization By Large Language Models With the recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT3.5 (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022) and ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022), on various NLP tasks (Qin et al., 2023; Bian et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2023; Amin et al., 2023), we also aim to explore ChatGPT's conceptualization ability through case studies. To do so, we investigate ChatGPT's performance on three conceptualization tasks: discriminative event conceptualization, discriminative triple conceptualization, and generative event conceptualization, all of which are defined in Section 3. We randomly sample data entries from AbstractATOMIC and prompt ChatGPT with natural language commands to perform various tasks. The prompts used for performing these tasks are listed in Table 10. Specifically, we use OpenAI's API6to prompt ChatGPT and retrieve its generations. The case studies for three tasks are presented in Table 12, Table 13, and Table 14, respectively. These demonstrate ChatGPT's strong conceptualization abilities in both discriminative and generative manners. While ChatGPT can accurately determine most event conceptualizations and abstract commonsense knowledge, it still makes some mistakes. This highlights the value of training a performant discriminator through CAT, as it can effectively detect incorrect conceptualizations and implausible abstract commonsense knowledge. Additionally, ChatGPT tends to conceptualize instances using synonyms (Hagiwara et al., 2006) and hypernyms (Yu et al., 2020) and paraphrased or explained terms rather than higher-level concepts. This underscores the importance of our event conceptualization generator, which can generate precise, concise event conceptualizations. In conclusion, our work holds significant value in the realm of commonsense reasoning through conceptualization, particularly in light of the rise of large language models. | Task | Prompt Given the | event <event>, can | the <instance> be | conceptualized | as | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------|------------------|------| | Discriminative Event Conceptualization | <concept>? Only answer yes or no without any other words. You are forced to make a decision. Given a commonsense knowledge triple, <head, relation, tail>, is this | | | | | | Discriminative Triple Conceptualization | knowledge plausible or not? | Only answer yes or no without any | | | | | other word. You are forced to make a decision. Given the event <event>, what are possible conceptualizations of | | | | | | | Generative Event Conceptualization | <instance>? Only list out five short conceptualizations, and do not provide explanations. | | | | | Table 10: Natural language prompts used to instruct ChatGPT to perform specific tasks. Words in italics and enclosed by brackets indicate inputs replaced by sampled data entries. Restrictive commands are appended at the end to ensure ChatGPT executes the task as intended. | Framework | Backbone PTLM / Method | Event Conceptualization | Triple Conceptualization | | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------|-----------|-----------| | Validation | Testing | Validation | Testing | | | | BERT-base 110M | 82.4±0.05 | 82.5±0.31 | 71.2±0.58 | 72.6±0.71 | | | BERT-large 340M | 82.8±0.48 | 83.1±0.80 | 72.4±0.01 | 73.7±0.00 | | | BART-base 139M | 83.8±0.28 | 84.4±0.32 | 72.0±0.09 | 72.6±0.15 | | | BART-large 406M | 85.0±0.13 | 85.2±0.22 | 74.5±0.13 | 76.2±0.19 | | | RoBERTa-base 110M | 84.1±0.04 | 84.5±0.19 | 72.2±0.00 | 74.1±0.00 | | | RoBERTa-large 340M | 85.2±0.24 | 85.5±0.02 | 75.3±0.00 | 76.9±0.01 | | | DeBERTa-v3-base 214M | 85.1±0.08 | 85.8±0.07 | 73.9±0.10 | 75.9±0.04 | | | DeBERTa-v3-large 435M | 85.8±0.05 | 86.2±0.15 | 76.9±0.03 | 78.0±0.02 | | | ELECTRA-base 110M | 85.4±0.05 | 85.8±0.02 | 74.3±0.27 | 76.2±0.12 | | | ELECTRA-large 340M | 84.7±0.47 | 85.3±0.38 | 75.6±0.01 | 77.9±0.06 | | | GPT2-base 117M | 60.0±0.06 | 59.1±0.14 | 52.8±0.14 | 55.9±0.11 | | | GPT2-medium 345M | 61.2±0.11 | 60.3±0.08 | 54.6±0.17 | 57.4±0.09 | | | GPT2-large 774M | 64.1±0.05 | 62.7±0.08 | 60.5±0.11 | 59.8±0.06 | | | GPT2-XL 1558M | 64.2±0.19 | 63.6±0.22 | 62.2±0.08 | 61.5±0.10 | | | Supervised Learning | UDA (TF-IDF) | 83.6±0.29 | 83.6±0.24 | 75.8±1.26 | 76.8±1.34 | | UDA (back-trans.) | 83.4±0.27 | 83.6±0.24 | 75.8±1.25 | 76.8±1.34 | | | Noisy-Student | 86.4±0.05 | 86.5±0.09 | 75.4±0.64 | 76.7±0.59 | | | PseudoReasoner (BERT-base) | 83.3±0.11 | 84.0±0.24 | 73.0±0.14 | 74.1±0.33 | | | PseudoReasoner (RoBERTa-large) | 86.6±0.25 | 86.7±0.33 | 76.3±0.12 | 77.2±0.21 | | | Semi-Supervised Learning | BERT-base 110M | 83.9±0.42 | 84.5±0.43 | 73.4±0.32 | 73.3±0.23 | | BERT-large 340M | 82.8±0.48 | 83.1±0.80 | 72.4±0.01 | 73.7±0.00 | | | BART-base 139M | 84.9±0.05 | 85.4±0.08 | 75.2±0.06 | 76.9±0.21 | | | BART-large 406M | 86.2±0.05 | 86.0±0.06 | 76.8±0.21 | 78.7±0.31 | | | RoBERTa-base 110M | 85.5±0.06 | 86.0±0.06 | 76.6±0.12 | 77.2±0.18 | | | RoBERTa-large 340M | 86.2±0.31 | 86.2±0.31 | 77.7±0.19 | 78.5±0.28 | | | DeBERTa-v3-base 214M | 85.8±0.15 | 86.2±0.07 | 76.8±0.28 | 79.0±0.20 | | | DeBERTa-v3-large 435M | 86.3±0.11 | 86.7±0.08 | 78.4±0.20 | 79.5±0.18 | | | ELECTRA-base 110M | 85.5±0.12 | 85.7±0.08 | 76.7±0.05 | 77.3±0.16 | | | ELECTRA-large 340M | 86.2±0.66 | 86.0±0.62 | 77.8±0.11 | 78.5±0.09 | | | CAT (Supervised) | BERT-base 110M | 87.1±0.06 | 87.4±0.11 | 74.3±0.26 | 76.3±0.38 | | BERT-large 340M | 87.7±0.16 | 88.0±0.19 | 75.8±0.23 | 77.8±0.36 | | | BART-base 139M | 88.2±0.09 | 88.2±0.09 | 75.7±0.09 | 78.0±0.14 | | | BART-large 406M | 88.6±0.07 | 88.7±0.10 | 77.2±0.12 | 79.0±0.14 | | | RoBERTa-base 110M | 88.4±0.12 | 88.3±0.08 | 76.9±0.16 | 78.0±0.19 | | | RoBERTa-large 340M | 89.0±0.15 | 88.8±0.20 | 78.2±0.08 | 79.4±0.14 | | | DeBERTa-v3-base 214M | 88.8±0.12 | 88.9±0.08 | 77.5±0.10 | 79.9±0.07 | | | DeBERTa-v3-large 435M | 89.1±0.05 | 89.2±0.14 | 78.7±0.16 | 80.0±0.33 | | | ELECTRA-base 110M | 88.7±0.10 | 88.9±0.10 | 74.9±0.15 | 75.5±0.40 | | | ELECTRA-large 340M | 88.6±0.77 | 88.5±0.70 | 74.9±0.15 | 75.5±0.40 | | | CAT (Semi-Supervised) | | | | | | | Table 11: Full experiment results (%) by our CAT framework on the discriminative event conceptualization and | | | | | | Table 11: Full experiment results (%) by our CAT framework on the discriminative event conceptualization and triple conceptualization tasks. We report the average AUC score and standard deviation across experiments with three random seeds. The best performances within each framework are underlined, and the best among all models are bold-faced. All supervised baselines are comparable with experiment results by He et al. (2022). | Head Event | Instance | Concept | Label | Pred. | |-------------------------------------|--------------------------|------------|---------|---------| | the invitation | personal communication | ✓ | ✓ | | | the invitation | party idea | × | ✓ | | | the invitation | friendly approach | ✓ | ✓ | | | the invitation | item | × | ✓ | | | PersonX accepts the invitation | acceptance | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX accepts the invitation | approach | × | × | | | PersonX accepts the invitation | psychological treatment | × | × | | | PersonX accepts the invitation | personal communication | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX accepts the invitation | oatmeal | ingredient | × | ✓ | | oatmeal | cereal | ✓ | ✓ | | | oatmeal | grain food | ✓ | ✓ | | | breakfast | service | × | × | | | breakfast | meal | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX makes oatmeal for breakfast | hands-on activity | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX makes oatmeal for breakfast | extended school activity | × | ✓ | | | PersonX makes oatmeal for breakfast | cooking | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX makes oatmeal for breakfast | | | | | Table 12: Case study of ChatGPT's discriminative event conceptualizations. Label refers to annotation result and Pred. stands for prediction by ChatGPT. | Conceptualized Head Event | Relation | Tail Event | Label | Pred. | |-----------------------------|----------------------------|--------------|---------|---------| | xEffect | to be brave | ✓ | × | | | xWant | take medicine | ✓ | ✓ | | | xWant | leave the hotel | × | ✓ | | | xWant | to drive home | × | ✓ | | | xAttr | cautious | ✓ | ✓ | | | xWant | go to rest | ✓ | ✓ | | | xAttr | diseased | ✓ | × | | | xNeed | get injured | ✓ | × | | | medical check | xEffect | laugh | ✓ | × | | xWant | to be entertained | ✓ | ✓ | | | xNeed | to go to video store | ✓ | × | | | xIntent | entertain themselves | ✓ | ✓ | | | xWant | to put movie in DVD player | ✓ | ✓ | | | xAttr | satisfied | ✓ | × | | | xReact | scared | ✓ | ✓ | | | xNeed | rent it on Netflix | ✓ | ✓ | | | watching movie | | | | | Table 13: Case study of ChatGPT's discriminative triple conceptualizations. Underlined words in the head event refer to conceptualizations. Label refers to annotation result and Pred. stands for prediction by ChatGPT. | Event | Target Conceptualizations | CAT's Generations | ChatGPT's Generations | | | |---------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------|-------|----| | PersonX is having trouble | time, night, nonwork | night, | evening, | time, | Dark sleep time, nocturnal period, resting hours, nighttime sleeplessness, bedtime wakefulness | | sleeping at night | time, shift | late, darknight | | | | | relaxation, sleeping, | | | | | | | PersonX is having trouble | rest, sleep, resting, daily | Nightly slumber attempt, dark rest struggle, sleeplessness after dark, nocturnal | | | | | sleeping at night | resting | routine, sleeping | insomnia, bedtime wakefulness | | | | PersonX is having trouble | sleeping, disorder, | | | | | | sleeping at night | sleep problem, trouble, insomnia, sleep disorder | sleep disorder, problem, | Nighttime sleep difficulty, dark restlessness problem, nocturnal insomnia struggle, bedtime wakefulness issue, sleeplessness after dark challenge | | | | sleep disturbance, difficulty, trouble sleeping | | | | | | Table 14: Case study of ChatGPT's generative event conceptualizations. The instance candidate in each event is underlined. Target conceptualizations are positive conceptualizations extracted from AbstractATOMIC, including the annotated conceptualizations and ones that are positively pseudo-labeled by our framework. | Head Event | Instance | Concept | Label | Pred. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|------------|---------|---------| | night | nonwork time | ✓ | ✓ | | | night | night | ✓ | ✓ | | | sleeping at night | lifestyle factor | ✓ | × | | | sleeping at night | basic need | ✓ | ✓ | | | trouble sleeping at night | board game | × | × | | | trouble sleeping at night | problem | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX is having trouble sleeping at night | variable | × | × | | | PersonX is having trouble sleeping at night | personal characteristic | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX is having trouble sleeping at night | friends | person | ✓ | ✓ | | friends | support person | ✓ | ✓ | | | making friends | relationship | ✓ | ✓ | | | making friends | social activity | ✓ | ✓ | | | nervous about making friends | organ | × | ✓ | | | nervous about making friends | side effect | × | ✓ | | | PersonX is nervous about making friends | emotion | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX is nervous about making friends | nervous disorder | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX is nervous about making friends | the piano | instrument | ✓ | ✓ | | the piano | western instrument | ✓ | ✓ | | | how to play the piano | musical activity | ✓ | ✓ | | | how to play the piano | play | ✓ | × | | | to learn how to play the piano | button | × | × | | | to learn how to play the piano | learning activity | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX wants to learn how to play the piano | cultural event | × | × | | | PersonX wants to learn how to play the piano | cognitive ability | ✓ | × | | | PersonX wants to learn how to play the piano | PersonX's pants | pant | ✓ | × | | PersonX's pants | clothing | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX's leg | leg | ✓ | × | | | PersonX's leg | limb | ✓ | × | | | a time | resource | × | × | | | a time | time | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX puts PersonX's pants on PersonX's leg | dressing | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX puts PersonX's pants on PersonX's leg | action | × | × | | | PersonX puts PersonX's pants on PersonX's leg at a time Table 15: Case study of CAT's discriminative event conceptualizations. A head event can be conceptualized in | | | | | Table 15: Case study of CAT's discriminative event conceptualizations. A head event can be conceptualized in multiple ways, as shown in the table. Label refers to annotation result and Pred. stands for prediction by our framework. | Event | Target Conceptualizations | Generated Conceptualizations | |---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | PersonX is having trouble | time, night, nonwork time, shift | night, evening, time, late, darknight | | sleeping at night PersonX is having trouble | relaxation, sleeping, resting | rest, sleep, resting, daily routine, sleeping | | sleeping at night PersonX is having trouble | sleeping, disorder, sleep problem, trouble, | sleep disorder, problem, sleep disturbance, | | sleeping at night | insomnia, sleep disorder | difficulty, trouble sleeping | | PersonX gets great grades in | accomplishment, result, grades, good | achievement, grades, good grade, academic excellence, grade | | school | performance, achievement | | | PersonX asks what was wrong | problems, concern, seeking information, | query, question, asking, communication, | | questioning, query, communication | inquiry | | | PersonX needs new shoes | necessity, product, personal item, item, | requirement, item, need, necessity, needs | | clothing, shoes | | | | PersonX is failing math | negative experience, negative issue, | difficulty, poor performance, problem, academic failure, math problem | | problem, poor performance | | | Table 16: Case study of CAT's generative event conceptualizations. The instance candidate in each event is underlined. Target conceptualizations are positive conceptualizations extracted from AbstractATOMIC, including the annotated conceptualizations and ones that are positively pseudo-labeled by our framework. | Conceptualized Head Event | Relation | Tail Event | Label | Pred. | |-------------------------------|----------------------------|--------------|---------|---------| | xAttr | rich | ✓ | ✓ | | | xAttr | skillful | × | ✓ | | | xIntent | look pretty | ✓ | ✓ | | | xNeed | book an appointment | ✓ | ✓ | | | xEffect | show off | ✓ | ✓ | | | xReact | excited | ✓ | ✓ | | | oWant | to tell her they like them | ✓ | ✓ | | | xWant | to go home | ✓ | ✓ | | | PersonX gets nailcare service | xEffect | laugh | ✓ | ✓ | | xWant | to be entertained | ✓ | ✓ | | | xNeed | to go to video store | ✓ | × | | | xIntent | entertain themselves | ✓ | ✓ | | | xWant | to put movie in DVD player | ✓ | ✓ | | | xAttr | satisfied | ✓ | ✓ | | | xReact | scared | ✓ | × | | | xNeed | rent it on Netflix | ✓ | ✓ | | | watching movie | xEffect | to be brave | ✓ | ✓ | | xWant | take medicine | ✓ | ✓ | | | xWant | leave the hotel | × | ✓ | | | xWant | to drive home | × | ✓ | | | xAttr | cautious | ✓ | ✓ | | | xWant | go to rest | ✓ | ✓ | | | xAttr | diseased | ✓ | ✓ | | | xNeed | get injured | ✓ | ✓ | | | medical check | | | | | Table 17: Case study of CAT's discriminative triple conceptualizations. The abstract concept within each conceptualized head event is underlined. Label refers to annotation result and Pred. stands for prediction by our framework. | Head | Relation | Source | Tail | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------|----------------------| | ATOMIC | to tip PersonX | | | | PersonX washes PersonY's car | oWant | COMETATOMIC | to wash their car | | COMETCAT | to thank PersonX | | | | ATOMIC | to practice | | | | PersonX meets PersonX's standards | xNeed | COMETATOMIC | to study | | COMETCAT | to practice hard | | | | ATOMIC | to give PersonY something | | | | PersonX stretches out PersonX's hand | xWant | COMETATOMIC | to touch | | COMETCAT | to grab something for PersonY | | | | ATOMIC | interested | | | | PersonX learns how to bake a cake | xAttr | COMETATOMIC | curious | | COMETCAT | skilled | | | | ATOMIC | to retake the class | | | | PersonX fails PersonX's class | xWant | COMETATOMIC | to study hard | | COMETCAT | to try again in the class | | | | ATOMIC | X gets receipt | | | | PersonX buys dog food | xEffect | COMETATOMIC | loses weight | | COMETCAT | gets a receipt | | | | ATOMIC | has hair burned | | | | PersonX hits by lightning | xEffect | COMETATOMIC | gets electrocuted | | COMETCAT | screams in pain | | | | ATOMIC | is chastised | | | | PersonX forgets my wallet | xEffect | COMETATOMIC | gets robbed | | COMETCAT | thinks about it | | | | ATOMIC | make a plan | | | | PersonX realizes something | xWant | COMETATOMIC | to solve the problem | | COMETCAT | to do something about it | | | | Table 18: Case study of commonsense inference generation (COMET). Examples are selected from the original | | | | Table 18: Case study of commonsense inference generation (COMET). Examples are selected from the original ATOMIC testing set. ATOMIC refers to the target tail in the original ATOMIC. COMETATOMIC and COMETCAT stand for generations by COMET trained on an ATOMIC subset or aided with abstract knowledge derived by CAT. | Training Data | BLEU-1 | BLEU-2 | BLEU-3 | BLEU-4 | METEOR | ROUGE-L | CIDEr | | | | | | | | | |---------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|-----------|---------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Dev | Test | Dev | Test | Dev | Test | Dev | Test | Dev | Test | Dev | Test | Dev | Test | | | | Zero-Shot | 5.42 | 4.89 | 1.84 | 1.51 | 0.65 | 0.52 | 0.26 | 0.21 | 6.50 | 5.70 | 6.40 | 5.90 | 1.60 | 1.20 | | | ATOMIC (subset) | 38.1 | 38.1 | 25.4 | 25.7 | 18.7 | 18.8 | 15.5 | 15.7 | 14.9 | 14.9 | 33.0 | 33.2 | 27.6 | 27.8 | | | +D t | 38.1 | 38.5 | 24.8 | 25.5 | 17.8 | 18.4 | 14.7 | 15.2 | 15.3 | 15.6 | 33.1 | 33.7 | 26.8 | 27.3 | | | l | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 38.6 | 39.0 | 25.8 | 26.6 | 18.9 | 19.7 | 15.7 | 16.4 | 15.1 | 15.4 | 33.6 | 34.4 | 28.8 | 30.0 | | | +D Abs.ATM. | 40.0 | 40.3 | 27.1 | 27.8 | 20.0 | 20.8 | 16.5 | 17.5 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 35.3 | 35.7 | 31.6 | 31.7 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 40.1 | 40.5 | 27.1 | 27.8 | 20.1 | 20.8 | 16.7 | 17.4 | 16.2 | 16.4 | 35.4 | 35.9 | 31.8 | 31.7 | | | +D t + D l Abs.ATM. | 40.2 | 40.6 | 26.2 | 27.4 | 19.0 | 20.4 | 15.1 | 16.8 | 16.3 | 16.5 | 35.0 | 35.4 | 31.0 | 31.3 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 40.0 | 40.4 | 26.0 | 26.9 | 18.7 | 19.7 | 15.0 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.4 | 35.0 | 35.4 | 30.3 | 30.7 | | | +D 0.995 | 39.7 | 39.8 | 26.5 | 26.8 | 19.5 | 19.8 | 15.6 | 16.1 | 15.8 | 15.8 | 35.0 | 34.9 | 30.8 | 30.7 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 41.0 | 41.0 | 27.1 | 27.5 | 20.0 | 20.2 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 36.0 | 35.9 | 31.9 | 31.7 | | | +D 0.99 | 39.5 | 39.9 | 26.1 | 27.0 | 19.3 | 20.0 | 15.9 | 16.6 | 15.7 | 15.9 | 34.7 | 34.8 | 30.6 | 30.8 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 40.8 | 41.0 | 27.0 | 27.6 | 20.0 | 20.5 | 16.2 | 16.9 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 35.8 | 35.7 | 31.9 | 31.6 | | | +D 0.95 | 41.2 | 41.9 | 28.1 | 29.0 | 20.7 | 21.5 | 16.5 | 17.8 | 16.6 | 16.9 | 35.9 | 36.5 | 33.4 | 33.7 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 41.1 | 42.0 | 28.0 | 29.0 | 20.4 | 21.5 | 16.4 | 17.6 | 16.6 | 17.0 | 36.0 | 36.8 | 33.2 | 33.8 | | | +D 0.90 | 41.6 | 41.6 | 28.1 | 28.5 | 20.9 | 21.5 | 17.1 | 17.7 | 16.9 | 16.8 | 36.7 | 36.4 | 33.4 | 33.1 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 41.8 | 41.7 | 28.3 | 28.5 | 21.0 | 21.4 | 17.0 | 17.5 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 36.7 | 36.6 | 33.4 | 33.1 | | | +D 0.85 | 41.3 | 41.4 | 27.8 | 28.1 | 20.7 | 21.1 | 16.8 | 17.6 | 16.7 | 16.8 | 36.3 | 36.6 | 32.6 | 32.9 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 41.5 | 41.5 | 27.9 | 28.2 | 20.6 | 21.1 | 16.8 | 17.5 | 16.8 | 16.9 | 36.3 | 36.7 | 32.6 | 33.0 | | | +D 0.80 | 41.6 | 41.6 | 27.3 | 28.0 | 20.1 | 20.7 | 16.3 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 16.9 | 36.6 | 36.4 | 33.0 | 32.6 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 41.6 | 41.5 | 27.5 | 27.9 | 20.2 | 20.6 | 16.3 | 16.8 | 17.0 | 16.9 | 36.6 | 36.3 | 33.0 | 32.3 | | | +D 0.75 | 40.6 | 40.8 | 27.1 | 28.0 | 19.9 | 20.9 | 16.2 | 17.2 | 16.4 | 16.6 | 35.5 | 35.7 | 31.6 | 32.1 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 40.9 | 41.2 | 27.2 | 28.1 | 19.9 | 21.0 | 16.2 | 17.0 | 16.6 | 16.9 | 35.7 | 36.1 | 31.8 | 32.7 | | | +D 0.70 | 40.6 | 40.9 | 27.1 | 27.8 | 19.9 | 20.7 | 16.6 | 17.2 | 16.4 | 16.6 | 35.6 | 36.1 | 31.6 | 32.4 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 41.4 | 41.4 | 27.5 | 28.1 | 20.1 | 21.0 | 16.4 | 17.4 | 16.9 | 16.9 | 36.2 | 36.4 | 32.5 | 33.0 | | | +D 0.50 | 41.1 | 41.5 | 27.3 | 28.2 | 20.4 | 21.2 | 16.7 | 17.6 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 35.8 | 36.1 | 32.4 | 32.8 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 41.5 | 41.7 | 27.7 | 28.5 | 20.7 | 21.4 | 17.0 | 17.8 | 16.9 | 16.9 | 36.3 | 36.5 | 32.7 | 33.1 | | | l | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +D t + D 0.995 | 39.4 | 39.3 | 26.1 | 26.4 | 19.2 | 19.5 | 15.5 | 15.8 | 15.7 | 15.5 | 33.9 | 33.8 | 29.8 | 29.2 | | | +Finetune | 39.7 | 40.0 | 26.7 | 27.5 | 19.5 | 20.3 | 15.8 | 16.6 | 15.7 | 15.7 | 34.7 | 34.9 | 30.6 | 30.9 | | | l | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +D t + D 0.99 | 39.4 | 39.7 | 25.7 | 26.5 | 18.6 | 19.5 | 15.2 | 16.5 | 15.8 | 15.9 | 34.6 | 35.0 | 29.7 | 30.2 | | | +Finetune | 39.7 | 40.4 | 26.6 | 27.6 | 19.6 | 20.5 | 16.0 | 16.8 | 15.7 | 16.1 | 34.2 | 35.0 | 30.5 | 31.1 | | | +D t + D l 0.95 | 39.9 | 40.5 | 26.2 | 27.4 | 19.3 | 20.6 | 16.0 | 17.4 | 16.0 | 16.2 | 35.0 | 35.4 | 30.8 | 31.3 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 40.4 | 41.0 | 26.6 | 27.6 | 19.5 | 20.7 | 16.1 | 17.1 | 16.2 | 16.5 | 35.4 | 35.8 | 31.3 | 31.5 | | | +D t + D l 0.90 | 39.4 | 39.7 | 26.1 | 27.0 | 18.9 | 19.9 | 15.3 | 16.4 | 15.6 | 15.8 | 34.5 | 35.0 | 29.6 | 30.2 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 40.4 | 40.4 | 26.2 | 26.9 | 19.1 | 19.6 | 15.2 | 15.8 | 16.3 | 16.4 | 35.5 | 35.7 | 30.5 | 30.7 | | | +D t + D l 0.85 | 39.8 | 40.0 | 26.3 | 26.9 | 19.3 | 19.8 | 15.8 | 16.1 | 16.0 | 16.2 | 34.8 | 35.2 | 30.5 | 30.6 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 39.9 | 40.0 | 26.2 | 26.7 | 19.3 | 19.5 | 15.8 | 15.8 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 34.9 | 35.5 | 30.4 | 30.7 | | | l | 0.80 | 39.9 | 40.4 | 26.4 | 27.6 | 19.2 | 20.5 | 15.4 | 16.8 | 16.2 | 16.3 | 34.9 | 35.3 | 30.3 | 31.3 | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +D t + D +Finetune | 39.9 | 40.4 | 26.2 | 27.5 | 18.9 | 20.3 | 15.2 | 16.7 | 16.2 | 16.5 | 35.0 | 35.6 | 30.2 | 31.3 | | | l | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +D t + D 0.75 | 39.7 | 39.8 | 25.9 | 26.6 | 18.9 | 19.4 | 15.3 | 15.8 | 15.6 | 15.7 | 34.6 | 34.9 | 29.7 | 30.1 | | | +Finetune | 39.8 | 39.9 | 25.9 | 26.7 | 18.8 | 19.5 | 15.3 | 15.9 | 15.7 | 15.9 | 34.7 | 35.1 | 29.6 | 30.3 | | | +D t + D l 0.70 | 40.2 | 40.5 | 26.4 | 27.2 | 19.4 | 20.1 | 15.8 | 16.4 | 16.4 | 16.5 | 35.2 | 35.5 | 30.8 | 31.0 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 40.3 | 40.6 | 26.4 | 27.1 | 19.4 | 19.9 | 15.9 | 16.0 | 16.5 | 16.6 | 35.2 | 35.7 | 30.5 | 30.9 | | | +D t + D l 0.50 | 39.3 | 39.8 | 26.2 | 27.5 | 18.9 | 20.3 | 15.2 | 16.7 | 15.7 | 16.0 | 33.9 | 34.4 | 29.4 | 30.6 | | | u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +Finetune | 39.5 | 40.1 | 26.3 | 27.6 | 19.0 | 20.5 | 15.4 | 17.1 | 15.8 | 16.2 | 34.2 | 34.9 | 29.3 | 30.8 | | | ATOMIC (full) | 42.7 | 42.9 | 29.6 | 30.0 | 22.0 | 22.5 | 18.6 | 18.7 | 29.1 | 29.7 | 51.1 | 52.7 | 74.5 | 75.4 | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Yes, in the limitation section on Page 10. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Yes, in the ethics statement section on Page 10. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Yes, in both sections on the first page. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Yes, as introduced in Section 3, Problem Definition, and Section 5, Experiments. There is also an additional explanation in Appendix A, Dataset Description. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Yes, all datasets are properly cited throughout the paper. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Yes, in the ethics statement section on Page 10, all datasets are shared via open-access licenses. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Yes, in the ethics statement section on Page 10, our use of existing artifacts is consistent with their intended use for research purposes. ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Yes, in the ethics statement section on Page 10, the primary dataset is desensitized and anonymized. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Yes, in Appendix A, the dataset description. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Yes, tables reporting statistics can be found in Section 3, problem definition, and appendix A, Dataset Description. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Yes, As Shown In Section 5 And Appendix C. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Yes, parameters are reported in Table 11 in Appendices, and computational budgets are reported in Appendix C.1.2 and Appendix C.2.1. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Yes, in Appendix C.1.2 and Appendix C.2.1. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Yes, in Section 5 and Appendix C. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Yes, the usage of these packages is well-explained, and packages are cited throughout the Appendix. ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Yes, expert annotations are conducted in Section 5.2, Generative Event Conceptualization. Details are introduced in Appendix C.2.2. ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Yes, in Appendix C.2.2. ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Yes, in Appendix C.2.2. ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Yes, in Appendix C.2.2. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Not applicable. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Not applicable.

abdalla-etal-2023-elephant

The Elephant in the Room: Analyzing the Presence of Big Tech in Natural Language Processing Research

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.734

Recent advances in deep learning methods for natural language processing (NLP) have created new business opportunities and made NLP research critical for industry development. As one of the big players in the field of NLP, together with governments and universities, it is important to track the influence of industry on research. In this study, we seek to quantify and characterize industry presence in the NLP community over time. Using a corpus with comprehensive metadata of 78,187 NLP publications and 701 resumes of NLP publication authors, we explore the industry presence in the field since the early 90s. We find that industry presence among NLP authors has been steady before a steep increase over the past five years (180{\%} growth from 2017 to 2022). A few companies account for most of the publications and provide funding to academic researchers through grants and internships. Our study shows that the presence and impact of the industry on natural language processing research are significant and fast-growing. This work calls for increased transparency of industry influence in the field.

# The Elephant In The Room: Analyzing The Presence Of Big Tech In Natural Language Processing Research Mohamed Abdalla♠∗**, Jan Philip Wahle**♣* Terry Ruas♣, Aurélie Névéol♦, Fanny Ducel♢, Saif M. MohammadΦ**, Karën Fort**♢ ♠Institute for Better Health, Canada, ♣University of Göttingen, Germany ♦Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, LISN, France, ♢Sorbonne Université / LORIA, France ΦNational Research Council, Canada msa@cs.toronto.edu wahle@uni-goettingen.de ## Abstract Recent advances in deep learning methods for natural language processing (NLP) have created new business opportunities and made NLP research critical for industry development. As one of the big players in the field of NLP, together with governments and universities, it is important to track the influence of industry on research. In this study, we seek to quantify and characterize industry presence in the NLP community over time. Using a corpus with comprehensive metadata of 78,187 NLP publications and 701 resumes of NLP publication authors, we explore the industry presence in the field since the early 90s. We find that industry presence among NLP authors has been steady before a steep increase over the past five years (180% growth from 2017 to 2022). A few companies account for most of the publications and provide funding to academic researchers through grants and internships. Our study shows that the presence and impact of the industry on natural language processing research are significant and fast-growing. This work calls for increased transparency of industry influence in the field. ## 1 Introduction Research is influenced by several entities such as academia, government, and industry. Their roles and degrees of influence change over time. Recent deep learning advances in natural language processing (NLP) have created a spurt of new business opportunities, making NLP research critical for industry development. In turn, we are observing a greater presence of large technology companies (Big Tech) on NLP research than ever before. This influence on research can be beneficial. Companies provide funding, and participate in open science initiatives (Gulbrandsen and Smeby, 2005; Hottenrott and Thorwarth, 2011). However, there are ∗Equal contribution.  growing voices of concern about scientific independence and power (Abdalla and Abdalla, 2021; Whittaker, 2021) - from controlling the accessibility of massive amounts of computing power to powerful language models (Devlin et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020). It is in the interest of any community to pause and reflect on who has the power, what their interests and values might be, and how they are influencing research. Thus, this recent period of great change in NLP research merits a reflection on the changing role of industry in research, as well as their implications on society at large. Such a reflection will naturally require many broad approaches studying the socio-, economic-, and political forces at play in combination with technology. Our work aims at facilitating such a reflection by quantifying and characterizing the presence of Big Tech in NLP research, especially during this time of change. As such, it puts a spotlight on the changing role of industry in NLP research. The changing role of industry in NLP research. Our analysis of papers published in the ACL anthology with at least one company affiliation (Figure 1 - see Section 4.1) confirms that we are currently experiencing dramatic change. As highlighted by the industry track at NAACL1, industry research can offer a focus on applied research and technical challenges such as scaling robustness. By establishing large industrial research labs or through collaborations with academics, the industry has fostered increased attention to these research topics. Favorable assessments. Increased focus on NLP from industry can result in seemingly positive outcomes such as increased funding (e.g., through grants, awards, and scholarships). More generally, in the field of policy research, industry funding is largely viewed as positive (Holman, 2021), with industry-funded research having been shown to result in more patents (Hottenrott and Thorwarth, 2011), and more publications overall (Gulbrandsen and Smeby, 2005). Warnings. However, in the philosophy of science, industry funding is largely viewed as "corrosive to scientific inquiry" (Holman and Elliott, 2018; Holman, 2021). This view has been increasingly reflected in the work of AI ethics researchers who have highlighted concerns regarding the impact of such a large and growing industry presence (Ahmed and Wahed, 2020; Abdalla and Abdalla, 2021; Whittaker, 2021). Abdalla and Abdalla (2021) raise concerns about the lack of impartiality of research and undue influence on research questions. Others raise concerns about the centralization of resources, where only those with industry affiliations can research the latest language technologies (Whittaker, 2021; Ahmed and Wahed, 2020). There is also concern about the co-option of AI ethics research to prevent, water-down, or negatively affect legislation and our understanding of the societal impacts of AI applications (Seele and Schultz, 2022; Young et al., 2022; Tafani, 2022). This study. The focus of this study is not to debate the benefits or harms of increased industry presence in the NLP community. Instead, we seek to quantify and characterize industry presence in NLP. Using both manual annotations of the curriculum vitae (CVs) of authors who have published at a major NLP conference (namely, the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL 2022) and automated analysis of all papers within the ACL anthology to date, we explore the industry presence in NLP using five research questions that serve as a guide for our exploration: 1. How large is the industry presence? Who is the industry? (§4.1) 2. Where is the industry presence? (§4.2) 3. What is industry research focused on? (§4.3) 4. Who does the industry work with? (§4.4) 5. How well cited are industry papers? (§4.5) The questions for each section are expanded to provide a more fine-grained understanding of industry presence in NLP over time. Quantifying industry presence is a vital first step to raising awareness and enabling the research community to discuss if any actions should be taken. The data and code for our automatic analysis are publicly available (for research purposes only) and can be found at https://github.com/jpwahle/ acl23-big-tech-nlp. ## 2 Related Work Scientometrics is a field of study which explores scientific research from a quantitative perspective (Mingers and Leydesdorff, 2015; Leydesdorff and Milojevic´, 2015). Tracing back to the mid-20th century (Price, 1961), efforts in this field have focused on measuring the impact of research (Garfield, 1979), mapping science to understand relationships between fields (Callon et al., 1986; Ruas and Pereira, 2014), the volume of work being published (Mohammad, 2020c; Lo et al., 2020), how scientific concepts have changed over time (Sharma et al., 2021; Abdalla et al., 2022a), and how scientists have changed over time (Mohammad, 2020b; Abdalla et al., 2022b). Focused on NLP, there has been a healthy amount of research conducted on studying the field; many researchers have shared open-sourced datasets that can be used to study the growth and change in NLP (Mariani et al., 2019; Mohammad, 2020c,a; Wahle et al., 2022). Mariani et al. (2019) developed the NLP4NLP corpus, a collection of NLP articles published from 1965 to 2015 in 34 NLP conferences and journals. With this dataset, they provided an extensive analysis of references, citations, and authorship. Similarly, Mohammad (2020c) created NLP Scholar, a dataset that combined information from the ACL Anthology with Google Scholar, which was used to study the volume of research, the citation practices patterns in the field (Mohammad, 2020a), and demographic changes in the field (Mohammad, 2020b). Wahle et al. (2022) and Ruas et al. (2022) extended NLP Scholar to include venues outside the ACL anthology with DBLP, added informative features derived from the full texts, and analyzed changes in research trends in NLP research. Recently, a few papers have attempted to quantify the presence of industry within computer science. Abdalla and Abdalla (2021) quantified both the number of professors at four schools who had past financial relationships with industry and the funding patterns of the biggest machine learning conferences over the past five years. Ahmed and Wahed (2020) created a dataset of 171,000 research papers from many computer science conferences to study industry participation rates over time. They found that while industry participation has been increasing over time, these collaborations have primarily remained between large companies and elite research institutions (i.e., those ranked 1-50 on QS World University Rankings2). Our work stands out from previous work in multiple ways. Unlike most scientometrics works in the field of NLP, we are the first to focus on industry presence. We narrow the focus of Ahmed and Wahed (2020) to solely NLP, but extend the scope to all conferences within the ACL anthology. Furthermore, our automatic analysis asks questions not explored by previous work (e.g., exploring industryacademia relationships and impact as measured by citations). ## 3 Methodology To accurately measure industry presence in NLP research, the quality and amount of information about affiliations, funding, and employment are limited. In particular, few authors report funding or employment in a paper's acknowledgment section. We retrieve high-quality metadata about authors by examining the CVs and webpages of 681 authors who published in the ACL 2022 conference. This part of the analysis will be called **manual** analysis, and complements the automatic analysis. To extend our study to more venues and a larger time frame, we automatically extracted information from papers for over 34 venues in the ACL Anthology from 1965 to 2022. This part will be referred to as the **automatic analysis**. Although the automatic analysis cannot gather the same features as the manual analysis, it provides a historical perspective on the industry presence that can be 2www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings back-tested using the manual part. Below, we detail how we collected, processed, and annotated the data for automatic and manual analyses. ## 3.1 Data Collection Automatic analysis. To define the search scope of companies and universities, we use the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) list of technology companies and an open repository of known worldwide universities. We extract author affiliations and acknowledgment sections from the Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus (S2ORC), which contains annotated full texts of more than 110m research papers, including the entire ACL Anthology. To obtain metadata about the type of venue (e.g., workshop, the main event, tutorial), we use the official ACL Anthology BibTeX export. For the topical information, we add the D3 dataset (Wahle et al., 2022) with its Computer Science Ontology (CSO) annotations (Salatino et al., 2020). Manual annotation. The manual analysis is designed to complement the automatic analysis by granting us a deeper understanding of how industry presence is manifested. As manual annotations are costly, we focused on a single year of a single conference, ACL 2022 (the latest flagship NLP conference). For each long and short paper published at ACL 2022, we randomly selected a single author from the authors list, excluding authors from being selected twice. For the total 701 unique authors, five of us manually searched their CVs online (the annotation instructions can be found in Appendix A.5). To ensure we selected the right author webpage and to disambiguate between authors who shared names, we used their affiliations on the paper or Google Scholar accounts. For each author, we collected multiple fields, presented in Table 1. A value of "Unknown" represents information we could not find. When an author had multiple entries for a single field (e.g., several internships in the same company), we listed the company name as often as it appeared. Authors were contacted by email and provided information on the study and an opportunity to withdraw from the study. They could also supply an updated CV (for more information on the process, see Section 7). Six authors provided their CVs, nine authors requested to be withdrawn from the study, and 11 authors could not be reached by email and were withdrawn from the study. In the end, information about 681 authors was used. | Attribute | Values | |---------------------------------|---------------------------| | PhD graduation year | Year, No, Unk. | | Country they currently work in | Country, Unk. | | Current company affiliations | Company name(s), No | | Title | Academic position, | | Title in company, Unk. | | | Past company employment | Company name(s), No, Unk. | | Company internships | Company name(s), No, Unk. | | Grants or awards from companies | Company name(s), No, Unk. | Table 1: Attributes captured using manual annotation. ## 3.2 Data Processing Automatic analysis. The process to reproduce our dataset can be described in five steps: 1. We extracted author affiliations and acknowledgment sections from S2ORC. 2. We aligned the exported BibTeX from ACL Anthology with the affiliations and acknowledgments to retrieve venue information (e.g., Proceedings of the 16th SemEval). 3. We searched for technology companies and universities in the affiliations and acknowledgment entries using fuzzy matching (Appendix A.3). As a proxy for Big Tech companies, we used the 100 largest technology companies by market cap according to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).3 4. We aligned research topics to papers using D3 and its Computer Science Ontology (CSO) annotations using the paper's ACL anthology identifier (Salatino et al., 2020). The CSO automatically categorizes research papers to emerging topics using syntactic and semantic analysis, based on the title and abstract with an average precision of 86.9% (compared to 66.9% using LDA (Salatino et al., 2020)). 5. We retrieved geolocations of affiliations, when present, using the geography API4. In total, we processed 78,187 papers and extracted 23,606 author affiliations. Details on the standardization of affiliations is in Appendix A.1. Manual analysis. After standardization, as a sanity check, we got an additional author (not involved with the initial manual annotation) to label 20 examples (3% of the number of authors) and measured annotator agreement. This annotator was provided with the same set of instructions (Appendix A.5). 3While NYSE is the largest stock exchange in the world, and includes most major technology companies (including Chinese ones), it may not include private companies such as OpenAI and some large non-American companies. 4https://pypi.org/project/geograpy3/ | Attribute | Collapsed | Exact | |---------------------------------|-------------|---------| | URL | - | 0.80 | | PhD graduation year | - | 0.75 | | Country they currently work in | - | 0.90 | | Current company affiliations | - | 0.85 | | Title | 0.90 | 0.65 | | Past company employment | 0.75 | 0.65 | | Company internships | 0.71 | 0.43 | | Grants or awards from companies | 0.85 | 0.54 | Table 2: Annotator observed agreement. As multiple features could have multiple attributes (e.g., grants from multiple company names), exact measures perfect agreement, whereas collapsed indicates categorical agreement (e.g., yes past company employment or not). The "Exact" column in Table 2 calculates what percentage of faculty annotations had the exact same list (i.e., both annotators listed the exact same set of granting companies). The "Collapsed" column collapsed the list of granting companies to a simple binary (grants from industry vs. no grants from industry). Each value presents the percent agreement between annotators. The observed agreement varied from low 0.70 to 0.90 depending on the annotated feature. These values are well above random agreement (0.5 for collapsed and 0.1 for exact - a weak baseline assuming only 1 of 10 largest companies). The majority of observed disagreements were the result of "Unknown" vs. "Value" judgment. That is, most errors are when one annotator finds the values and another annotator fails to do so (likely because the information is not clearly presented, different websites have different information, or a CV is not present and further investigation is needed). We largely used binary findings (i.e., collapsing the labels to industry vs. no industry) in our analysis. ## 4 Industry Presence In Nlp Research The manually curated data and the automatically extracted metadata allow for exploring a rich set of questions regarding the presence of Big Tech in NLP research. The following subsections explore a different aspect of the industry presence in NLP and rely on both manual and automated methods. ## 4.1 How Large Is The Industry Presence? Who Is The Industry? Across all the papers in our corpus (1965–2022), we retrieved authors from 45 Big Tech companies (45% of investigated companies) and 1,040 universities (37% of investigated universities). Microsoft had the most authors on papers (12%), followed by   IBM (8%), Alphabet (7%), Meta (5%), Amazon (5%), Alibaba (3%), and Tencent (3%) 5. Figure 1 shows that the relative presence of industry has increased over time (from 1.5% in 1995 to 14% in 2022), with a sharp growth in the proportion of papers with at least one affiliated author in the last five years, from 5% in 2017 to 14% in 2022, a 180% increase. This growth is largely driven by relatively recent companies such as Baidu, Meta, and Salesforce, which experienced exceptional growth over the past decade (Figure 3). These results are closely reflected in the manual analysis, which focused on the ACL conference in 2022. Of the authors who were affiliated with industry (30% of analyzed authors), most are affiliated with Microsoft (17%), followed by Alphabet (10%), Meta (8%), Amazon (6%), and Tencent (6%) (Figure 2). The proportion of authors affiliated with industry represents a 10% increase from the numbers recorded in 20196. The same companies are largely responsible for 5The values in parenthesis are the portions of papers with at least one author affiliation to that company over the number of all papers. 62019 ACL review survey: Q48 providing grants to faculty authors, though there is a change in their rank ordering. Of the authors with available information online, we observe that most grants awarded to the surveyed faculty were from Alphabet (18% of all tracked grants), followed by IBM (11%), Microsoft (8%), and Amazon (7%). Figure 2 also illustrates how many grants and awards are provided by each company (More on grants in Section 4.2). ## 4.2 Where Is The Industry Presence? 4.2.1 Conferences The three venues with the most industry affiliations are EMNLP, ACL, and NAACL, except for 2016– 2018, where COLING had more industry-affiliated papers (4%) than NAACL (3%). While in 2013– 2015, only 5% of papers in ACL were affiliated with the industry, in 2019–2021, 20% of papers are. For EMNLP, this trend is even stronger. With 3% of papers a decade ago with industry affiliations, now every fourth paper has at least one author affiliated with one of the 100 largest technology companies7. 7For further details, Appendix Figure 7 presents the number of industry-affiliated papers for three time spans (2013– 2015, 2016–2018, 2019–2021) for the venues with the most industry-affiliated papers. ## 4.2.2 Geographic Location Over the entire ACL Anthology, starting from the first papers in 1965 up to the most recent publications in 2022, the majority of author affiliations to companies are located in the US (29%), followed by China (8%), Japan (6%), Mexico (5%), Australia (5%), Germany (5%), India (4%), Italy (4%), and the UK (3%). Further, we calculate the ratio of a paper coming from a specific country over the average of all countries to mitigate outliers. We provide more details on the author affiliations in Figure 4. The manual analysis of the ACL 2022 papers shows similar geographic trends. Excluding authors for whom we could not ascertain a geographic location, of all the authors with industry affiliations, 40% come from the US, followed by China (32%), the UK (5%), Israel (4%), and Canada (3%). Considering the proportion of industry affiliations within geographic areas, we see that 35% of the US authors have company affiliations. This is similar to the numbers observed from China (31%) but almost double that observed in Europe (19%). ## 4.2.3 Career Stages We explore how the relationship between researchers and industry changes as researchers progress through their careers. Of the authors analyzed for ACL 2022, with online profiles, a near majority of authors did not have a PhD (48%). Of the 48% of authors without a PhD, 77% are students (which is 37% of all authors analyzed). The second largest groups earned their PhDs in 2018 and 2019 (each of those years represents 4% of all authors). There is a steady monotonic decrease in the number of authors from then on (see Figure 8). This matches what we already know about those participating in ACL Rolling Review as authors, reviewers, and editors (using seniority of reviewers as a proxy)8. Faculty grants. Of all analyzed faculty authors who published in ACL 2022 and had online information available, we observe that 66% received funding (e.g., grants, research awards, etc.) from the industry. Stratifying this analysis by country, we observe that 72% of US faculty who were analyzed from ACL 2022 had past funding from industry. This, like within country industry affiliations from the previous section, is comparable to the Chi-8https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php/2022Q1 _Reports:_ACL_Rolling_Review, Section: ARR Today: Stats nese faculty (69%) but nearly double those of European faculty (38%). This indicates that cultural or governance values are likely at play, impacting the likelihood for researchers to conduct research at these companies or seek industry research funding as faculty. Student funding and internships. Examining opportunities open to graduate students, such as industry scholarships and internships, we observe that of the student authors with available information online, the vast majority (74%) have either won an industry scholarship or have interned for a company. However, when stratified by geographic origin, we see European students trending much more closely to US and Chinese students when compared to faculty or industry researchers. Of the US student authors, 81% have had some financial relationship with industry. This is similar to Chinese student authors (75%). However, we see that, unlike faculty grants, a much larger percentage of European students (65%) have received funding from or interned for industry. This change could indicate a shift in views towards (or a growing dependence on) industry funding in Europe amongst younger researchers. However, as these results are only from sampling from a single conference, more research is needed to confirm that this is part of a larger trend. It is also unclear whether this trend will translate into increased industry funding amongst faculty in later years. ## 4.3 What Is Industry Research Focused On? We analyze the 15 most common topics (e.g., question answering, machine translation) in papers by the 30 companies with the most NLP papers. Figure 5 shows the results. Some companies, such as Microsoft, publish widely across all 15 topics, whereas others, such as SAP, mainly published on word sense disambiguation, semantics, or semantic information. Intuitively, Salesforce focuses on dialogue systems as its core business relies on customer communication. Alphabet has a high focus on machine translation as Google Translate is one of the largest translation systems on the market. ## 4.4 Who Does The Industry Work With? We analyzed papers with multiple affiliations to measure the relative amount of papers in which affiliates from a company and university are coauthors. Figure 6 shows the heatmap. We ob-  served that the highest amount of joint papers were between IBM and the University of Melbourne (34% of papers in which at least one affiliation was present). Some of the strongest collaborations we observe in the automatic analysis are between CMU and Alphabet, JHU and Meta, IBM and the University of Melbourne, Salesforce and NTU, and the University of Washington and Microsoft. Many of the strong collaborations can be explained by geographic proximity: Microsoft is headquartered in Redmond near Seattle, the home of the University of Washington; both Nanyang Technological University and the Asia Pacific Headquarters of Salesforce are in Singapore, etc. ## 4.5 How Well Cited Are Industry Papers? Table 3 shows the time-weighted number of citations and h-index for the top 10 companies and universities. Even though we rely on h-index as a  proxy for impact and influence, this metric does not cover a myriad of elements in research (e.g., differentiation between fields, quality of venues, scientists' career time) (Bornmann and Daniel, 2007; Costas and Bordons, 2007). While Microsoft has the largest h-index (123), they have been publishing papers since 1992. Meta, a relatively new company, with publications starting in 2008, has already achieved an h-index of 77. When looking at the time-weighted number of citations, in which each paper's citations are divided by the number of years that it has been published (e.g., 100 citations for a paper published in 2012 has a time normalized value of 100 2022−2012 = 10), we see that Meta has a much larger median (8.00) than Microsoft (2.82). The top universities achieve similar time-normalized median citations as the industry. However, Microsoft and Alphabet have markedly higher h-indices. A further comparison of the mean and median number of citations overall reveals the consistency of citations between papers of a single university or company (for details, see Tables 7 and 8 in Appendix A.6.4). High medians and comparable | Company/University | T.N. Median Citns.∗ h-index (↓) | | |-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----| | Microsoft | 2.82 | 123 | | Alphabet | 4.50 | 104 | | IBM | 1.60 | 94 | | Meta Platforms | 8.00 | 77 | | Carnegie Mellon University | 2.14 | 95 | | Stanford University | 3.20 | 81 | | University of Edinburgh | 2.00 | 71 | | University of Pennsylvania | 1.48 | 67 | | University of Texas | 1.85 | 64 | | University of Cambridge | 2.04 | 62 | | Mean for companies and universities | 1.74 | 5 | means show that many publications have been cited similarly. High means and lower medians show that some papers have achieved a high number of citations and others did not. For example, Meta's mean number of citations is 113.55, while the median is 20.00, showing there have been few highly successful papers (see Table 8). Although Netflix's mean number of citations is much lower (17.67), the median lies closer to it (16.00) (see Table 8). Another observation is that universities have a lower average h-index. Still, their time-weighted citation count is comparable, which can be interpreted as the industry having more one-hit successes while university research is more regular. ## 5 Final Considerations The role of industry in shaping the direction of NLP research. In this work, we quantified the presence of industry within the field of NLP. In explicitly highlighting how our field has interacted with industry in the past, we enable ourselves to make decisions for the future. Throughout this study, we observed that many researchers work in countries with vital technology industries and infrastructure, such as the US, China, Japan, and Germany. Additionally, these companies often collaborate with universities in these regions, providing funding and other resources for NLP research. Advances made by industry have a significant effect on NLP, as well as on broader technology and society (e.g., widespread use of translation apps and virtual assistants). Overall, the presence of Big Tech companies in NLP research has contributed to the growth and advancement of the field. These companies provide significant funding and resources for NLP research, not least by sponsoring conferences, and their collaborations with universities and researchers have led to many important innovations and breakthroughs. It should be noted though, that Big Tech also benefits from their collaborations with universities and governments through tax benefits, grants, labor, recruiting, and a wide-array of open source research. There exist fears that such tremendous infrastructure can lead to monopolies (e.g., Microsoft has an exclusive license on GPT-3, and the majority of research labs lack the infrastructure to reproduce these models.). Further, research that requires massive infrastructure is difficult to reproduce for most research labs. When data, trained models, or results are not publicly shared, their transparency gets compromised. One example is the OpenAI GPT-3 model that Microsoft exclusively licensed for $1b in 2019, the same amount as Meta (ex. Facebook) acquired Instagram in 2012 with 80m daily active users at that time and which generates now more than $47b in revenue per year (44% of Facebook's revenue). GPT-3 was not accessible for almost a year and was then released to the general public through an API endpoint that gives access to some, but not all, functionalities of the model. NLP and AI research are seen as innovation drivers for core business models - and are valued extremely highly as such. In contrast, the value of the research for fundamental science may be sidelined; some symptoms of this include the widespread adoption of technologies before peer review of the underlying science - either because the paper was simply put up on arXiv (BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) - for a few years) or because the technology was released only in a website (ChatGPT9). Technology companies have also had a relatively poor record of developing an inclusive work environment (Scott et al., 2017; Boag et al., 2022). Thus, there are concerns about their influence impacting the diversity of researchers in NLP. Several studies have shown that a diversity of participants is crucial for developing technologies that are beneficial for all, and not just those with power10 (Rao and Tilt, 2016; Reiche, 2017; Nielsen et al., 2017). Recommendations. We advocate for increased transparency in industry dealings within NLP research to help facilitate future decision-making and keep track of industry presence in the field. The 9https://chat.openai.com/ 10https://increasingdii.org/ NLP community organizers should push for standardized databases of author–industry interactions, similar to the ORCID initiative (Sprague, 2017). We think that a centralized database of all financial relationships would go a long way to enabling the study of the effects of industry presence in our field. The field should also take steps to prevent the monopolization of certain kinds of research that requires huge infrastructure (e.g., the creation of publicly controlled research infrastructure possibly funded by taxes on industry). ## 6 Limitations 6.1 Manual Analysis There are a few limitations with the manual analysis. First, as manually annotating hundreds of CVs is a time-intensive process, our analysis only represents a single point of time for a single conference. While this limitation is offset by the automated analysis for certain findings (e.g., affiliation analysis), stronger conclusions regarding other findings (e.g., faculty funding through grants) cannot necessarily be drawn (though our findings are supported by previous works (Abdalla and Abdalla, 2021)). The findings of our manual analysis that relied solely on CV analysis may also be systematically biased by the decision of faculty and graduate students to make information about themselves publicly available. For many features, there were many authors with "Unknown", and it may be possible that this is not random but systematic (e.g., those with more industry ties choose not to publish CVs or disclose their grant history or vice-versa). At the same time, those who opted out of our manual annotation could have done so for reasons related to information that could be found on their CVs, and this could theoretically bias the results. However, we do not think that those opting out of our study had a significant impact as they represented less than 3% of the study population. While our annotators followed the same annotation methodology (e.g., how to find authors and annotate each author), as observed in our agreement analysis, our search engines often returned a different ordering of websites for the same query for different users. As annotators only had to examine the main webpage of the author, it is possible that reordering the results affected which web pages were viewed. However, most annotations disagreements were between a given value and "Unknown" rather than incorrect attribution of a feature. ## 6.2 Automatic Analysis The extraction of texts from pdfs, as well as the extraction and matching of affiliations, typically contain more noise than human annotation, therefore, not all affiliations in papers are represented. Particularly, older publications suffer from OCR errors and larger amounts of typos. Furthermore, the extraction of companies in the automatic analysis is biased towards the largest 100 technology companies. It does not include nonpublicly traded companies and non-profits such as Hugging Face or OpenAI. In the early phases of the dataset collection, we intentionally chose a topdown approach because extracting possible company names from noisy affiliation headers requires many fuzzy text matches on named entities. ## 6.3 General Limitations In addition to the technical limitations discussed in the previous two subsections, our research has some higher-level limitations. Importantly, the dichotomy between university and industry is not black and white. We captured industry presence by looking at author affiliation and research grants. However, we did not look at university or department funding, which any individual researcher does not receive. Many universities receive (or have received) funding to sponsor their departments and, consequently, their faculty and research. A researcher may not be directly affiliated with a company nor receive funding from any company, yet feel some pressure if their department or university is funded by industry. This analysis is a snapshot of industry presence up until 2022. Currently, there is no automatic tool to analyze future research and industry presence or interactively set filters and generate sub-views of this study. We invite researchers to use our opensource data and code to create such an interactive system in the future. Furthermore, we did not consider the effect of governmental or military funding on the research done at universities. Both government and military, like industry, have vested interests and can influence research (Kistiakowsky, 1989; Barker, 2017; Goldfarb, 2008). Exploration of their effect and presence over time is an area we leave to future work. Although we quantified industry presence at multiple conferences, we did not quantify the amount of industry funding present at each conference as sponsors. Previous work, conference websites, and personal past experiences make us confident that most large conferences are funded, in part, by industry. Our analysis did not stratify interaction academic-industry interactions by ethnicity, sex, or many other sensitive attributes. While we believe in the importance of such an analysis, the data to enable this analysis was not accessible to us: it is often not listed on websites, and the information gathered by ACL is unavailable to researchers. Another aspect that our analysis did not touch on is that many universities are private and also require regular funding to maintain their research work. While student registration fees cover most of the operative business, research funds typically come from state grants, federal government grants, private institutions, and industry. We plan to trace such funding tracks of large private universities and research institutions in the future. ## 7 Ethical Considerations Our study does not qualify for IRB review as our study data are non-sensitive information contained in publicly available information sources. However, as part of the manual analysis, we had to create a file containing identifying information (names and website URLs to online CVs). The GDPR requires that the randomly selected participants be informed of the creation of such a file and be provided with the means to withdraw from the study and/or modify information about themselves. In compliance with the GDPR, all participants were sent an email offering them the possibility to withdraw from the study or provide an updated CV if interested. Nine participants requested the removal of their data, which we did immediately. Additionally, 11 participants could not be reached and were withdrawn from the study. Six participants sent us their updated CVs, so that we could take them into account and be more precise. Participants were initially reached using the emails listed in the papers, which we extracted automatically using GROBID (Romary and Lopez, 2015). 94 emails could not be delivered. We doubled checked the correctness of emails by looking at the first page of the published papers (and author websites if no email was present in the paper) to correct errors or find alternative emails. After correcting any mistakes, gathering alternative emails for the authors, only 11 emails returned an error. We decided not to include the participants corresponding to these emails. It has to be noted that no personal information regarding the individuals included was shared outside the research group, and the information was collected on a secure server and will be discarded 6 months after this research report (containing only aggregated results) has been published. ## Acknowledgements This work was supported by the DAAD under grant No. 9187215, the Lower Saxony Ministry of Science and Culture, and the VW Foundation. ## References Mohamed Abdalla and Moustafa Abdalla. 2021. The grey hoodie project: Big tobacco, big tech, and the threat on academic integrity. In *Proceedings of the* 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES '21, page 287–297, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Moustafa Abdalla, Mohamed Abdalla, Salwa Abdalla, Mohamed Saad, David S Jones, and Scott H Podolsky. 2022a. Insights from full-text analyses of the journal of the american medical association and the new england journal of medicine. *Elife*, 11:e72602. Moustafa Abdalla, Mohamed Abdalla, Salwa Abdalla, Mohamed Saad, David S Jones, and Scott H Podolsky. 2022b. The under-representation and stagnation of female, black, and hispanic authorship in the journal of the american medical association and the new england journal of medicine. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, pages 1–10. Nur Ahmed and Muntasir Wahed. 2020. The dedemocratization of ai: Deep learning and the compute divide in artificial intelligence research. ArXiv preprint, abs/2010.15581. Kathy Barker. 2017. The quiet military buyout of academia. Preventing War and Promoting Peace: A Guide for Health Professionals, page 141. William Boag, Harini Suresh, Bianca Lepe, and Catherine D'Ignazio. 2022. Tech worker organizing for power and accountability. In *2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency*, FAccT '22, page 452–463, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Lutz Bornmann and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2007. What do we know about the h index? *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology*, 58(9):1381–1385. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Michel Callon, Arie Rip, and John Law. 1986. *Mapping* the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. Springer. Rodrigo Costas and María Bordons. 2007. The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. *Journal of* Informetrics, 1(3):193–203. The Hirsch Index. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Eugene Garfield. 1979. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? *Scientometrics*, 1(4):359–375. Brent Goldfarb. 2008. The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output? *Research Policy*, 37(1):41–58. Magnus Gulbrandsen and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors' research performance. *Research Policy*, 34(6):932–950. Bennett Holman. 2021. What, me worry? research policy and the open embrace of industry-academic relations. *Frontiers in research metrics and analytics*, 6:31. Bennett Holman and Kevin C Elliott. 2018. The promise and perils of industry-funded science. *Philosophy* Compass, 13(11):e12544. Hanna Hottenrott and Susanne Thorwarth. 2011. Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity. *Kyklos*, 64(4):534–555. Vera Kistiakowsky. 1989. Military funding of university research. *The Annals of the American Academy of* Political and Social Science, 502(1):141–154. L Leydesdorff and S Milojevic. 2015. Scientometrics. ´ International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 21(2):322–327. Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Mark Neumann, Rodney Kinney, and Daniel Weld. 2020. S2ORC: The semantic scholar open research corpus. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4969–4983, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Joseph Mariani, Gil Francopoulo, and Patrick Paroubek. 2019. The nlp4nlp corpus (i): 50 years of publication, collaboration and citation in speech and language processing. *Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics*, 3:36. John Mingers and Loet Leydesdorff. 2015. A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1):1–19. Saif M. Mohammad. 2020a. Examining citations of natural language processing literature. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5199–5209, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Saif M. Mohammad. 2020b. Gender gap in natural language processing research: Disparities in authorship and citations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7860–7870, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Saif M. Mohammad. 2020c. NLP scholar: A dataset for examining the state of NLP research. In *Proceedings* of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 868–877, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Mathias Wullum Nielsen, Sharla Alegria, Love Börjeson, Henry Etzkowitz, Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski, Aparna Joshi, Erin Leahey, Laurel Smith-Doerr, Anita Williams Woolley, and Londa Schiebinger. 2017. Gender diversity leads to better science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8):1740–1742. Derek John de Solla Price. 1961. Science since Babylon. Kathyayini Rao and Carol Tilt. 2016. Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Diversity, Gender, Strategy and Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2):327–347. Sebastian Reiche. 2017. *Readings and Cases in International Human Resource Management*, sixth edition edition. Routledge, New York and London. Laurent Romary and Patrice Lopez. 2015. GROBID - Information Extraction from Scientific Publications. ERCIM News, 100. Terry Ruas, Jan Philip Wahle, Lennart Küll, Saif M Mohammad, and Bela Gipp. 2022. Cs-insights: A system for analyzing computer science research. ArXiv preprint, abs/2210.06878. Terry L. Ruas and Luciana Pereira. 2014. How to build Science, Technology, and Innovation Indicators using Web of of Science, Derwent World Patent Index, Bibexcel, and Pajek? *Perspectivas em Ciência da* Informação, 19:52–81. Angelo A. Salatino, Thiviyan Thanapalasingam, Andrea Mannocci, Aliaksandr Birukou, Francesco Osborne, and Enrico Motta. 2020. The Computer Science Ontology: A Comprehensive Automatically-Generated Taxonomy of Research Areas. *Data Intelligence*, 2(3):379–416. Allison Scott, K. Freada Klein, and Uriridiakoghene Onovakpuri. 2017. Tech leavers study. Technical report, Karpor Center for Social Impact. Https://www.kaporcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/08/TechLeavers2017.pdf. Peter Seele and Mario D Schultz. 2022. From greenwashing to machinewashing: a model and future directions derived from reasoning by analogy. *Journal* of Business Ethics, pages 1–27. Abheesht Sharma, Gunjan Chhablani, Harshit Pandey, and Rajaswa Patil. 2021. DRIFT: A toolkit for diachronic analysis of scientific literature. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 361–371, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Evan R Sprague. 2017. Orcid. *Journal of the Medical* Library Association: JMLA, 105(2):207. Jan Philip Wahle, Terry Ruas, Saif Mohammad, and Bela Gipp. 2022. D3: A massive dataset of scholarly metadata for analyzing the state of computer science research. In *Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference*, pages 2642–2651, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Meg Young, Michael Katell, and PM Krafft. 2022. Confronting power and corporate capture at the facct conference. In *2022 ACM Conference on Fairness,* Accountability, and Transparency, pages 1375–1386. ## A.2 Details On Standardization A Appendix A.1 Faq On Implementation Choices A.3 Details On The Extraction Of Affiliations many NLP papers are published in machine learning conferences (e.g., NeurIPS or ICML). Furthermore, many inter-disciplinary NLP works are published in journals belonging to the other discipline (e.g., clinical informatics work being published in JAMIA or JMIR). ## Q2. Why Do We Not Plot Entries With Less Than Five Counts In The Manual Analysis? When presenting the results of our study, we did not want to single anyone out. Since there are only 700 papers, it may be possible to identify people who belong to groups of less than five. Five was chosen as the threshold, as it falls within commonly accepted ranges of cell size suppression used in clinical informatics research11. ## Q3. Why Are Some Companies Left Out Of The Analysis? Including all technology companies available would result in convoluted experiments, harming our main goal. Instead of manually compiling a list of companies manually (with various selection biases), we wanted a reproducible and straightforward method to obtain the list of company names. Therefore we used the 100 largest ones by market cap according to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Using the list of top 100 companies in NYSE is a reasonable choice, but we acknowledge that it too has certain selection biases (e.g., it might not include prominent companies such as HuggingFace, OpenAI, and some prominent non-US companies). We did not manually add individual company names to this list to avoid unconscious cherry picking and to allow for comparable future experiments with the same reproducible setup also for potentially other fields than technology. Daniela Tafani. 2022. What's wrong with "AI ethics" narratives. *Bollettino telematico di filosofia politica*. Meredith Whittaker. 2021. The steep cost of capture. Interactions, 28(6):50–55. For our analysis, we standardized the data to account for changes in company names and different ways of describing the same company (e.g., Facebook and Meta) (Table 4), the various industrial titles (Table 5), and academic presence in our dataset (Table 6). We searched for company names and common aliases (e.g., FAIR, Meta, Facebook) the same way 11https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/entices.pdf ## Q1. Does The Acl Anthology Provide A Complete Resource For Nlp Research? No. Many NLP papers are not in the ACL anthology and are published in various non-English conferences that take place locally. For example, | Names in CV | Std. Name | |----------------------------------------|-------------| | Meta, Facebook, Meta AI | Meta | | Google, Youtube, Deepmind | Alphabet | | Tencent, WeChat, Tencent (Wecht at AI) | Tencent | | Microsoft, Microsft | Microsoft | | Allen Institute for AI, AI2 | AI2 | | LinkedIn, Linkedin | LinkedIn | Table 4: Company name standardization as in the manual analysis using word boundaryseparated regular expressions and fuzzy matching of less than two character errors. For example, for Meta, we use the following regular expression in which each word has the "'¯ ' word boundary flag. " ( ? = ( " meta | f a i r | f a c e b o o k " ) ) { e <=2}" Extracted affiliations are organized in sets per paper, i.e., when multiple authors have the same affiliation, they are counted once towards the paper being affiliated with the company. ## A.4 Dataset Versions We accessed data for our analysis at the following points in time. 1. NYSE list of technology companies - Date accessed/Version: 2022-10-15 2. List of worldwide universities - Date accessed/Version: 2022-09-04 3. S2 Open Research Corpus - Date accessed/Version: 2022-08-30 4. Full ACL Anthology as BibTeX - Date accessed/Version: 2022-10-12 5. DBLP Discovery Dataset (D3) - Date accessed/Version: 2022-10-01 ## A.5 Details On The Extraction Of Affiliations Each Box Must Be "No", "Unknown", "Yes", Or The Names Of Companies Comma Separated. How do we differentiate between No and Unknown? This is a bit tricky and depends on the person. For example, when looking at the website of a professor, if they don't have a section for talks, you should put Unknown as it's unlikely they've given no talks. However if they have a section for talks but none to companies it becomes a no. On the other hand, if you have a young PhD/MSc Student who has a fully fleshed website with all their awards and such but no section for talks, you can put No talks as it's unlikely they've had them and forgot to put them. Likewise for grants. It's unlikely that a senior professor with 20 years experience has won 0 grants. So, if they don't list ANY grants we'd put "Unknown" instead of No. However, grad students/industry workers (if they were never faculty) likely have not won grants. Here you have lee-way which will be standardized later to putting "No" if they have a full CV available but no grants section, or "Unknown" if no full CV. Either way, for these two groups standardization will adjust them. ## A.5.1 Annotation Instructions Below are the annotation instructions for each characteristic of interest. ## Url Description: The URL for their personal/academic website. Annotation Instructions: Goal is to find their academic page. How to find it depends on the person. We start by googling "name" + "nlp". If a likely positive result shows up, we investigate by looking at their publications on the website and comparing to paper title in the sheet. If their list of publications is not up to date or you're not confident, looking at their affiliation on the paper can help you disambiguate. If googling "name" + "nlp" doesn't work, you can then try "name" + "institution". You can also try to see if their google scholar profile links to a web-page. If you can't find a URL put "Unknown". ## Phd Year Description: Year they graduate PhD. Annotation Instructions: Usually in CVs, Bios, etc. If you can't find it put "Unknown". ## Country Of Work/Affiliation Description: The country of their current affiliation. Annotation Instructions: E.g., A PhD student at UofT is "Canada" (even if they are recently immigrated from China, for example). Sometimes this is not clear (e.g., no webpage + unclear affiliations from). If they put a company (e.g., Microsoft), but don't specify where (and no other information helps you see), put "Unknown" as Microsoft has offices in multiple places. Hong Kong will be standardized to China. Research Developer, Professional Engineer, Language Engineer, Algorithm expert, ML and NLP engineer, Research SDE, Research and Algorithm Engineer, NLP Engineer, Research Software Engineer, Machine Learning Engineer, Data Scientist, Software Engineer | Senior Software Engineer, Staff Software Engineer, Senior Engineer, Senior ML Engineer, Senior Algorithm Expert, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Senior Staff Algorithm Engineer, Algorithm Expert, Senior Algorithm Engineer | Senior Developer | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| | Senior Software Engineer (Research Scientist), Applied Scientist, Research Consultant, Data & Applied Scientist, Research Fellow, Applied Research Scientist, NLP AI Researcher, Data and Applied Scientist, Machine Learning Scientist, Applied Researcher, AI Resident, Research Council Officer, Research Associate, Research Scientist' | Researcher | | Senior NLP Researcher, Senior Research scientist, Senior Applied Scientist, Principal Data & Applied Scientist, Senior Scientist, Lead Research Scientist, Senior AI Researcher, Principal Researcher, Staff Research Scientist, Lead Scientist, Chief Scientist, Senior Machine Learning Scientist, Senior Data Scientist | Senior Researcher | | CEO, Executive Officer, Chair of AI Technical Committee, Head of Program Development, Chief Scientific Officer, Head of NLP Team, Tech Lead Manager, Principal Applied Scientist Manager, Applied Scientist Manager, Partner Chief Scientist, Research manager, Applied Science Manager, Technical leader, Principal Research Scientist & Research Manager, Partner Science Manager, Senior Research Director, Principal Research Manager, VP of AI Research and Applied AI, Team Leader, Research Project Manager, Senior Research Manager, Head of Research, Senior Director, Co-founder, Director of Speech and Language Lab, Head of lab, Director, Engineering Manager, Deputy Managing Director, Research Director | Management | Position in CV **Standardized Position** Junior Developer | Position in CV | Standardized Position | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------| | Assistant Prof., Tenure-track Assistant Prof. and PhD Advisor, Faculty, Lecturer | Assistant Prof. | | Associate Prof., Senior Lecturer | Associate Prof. | | Prof., Full Prof., Chair Prof., Chancellor's Fellow, Reader | Professor | | Adjunct Prof. | Adjunct Prof. | | Undergraduate Student | Undergraduate Student | | Master Student, Masters Student, Master's Student, Masters' Student, MSc Student | Master's Student | | PhD Student | PhD Student | | Postdoctoral Student, Postdoc, Postdoctoral Fellow, Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Post-Doctoral | Postdoc | | Researcher, Postdoctoral Associate | | Table 5: Industry position standardization Table 6: Academic position standardization ## Is Affiliated To A Company? Description: Are They Presently Affiliated With A Company? Annotation Instructions: - If they are in Industry, then put the name of company they work for. - If they are in academia and have no dual affiliation/current job at the same time, put "No". - If they are in academia AND industry (whether an official dual affiliation or working in two places at once) note: "DUAL (Place1, Place2)" This will be dealt with during standardization. - If it's not clear where they currently are, pull it from the paper. Description: What is the role at their place(s) of affiliation? Annotation Instructions: For each affiliation from the previous column, put their current role using comma to separate roles. Sometimes, if you only have an OpenReview profile they will not state their role. In this case put "Unknown". We do not distinguish between Endowed Professorships (e.g., "The NameA NameB Professor of Subject" would be reduced to "Professor"). ## Grant(S) From Company Description: Has The Individual Received Funding For Their Research? Annotation Instructions: - For Professors: This will most generally appear in the form of grants + research awards + general awards. If they have won a grant Role or received some research funding from a company, put the company name separated with commas. E.g., "Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Google" would be a professor that has received 2 Google grants, 1 Amazon, 1 Microsoft. - For students: If they've received grants (quite unlikely), follow the instructions above. Otherwise put "No" or "Unknown", this will be standardized later. - For industry: If they've received grants (quite unlikely), follow the instructions above. Otherwise put "No" or "Unknown", this will be standardized later. ## Visiting Researcher Description: Have they had a visiting researcher role in industry? Annotation Instructions: - For Professors: This is different from past work at a company. A visiting researcher role is often a short (often 1 year) stint at a company after which they return to the same academic position. If they put their work history and you can't see them use this term put "No". If they don't put their work history, only then put "Unknown". - For students/industry: Quite unlikely (as this would just be an internship). If their CV is fully there and they use the term, but you see internships you can put "No". If no CV/no past work history, you can put "Unknown" (this will be dealt with during standardization). ## Graduate Fundings From Companies: Description: Has The Individual Received Graduate funding/awards during their PhD? Annotation Instructions: This only deals with things during graduate education. If you see it, put the company names separated by commas. Often, professors and those in industry do not put things from their graduate education. If you feel they are omitting information from their time in graduate school (e.g., no mention of any awards/funds/internships during grad school), put "Unknown". If they have complete information during their graduate education but nothing from companies, put "No". ## Internship In A Company Description: Has The Individual Interned For Companies? Annotation Instructions: This only deals with internships during education (otherwise it'd be employment). If you see it, put the company names separated by commas. Often, professors and those in industry do not put things from their graduate time. If you feel they are omitting information from their time in graduate school (e.g., no mention of any awards/funds/internships during grad school), put "Unknown". If they have complete information during their graduate education but no internships, put "No". ## Past Industry Work/Research (Any Other Types) Description: Catch-All Industry Financial Connection Category Annotation Instructions: This is the catchall category. Have they received financial compensation in some way from a company. This includes past work experience (not internships), working as an advisor/consultant, being the founder but no longer part of, etc. If there is no employment history available for you to view, put "Unknown". Otherwise "No", or company names comma-separated. ## Comments Description: N/A Annotation Instructions: If you have any comments about the person. Either some information you had a hard time processing or something you wanted to point out. ## A.6 Additional Details Of Our Experiments In this section, we provide more details about our experiments in Section 4. ## A.6.1 Venues And Tracks Figure 7 shows the number of papers by year with industry author affiliations by venues. ## A.6.2 Manual: Career Stage Analysis Figure 8 presents author seniority as measured by years since PhD. A.6.3 Manual: Geographic Analysis Figure 9 presents the country of affiliation for each author.   ## A.6.4 Citation Analysis Tables 7 and 8 show the mean and the median number of citations as well as h-index for papers in which at least one of the authors with a university and industry affiliation respectively.  | University | Mean | Median | Time Norm. Mean∗ | Time Norm. Median∗ | h-index (↓) | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------|--------------------|----------------------|---------------| | Carnegie Mellon University | 65.06 | 15.00 | 9.33 | 2.14 | 95.00 | | Stanford University | 129.73 | 21.00 | 16.24 | 3.20 | 81.00 | | University of Edinburgh | 54.34 | 18.00 | 6.03 | 2.00 | 71.00 | | University of Pennsylvania | 99.34 | 12.00 | 6.38 | 1.48 | 67.00 | | University of Texas | 36.16 | 11.00 | 3.97 | 1.85 | 64.00 | | University of Cambridge | 45.19 | 13.00 | 6.12 | 2.04 | 62.00 | | University of Technology | 25.45 | 6.00 | 3.23 | 1.00 | 60.00 | | Johns Hopkins University | 54.09 | 15.50 | 7.74 | 2.92 | 59.00 | | University of Washington | 59.19 | 17.00 | 11.35 | 3.62 | 58.00 | | Columbia University | 64.47 | 17.00 | 6.48 | 2.50 | 58.00 | | University of Illinois | 38.89 | 14.00 | 5.60 | 2.18 | 58.00 | | York University | 73.40 | 16.00 | 10.21 | 2.00 | 56.00 | | Institute of Science and Technology | 30.38 | 7.00 | 2.84 | 0.87 | 55.00 | | New York University | 97.89 | 12.00 | 14.21 | 1.94 | 50.00 | | Brown University | 89.70 | 36.00 | 7.25 | 2.38 | 50.00 | | University of Melbourne | 30.58 | 9.00 | 4.44 | 1.50 | 48.00 | | University of Sheffield | 33.90 | 12.00 | 4.06 | 1.51 | 45.00 | | University of Southern California | 76.89 | 13.00 | 6.39 | 2.17 | 43.00 | | City University | 20.77 | 8.00 | 2.43 | 1.00 | 43.00 | | National University | 17.15 | 4.00 | 3.25 | 1.00 | 42.00 | | University of Trento | 35.51 | 11.00 | 4.27 | 1.79 | 41.00 | | Cornell University | 53.74 | 18.00 | 8.95 | 3.00 | 40.00 | | Macquarie University | 38.51 | 18.50 | 3.96 | 2.00 | 37.00 | | University of Amsterdam | 30.87 | 10.00 | 6.28 | 2.00 | 37.00 | | Peking University | 27.27 | 8.00 | 4.61 | 2.00 | 36.00 | | Ohio State University | 35.52 | 8.00 | 5.05 | 1.00 | 36.00 | | Chinese University of Hong Kong | 26.52 | 9.50 | 5.25 | 2.23 | 35.00 | | Hong Kong Polytechnic University | 18.61 | 4.00 | 2.65 | 0.76 | 32.00 | | Brandeis University | 73.00 | 9.00 | 5.25 | 1.18 | 32.00 | | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 75.64 | 17.50 | 9.56 | 3.56 | 32.00 | | University of Groningen | 22.64 | 9.00 | 3.48 | 1.33 | 31.00 | | Harbin Institute of Technology | 45.94 | 10.00 | 7.01 | 1.65 | 31.00 | | Toyota Technological Institute | 58.66 | 14.50 | 9.77 | 3.58 | 30.00 | | University of Science and Technology | 20.79 | 4.00 | 3.27 | 0.72 | 30.00 | | University of Pittsburgh | 37.50 | 14.00 | 3.60 | 1.67 | 30.00 | | University of Wolverhampton | 36.73 | 7.00 | 6.70 | 1.25 | 29.00 | | Harvard University | 41.08 | 17.00 | 4.79 | 1.73 | 29.00 | | Georgia Institute of Technology | 46.66 | 10.00 | 9.25 | 3.00 | 28.00 | | Hong Kong University of Science and Technology | 24.63 | 12.00 | 6.65 | 4.12 | 28.00 | | Dublin City University | 21.43 | 10.00 | 2.56 | 1.26 | 27.00 | | Mean† | 19.21 | 10.61 | 2.85 | 1.74 | 5.48 | | Table 7: The mean and the median number of citations as well as h-index for papers in which at least one of | | | | | | Table 7: The mean and the median number of citations as well as h-index for papers in which at least one of the authors has a university affiliation. We selected the top 40 affiliations by h-index. ∗Time normalization was performed by dividing the mean/median by the number of years the paper was published. †The mean over all companies and universities (also ones not listed here). | Company | Mean | Median | Time Norm. Mean∗ | Time Norm. Median∗ | h-index (↓) | |-------------------|--------|----------|--------------------|----------------------|---------------| | Microsoft | 61.32 | 16.00 | 9.05 | 2.82 | 123.00 | | Alphabet | 81.62 | 21.00 | 15.48 | 4.50 | 104.00 | | IBM | 74.22 | 11.00 | 6.53 | 1.60 | 94.00 | | Meta Platforms | 113.55 | 20.00 | 25.47 | 8.00 | 77.00 | | Tencent | 25.91 | 9.00 | 6.52 | 3.50 | 42.00 | | Baidu | 32.79 | 8.00 | 7.01 | 2.50 | 36.00 | | Amazon | 21.19 | 4.00 | 5.64 | 1.50 | 35.00 | | Alibaba | 16.16 | 6.00 | 4.92 | 2.50 | 30.00 | | Salesforce | 36.67 | 12.00 | 11.14 | 5.00 | 28.00 | | Adobe | 13.81 | 6.00 | 4.13 | 2.00 | 22.00 | | Samsung | 13.94 | 3.00 | 3.27 | 1.00 | 18.00 | | Apple | 46.92 | 9.00 | 7.09 | 2.00 | 15.00 | | SAP | 39.42 | 9.50 | 6.99 | 1.52 | 15.00 | | Intel | 17.05 | 8.00 | 6.78 | 2.50 | 13.00 | | Sony | 73.39 | 12.00 | 8.80 | 0.64 | 12.00 | | Meituan | 8.44 | 2.00 | 4.74 | 1.17 | 8.00 | | Nokia | 15.11 | 13.00 | 1.32 | 1.43 | 7.00 | | NVIDIA | 10.32 | 3.00 | 4.14 | 2.00 | 7.00 | | Oracle | 5.54 | 1.00 | 1.85 | 0.50 | 6.00 | | Xiaomi | 6.50 | 4.00 | 2.62 | 2.00 | 6.00 | | Intuit | 45.14 | 34.00 | 10.84 | 6.80 | 5.00 | | Twitter | 5.08 | 3.50 | 1.75 | 1.25 | 5.00 | | HP | 11.67 | 5.50 | 0.95 | 0.48 | 4.00 | | Block | 20.57 | 5.00 | 1.25 | 0.31 | 4.00 | | ServiceNow | 7.75 | 5.00 | 4.62 | 4.50 | 4.00 | | Canon | 12.00 | 15.50 | 1.33 | 0.65 | 3.00 | | Texas Instruments | 51.29 | 0.00 | 1.58 | 0.00 | 3.00 | | Uber | 10.00 | 9.00 | 2.56 | 2.25 | 3.00 | | Cisco | 5.00 | 6.00 | 1.30 | 1.40 | 2.00 | | Airbnb | 15.50 | 15.50 | 2.72 | 2.72 | 2.00 | | NetEase | 3.50 | 1.50 | 1.02 | 0.67 | 2.00 | | Netflix | 17.67 | 16.00 | 3.53 | 3.20 | 2.00 | | Broadcom | 3.00 | 4.00 | 1.28 | 1.33 | 2.00 | | Autodesk | 10.00 | 2.00 | 0.86 | 0.50 | 2.00 | | PayPal | 5.00 | 5.00 | 1.67 | 1.67 | 1.00 | | Tesla | 8.00 | 8.00 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 1.00 | | Mean† | 21.15 | 7.10 | 4.09 | 1.77 | 16.62 | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Left blank. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left Blank. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Licensing for the automated analysis will released with the code and dataset after acceptance. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 1 ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Section 3, Section 7. The manual data will not be released to the public because it contains author-identifying information. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Information not available. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank. ## C ✗ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left blank. C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Not applicable. Left blank. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Not applicable. Left blank. C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Not applicable. Left blank. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. Left blank. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 4 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix A5.1 ✗ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? The authors manually performed this evaluation. ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section 3.2 and Table 2 ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Section 7 ✗ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? The authors manually performed this evaluation.

heddaya-etal-2023-language

Language of Bargaining

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.735

Leveraging an established exercise in negotiation education, we build a novel dataset for studying how the use of language shapes bilateral bargaining. Our dataset extends existing work in two ways: 1) we recruit participants via behavioral labs instead of crowdsourcing platforms and allow participants to negotiate through audio, enabling more naturalistic interactions; 2) we add a control setting where participants negotiate only through alternating, written numeric offers. Despite the two contrasting forms of communication, we find that the average agreed prices of the two treatments are identical. But when subjects can talk, fewer offers are exchanged, negotiations finish faster, the likelihood of reaching agreement rises, and the variance of prices at which subjects agree drops substantially. We further propose a taxonomy of speech acts in negotiation and enrich the dataset with annotated speech acts. We set up prediction tasks to predict negotiation success and find that being reactive to the arguments of the other party is advantageous over driving the negotiation.

## Language Of Bargaining Mourad Heddaya University of Chicago mourad@uchicago.edu ## Rob Voigt Northwestern University robvoigt@northwestern.edu ## Abstract Leveraging an established exercise in negotiation education, we build a novel dataset for studying how the use of language shapes bilateral bargaining. Our dataset extends existing work in two ways: 1) we recruit participants via behavioral labs instead of crowdsourcing platforms and allow participants to negotiate through audio, enabling more naturalistic interactions; 2) we add a control setting where participants negotiate only through alternating, written numeric offers. Despite the two contrasting forms of communication, we find that the average agreed prices of the two treatments are identical. But when subjects can talk, fewer offers are exchanged, negotiations finish faster, the likelihood of reaching agreement rises, and the variance of prices at which subjects agree drops substantially. We further propose a taxonomy of speech acts in negotiation and enrich the dataset with annotated speech acts. Our work also reveals linguistic signals that are predictive of negotiation outcomes. ## 1 Introduction Bilateral bargaining, in the sense of a goal-oriented negotiation between two parties, is a fundamental human social behavior that takes shape in many areas of social experience. Driven by a desire to better understand this form of interaction, a rich body of work in economics and psychology has evolved to study bargaining (Rubin and Brown, 1975; Bazerman et al., 2000; Roth, 2020). However, this work has seldom paid careful attention to the use of language and its fine-grained impacts on bargaining conversations; indeed, many studies operationalize bargaining as simply the back-andforth exchange of numerical values. Meanwhile, there is growing interest in bargaining in NLP oriented towards the goal of building dialogue systems capable of engaging in effective negotiation (Zhan et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2023). In this work, we aim to bridge these two lines of work and develop a com- Solomon Dworkin University of Chicago solomon.dworkin@gmail.com Chenhao Tan University of Chicago chenhao@uchicago.edu ## Alexander Zentefis Yale University Alexander.Zentefis@Yale.Edu putational understanding of how language shapes bilateral bargaining. To do so, building on a widely used exercise involving the bargaining over the price of a house used in negotiation education, we develop a controlled experimental environment to collect a dataset of bargaining conversations.1 The treatment in our experiment is the manner in which subjects communicate: either through alternating, written, numeric offers (the *alternating offers* or AO condition) or unstructured, verbal communication (the natural language or NL condition). Furthermore, to encourage naturalistic interactions, we recruit participants via behavioral labs and allow participants to negotiate in a conversational setting using audio on Zoom instead of crowdingsourcing text conversations as prior work has done (Asher et al., 2016; Lewis et al., 2017; He et al., 2018). In total, we collect a dataset with 230 alternating-offers negotiations and 178 natural language negotiations. In contrast with He et al. (2018)'s Craigslist negotiation dataset, our natural language negotiations have an average of over 4x more turns exchanged during each conversation, so our dataset represents a richer source to explore linguistic aspects of bargaining behavior than has been presented by existing work in this area. In addition, we enrich the dataset by annotating all the conversations with a set of negotiationspecific speech acts. Inspired by prior work on rhetorical strategies in negotiations (Chang and Woo, 1994; Weigand et al., 2003; Twitchell et al., 2013), we create a simplified taxonomy of what we term *bargaining acts* and hire undergraduate research assistants to provide annotations. To the best of our knowledge, our dataset of speech acts in negotiations is an order of magnitude larger than existing datasets. We first provide descriptive results based on 1Dataset access may be requested at: https://mheddaya. com/research/bargaining our dataset. Although the AO and NL conditions are conducted via different communication mechanisms, they reach the same average agreed prices. However, when subjects can talk, fewer offers are exchanged, negotiations finish faster, the likelihood of reaching agreement rises, and the variance of prices at which subjects agree drops substantially. These observations suggest that the use of language facilitates collaboration. We also find differences in how buyers and sellers employ bargaining acts. Recorded and transcribed speech provides more direct access to the intuitive attitudes and behaviors of the buyers and sellers. This enables us to identify subtle types of expression that are predictive of negotiation outcomes and reveal underlying dynamics of negotiation. Other findings corroborate conclusions from Lee and Ames (2017), who distinguish the effectiveness of negotiators' different expressions of the same rationale. We set up prediction tasks to predict the outcome of a negotiation based on features of the conversation and analyze the important features contributing to class differentiation. Our results show that LIWC features provide consistently strong performance and even outperform Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020) given the beginning of a negotiation. Important features reveal that successful sellers drive and frame the conversation early on by using interrogative words to prompt buyers with targeted questions, while successful buyers convey their personal considerations and concerns while using negative expressions to push for lower prices. In summary, we make the following contributions: - We build a novel dataset of bargaining and provide annotations of bargaining acts. - We demonstrate that the ability to communicate using language facilitates cooperation. - Our work reveals linguistic signals that are predictive of negotiation outcomes. For instance, it is advantageous to drive the negotiation, rather than to be reactive to the other party's arguments. ## 2 Related Work Negotiation is a growing area of study in computer science. Zhan et al. (2022) provide an excellent survey of research on negotiation dialogue systems. Lewis et al. (2017) train recurrent neural networks to generate natural language dialogues in negotiations. He et al. (2018) propose a modular generative model based on dialogue acts. Our focus is on deriving computational understanding of how language shapes negotiation. Several research disciplines have studied bilateral bargaining from different perspectives and using different tools. Economic theory has investigated the role of incomplete information (Ausubel et al., 2002) and highlighted the role of explicit communication (Crawford, 1990; Roth, 2020). Bazerman et al. (2000) and Pruitt (2013) provide an overview of the psychology literature on negotiation. However, these studies tend to overlook the content of the communication, with some notable exceptions (Swaab et al., 2011; Jeong et al., 2019; Lee and Ames, 2017). The most related work to ours is Lee and Ames (2017), who study how bargaining outcomes are affected by the way a rationale is expressed. They find that expressions that hint at a constraint (e.g., "I can't pay more") are more effective at shaping a seller's views of the buyer's willingness to pay than critique rationales (e.g., "it's not worth more"). ## 3 Dataset The first contribution of our work is building the first transcript dataset of *spoken* natural language bargaining between lab experiment participants. Our dataset extends existing datasets in four ways: 1. Negotiation happens in spoken language, and is thus more fluid and natural, akin to real-world bargaining scenarios, such as price haggling in vendor markets, union negotiations, or diplomacy talks, while existing work is largely based on written exchanges (Asher et al., 2016; Lewis et al., 2017; He et al., 2018); 2. Our work is the first one to introduce a control condition without the use of natural language; 3. Participants are recruited through behavioral labs at universities and their incentive structure is more high-powered (i.e., bonus earnings based on outcomes and payment exceeding the typical $12 hourly wage) than for a crowdworker on Amazon Mechanical Turk; 4. We supplement the transcripts with manual annotation of speech acts (see §4). While contributing greatly to our understanding of negotiation, existing bargaining datasets are somewhat limited in being based on written exchanges (He et al., 2018), often in the context of a highly structured game (Asher et al., 2016; Lewis et al., 2017). Experiment design. We conducted a controlled experiment whose setting reflected a common life experience: the purchase or sale of a house. We adapted the setting in "Buying a House" by Sally Blount, a popular exercise from the Dispute Resolution Research Center (DRRC) of Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management (Blount, 2000).2 We randomly paired participants and each was assigned the role of buyer or seller. In each pairing, buyer and seller negotiated a price of the house anonymously. Both buyer and seller were aware of the listing price of $240,000 and shared the same descriptions of the house and surrounding area, along with recent sales prices of comparable homes. However, each participant was given a private valuation of the house ($235,000 for the buyer and $225,000 for the seller). Participant bonus earnings depended on bargaining outcomes to incentivize subjects to engage in realistic negotiating behavior. If no agreement was reached, neither party earned bonus money. On an hourly basis, compensation seemed significant enough to influence participant behavior (i.e., at least $40/hour was on the table per round). On average, subjects earned roughly $23.25/hour. More details can be found in Appendix B. Each subject participated in two bargaining rounds. In one round, a buyer-seller pair communicated via *alternating offers* (AO) in an online chat that only accepted numeric entries. Each participant could choose to accept or counter each offer they received. In the other round, participants played the same role, either buyer or seller, but were assigned a new partner. In this round, each pair communicated in *natural language* (NL) via audio only on Zoom (videos were monitored to be turned off to avoid signals from gesture and facial expressions). The subjects were restricted from disclosing their private value and compensation structure and informed that doing so would result in forfeiture of their earnings.3 Our experiment is approved by the IRB at Yale University. | Alternating | Natural | | |----------------------------|-----------|-------| | Offers | Language | | | No. of Turns | 29.2 | 42.50 | | No. of New Offers | 17.9 | 6.06 | | No. of Repeat Offers | 11.3 | 1.56 | | Duration (min) | 9.5 | 6.5 | | Avg Turn Length (sec) | 28.9 | 12.54 | | Prob. of Agreement (%) | 90.0 | 97.19 | | Agreed Price ($000s) | 229.9 | 229.8 | | No. of Negotiations | 230 | 178 | | No. of Unique Participants | 460 | 356 | Table 1: Descriptive Statistics Across Treatments; The table reports mean descriptive statistics of the house price negotiations in the Alternating Offer (AO) and Natural Language (NL) treatments. scribe. Transcription produces strictly alternating seller and buyer turns, without sentence segmentation. We use the resulting transcripts for the annotation and analyses described in this paper. We trim the end of each negotiation at the point of agreement on a final price for the house, discarding any interaction that occurs subsequently. We describe in §4 the annotation procedures that allowed us to reliably identify the point of agreement. Descriptive statistics. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics of the AO and NL treatments. Since a failed negotiation results in no bonus for both sides, most negotiations end with a successful sale. Nevertheless, the probability of agreement is roughly 7 percentage points higher under NL than AO (97.2% versus 90.0%). A two-tailed ttest with heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors shows that the difference in agreement probability is significant. Moreover, in contrast with the AO treatment, the NL treatment produces negotiations that, on average, have ∼1.5x more turns, but NL turns are over 50% shorter in duration, and NL negotiations are roughly 30% shorter in total duration and feature about 74% fewer offers. Surprisingly, without the ability to communicate using language, buyers and sellers are less efficient in reconciling their differences. In the AO treatment, the combination of fewer turns that are each, individually, longer in duration is telling. Interlocutors are spending more time silently strategizing and considering their next act. However, this time invested is not fruitful individually nor at the level of coordination, as exemplified by a lower probability of agreement and equivalent agreed prices among successful negotiations, likely due to an impoverished channel of communication. | Bargaining Act | Definition | Example | |--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | New offer | Any numerical price, not previously mentioned, that is offered by either the buyer or seller throughout the course of the negotiation. | That's still $30,000 out of my budget but I would be willing to pay 210,000 | | Repeat Offer | Any numerical price presented that is an exact repeat of a previously presented offer; in a literal sense, these are redundant offers that were already on the table. | Yeah I understand um you still think that to 240,000 is too high right | | Push | Any overt linguistic effort made by either party to | Might just be a little too low for what I have to | | bring the other party's offer closer to theirs. | offer here | | | Comparison | Evokes a difference or similarity between an aspect of | Like there's one for 213k Which is like smaller | | the seller's house and other external houses or considerations. | and it's nearby so that's closer to our budget, we've seen that apartment it's not as like it's not as furnished and it's kind of old and so | | | Allowance | Any time either party adjusts their offer price closer to the other party's most recent offer. An allowance may be interpreted as the accompanying interaction to a successful push act. | I mean really like it probably should be higher than 233 but we're willing to drop it to 233 | | End | End of negotiation via offer acceptance entering mutual common ground - explicitly only happens once. | Alright 228 it is | | Table 2: Bargaining act annotation definitions and examples. | | |  Figure 1 shows that the distributions of agreed prices largely overlap between the two treatments, but the distribution in prices under NL is substantially narrower than under AO. Between the two treatments, the mean agreed price conditional on reaching agreement is identical ($229.8 thousand). However, the standard deviation of agreed prices under NL is about one-third of that under AO (3.1 versus 10.4). A Fligner-Killeen (FK) (Fligner and Killeen, 1976) two-sample scale test shows that the standard deviation of the AO price distribution is statistically larger than the NL counterpart. ## 4 Bargaining Act Annotation Previous researchers have recognized the inherently speech-act-like character of negotiations (Chang and Woo, 1994; Weigand et al., 2003; Twitchell et al., 2013). Many or most utterances in a bargaining context can be thought of as taking some action with reference to the negotiation. Here we propose and present a simplified ontology of negotiation-oriented speech acts (hereafter, bargaining acts) relevant to the present context of negotiation. Two trained undergraduate research assistants annotated all transcripts according to five bargaining acts: 1) new offer, 2) repeat offer, 3) push, 4) comparison, 5) allowance, and 6) end. Table 2 provides definitions and examples. Note that each turn can include multiple bargaining acts. In addition, each speech act is also annotated with a numerical offer, if applicable. Twenty-four transcripts were annotated by both annotators to allow agreement to be calculated. Using MASI distance weighting (Passonneau, 2006), we found a Krippendorff's alpha (Hayes and Krippendorff, 2007) of 0.72, representing a high degree of agreement for a pragmatic annotation task. Figure 2 shows that new offers, *pushes*, and *comparisons* are relatively more frequent and appear more consistently in all the negotiations than *allowances* and *repeat offers*. We note in Table 1 that *repeat offers* are dramatically more common in the AO condition than the NL condition (11.3 vs. 1.56 per negotiation). With linguistic context, negotiators are less likely to engage in fundamentally uncooperative behavior by simply repeating past offers over again. Comparing buyers to sellers, we observe that buyers make on average 1 more *new offers* per negotiation than sellers (independent sample, heteroskedasticity robust t-test, p = 0.02). We find no statistically significant differences between roles for the other five bargaining acts. The bargaining act annotations allow us to describe a negotiation as a sequence of offers proposed by the buyer and seller. We compare how the frequency and pattern of numerical offers differ across 1) experimental treatments (NL vs. AO) and 2) negotiation outcomes. We characterize different properties of the negotiations as well as their trajectories over the course the interaction. Figure 3 reveals three general patterns on offer trajectories. First, both AO and NL bargaining feature a similar range of new offers exchanged in the early stages of the negotiation. Early on, buyers in both treatments present new offers as low as 170; and sellers, as high as 270. But extreme offers are more prevalent in AO than NL bargaining. Second, both the AO and NL trajectories exhibit a rhythmic pattern of low and high offers, which is familiar to real-world negotiations. The buyer's low offer is countered by the seller's high offer, which is then countered by the buyer's slightly increased low offer, and so on. Third, NL bargaining takes far fewer new offers to reach agreement than AO bargaining. Figure 3b clearly demonstrates that NL negotiations converge quicker, with consecutive offers converging to within $5K after 6 new offers. AO negotiations take over 40 new offer exchanges to reach a similar convergence. ## 5 Predicting Negotiation Outcomes Finally, we set up prediction tasks to understand the relationship between the use of natural language and negotiation success. Overall, our models demonstrate performance gains over majority class in most settings. Surprisingly, Logistic Regression using bag-of-words and LIWC category features outperform the neural model. We observe differentiation between classification accuracy on seller only and buyer only speech, and highlight features that explain this difference. ## 5.1 Experimental Setup Task. We consider a binary classification task with two classes: 1) "seller win" and 2) "buyer win", where a negotiation is classified by whether it concluded with an agreed price greater than $230K or less than $230K, respectively. We focus on negotiations that end with an advantage for either the buyer or seller to better understand the dynamics that produce an asymmetric outcome. Hence, we omit the negotiations that ended with $230K or that did not reach an agreed price. This leaves us 119 negotiations. As the predictive task may become trivial if we see the entire exchange, we build 10 versions of each negotiation by incrementally adding proportions of the negotiation to the input with a step size of 10%. Thus, we obtain input/output pairs (Xk, y) for a given negotiation, where k = {10%*, . . . ,* 100%}, and each k corresponds to a different prediction task; namely, whether the negotiation outcome can be predicted by the first k percentage of the interaction. Methods. We test two setups for our task. The first is a standard linear model with logistic regression. The second is an end-to-end approach using Longformer, a transformer-based model for encoding and classifying long sequences. In particular, we use the encoder and output modules of LongformerEncoderDecoder (LED) (Beltagy et al., 2020), a variant of the original Longformer model, which can encode sequences up to 16,384 tokens in length. This exceeds the maximum input length in our dataset. In the logistic regression experiments, we treat the numerical offers as an oracle and consider three other feature sets: 1) Transcription texts; 2) Bargaining acts; 3) LIWC categories (Tausczik and  (b) Absolute Differences in Consecutive New Offers.  Pennebaker, 2010).4 We represent each negotiation as a binary bag-of-words encoding of the features listed above. For *bargaining acts*, we construct the vocabulary based on unigrams and bigrams; for the other feature sets, we only include unigrams. We include bigrams for bargaining acts to capture local combinations of bargaining acts. To maintain a reasonable vocabulary size, we only consider unigrams from the transcribed text that occur in at least 5 negotiations (see Appendix C for total feature counts). We replace numbers mentioned in the text with a generic [NUM] token to eliminate the strongly predictive signal of new offers and focus on language instead. In experiments with LED, we add two special tokens [SELLER] and [BUYER] that we concatenate to the start of each turn depending on who is speaking. We make no other changes to the transcribed text. The input to LED is the concatenation of all the turns. Evaluation. We use accuracy as our main evaluation metric. In all experiments, due to the relatively small size of our dataset, we use nested five-fold cross validation for both inner and outer cross validations. For logistic regression, we grid search the best ℓ2 coefficient within {2 x}, where x ranges over 11 values evenly spaced between –10 and 1. We further concatenate the speaker ('buyer' or 'seller') and the turn position within the negotiation.  We treat these as hyper-parameters. We represent the position as k, where k corresponds to a fraction of the conversation, as defined earlier. For example, the word "house" spoken by the seller in the first 10% of turns in a negotiation would be tokenized as "s1-house". In the LED experiments, we omit the inner cross validation and use a batch size of 4, the largest possible batch size given our memory constraints.5 We select the best performing learning rate out of {5e − 5, 3e − 4, 3e − 3} and early stop based on training loss convergence. ## 5.2 Results Predictive performance. We start by looking at the overall predictive performance. Figure 4 5We use a single Nvidia A40 GPU in our LED experiments.  presents results for all models. For the oracle condition (numerical), as expected, prediction accuracy increases monotonically and steadily as the fraction of the conversation and the corresponding numerical offers in the input increases from 10% to 100% of the conversation. As the buyer and seller converge towards an agreed price, the offers made provide strong signal about the outcome. However, this task proves much more challenging for other models where we do not include numerical offers provided by annotators. One intriguing observation is that LED consistently underperforms logistic regression. Within logistic regression, LIWC categories outperform other features and achieve 63.1% accuracy whereas text-based BOW features achieve a best score of 58.9%. Furthermore, there is no clear trend of performance growing as the fraction of negotiation increases. While bargaining actions under-perform other features overall, there is a notable jump in accuracy at fraction 30%, which we will revisit later. Buyer vs. seller. In bilateral bargaining, an interesting question is which party drives the negotiation, and to what effect? To further understand the role of buyer vs. seller, we only consider features of buyer texts or seller texts. Although the performance of LIWC does not vary much for buyer and seller texts (Figure 5a), Figures 5b and 5c show contrasting differences in prediction accuracy for sellers and buyers at various fractions of a negotiation. Seller transcription text achieves ~10% higher accuracy than buyer and buyer + seller at fractions 20% (p = 0.01), 30% (p = 0.01), 90% (p = 0.001), 100% (p = 0.01). Meanwhile, buyer bargaining acts outperform seller acts throughout and are particularly effective at 40% (p = 0.008) and Important features. To understand in greater detail which features are more helpful for prediction, we compare the fitted logistic regression models' feature coefficients.6 Coefficients with the largest absolute values are associated with more discriminating features. We first discuss features from LIWC, our best performing feature set (Table 3a). Interrogative words spoken by the sellers at the beginning of the negotiations ("s1-interrog") are consistently and strongly predictive of seller wins. An example use by the seller is "so tell me about what you're looking for in a house". From the buyers' points of view, it appears to be disadvantageous to use informal language, such as "mhm", "k", "yep", and "huh"("b1-netspeak"), especially at the beginning of the negotiation. One interpretation could be that the buyer signals a passivity, allowing the seller to drive the conversation and establish their asking price and justification for it. Overall, these two patterns suggest that sellers benefit from controlling the direction of the conversation early on. Furthermore, LIWC categories "money", "space", and "home" are associated with buyer success. These categories consists of seller spoken words like "area", "location", "floors", and "room" and buyer spoken words like "budget", "pay", and "priced", among many others, which are used in reference to various aspects of the house and its price. Discussion of these subjects often revolves around the seller first justifying their asking price ("s2-space") then the buyer disputing the houses value or their ability to afford the seller's price ("b4-money"). Additionally, buyer 6We use the average coefficients of the five models in cross validation. | 10% | 30% | 50% | 70% | 90% | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | BUYER WIN | | | | | | s2-social, s1-time, s1-compare, b1-adj, b1-focuspast | b4-money, s8-bio, s2-interrog, b4-negemo, s2-space | | | | | SELLER WIN | | | | | | b1-motion, b1-netspeak, b1-i, b1-focuspresent, s1-adverb | s2-you, s2-social, s3-social, b3-posemo, s2-space | b3-posemo, s3-social, s2-space, s5-money, b4-negemo | s7-home, b4-negemo, s2-you, s2-cogproc, b4-money | | | s1-interrog, b3-you, b1-netspeak, b1-motion, b3-bio | s1-interrog, b1-netspeak, b3-bio, s1-you, s1-conj | b3-bio, s1-interrog, b1-netspeak, b3-focusfuture, b3-reward | s1-interrog, b3-bio, b1-netspeak, b1-motion, s4-focuspast | | | (a) LIWC. | | | | | | 10% | 30% | 50% | 70% | 90% | | BUYER WIN | | | | | | b-push, b-push b-new, b-repeat b-push, b-new, b-new b-push | b-push b-compare, b-push b-new, b-repeat b-push, b-push, b-new b-compare | | | | | SELLER WIN | | | | | | b-new b-compare, b-repeat, b-push b-compare, b-compare b-push, b-compare | b-push b-compare, b-new b-compare, b-push, b-compare b-repeat, b-push b-repeat | b-new b-compare, b-new b-repeat, b-push b-compare, b-push, b-push b-new | b-push b-compare, b-new b-compare, b-new b-allow, b-push b-allow, b-allow b-push | | | b-allow b-compare, b-allow, b-compare b-allow, b-compare b-push, b-compare | b-allow b-compare, b-new b-push, b-compare b-push, b-repeat b-new, b-new | b-compare, b-repeat b-allow, b-allow, b-new, b-allow b-compare | b-repeat b-allow, b-allow b-compare, b-compare b-allow, b-allow, b-compare b-compare | | | (b) Bargaining acts. | | | | | speech associated with negative emotions like "unfortunately", "problem", "sorry", "lower", and "risk" ("b4-negemo") similarly appears 40% into the negotiation, along with mentions of money-related words. Buyers may benefit from moving the conversation away from concrete facts towards a discussion about what is an affordable or reasonable price for them. Crucially, successful buyers do so in a manner that portrays them as apologetic and considerate of the sellers' interests. Given that the buyer requires movement on the asking price to succeed, they avoid language that explicitly acknowledges that the seller may be compromising their interests. This result echoes the important role of negative expressions on negotiation outcomes by Barry (2008). Another notable observation is that buyer-only bargaining acts are more predictive. To better make sense of this observation, Table 3b shows important features when predicting only with buyer bargaining act unigrams and bigrams. Most notably, new offers and *pushes* followed by *comparisons* consis- | Buyer: Okay well I really like the house but I think that The price of $235,000 is a bit excessive especially considering um the prices of some homes that are nearby The house I'm interested in that are selling for a lot less than that Um So I would definitely want to negotiate the price Um Seller: Yeah How much how much was asking price again I believe it was 240 Buyer: Okay I think that a fair price would be around 218,000 Just considering other houses in the area Seller: Um But like we also have like houses newly decorated we have like two fireplaces We also have a large eat in kitchen with all the appliances And uh comparing we all the house has uh 1,846 sq ft of space and which is more than the other first listing in appendix two | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Table 4: Example transcript excerpt. tently appear as two of the most influential features predictive of buyer wins. We present an example excerpt in Table 4 to illustrate such sequences. In this case, the comparison is serving the role of justifying the buyer's new offer of $218,000. This scenario often occurs the first time that a comparison is made by either party: It puts the seller in a position to defend their offer and provide counter-evidence in favor of dismissing the buyer's offer. Notably, the buyer remains clear and focused in their comparison to other comparable houses. In contrast, when the seller responds, they invoke small details to attempt to justify their original price. This defensive and overly complex response weakens their bargaining position because the relative importance of these minute details may be debated and new evidence may be introduced by the buyer to further discount the seller's position. This conclusion complements the finding that, in contrast to the seller, the buyer is advantaged when the seller discusses details of the property, as evidenced by the LIWC feature "s2-space". Further Evaluation. As an additional experiment, we train a logistic regression model on the CRAIGSLISTBARGAIN dataset (He et al., 2018) and test it on our dataset. We include seller and buyer text, and use the same text encoding procedure described in §5.1. In the CRAIGSLISTBAR-GAIN dataset, the seller asking price is considered to be the seller's private value for the item being sold and the buyer's private value is separately specified. We consider the negotiation to be a seller win if the agreed price is higher than the midpoint between the two private values and a buyer win otherwise. Despite CRAIGSLISTBARGAIN having a significantly larger training dataset, the maximum test accuracy across all 10 fractions of our negotiations dataset is 54%, whereas we achieve a maximum of 60% accuracy when we train and test on our dataset. This experiment underscores the distinctiveness of our dataset and suggests that it may contain relevant linguistic differences to other datasets within the bargaining domain. ## 6 Conclusion In this work we design and conduct a controlled experiment for studying the language of bargaining. We collect and annotate a dataset of *alternating offers* and *natural language* negotiations. Our dataset contains more turns per negotiation than existing datasets and, since participants communicate orally, our setting facilitates a more natural communication environment. Our dataset is further enhanced with annotated bargaining acts. Our statistical analyses and prediction experiments confirm existing findings and reveal new insights. Most notably, the ability to communicate using language results in higher agreement rates and faster convergence. Both sellers and buyers benefit from maintaining an active role in the negotiation and not being reactive ## Limitations We note several important limitations of this work. Perhaps most importantly, our dataset is "naturalistic," but not actually "natural" in the sense of independently occurring in the world. Though the interactions between our participants are real, the task itself is ultimately artificially constructed. In a real-world negotiation over something as valuable and significant as a house, the negotiating parties will be much more invested in the outcome than our experimental participants, whose actions change their outcome to the order of a few dollars. This difference in turn could lead real-world negotiating parties to speak differently and possibly employ substantially different strategies than we observe. Methodologically, our study has a few limitations. Firstly our analyses are based entirely on language that has been automatically transcribed (with some manual checks), and while this helps with expense and scale, these transcripts could be missing important subtleties that influence the outcome. Koenecke et al. (2020) uncover an important limitation of these systems, finding significant racial disparities in the quality of ASR transcriptions. The linguistic feature analysis we perform should be treated as largely exploratory, and provides suggestive and correlational rather than causal evidence for the relationship between language in the interactions and negotiation outcomes. Lastly, there are further linguistic and interactional phenomena at play that we have not yet integrated into the analysis. For one, we have access to the audio channel of participants' actual speech, but we have not analyzed it in this work. There could very well be acoustic cues in participants' speech that are as significant to the interactions as the textual features analyzed here, particularly speech prosody which has been shown to communicate social meanings that could be highly relevant to negotiation like friendliness (Jurafsky et al., 2009). This particularly extends to more interactional questions of not simply who said what, but what was said in response to what and in what way. For instance, existing research has shown that acoustic entrainment in dialog (e.g., interlocutor adaptation to one another in terms of prosody) has important social associations with dialogue success (Levitan et al., 2012). We leave a deeper investigation of these phenomena for future work. ## Broader Impacts This research, collectively with prior and future related work, has the potential to advance our understanding of negotiation, a ubiquitous human activity. Our dataset can enable future research into the dynamics of human bargaining as well as interpersonal interactions more broadly. By employing the findings and insights gained from such research, individuals may enhance their ability to negotiate effectively in various settings, such as salary negotiations, personal relationships, and community initiatives. Meanwhile, we must acknowledge that while a better understanding of language as an instrument in social interaction can be empowering, it may also be used as a tool for manipulation. ## Acknowledgements We are grateful to Jessica Halten for helping us run the experiment through the Yale SOM Behavioral Lab. The experiment also would not have been possible without the excellent study session coordination by Sedzornam Bosson, Alexandra Jones, Emma Blue Kirby, Vivian Wang, Sherry Wu, and Wen Long Yang. We thank Rajat Bhatnagar for developing the web application used in the study. The human subjects experiment in this research was deemed exempt by the Yale University Institutional Review Board (IRB \#2000029151). We thank Allison Macdonald and Sammy Mustafa for their effort in the data annotation process. Their work was an invaluable contribution to the success of this research project. We thank all members of the Chicago Human+AI Lab and LEAP Workshop for feedback on early versions of this work. Finally, we thank all anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions and comments. ## References Nicholas Asher, Julie Hunter, Mathieu Morey, Benamara Farah, and Stergos Afantenos. 2016. Discourse structure and dialogue acts in multiparty dialogue: the STAC corpus. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16), pages 2721–2727, Portorož, Slovenia. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Lawrence M. Ausubel, Peter Cramton, and Raymond J. Deneckere. 2002. Chapter 50 bargaining with incomplete information. volume 3 of Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, pages 1897–1945. Elsevier. Bruce Barry. 2008. Negotiator affect: The state of the art (and the science). *Group decision and negotiation*, 17(1):97–105. Max H. Bazerman, Jared R. Curhan, Don A. Moore, and Kathleen L. Valley. 2000. Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1):279–314. Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. *CoRR*, abs/2004.05150. Sally Blount. 2000. Buying a house. *Dispute Resolution Research Center*. Man Kit Chang and Carson C. Woo. 1994. A speech-actbased negotiation protocol: Design, implementation, and test use. *ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.*, 12(4):360–382. Vincent P Crawford. 1990. Explicit communication and bargaining outcome. *American Economic Review*, 80(2):213–219. Michael A. Fligner and Timothy J. Killeen. 1976. Distribution-free two-sample tests for scale. *Journal* of the American Statistical Association, 71(353):210– 213. Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Tushar Khot, and Mirella Lapata. 2023. Improving language model negotiation with self-play and in-context learning from ai feedback. Andrew F. Hayes and Klaus Krippendorff. 2007. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. *Communication Methods and Measures*, 1(1):77–89. He He, Derek Chen, Anusha Balakrishnan, and Percy Liang. 2018. Decoupling strategy and generation in negotiation dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2333–2343, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Martha Jeong, Julia Minson, Michael Yeomans, and Francesca Gino. 2019. Communicating with warmth in distributive negotiations is surprisingly counterproductive. *Management Science*, 65(12):5813–5837. Dan Jurafsky, Rajesh Ranganath, and Dan McFarland. 2009. Extracting social meaning: Identifying interactional style in spoken conversation. In *Proceedings* of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, NAACL '09, page 638–646, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Allison Koenecke, Andrew Nam, Emily Lake, Joe Nudell, Minnie Quartey, Zion Mengesha, Connor Toups, John R. Rickford, Dan Jurafsky, and Sharad Goel. 2020. Racial disparities in automated speech recognition. *Proceedings of the National Academy* of Sciences, 117(14):7684–7689. Alice J Lee and Daniel R Ames. 2017. "i can't pay more" versus "it's not worth more": Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations. *Organizational Behavior and Human* Decision Processes, 141:16–28. Tianyi Zhang, Felix Wu, Arzoo Katiyar, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2021. Revisiting few-sample bert fine-tuning. Rivka Levitan, Agustín Gravano, Laura Willson, Štefan Benuš, Julia Hirschberg, and Ani Nenkova. 2012. ˇ Acoustic-prosodic entrainment and social behavior. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 11–19, Montréal, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mike Lewis, Denis Yarats, Yann Dauphin, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. Deal or no deal? end-toend learning of negotiation dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2443–2453, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rebecca Passonneau. 2006. Measuring agreement on set-valued items (MASI) for semantic and pragmatic annotation. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'06), Genoa, Italy. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Dean G Pruitt. 2013. *Negotiation behavior*. Academic Press. Alvin E Roth. 2020. Bargaining experiments. In The Handbook of Experimental Economics, pages 253– 348. Princeton University Press. Jeffrey Z Rubin and Bert R Brown. 1975. The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. Elsevier. Roderick I. Swaab, William W. Maddux, and Marwan Sinaceur. 2011. Early words that work: When and how virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, 47(3):616–621. Yla R. Tausczik and James W. Pennebaker. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: Liwc and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1):24–54. Douglas P Twitchell, Matthew L Jensen, Douglas C Derrick, Judee K Burgoon, and Jay F Nunamaker. 2013. Negotiation outcome classification using language features. *Group Decision and Negotiation*, 22(1):135–151. Hans Weigand, Mareike Schoop, Aldo de Moor, and Frank Dignum. 2003. B2b negotiation support: The need for a communication perspective. *Group Decision and Negotiation*, 12(1):3–29. Haolan Zhan, Yufei Wang, Tao Feng, Yuncheng Hua, Suraj Sharma, Zhuang Li, Lizhen Qu, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2022. Let's negotiate! a survey of negotiation dialogue systems. Working paper. California State University, Northridge, CA. ## Appendix A Negotiation Excerpts Buyer: Okay well I really like the house but I think that The price of $235,000 is a bit excessive especially considering um the prices of some homes that are nearby The house I'm interested in that are selling for a lot less than that Um So I would definitely want to negotiate the price Um Seller: Yeah How much how much Where the app was asking price again I believe it was 240 Buyer: Okay I think that a fair price would be around 218,000 Just considering other houses in the area Seller: Um But like we also have like houses newly decorated we have like two fireplaces We also have a large eat in kitchen with all the appliances And uh comparing we all the house has uh 1,846 sq ft of space and which is more than the other first listing in appendix two Buyer: My name is [*name*] Um I am an investor looking to buy a single household family in the neighborhood Um and your house based on the information that I was given seemed like a good option And I was looking at the housing market in the area and it seems like one of the houses that closely resembles your own house has been sold for $213,000 Um so I am interested in buying your house at a price somewhere close to that Uh price Seller: Okay perfect Um Well um That house that you're talking about was actually sold quite a while ago so the prices have appreciated quite a bit and now the asking price that we have is $240,000 Buyer: Yeah Buyer: I do feel like even though I agree it's a nice area it's a bit overpriced Um I mean speaking of comparisons the one I'm looking at right now listing 89 I was 6898 The selling price they're asking for is approximately 213,000 Um it has 1715 square feet And I've done the math That's a difference of 131 sq ft The difference in your asking price And my offering is to 27,000 So that equates to about $206 per square foot Um That's the difference and I think that's a reasonable difference to make Seller: Yeah the market has been weirdly slow around here lately Um So we could come down slightly uh into the high two thirties let's say 2 39 Buyer: Um I'll raise it 214 Seller: Mhm Um Right we're gonna Stick with 239 I think Table 5: Push following by comparison examples ## B Controlled Experiment Compensation details summary. Each subject received $10 for showing up and could earn additional bonus money per round. Bonus earnings depended on bargaining outcomes to incentivize subjects to engage in realistic negotiating behavior. Buyers could earn $1 in bonus for every $1,000 that the agreed sale price was *below* the buyer's private value of $235,000, up to a maximum of $10 in bonus money. Sellers could earn $1 in bonus for every $1,000 that the agreed sale price was *above* the seller's private value of $225,000, up to a maximum of $10. Given the private values of buyers and sellers, $10 of surplus was available to split. No party earned bonus money in a round if an agreement was not reached. ## C Logistic Regression Features LIWC Buyer+Seller 266 296 409 547 687 824 962 1105 1244 1381 Buyer 120 135 205 272 343 412 482 553 622 688 Seller 146 161 204 275 344 412 480 552 622 693 Transcription Texts Buyer+Seller 261 589 1052 1522 1979 2420 2385 2423 2397 2375 Buyer 140 303 519 734 946 1161 1376 1554 1728 1869 Seller 121 286 533 788 1033 1293 1493 1735 1916 2116 Bargaining Acts Buyer+Seller 36 65 83 93 98 105 106 108 108 110 Buyer 12 22 26 27 28 29 29 29 29 30 Seller 1 4 23 29 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 Roles 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Table 6: Logistic Regression Feature Counts ## D Hyperparameters | Features | n-gram | Inner/Outer k-Folds | Max Iterations | ℓ2 Coefficient | |--------------------------------|----------|-----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------------| | x|x ∈ {−10, −9, · · · , 0, 1}} | | | | | | Numerical/BOW/LIWC | 1 | 5 | 10k | {2 x|x ∈ {−10, −9, · · · , 0, 1}} | | Bargaing Acts | 2 | 5 | 10k | {2 | Table 7: Logistic Regression hyperparameters. Unless otherwise specified, we use the default parameters from the Scikit-Learn LogisticRegression API. | Model | Speaker Role | k-Folds | Max Epochs | Batch Size | Optimizer | Learning Rate | |---------|----------------|-----------|--------------|--------------|-------------|-----------------| | LED | Seller + Buyer | 5 | 20 | 4 | AdamW | 5e-5 | Table 8: LongformerEncoderDecoder hyper-parameters. We used 3 epoch patience for early stopping based on training loss. We also implement best-practice recommendations from Zhang et al. 2021 for few-sample BERT fine-tuning.  Notes. This table reports select demographic attributes of study subjects. Attributes were collected from a survey of subjects prior to the start of each study session. Responses were voluntary.Participants were allowed to select multiple choices for Race. All other attribute questions allowed only a single choice response. Risk preferences were elicited from the question: "Are you generallya person who is willing to take risks or do you try to avoid taking risks?" Respondents rated themselves on a ten-point scale from 0 (unwilling to take risks) to 10 (very willing to take risks). Thepercentage of respondents in each demographic category is reported, except for the number of subjects, which are the raw counts of the number of participants in the experiment across all studysessions for whom we have demographic information and the number of experiment participants in total.  ## E Recruitment And Instruction Material Table 9 Reports Select Demographic Attributes Of Study Subjects.   Yale SOM researchers need participants for an online audio Zoom study. Participants must have an active Zoom account and a computer or laptop (no mobile devices please). This study should take 45-60 minutes to finish. You will earn $10-$30 (depending on choices made within the study) as an Amazon eGiftcard. You must provide a valid email address and complete all components of the study in order to receive your eGiftcard payment, which will be sent within 2 business days after your participation. Please note: There is an audio component to this study (no video required) and participants will be asked to upload an audio file upon completion of the study. ## Sign Up For The Housing Study - Virtual After signing up for your timeslot, you will have a secured spot for the study. The day prior to your session, you will receive a link for the study and a study user ID via the email address you have provided within SONA. This Zoom link will be equipped with a virtual waiting room and the RA will allow participants to enter the study at the session start time. F Y Yale school of management Yale School of Management Behavioral Lab Copyright © 2020 Yale University - All rights reserved Behavioral Lab O ## Housing Negotiation Study WELCOME Hello everyone, thank you for your patience as we waited for everyone to arrive. I am the study leader. You are about to participate in a study on negotiation, and you will be paid for your participation via an Amazon eGiftcard, privately emailed to you by the Yale SOM Behavioral Lab within two business days after the conclusion of the study. Please close any program that you may have open on your computer besides Zoom. We will start with a brief instruction period. If you have any questions during this period, please privately message the question to me, and I will answer it so that everyone can hear. In the chat, I will now send the weblink to the study instructions. Please follow along as I read the instructions. GENERAL In this study, you will negotiate the price to buy or sell a house with other participants. The study consists of two rounds of negotiation. The person you negotiate with in round 1 will differ from the person you negotiate with in round 2. In each round, one of you will play the role of the house buyer, whereas the other will play the role of the house seller. In both rounds, you will play the same role as either buyer or seller. ## Compensation I will now describe the compensation. You will receive 10 dollars for participating in the study plus have the potential to earn up to 10 dollars bonus money in each round. The amount of bonus money you earn in each round depends on the outcome of the negotiation. Your total earnings for the study are the amount that you accumulate over the two rounds. The maximum cumulative earnings are 30 dollars, whereas the minimum cumulative earnings are 10 dollars. CONSENT FORM + DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY I will now share a weblink to the consent form to participate in this study and a short demographics survey for you to complete. Please leave this Zoom session open while you complete the survey. The consent form will ask you to enter your study ID, so please be ready to enter it. If you do not consent to participating in the study or if you are under age 18, please inform me via a private message. Once you complete the consent form and the demographics survey, please write a private message to me with the single word "done." ## Role Prompts In a private message, I will now share information about the role of either the buyer or the seller to each of you. Take some time to read over this information, and use this information as you like in each negotiation round. As you read this information over, please keep this Zoom session open. Once you are finished reading the information, please send me a private message with the single word "done." ## Round 1 We will now begin the first round of the study. In this round, you will negotiate with another participant by only exchanging price offers and counter offers for the house. No other form of communication is allowed. This negotiation will take place within a web application whose weblink I will share shortly. Upon clicking the weblink, you will begin exchanging offers with the other person. The buyer will propose the initial offer. If possible, please use the Google Chrome browser to open the weblink. While you negotiate, please keep this Zoom session open. You and the other person will have a maximum of 15 minutes to negotiate, but you may finish before that time elapses. Once you complete the negotiation, privately message me the single word "done." If you do not reach an agreement after 15 minutes, neither of you will earn bonus money for this round. If the role you see in the weblink differs from the one I gave you earlier, please let me know. Please wait to begin until after I say so once all the weblinks have been sent out. ## Round 2 Now we will begin the second round. In this round, you will negotiate with a different person. Pairs of participants will be assigned to individual breakout rooms to negotiate. In your breakout room, you will play the same role as either the buyer or seller as you did in the first round. But now, you and the person you are paired with will negotiate the house price by talking to each other over Zoom audio only. The conversation is not limited to the exchange of price offers. Keep your video off the entire time. The buyer should begin the negotiation. You and the other person will have up to 15 minutes to negotiate, but you may finish before that time elapses. If you do not reach an agreement within 15 minutes, neither of you will earn bonus money for this round. Before you start negotiating, BOTH of you  should RECORD the breakout room session. To record, click record in the meeting controls at the bottom of your screen. Record to your Computer. Please DO NOT start recording until after you have entered the breakout room. You may start negotiating once you hit RECORD. Once you finish negotiating, STOP the recording. Once you stop recording, leave the breakout room and return to the main room. ## End Of Round 2 The second round of negotiation is complete. Please click the weblink to a survey I will send shortly. This survey will give instructions to upload your audio recording, if you consent to do so. Please keep this Zoom session open while you complete the survey. Once you finish the survey, privately message me the single word "done." Before uploading your recorded audio file to the survey, please rename it "studyID.mp4" without the quotation marks, where studyID is your Study ID. Survey to upload audio recording: https://yalesurvey.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5opHhEOIRAig ful # Role Of Buyer (Based on "Buying a House" by Sally Blount, Northwestern Kellogg Dispute Resolution Research Center) ## The Text On This Page Is Available Only To The Buyer. Housing values have risen rapidly in Centerville over the last few years, and you are interested in investing in a piece of real estate. Optimally, you would like to find a single family home in the $220,000 to $235,000 range, which you could rent for a few years and then resell at a profit. You recently saw an advertisement in the "Centerville Review" for a house near Centennial Park (see Appendix 1 below), which is being sold directly by its owner. Based upon the description, this house seemed like the type of investment that you are seeking. You arranged to visit the home last week. The asking price was $240,000 and you were favorably impressed. You have since collected information on comparable houses to help you assess the worth of this house (see Appendix 2 below). You have decided that you would like to buy the house, but not at a price in excess of $235,000. In fact, you would like to buy the house at a price as close to $220,000 as possible. However, you would be willing to pay up to $235,000 before walking away from this opportunity. You will meet with the owner today to discuss buying the house. You cannot share the following information about your compensation with the seller. If the study coordinators learn that you have shared the following information in any form, you will forfeit your compensation. If you and the owner reach an agreement, you will earn $1 in bonus for every $1,000 that the agreed sale price is below your walk-away price of $235,000, up to a maximum of $10 in bonus money. You will not earn any bonus money if you do not reach an agreement with the owner or if you agree to a price above $235,000. # Appendix 1 (Available To Both Buyer And Seller) Single House Listing \# 90 13878 Description - 4 bedrooms + 1 recreation room + 2.5 bathrooms - Split-level style - Built in 1947 - 1846 square feet of space Inside Amenities - Finished hardwood floors - 2 fireplaces - Master bedroom with an entire wall of closets plus master bath - Large eat-in kitchen with all appliances - Newly decorated ## Outside Amenities - Comfortable & updated brick - Beautiful landscaping - Fenced backyard and mature trees - Detached garage (for 2.5 cars) - Restaurants and transportation within walking distance - Near Hastings & Centennial parks Asking Price: $240,000 ## Appendix 2 (available to both buyer and seller) | Listing # | Selling | Square | |-------------|-----------|----------| | Price | Feet | | | 89 06898 | $213,300 | 1715 | | 89 04725 | $233,600 | 1875 | | 89 08614 | $239,600 | 1920 | Prices of neighboring homes with similar characteristics # Role Of Seller (Based on "Buying a House" by Sally Blount, Northwestern Kellogg Dispute Resolution Research Center) ## The Text On This Page Is Available Only To The Seller. You have owned your house near Centennial Park in Centerville for several years (see Appendix l below). You originally purchased it for $155,000. To save on commissions, you have decided to sell the house yourself. After discussions with your friends who are real estate investors, you have set an asking price of $240,000. The house has been on the market for one month, and you have not yet had a firm offer. You have always believed that you have one of the nicest houses in the Centennial Park area. You also think your house is favorably priced in comparison to comparable homes in Centerville. It has been several months since the last house was sold in the Centennial Park area. Thus, your asking price on a per square foot basis is higher (see Appendix 2 below). Since your house has been on the market for several weeks, you have decided that you would settle for any offer that yielded at least $225,000. However, you would prefer to sell as close to $240,000 as possible. You would rather hold on to the house than sell below $225,000. Last week a prospective buyer visited your home and showed a keen interest in buying the house. You will meet with that prospective buyer today to discuss selling the house. You cannot share the following information about your compensation with the buyer. If the study coordinators learn that you have shared the following information in any form, you will forfeit your compensation. If you and the buyer reach an agreement, you will earn $1 in bonus for every $1,000 that the agreed sale price is above your minimum sale price of $225,000, up to a maximum of $10 in bonus money. You will not earn any bonus money if you do not reach an agreement with the buyer or if you agree to a price below $225,000. # Appendix 1 (Available To Both Buyer And Seller) Single House Listing \# 90 13878 Description - 4 bedrooms + 1 recreation room + 2.5 bathrooms - Split-level style - Built in 1947 - 1846 square feet of space Inside Amenities - Finished hardwood floors - 2 fireplaces - Master bedroom with an entire wall of closets plus master bath - Large eat-in kitchen with all appliances - Newly decorated Outside Amenities - Comfortable & updated brick - Beautiful landscaping - Fenced backyard and mature trees - Detached garage (for 2.5 cars) - Restaurants and transportation within walking distance - Near Hastings & Centennial parks Asking Price: $240,000 ## Appendix 2 (available to both buyer and seller) Prices of neighboring homes with similar characteristics | Listing # | Selling | Square | |-------------|-----------|----------| | Price | Feet | | | 89 06898 | $213,300 | 1715 | | 89 04725 | $233,600 | 1875 | | 89 08614 | $239,600 | 1920 | Welcome to the negotiation bidding page! You are the buyer. The negotiation process starts after you propose a price.  Welcome to the negotiation bidding page! You are the seller. The negotiation process starts after the buyer proposes a price. 

liu-etal-2023-question

Do Question Answering Modeling Improvements Hold Across Benchmarks?

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.736

Do question answering (QA) modeling improvements (e.g., choice of architecture and training procedure) hold consistently across the diverse landscape of QA benchmarks? To study this question, we introduce the notion of concurrence{---}two benchmarks have high concurrence on a set of modeling approaches if they rank the modeling approaches similarly. We measure the concurrence between 32 QA benchmarks on a set of 20 diverse modeling approaches and find that human-constructed benchmarks have high concurrence amongst themselves, even if their passage and question distributions are very different. Surprisingly, even downsampled human-constructed benchmarks (i.e., collecting less data) and programmatically-generated benchmarks (e.g., cloze-formatted examples) have high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks. These results indicate that, despite years of intense community focus on a small number of benchmarks, the modeling improvements studied hold broadly.

# Do Question Answering Modeling Improvements Hold Across Benchmarks? Nelson F. Liu♠ Tony Lee♠ Robin Jia♥ **Percy Liang**♠ ♠Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA ♥Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA {nfliu, tonyhlee, pliang}@cs.stanford.edu robinjia@usc.edu ## Abstract Do question answering (QA) modeling improvements (e.g., choice of architecture and training procedure) hold consistently across the diverse landscape of QA benchmarks? To study this question, we introduce the notion of concurrence—two benchmarks have high concurrence on a set of modeling approaches if they rank the modeling approaches similarly. We measure the concurrence between 32 QA benchmarks on a set of 20 diverse modeling approaches and find that human-constructed benchmarks have high concurrence amongst themselves, even if their passage and question distributions are very different. Surprisingly, even downsampled human-constructed benchmarks (i.e., collecting less data) and programmatically-generated benchmarks (e.g., cloze-formatted examples) have high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks. These results indicate that, despite years of intense community focus on a small number of benchmarks, the modeling improvements studied hold broadly. ## 1 Introduction The NLP community has created a diverse landscape of extractive question answering (QA) benchmarks—their context passages may come from different sources, their questions may focus on different phenomena or be written by different populations, or other aspects of the data collection process may differ. Driven to improve benchmark performance, researchers have proposed a variety of QA modeling approaches. However, not all benchmarks receive equal attention from the community (Koch et al., 2021); many QA modeling approaches are developed on a small handful of benchmarks, especially those with popular leaderboards (e.g., SQuAD; Rajpurkar et al., 2016). As a result, it is conceivable that some modeling improvements may not hold because they are (perhaps inadvertently) benchmark-specific, while others  ## (E.G., Pre-Training On More Data) Hold More Broadly. In this work, we evaluate whether improvements from modeling *approaches* hold (e.g., choices in model architecture or training procedure)—if a particular modeling approach improves performance when trained and evaluated on one benchmark, does it also improve performance on others? Although much existing work studies whether *systems* generalize (i.e., a model with a particular set of parameters; Jia and Liang, 2017; Talmor and Berant, 2019; Miller et al., 2020), research value often comes not from the systems themselves (e.g., model weights), but from the underlying ideas, techniques, and approaches. We study the comparatively under-investigated question of whether 13186 such modeling *approaches* generalize. To study whether modeling improvements hold across benchmarks, we introduce the notion of *concurrence*. We say that two benchmarks have high concurrence on a set of modeling approaches if they rank the modeling approaches similarly. To assess whether modeling improvements hold across the space of QA benchmarks, we measure the concurrence between 32 diverse QA benchmarks on a testbed of 20 representative modeling approaches introduced between 2016 and 2020. Overall, we find that benchmarks that differ substantially still often have high concurrence. Human-constructed benchmarks (e.g., SQuAD and MRQA NaturalQuestions) have high concurrence with each other, despite differences in crowdsourcing setups, passage and question distributions, and even linguistic phenomena of focus (§3). How different can a benchmark be, while still maintaining high concurrence with humanconstructed benchmarks? In §4.1, we investigate the role of training dataset size by measuring concurrence with downsampled training datasets (e.g., using 20K SQuAD training examples rather than the full 88K). We find that downsampled training datasets are sufficient for high concurrence with other human-constructed benchmarks. In §4.2, we measure concurrence between human-constructed and programmatically-generated benchmarks (e.g., cloze-formatted or synthetic) to better understand the importance of human-written questions and passages. We find that cloze-formatted benchmarks have high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks, so human-written questions and passages are not strictly necessary for concurrence. However, programmatically-generated synthetic benchmarks (e.g., the bAbI task suite) have low concurrence. Having found this breaking point of low concurrence, we construct two minimal synthetic benchmarks that achieve high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks, despite lacking linguistic structure. Intuitively, the benchmarks that concur with human-constructed benchmarks are those that require model capabilities that are also useful for better performance on human-constructed benchmarks (e.g., identifying paraphrase and lexical overlap; §4.3-4.5). Our results have several implications for the future development of benchmarks and modeling approaches. To summarize: 1. Human-constructed benchmarks have high concurrence with each other on our testbed of 20 modeling approaches. The modeling approaches studied are not particularly benchmark-specific and that their modeling improvements largely hold across different benchmarks, despite intense community focus on a small number of benchmarks. This is especially true of recent modeling improvements driven by better pre-training, which is largely downstream benchmark-agnostic. 2. Many benchmarks require reasoning over predicate-argument structure (e.g., SQuAD, NewsQA, NaturalQuestions), and improvements on these benchmarks also transfer to more specialized benchmarks (e.g., HotpotQA or MRQA DROP) because (1) almost all benchmarks involve reasoning over predicateargument structure and/or (2) better reasoning over predicate-argument structure is correlated with improvements on other phenomena. 3. Human-constructed benchmarks are not strictly necessary for improving performance on other human-constructed benchmarks. Synthetic benchmarks may be useful tools for isolating, understanding, and improving on particular model capabilities. 4. Downsampling benchmarks to as few as 10K training examples does not significantly affect concurrence, especially since recent pretrained modeling approaches have greater sample efficiency. We recommend the community build benchmarks that are smaller but more challenging (e.g., harder/more expensive to label per-example). 5. Since human-constructed benchmarks have high concurrence amongst themselves, we encourage researchers to seek diversity and build benchmarks that explore qualitatively different modeling capabilities that push research in new directions. ## 2 Measuring Concurrence Informally, we say that two benchmarks have high concurrence on a set of modeling approaches if the two benchmarks rank the modeling approaches similarly. We compare the performance of a modeling approach when trained and tested on one benchmark with its performance when trained and tested on another benchmark—we use each benchmark's original *i.i.d.* train-test split, so all evaluation is indomain. Repeating this process for many modeling approaches, we can assess whether performance gains *between* modeling approaches are generally preserved when moving between benchmarks. Formally, define a benchmark B as a pair of datasets (Dtrain, Dtest), where Dtrain *⊆ X × Y* and Dtest *⊆ X × Y* for an input space X and an output space Y. A *system* is a function s : *X → Y* (i.e., a trained model with a particular set of parameters). In contrast, a *modeling approach* (i.e., a neural architecture coupled with a training procedure) is a function a that takes in a training dataset Dtrain and outputs a system. Let EVAL denote an evaluation function, where EVAL(*a, B*) returns the performance (under a given evaluation function, e.g., exact match) of a modeling approach a when trained on the train split of B and tested on the test split of B. Finally, CONCUR(B1, B2; A, EVAL) is the *concurrence* between the benchmarks B1 and B2 with respect to a set of modeling approaches A and the evaluation function EVAL. Let a ∼ uniform(A), where uniform(A) denotes the uniform distribution over the set of modeling approaches A. Defining the random variables P1 = EVAL(*a, B*1) and P2 = EVAL(*a, B*2), we finally define ## Concur(B1, B2; A, Eval) = Corr(P1, P2), where CORR is some correlation function. We use the SQuAD exact match (EM) metric as our evaluation function EVAL, and we consider the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and the Kendall rank correlation coefficient (τ ) as our correlation functions CORR. The former measures whether the relationship between model performance on the two benchmarks is approximately linear, whereas the latter measures whether pairwise rank comparisons between models are preserved between benchmarks. As a rough guideline, we consider τ > 0.8 to be high concurrence, though interpreting concurrence often requires more than comparing overall correlation. Extractive QA modeling approaches. To assess concurrence in this work, we use a representative set of 20 diverse modeling approaches introduced between 2016 to 2020 (A). These modeling approaches include RaSoR (Lee et al., 2016), BiDAF (Seo et al., 2017), DocumentReader (Chen et al., 2017), QANet (Yu et al., 2018), BiDAF++ (Clark and Gardner, 2018), MnemonicReader (Hu et al., 2017), FusionNet (Huang et al., 2018), BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), ALBERT (Lan et al., 2020), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), ELECTRA (Clark et al., 2020), and SpanBERT (Joshi et al., 2020).1 10 of our 20 modeling approaches are *nonpretrained*. These approaches generally propose (1) better sequence encoders for passages and questions (e.g., Lee et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2018) and/or (2) improved attention mechanisms for question-passage interactions (e.g., Seo et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2018). In contrast, the other 10 of our 20 modeling approaches are *pre-trained*; these modeling approaches all use the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017), but improve performance by proposing better pre-training procedures and objectives. These pre-trained modeling approaches are generally evaluated on a suite of downstream tasks, in contrast to non-pretrained modeling approaches, which generally evaluate on a single benchmark. All of these modeling approaches were originally evaluated on SQuAD, though several (e.g., SpanBERT) were also evaluated on other QA benchmarks. We evaluate each modeling approach on each benchmark with the same training hyperparameters used for SQuAD, as well as 5 additional randomly sampled hyperparameter settings. Extractive QA benchmarks. In this work, we study concurrence between three broad classes of extractive QA benchmarks: (i) human-constructed, (ii) cloze, and (iii) synthetic. Human-constructed benchmarks contain human-written natural language questions and passages; examples include SQuAD, NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2017), and NaturalQuestions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). On the other hand, cloze benchmarks (e.g., Children's Book Test or CNN; Hill et al., 2016; Hermann et al., 2015) contain cloze questions, which are "fill-inthe-blank" statements with masked answers. These questions are usually automatically-generated from human-written natural language passages. Finally, synthetic benchmarks contain programmaticallygenerated questions and passages (e.g., the bAbI task suite; Weston et al., 2016). ## 3 Do Modeling Improvements Hold Across Human-Constructed Benchmarks? Many extractive question answering benchmarks are human-constructed—they contain humanwritten natural language questions and passages.   QAMR | MRQA NQ MRQA DROP | QAMR | | | | | |---------------------|--------|------|------|------|------| | SQuAD | 0.87 | 0.84 | 0.77 | 0.92 | 0.94 | | MRQA NewsQA | - | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.92 | 0.87 | | MRQA NQ | 0.82 | - | 0.69 | 0.80 | 0.80 | | MRQA DROP | 0.83 | 0.69 | - | 0.79 | 0.83 | | MRQA HotpotQA | 0.92 | 0.80 | 0.79 | - | 0.89 | However, differences in the data collection procedure may yield benchmarks with dramatically different passage and question distributions. Do modeling improvements hold across benchmarks despite these differences? Setup. We study the concurrence between six human-constructed benchmarks: SQuAD, NewsQA, NaturalQuestions, DROP (Dua et al., 2019), HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018), and QAMR (Michael et al., 2018). We use the MRQA versions of NewsQA, NaturalQuestions, DROP, and HotpotQA (Fisch et al., 2019). Table 2 summarizes their high-level differences. See Appendix C.1 for examples from human-constructed benchmarks. ## 3.1 Results Human-Constructed Benchmarks Have High concurrence amongst themselves. Despite differences in benchmark crowdsourcing setups, passage and questions distributions, and even linguistic phenomena of interest, modeling improvements generally hold across human-constructed benchmarks (Table 1). Furthermore, concurrence is high over both non-pretrained and pre-trained modeling ## Approaches (Figure 2). For example, SQuAD, NewsQA, and NaturalQuestions differ in their passage-question joint relationship. In SQuAD, crowdworkers are employed to write questions given Wikipedia passages, but this results in questions with high lexical overlap with salient passage sentences. To minimize such overlap in NewsQA, crowdworkers write questions given only bullet-point summaries of the passages, rather than the passages themselves. Finally, questions in NaturalQuestions are written independently of their provided passage. These different crowdsourcing protocols drastically affect the ease and cost of benchmark construction, but SQuAD, NewsQA, and NaturalQuestions have high concurrence despite these differences. ## Concurrence Is High Even When Benchmarks focus on different phenomena. We also see that MRQA DROP and MRQA HotpotQA have surprisingly high concurrence with other humanconstructed benchmarks (e.g., SQuAD and NaturalQuestions), despite their relatively specialized focus on particular linguistic phenomena (numerical and multi-hop reasoning, respectively).2 This suggests that modeling improvements on benchmarks that target general reasoning over predicateargument structure also improve performance on benchmarks that focus on different phenomena. We hypothesize this occurs because benchmarks are more similar than we'd otherwise expect (e.g., due to reasoning shortcuts; Min et al., 2019), and better reasoning over predicate-argument structure may be generally useful for other phenomena of interest. ## 4 Exploring The Limits Of Concurrence Our results in §3 indicate that human-constructed benchmarks have high concurrence with each other, 2Note that MRQA DROP is a subset of the original benchmark that removes questions with non-extractive answers (e.g., answer is the result of an arithmetic operation). | Benchmark | Question (Q) | Passage (P) | Phenomena of Interest | |Q| | |P| | Q ⊥⊥ P | |------------------|----------------|---------------|------------------------------|-------|-------|----------| | SQuAD | Crowdsourced | Wikipedia | Predicate-Argument Structure | 11 | 137 | ✗ | | QAMR | Crowdsourced | Wikipedia | Predicate-Argument Structure | 7 | 25 | ✗ | | NewsQA | Crowdsourced | News articles | Predicate-Argument Structure | 8 | 599 | ✓ | | NaturalQuestions | Search logs | Wikipedia | Predicate-Argument Structure | 9 | 153 | ✓ | | HotpotQA | Crowdsourced | Wikipedia | Multi-Hop Reasoning | 22 | 232 | ✗ | | DROP | Crowdsourced | Wikipedia | Numerical Reasoning | 11 | 243 | ✗ | despite differences in their phenomena of interest and passage and question distributions. Just how different can a benchmark be, while maintaining high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks? In §4.1 we investigate the role of training dataset size on concurrence—while larger training datasets often yield better systems with higher end-task accuracy, are they necessary for comparing modeling approaches? In §4.2, we measure concurrence between human-constructed and cloze benchmarks to better understand the role of human-written questions and passages in concurrence. Cloze benchmarks have high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks, indicating that human-written questions and passages are not necessary for concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks. To take this to an extreme, §4.3 evaluates concurrence between programmaticallygenerated synthetic benchmarks (the bAbI task suite) with human-constructed benchmarks. Our results show that the bAbI tasks have low concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks. Having found this breaking point, we work backwards to build a minimal benchmark with high concurrence, which will enable us to better understand sufficient conditions for concurrence. In §4.4, we construct a benchmark that has no linguistic structure or complex reasoning but still has high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks over non-pretrained models. Finally, §4.5 shows that a synthetic benchmark that requires richer reasoning between question and passage tokens can achieve high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks on *both* pre-trained and non-pretrained modeling approaches. ## 4.1 Downsampling Benchmarks Many existing human-constructed extractive QA benchmarks contain a large number of examples, increasing their cost of construction. For example, SQuAD has 87,599 question-answer pairs in its | Downsampled SQuAD Size | | | | | | |--------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | 60K | 40K | 20K | 20K | 1K | | | SQuAD | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.87 | 0.77 | | MRQA NewsQA | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.77 | | MRQA NQ | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.63 | training split. Are large training datasets necessary for comparing modeling approaches? Setup. We study the extent to which subsamples of SQuAD concur with the full SQuAD benchmark (88K examples) and five other human-constructed benchmarks. We experiment with randomly generated subsets of the SQuAD training set with 1K, 10K, 20K, 40K, and 60K training examples. We use the original SQuAD development set (∼10K examples) for evaluation. Results. Downsampling the SQuAD training set from 88K to 20K examples does not substantially affect concurrence with the full SQuAD benchmark and other human-constructed benchmarks (Table 3). Concurrence is high on both non-pretrained and pre-trained modeling approaches (Figure 3). Downsampling to 10K examples slightly reduces concurrence with non-pretrained modeling approaches. Concurrence with pre-trained models only begins to degrades when using 1K training examples, indicating that few-shot settings are likely categorically different and worth studying separately. ## 4.2 Cloze Benchmarks To better understand the importance of humanwritten questions and passages, we measure concurrence between human-constructed benchmarks and cloze benchmarks. Cloze extractive question answering benchmarks contain cloze questions, which are "fill-in-the-blank" statements   with masked answers. Large cloze benchmarks are cheap to construct because examples can be automatically generated by eliding spans from naturally-occurring text. Although the passages in cloze benchmarks are natural language, their fillin-the-blank require more guessing from context, rather than the answer deduction typically found in human-constructed benchmarks. Setup. We study the Children's Book Test (CBT; Hill et al., 2016), LAMBADA (Paperno et al., 2016), CNN (Hermann et al., 2015), and ReCoRD (Zhang et al., 2018) cloze benchmarks and measure their concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks on our testbed of modeling approaches. We follow prior work (Dhingra et al., 2017) and evaluate on subsets of CBT where the answer token is either a common noun (CBT-CN) or a named entity (CBT-NE). In addition, we use a subsampled version of the CNN benchmark with 100K training examples to save compute. See Appendix C.2 for examples from the cloze benchmarks we study. Results. Despite using programmaticallygenerated cloze questions, cloze benchmarks (e.g., CBT and LAMBADA) can have high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks (Table 4). On the other hand, CNN and ReCoRD have lower concurrence with human-constructed bench-  marks, especially on non-pretrained modeling approaches—the performance improvements between pre-trained modeling approaches are still largely preserved (Figure 4). Concurrence on CNN is lower due to a pair of outlier modeling approaches—DocumentReader, with and without external linguistic features. We hypothesize that these models do poorly on CNN because some aspects of their preprocessing are SQuAD-specific; this may have also influenced architecture design. ReCoRD's low overall concurrence comes from the poor performance of nonpretrained modeling approaches. This may be due to ReCoRD's construction procedure, since a filtering step removed all examples that were correctly answered by a strong non-pretrained modeling approach (SAN, with SQuAD dev. EM of 76.24; Liu et al., 2018). ReCoRD has low concurrence with SQuAD on modeling approaches that are weaker than SAN, and high concurrence on modeling approaches that outperform SAN. ## 4.3 High Concurrence Is Not Universal: Improvements Do Not Hold On Babi Having established that human-written passages are not necessary for high concurrence with humanconstructed benchmarks (§4.2), we take this to an extreme by evaluating concurrence between humanconstructed benchmarks and synthetic extractive question answering benchmarks, which contain questions and passages that are programmatically generated (and possibly not even natural language). The bAbI task suite contains 20 synthetic questionanswering benchmarks, each of which focuses on a particular skill required by a competent dialogue system (e.g., fact retrieval, subject-object relations, counting). The textual data is generated from a simulated toy environment. Setup. We consider the 11 tasks that can be losslessly converted to an extractive format (Tasks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16). For each task, we use the two officially-released data settings: one setting has 900 training examples and 100 development examples, and the other has 9,000 training examples and 1,000 development examples. In this section, we focus on the setting with 900 training examples, since all modeling approaches do nearly perfectly on almost all tasks with 9,000 examples (Appendix D.3). See Appendix C.3 for examples from the existing synthetic benchmarks we study. Results and Discussion. The bAbI tasks have low concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks—high concurrence is not universal. Modeling approaches often have either near-perfect or near-random performance (Figure 5). ## 4.4 What Is Sufficient For Concurrence On Non-Pretrained Modeling Approaches? To better understand the sufficient conditions for concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks, we are interested in constructing a minimal synthetic benchmark with high concurrence. Given that human-written passages and questions are not necessary for high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks (§4.2), but the programmatically-generated bAbI synthetic benchmarks have low concurrence (§4.3), we design a minimal synthetic benchmark with high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks over non-pretrained modeling approaches. Setup. Questions in extractive QA benchmarks can often be answered by exploiting lexical overlap between question and passage tokens (Weissenborn et al., 2017; Krishna et al., 2020). To better understand the limits of concurrence, we build a minimal synthetic cloze benchmark (FuzzySyntheticQA) that explicitly targets this fuzzy pattern-matching and find that it has high concurrence with SQuAD on non-pretrained modeling approaches. Figure 6 shows a sample passage and question-answering pairs. We use 10,000 questions for training and 10,000 questions for evaluation. See Appendix E for further details about FuzzySyntheticQA's construction. Passage Generation. We generate the passage by randomly sampling 150 tokens from the uniform distribution over a token vocabulary. The token vocabulary is taken from the WikiText-2 training set (Merity et al., 2017) and has 68,429 types. Answer Generation. The answer token is randomly selected from the generated passage. Cloze Question Generation. To generate the cloze question, we first extract the answer token's local context (up to 10 tokens) and mask out the answer token. Then, we corrupt the cloze question by (1) randomly replacing its tokens with related tokens (100 approximate nearest neighbor tokens in the vocabulary, measured by vector distance in the pre-trained English FastText embeddings), (2) locally permuting its tokens (within 3 positions), and (3) applying word dropout (with rate 0.2). Results and Discussion. FuzzySyntheticQA has high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks, but only on non-pretrained modeling approaches—concurrence on pre-trained modeling approaches is much lower (Figure 7). Even benchmarks that lack much linguistic structure can have high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks, as long as they require similar phenomena (in this case, fuzzy lexical matching between the question and passage). Why do improvements in pre-training not hold on FuzzySyntheticQA? One potential reason is that passages in FuzzySyntheticQA lack of linguistic structure. To evaluate this hypothesis, we generate FuzzySyntheticQA questions from English Wikipedia passages, rather than sampling from the  Passage Snippet: ... chests Melchior divorced might whereof 37th Kadima milling raved Salib melanocephala Pilgrims *chop Prosser draftsmanship 203 Caesarius* madam Deconstruction Guevara Amalia ... Question: Pigs corncrake XXXXX 286 airmanship *Kition* gracious Modernism *Raul* Answer: *chop* Figure 6: Example passage and question-answer pair from FuzzySyntheticQA.  uniform distribution over tokens, but this still results in low concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks on pre-trained modeling approaches (r = −0.49, τ = −0.19), indicating that the low concurrence comes from more than just a lack of natural language passages (Appendix F). ## 4.5 What Is Sufficient For Concurrence On Pre-Trained And Non-Pretrained Modeling Approaches? Having found a minimal synthetic benchmark that achieves high concurrence with humanconstructed benchmarks on non-pretrained modeling approaches (§4.4), we show that a synthetic  benchmark that requires richer reasoning between question and passage tokens is sufficient for high concurrence on *both* non-pretrained and pre-trained modeling approaches. Setup. We construct WikidataSyntheticQA, a benchmark derived from Wikidata triples; Figure 8 shows a sample passage and question-answering pairs. Knowledge graphs like Wikidata are rich sources of complex relations between entities, which enables us to increase the complexity of question-passage token relations beyond the simple noising and corruptions of FuzzySyntheticQA. We use 10,000 questions for training and 9,835 question-answer pairs for evaluation. See Appendix G for further details about WikidataSyntheticQA's construction. Wikidata Background. Wikidata is a knowledge graph connecting entities via relations. Wikidata entities and relations include a *label*, the most common name that an entity is known by, and aliases, alternative names for entities. For example, the entity Mae_C._Jemison has the label "Mae C. Jemison", with aliases *"Mae Jemison"* and "Mae Carol Jemison". We treat labels and aliases as potential surface realizations of entities and relations. Generation Preliminaries. Generating a passage requires a set of Wikidata triples. To select these triples, we first randomly choose a seed entity from the 10,000 Wikidata entities with the highest PageRank score (Page et al., 1999). We then extract the triples from the seed entity and all entities connected to the seed entity. Finally, we randomly sample 50 triples for use in generation. Passage Generation. Given the set of 50 Wikidata triples, we realize triples into textual surface forms by selecting a random Wikidata label or alias for each triple element. The final passage is formed by concatenating the realizations of all triples and adding a delimiter token between them to mimic sentential structure. Answer Generation. We generate an answer span by selecting a random triple used in the passage generation process, and then choosing a random element of that triple. The passage realization of this random element is the answer span. Cloze Question Generation. To generate the cloze question, we take the triple used for answer generation and mask out the particular element marked as the answer. We realize the non-answer triple elements into textual forms by selecting a random Wikidata label or alias for each triple element. Then, we optionally and randomly replace the predicate with its inverse (if one exists), reversing the subject and the object to maintain consistency. We also optionally and randomly replace the remaining unmasked entity (i.e., the triple subject or object that was not masked) with one of its hypernyms, challenging models' knowledge of such relations. Results and Discussion. As Figure 7 shows, WikidataSyntheticQA has high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks, despite its lack of natural language passages or questions. We hypothesize that WikidataSyntheticQA has higher concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks than FuzzySyntheticQA because correctly answering its examples often requires reasoning about hypernymy relations between entities and inverse relations between predicates—it is conceivable that pre-trained modeling approaches are better-equipped to handle and use these lexical relations. In addition, the Wikidata aliases provide sufficient lexical variation such that the benchmark is not trivially solvable through string pattern-matching (removing aliases from the generation procedure results in near-perfect performance from all modeling approaches). In contrast, high performance on FuzzySyntheticQA simply requires matching similar tokens in the passage and question—models can achieve high performance by simply learning the similarity relationships in the FastText vector space. ## 5 Related Work A recent line of work examines whether *systems* have overfit to particular test sets by taking existing systems and evaluating them on newly-constructed test sets (Recht et al., 2019; Yadav and Bottou, 2019; Miller et al., 2020). Recent work has also studied whether higher-performing systems are more robust by studying the correlation between in-domain and out-of-domain improvements (Taori et al., 2020; Djolonga et al., 2020). In contrast, this work examines whether improvements from *modeling approaches* hold across benchmarks. We train and test modeling approaches on a variety of existing and newlyconstructed benchmarks. In this regard, our work is similar to the study of Kornblith et al. (2019), who find that performance improvements on ImageNet are well-correlated with performance improvements on other benchmarks. ## 6 Conclusion This work studies whether QA modeling improvements hold across the diverse landscape of QA benchmarks. We develop the notion of *concurrence*, which quantifies the similarity between benchmarks' rankings of modeling approaches. Experiments with 32 QA benchmarks and 20 diverse modeling approaches indicate that humanconstructed benchmarks largely have high concurrence amongst themselves, even when their passage and question distributions or linguistic phenomena of focus are very different. To better understand how different benchmark attributes affect concurrence, we explore downsampled benchmarks and various programmatically-generated benchmarks, the latter having high concurrence only when they target phenomena that are also useful for better performance on human-constructed benchmarks (e.g., identifying paraphrase and lexical overlap). Our results indicate that the modeling improvements studied hold broadly, despite years of intense community focus on a small number of benchmarks. ## Acknowledgements We thank the anonymous reviewers for their feedback and comments that helped improve this work. NL was supported by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship under grant number DGE-1656518. Other funding was provided by a PECASE Award. ## Limitations While we conducted an extensive set of experiments to gain a broad picture of whether modeling improvements hold between benchmarks, it is always possible to investigate more settings. While our study covers a representative set of 20 nonpretrained and pre-trained modeling approaches, it is conceivable that evaluating more modeling approaches (or a different set of modeling approaches) on additional benchmarks (or a different set of benchmarks) would have led to different results. Furthermore, although we evaluate each modeling approach on each benchmark with the same training hyperparameters used for SQuAD, as well as 5 additional randomly sampled hyperparameter settings (20 × 32 × 6 = 3840 experiments in total), it is possible that the SQuAD hyperparameters for some modeling approaches happen to be more general than other modeling approaches. Ideally, each modeling approach would be individually tuned to maximize performance on every benchmark, but doing so requires prohibitive amounts of compute and researcher effort—we believe that our experiments have enough coverage with respect to hyperparameter optimization. ## References Erik Bernhardsson and the Annoy development team. 2020. github.com/spotify/annoy. Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading Wikipedia to answer opendomain questions. In *Proc. of ACL*. Pengxiang Cheng and Katrin Erk. 2020. Attending to entities for better text understanding. In Proc. of AAAI. Christopher Clark and Matt Gardner. 2018. Simple and effective multi-paragraph reading comprehension. In *Proc. of ACL*. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. ELECTRA: Pretraining text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. In *Proc. of ICLR*. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proc. of NAACL*. Bhuwan Dhingra, Hanxiao Liu, Zhilin Yang, William W. Cohen, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2017. Gated-attention readers for text comprehension. In *Proc. of ACL*. Josip Djolonga, Jessica Yung, Michael Tschannen, Rob Romijnders, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Joan Puigcerver, Matthias Minderer, Alexander D'Amour, Dan Moldovan, Sylvan Gelly, Neil Houlsby, Xiaohua Zhai, and Mario Lucic. 2020. On robustness and transferability of convolutional neural networks. ArXiv:2007.08558. Dheeru Dua, Yizhong Wang, Pradeep Dasigi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2019. DROP: A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs. In Proc. of NAACL. Adam Fisch, Alon Talmor, Robin Jia, Minjoon Seo, Eunsol Choi, and Danqi Chen. 2019. MRQA 2019 shared task: Evaluating generalization in reading comprehension. In *Proc. of MRQA*. Matt Gardner, Joel Grus, Mark Neumann, Oyvind Tafjord, Pradeep Dasigi, Nelson F. Liu, Matthew Peters, Michael Schmitz, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. AllenNLP: A deep semantic natural language processing platform. In *Proc. of NLP-OSS*. Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. *Proc. of NeurIPS*. Felix Hill, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2016. The Goldilocks Principle: Reading children's books with explicit memory representations. In *Proc. of ICLR*. Minghao Hu, Yuxing Peng, and Xipeng Qiu. 2017. Reinforced Mnemonic Reader for machine reading comprehension. ArXiv:1705.02798v3. Hsin-Yuan Huang, Chenguang Zhu, Yelong Shen, and Weizhu Chen. 2018. FusionNet: Fusing via fullyaware attention with application to machine comprehension. In *Proc. of ICLR*. Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In *Proc. of EMNLP*. Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S. Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. SpanBERT: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 8:64–77. Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Omer Levy, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. pair2vec: Compositional word-pair embeddings for cross-sentence inference. In *Proc. of NAACL*. Bernard Koch, Emily Denton, Alex Hanna, and Jacob Gates Foster. 2021. Reduced, reused and recycled: The life of a dataset in machine learning research. In *Proc. of NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks Track*. Simon Kornblith, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. Do better ImageNet models transfer better? In *Proc. of CVPR*. Kalpesh Krishna, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Ankur P. Parikh, Nicolas Papernot, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Thieves on sesame street! model extraction of BERT-based APIs. In *Proc. of ICLR*. Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural Questions: a benchmark for question answering research. *Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics*, 7:453–466. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. ALBERT: A lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language representations. In *Proc. of* ICLR. Kenton Lee, Shimi Salant, Tom Kwiatkowski, Ankur Parikh, Dipanjan Das, and Jonathan Berant. 2016. Learning recurrent span representations for extractive question answering. ArXiv:1611.01436. Xiaodong Liu, Yelong Shen, Kevin Duh, and Jianfeng Gao. 2018. Stochastic answer networks for machine reading comprehension. In *Proc. of ACL*. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv:1907.11692. Mitchell P. Marcus, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, and Beatrice Santorini. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. *Computational Linguistics*, 19(2):313–330. Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer sentinel mixture models. In *Proc. of ICLR*. Julian Michael, Gabriel Stanovsky, Luheng He, Ido Dagan, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Crowdsourcing question-answer meaning representations. In *Proc.* of NAACL. John Miller, Karl Krauth, Benjamin Recht, and Ludwig Schmidt. 2020. The effect of natural distribution shift on question answering models. Proc. of ICML. Sewon Min, Eric Wallace, Sameer Singh, Matt Gardner, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Compositional questions do not necessitate multi-hop reasoning. In *Proc. of ACL*. Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and Terry Winograd. 1999. The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford InfoLab. Denis Paperno, Germán Kruszewski, Angeliki Lazaridou, Ngoc Quan Pham, Raffaella Bernardi, Sandro Pezzelle, Marco Baroni, Gemma Boleda, and Raquel Fernández. 2016. The LAMBADA dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse context. In *Proc. of ACL*. Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Technical report, OpenAI. Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for SQuAD. In *Proc. of ACL*. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In *Proc. of* EMNLP. Benjamin Recht, Rebecca Roelofs, Ludwig Schmidt, and Vaishaal Shankar. 2019. Do ImageNet classifiers generalize to ImageNet? *Proc. of ICML*. Minjoon Seo, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Ali Farhadi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2017. Bidirectional attention flow for machine comprehension. In *Proc. of ICLR*. Alon Talmor and Jonathan Berant. 2019. MultiQA: An empirical investigation of generalization and transfer in reading comprehension. In *Proc. of ACL*. Rohan Taori, Achal Dave, Vaishaal Shankar, Nicholas Carlini, Benjamin Recht, and Ludwig Schmidt. 2020. Measuring robustness to natural distribution shifts in image classification. In *Proc. of NeurIPS*. Adam Trischler, Tong Wang, Xingdi Yuan, Justin Harris, Alessandro Sordoni, Philip Bachman, and Kaheer Suleman. 2017. NewsQA: A machine comprehension dataset. In *Proc. of RepL4NLP*. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Proc. of NeurIPS*. Wenhui Wang, Nan Yang, Furu Wei, Baobao Chang, and Ming Zhou. 2017. Gated self-matching networks for reading comprehension and question answering. In *Proc. of ACL*. Dirk Weissenborn, Georg Wiese, and Laura Seiffe. 2017. Making neural QA as simple as possible but not simpler. In *Proc. of CoNLL*. Jason Weston, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, Sasha Rush, Bart van Merrienboer, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Towards AI-complete question answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks. In Proc. of ICLR. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Proc. of EMNLP (System Demonstrations)*. Felix Wu, Boyi Li, Lequn Wang, Ni Lao, John Blitzer, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2019. FastFusionNet: New state-of-the-art for DAWNBench SQuAD. ArXiv:1902.11291. Chhavi Yadav and Léon Bottou. 2019. Cold case: The lost MNIST digits. In *Proc. of NeurIPS*. Zhilin Yang, Bhuwan Dhingra, Ye Yuan, Junjie Hu, William W. Cohen, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2017. Words or characters? fine-grained gating for reading comprehension. In *Proc. of ICLR*. Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In *Proc. of EMNLP*. Adams Wei Yu, David Dohan, Minh-Thang Luong, Rui Zhao, Kai Chen, Mohammad Norouzi, and Quoc V. Le. 2018. QANet: Combining local convolution with global self-attention for reading comprehension. In *Proc. of ICLR*. Sheng Zhang, Xiaodong Liu, Jingjing Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Kevin Duh, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. ReCoRD: Bridging the gap between human and machine commonsense reading comprehension. ArXiv:1810.12885. ## Appendices A Implementation Details Of Modeling Approaches Evaluated We evaluated a representative subset of 20 extractive question answering modeling approaches, published between 2016 to 2020 (Table 5). Below, we describe implementation details for all the modeling approaches evaluated. | Modeling Approach | SQuAD 1.1 Dev. EM | | |-------------------------------------------|---------------------|------| | Our Reproduction | Published | | | RaSoR | 64.9 | 66.4 | | BiDAF | 67.4 | 67.7 | | DocumentReader | 69.7 | 69.5 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 69.2 | - | | BiDAF++ | 69.5 | 71.6 | | MnemonicReader | 73.0 | 71.8 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 72.7 | - | | QANet | 72.4 | 73.6 | | FusionNet | 72.9 | 75.0 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 72.2 | - | | BERT (base, uncased) | 81.5 | 80.8 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 84.2 | 84.1 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 87.3 | 86.7 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 81.9 | 82.3 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 89.1 | 89.3 | | RoBERTa (base) | 83.4 | - | | RoBERTa (large) | 87.0 | 88.9 | | ELECTRA (base) | 85.9 | 84.5 | | SpanBERT (base) | 86.2 | - | | SpanBERT (large) | 88.7 | 88.1 | Table 5: Published and reproduced SQuAD 1.1 EM of all 20 modeling approaches used for assessing concurrence. "-" indicates that the modeling approach has no published SQuAD 1.1 EM result. RaSoR We reimplement the RaSoR model of (Lee et al., 2016) with PyTorch in the AllenNLP (Gardner et al., 2018) framework, following the original paper as closely as possible. While the authors released an implementation of their method (github.com/shimisalant/rasor), the codebase is in Theano and inexplicably fails on passages that are significantly longer than those found in SQuAD (e.g., those found in the CNN benchmark). BiDAF We use the reimplementation of BiDAF (Seo et al., 2017) found in AllenNLP (Gardner et al., 2018). DocumentReader (with and without external features) We use an reimplementation of DocumentReader (Chen et al., 2017) released at github.com/felixgwu/FastFusionNet. The original DocumentReader approach uses external features from a part-of-speech tagger and named entity recognition system. To fairly compare to systems that do not use such external resources, we also run the models without these features. We keep the hand-crafted term-frequency and token exact match features defined in the DocumentReader paper. We also make some changes to the DocumentReader preprocessing code. In particular, the original implementation (github.com/facebookresearch/DrQA) of these two modeling approaches (intended for training and evaluation on SQuAD) replaces all tokens without a pre-trained GloVe embedding (trained on 840B tokens from the Common Crawl) with a special unknown token—the reimplementation we use adopts the same practice. This preprocessing assumption works well for SQuAD, since the vast majority of SQuAD tokens also appear in the GloVe vocabulary. However, this preprocessing assumption does not apply to CNN—many of the special @entityN and @placeholder markers, which anonymize entities to prevent models from deriving answers from world knowledge, are not in the GloVe vocabulary. As a result, the original DocumentReader implementation maps them all to a single unknown token, effectively preventing the model from telling valid answer choices apart and yielding a model that performs no better than the majority baseline. Keeping these special tokens in the model's vocabulary enables differentiating between different entities in a passage, which naturally improves performance (and are the reported numbers)—however, the modeling approaches' improvements on SQuAD still do not transfer to CNN. BiDAF++ We modify an AllenNLP (Gardner et al., 2018) reimplementation of the BiDAF++ Clark and Gardner (2018) model originally used in pair2vec (Joshi et al., 2019) for evaluation on SQuAD 2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018). MnemonicReader We use an reimplementation of MnemonicReader (Hu et al., 2017; note the specific arXiv revision) released at github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/MnemonicReader. In particular, the reimplementation is of the vanilla MnemonicReader without reinforcement learning. QANet We use the reimplementation of QANet (Yu et al., 2018) found in AllenNLP (Gardner et al., 2018). This reimplementation was used as a baseline method for DROP (Dua et al., 2019). FusionNet We use an reimplementation of FusionNet (Chen et al., 2017) released at github.com/felixgwu/FastFusionNet. This reimplementation was used as a baseline in Wu et al. (2019). Drawing inspiration from DocumentReader, the FusionNet approach also uses external features from a part-of-speech tagger and named entity recognition system. As a result, we also run the models without these features to fairly compare to systems that do not use such external resources. We keep the hand-crafted term-frequency and token exact match features originally used in the FusionNet paper. BERT (base, large, and wwm) We use the HuggingFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) library to fine-tune BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) on extractive question answering benchmarks. In particular, we use the base, uncased, BERT pre-trained model, the large, uncased, BERT pre-trained model, and the large, uncased, BERT model pre-trained with whole-word masking. ALBERT (base and xxlarge) We use the HuggingFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) library to fine-tune ALBERT (Lan et al., 2020) on extractive question answering benchmarks. In particular, we use the base and xxlarge V1 ALBERT pre-trained models. RoBERTa (base and large) We use the HuggingFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) library to finetune RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) on extractive question answering benchmarks. In particular, we use the base and large RoBERTa pre-trained models. ELECTRA (base) We use the HuggingFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) library to fine-tune the ELECTRA base discriminator (Clark et al., 2020) on extractive question answering benchmarks. SpanBERT (base and large) We use the author-released codebase (github.com/facebookresearch/SpanBERT) to fine-tune SpanBERT (Joshi et al., 2020) on extractive question answering benchmarks. In particular, we use the base and large SpanBERT pre-trained models. ## B Preprocessing Existing Benchmarks B.1 Existing Human-Constructed Benchmarks We use the MRQA NewsQA, MRQA DROP, and MRQA HotpotQA benchmarks exactly as released by the MRQA 2019 shared task (Fisch et al., 2019). The passages in MRQA NaturalQuestions contain HTML entities (e.g., <P> and </P>). The tokenizers used in non-pretrained models frequently split these entities into separate tokens. For example, <P> may become <, P, and >. This is problematic because the entities are quite common in passages, and expanding them during tokenization drastically increases the passage lengths, which some non-pretrained modeling approaches cannot handle due to GPU memory limits. HTML entities are tokenized like this because they contain non-alphanumeric characters. As a result, we normalize HTML entities by replacing the non-alphanumeric characters. For example, <P> becomes BPB, and </P> becomes EEPE. These tokens are correctly kept intact. It's possible that modeling approaches that use subword information will perform worse with these normalized HTML entities, but we empirically observe that this normalization does not have a measurable impact on model performance. QAMR questions were originally collected at the sentence level, but we concatenate these sentences to reconstruct the original passages they were sourced from. We then pair these reconstructed passages with the original QAMR questions. It's possible for questions to become unanswerable at the passage-level. One case of his happens when two sentences have the same question—we filter out such questions that are asked for multiple sentences in a reconstructed passage. Questions can also become unanswerable if relations between entities change between sentences. For example, given the passage "Bill lived in California in 1920. Bill lived in Washington in 1921.", the question "Where did Bill live" is answerable within the context of a particular sentence, but not in the context of the entire passage. Manual examination of generated QAMR passages and questions suggests that this case is rather uncommon, but it may still introduce a small amount of noise into the benchmark. ## B.2 Existing Cloze Benchmarks To convert the CBT and CNN benchmarks to extractive format, we take the passages and question as-is. The answer span is designated as the first occurrence of the answer token in the passage. To convert LAMBADA into extractive format, we follow the setup of Cheng and Erk (2020). The ReCoRD benchmark is used as-is, since it includes span-level annotations of answer tokens in passages. ## B.3 Existing Synthetic Benchmarks We consider tasks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. The other tasks cannot be converted to extractive format (e.g., they require "yes"/"no" answers that do not appear in passages). To convert the tasks in the bAbI benchmark to extractive format, we take the passages and question as-is. While the bAbI benchmark does not provide character-level span annotations for answers, questions come with "supporting facts"— sentences in the passage that contain the answer. Thus, choose the first occurrence of the answer token in the supporting fact sentence as our answer span. Some of the bAbI tasks, while usable in an extractive format in theory, cannot be trivially converted to the extractive format via the procedure above because the released benchmark's annotations do not appear in the passage. For instance, consider Figure 9, which shows an example drawn from the training set of Task 15. The answer provided in the benchmark is "cat", although this token never appears in the passage—instead, "cats" does. In cases where the originally-labeled answer cannot be found in the supporting fact, but its pluralization is present, we use the pluralized answer as our answer span. Passage: Mice are afraid of cats. Gertrude is a mouse. Emily is a mouse. Wolves are afraid of sheep. Winona is a wolf. Jessica is a mouse. Cats are afraid of sheep. Sheep are afraid of cats. Question: *What is jessica afraid of?* Answer: cat Figure 9 ## C Examples From Existing Benchmarks C.1 Examples From Existing Human-Constructed Benchmarks | Table 6 shows examples from the existing human-constructed benchmarks we study. Benchmark Passage (some parts shortened with ...) Question | Answer | | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------|-----|---------| | MRQA NewsQA | (CNET) - When Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg recently announced a "Like" button that publishers could place on their Web pages, he predicted it would make the Web smarter and "more social". What Zuckerberg didn't point out is that widespread use of the Like button allows Facebook to track people as they switch from CNN.com to Yelp.com to ESPN.com, all of which are sites that have said they will implement the feature... | What does the like | Facebook | | | | button allow? | to track people | | | | | | MRQA | BPB A shooting schedule is a project plan of each day | | | | | | NaturalQuestions | 's shooting for a film production . It is normally created and managed by the assistant director , who reports to the production manager managing the production schedule . Both schedules represent a timeline stating where and when production resources are used . EEPE | who 's job is it to schedule each day 's shooting | assistant director | | | | MRQA DROP | Coming off their win over the Chargers, the Bills flew to Dolphin Stadium for a Week 8 AFC East duel with the Miami Dolphins. In the first quarter, Buffalo trailed early as Dolphins QB Chad Pennington completed a 2-yard TD pass to TE Anthony Fasano. The Bills responded with kicker Rian Lindell getting a 19- yard field goal. In the second quarter, Buffalo took the lead as Lindell got a 43-yard and a 47-yard field goal... | Which team allowed the most first half points? | Dolphins | | | | MRQA HotpotQA | [PAR] [TLE] John M. Brown [SEP] John Mifflin Brown (September 8, 1817 - March 16, 1893) was a bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church. He was a leader in the underground railroad. He helped open a number of churches and schools, including the Payne Institute which became Allen University in Columbia, South Carolina and Paul Quinn College in Waco, Texas. He was also an early principal of Union Seminary which became Wilberforce University [PAR] [TLE] Waco, Texas [SEP] Waco ( ) is a city which is the county seat of McLennan County, Texas, United States. It is situated along the Brazos River and I-35, halfway between Dallas and Austin. The city had a 2010 population of 124,805, making it the 22nd-most populous city in the state. The US Census 2016 population estimate is 134,432 The Waco Metropolitan Statistical Area consists of McLennan and Falls Counties, which had a 2010 population of 234,906. Falls County was added to the Waco MSA in 2013. The US Census 2016 population estimate for the Waco MSA is 265,207. | What | city | is | the | | home to Paul Quinn College and sets on the Brazos River between Dallas and Austin? | Waco, Texas | | | | | | QAMR | An additional problem to face the empire came as a result of the involvement of Emperor Maurice -LRB- r. 582 - 602 -RRB- in Persian politics when he intervened in a succession dispute . This led to a period of peace , but when Maurice was overthrown , the Persians invaded and during the reign of Emperor Heraclius - LRB- r. 610 - 641 -RRB- controlled large chunks of the empire , including Egypt , Syria , and Anatolia until Heraclius ' successful counterattack . In 628 the empire secured a peace treaty and recovered all of its lost territories . | Whose | politics | did | Persian | | the | empire | get | in | | | | volved with? | | | | | | | Table 6: Example passages, questions, and answers from the existing human-constructed benchmarks we study. | | | | | | ## C.2 Examples From Existing Cloze Benchmarks | Table 7 shows examples from the existing cloze benchmarks we study. Benchmark Passage (some parts shortened with ...) | Question | Answer | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------------|------|-----| | Children's Book Test | ... Lady Latifa argued and urged her wishes , but in | | | | | | (Common Nouns) | vain ; the prince was not to be moved . Then she called to the cupbearers for new wine , for she thought that when his head was hot with it he might consent to stay . The pure , clear wine was brought ; she filled a cup and gave to him . He said : ' O most enchanting sweetheart ! it is the rule for the host to drink first and then the guest . ' | So | to | make | him | | lose his head , she drained the XXXXX ; then filled it again and gave him . | cup | | | | | | Children's Book Test | ... At last , however , the Sunball became aware how | | | | | | (Named Entities) | sad Letiko was . | ... | Then he sent them away , and | | | | called two hares to him , and said : ' Will you take Letiko home to her mother ? ' ' Yes , why not ? ' ' What will you eat and drink if you should become hungry and thirsty by the way ? ' ' We will eat grass and drink from streamlets . ' ' Then take her , and bring her home . ' | Then the hares set out , taking XXXXX with them , and because it was a long way to her home they became hungry by the way . | Letiko | | | | | LAMBADA | sorry 's not going to win me my game tomorrow . my racket is . i ca n't believe i let you take it out of here in the first place ! " " but , dad , i 'm sure you made mistakes when you were a hippie teenager ! " " and i paid for them ! | like you 're going to | racket | | | | pay for my | | | | | | | CNN | ( @entity0 ) you 'll see some familiar faces in the @entity1 . @entity2 beat @entity3 66 - 52 on sunday , giving @entity4 ' coach @entity5 his 12th trip to the semifinals of the @entity6 men 's basketball tournament . @entity7 and @entity8 each scored 16 to help @entity2 win the @entity9 . @entity3 , led by 16 points from @entity10 , was hoping to earn its first trip to the @entity1 . here 's how the @entity1 , to be played in @entity11 , has shaped up : next saturday , @entity2 will face @entity12 in the first semifinal . in the next game , top seed @entity13 will battle @entity14 | the | @entity1 | | | | matchups : | @place | | | | | | holder vs. @entity12 and @entity13 vs. @entity14 | @entity2 | | | | | | ReCoRD | Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm over the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she's responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts. "I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision." @highlight "What I want to avoid is some kind of political gotcha or blame game," Clinton says @highlight "I take this very personally," she says @highlight Diplomats need security but "can't hang out behind walls," she adds | Clinton | also | de | | | scribed a desperate scene in the @placeholder during the hours of the attack, as staff tried to find out what had happened. | State Department | | | | | | Table 7: Example passages, questions, and answers from the existing cloze benchmarks we study. | | | | | | ## C.3 Examples From Existing Synthetic Benchmarks Table 8 shows examples from the existing synthetic benchmarks we study. The contents of this table are reproduced from Weston et al. (2016). | Benchmark | Passage | Question | Answer | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------|----------|--------| | bAbI Task 1 | Mary went to the bathroom. | John | | | | | (Single Supporting Fact) | moved to the hallway. Mary travelled to the office. | Where is Mary? | office | | | | bAbI Task 2 | John is in the playground. | John | | | | | (Two Supporting Facts) | picked up the football. Bob went to the kitchen. | Where | is | the | foot | | ball? | playground | | | | | | bAbI Task 3 | John picked up the apple. John went | | | | | | (Three Supporting Facts) | to the office. | John went to the | | | | | kitchen. John dropped the apple. | Where was the apple | office | | | | | before the kitchen? | | | | | | | bAbI Task 4 | The office is north of the bedroom. | | | | | | (Two Argument Relations) | The bedroom is north of the bathroom. The kitchen is west of the garden. | What is north of the | office | | | | bedroom? | | | | | | | bAbI Task 5 | Mary gave the cake to Fred. | Fred | | | | | (Three Argument Relations) | gave the cake to Bill. Jeff was given the milk by Bill. | Who did Fred give | Bill | | | | the cake to? | | | | | | | bAbI Task 11 | Daniel was in the kitchen. | Then he | | | | | (Basic Coreference) | went to the studio. Sandra was in the office. | Where is Daniel? | studio | | | | bAbI Task 12 | Mary and Jeff went to the kitchen. | Where is Jeff? | park | | | | (Conjunction) | Then Jeff went to the park. | | | | | | bAbI Task 13 | Daniel and Sandra journeyed to the | | | | | | (Compound Coreference) | office. | Then they went to the gar | | | | | den. | Sandra and John travelled to | | | | | | the kitchen. | After that they moved | | | | | | to the hallway. | Where is Daniel? | garden | | | | | bAbI Task 14 | In the afternoon Julie went to the | | | | | | (Time Reasoning) | park. | Yesterday Julie was at school. | | | | | Julie went to the cinema this evening. | Where did Julie go | cinema | | | | | after the park? | | | | | | | bAbI Task 15 | Sheep are afraid of wolves. Cats are | | | | | | (Basic Deduction) | afraid of dogs. Mice are afraid of cats. Gertrude is a sheep. | What | is | Gertrude | wolves | | afraid of? | | | | | | | bAbI Task 16 | Lily is a swan. Lily is white. Bernhard | What color is Greg? | white | | | | (Basic Induction) | is green. Greg is a swan. | | | | | | Table 8: Example passages, questions, and answers from the existing synthetic benchmarks we study. | | | | | | ## D Full Results On Existing Benchmarks D.1 Full Results On Existing Human-Constructed Benchmarks Table 9 and Table 10 show the performance of each modeling approach on each existing human-constructed benchmark. | MRQA NewsQA | MRQA | MRQA DROP | | |-------------------------------------------|--------|-------------|-------| | NaturalQuestions | | | | | RaSoR | 44.68 | 60.02 | 51.30 | | BiDAF | 43.49 | 58.43 | 51.36 | | DocumentReader | 46.30 | 59.08 | 54.96 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 46.32 | 59.39 | 54.69 | | BiDAF++ | 46.53 | 60.23 | 55.16 | | MnemonicReader | 48.43 | 61.53 | 57.02 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 48.01 | 61.80 | 57.35 | | QANet | 47.03 | 61.74 | 54.56 | | FusionNet | 49.00 | 59.62 | 57.82 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 48.88 | 59.54 | 57.95 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 52.61 | 67.16 | 52.63 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 54.99 | 69.38 | 61.54 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 57.86 | 71.67 | 71.66 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 53.25 | 67.37 | 61.21 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 61.16 | 72.95 | 78.64 | | RoBERTa (base) | 56.62 | 68.28 | 64.54 | | RoBERTa (large) | 59.14 | 72.06 | 74.12 | | ELECTRA (base) | 57.60 | 70.23 | 69.00 | | SpanBERT (base) | 55.60 | 69.51 | 63.74 | | SpanBERT (large) | 59.09 | 72.13 | 75.05 | Table 9: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on MRQA NewsQA, MRQA NaturalQuestions and MRQA DROP. | MRQA HotpotQA | QAMR | | |-------------------------------------------|--------|-------| | RaSoR | 51.35 | 51.56 | | BiDAF | 50.94 | 51.84 | | DocumentReader | 52.74 | 56.00 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 52.18 | 54.14 | | BiDAF++ | 53.86 | 54.69 | | MnemonicReader | 56.13 | 58.07 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 55.60 | 56.92 | | QANet | 54.16 | 53.31 | | FusionNet | 57.69 | 59.14 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 57.38 | 56.91 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 59.53 | 64.36 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 61.63 | 67.51 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 65.02 | 71.03 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 61.65 | 66.30 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 68.17 | 74.15 | | RoBERTa (base) | 61.19 | 67.16 | | RoBERTa (large) | 64.58 | 71.44 | | ELECTRA (base) | 62.58 | 68.16 | | SpanBERT (base) | 63.89 | 68.70 | | SpanBERT (large) | 66.60 | 71.46 | Table 10: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on MRQA HotpotQA and QAMR. ## D.2 Full Results On Existing Cloze Benchmarks | CBT (CN) | CBT (NE) | LAMBADA | | |-------------------------------------------|------------|-----------|-------| | RaSoR | 53.00 | 69.85 | 71.95 | | BiDAF | 52.45 | 72.75 | 70.29 | | DocumentReader | 56.55 | 73.85 | 74.42 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 57.15 | 74.60 | 74.08 | | BiDAF++ | 58.40 | 77.15 | 71.95 | | MnemonicReader | 61.45 | 78.80 | 74.57 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 61.20 | 77.90 | 74.55 | | QANet | 57.65 | 76.95 | 74.89 | | FusionNet | 65.05 | 80.25 | 76.83 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 64.85 | 79.85 | 76.92 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 72.40 | 82.45 | 84.13 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 76.65 | 84.55 | 86.83 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 79.90 | 86.90 | 91.23 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 70.75 | 82.70 | 82.14 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 86.90 | 90.70 | 94.53 | | RoBERTa (base) | 75.70 | 84.90 | 86.48 | | RoBERTa (large) | 82.45 | 88.60 | 92.27 | | ELECTRA (base) | 74.20 | 84.40 | 86.40 | | SpanBERT (base) | 75.90 | 85.50 | 87.10 | | SpanBERT (large) | 80.75 | 88.80 | 91.65 | Table 11 and Table 12 show the performance of each modeling approach on each existing cloze benchmark. Table 11: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on CBT (CN), CBT (NE) and LAMBADA. | CNN (100K Examples) | ReCoRD | | |-------------------------------------------|----------|-------| | RaSoR | 74.59 | 32.97 | | BiDAF | 75.59 | 30.88 | | DocumentReader | 72.66 | 29.97 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 72.38 | 29.52 | | BiDAF++ | 79.20 | 34.93 | | MnemonicReader | 79.46 | 39.01 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 78.95 | 37.87 | | QANet | 79.00 | 33.46 | | FusionNet | 79.05 | 30.89 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 78.80 | 28.91 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 79.74 | 58.45 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 82.54 | 67.18 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 82.72 | 72.85 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 79.33 | 56.54 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 86.03 | 81.87 | | RoBERTa (base) | 82.26 | 68.88 | | RoBERTa (large) | 86.77 | 77.63 | | ELECTRA (base) | 82.08 | 69.61 | | SpanBERT (base) | 83.31 | 69.23 | | SpanBERT (large) | 84.81 | 77.72 | Table 12: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on CNN (100K Examples) and ReCoRD. ## D.3 Full Results On Existing Synthetic Benchmarks Table 13 and Table 14 and Table 15 show the performance of each modeling approach on each existing of the bAbI tasks (900 training examples). | bAbI QA #1 | bAbI QA #2 | bAbI QA #3 | bAbI QA #4 | | |-------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|-------| | RaSoR | 100.0 | 60.0 | 71.0 | 81.0 | | BiDAF | 100.0 | 42.0 | 53.0 | 83.0 | | DocumentReader | 100.0 | 63.0 | 70.0 | 100.0 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 100.0 | 76.0 | 93.0 | 100.0 | | BiDAF++ | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 78.0 | | MnemonicReader | 100.0 | 44.0 | 71.0 | 100.0 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 74.0 | 100.0 | | QANet | 100.0 | 42.0 | 39.0 | 85.0 | | FusionNet | 100.0 | 84.0 | 77.0 | 100.0 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 70.0 | 100.0 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 100.0 | 80.0 | 49.0 | 81.0 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 100.0 | 63.0 | 63.0 | 79.0 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 100.0 | 98.0 | 98.0 | 91.0 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 100.0 | 86.0 | 85.0 | 85.0 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | RoBERTa (base) | 100.0 | 73.0 | 54.0 | 64.0 | | RoBERTa (large) | 100.0 | 39.0 | 53.0 | 87.0 | | ELECTRA (base) | 100.0 | 86.0 | 64.0 | 100.0 | | SpanBERT (base) | 57.0 | 9.0 | 22.0 | 60.0 | | SpanBERT (large) | 61.0 | 38.0 | 9.0 | 60.0 | Table 13: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on bAbI QA \#1, bAbI QA \#2, bAbI QA \#3 and bAbI QA \#4. | bAbI QA #5 | bAbI QA #11 | bAbI QA #12 | bAbI QA #13 | | |-------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|-------| | RaSoR | 98.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | BiDAF | 95.0 | 78.00 | 100.0 | 95.0 | | DocumentReader | 96.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 97.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | BiDAF++ | 96.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 95.0 | | MnemonicReader | 95.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 95.0 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 95.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | QANet | 95.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 95.0 | | FusionNet | 98.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 98.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 95.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 97.0 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 95.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 96.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 95.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 99.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | RoBERTa (base) | 95.0 | 98.99 | 89.0 | 95.0 | | RoBERTa (large) | 98.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 95.0 | | ELECTRA (base) | 95.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 97.0 | | SpanBERT (base) | 36.0 | 74.75 | 75.0 | 95.0 | | SpanBERT (large) | 43.0 | 81.82 | 77.0 | 95.0 | Table 14: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on bAbI QA \#5, bAbI QA \#11, bAbI QA \#12 and bAbI QA \#13. Figure 10 shows how well the bAbI tasks (9000) training examples concur with SQuAD. Table 16 and Table 17 and Table 18 show the performance of each modeling approach on each existing of the bAbI tasks (9000 training examples). | bAbI QA #14 | bAbI QA #15 | bAbI QA #16 | | |-------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|-------| | RaSoR | 97.0 | 73.00 | 64.0 | | BiDAF | 95.0 | 66.00 | 61.0 | | DocumentReader | 96.0 | 68.00 | 63.0 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 99.0 | 68.00 | 64.0 | | BiDAF++ | 92.0 | 65.00 | 61.0 | | MnemonicReader | 99.0 | 63.00 | 65.0 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 99.0 | 67.00 | 65.0 | | QANet | 62.0 | 64.00 | 58.0 | | FusionNet | 100.0 | 69.00 | 64.0 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 99.0 | 100.00 | 64.0 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 84.0 | 60.56 | 50.0 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 88.0 | 56.34 | 52.0 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 96.0 | 100.00 | 62.0 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 78.0 | 60.56 | 80.0 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | | RoBERTa (base) | 81.0 | 61.97 | 47.0 | | RoBERTa (large) | 77.0 | 100.00 | 44.0 | | ELECTRA (base) | 87.0 | 100.00 | 47.0 | | SpanBERT (base) | 37.0 | 46.48 | 36.0 | | SpanBERT (large) | 37.0 | 59.15 | 49.0 |  | bAbI QA #1 | bAbI QA #2 | bAbI QA #3 | bAbI QA #4 | | |-------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------| | (9K) | (9K) | (9K) | (9K) | | | RaSoR | 100.00 | 100.0 | 89.5 | 79.50 | | BiDAF | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | DocumentReader | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | BiDAF++ | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | MnemonicReader | 100.00 | 100.0 | 57.8 | 100.00 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 100.00 | 100.0 | 57.8 | 100.00 | | QANet | 100.00 | 80.7 | 45.3 | 58.20 | | FusionNet | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 100.00 | 99.9 | 99.6 | 100.00 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | RoBERTa (base) | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | RoBERTa (large) | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | ELECTRA (base) | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | SpanBERT (base) | 56.77 | 99.5 | 99.9 | 79.37 | | SpanBERT (large) | 56.57 | 95.4 | 34.3 | 54.21 | Table 16: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on bAbI QA \#1 (9K Examples), bAbI QA \#2 (9K Examples), bAbI QA \#3 (9K Examples) and bAbI QA \#4 (9K Examples). | bAbI QA #5 | bAbI QA #11 | bAbI QA #12 | bAbI QA #13 | | |-------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|--------| | (9K) | (9K) | (9K) | (9K) | | | RaSoR | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | BiDAF | 99.9 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | DocumentReader | 99.9 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 99.9 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | BiDAF++ | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | MnemonicReader | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | QANet | 99.7 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | FusionNet | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 99.9 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 99.9 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 99.9 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 99.9 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | RoBERTa (base) | 99.9 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | RoBERTa (large) | 99.9 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | ELECTRA (base) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | 100.00 | | SpanBERT (base) | 99.9 | 92.08 | 72.8 | 94.89 | | SpanBERT (large) | 99.9 | 59.32 | 100.0 | 93.19 | Table 17: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on bAbI QA \#5 (9K Examples), bAbI QA \#11 (9K Examples), bAbI QA \#12 (9K Examples) and bAbI QA \#13 (9K Examples). | bAbI QA #14 (9K) | bAbI QA #15 (9K) | bAbI QA #16 (9K) | | |-------------------------------------------|--------------------|--------------------|-------| | RaSoR | 100.0 | 100.00 | 50.2 | | BiDAF | 100.0 | 100.00 | 50.6 | | DocumentReader | 100.0 | 100.00 | 50.5 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 53.3 | | BiDAF++ | 100.0 | 100.00 | 50.4 | | MnemonicReader | 100.0 | 52.30 | 50.2 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 100.0 | 53.70 | 50.4 | | QANet | 100.0 | 51.80 | 50.6 | | FusionNet | 100.0 | 100.00 | 56.5 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 50.8 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | | RoBERTa (base) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | | RoBERTa (large) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | | ELECTRA (base) | 100.0 | 100.00 | 100.0 | | SpanBERT (base) | 86.6 | 63.30 | 48.3 | | SpanBERT (large) | 66.6 | 52.78 | 44.2 | Table 18: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on bAbI QA \#14 (9K Examples), bAbI QA \#15 (9K Examples) and bAbI QA \#16 (9K Examples). ## E Fuzzysyntheticqa Construction Details Figure 11 provides an overview of the construction of FuzzySyntheticQA.  To efficiently replace tokens with related tokens, we consider each token's 100 *approximate* nearest neighbors as replacement candidates. In particular, we use Annoy (Bernhardsson and the Annoy development team, 2020) to perform the approximate nearest neighboor look-ups. Similarities are derived from the Euclidean distance of normalized vectors between two tokens. ## F Full Results On Fuzzysyntheticqa Figure 12 shows that changing the passage generation method in FuzzySyntheticQA has a minimal effect on concurrence. We experiment with generating passages from a 3-gram language model, a probabilistic context-free grammar, a large neural language model (GPT-2 1.5B; Radford et al., 2019), and by taking real Wikipedia paragraphs. The 3-gram language model is trained with maximum likelihood estimation on WikiText-103 (Merity et al., 2017). The PCFG is trained with maximum likelihood estimation on the Penn Treebank (Marcus et al., 1993). Lastly, we take GPT-2 1.5B generations from the officially-released output samples (github.com/openai/gpt-2-output-dataset; generated with top-k truncated sampling with k = 40). Table 19 and Table 20 show the performance of each modeling approach on each of our constructed synthetic fuzzy pattern-matching benchmarks.  | Synthetic Fuzzy | 3-gram LM Synthetic | | | |-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------|-------| | Pattern-Matching | Fuzzy | | | | Pattern-Matching | PCFG Synthetic Fuzzy Pattern-Matching | | | | RaSoR | 37.01 | 63.00 | 64.60 | | BiDAF | 38.62 | 67.50 | 74.23 | | DocumentReader | 49.32 | 71.11 | 73.28 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 49.24 | 71.57 | 72.49 | | BiDAF++ | 56.89 | 76.30 | 80.92 | | MnemonicReader | 61.50 | 79.56 | 85.05 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 61.24 | 79.13 | 83.91 | | QANet | 59.60 | 74.53 | 78.80 | | FusionNet | 64.71 | 79.72 | 86.21 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 63.80 | 80.05 | 85.89 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 4.51 | 70.65 | 70.49 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 40.11 | 65.79 | 70.17 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 0.70 | 58.60 | 76.73 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 44.28 | 75.00 | 78.08 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 53.79 | 77.01 | 82.66 | | RoBERTa (base) | 44.92 | 67.78 | 74.54 | | RoBERTa (large) | 0.49 | 61.71 | 57.38 | | ELECTRA (base) | 44.85 | 73.42 | 76.69 | | SpanBERT (base) | 0.74 | 3.92 | 73.66 | | SpanBERT (large) | 0.40 | 9.74 | 62.51 | Table 19: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on Synthetic Fuzzy Pattern-Matching, 3-gram LM Synthetic Fuzzy Pattern-Matching and PCFG Synthetic Fuzzy Pattern-Matching. | GPT-2 Synthetic Fuzzy | English Wikipedia Synthetic Fuzzy | | |-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------| | Pattern-Matching | Pattern-Matching | | | RaSoR | 48.20 | 52.37 | | BiDAF | 62.16 | 60.52 | | DocumentReader | 57.97 | 62.45 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 58.73 | 62.50 | | BiDAF++ | 69.45 | 65.74 | | MnemonicReader | 74.67 | 76.15 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 74.18 | 75.71 | | QANet | 51.45 | 73.79 | | FusionNet | 76.48 | 76.73 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 76.17 | 76.85 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 58.07 | 25.52 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 55.78 | 7.29 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 38.34 | 40.13 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 72.16 | 72.62 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 72.09 | 73.86 | | RoBERTa (base) | 68.14 | 58.60 | | RoBERTa (large) | 67.41 | 54.76 | | ELECTRA (base) | 65.07 | 66.33 | | SpanBERT (base) | 9.26 | 8.40 | | SpanBERT (large) | 71.61 | 6.40 | Table 20: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on GPT-2 Synthetic Fuzzy Pattern-Matching and English Wikipedia Synthetic Fuzzy Pattern-Matching. ## G Wikidatasyntheticqa Construction Details Figure 13 summarizes the data generation procedure for WikidataSyntheticQA. Inverses of Properties. Some of our generated questions use the inverse relationships between two properties. To obtain the inverse relationship for a given property, we first retrieve its list of property constraints by using Wikidata property P2302 (property constraint). If Q21510855 (inverse constraint) is present, we then retrieve the corresponding property of this inverse relationship. If the inverse constraint is not present, we check the corresponding property of P7087 (inverse label item), which outputs the item with a label of the inverse relationship of the property. Entity Hyponyms. Some of our generated questions replace entities with their hyponyms. To obtain the hyponyms for a given entity, we retrieve any object entities of the P31 (instance of) and P279 (subclass of) properties.  | Synthetic Wikidata | | |-------------------------------------------|-------| | RaSoR | 63.67 | | BiDAF | 68.69 | | DocumentReader | 67.66 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 68.03 | | BiDAF++ | 70.43 | | MnemonicReader | 75.04 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 74.31 | | QANet | 73.12 | | FusionNet | 74.52 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 73.90 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 73.68 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 78.01 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 81.56 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 77.23 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 86.29 | | RoBERTa (base) | 77.75 | | RoBERTa (large) | 82.79 | | ELECTRA (base) | 76.86 | | SpanBERT (base) | 78.50 | | SpanBERT (large) | 84.26 | ## H Full Results On Wikidatasyntheticqa Table 21 shows the performance of each modeling approach on WikidataSyntheticQA. Table 21: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on Synthetic Wikidata. ## I Full Results On Subsampled Squad Table 22 and Table 23 show the performance of each modeling approach on subsamples of the SQuAD benchmark. | SQuAD 1.1 | | | | |-------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------|-------| | All | 1K Examples | 10K Examples | | | RaSoR | 64.86 | 15.52 | 49.44 | | BiDAF | 67.39 | 7.96 | 48.54 | | DocumentReader | 69.66 | 34.66 | 56.42 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 69.21 | 30.69 | 54.82 | | BiDAF++ | 69.49 | 18.62 | 57.48 | | MnemonicReader | 73.02 | 30.67 | 58.91 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 72.67 | 29.46 | 57.79 | | QANet | 72.41 | 7.18 | 48.15 | | FusionNet | 72.90 | 37.52 | 59.97 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 72.24 | 35.55 | 58.69 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 81.46 | 31.80 | 70.34 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 84.17 | 49.08 | 75.47 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 87.32 | 69.19 | 81.78 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 81.86 | 57.57 | 74.55 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 89.07 | 76.36 | 86.19 | | RoBERTa (base) | 83.37 | 55.01 | 77.30 | | RoBERTa (large) | 86.96 | 62.64 | 82.56 | | ELECTRA (base) | 85.88 | 62.05 | 78.31 | | SpanBERT (base) | 86.20 | 65.80 | 80.72 | | SpanBERT (large) | 88.74 | 75.00 | 85.06 | Table 22: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on SQuAD, SQuAD (1K Examples) and SQuAD (10K Examples). | SQuAD 1.1 | | | | |-------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|-------| | 20K Examples | 40K Examples | 60K Examples | | | RaSoR | 55.13 | 60.37 | 62.95 | | BiDAF | 57.29 | 62.35 | 65.25 | | DocumentReader | 61.84 | 65.45 | 68.27 | | DocumentReader (no external features) | 59.66 | 64.47 | 67.09 | | BiDAF++ | 62.25 | 66.42 | 68.62 | | MnemonicReader | 64.74 | 69.09 | 70.86 | | MnemonicReader (no external features) | 63.71 | 68.65 | 70.32 | | QANet | 61.02 | 66.55 | 69.74 | | FusionNet | 64.74 | 69.14 | 70.98 | | FusionNet (no external features) | 63.28 | 67.98 | 69.93 | | BERT (base, uncased) | 74.84 | 78.24 | 80.05 | | BERT (large, uncased) | 79.27 | 81.83 | 83.25 | | BERT (large, uncased, whole-word masking) | 84.47 | 85.78 | 86.75 | | ALBERT (base, V1) | 77.05 | 79.95 | 81.02 | | ALBERT (xxlarge, V1) | 86.91 | 88.02 | 88.63 | | RoBERTa (base) | 79.56 | 81.62 | 82.37 | | RoBERTa (large) | 84.26 | 86.37 | 87.18 | | ELECTRA (base) | 81.75 | 83.95 | 85.01 | | SpanBERT (base) | 82.54 | 84.17 | 85.39 | | SpanBERT (large) | 86.21 | 87.33 | 87.82 | Table 23: Performance of modeling approaches when evaluated on SQuAD (20K Examples), SQUAD (40K Examples) and SQuAD (60K Examples). ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Yes, at the very end of the paper in an unmarked section. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Yes, we used code published by prior researchers for training and evaluating QA models they had proposed. We also used existing datasets. See section 2 and 3. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Yes, see section 2 and 3. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Not applicable. Left blank. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Yes, Sections 3 And 4. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Yes, Appendix A. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Yes, Appendix A. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Yes, Appendix A. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

zhang-kordjamshidi-2023-vln

{VLN}-Trans: Translator for the Vision and Language Navigation Agent

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.737

Language understanding is essential for the navigation agent to follow instructions. We observe two kinds of issues in the instructions that can make the navigation task challenging: 1. The mentioned landmarks are not recognizable by the navigation agent due to the different vision abilities of the instructor and the modeled agent. 2. The mentioned landmarks are applicable to multiple targets, thus not distinctive for selecting the target among the candidate viewpoints. To deal with these issues, we design a translator module for the navigation agent to convert the original instructions into easy-to-follow sub-instruction representations at each step. The translator needs to focus on the recognizable and distinctive landmarks based on the agent{'}s visual abilities and the observed visual environment. To achieve this goal, we create a new synthetic sub-instruction dataset and design specific tasks to train the translator and the navigation agent. We evaluate our approach on Room2Room (R2R), Room4room (R4R), and Room2Room Last (R2R-Last) datasets and achieve state-of-the-art results on multiple benchmarks.

# Vln-Trans: Translator For The Vision And Language Navigation Agent Yue Zhang Michigan State University zhan1624@msu.edu Parisa Kordjamshidi Michigan State University kordjams@msu.edu ## Abstract Language understanding is essential for the navigation agent to follow instructions. We observe two kinds of issues in the instructions that can make the navigation task challenging: 1. The mentioned landmarks are not recognizable by the navigation agent due to the different vision abilities of the instructor and the modeled agent. 2. The mentioned landmarks are applicable to multiple targets, thus not distinctive for selecting the target among the candidate viewpoints. To deal with these issues, we design a translator module for the navigation agent to convert the original instructions into easy-tofollow sub-instruction representations at each step. The translator needs to focus on the recognizable and distinctive landmarks based on the agent's visual abilities and the observed visual environment. To achieve this goal, we create a new synthetic sub-instruction dataset and design specific tasks to train the translator and the navigation agent. We evaluate our approach on Room2Room (R2R), Room4room (R4R), and Room2Room Last (R2R-Last) datasets and achieve state-of-the-art results on multiple benchmarks. ## 1 Introduction Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) (Anderson et al., 2018) task requires an agent to understand and follow complex instructions to arrive at a destination in a photo-realistic simulated environment. This cross-domain task attracts researchers from the communities of computer vision, natural language processing, and robotics (Gu et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2021; Francis et al., 2022). To solve the VLN task, one streamline of methods is to build the connections between text and vision modalities by grounding the semantic information dynamically (Hong et al., 2020a; Qi et al., 2020a; An et al., 2021; Zhang and Kordjamshidi, 2022a). However, we observe two types of instructions that make the grounding in the VLN task quite  challenging. **First**, the instruction contains landmarks that are not recognizable by the navigation agent. For example, Figure 1(a), the agent can only see the "sofa", "table" and "chair" in the target viewpoint, based on the learned vision representations (He et al., 2016; Ren et al., 2015; Dosovitskiy et al., 2020). However, the instructor mentions landmarks of the "living room" and "kitchen" in the instruction, based on their prior knowledge about the environment, such as relating "sofa" to "living room". Given the small size of the dataset designed for learning navigation, it is hard to expect the agent to gain the same prior knowledge as the instructor. Second, the instructions contain the landmarks that can be applied to multiple targets, which causes ambiguity for the navigating agent. In Figure 1(b), the instruction "enter the door" does not help distinguish the target viewpoint from other candidate viewpoints since there are multiple doors and walls in the visual environment. As a result, we hypothesize those types of instructions cause the explicit and fine-grained grounding to be less effective for the VLN task, as appears in (Hong et al., 2020b; Zhang et al., 2021) that use sub-instructions and in (Hong et al., 2020a; Hu et al., 2019; Qi et al., 2020a; Zhang and Kordjamshidi, 2022a) that use object-level representations. To address the aforementioned issues, the main 13219 idea in our work is to introduce a translator module in the VLN agent, named VLN-trans, which takes the given instruction and visual environment as inputs and then converts them to easy-to-follow sub-instructions focusing on two aspects: 1) *recognizable* landmarks based on the navigation agent's visualization ability. 2) *distinctive* landmarks that help the navigation agent distinguish the targeted viewpoint from the candidate viewpoints. Consequently, by focusing on those two aspects, the translator can enhance the connections between the given instructions and the agent's observed visual environment and improve the agent's navigation performance. To train the translator module, we propose a Synthetic Fine-grained Sub-instruction dataset called SyFiS. The SyFiS dataset consists of pairs of the sub-instructions and their corresponding viewpoints, and each sub-instruction contains a motion indicator and a landmark. We select a motion verb for an action based on our action definitions according to the relative directions between source and target viewpoints; To obtain the landmarks, we first use Contrastive Language-Image Pretraining (CLIP) (Radford et al., 2021), a vision & language pre-trained model with powerful crossmodal alignment ability, to detect the objects in each candidate viewpoint as the recognizable landmarks. Then we select the distinctive one among recognizable landmarks that only appears in the target viewpoint. We train the translator in a contrastive manner by designing positive and negative sub-instructions based on whether a sub-instruction contains distinctive landmarks. We design two tasks to pre-train the translator: Sub-instruction Generation (SG) and *Distinctive* Sub-instruction Learning (DSL). The SG task enables the translator to generate the correct subinstruction. The DSL task encourages the translator to learn effective sub-instruction representations that are close to positive sub-instructions with distinctive landmarks and are far from the negative sub-instructions with irrelevant and nondistinctive landmarks. Then we equip the navigation agent with the pre-trained translator. At each navigation step, the translator adaptively generates easy-tofollow sub-instruction representations for the navigation agent based on given instructions and the agent's current visual observations. During the navigation process, we further design an auxiliary task, Sub-instruction Split (SS), to optimize the translator module to focus on the important portion of the given instruction and generate more effective sub-instruction representations. In summary, our contributions are as follows: 1. We propose a translator module that helps the navigation agent generate easy-to-follow subinstructions considering recognizable and distinctive landmarks based on the agent's visual ability. 2. We construct a high-quality synthetic subinstruction dataset and design specific tasks for training the translator and the navigation agent. 3. We evaluate our method on R2R, R4R, and R2R-Last, and our method achieves the SOTA results on all benchmarks. ## 2 Related Work Vision-and-Language Navigation Anderson et al. (2018) first propose the VLN task with R2R dataset, and many LSTM-based models (Tan et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2019a; Wang et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2019b) show progressing performance. One line of research on this task is to improve the grounding ability by modeling the semantic structure of both the text and vision modalities (Hong et al., 2020a; Li et al., 2021; Zhang and Kordjamshidi, 2022a). Recently, Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017; Tan and Bansal, 2019; Hong et al., 2021) have been broadly used in the VLN task. VLN⟳BERT (Hong et al., 2021) equips a Vision and Language Transformer with a recurrent unit that uses the history information, and HAMT (Chen et al., 2021) has an explicit history learning module and uses Vision Transformer (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020) to learn vision representations. To improve learning representation for the agent, ADAPT (Lin et al., 2022) learns extra prompt features, and CITL (Liang et al., 2022) proposes a contrastive instruction-trajectory learning framework. However, previous works ignore the issue of unrecognizable and nondistinctive landmarks in the instruction, which is detrimental to improving the navigation agent's grounding ability. We propose a translator module that generates easy-to-follow sub-instructions, which helps the agent overcome the abovementioned issues and improves the agent's navigation performance. Instruction Generation Fried et al. (2018) propose an instruction generator (*e.g.*, Speaker) to generate instructions as the offline augmented data for the navigation agent. Kurita and Cho (2020) design a generative language-grounded policy for the VLN agent to compute the distribution over all possible  instructions given action and transition history. Recently, FOAM (Dou and Peng, 2022) uses a bi-level learning framework to model interactions between the navigation agent and the instruction generator. Wang et al. (2022a) propose a cycle-consistent learning scheme that learns both instruction following and generation tasks. In contrast to our work, most prior works rely on the entire trajectory to generate instructions that provide a rather weak supervision signal for each navigation action. Moreover, the previously designed speakers generate textual tokens based on a set of images without considering what instructions are easier for the agent to follow. We address those issues with our designed translator by generating easy-to-follow sub-instruction representations for the navigation agent at each navigation step based on recognizable and distinctive landmarks. ## 3 Method In our navigation problem setting, the agent is given an instruction, denoted as W = {w1, w2, · · · , wL}, where L is the number of tokens. Also, the agent observes a panoramic view including 36 viewpoints1at each navigation step. There are n candidate viewpoints that the agent can navigate to in a panoramic view, denoted as I = {I1, I2, · · · , In}. The task is to generate a trajectory that takes the agent close to a goal destination. The navigation terminates when the navigation agent selects the current viewpoint, or a pre-defined maximum navigation step is reached. Fig. 3 (a) provides an overall picture of our proposed architecture for the navigation agent. We use VLN⟳BERT (Hong et al., 2021) (in Sec. 3.1) as the backbone of our navigation agent and equip it with a novel *translator* module that is trained to convert the full instruction representation into the most relevant sub-instruction representation based 112 headings and 3 elevations with 30 degree interval. on the current visual environment. Another key point of our method is to create a synthetic subinstruction dataset and design the pre-training tasks to encourage the translator to generate effective sub-instruction representations. We describe the details of our method in the following sections. ## 3.1 Backbone: Vln⟳**Bert** We use VLN⟳BERT as the backbone of our navigation agent. It is a cross-modal Transformerbased navigation agent with a specially designed recurrent state unit. At each navigation step, the agent takes three inputs: text representation, vision representation, and state representation. The text representation X for instruction W is denoted as X = [x1, x2, · · · , xL]. The vision representation V for candidate viewpoints I is denoted as V = [v1, v2, · · · , vn]. The recurrent state representation St stores the history information of previous steps and is updated based on X and Vt at the current step. The state representation St along with X and Vt are passed to cross-modal transformer layers and self-attention layers to learn the cross-modal representations and select an action, as follows: $$\begin{array}{c}{{\hat{X},\hat{S}_{t},\hat{V}_{t}=C r o s s\_A t t n(X,[S_{t};V_{t}]),}}\\ {{S_{t+1},a_{t}=S e l f\_A t t n(\hat{S}_{t},\hat{V}_{t}),}}\end{array}\quad\mathrm{(1)}$$ we use Xˆ, Sˆt, Vˆtto represent text, recurrent state, and visual representations after cross-modal transformer layers, respectively. The action is selected based on the self-attention scores between Sˆt and Vˆt. St+1 is the updated state representations and at contains the probability of the actions. ## 3.2 Synthetic Sub-Instruction Dataset (Syfis) This section introduces our novel approach to automatically generate a synthetic fine-grained subinstruction dataset, SyFiS, which is used to pretrain the *translator* (described in Sec. 3.3) in a contrastive manner. To this aim, for each viewpoint, we generate one positive sub-instruction and three negative sub-instructions. The viewpoints are taken from the R2R dataset (Anderson et al., 2018), and the sub-instructions are generated based on our designed template. Fig. 2 shows an example describing our methodology for constructing the dataset. The detailed statistics of our dataset are included in Sec.4. The sub-instruction template includes two components: a motion indicator and a landmark. For example, in the sub-instruction "turn left to the  kitchen", the motion indicator is "turn left", and the landmark is "kitchen". The sub-instruction template is designed based on the semantics of *Spatial* Configurations explained in (Dan et al., 2020). Motion Indicator Selection First, we generate the motion indicator for the synthesized subinstructions. Following Zhang et al. (2021), we use pos-tagging information to extract the verbs from instructions in the R2R training dataset and form our motion-indicators dictionary. We divide the motion indicators to 6 categories of: "FORWARD", "LEFT", "RIGHT", "UP", "DOWN", and "STOP". Each category has a set of corresponding verb phrases. We refer the Appendix A.1 for more details about motion indicator dictionary. Given a viewpoint, to select a motion indicator for each sub-instruction, we calculate the differences between the elevation and headings of the current and the target viewpoints. Based on the orientation difference and a threshold, *e.g.* 30 degrees, we decide the motion-indicator category. Then we randomly pick a motion verb from the corresponding category to be used in both generated positive and negative sub-instructions. Landmark Selection For generating the landmarks for the sub-instructions, we use the candidate viewpoints at each navigation step and select the most recognizable and *distinctive* landmarks that are easy for the navigation agent to follow. In our approach, the most recognizable landmarks are the objects that can be detected by CLIP. Using CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), given a viewpoint image, we predict a label token with the prompt "a photo of label" from an object label vocabulary. The probability that the image with representation b contains a label c is calculated as follows, $$p(c)={\frac{e x p(s i m(b,w_{c})/\tau_{1})}{\sum_{i=1}^{M}(e x p(s i m(b,w_{i}))/\tau_{1})}},\quad\quad(3)$$ where τ1 is the temperature parameter, sim is the cosine similarity between image representation and phrase representation wc which are generated by CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), M is the vocabulary size. The top-k objects that have the maximum similarity with the image are selected to form the set of recognizable landmarks for each viewpoint. We filter out the distinctive landmarks from the recognizable landmarks. The distinctive landmarks are the ones that appear in the target viewpoint and not in any other candidate viewpoints. For instance, in the example of Fig. 2, "hallway" is a distinctive landmark because it only appears in the v1 (target viewpoint). Forming Sub-instructions We use the motion verbs and landmarks to construct sub-instructions based on our template. To form contrastive learning examples, we create positive and negative subinstructions for each viewpoint. A positive subinstruction is a sub-instruction that includes a distinctive landmark. The negative sub-instructions include easy negatives and hard negatives. An easy negative sub-instruction contains irrelevant landmarks that appear in any candidate viewpoint except the target viewpoint, *e.g.,* in Fig. 2, "bed frame" appears in v3 and is not observed in the target viewpoint. A hard negative sub-instruction includes the nondistinctive landmarks that appear in both the target viewpoint and other candidate viewpoints. For example, in Fig. 2, "room" can be observed in all candidate viewpoints; therefore, it is difficult to distinguish the target from other candidate viewpoints based on this landmark. ## 3.3 Translator Module The translator takes a set of candidate viewpoints and the corresponding sub-instruction as the inputs and generates new sub-instructions. The architecture of our translator is shown in Fig. 3(b). This architecture is similar to the LSTM-based Speaker in the previous works (Tan et al., 2019; Fried et al., 2018). However, they generate full instructions from the whole trajectories and use them as offline augmented data for training the navigation agent, while our translator adaptively generates sub-instruction during the agent's navigation process based on its observations at each step. Formally, we feed text representations of subinstruction X and the visual representations of candidate viewpoints V into the corresponding LSTM to obtain deeper representation X˜ and V˜ . Then, we apply the soft attention between them to obtain the visually attended text representation X˜′, as: $$\bar{X}^{\prime}=SoftAttn(\bar{X};\bar{V};\bar{V})=softmax(\bar{X}^{T}W\bar{V})\bar{V},\tag{4}$$ where W is the learned weights. Lastly, we use an MLP layer to generate sub-instruction X′from the hidden representation X˜′, as follows, $$X^{\prime}=s o f t m a x(M L P(\tilde{X}^{\prime}))\qquad\qquad(5)$$ We use the SyFiS dataset to pre-train this translator. We also design two pre-training tasks: Sub-instruction Generation and Distinctive subinstruction Learning. Sub-instruction Generation (SG) We first train the translator to generate a sub-instruction, given the positive instructions paired with the viewpoints in the SyfiS dataset as the ground-truth. We apply a cross-entropy loss between the generated subinstruction X′and the positive sub-instruction Xp. The loss function for the SG task is as follows, $$L_{S G}=-\frac{1}{L}\sum_{L}X_{p}l o g P(X^{\prime})\qquad\quad(6)$$ Distinctive Sub-instruction Learning (DSL) To encourage the translator to learn sub-instruction representations that are close to the positive sub-instructions with recognizable and distinctive landmarks, and are far from the negative subinstructions with irrelevant and nondistinctive landmarks, we use triplet loss to train the translator in a contrastive way. To this aim, we first design triplets of sub-instructions in the form of <anchor, positive, negative>. For each viewpoint, we select one positive and three negative sub-instructions forming three triplets per viewpoint. We obtain the anchor sub-instruction by replacing the motion indicator in the positive sub-instruction with a different motion verb in the same motion indicator category. We denote the text representation of anchor sub-instruction as Xa, positive sub-instruction as Xp, and negative sub-instruction as Xn. Then we feed them to the translator to obtain the corresponding hidden representations X˜′a , X˜′p , and X˜′n using Eq. 4. The triplet loss function for the DSL task is computed as follows, $$L_{DSL}=max(D(\tilde{X}^{\prime}_{a},\tilde{X}^{\prime}_{p})-D(X^{\prime},\tilde{X}^{\prime}_{n})+m,0),\tag{7}$$ where m is a margin value to keep negative samples far apart, D is the pair-wise distance between representations. In summary, the total objective to pre-train the translator is: $$L_{p r e-t r a i n}=\alpha_{1}L_{S G}+\alpha_{2}L_{D S L}\qquad(8)$$ where α1 and α2 are hyper-parameters for balancing the importance of the two losses. ## 3.4 Navigation Agent We place the pre-trained translator module on top of the backbone navigation agent to perform the navigation task. Fig.3(a) shows the architecture of our navigation agent. ## 3.4.1 Vln-Trans: Vln With Translator At each navigation step, the translator takes the given instruction and the current candidate viewpoints as input and generates new sub-instruction representations, which are then used as an additional input to the navigation agent. Since the given instructions describe the full trajectory, we enable the translator module to focus on the part of the instruction that is in effect at each step. To this aim, we design another MLP layer in the translator to map the hidden states to a scalar attention representation. Then we do the element-wise multiplication between the attention representation and the instruction representation to obtain the attended instruction representation. In summary, we first input the text representation of given instruction X and visual representation of candidate viewpoints V to the translator to obtain the translated sub-instruction representation X˜′ using Eq. 4. Then we input X˜′to another MLP layer to obtain the attention representation X′m, X′m = MLP(X˜′). Then we obtain the attended sub-instruction representation as X′′ = X′m ⊙ X, where ⊙ is the element-wise multiplication. Lastly, we input text representation X along with translated sub-instruction representation X˜′and the attended instruction representation X′′ into the navigation agent. In such a case, we update the text representation X of VLN⟳BERT as [X; X˜′; X′′], where ; is the concatenation operation. ## 3.4.2 Training And Inference We follow (Tan et al., 2019) to train our navigation agent with a mixture of Imitation Learning (IL) and Reinforcement Learning (RL). The IL is to minimize the cross-entropy loss of the predicted and the ground-truth actions. RL is to sample an action from the action probability to learn the rewards. The navigation objective is denoted as: The navigation objective is denoted as: ${\begin{array}{l}{L}_{nav}=-\sum\limits_{t}{-{{a}_{t}^{s}}log({{p}_{t}^{a}})}{-\lambda\sum\limits_{t}{{{a}_{t}^{*}}log({{p}_{t}^{a}})}\end{array}}$ (9) where ${{a}_{t}^{s}}$ is the sampled action for RL, ${{a}_{t}^{*}}$ is the teacher action, and λ is the coefficient. During the navigation process, we design two auxiliary tasks specific to the translator. The first task is still the SG task in pre-training to generate the correct sub-instructions; the second task is Subinstruction Split (SS), which generates the correct attended sub-instruction. Specifically, for the SS task, at each step, we obtain the ground-truth attention representation by labeling the tokens of the sub-instruction in the full instruction as 1 and other tokens as 0. We denote ground-truth attended subinstruction representation as Xm. Then, we apply Binary Cross Entropy loss between Xm and the generated attention representation X′m as follows, $$L_{S S}=-\frac{1}{L}\sum_{L}X_{m}l o g(X_{m}^{\prime})\qquad(10)$$ The overall training objective of the navigation agent including the translator's auxiliary tasks is: $$L_{o b j}=\beta_{1}L_{n a v}+\beta_{2}L_{S G}+\beta_{3}L_{S S},$$ $$(11)$$ where β1, β1, and β3 are the coefficients. During inference, we use the greedy search to select an action with the highest probability at each step to finally generate a trajectory. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Dataset And Evaluation Metrics Dataset We evaluate our approach on three datasets: R2R (Anderson et al., 2018), R4R (Jain et al., 2019), and **R2R-Last** (Chen et al., 2021). R2R includes 21, 567 instructions and 7, 198 paths. The entire dataset is partitioned into training, seen validation and unseen validation, and unseen test sets. R4R extends R2R with longer instructions by concatenating two adjacent tail-to-head trajectories in R2R. R2R-Last uses the last sentence in the original R2R to describe the final destination instead of step-by-step instructions. Evaluation Metrics Three metrics are used for navigation (Anderson et al., 2018):(1) Navigation Error (NE): the mean of the shortest path distance between the agent's final position and the goal destination. (2) Success Rate (SR): the percentage of the predicted final position being within 3 meters from the goal destination. (3) Success rate weighted Path Length (SPL) that normalizes the success rate with trajectory length. The R4R dataset uses two more metrics to measure the fidelity between the predicted and the ground-truth path: (4) Coverage Weighted by Length Score (CLS) (Jain et al., 2019). (5) Normalized Dynamic Time Warping weighted by Success Rate (sDTW) (Ilharco et al., 2019). We provide a more detailed description of the dataset and metrics in the Appendix A.3. ## 4.2 Implementation Details We use ResNet-152 (He et al., 2016) pre-trained on Places365 (Zhou et al., 2017) as the visual feature and the pre-trained BERT (Vaswani et al., 2017) representation as the initialized text feature. We first pre-train the translator and navigation agent offline. Then we include the translator in the navigation agent to train together. To pre-train the translator, we use one NVIDIA RTX GPU. The batch size and learning rate are 16 and 1e − 5, respectively. Both α1 and α2 in Eq. 8 are 1. To pre-train the navigation agent, we follow the methods in Zhang and Kordjamshidi (2022b) and use extra pre-training datasets to improve the baseline. We use 4 GeForce RTX 2080 GPUs(~2 days), and the batch size on each GPU is 28.The learning rate Val seen Val Unseen Test Unseen Method NE ↓ SR ↑ SPL↑ NE ↓ SR ↑ SPL↑ NE ↓ SR ↑ SPL ↑ 1 Env-Drop (Tan et al., 2019) 3.99 0.62 0.59 5.22 0.47 0.43 5.23 0.51 0.47 2 RelGraph (Hong et al., 2020a) 3.47 0.67 0.65 4.73 0.57 0.53 4.75 0.55 0.52 3 NvEM (An et al., 2021) 3.44 0.69 0.65 4.27 0.60 0.55 4.37 0.58 0.54 4 PREVALENT (Hao et al., 2020) 3.67 0.69 0.65 4.71 0.58 0.53 5.30 0.54 0.51 5 HAMT (ResNet) (Chen et al., 2021) − 0.69 0.65 − 0.64 0.58 *− − −* 6 HAMT (ViT) (Chen et al., 2021) 2.51 0.76 0.72 − 0.66 0.61 3.93 0.65 0.60 7 CITL (Liang et al., 2022) 2.65 0.75 0.70 3.87 0.63 0.58 3.94 0.64 0.59 8 ADAPT (Lin et al., 2022) 2.70 0.74 0.69 3.66 0.66 0.59 4.11 0.63 0.57 9 LOViS (Zhang and Kordjamshidi, 2022b) 2.40 0.77 0.72 3.71 0.65 0.59 4.07 0.63 0.58 10 VLN⟳BERT (Hong et al., 2021) 2.90 0.72 0.68 3.93 0.63 0.57 4.09 0.63 0.57 11 VLN⟳BERT+*(ours)* 2.72 0.75 0.70 3.65 0.65 0.60 4.09 0.63 0.57 12 VLN⟳BERT++ *(ours)* 2.51 0.77 0.72 3.40 0.67 0.61 4.02 0.63 0.58 13 VLN-Trans-R2R *(ours)* 2.40 0.78 0.73 3.37 0.67 0.63 3.94 0.65 0.59 14 VLN-Trans-FG-R2R *(ours)* 2.45 0.77 0.72 3.34 0.69 0.63 3.94 0.66 0.60 Table 1: Experimental results on R2R Benchmarks in a single-run setting. The best results are in bold font. + means we add RXR (Ku et al., 2020) and Marky-mT5 dataset (Wang et al., 2022b) as the extra data to pre-train the navigation agent. ++ means we further add SyFiS dataset to pre-train the navigation agent. ViT means Vision Transformer representations. Val Seen Val Unseen Method NE↑ SR↑ SPL↑ CLS↑ sDTW↑ NE↓ SR↑ SPL↑ CLS↑ **sDTW**↑ 1 OAAM (Qi et al., 2020a) - 0.56 0.49 0.54 - 0.32 0.29 0.18 0.34 0.11 2 RelGraph (Hong et al., 2020a) 5.14 0.55 0.50 0.51 0.35 7.55 0.35 0.25 0.37 0.18 3 NvEM (An et al., 2021) 5.38 0.54 0.47 0.51 0.35 6.80 0.38 0.28 0.41 0.20 4 VLN⟳BERT* (Hong et al., 2021) 4.82 0.56 0.46 0.56 0.38 6.48 0.43 0.32 0.42 0.21 5 CITL (Liang et al., 2022) 3.48 0.67 0.57 0.56 0.43 6.42 0.44 0.35 0.39 0.23 6 LOViS (Zhang and Kordjamshidi, 2022b) 4.16 0.67 0.58 0.58 0.43 6.07 0.45 0.35 0.45 0.23 7 VLN-Trans 3.79 0.67 0.59 0.57 0.43 5.87 0.46 0.36 0.45 0.25 Table 2: Experimental results on R4R dataset in a single-run setting. * denotes our reproduced R4R results. is 5e − 5. We further train the navigation agent with a translator for 300K iterations using an NVIDIA RTX GPU (~1 day). The batch size is 16, and the learning rate is 1e − 5. The optimizer is AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017). We can get the best results when we set λ as 0.2 in Eq. 9 , and β1, β2, and β3 as 1, 1 and 0.1 in Eq. 11, respectively. The best model is selected according to performance on val unseen split. Please check our code 2for the implementation. ## 4.3 Experimental Results Table 1 shows the model performance on the R2R benchmarks. Row \#4 to row \#9 are Transformerbased navigation agents with pre-trained crossmodality representations, and such representations greatly improve performance of LSTM-based VLN models (row \#1 to row \#3). It is impressive that our VLN-Trans model's performance (row \#13 and row \#14) on both validation seen and unseen performs 2%-3% better than HAMT (Chen et al., 2021) when it even uses more advanced ViT (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020) visual representations compared with ResNet. Our performance on both SR and SPL are still 3%-4% better than the VLN agent using contrastive learning: CITL (Liang et al., 2022) (row \#7) and ADAPT (Lin et al., 2022) (row \#8). LOViS (Zhang and Kordjamshidi, 2022b) (row \#9) is another very recent SOTA improving the pretraining representations of the navigation agent, but we can significantly surpass their performance. Lastly, compared to the baseline (row \#10), we first significantly improve the performance (row \#11) by using extra augmented data, Room-across-Room dataset (RXR) (Ku et al., 2020) and the MarkymT5 (Wang et al., 2022b), in the pre-training of navigation agent. The performance continues to improve when we further include the SyFiS dataset in the pre-training, as shown in row \#12, proving the effectiveness of our synthetic data. Row \#13 and row \#14 are the experimental results after incorporating our pre-trained translator into the navigation model. First, for a fair comparison with other models, we follow the baseline (Hong et al., 2021) to train the navigation agent using the R2R (Anderson et al., 2018) dataset and the augmented data from PREVALENT (Hao et al., | Val Seen | Val Unseen | | | | |-------------------------------|--------------|------|------|------| | Method | SR↑ | SPL↑ | SR↑ | SPL↑ | | EnvDrop (Tan et al., 2019) | 0.43 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.28 | | VLN⟳BERT (Hong et al., 2020a) | 0.50 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 0.37 | | HAMT (Chen et al., 2021) | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.45 | 0.41 | | VLN-Trans | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.45 | 2020). Since those datasets only contain the pairs of full instructions and the trajectories without intermediate alignments between sub-instructions and the corresponding viewpoints, we do not optimize the translator (β2 = 0, β3 = 0 in Eq.11) during training the navigation agent, which is denoted as VLN-Trans-R2R. As shown in row \#13, our translator helps the navigation agent obtain the best results on the seen environment and improves SPL by 2% on the unseen validation environment, proving that the generated sub-instruction representation enhances the model's generalizability. However, FG-R2R (Hong et al., 2020b) provides humanannotated alignments between sub-instructions and viewpoints for the R2R dataset, and our SyFiS dataset also provides synthetic sub-instructions for each viewpoint. Then we conduct another experiment using FG-R2R and SyFiS datasets to train the navigation agent. Simultaneously, we optimize the translator using the alignment information with our designed SG and SS losses during the navigation process. As shown in row \#13, we further improve the SR and SPL on the unseen validation environment. This result indicates our designed losses can better utilize the alignment information. Table 2 shows results on the R4R benchmark. Row \#1 to Row \#3 are the LSTM-based navigation agent. Row \#4 reports our re-implemented results of VLN⟳BERT, and both CITL and LOViS are the SOTA models. Our method (row \#7) improves the performance on almost all evaluation metrics, especially in the unseen environment. The high sDTW means that our method helps navigation agents reach the destination with a higher successful rate and better follow the instruction. Table 3 shows the performance on the R2RLast benchmark. When only the last sub-sentence is available, our translator can generate a subinstruction representation that assists the agent in approaching the destination. As shown in Table 3, we improve the SOTA (Row \#3) by almost 5% on the SR in the unseen validation dataset. We obtain the best results on R2R-Last without the Sub-instruction Split task. More details are in the ablation study (see Sec. 4.4). ## 4.4 Ablation Study In Table 4, we show the performance after ablating different tasks in the baseline model on the R2R and R2R-Last datasets. We compared with VLN⟳BERT++, which is our improved baseline Dataset Method Tasks Val Seen **Val Unseen** SG DSL SS SR↑ SPL↑ SR↑ SPL↑   Baseline 0.767 0.722 0.672 0.611 1 ✔ 0.764 0.721 0.673 0.623 2 ✔ ✔ 0.780 0.728 0.674 0.627 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ 0.772 0.720 0.690 0.633 Baseline 0.552 0.501 0.473 0.422 1 ✔ 0.573 0.521 0.494 0.434 2 ✔ ✔ 0.582 0.534 0.503 0.453 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ 0.571 0.511 0.484 0.433 after adding extra pre-training data to the navigation agent. First, we pre-train our translator with SG and DSL tasks and incorporate the translator into the navigation agent without further training. For both the R2R dataset and R2R-Last, SG and DSL pre-training tasks can incrementally improve the unseen performance (as shown in method 1 and method 2 for R2R and R2R-Last). Then we evaluate the effectiveness of the SS task when we use it to train the translator together with the navigation agent. For the R2R dataset, the model obtains the best result on the unseen environment after using the SS task. However, the SS task causes the performance drop for the R2R-Last dataset. This is because the R2R-Last dataset merely has the last single sub-instruction in each example and there is no other sub-instructions our model can identify and learn from. ## 4.5 Qualitative Study Statistic of the SyFiS dataset We construct SyFiS dataset using 1, 076, 818 trajectories, where 7198 trajectories are from the R2R dataset, and 1, 069, 620 trajectories are from the augmented data (Hao et al., 2020). Then we pair those trajectories with our synthetic instructions to construct the SyFiS dataset based on our pre-defined motion verb vocabulary and CLIP-generated landmarks (in Sec3.2). When we pre-train the translator, we use the sub-instruction of each viewpoint in a trajectory. There are usually 5 to 7 viewpoints in a trajectory; each viewpoint is with one positive sub-instruction and three negative sub-instructions. Quality of SyFiS dataset. We randomly select 50 instructions from the SyFiS dataset and manually check if humans can easily follow those instructions. As a result, we achieve 58% success rate. It is reported (Wang et al., 2022b) that success rate of the generated instruction are 38% and 48% in Speaker-Follower (Fried et al., 2018) and Envdropout (Tan et al., 2019), respectively. The 10% higher success rate of our instructions indicates we have synthesized a better quality dataset for pre-training and fine-tuning. Translator Analysis Our translator can relate the mentioned landmarks in the instruction to the visible and distinctive landmarks in the visual environment. In Fig. 4 (a), "tables" and "chairs" are not visible in three candidate viewpoints (v1-v3). However, our navigation agent can correctly recognize the target viewpoint using the implicit instruction representations generated by the translator. We assume the most recognizable and distinctive landmark, that is, the "patio" here in the viewpoint v3 has a higher chance to be connected to a "table" and a "chair" based on our pre-training, compared to the landmarks in the other viewpoints. In Fig. 4 (b), both candidate viewpoints v2 and v3 contain kitchen (green bounding boxes); hence it is hard to distinguish the target between them. However, for the translator, the most distinctive landmark in v3 is the "cupboard" which is more likely to be related to the "kitchen". Fig. 4(c) shows a failure case, in which the most distinctive landmark in candidate viewpoint v1 is "oven". It is more likely for the translator relates "oven" to the "kitchen" compared to "countertop", and the agent selects the wrong viewpoints. In fact, we observe that the R2R validation unseen dataset has around 300 instructions containing "kitchen". For corresponding viewpoints paired with such instructions, our SyFiS dataset generates 23 and 5 sub-instructions containing "oven" and "countertop", respectively, indicating the trained translator more likely relates "oven" to "kitchen". More examples are shown in Appendix. A.4. ## 5 Conclusion In the VLN task, instructions given to the agent often include landmarks that are not recognizable to the agent or are not distinctive enough to specify the target. Our novel idea to solve these issues is to include a translator module in the navigation agent that converts the given instruction representations into effective sub-instruction representations at each navigation step. To train the translator, we construct a synthetic dataset and design pretraining tasks to encourage the translator to generate the sub-instruction with the most recognizable and distinctive landmarks. Our method achieves the SOTA results on multiple navigation datasets. We also provide a comprehensive analysis to show the effectiveness of our method. It is worth noting that while we focus on R2R, the novel components  of our technique for generating synthetic data and pre-training the translator are easily applicable to other simulation environments. ## 6 Limitations We mainly summarize three limitations of our work. First, the translator only generates a representation, not an actual instruction, making the model less interpretable. Second, we do not include more advanced vision representations such as ViT and CLIP to train the navigation agent. Although only using ResNet, we already surpass prior methods using those visual representations (e.g., HAMT (Chen et al., 2021)), it would be interesting to experiment with those different visual representations. Third, this navigation agent is trained in a simulated environment, and a more realistic setting will be more challenging. ## 7 Acknowledgement This project is supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER award 2028626 and partially supported by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) grant N00014-20-1-2005. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation nor the Office of Naval Research. We thank all reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. ## References Dong An, Yuankai Qi, Yan Huang, Qi Wu, Liang Wang, and Tieniu Tan. 2021. Neighbor-view enhanced model for vision and language navigation. In *Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference* on Multimedia, pages 5101–5109. Peter Anderson, Qi Wu, Damien Teney, Jake Bruce, Mark Johnson, Niko Sünderhauf, Ian Reid, Stephen Gould, and Anton Van Den Hengel. 2018. Visionand-language navigation: Interpreting visuallygrounded navigation instructions in real environments. In *Proceedings of the IEEE conference on* computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3674– 3683. Angel Chang, Angela Dai, Thomas Funkhouser, Maciej Halber, Matthias Niessner, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Andy Zeng, and Yinda Zhang. 2017. Matterport3d: Learning from rgb-d data in indoor environments. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.06158*. Shizhe Chen, Pierre-Louis Guhur, Cordelia Schmid, and Ivan Laptev. 2021. History aware multimodal transformer for vision-and-language navigation. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 34:5834–5847. Soham Dan, Parisa Kordjamshidi, Julia Bonn, Archna Bhatia, Zheng Cai, Martha Palmer, and Dan Roth. 2020. From spatial relations to spatial configurations. In *Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and* Evaluation Conference, pages 5855–5864. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2010.11929. Zi-Yi Dou and Nanyun Peng. 2022. Foam: A followeraware speaker model for vision-and-language navigation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04294*. Jonathan Francis, Nariaki Kitamura, Felix Labelle, Xiaopeng Lu, Ingrid Navarro, and Jean Oh. 2022. Core challenges in embodied vision-language planning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 74:459– 515. Daniel Fried, Ronghang Hu, Volkan Cirik, Anna Rohrbach, Jacob Andreas, Louis-Philippe Morency, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, Kate Saenko, Dan Klein, and Trevor Darrell. 2018. Speaker-follower models for vision-and-language navigation. *Advances in* Neural Information Processing Systems, 31. Jing Gu, Eliana Stefani, Qi Wu, Jesse Thomason, and Xin Eric Wang. 2022. Vision-and-language navigation: A survey of tasks, methods, and future directions. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12667*. Weituo Hao, Chunyuan Li, Xiujun Li, Lawrence Carin, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Towards learning a generic agent for vision-and-language navigation via pretraining. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 13137–13146. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In *Proceedings of the IEEE conference on* computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770– 778. Yicong Hong, Cristian Rodriguez, Yuankai Qi, Qi Wu, and Stephen Gould. 2020a. Language and visual entity relationship graph for agent navigation. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 33:7685–7696. Yicong Hong, Cristian Rodriguez, Qi Wu, and Stephen Gould. 2020b. Sub-instruction aware vision-andlanguage navigation. In *Proceedings of the 2020* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3360–3376. Yicong Hong, Qi Wu, Yuankai Qi, Cristian RodriguezOpazo, and Stephen Gould. 2021. Vln bert: A recurrent vision-and-language bert for navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1643–1653. Ronghang Hu, Daniel Fried, Anna Rohrbach, Dan Klein, Trevor Darrell, and Kate Saenko. 2019. Are you looking? grounding to multiple modalities in visionand-language navigation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6551–6557. Gabriel Ilharco, Vihan Jain, Alexander Ku, Eugene Ie, and Jason Baldridge. 2019. General evaluation for instruction conditioned navigation using dynamic time warping. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.05446*. Vihan Jain, Gabriel Magalhaes, Alexander Ku, Ashish Vaswani, Eugene Ie, and Jason Baldridge. 2019. Stay on the path: Instruction fidelity in vision-andlanguage navigation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1862–1872. Alexander Ku, Peter Anderson, Roma Patel, Eugene Ie, and Jason Baldridge. 2020. Room-across-room: Multilingual vision-and-language navigation with dense spatiotemporal grounding. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2010.07954. Shuhei Kurita and Kyunghyun Cho. 2020. Generative language-grounded policy in vision-andlanguage navigation with bayes' rule. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07783. Jialu Li, Hao Tan, and Mohit Bansal. 2021. Improving cross-modal alignment in vision language navigation via syntactic information. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2104.09580. Xiwen Liang, Fengda Zhu, Yi Zhu, Bingqian Lin, Bing Wang, and Xiaodan Liang. 2022. Contrastive instruction-trajectory learning for vision-language navigation. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference* on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 1592– 1600. Bingqian Lin, Yi Zhu, Zicong Chen, Xiwen Liang, Jianzhuang Liu, and Xiaodan Liang. 2022. Adapt: Vision-language navigation with modality-aligned action prompts. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15396–15406. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101. Chih-Yao Ma, Jiasen Lu, Zuxuan Wu, Ghassan AlRegib, Zsolt Kira, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2019a. Self-monitoring navigation agent via auxiliary progress estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.03035. Chih-Yao Ma, Zuxuan Wu, Ghassan AlRegib, Caiming Xiong, and Zsolt Kira. 2019b. The regretful agent: Heuristic-aided navigation through progress estimation. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference* on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6732–6740. Yuankai Qi, Zizheng Pan, Shengping Zhang, Anton van den Hengel, and Qi Wu. 2020a. Object-andaction aware model for visual language navigation. In *European Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 303–317. Springer. Yuankai Qi, Qi Wu, Peter Anderson, Xin Wang, William Yang Wang, Chunhua Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. 2020b. Reverie: Remote embodied visual referring expression in real indoor environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9982–9991. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In *International* Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR. Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2015. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28. Hao Tan and Mohit Bansal. 2019. Lxmert: Learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5100–5111. Hao Tan, Licheng Yu, and Mohit Bansal. 2019. Learning to navigate unseen environments: Back translation with environmental dropout. In *Proceedings of* NAACL-HLT, pages 2610–2621. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. Hanqing Wang, Wei Liang, Jianbing Shen, Luc Van Gool, and Wenguan Wang. 2022a. Counterfactual cycle-consistent learning for instruction following and generation in vision-language navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15471– 15481. Su Wang, Ceslee Montgomery, Jordi Orbay, Vighnesh Birodkar, Aleksandra Faust, Izzeddin Gur, Natasha Jaques, Austin Waters, Jason Baldridge, and Peter Anderson. 2022b. Less is more: Generating grounded navigation instructions from landmarks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15428– 15438. Xin Wang, Qiuyuan Huang, Asli Celikyilmaz, Jianfeng Gao, Dinghan Shen, Yuan-Fang Wang, William Yang Wang, and Lei Zhang. 2019. Reinforced cross-modal matching and self-supervised imitation learning for vision-language navigation. In *Proceedings of the* IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6629–6638. Wansen Wu, Tao Chang, and Xinmeng Li. 2021. Visionlanguage navigation: A survey and taxonomy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.11544. Yue Zhang, Quan Guo, and Parisa Kordjamshidi. 2021. Towards navigation by reasoning over spatial configurations. *SpLU-RoboNLP 2021*, page 42. Yue Zhang and Parisa Kordjamshidi. 2022a. Explicit object relation alignment for vision and language navigation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, pages 322–331. Yue Zhang and Parisa Kordjamshidi. 2022b. Lovis: Learning orientation and visual signals for vision and language navigation. In *Proceedings of the 29th* International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5745–5754. Bolei Zhou, Agata Lapedriza, Aditya Khosla, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. 2017. Places: A 10 million image database for scene recognition. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(6):1452–1464.  Figure 5: Motion Indicator Vocabulary ## A Appendix A.1 Motion Indicator Dictionary We extract the motion verb phrases in the R2R training instructions to build a motion indicator dictionary, as shown in Fig. 5. We first use spaCy 3 to extract motion verbs based on pos-tagging information , and then manually collect the prepositions after the motion verbs, such as "stop at", " stop by" and " stop behind of". In summary, there are 131 verb phrases for the action of "FORWARD", 11 verb phrases for the action of "DOWN", 11 verb phrases for the action of"UP", 28 verb phrases for the action of"LEFT", 23 for the action of "RIGHT", and 26 for the action of "STOP". ## A.2 Comparison Among Different Datasets One of the contributions of our method is the proposed SyFiS dataset, which forms sub-instruction for each viewpoint considering recognizable and distinguishable landmarks. In this section, we compare different datasets to show the main improvements of the SyFiS compared to other datasets. As shown in Fig. 6, in the R2R dataset (Anderson et al., 2018), instructions describe the entire trajectory, which is challenging for the navigation agent to follow in every single step. Based on it, FGR2R (Hong et al., 2020b) provides a manual annotation to align the sub-instruction to the corresponding viewpoints. Although providing fine-grained annotation, the sub-instructions in FG-R2R are still not step-by-step. ADAPT (Lin et al., 2022) generates the sub-instruction for every single viewpoint. However, they only consider the viewpoints in trajectory and select the most obvious landmarks for each target viewpoint. Those selected landmarks are quite general, and hard to distinguish the target viewpoint from other candidate viewpoints, such as the "living room", "hallway" and "bedroom". Nevertheless, both FG-R2R and ADAPT still suffer from the issue of nondistinctive landmarks, such as the "living room", "hallway" and "bedroom", which hurts the navigation performance, as stated 3https://spacy.io/  previously. We construct a dataset with the most recognizable and distinguishable landmark, which is obtained by comparing the target viewpoint with other candidate viewpoints at each navigation step. Based on our experimental results, our generated sub-instruction dataset can largely help the navigation performance. ## A.3 Evaluation Datasets And Metrics Our method is evaluated on R2R (Anderson et al., 2018), R4R (Jain et al., 2019), and R2R-Last (Chen et al., 2021). All these three dataset are built upon the Matterport3D (Chang et al., 2017) indoor scene dataset. R2R provides long instructions paired with the corresponding trajectory. The dataset contains 61 houses from training, 56 houses for validation in seen environment, 11 and 18 houses for unseen environment validation and test, respectively. The seen set shares the same visual environment with training dataset, while unseen sets contain different environments. R4R extends R2R by concatenating two trajectories and their corresponding instructions. In R4R, trajectories are less biased compared to R2R, because they are not necessarily the shortest path from the source viewpoint to the target viewpoint. R2R-Last proposes a VLN setup that is similar to that of REVERIE (Qi et al., 2020b), which only claims the destination position. More formally, R2R-Last only leverages the the last sentence in the original R2R instructions to describe the final destination. Evaluation Metrics VLN task mainly evaluates navigation agent's generalizability in unseen  ``` (a) The landmark of the "fireplace" in the given instruction can not be observed in all three candidate viewpoints. The target viewpoint v3 contains a distinctive landmark "living room", and the translator can relate it to "fireplace", which helps the agent select the correct target viewpoint. ```  (b) The target viewpoint v1 contains landmarks of "apartment", "cupboard" and "skylight". Among them, "apartment" and "cupboard" are nondistinctive because they appear in both target and other candidate viewpoints. Our agent can select the correct targe viewpoint because our translator can relate "skylight" to "balcony". According to our observations, in the R2R training data, among the trajectories paired with the instructions containing "balcony", our SyFiS dataset generates 14% sub-instructions containing "skylight" for the corresponding viewpoints. Instruction: Go down the hallway and enter into the bathroom.  ``` v1 v2 v3 v4 (c) The landmarks of the "bathroom" in the instruction can not be observed in all viewpoints. The target viewpoint v1 contains landmarks of "hallway" and "vanity", where "hallway" is nondistinctive since it also can be observed in other candidate viewpoints. Our translator relates "vanity" to "bathroom", which helps the agent select the correct viewpoint. Instruction: Turn right and go down the hall. church church pillar court v1 v2 v3 v4 (d) In this case, all candidate viewpoints include "hall". According to our observation, in the R2R training data, among the trajectories paired with the instructions containing "hall", our SyFiS dataset generates 3% sub-instructions containing "pillar", 1% containing "court", and almost 0% containing "church".In such a case, our translator has a higher chance of relating "hall" to "pillar" and selecting the wrong viewpoint.  ```  (e) Both viewpoints contain "kitchen" and "hall", but our translator highly relates "kitchen" to "cabinets" compared to "oven". In the R2R training data, among the trajectories paired with the instructions containing "kitchen", our SyFiS dataset generates 9% sub-instructions containing "cabinet" while 6% containing "oven". In such a case, our translator is more likely to relate "kitchen" to "cabinets" and select the wrong viewpoint. Figure 7: Qualitative Examples. (a)(b)(c) are correct examples, and (d)(e) are wrong examples. The red boxes and green boxes show the distinctive and nondistinctive landmarks based on the target viewpoint; The green arrow and red arrow show the target and the predicted viewpoint from model. environment using validation unseen and test unseen datasets. Success Rate (SR) and Success Rate weighted Path length (SPL) are two main metrics for all three datasets, where a predicted path is success if the agent stop within 3 meters of the destination. The metrics of SR and SPL can evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of navigation. ## A.4 Qualitative Examples For Translator Analysis We provide more qualitative examples in Fig. 7 to show our translator can relate the mentioned landmarks in the instruction to the recognizable and distinctive landmarks in the visual environment. Fig. 7(a)(b)(c) shows successful cases in that our translator helps the navigation agent make correct decisions. However, there are chances our translator relates to wrong landmarks in the visual environment because of biased data. This may lead to the wrong decisions of the navigation agent, and we provide failure cases in Fig. 7(e)(f). ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 6 ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and contribution in the introduction. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 4.2 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4.2 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4.3 and table1 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix A.1 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

zhou-etal-2023-bridging

Bridging the Gap between Decision and Logits in Decision-based Knowledge Distillation for Pre-trained Language Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.738

Conventional knowledge distillation (KD) methods require access to the internal information of teachers, e.g., logits. However, such information may not always be accessible for large pre-trained language models (PLMs). In this work, we focus on decision-based KD for PLMs, where only teacher decisions (i.e., top-1 labels) are accessible. Considering the information gap between logits and decisions, we propose a novel method to estimate logits from the decision distributions. Specifically, decision distributions can be both derived as a function of logits theoretically and estimated with test-time data augmentation empirically. By combining the theoretical and empirical estimations of the decision distributions together, the estimation of logits can be successfully reduced to a simple root-finding problem. Extensive experiments show that our method significantly outperforms strong baselines on both natural language understanding and machine reading comprehension datasets.

## Bridging The Gap Between Decision And Logits In Decision-Based Knowledge Distillation For Pre-Trained Language Models Qinhong Zhou1,3, Zonghan Yang1,3, Peng Li2,4,†**, Yang Liu**1,2,3,4,† 1Dept. of Comp. Sci. & Tech., Institute for AI, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China 2Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China 3Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology 4Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China ## Abstract Conventional knowledge distillation (KD) methods require access to the internal information of teachers, e.g., logits. However, such information may not always be accessible for large pre-trained language models (PLMs). In this work, we focus on decision-based KD for PLMs, where only teacher decisions (i.e., top-1 labels) are accessible. Considering the information gap between logits and decisions, we propose a novel method to estimate logits from the decision distributions. Specifically, decision distributions can be both derived as a function of logits theoretically and estimated with test-time data augmentation empirically. By combining the theoretical and empirical estimations of the decision distributions together, the estimation of logits can be successfully reduced to a simple root-finding problem. Extensive experiments show that our method significantly outperforms strong baselines on both natural language understanding and machine reading comprehension datasets.1 ## 1 Introduction Various natural language processing (NLP) tasks have witnessed promising performance from large pre-trained language models (PLMs) (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020). However, PLMs are usually computationally expensive and memory intensive, hindering their deployment on resource-limited devices. Knowledge distillation (KD) (Hinton et al., 2015) is a popular technique to transfer knowledge from large PLMs to lightweight models. Previous KD works utilize various types of internal information from the teacher model, such as output logits (Sanh et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020), hidden states (Sun et al., 2019b; Jiao et al., 2020), and attention maps (Li et al., 2020). In real-world applications, however, these types of information are sometimes not accessible due to commercial and privacy issues (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022). Specifically, large-scale PLMs usually only provide *decisions* (i.e., top-1 labels) to users. Motivated by this scenario, we investigate the task of *decision-based* KD (Wang, 2021) for PLMs, in which only decisions of teacher predictions are available. The information gap between teacher decisions and its internal states is the major challenge for the task. A straightforward approach for decisionbased KD is to treat teacher decisions as ground truth labels and use these labels to train a student model (Zhang et al., 2022; Sanyal et al., 2022). However, previous work reveals that logits contain rich knowledge (Hinton et al., 2015), relying only on decisions obviously suffers from information loss. To alleviate the problem, Wang (2021) proposes the DB3KD method to generate pseudo soft labels according to the sample's robustness. However, DB3KD requires that the input of a model can be modified continuously (e.g., image), which hinders its application on PLMs as their inputs are discrete tokens. Therefore, how to fill the information gap under the discrete input setting remains a challenging problem. Fortunately, the development of test-time data augmentation for discrete input (Liu, 2019; Shleifer, 2019; Xu et al., 2022) brings hope for resolving the challenge. The basic idea is to modify selected tokens in a piece of text under certain constraints to generate augmented samples and estimate or improve the desired properties of a model based on its behaviors on these samples. Test-time data augmentation has been shown to be effective for uncertainty estimation (Ayhan and Berens, 2018; Smith and Gal, 2018; Wang et al., 2019), adversary robustness (Xu et al., 2022), and so on. Is it possible to narrow down the information gap with test-time data argumentation in decision-based KD for PLMs? In this work, we propose a novel decision-based KD method for PLMs. As illustrated in Figure 1, our method is capable of estimating the teacher logits for classes even without observed decisions, narrowing down the information gap between decision and logits. Specially, we estimate the logits by combining test-time data argumentation and noncentred orthant probability estimation. On the one hand, we can obtain an empirical estimation of the decision distribution around a sample by test-time data argumentation. On the other hand, we can also derive a theoretical formula for the decision distribution as a non-centred orthant probability, which is a function of logits. As a result, the problem of logits estimation can be reduced to finding the root of the equation that the function takes the value of the empirical estimation. Extensive experiments on various natural language understanding and machine reading comprehension datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method, which outperforms strong baselines significantly. Moreover, quantitative analysis reveals that our method obtains better estimation of logits, narrowing down the information gap. ## 2 Related Work Decision-based Knowledge Distillation. To advance conventional knowledge distillation (KD) to more challenging black-box model scenarios, Wang (2021) first propose the problem of decisionbased KD, where only teacher decisions (i.e., top-1 labels) are accessible to students. They address the problem by estimating the soft label (analogy to output probabilities) of a sample based on its distance to the decision boundary, which involves continuous modification to the original input fed to the black-box model. Instead, Zhang et al. (2022) and Sanyal et al. (2022) synthesize pseudo data in continuous space and leverage decisions of the teacher model on these data directly. In this work, we focus on decision-based KD for PLMs. Unfortunately, the original inputs of the PLMs are discrete tokens which can not be continuously modified. Therefore, these methods are not applicable to our scenario. Decision-based KD is also related to black-box KD (Orekondy et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020) and distillation-based black-box attacks (Zhou et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021; Truong et al., 2021; Kariyappa et al., 2021; Yu and Sun, 2022). Both of them involve distilling a student model from black-box models. However, these works generally assume that the score-based outputs are accessible. Decision-based KD focuses on a more challenging scenario where only top-1 labels are accessible. Test-Time Data Augmentation. Test-time data augmentation is a common technique in computer vision (Krizhevsky et al., 2009; Simonyan and Zisserman, 2015; He et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2019; Lyzhov et al., 2020; Shanmugam et al., 2021) and is also feasible for natural language processing (NLP) (Liu, 2019; Shleifer, 2019; Xu et al., 2022). Although differing in final purpose, test-time and training-time data augmentation share a large portion of common techniques in NLP. Due to the discrete nature of language, one line of work conducts augmentation by modifying tokens based on rules (¸Sahin and Steedman, 2018; Wei and Zou, 2019; Chen et al., 2020a) or models (Sennrich et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2020; Quteineh et al., 2020; Anaby-Tavor et al., 2020), and another line of work operates in embedding or representation space (Chen et al., 2020b; Cheng et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022). In this work, as we do not have access to the teacher model, we follow the first line of work to conduct test-time data augmentation. ## 3 Background Knowledge Distillation (KD) is a technique that aims to transfer knowledge from the teacher model to the student model by aligning certain statistics, usually the logits, of the student to those of the teacher. Given input x, we denote the pre-softmax logits vector of the teacher and student as z and v, respectively. The process of KD involves minimizing the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between the probabilities induced from z and v as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{KD}}=\mathrm{KL}\left(\mathrm{softmax}(\mathbf{v}/\tau)||\mathrm{softmax}(\mathbf{z}/\tau)\right),$$ (1) where τ is the temperature hyper-parameter. The student model is trained by minimizing the loss function $${\mathcal{L}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{CE}}+\lambda{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{KD}},$$ $$(2)$$ where LCE is the cross entropy loss over the ground-truth label, and λ is the scaling factor used for balancing the importance of the two losses.  ## 4 Methodology 4.1 Overview In the decision-based scenario, the z item in Eq. 1 is not accessible. Instead, the PLM API returns the model decision d = arg max 1≤j≤L zj , where zj is the jth logit in z, and L denotes the dimension of output label space. Obviously, d only carries the information of "the j-th logit is the largest". In constrast, z contains richer information. For example, comparing z1 = [0.6, 0.3] and z2 = [0.9, 0.1], although they correpond to the same decision, i.e., d = 1, they also imply that the second sample seems more likely to be of the first class. Therefore, there is a big information gap between logits and decsions, and our proposed method aims at narrowing down the gap by finding a better estimation of the logits. Figure 1 shows the framework of our proposed method. The key idea is combining the empirical and theoretical estimations of the conditional decision distribution P(Y |x), where Y is a random variable denoting decision, to form an equation whose solution is the logits. Specially, first we leverage test-time data augmentation to generate N augmented samples for the given sample x and collect the teacher decisions for them. Then, we build an empirical estimation P˜(Y |x) for P(Y |x) based on the decisions. Next, we derive a theoretical estimation Q(Y |x; zˆ) parameterized by the true logits zˆ for P(Y |x) and form the following equation $$\tilde{P}(Y|x)-Q(Y|x;\hat{z})=0.\tag{3}$$ Finally, by solving for $\hat{z}$, we get the estimated logits and the student model can be trained by conventional KD (Eq. 2). Compared with the existing decision-based KD method (Wang, 2021), our method leverages data augmentation instead of binary search and optimization on the input samples. Therefore, it is applicable to discrete inputs which can hardly be searched or optimized. ## 4.2 Empirical Estimation Of The Conditional Decision Distribution In this secion, we will introduce how to get P˜(Y |x) in Eq. 3. Given a sample x and a teacher model Mθ parameterized by θ, we first generate N augmented samples X = {x˜i = F(*x, i*)} N i=1 with a test-time data augmentation function F(·, ·). Then the teacher decisions D = {di = Mθ(˜xi)} are collected. Finally, P(Y |x) is approximated as $$\tilde{P}(Y|x)\approx\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}1_{d_{i}},\qquad\qquad(4)$$ where 1di ∈ {0, 1} L is a L-dimensional one-hot vector whose di-th element is 1, and L is the number of categories. F(·, ·) plays a crucial role in the process and an ideal F(·, ·) should satisfy three requirements. First, it should conserve true labels (Wang et al., 2019). Second, it should have a low computational cost, since it will be computed repetitively. Third, the degree of noise introduced by F(·, ·) should be quantizable and controllable, crucial for the following steps. Thus, following Wei and Zou (2019), we define F(·, ·) as an operation randomly sam13236 Algorithm 1: Teacher Logits Estimation Data: Input text x. Result: Teacher logits estimation zˆ Require: Teacher model Mθ, data augmentation transformation function F(·, ·), augmented data number N, maximal iteration number m, error bound ϵ, hyper-parameter σ, label number L. // Empirical estimation of the 7: repeat 8: p ← 0 // p = [pi], 1 ≤ i ≤ L 9: for i = 1, i ≤ L do 10: µ ← [ˆzi − zˆ1, . . . , zˆi − zˆi−1, zˆi − zˆi+1, . . . , zˆi − zˆL] 11: B ← CholeskyDecompose(R) 12: pi ←RecursiveIntegration(µ, B) 13: i ← i + 1 14: end for 15: k ← k + 1 16: zˆ ← P˜(Y |x) − p + zˆ 17: until |p − P˜(Y |x)| ≤ ϵ or k = m 18: return zˆ **conditional decision distribution** 1: $\{\hat{x}_{n}\}_{n=1}^{N}\leftarrow\{\mathrm{F}(x,n)\}_{n=1}^{N}$ 2: $\{d_{n}\}_{n=1}^{N}\leftarrow\{\mathcal{M}_{\theta}(\hat{x}_{n})\}_{n=1}^{N}$ 3: $P(Y|x)\leftarrow\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}1_{d_{i}}$ _// Solving equation to obtain $\hat{z}$_ 4: $k\gets0$ 5: $\hat{z}\leftarrow0$ _//_$\hat{z}=[\hat{z}_{i}],1\leq i\leq L$ 6: Initialize $\mathbf{R}\in\mathbb{R}^{(L-1)\times(L-1)}$ whose diagonal elements are $\sigma^{2}$ and the others are $2\sigma^{2}$ pled from synonym replacement, random insertion, random swap, and random deletion operations. ## 4.3 Theoretical Estimation Of The Conditional Decision Distribution In this section, we will introduce how to get the theoretical estimation Q(Y |x; zˆ) parameterized by zˆ in Eq. 3. The outline of the derivation is that we assume the logits are sampled from an L-dimensional distribution P(Z|x), where Z = [Zj ] is an Ldimensional random variable denoting logits. Then Q(Y = i|x; zˆ) is equal to the probability that the i-th dimension of Z takes the largest value, which can be calculated mathematically from P(Z|x). Following the above outline, we have $$Q(Y=i|x;\hat{\mathbf{z}})=P\left(Z_{i}=\max_{1\leq j\leq L}Z_{j}\Big{|}x\right).\tag{5}$$ To derive the above probability, we reformulate it in terms of orthant probability. First, we introduce an L − 1 dimensional auxiliary random variable U = [Uj ], which is defined as $$U_{j}=\begin{cases}Z_{i}-Z_{j}&(j<i)\\ Z_{i}-Z_{j+1}&(j\geq i)\end{cases},1\leq j\leq L-1.\tag{6}$$ Note that the i-th dimension of Z is eliminated due to Zi − Zi = 0. Then Eq. 5 can be rewritten as a non-centred orthant probability distribution **On central domain probability distribution** $$Q(Y=i|x;\hat{\mathbf{z}})=P(U_{j}\geq0,1\leq j\leq L-1).\tag{7}$$ To simplify the calculation of the probability in Eq. 7, we assume Z follows a multivariate Gaussian distribution with mean zˆ and covariance matrix Σ, i.e., Z ∼ N (zˆ, Σ). Then we have U ∼ N (µ, R), where $$\mu_{j}=\begin{cases}\hat{z}_{i}-\hat{z}_{j}&(j<i)\\ \hat{z}_{i}-\hat{z}_{j+1}&(j\geq i)\end{cases},1\leq j\leq L-1.\ (8)$$ And Eq. 7 can be calculated by the following multiple integrations $$\int_{0}^{+\infty}\cdots\int_{0}^{+\infty}\phi_{L-1}(\mathbf{U};\mathbf{\mu},\mathbf{R})dU_{1}\ldots dU_{L-1},\tag{9}$$ where $\phi_{L-1}(\mathbf{U};\mathbf{\mu},\mathbf{R})$ is the probability density function. We leverage the recursive algorithm proposed by Miwa et al. (2003) to solve the above integrations. Taking L = 4 as an example, the major steps of the algorithm are as follows. First, we decompose the covariance matrix R as R = BBT via Cholesky decomposition, where B is a lower triangular matrix. Then we have U = BM +µ, where M ∼ N (0, IL−1) and IL−1 is an identity matrix of dimension L − 1. Next, Q(Y = i|x; zˆ) can be further decomposed as $$Q(Y=i|x;\hat{z})=P(U_{j}\geq0,1\leq j\leq3)$$ $$=P(b_{11}M_{1}+\mu_{1}\geq0,$$ $$b_{21}M_{1}+b_{22}M_{2}+\mu_{2}\geq0,$$ $$b_{31}M_{1}+b_{32}M_{2}+b_{33}M_{3}+\mu_{3}\geq0),\tag{10}$$ where $b_{ij}$ denotes the elements in the $B$ matrix, $M_{j}$ denotes the j-th elements of the random variable M, and µj denotes j-th the elements of µ. Finally, the required probability is given when bij > 0 $$Q(Y=i|x;{\hat{z}})=\int_{-{\frac{\mu_{1}}{b_{11}}}}^{+\infty}f_{1}(t)\phi(t)d t,\quad\quad(11)$$ where ϕ(t) is the standard normal probability density function, and f1 is defined as $$f_{1}(s)=\int_{\frac{-\mu_{2}-b_{21}s}{b_{22}}}^{+\infty}f_{2}(s,t)\phi(t)dt,\tag{12}$$ $$f_{2}(s_{1},s_{2})=\int_{\frac{-\mu_{3}-b_{31}s_{1}-b_{32}s_{2}}{b_{33}}}^{+\infty}\phi(t)dt.\tag{13}$$ Algorithm 1 summarizes the entire procedure of our proposed framework, where line 12 refers to the integration steps in Eq. 11 to 13. We provide the proofs of the integration steps in Appendix A.4. In practice, we assume Σ is a diagonal matrix and Σii = σ 2to simplify the calculation, where σ is a hyper-parameter of our algorithm. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Experimental Settings Datasets and Evaluation Metrics. We evaluate our method on machine reading comprehension (MRC) and natural language understanding (NLU) datasets. For MRC, two widely used multiple-choice datasets RACE (Lai et al., 2017) and DREAM (Sun et al., 2019a) are used. For NLU, we select sentiment analysis dataset SST2 (Socher et al., 2013), linguistic acceptability dataset CoLA (Warstadt et al., 2019), paraphrasing dataset MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005) and QQP (Chen et al., 2017), and natural language inference (NLI) datasets RTE (Bentivogli et al., 2009), MNLI (Williams et al., 2018), and QNLI (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) as representative datasets. Following previous works (Lai et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2019a; Wang et al., 2018), we report Matthews correlation coefficient for CoLA, F1 and accuracy for MRPC and QQP, and accuracy for all the other datasets. For each experiment, the model is evaluated on the validation set once an epoch, and the checkpoint achieving the best validation results is evaluated on the test set. The results averaged over five random seeds are reported for the MRC datasets. Due to the submission quota, we only report results for one trial for the NLU tasks. Baselines. We compare our method with the following four baselines: - *Hard*: We regard the teacher decisions as the ground truth labels and train the student model solely with the cross entropy loss. - *Noisy Logits* (Wang, 2021): The student model is trained via the KD objective (Eq. 2) with the teacher logits replaced with randomly sampled soft labels. - *Smooth*: We apply label smoothing (Szegedy et al., 2016) with a smoothing factor 0.1 on the teacher decision of the original sample, and use the smoothed decision as teacher prediction probability. This a straightforward approach to generate soft labels from teacher decisions. To better investigate the upper bound of our method, we also leverage the following three baselines from Wang (2021): - *Student CE* (Wang, 2021): The student model is trained using only the cross entropy loss calculated from the ground-truth labels. - *Standard KD*: The student model is optimized with the standard KD objective (Eq. 2). Note that the teacher model is used as a white-box model in this baseline. - *Surrogate*: Following Wang (2021), we train the student model via KD with a surrogate teacher, simulating training a lightweight, white-box teacher model for knowledge distillation. Implementation Details. We implement the teacher model as the *finetuned* 12-layer BERT model (BERTBASE) or 24-layer BERT model (BERTLARGE) for each task. The student model is a 4-layer or 6-layer BERT-style model. Following previous KD works (Sun et al., 2019b; Li et al., 2021b), we initialize the student model from the raw 12-layer BERT model. We adopt EDA (Wei and Zou, 2019) as the tool for test-time data augmentation. ## 5.2 Results On Mrc Datasets Experimental results on the MRC datasets RACE and DREAM are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. In each table, we report three sets of results with different teacher and student architectures. For example, the string "12L→4L" in the tables means we leverage the finetuned 12-layer BERT model (BERTBASE) as the teacher, and the 4-layer BERT-style model as the student. Note that *Teacher* and *Standard KD* serve as the upper bounds of our method. Therefore, we do not directly compare our method with them. From these results, we can observe that: | Methods | DB | 12L→4L | 24L→4L | 12L→6L | | | | | | | |--------------|-------|----------|----------|----------|-------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Middle | High | All | Middle | High | All | Middle | High | All | | | | Teacher | 68.25 | 61.21 | 66.74 | 71.73 | 64.29 | 69.94 | 68.25 | 61.21 | 66.74 | | | Standard KD | 54.12 | 48.95 | 53.08 | 53.12 | 50.24 | 53.45 | 61.69 | 53.74 | 59.28 | | | Student CE | 51.03 | 47.25 | 49.94 | 51.03 | 47.25 | 49.94 | 59.11 | 51.35 | 56.80 | | | Surrogate | 51.28 | 47.90 | 51.03 | 51.28 | 47.90 | 51.03 | 59.89 | 50.81 | 56.49 | | | Hard | ✓ | 51.60 | 47.93 | 50.29 | 51.59 | 46.93 | 50.78 | 59.64 | 51.63 | 56.98 | | Noisy Logits | ✓ | 50.57 | 46.30 | 49.86 | 50.57 | 46.30 | 49.86 | 58.97 | 51.12 | 55.60 | | Smooth | ✓ | 51.71 | 46.93 | 49.56 | 50.68 | 46.80 | 50.31 | 59.68 | 51.71 | 56.30 | | Ours | ✓ | 52.81 | 48.89 | 52.17 | 52.98 | 49.06 | 52.08 | 61.10 | 52.81 | 58.01 | Methods DB 12L→4L 24L→4L 12L→6L Teacher 60.44 61.69 60.44 Standard KD 51.89 53.37 54.97 Student CE 51.00 51.00 53.62 Surrogate 51.11 51.11 53.57 Hard ✓ 50.09 49.98 51.31 Noisy Logits ✓ 51.13 51.13 53.78 Smooth ✓ 51.04 52.03 53.43 Ours ✓ 51.64 52.74 **54.50** (1) Our proposed method outperforms baselines consistently and significantly. The performance gap between our method and the second best baselines except *Teacher* and *Standard KD* are from 0.96 to 1.39 on the RACE datasets and from 0.51 to 0.72 on the DREAM dataset, indicating that narrowing down the information gap between logits and decisions are effective for decision-based KD. (2) Surprisingly, our proposed method achieves comparable results with *Standard KD* under a few settings. *Standard KD* treats the teacher as a whitebox model and is an intuitive upper bound of our method. However, the smallest performance gap between our method and *Standard KD* is 0.06 (12L→4L on RACE-High) on the RACE datasets and is 0.25 (12L→4L) on the DREAM dataset. Moreover, among all the twelve pairs of results, there is a third of them with a gap of less than 0.50. These results further justify the effectiveness of our proposed method. And we argue that this is mainly due to our better estimation of the logits. (3) None of the baselines besides *Standard KD* can consistently achieve better results than training the student model without KD (*Student CE*), indicating that decision-based KD is a challenging task and the lost information from decisions compared with logits is essential. *Hard* performs slightly better than *Student CE* on the RACE datasets but significantly worse than *Student CE* on the DREAM dataset. We conjecture that this is because the teacher models have significantly better results on the RACE datasets than on the DREAM dataset, i.e., *Hard* can only work well with strong teacher models, whose decisions may be less noisy and the information gap between decisions and logits is smaller. Our method can be viewed as a special form of logits smoothing. However, both Noisy Logits and *Smooth* only achieves comparable or worse results than *Student CE*, indicating straightforward logits smoothing is not effective. (4) Our method benefits from both better teacher models and larger student models. When the teacher grows larger (12L→4L v.s. 24L→4L), our method achieves a 1.10 performance gain on the DREAM dataset. Meanwhile, when the student models grow from 4 to 6 layers (12L→4L v.s. 12L→6L), the performance gains on all datasets are remarkably larger. The same trend is also observed for other baselines, suggesting that improving the capacity of the student model is a simple yet effective way to improve the performance of decision-based KD. ## 5.3 Results On Nlu Datasets Table 3 shows the results on the NLU datasets. First, our proposed method achieves the best results among all decision-based baselines, justifying that our method is generalizable to a large range of NLU Methods DB RTE (Acc.) MRPC (F1 / Acc.) CoLA (Matt.) QNLI (Acc.) SST-2 (Acc.) MNLI-m / mm (Acc.) QQP (F1 / Acc.) Average Teacher 66.2 87.3 / 82.3 53.7 90.9 93.6 84.4 / 83.5 71.4 / 89.1 79.1 Standard KD 63.3 82.9 / 75.0 22.7 85.6 89.6 78.8 / 77.6 69.1 / 88.0 71.0 Student CE 63.2 81.2 / 69.8 21.5 85.2 89.2 78.4 / 76.7 67.5 / 87.3 69.9 Surrogate **63.6** 82.5 / 74.8 18.9 85.2 89.4 78.4 / **77.3** 67.8 / 87.4 70.2 Hard ✓ 63.2 82.5 / 74.8 20.7 85.6 89.2 78.1 / 77.2 68.2 / 87.6 70.4 Noisy Logits ✓ 63.3 81.6 / 74.0 21.8 85.3 88.5 78.1 / 76.7 67.5 / 87.4 70.2 Smooth ✓ 63.4 82.4 / 75.1 22.2 85.1 89.2 78.0 / 77.0 67.9 / 87.6 70.6 Ours ✓ 63.4 82.9 / 75.2 23.7 85.7 89.5 **78.6** / 77.1 68.5 / 88.0 **71.1** tasks. Although our method does not outperform Surrogate on the RTE and MNLI-mm datasets, the gap is only 0.2. Second, the performance gap between ours and *Standard KD* is also small, providing extra evidence that our method estimates the teacher logits well. Third, all the baselines excluding *Teacher* and *Standard KD* have comparable performance, suggesting that decision-based KD is also challenging for NLU tasks. Above all, in conjunction with the results on the MRC datasets, we can conclude that our method is effective for diverse tasks and model architectures. ## 5.4 Analysis On Logits Estimation We have conjectured that the good performance of our method comes from better logits estimation. To justify this assumption, we conduct a quantitative analysis in this section. We compute the mean squared errors (MSEs) between the soft labels generated from each method after softmax and teacher predictions on the training set of RACE-High 2. As shown in Figure 2, the soft labels generated by our method are the closest to the teacher predictions among all methods. However, it should be noted that the probabilities (or logits) of the teacher are not perfect, as it does not achieve perfect final performance on the dataset. Therefore, the MSEs have a positive correlation with the final performance but are not oracle indicators. ## 5.5 Ablation Study This section consists of a series of experiments aimed at validating the contributions of different components in our method. First, we compare our method with its two variants in Figure 3: (1) w/o  Empirical Estimations. In this variant, we replace the P˜(Y |x) in Eq. 4 with the teacher decision on original data to skip the empirical estimation step. (2) *w/o Theoretical Estimation*. We replace the Q(Y |x; zˆ) term in Eq. 3 with softmax(z) to skip the theoretical estimation step. For each dataset, we also count the percentage of empirical estimations P˜(Y |x) being one-hot vectors, which means that teacher decisions are consistent on augmented inputs. According to the results, we find that the performance drops for both variants on all datasets, indicating the necessity of empirical estimation and theoretical estimation. Interestingly, we also find a positive correlation between the percentage of one-hot P˜(Y |x) and the performance degradation from *w/o Theoretical Estimation* variant. This phenomenon highlights the capability of the theoretical estimation step to estimate teacher logits and narrow the information gap between decisions and logits even without observed decisions. Second, we further analyze the effect of empirical estimation by changing the sampling times N in Eq. 4. As shown in Figure 4, when N increases, the performance of our method first increases and then stabilizes. Considering a larger N leads to  more queries to the teacher model, N should be as low as possible without compromising the model performance. Therefore, N = 10 is the optimal choice according to the results. Finally, we investigate the contribution of Eq. 3, which combines the empirical estimation and the theoretical estimation together. In our framework, the root zˆ of the equation is found by fixed-point iteration, and its precision is controlled by the error bound ϵ. Results in Figure 5 show a negative correlation between ϵ and KD performance. As ϵ increases from 10−4to 10−1, the performance of our method slightly drops. When ϵ increases to 1, which means the logits estimation becomes extremely inaccurate, the performance drops dramatically and is close to the performance of *Student* CE method. ## 5.6 Computational Cost Analysis The additional computational cost of our method compared to *Standard KD* consists of two parts. The first part is test-time data augmentation, which necessitates multiple queries to the teacher model for each training sample. In this paper, we set the default number of augmented samples N per training case to 10. The second part is solving Eq. 3 using the empirical estimation of decision distribution P˜(Y |x), which is made negligible by pre-building a lookup table from P˜(Y |x) to logits estimation zˆ before KD. In total, the additional cost of our method mainly comes from 10 queries made to the teacher model per training sample. By Accuracy    contrast, the existing soft label generation method DB3KD (Wang, 2021) requires 1,000 to 20,000 queries to the teacher model per training sample. ## 6 Conclusion We introduce a novel decision-based KD method, which bridges the information gap between teacher decisions and logits by estimating teacher logits. In contrast to existing solutions for decision-based KD, our method is applicable to NLP tasks with discrete inputs. Extensive experiments over various tasks and model architectures demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method. One future direction for the decision-based KD is the exploration of other NLP tasks, such as neural machine translation, text generation, and question answering. The other direction is KD from non-NN models to NN models, which benefits the training of NN models with additional information from a wider range of models. Unlike conventional KD, decision-based KD does not require internal information from NN models and is promising for solving this problem. ## Limitations This study has two main limitations. The first limitation is its reliance on the assumption that teacher logits on augmented data follow a Gaussian distribution. This assumption is used in the derivation of teacher logits in Section 4.3. However, in practice, teacher logits may not strictly follow a Gaussian distribution. It is challenging to estimate teacher logits under more realistic assumptions, which requires thorough investigations on the distribution of teacher logits and more complex computations for logits estimation. The second limitation is that our method still requires access to the training dataset of the downstream tasks. In this paper, we focus on KD when teacher PLMs only return decisions. However, our method is not capable of KD without publicly available training data, which is a more challenging scenario for decision-based KD. We believe training a data generation model (Wang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Sanyal et al., 2022) might be useful for such cases. ## Ethics Statement In ethical considerations, our method risks being used as a means of model stealing. Therefore, defensive techniques against the proposed method are required. However, it also has significant positive implications. On the one hand, it can serve as a powerful tool for research on model extraction attacks, thereby promoting the advancement of related studies. On the other hand, it has practical applications in real-world scenarios. For instance, a company may prefer to use a smaller model due to cost considerations, and our method allows for the easy distillation of smaller models without requiring white-box access to larger models. Additionally, our method can be used to distill non-NN models into NN models, reducing the number of model types that need to be maintained and simplifying operation and maintenance. ## Acknowledgement This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022ZD0160502) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61925601, 62276152, 62236011). We thank all anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on this work. We also thank Shuo Wang and Xiaoyue Mi for their suggestions on the writing. ## References Ateret Anaby-Tavor, Boaz Carmeli, Esther Goldbraich, Amir Kantor, George Kour, Segev Shlomov, Naama Tepper, and Naama Zwerdling. 2020. Do not have enough data? deep learning to the rescue! In AAAI 2020. Murat Seckin Ayhan and Philipp Berens. 2018. Testtime data augmentation for estimation of heteroscedastic aleatoric uncertainty in deep neural networks. In *MIDL 2018*. Luisa Bentivogli, Peter Clark, Ido Dagan, and Danilo Giampiccolo. 2009. The fifth PASCAL recognizing textual entailment challenge. In *TAC 2009*. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In NeurIPS 2020. Guandan Chen, Kai Fan, Kaibo Zhang, Boxing Chen, and Zhongqiang Huang. 2021. Manifold adversarial augmentation for neural machine translation. In Findings of the ACL 2021. Hannah Chen, Yangfeng Ji, and David Evans. 2020a. Finding Friends and flipping frenemies: Automatic paraphrase dataset augmentation using graph theory. In *Findings of the EMNLP 2020*. Jiaao Chen, Zichao Yang, and Diyi Yang. 2020b. MixText: Linguistically-informed interpolation of hidden space for semi-supervised text classification. In ACL 2020. Zihang Chen, Hongbo Zhang, Xiaoji Zhang, and Leqi Zhao. 2017. Quora question pairs. Yong Cheng, Lu Jiang, Wolfgang Macherey, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2020. AdvAug: Robust adversarial augmentation for neural machine translation. In ACL 2020. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL 2019*. Bill Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In IWP 2005. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In *CVPR 2016*. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. Xiaoqi Jiao, Yichun Yin, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu. 2020. TinyBERT: Distilling BERT for natural language understanding. In *Findings of EMNLP 2020*. Sanjay Kariyappa, Atul Prakash, and Moinuddin K Qureshi. 2021. MAZE: Data-free model stealing attack using zeroth-order gradient estimation. In CVPR 2021. Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Technical report, University of Toronto. Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. RACE: Large-scale reading comprehension dataset from examinations. In EMNLP 2017. Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumond, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, et al. 2021. Datasets: A community library for natural language processing. In EMNLP 2021: System Demonstrations. Jianquan Li, Xiaokang Liu, Honghong Zhao, Ruifeng Xu, Min Yang, and Yaohong Jin. 2020. BERT-EMD: Many-to-many layer mapping for BERT compression with earth mover's distance. In *EMNLP 2020*. Lei Li, Yankai Lin, Deli Chen, Shuhuai Ren, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. 2021a. CascadeBERT: Accelerating inference of pre-trained language models via calibrated complete models cascade. In *Findings of* EMNLP 2021. Lei Li, Yankai Lin, Shuhuai Ren, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. 2021b. Dynamic knowledge distillation for pre-trained language models. In *EMNLP 2021*. Bo Liu. 2019. Anonymized BERT: An augmentation approach to the gendered pronoun resolution challenge. In *Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias* in Natural Language Processing. Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhiruo Wang, Zhe Zhao, Haotang Deng, and Qi Ju. 2020. FastBERT: a selfdistilling BERT with adaptive inference time. In ACL 2020. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. Alexander Lyzhov, Yuliya Molchanova, Arsenii Ashukha, Dmitry Molchanov, and Dmitry Vetrov. 2020. Greedy policy search: A simple baseline for learnable test-time augmentation. In *Conference on* Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. PMLR. George A. Miller. 1995. Wordnet: A lexical database for english. *Commun. ACM*. Tetsuhisa Miwa, AJ Hayter, and Satoshi Kuriki. 2003. The evaluation of general non-centred orthant probabilities. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology). Tribhuvanesh Orekondy, Bernt Schiele, and Mario Fritz. 2019. Knockoff nets: Stealing functionality of blackbox models. In *CVPR 2019*. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Husam Quteineh, Spyridon Samothrakis, and Richard Sutcliffe. 2020. Textual data augmentation for efficient active learning on tiny datasets. In EMNLP 2020. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *JMLR*. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100, 000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In *EMNLP 2016*. Gözde Gül ¸Sahin and Mark Steedman. 2018. Data augmentation via dependency tree morphing for lowresource languages. In *EMNLP 2018*. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. In NeurIPS 2019 Workshop on Energy Efficient Machine Learning and Cognitive Computing. Sunandini Sanyal, Sravanti Addepalli, and R Venkatesh Babu. 2022. Towards data-free model stealing in a hard label setting. In *CVPR 2022*. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Improving neural machine translation models with monolingual data. In *ACL 2016*. Divya Shanmugam, Davis Blalock, Guha Balakrishnan, and John Guttag. 2021. Better aggregation in testtime augmentation. In *ICCV 2021*. Sam Shleifer. 2019. Low resource text classification with ulmfit and backtranslation. Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. 2015. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In *ICLR 2015*. Lewis Smith and Yarin Gal. 2018. Understanding measures of uncertainty for adversarial example detection. Jason Wei and Kai Zou. 2019. EDA: Easy data augmentation techniques for boosting performance on text classification tasks. In *EMNLP 2019*. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In *EMNLP 2013*. Xiangpeng Wei, Heng Yu, Yue Hu, Rongxiang Weng, Weihua Luo, and Rong Jin. 2022. Learning to generalize to more: Continuous semantic augmentation for neural machine translation. In *ACL 2022*. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In NAACL 2018. Siqi Sun, Yu Cheng, Zhe Gan, and Jingjing Liu. 2019b. Patient knowledge distillation for bert model compression. Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. 2016. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In CVPR 2016. Raphael Tang, Yao Lu, Linqing Liu, Lili Mou, Olga Vechtomova, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. Distilling taskspecific knowledge from bert into simple neural networks. Jean-Baptiste Truong, Pratyush Maini, Robert J. Walls, and Nicolas Papernot. 2021. Data-free model extraction. In *CVPR 2021*. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In EMNLP 2018 Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP. Mengran Yu and Shiliang Sun. 2022. FE-DaST: Fast and effective data-free substitute training for blackbox adversarial attacks. *Computers & Security*. Dongdong Wang, Yandong Li, Liqiang Wang, and Boqing Gong. 2020. Neural networks are more productive teachers than human raters: Active mixup for data-efficient knowledge distillation from a blackbox model. In *CVPR 2020*. Jie Zhang, Chen Chen, Jiahua Dong, Ruoxi Jia, and Lingjuan Lyu. 2022. QEKD: Query-efficient and data-free knowledge distillation from black-box models. Wenxuan Wang, Bangjie Yin, Taiping Yao, Li Zhang, Yanwei Fu, Shouhong Ding, Jilin Li, Feiyue Huang, and Xiangyang Xue. 2021. Delving into data: Effectively substitute training for black-box attack. In CVPR 2021. Zi Wang. 2021. Zero-shot knowledge distillation from a decision-based black-box model. In *ICML 2021*. Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. TACL 2019. ## A Appendix A.1 Experiment Details Kai Sun, Dian Yu, Jianshu Chen, Dong Yu, Yejin Choi, and Claire Cardie. 2019a. Dream: A challenge data set and models for dialogue-based reading comprehension. *TACL 2019*. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *EMNLP 2020: System Demonstrations*. Lei Xu, Laure Berti-Equille, Alfredo Cuesta-Infante, and Kalyan Veeramachaneni. 2022. In situ augmentation for defending against adversarial attacks on text classifiers. In KDD 2022 Workshop on Adversarial Learning Methods for Machine Learning and Data Mining. Yiben Yang, Chaitanya Malaviya, Jared Fernandez, Swabha Swayamdipta, Ronan Le Bras, Ji-Ping Wang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin Choi, and Doug Downey. 2020. Generative data augmentation for commonsense reasoning. In *Findings of the EMNLP 2020*. Guotai Wang, Wenqi Li, Michael Aertsen, Jan Deprest, Sébastien Ourselin, and Tom Vercauteren. 2019. Aleatoric uncertainty estimation with test-time augmentation for medical image segmentation with convolutional neural networks. *Neurocomputing*. Mingyi Zhou, Jing Wu, Yipeng Liu, Shuaicheng Liu, and Ce Zhu. 2020. DaST: Data-free substitute training for adversarial attacks. In *CVPR 2020*. Dataset Details In this paper, we use seven different datasets, and all of them are in the English language. We downloaded these datasets from the Datasets (Lhoest et al., 2021) library of version 2.4.0, and our use is consistent with their intended use. The other details of the datasets we used are summarized in Table 4. | Name | Number of train / dev / test | License | Domain | |---------------------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------|--------------| | RACE-All (Lai et al., 2017) | 87,866 / 4,887 / 4,934 | | | | RACE-Middle (Lai et al., 2017) | 25,421 / 1,436 / 1,436 | unknown | examinations | | RACE-High (Lai et al., 2017) | 62,445 / 3,451 / 3,498 | | | | DREAM (Sun et al., 2019a) | 6,116 / 2,040 / 2,041 | unknown | dialogue | | RTE (Bentivogli et al., 2009) | 2,490 / 277 / 3,000 | news, Wikipedia | | | MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005) | 3,668 / 408 / 1,725 | news | | | CC-BY-4.0 | | | | | CoLA (Warstadt et al., 2019) | 8,551 / 1,043 / 1,063 | misc. | | | SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013) | 67,349 / 872 / 1,821 | movie reviews | | | QNLI (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) | 104,743 / 5,463 / 5,463 | Wikipedia | | Model Details We used BERT-like models (Devlin et al., 2019) in our experiments, including BERTBASE (110M parameters), BERTLARGE (340M parameters), 4-layer BERT-like models (53M parameters), and 6-layer BERT-like models (67M parameters). For BERTBASE and BERTLARGE, the raw model checkpoints are obtained from Huggingface Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) platform. Following Li et al. (2021b), we initialize the 4-layer and 6-layer BERT-like models from the first 4 and 6 layers of the raw BERTBASE model, respectively. | Methods | RACE-High | |--------------|-------------| | Student CE | 39.79 | | Noisy Logits | 30.19 | | Surrogate | 37.86 | | Smooth | 41.59 | | Hard | 42.92 | | Ours | 44.13 | Other Details We finetune the BERTBASE and BERTLARGE models for 4 epochs. Following Li et al. (2021a), we train small 4-layer or 6-layer models for 10 epochs. We use a learning rate of 5×10−5 for MRC tasks and 2×10−5for NLU tasks. σ in Algorithm 1 is tuned from {0.5, 1, 2, 4}, λ in Eq. 2 is tuned from {0.2, 0.5, 0.7}, and τ in Eq. 1 is tuned from {5, 10, 20} expect for our method, which performs better in the range of {1, 2, 4}. The α parameters of all operations in EDA are sampled from a half-normal distribution, and we adjust the scale of the distribution to align its expectation with the default α = 0.1 in EDA. For MRC tasks, following Sun et al. (2019b), we concatenate the input passage and the question with a [SEP] token and append each answer at the end of the question. The random seeds we used for experiments on MRC datasets and ablation studies on NLU datasets are from 1 to 5. The random seed for teacher training and other NLU experiments is 1. The training of a 4-layer student model on one RTX 3090 Ti GPU costs approximately 6.5 hours for our method. ## A.2 Experimental Results On Generative Language Models Theoretically, our method can be applied to generative LMs. In this paper, we evaluate the effectiveness of our method on the RACE dataset. We finetune a 12-layer GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) teacher to predict the class label (A/B/C/D) given the context, question, and options as prompt. Then we distill the teacher model to a 4-layer GPT-2 student. For the student model, the output vocabulary at the answer position is restricted to class label tokens. Table 5 shows the performance of our method and baseline methods on the dev set of RACE-High. Our method significantly outperforms decision-based baseline methods and the student CE method. Different from classification tasks, our method will require much more queries to the teacher model on generation tasks because of the following reasons: 1. The label space dimension L in generative tasks is equal to the vocabulary size, which is quite large. The computational cost of building the look-up table will increase. 2. For each position i in a sequence, our method estimates the logits in the i-th position given all the tokens before the i-th position. Therefore, to estimate the logits in the entire sequence, we need to sample teacher decisions in each position. As a result, the computational cost will multiply by the sequence length. Therefore, how to improve the efficiency of applying our method to generation tasks is an interesting future research direction. ## A.3 Detailed Analysis Of The Data Augmentation Techniques In this paper, we use the EDA augmentation tool (Wei and Zou, 2019) for each sample, including its α parameter and the following four default augmentation techniques. Given a input sentence, a α parameter, and the sentence length l*sent*, the four techniques can be describe as following: 1. **Synonym Replacement**: First, select αl*sent* words that are not stop words randomly. Second, replace each word with a random WordNet (Miller, 1995) synonym of itself. 2. **Random Insertion**: First, select a word in the sentence that is not a stop word randomly. Second, find a random synonym of the selected word. Third, insert the synonym into a random position in the sentence. Finally, do the above steps αl*sent* times. 3. **Random Swap**: First, choose two words in the sentence randomly. Second, swap the positions of the chosen words. Finally, do the above steps αl*sent* times. 4. **Random Deletion**: Remove each word in the sentence with probability α randomly. In Table 6, we provide further ablation studies on each technique of EDA. We also include the performance of *Surrogate* method which is the best decision-based baseline. According to the results, our method is robust to different data augmentation techniques. ## A.4 Proofs In this section, we provide the detailed proofs of Eq. 11 to 13. | Methods | RACE-High | |---------------------------|-------------| | Ours | 51.75 | | w/o synonym replacement | 51.69 | | w/o random insertion | 51.44 | | w/o random swap | 51.75 | | w/o random deletion | 51.60 | | Surrogate (best baseline) | 50.33 | Table 6: Averaged results of ablation methods over 5 different random seeds. For each ablation, we remove one of the four data augmentation techniques from EDA and evaluate it on the RACE-High dev set. In Section 4.3, we assume Σ is a diagonal matrix and Σii = σ 2. Therefore, the diagonal elements of B are positive, and Eq. 10 can be rewritten as: $$Q(Y=i|x;\hat{z})=P(M_{1}\geq\frac{-\mu_{1}}{b_{11}},$$ $$M_{2}\geq\frac{-\mu_{2}-b_{21}M_{1}}{b_{22}},$$ $$M_{3}\geq\frac{-\mu_{3}-b_{31}M_{1}-b_{32}M_{2}}{b_{33}}).\tag{14}$$ Then $Q(Y=i|x;\hat{z})$ can be calculated recur Then Q(Y = i|x; ˆz) can be calculated recursively. Eq. 11 is an integration on M1 ≥ −µ1 b11 , while Eq. 12 and Eq. 13 integrate on M2 ≥ −µ2−b21M1 b22and M3 ≥ −µ3−b31M1−b32M2 b33, respectively. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitation Section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethics Section ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract Section and Introduction Section ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Grammarly, to check grammar of the whole paper ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 5 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? In Appendix ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? In Appendix B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? In Appendix ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. In Appendix ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** In Section 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? In Appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✗ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? The experimental setup and hyperparameter search methods are in Section 5 and Appendix. We do not include the best-found hyperparameter values ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? In section 5 and appendix ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? In section 5 and appendix ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Left Blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

zhou-etal-2023-continual

Continual Contrastive Finetuning Improves Low-Resource Relation Extraction

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.739

Relation extraction (RE), which has relied on structurally annotated corpora for model training, has been particularly challenging in low-resource scenarios and domains. Recent literature has tackled low-resource RE by self-supervised learning, where the solution involves pretraining the entity pair embedding by RE-based objective and finetuning on labeled data by classification-based objective. However, a critical challenge to this approach is the gap in objectives, which prevents the RE model from fully utilizing the knowledge in pretrained representations. In this paper, we aim at bridging the gap and propose to pretrain and finetune the RE model using consistent objectives of contrastive learning. Since in this kind of representation learning paradigm, one relation may easily form multiple clusters in the representation space, we further propose a multi-center contrastive loss that allows one relation to form multiple clusters to better align with pretraining. Experiments on two document-level RE datasets, BioRED and Re-DocRED, demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Particularly, when using 1{\%} end-task training data, our method outperforms PLM-based RE classifier by 10.5{\%} and 6.1{\%} on the two datasets, respectively.

# Continual Contrastive Finetuning Improves Low-Resource Relation Extraction Wenxuan Zhou†, Sheng Zhang‡, Tristan Naumann‡**, Muhao Chen**†and **Hoifung Poon** ‡ †University of Southern California, ‡Microsoft Research {zhouwenx,muhaoche}@usc.edu {zhang.sheng,tristan,hoifung}@microsoft.com ## Abstract Relation extraction (RE), which has relied on structurally annotated corpora for model training, has been particularly challenging in lowresource scenarios and domains. Recent literature has tackled low-resource RE by selfsupervised learning, where the solution involves pretraining the entity pair embedding by RE-based objective and finetuning on labeled data by classification-based objective. However, a critical challenge to this approach is the gap in objectives, which prevents the RE model from fully utilizing the knowledge in pretrained representations. In this paper, we aim at bridging the gap and propose to pretrain and finetune the RE model using consistent objectives of contrastive learning. Since in this kind of representation learning paradigm, one relation may easily form multiple clusters in the representation space, we further propose a multi-center contrastive loss that allows one relation to form multiple clusters to better align with pretraining. Experiments on two document-level RE datasets, BioRED and ReDocRED, demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Particularly, when using 1% end-task training data, our method outperforms PLMbased RE classifier by 10.5% and 6.1% on the two datasets, respectively. ## 1 Introduction Relation extraction (RE) is a fundamental task in NLP. It aims to identify the relations among entities in a given text from a predefined set of relations. While much effort has been devoted to RE in supervised settings (Zhang et al., 2017, 2018; Nan et al., 2020), RE is extremely challenging in high-stakes domains such as biology and medicine, where annotated data are comparatively scarce due to overly high annotation costs. Therefore, there is a practical and urgent need for developing low-resource RE models without the reliance on large-scale end-task annotations. To realize low-resource RE, previous work has focused on pretraining entity pair embedding on large corpora using RE-based pretraining objectives. Particularly, Baldini Soares et al. (2019) propose a self-supervised matching-theblanks (MTB) objective that encourages embeddings of the same entity pairs in different sentences to be similar. Later work (Peng et al., 2020; Qin et al., 2021) extends this idea with distant supervision (Mintz et al., 2009) and improves representation learning using contrastive learning (Hadsell et al., 2006; Oord et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020). To adapt to training on RE annotations, these works finetune pretrained entity pair embedding on labeled data using classification-based objectives. Although this paradigm produces better results compared to RE models initialized with pretrained language models (PLMs), it creates a significant divergence between pretraining and finetuning objectives, thus preventing the model from fully exploiting knowledge in pretraining. In this paper, we aim to bridge this gap in RE pretraining and finetuning. Our key idea is to use similar objectives in pretraining and finetuning. First, we propose to continually finetune pretrained embedding by contrastive learning, which encourages the entity pair embeddings corresponding to the same relation to be similar. However, as pretraining and finetuning are conducted on different tasks, entity pairs of the same relation can form multiple different clusters in the pretrained embedding, where standard supervised contrastive loss (Khosla et al., 2020) may distort the representation because of its underlying onecluster assumption (Graf et al., 2021). Therefore, we further propose a multi-center contrastive loss (MCCL), which encourages an entity pair to be similar to only a subset of entity pairs of the same relation, allowing one relation to form multiple clusters. Second, we propose to use classwise k-nearest neighbors (kNN; Khandelwal et al. 13249 2020, 2021) in inference, where predictions are made based on most similar instances. We focus our work on document-level RE (Jia et al., 2019; Yao et al., 2019), which consists of both intra- and cross-sentence relations. To the best of our knowledge, this work represents the first effort to explore self-supervised pretraining for document-level RE. Unlike prior studies (Peng et al., 2020; Qin et al., 2021), we do not use distant supervision. Instead, we pretrain entity pair embedding with an improved MTB objective on unlabeled corpora, where we use contrastive learning to learn representations that suit downstream RE. We then finetune the pretrained model on labeled data with MCCL. Experiments on two datasets, BioRED (Luo et al., 2022) in the biomedical domain and Re-DocRED (Tan et al., 2022b) in the general domain, demonstrate that our pretraining and finetuning objectives significantly outperform baseline methods in low-resource settings. Particularly, in the low-resource setting of using 1% of labeled data, our method outperforms PLM-based classifiers by 10.5% and 6.1% on BioRED and Re-DocRED, respectively. Based on our pretrained representations, MCCL outperforms classification-based finetuning by 6.0% and 4.1%, respectively. We also find observe that as more data becomes available, the performance gap between MCCL and classification-based finetuning diminishes. Our technical contributions are three-fold. First, we propose to pretrain the PLMs based on our improved MTB objective and show that it significantly improves PLM performance in lowresource document-level RE. Second, we present a technique that bridges the gap of learning objectives between RE pretraining and finetuning with continual contrastive finetuning and kNNbased inference, helping the RE model leverage pretraining knowledge. Third, we design a novel MCCL finetuning objective, allowing one relation to form multiple different clusters, thus further reducing the distributional gap between pretraining and finetuning. ## 2 Related Work Document-level RE. Existing document-level RE models can be classified into graph-based and sequence-based models. Graph-based models construct document graphs spanning across sentence boundaries and use graph encoders such as the graph convolution network (GCN; Kipf and Welling 2017) to aggregate information. Particularly, Quirk and Poon (2017) build document graphs using words as nodes with innerand inter-sentence dependencies (e.g., syntactic dependencies, coreference, etc.) as edges. Later work extends this idea by applying different network structures (Peng et al., 2017; Jia et al., 2019) or introducing other node types and edges (Christopoulou et al., 2019; Nan et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2020). On the other hand, sequencebased methods (Zhou et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2022a) use PLMs to learn crosssentence dependencies without using graph structures. Particularly, Zhou et al. (2021) propose to enrich relation mention representation by localized context pooling. Zhang et al. (2021) propose to model the inter-dependencies between relation mentions by semantic segmentation (Ronneberger et al., 2015). In this work, we study a general method of self-supervised RE. Therefore, our method is independent of the model architecture and can be adapted to different RE models. Low-resource RE. Labeled RE data may be scarce in real-world applications, especially in low-resource and high-stakes domains such as finance and biomedicine. Much effort has been devoted to training RE models in low-resource settings. Some work tackles low-resource RE by indirect supervision, which solves RE by other tasks such as machine reading comprehension (Levy et al., 2017), textual entailment (Sainz et al., 2021), and abstractive summarization (Lu et al., 2022). However, indirect supervision may not be practical in high-stake domains, where annotated data for other tasks are also scarce. Other efforts (Baldini Soares et al., 2019; Peng et al., 2020; Qin et al., 2021) improve low-resource RE by pretraining on large corpora with RE-based objectives. Specifically, Baldini Soares et al. (2019) propose an MTB objective that encourages embeddings of the same entity pairs in different sentences to be similar. Peng et al. (2020) propose to pretrain on distantly labeled corpora, where they make embeddings of entity pairs with the same distant label to be similar. They also introduce a contrastive learning based training objective to improve representation learning. Qin et al. (2021) further introduce an entity discrimination task and pretrain the RE model on distantly labeled document corpora. In this paper, we study selfsupervised pretraining for document-level RE. We study how to reduce the gap between pretraining and finetuning, which is critical to bridge the training signals obtained in these two stages but has been overlooked in prior work. ## 3 Method In this work, we study a self-supervised approach for document-level RE. Given a document d and a set of entities {ei} N i=1, where each entity ei has one or multiple entity mentions in the document, document-level RE aims at predicting the relations of all entity pairs (es, eo)s,o ∈ {1*,...,N*}from a predefined set of relationships R (including an NA class indicating no relation exists), where es and eo are the subject and object entities, respectively. In the self-supervised RE setting, we have a large unlabeled document corpus for pretraining and a labeled RE dataset for finetuning. The document corpus has been annotated with entity mentions and the associated entity types but no relations. Our goal is to train a document-level RE classifier, especially in the low-resource setting. Our training pipeline consists of two phases: pretraining and finetuning. In pretraining, we use the (unlabeled) document corpus to pretrain the entity pair embedding based on our improved matching-the-blanks training objective (MTB; Baldini Soares et al. 2019), where the LM learns to decide whether two entity pair embeddings correspond to the entity pairs or not, and the learning of representation is enhanced with contrastive learning. In finetuning, we continue to train the pretrained model on relation-labeled data using a multi-center contrastive loss (MCCL), which achieves better performance than the traditional classifier paradigm due to its better-aligned learning objective with pretraining. After training, we use classwise k-nearest neighbor (kNN) inference that suits well the contrastively finetuned model. The rest of this section is organized as follows: we introduce the model architecture used in both pretraining and finetuning in Section 3.1, the pretraining process in Section 3.2, finetuning in Section 3.3, and inference in Section 3.4. ## 3.1 Model Architecture Encoder. Given a document d = [x1, x2*, ..., x*l], we first mark the spans of the entity mentions by adding special entity markers [E] and [/E] to the start and the end of each mention. Then we encode the document with a PLM to get the contextual embedding of textual tokens: $$\mathbf{H}=\left[\mathbf{h}_{1},\mathbf{h}_{2},...,\mathbf{h}_{l}\right]=\mathrm{PLM}\left(\left[x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{l}\right]\right).$$ We take the contextual embedding of [E] at the last layer of the PLM as the embedding of entity mentions. We accumulate the embedding of mentions corresponding to the same entity by LogSumExp pooling (Jia et al., 2019) to get the entity embedding hei . Entity pair embedding. Given an entity pair t = (es, eo) in document d, where es and eo are the subject and object entities, respectively, we calculate the entity pair embedding by: $$z^{t}=W_{\mathrm{linear}}\left[\mathbf{h}_{e_{s}},\mathbf{h}_{e_{o}},\mathbf{c}^{(e_{s},e_{o})}\right].$$ $\pi\alpha d$ ... Here hes, heo ∈ R dare embeddings of subject and object entities, ces,eo ∈ R dis the localized context encoding for (es, eo), Wlinear ∈ R 3d×dis a linear projector. The localized context encoding is introduced by Zhou et al. (2021) to derive the context embedding conditioned on an entity pair, which finds the context that both the subject and object entities attend to. Specifically, denote the multi-head attention in the last layer of PLM as A ∈ R m×l×l, where m is the number of attention heads, l is the input length, we first take the attention scores from [E] as the attention from each entity mention, then accumulate the attention of this entity mention by mean pooling to get the entitylevel attention A(ei) ∈ R m×l. Finally, we compute c (es,eo) by: $$\begin{array}{c}{{A^{(e_{s},e_{o})}=A^{(e_{s})}\odot A^{(e_{o})},}}\\ {{q^{(e_{s},e_{o})}=\sum_{i=1}^{m}A_{i}^{(e_{s},e_{o})},}}\\ {{a^{(e_{s},e_{o})}=q^{(e_{s},e_{o})}/1^{\mathsf{T}}q^{(e_{s},e_{o})},}}\\ {{c^{(e_{s},e_{o})}=H^{\mathsf{T}}a^{(e_{s},e_{o})}.}}\end{array}$$ We introduce in the rest of the section how to pretrain and finetune the RE model based on the entity pair embedding z (es,eo). ## 3.2 Pretraining We pretrain the LM on the document corpus using the MTB objective. MTB is based on a simple assumption that, in contrast to different entity pairs, it is more frequent for the same entity pair to be connected with the same relation. The MTB objective transforms the similarity learning problem into a pairwise binary classification problem: given two relation-describing utterances where entity mentions are masked, the model classifies whether the entity pairs are the same or not. This pretraining objective has shown effectiveness in several sentence-level RE datasets(Zhang et al., 2017; Hendrickx et al., 2010; Han et al., 2018). However, when it comes to document-level RE, Qin et al. (2021) have observed no improvement led by the vanilla MTB pretraining. Therefore, we replace the pairwise binary classification with contrastive learning, which is adopted in later RE pretraining works (Peng et al., 2020; Qin et al., 2021) and can effectively learn from more positive and negative examples. Details of training objectives are elaborated in the rest of the section. We introduce the details of data preprocessing of the pretraining corpus in Appendix A. Training objective. The overall goal of pretraining is to make the embedding of the same entity pair from different documents more similar than different entity pairs. For clarity, we call two same entity pairs from different documents as a positive pair, and two different entity pairs as a negative pair. We use the InfoNCE loss (Oord et al., 2018) to model this objective. Given the documents in batch, P as the set of all positive pairs, and Nt denote the set of entity pairs different to t, the contrastive MTB loss is1: $$\begin{array}{c}{{{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{rel}}=-\frac{1}{|{\mathcal P}|}\sum_{t_{i},t_{j}\in{\mathcal P}}\log\frac{e^{\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{z}^{t_{i}},\mathbf{z}^{t_{j}})/\tau}}{{\mathcal Z}_{t_{i}}},}}\\ {{{\mathcal Z}_{t_{i}}=e^{\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{z}^{t_{i}},\mathbf{z}^{t_{j}})/\tau}+\sum_{t_{k}\in{\mathcal N}_{t_{i}}}e^{\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{z}^{t_{i}},\mathbf{z}^{t_{k}})/\tau},}}\end{array}$$ where sim(z ti, z tj ) denotes the similarity between the embeddings of ti and tj , and τ is a temperature hyperprameter. Following Chen et al. (2020), we use cosine similarity as the similarity metric. Similar to SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021), we further add a self-supervised contrastive loss that requires the same entity pair embedding augmented by different dropout masks to be similar, thus encouraging the model to learn more instance-discriminative features that lead to less collapsed representations. Specifically, denote the two entity pair embeddings of t derived by different dropout masks as 1Similar to Baldini Soares et al. (2019), we randomly mask the entities in documents with a probability of 0.7 to avoid shortcut learning. z tand zˆ t, respectively, the set of all entity pairs in the batch as T , and the set of entity pairs in positive pairs as TP , the self-supervised loss is: $$\begin{array}{c}{{{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{self}}=-\frac{1}{|\mathcal{T}_{P}|}\sum_{t_{i}\in\mathcal{T}_{P}}\log\frac{e^{\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{z}^{t_{i}},{\hat{\mathbf{z}}}^{t_{i}})/\tau}}{\mathcal{Z}_{t_{i}}},}}\\ {{{\mathcal{Z}}_{t_{i}}=e^{\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{z}^{t_{i}},{\hat{\mathbf{z}}}^{t_{i}})/\tau}+\sum_{t_{k}\in\mathcal{T}\setminus\{t_{i}\}}e^{\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{z}^{t_{i}},{\hat{\mathbf{z}}}^{t_{k}})/\tau}.}}\end{array}$$ Finally, we use a masked language model loss Lmlm to adapt the LM to the document corpus. The overall pretraining objective is: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{pretrain}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{rel}}+{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{self}}+{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{mlm}}.$$ For faster convergence, we initialize our model with a PLM that is pretrained on a larger corpus, and continually pretrain the PLM on the document corpus with our new pretraining objectives. We use BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) for the general domain and PubmedBERT (Gu et al., 2021) for the biomedical domain. ## 3.3 Finetuning After pretraining, we finetune the LM on labeled document-level RE datasets. In previous studies (Baldini Soares et al., 2019; Peng et al., 2020; Qin et al., 2021), pretraining and finetuning are conducted in processes with different learning objectives. Specifically, after using the pretrained weights to initialize a RE classifier, the model is finetuned with a classification-based training objective. Based on our model architecture, a straightforward finetuning method is to add a softmax classifier upon the entity pair embedding, for which a cross-entropy loss for a batch of entity pairs T is formulated as: $$\begin{array}{l}{{P_{r}^{t_{i}}=\mathrm{softmax}(W_{r}z^{t_{i}}+b_{r}),}}\\ {{{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{ce}}=-\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{T}}|}\sum_{t_{i}\in{\mathcal{T}}}\log(P_{y t_{i}}^{t_{i}}),}}\end{array}$$ where ytis the ground-truth label for entity pair t, Wr, br are the weight and bias of the classifier. Though this approach has shown improvements, it may produce sub-optimal outcomes from MTB pretraining since it implicitly assumes that entity pairs corresponding to the same relation are in the same cluster, while MTB pretraining may learn multiple clusters for a relation. For example, the entity pairs *(Honda Corp., Japan)* and (Mount Fuji, Japan), although likely to be expressed with | Classifier | BioRED | Re-DocRED | |------------------|----------|-------------| | One-cluster | | | | Softmax | 28.6 | 39.3 | | Nearest centroid | 12.5 | 4.1 | | Multi-cluster | | | | classwise kNN | 36.7 | 54.1 | the same relation *country* in documents, are likely to be in different clusters since MTB views them as negative pairs due to different subject entities. Therefore, we propose an MCCL objective that can bridge these gaps. Next, we will discuss the distributional assumption of the softmax classifier as well as supervised contrastive loss, then present our MCCL objective. Distributional assumption. We conduct a probing analysis on the distribution of pretrained representations to further justify the multi-cluster assumption. Specifically, we fix the weights of the pretrained MTB model and fit different classifiers on top of it, including a softmax classifier, a nearest centroid classifier (both assuming one cluster for a relation), and a classwise kNN classifier (assuming multiple clusters for a relation). We evaluate these classifiers on the test set. Results are shown in Table 1. We find that classwise kNN greatly outperforms others, showing that MTB pretraining learns multiple clusters for a relation. Therefore, to accommodate this multi-cluster assumption, we need to finetune the representations with a training objective that suits multiple clusters for each relation. Beside using the softmax classifier with cross-entropy loss, we also consider supervised contrastive loss (SupCon; Khosla et al. 2020; Gunel et al. 2021). SupCon has a similar loss form to InfoNCE in Eq. (1), except that it uses instances of the same/different relations as positive/negative pairs. However, previous work (Graf et al., 2021) has shown that both softmax and SupCon are minimized when the representations of each class collapse to the vertex of a regular simplex. In our case, this means the entity pair embeddings corresponding to the same relation in pretraining collapses to a single point, which creates a distributional gap between pretraining and finetuning. Training objective. We thereby propose the MCCL objective. Given entity pairs T and sets of entity pairs grouped by their relations {Tr}r∈R, our loss is formulated as: w (ti,tj ) r =e sim(z ti ,z tj )/τ1 Ptk∈Tr\{ti} e sim(z ti ,z tk )/τ1 , s ti r =X tj∈Tr\{ti} w (ti,tj ) r sim(z ti, z tj), P ti r = softmax((s ti r + br)/τ2), Lmccl = − 1 |T | X ti∈T log(P ti yti ), where τ1 and τ2 are temperature hyperparameters, br ∈ R is the classwise bias. The loss calculation can be split into two steps. First, we calculate the similarity between ti and relation r, which is a weighted average of the similarity between ti and tj ∈ Tr such that a more similar tj has a larger weight. Next, we use the cross-entropy loss to make the similarity of ground-truth relation larger than others. In this way, MCCL only optimizes tito be similar to a few closest entity pairs of the ground-truth relation, and thus encourages multiple clusters in entity pair embedding. Note that MCCL can be easily extended to support multilabel classification scenarios, for which details are given in Appendix B. Proxies. We use batched training for finetuning, where entity pairs in the current batch are used to calculate MCCL. However, it is possible that a subset of relations in R, especially the long-tail relations, are rare or missing in the current batch. When Tr\{ti} is empty, s ti rand MCCL become undefined. To tackle this problem, we propose the use of proxies (Movshovitz-Attias et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2022). We add one proxy vector pr for each relation r, which is a trainable parameter and associated with an embedding z p r . We incorporate the proxies into MCCL by changing Tr to T′ r = Tr ∪ {pr}, ensuring that T′ r \{ti} is never empty in training and preventing MCCL from becoming undefined. The proxies are randomly initialized and updated during training by backward propagation. ## 3.4 Inference We use the classwise kNN (Christobel and Sivaprakasam, 2013) for inference, which predicts relations based on similarly represented instances and thus aligns with our contrastive finetuning objective. Given a new entity pair to predict, we first find k most similar instances2in the training data of each relation (including NA), then calculate the average cosine similarity of each relation s avg r . Finally, the model returns the relation with the maximum s avg r + br for single-label prediction, and all relations with higher s avg r + br than NA for multilabel prediction. We use classwise kNN because it is more suitable for RE datasets, where the label distribution is usually long-tailed (Zhang et al., 2019). ## 4 Experiments We evaluate our proposed method with a focus on low-resource RE (Sections 4.1-4.3), and present detailed analyses (Section 4.4) and visualization (Section 4.5) to justify method design choices. ## 4.1 Datasets We conduct experiments with two documentlevel RE datasets. The **BioRED** dataset (Luo et al., 2022) is a manually labeled single-label RE dataset in the biomedical domain. The entity pairs are classified into 9 types (including an NA type indicating no relation). It has a training set consisting of 400 documents, which we use in finetuning. For pretraining, we use the PubTator Central corpus (Wei et al., 2019), which annotates the PubMed corpus with entity mentions and their named entity types. The **Re-DocRED** dataset (Tan et al., 2022b) is a multi-label largescale dataset of the general domain. It is a relabeled version of the DocRED dataset (Yao et al., 2019). Re-DocRED addresses the incomplete annotation issue of DocRED, where a large percentage of entity pairs are mislabeled as NA. The entity pairs in Re-DocRED are classified into 97 types (incl. NA). It has a training set consisting of 3,053 documents, which we use in finetuning. For pretraining, we use the distantly labeled training set provided by DocRED, which consists of 101,873 documents. We remove the relation labels and use our improved MTB to pretrain the model. ## 4.2 Experimental Setup Model configurations. We implement our models using Hugging Face Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020). We use AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2018) in optimization with a weight decay of 0.01. During pretraining, we use a batch size of 16, a 2Measured by cosine similarity. If a relation has fewer than k entity pairs in training data, we use all of them. learning rate of 5e-6, a temperature of 0.05, and epochs of 3 and 10 for BioRED and DocRED, respectively. During finetuning, we use a batch size of 32, a learning rate of 5e-5, and epochs of 100 and 30 for BioRED and DocRED, respectively. The temperatures in MCCL are set to τ1 = τ2 = 0.2 for BioRED and τ1 = 0.01, τ2 = 0.03 for DocRED. We search k from {1, 3, 5, 10, 20} for classwise kNN using the development set3. We run experiments with Nvidia V100 GPUs. Evaluation settings. In this work, in addition to the standard full-shot training, we consider lowresource settings. To create each of the settings, we randomly sample a fixed proportion p% of the entity pairs from the training set as our training data, and use the original test set for evaluation. We use the same evaluation metrics as the original papers. We use micro-F1 for BioRED, and micro-F1 and micro-F1-Ign for Re-DocRED. The micro-F1-Ign removes the relational facts in the test set that have appeared in training. Compared methods. We experiment with the following finetuning objectives: (1) **Lazy learning**, which directly uses the pretrained embedding and training data to perform kNN without finetuning; (2) **Cross-entropy loss** (CE), which adds a softmax classifier on top of PLM and uses crossentropy loss to finetune the model; (3) **Supervised contrastive loss** (SupCon); and (4) **Multicenter contrastive loss** (MCCL). In inference, classwise kNN is used for all methods except for CE. Note that as SupCon does not apply to multilabel scenarios, we only evaluate it on BioRED. For each objective, we also evaluate the PLM before and after MTB pretraining. We use different PLMs as the backbone of the model, namely PubmedBERTBASE for BioRED and BERTBASE for Re-DocRED, which are pretrained on the biomedical and general domains, respectively. ## 4.3 Main Results The results on the test sets of Re-DocRED and BioRED are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. All results are averaged for five runs of training using different random seeds. Overall, the combination of MTB and MCCL achieves the best performance in low-resource settings where 1%, 5%, and 10% of relation-labeled data are used. Further, when using the same MTB-based 3For low-resource setting with p% of training data, we sample p% of development data as the development set. Table 2: Results on the test set of Re-DocRED. | Encoder | Objective | 1% | 5% | 10% | 100% | | | | |-----------|-------------|------|--------|-------|--------|------|--------|------| | F1 | F1-Ign | F1 | F1-Ign | F1 | F1-Ign | F1 | F1-Ign | | | Lazy | 15.6 | 14.9 | 20.1 | 19.4 | 21.6 | 19.2 | 28.7 | 28.0 | | CE | 40.3 | 38.9 | 54.1 | 52.6 | 61.3 | 60.3 | 70.9 | 69.4 | | MCCL | 44.7 | 43.1 | 59.1 | 57.5 | 63.2 | 61.8 | 68.2 | 66.7 | | Lazy | 35.2 | 34.4 | 44.7 | 43.4 | 47.3 | 46.2 | 54.1 | 52.9 | | CE | 42.3 | 40.7 | 57.9 | 56.4 | 62.9 | 61.4 | 71.2 | 69.9 | | MCCL | 46.4 | 44.5 | 59.7 | 58.2 | 63.8 | 62.1 | 69.3 | 67.9 | Encoder Objective 1% 5% 10% 100% PLM Lazy 14.5 17.6 18.8 28.3 CE 24.1 35.4 42.5 57.7 SupCon 20.0 30.9 38.0 52.2 MCCL 20.8 41.3 45.5 55.1 MTB Lazy 24.3 28.4 34.4 36.7 CE 28.6 41.2 49.8 **61.5** SupCon 24.4 29.1 31.4 43.1 MCCL **34.6 48.5 54.2** 60.8 representations, MCCL shows better results than CE in low-resource settings. It shows that in low-resource settings, MCCL can better leverage the pretraining knowledge with a well-aligned finetuning objective. However, this improvement diminishes when abundant labeled data are available, as MCCL underperforms CE on both datasets with full training data on both datasets. In addition, we observe that MTB pretraining consistently improves MCCL and CE on both datasets. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of MTB pretraining for more precise document-level RE with less needed end-task supervision. Considering other training objectives, we observe that lazy learning produces meaningful results. On both datasets, the results of lazy learning based on MTB with 10% of data are comparable to finetuning with 1% of data. This shows that the entity pair embedding pretrained on unlabeled corpora contains knowledge that can be transferred to unseen relations. We also observe that SupCon using kNN-based inference underperforms both CE and MCCL on BioRED, showing that its one-cluster assumption hurts the knowledge transfer. ## 4.4 Ablation Study Pretraining objectives. We analyze the effectiveness of our proposed pretraining losses in Section 3.2. To do so, we pretrain the model with one loss removed at a time while keeping the finetuning setup on BioRED fixed with the MCCL. The results are shown in Table 4. Overall, we observe that all losses are effective. If we remove all proposed techniques and use the vanilla MTB pretraining objective of binary pairwise classification, the results are only slightly better or even worse. Among the techniques, removing Lrel leads to the largest performance drop, showing that MTB-based pretraining is critical to improve low-resource RE. Removing Lself also leads to a large performance drop. It is because Lself encourages the model to learn more discriminative features that lead to less collapsed representations. Our finding aligns with recent studies in computer vision (Islam et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022), showing that reducing collapsed representations with self-supervised contrastive learning improves the transferability to downstream tasks. | Pretraining Objective | 1% | 10% | 100% | |-------------------------|------|-------|--------| | PLM | 20.8 | 45.5 | 55.1 | | vanilla MTB | 22.9 | 45.0 | 56.0 | | our MTB | 34.6 | 54.2 | 60.8 | | w/o Lrel | 21.0 | 47.1 | 56.7 | | w/o Lself | 24.1 | 49.3 | 58.6 | | w/o Lmlm | 32.9 | 50.2 | 58.2 | Performance w.r.t. different temperatures. We discuss the impact of two temperatures in MCCL. In MCCL, τ1 controls the weighting of instances. With a very small τ1, each instance will only form a cluster with its nearest neighbor in the batch,  while with very large τ1, instances of the same relation will collapse to the same cluster. τ2 controls the importance of hard instances, which is also used in other contrastive losses (e.g., τ in Eq. (1)). Wang and Liu (2021) observe that small τ2 makes the model focus more on hard instances, while Khosla et al. (2020) observe that too small τ2 leads to numerical instability. We show the results of using different temperatures in Figure 1, where we keep one temperature fixed and change the other. For τ1, we find that using large temperature harms the performance, showing that our multi-cluster assumption improves low-resource RE. For τ2, we observe that both small and large values impair the performance, which is aligned with prior observations. Performance w.r.t. different amount of data. The main results show that MCCL outperforms CE in the low-resource setting, while slightly underperforming CE when full training data is used. We further evaluate MCCL and CE using different amounts of end-task data. We experiment on BioRED and use the entity pair embedding pretrained with MTB. Results are shown in Figure 2. We observe that MCCL consistently outperforms CE by a large margin when less than 20% of training data is used, while it performs similarly or worse than CE after that. It again demonstrates the effectiveness of MCCL in low-resource RE. However, as the pretraining and finetuning are based on different tasks, fully adapting the model to downstream data by CE results in similar or better performance in data-sufficient scenarios. ## 4.5 Visualization Figure 3 shows the t-SNE (Van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008) projection of entity pair embedding finetuned with different objectives on BioRED. For clarity, we visualize the embedding of the four most frequent relations in BioRED with differ-   ent colors, including the NA class shown in grey. The visualization shows that both CE and SupCon learn one cluster for each relation, while lazy learning and MCCL, as expected, generate multiple small clusters for a relation. This observation indicates that MCCL can better align with the pretraining objective, further explaining its better performance in low-resource settings. ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we study self-supervised learning for document-level RE. Our method conducts an improved MTB pretraining objective that acquires cheap supervision signals from large corpora without relation labels. To bridge the gap between pretraining and end-task finetuning, we propose a continual contrastive finetuning objective, in contrast to prior studies that typically use classification-based finetuning, and use kNNbased inference. As pretrained representation may form multi-cluster representation, we further propose a multi-center contrastive loss that aligns well with the nature of the pretrained representation. Extensive experiments on two documentlevel RE datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of these key techniques in our method. Future work is adapting our method to other tasks in information extraction, such as n-ary relation extraction, named entity recognition, typing, and linking. ## Limitations The main limitation of MCCL is the requirement of a sufficiently large batch size in training (32 documents in our experiments), leading to a need for large GPU memory. This is because MCCL uses in-batch entity pairs for contrastive learning, and a small batch size does not provide enough instances to form multiple clusters. In addition, we need to store the entity pair embedding of the whole training set for kNN-based inference, which is less memory-efficient than CE. ## References Livio Baldini Soares, Nicholas FitzGerald, Jeffrey Ling, and Tom Kwiatkowski. 2019. Matching the blanks: Distributional similarity for relation learning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2895–2905, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mayee Chen, Daniel Y Fu, Avanika Narayan, Michael Zhang, Zhao Song, Kayvon Fatahalian, and Christopher Ré. 2022. Perfectly balanced: Improving transfer and robustness of supervised contrastive learning. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 3090–3122. PMLR. Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 1597–1607. PMLR. Y Angeline Christobel and P Sivaprakasam. 2013. A new classwise k nearest neighbor (cknn) method for the classification of diabetes dataset. *International* Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 2(3):396–200. Fenia Christopoulou, Makoto Miwa, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2019. Connecting the dots: Document-level neural relation extraction with edge-oriented graphs. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4925– 4936, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing, pages 6894–6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Florian Graf, Christoph Hofer, Marc Niethammer, and Roland Kwitt. 2021. Dissecting supervised constrastive learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3821–3830. PMLR. Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2021. Domainspecific language model pretraining for biomedical natural language processing. *ACM Transactions on* Computing for Healthcare (HEALTH), 3(1):1–23. Beliz Gunel, Jingfei Du, Alexis Conneau, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2021. Supervised contrastive learning for pre-trained language model fine-tuning. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Raia Hadsell, Sumit Chopra, and Yann LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 1735–1742. IEEE. Xu Han, Hao Zhu, Pengfei Yu, Ziyun Wang, Yuan Yao, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2018. FewRel: A large-scale supervised few-shot relation classification dataset with state-of-the-art evaluation. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 4803– 4809, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Iris Hendrickx, Su Nam Kim, Zornitsa Kozareva, Preslav Nakov, Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha, Sebastian Padó, Marco Pennacchiotti, Lorenza Romano, and Stan Szpakowicz. 2010. SemEval-2010 task 8: Multi-way classification of semantic relations between pairs of nominals. In *Proceedings of the* 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 33–38, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashraful Islam, Chun-Fu Richard Chen, Rameswar Panda, Leonid Karlinsky, Richard Radke, and Rogerio Feris. 2021. A broad study on the transferability of visual representations with contrastive learning. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 8845–8855. Robin Jia, Cliff Wong, and Hoifung Poon. 2019. Document-level n-ary relation extraction with multiscale representation learning. In *Proceedings of the* 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3693–3704, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Urvashi Khandelwal, Angela Fan, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Nearest neighbor machine translation. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2020. Generalization through memorization: Nearest neighbor language models. In *International Conference on Learning* Representations. Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. 2020. Supervised contrastive learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:18661–18673. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semisupervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Omer Levy, Minjoon Seo, Eunsol Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Zero-shot relation extraction via reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 333–342, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2018. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Keming Lu, I-Hung Hsu, Mingyu Derek Ma, Wenxuan Zhou, and Muhao Chen. 2022. Summarization as indirect supervision for relation extraction. In *Findings of ACL: EMNLP*. Ling Luo, Po-Ting Lai, Chih-Hsuan Wei, Cecilia N Arighi, and Zhiyong Lu. 2022. Biored: a rich biomedical relation extraction dataset. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 23(5):bbac282. Mike Mintz, Steven Bills, Rion Snow, and Daniel Jurafsky. 2009. Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, pages 1003–1011, Suntec, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yair Movshovitz-Attias, Alexander Toshev, Thomas K Leung, Sergey Ioffe, and Saurabh Singh. 2017. No fuss distance metric learning using proxies. In *Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on* Computer Vision, pages 360–368. Guoshun Nan, Zhijiang Guo, Ivan Sekulic, and Wei Lu. 2020. Reasoning with latent structure refinement for document-level relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1546–1557, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. 2018. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748*. Hao Peng, Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2020. Learning from Context or Names? An Empirical Study on Neural Relation Extraction. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3661–3672, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nanyun Peng, Hoifung Poon, Chris Quirk, Kristina Toutanova, and Wen-tau Yih. 2017. Cross-sentence n-ary relation extraction with graph LSTMs. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 5:101–115. Yujia Qin, Yankai Lin, Ryuichi Takanobu, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Heng Ji, Minlie Huang, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2021. ERICA: Improving entity and relation understanding for pre-trained language models via contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3350–3363, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chris Quirk and Hoifung Poon. 2017. Distant supervision for relation extraction beyond the sentence boundary. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 1171–1182, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. 2015. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In *International Conference on Medical image computing and computerassisted intervention*, pages 234–241. Springer. Oscar Sainz, Oier Lopez de Lacalle, Gorka Labaka, Ander Barrena, and Eneko Agirre. 2021. Label verbalization and entailment for effective zero and few-shot relation extraction. In *Proceedings of the* 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1199–1212, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qingyu Tan, Ruidan He, Lidong Bing, and Hwee Tou Ng. 2022a. Document-level relation extraction with adaptive focal loss and knowledge distillation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1672–1681, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qingyu Tan, Lu Xu, Lidong Bing, and Hwee Tou Ng. 2022b. Revisiting docred - addressing the overlooked false negative problem in relation extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12696. Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11). Feng Wang and Huaping Liu. 2021. Understanding the behaviour of contrastive loss. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2495–2504. Chih-Hsuan Wei, Alexis Allot, Robert Leaman, and Zhiyong Lu. 2019. Pubtator central: automated concept annotation for biomedical full text articles. *Nucleic acids research*, 47(W1):W587–W593. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing:* System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuan Yao, Deming Ye, Peng Li, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Zhenghao Liu, Zhiyuan Liu, Lixin Huang, Jie Zhou, and Maosong Sun. 2019. DocRED: A large-scale document-level relation extraction dataset. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 764–777, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shuang Zeng, Runxin Xu, Baobao Chang, and Lei Li. 2020. Double graph based reasoning for documentlevel relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1630–1640, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Xin Xie, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Huajun Chen. 2021. Document-level relation extraction as semantic segmentation. In *IJCAI*. Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Zhanlin Sun, Guanying Wang, Xi Chen, Wei Zhang, and Huajun Chen. 2019. Long-tail relation extraction via knowledge graph embeddings and graph convolution networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3016–3025, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuhao Zhang, Peng Qi, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. Graph convolution over pruned dependency trees improves relation extraction. In *Proceedings of* the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2205–2215, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuhao Zhang, Victor Zhong, Danqi Chen, Gabor Angeli, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Positionaware attention and supervised data improve slot filling. In *Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 35–45, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zexuan Zhong and Danqi Chen. 2021. A frustratingly easy approach for entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 50–61, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wenxuan Zhou and Muhao Chen. 2022. An improved baseline for sentence-level relation extraction. In AACL-IJCNLP. Wenxuan Zhou, Kevin Huang, Tengyu Ma, and Jing Huang. 2021. Document-level relation extraction with adaptive thresholding and localized context pooling. In *Proceedings of the AAAI conference* on artificial intelligence, volume 35, pages 14612– 14620. Jianggang Zhu, Zheng Wang, Jingjing Chen, YiPing Phoebe Chen, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2022. Balanced contrastive learning for long-tailed visual recognition. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 6908–6917. ## Appendices A Data Preparation We acquire positive and negative pairs from the document corpus. We regard two entity pairs (es1 , eo1 ),(es2 , eo2 ) in different documents as a positive pair if they share the same subject and object entities, respectively (i.e., es1 = es2 , eo1 = eo2 ), and otherwise negative. However, for a large corpus, the number of such positive pairs is enormous. For instance, in biomedical RE pretraining, we extract 37 billion positive pairs in total. Using all these pairs in pretraining is computationally infeasible. Therefore, we select positive pairs as follows. Denote the number of documents mentioning an entity e or an entity pair (es, eo) as N(e) and N(es, eo), respectively, we use two metrics, frequency = N(es, eo) and PMI =N(es,eo) N(es)×N(eo) , to measure the popularity of entity pairs The frequency measures how often es and eo co-occur. The PMI measures whether es and eo have a strong association. In pretraining, we first discard the entity pairs with frequency < Nthreshold, and then use the positive pairs constituted by the top K entity pairs measured by their PMIs. We set the frequency threshold to be 16 and 3 for BioRED and DocRED, respectively, and use the top 5,000 entity pairs in pretraining. Besides, as MTB is fully self-supervised, the information of whether two relations mentions correspond to the same relation type is not available, but it is assumed that at least entity pairs with different subject or object types are likely to be of different relation types and can therefore be used as negative pairs. Such use of entity types to filter the pairs has indeed been shown a strong feature for RE (Zhong and Chen, 2021; Zhou and Chen, 2022). We only use two entity pairs with different subject or object entity types as negatives. While the entity type based filtering may also discard some hard negatives, our experiment (see Section C) shows improved results, meaning that its benefits outweigh the disadvantages. ## B Adaptation To Multi-Label Re It is noteworthy that in some RE tasks, such as DocRED, one entity pair may have multiple relation labels, in which case the cross-entropy loss does not apply. Therefore, for multi-label scenarios, we substitute cross-entropy loss (also the softmax in MCCL) with the adaptive thresholding loss proposed by Zhou et al. (2021). Specifically, denote the logits as l (the input to softmax in crossentropy loss), the set of positive relations as P (except NA), and the set of the remaining relations except for NA as N , the adaptive thresholding loss is formulated as: $$\begin{array}{c}{{{\mathcal{L}}_{1}=-\sum_{r\in{\mathcal{P}}}\log\left(\frac{e^{l_{r}}}{\sum_{r^{\prime}\in{\mathcal{P}}\cup\{\textsc{nA}}\}}\right)}}}\\ {{{\mathcal{L}}_{2}=-\log\left(\frac{e^{l_{\textsc{nA}}}}{\sum_{r^{\prime}\in{\mathcal{N}}\cup\{\textsc{nA}}\setminus e^{l_{r^{\prime}}}}}\right)}}\\ {{{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{at}}={\mathcal{L}}_{1}+{\mathcal{L}}_{2}.}}\end{array}$$   ## C More Experiments Performance w.r.t. number of proxies. We evaluate MCCL with different number of proxies. When no proxy is used, we ignore the relations that do not appear in the current batch. The F1 on both BioRED and Re-DocRED in the 1% low-resource setting is shown in Figure 4, indicating that adding proxies improves F1 significantly on both datasets. Using one proxy for each relation achieves an increase of 6.0% in F1 on BioRED, and a larger increase of 10.2% in F1 on Re-DocRED. Such a difference of increment is due to the fact that Re-DocRED is more longtailed, where 97% of instances are NA compared to 80% in BioRED. We also observe that adding more proxies achieves similar or even worse results. These results make sense as the proxies are mainly in the place of long-tail relations that do not appear in the batch, and these relations contain too few instances to form multiple clusters. Coarse-to-fine evaluation. To give another illustration of showing that MCCL learns multiple clusters, we experiment with it on 1% of BioRED in a coarse-to-fine setting. Specifically, we merge all relations except NA into one relation in finetuning, and apply kNN inference using the original labels. We find that MCCL achieves an F1 of 30.3%, which is even better than CE with all relations provided. However, if we remove the instance weights in MCCL to degrade it to onecluster, the F1 constantly degrades in finetuning. It shows that multi-cluster assumption helps preserve the fine-grained relation information in pretrained representation. Pretraining Objective 1% 10% 100% PLM 20.8 45.5 55.1 vanilla MTB 22.9 45.0 56.0 our MTB 34.6 54.2 60.8 w/o entity type filtering 25.1 48.6 58.1 Replace Lrel by Lmccl 34.7 52.5 58.8 Table 5: F1 on the test set of BioRED. Other ablation studies. We analyze the effectiveness of entity type filtering in Section A. Results are shown in Table 5. Removing entity type filtering degrades performance significantly. It shows that entity type filtering can remove a lot of false negatives in pretraining and greatly improves the pretrained model. Besides, as the main results have demonstrated the effectiveness of MCCL in finetuning, we wonder whether MCCL can also lead to improved pretraining. To do so, we replace the InfoNCE loss in Eq. (1) by MCCL and regard different entity pairs as different classes. The results are comparable or slightly worse in contrast to using Lrel, showing that the multi-cluster assumption of MCCL does not necessarily help pretraining. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? At the end of the paper. ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Our work studies general information extraction techniques and does not have ethical issues. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** In Section 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? In section 4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? In section 4 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? In section 4 B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? In section 4 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. In section 4 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** In Section 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? In section 4 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? In section 4 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? We report the mean results In section 4. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. Left blank. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

wang-etal-2023-kga

{KGA}: A General Machine Unlearning Framework Based on Knowledge Gap Alignment

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.740

Recent legislation of the {``}right to be forgotten{''} has led to the interest in machine unlearning, where the learned models are endowed with the function to forget information about specific training instances as if they have never existed in the training set. Previous work mainly focuses on computer vision scenarios and largely ignores the essentials of unlearning in NLP field, where text data contains more explicit and sensitive personal information than images. In this paper, we propose a general unlearning framework called KGA to induce forgetfulness. Different from previous work that tries to recover gradients or forces models to perform close to one specific distribution, KGA maintains distribution differences (i.e., knowledge gap). This relaxes the distribution assumption. Furthermore, we first apply the unlearning method to various NLP tasks (i.e., classification, translation, response generation) and propose several unlearning evaluation metrics with pertinence. Experiments on large-scale datasets show that KGA yields comprehensive improvements over baselines, where extensive analyses further validate the effectiveness of KGA and provide insight into unlearning for NLP tasks.

# Kga: A General Machine Unlearning Framework Based On Knowledge Gap Alignment Lingzhi Wang1,2, Tong Chen3, Wei Yuan3**, Xingshan Zeng**4, Kam-Fai Wong1,2**, Hongzhi Yin**3 1The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China 2MoE Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies, China 3School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland 1,2{lzwang,kfwong}@se.cuhk.edu.hk 3{tong.chen,w.yuan,h.yin1}uq.edu.au, 4zxshamson@gmail.com ## Abstract Recent legislation of the "right to be forgotten" has led to the interest in machine unlearning, where the learned models are endowed with the function to forget information about specific training instances as if they have never existed in the training set. Previous work mainly focuses on computer vision scenarios and largely ignores the essentials of unlearning in NLP field, where text data contains more explicit and sensitive personal information than images. In this paper, we propose a general unlearning framework called KGA to induce forgetfulness. Different from previous work that tries to recover gradients or forces models to perform close to one specific distribution, KGA maintains distribution differences (i.e., knowledge gap). This relaxes the distribution assumption. Furthermore, we first apply the unlearning method to various NLP tasks (i.e., classification, translation, response generation) and propose several unlearning evaluation metrics with pertinence. Experiments on large-scale datasets show that KGA yields comprehensive improvements over baselines, where extensive analyses further validate the effectiveness of KGA and provide insight into unlearning for NLP tasks1. ## 1 Introduction Nowadays, machine learning models are usually trained with large volumes of data collected from individual users. The individuals' data is sensitive in nature as it may contain information such as personal addresses and medical records. Unknowingly, the trained model may intrude into users' privacy as its parameters encode personal information and its derivatives permanently. Therefore, Machine Unlearning (MU) (Romero et al., 2007; Karasuyama and Takeuchi, 2009; Cao and Yang, 2015) has attracted more and more interest in research and industry, which aims to facilitate the 1The code is available at https://github.com/ Lingzhi-WANG/KGAUnlearn. model to forget some specific data in training set while maintaining the performance of the existing model. Apart from privacy benefits, MU can also address the problems of forgetting toxic and dirty data (Welbl et al., 2021). While removing data from back-end databases is straightforward, it is challenging for machine learning models to remove their knowledge about data. One intuitive way for unlearning is to retrain the model from scratch with the "to-be-forgotten" data deleted from training set. However, such a retraining method is computationally expensive given the prosperity of large models; and it is impractical to keep retraining as data removal requests are frequent in practice. Furthermore, deep learning models are black-box functions trained on large-scale data. Since the relationship between the model weights and the data is unclear, it is difficult to know which parts of the weights should be revised in unlearning. Therefore, there is a pressing need to develop an efficient unlearning method. Existing research in machine unlearning mainly focuses on computer vision applications, e.g., image classification (Golatkar et al., 2020a,b; Mehta et al., 2022), and less attention has been paid to unlearning in the natural language processing (NLP) field, where text data contains more explicit and sensitive personal data (e.g., home address, phone number, social relationships, etc.) than images. Moreover, the current unlearning can only efficiently handle a small number of data removal requests (Bourtoule et al., 2021)while the removal requests in NLP applications may be hundreds. Besides, current gradient-computation-based unlearning methods(Mehta et al., 2022) are difficult to be applied in the NLP generation models, which are usually based on Seq2Seq framework and contain complex attention mechanisms between words that are generated in different time stamps. Considering the significance and challenges of unlearning in NLP, we propose KGA - a generic machine unlearning method based on Knowledge Gap Alignment, and apply KGA to NLP tasks. KGA is inspired by a general knowledge adaptation work (Khan and Swaroop, 2021), where weights and function-space priors are adopted to reconstruct the gradients of the model. Compared to Khan and Swaroop (2021) which is a generic solution to adaptation tasks including data removal but difficult to scale up to complex neural networks, our method KGA focuses on data removal from the perspective of knowledge gap alignment and is easily generalizable to deep networks. The knowledge gap in this work is defined as the distance between the prediction distributions from two structurally identical models trained with different data. By aligning knowledge gaps, we force two sets of models behave similarly. Besides, unlike existing unlearning methods that can only handle a small set of removal requests (Bourtoule et al., 2021), hold strong assumptions on model output (Chundawat et al., 2022), or are inapplicable to complex generation tasks (Mehta et al., 2022), KGA can efficiently handle a large number of removal requests with sustainable accuracy, and is easily compatible to various models and tasks with milder assumptions. Furthermore, we apply KGA to various NLP tasks (i.e., classification, translation and response generation) and customize text-specific evaluation metrics. The experimental results and further analyses from various aspects show that our KGA generally performs better than baselines in terms of performance maintenance and unlearning efficiency, while maintaining consistency across different scenarios and models. Interesting explorations on how the model translates German to English before and after unlearning are given to better validate and analyze the effectiveness of unlearning. In brief, the main contributions of this paper are: - We propose an unlearning solution (i.e., KGA) based on knowledge gap alignment for NLP tasks that can efficiently and effectively perform unlearning. - Experiments on three large-scale datasets with newly formulated text-specific evaluation metrics validate the effectiveness of KGA. - We conduct extensive experiments and analyses to confirm the effectiveness of KGA unlearning across different scenarios. ## 2 Related Work The current unlearning research can be divided into two categories, exact unlearning and approximate unlearning. We briefly introduce them as follows. Exact Unlearning. Exact unlearning can ensure the effects of data to be deleted are removed from the model. Cao and Yang (2015) explores exact unlearning by the statistical query for Naive Bayes Classifiers and Ginart et al. (2019) studies deletion algorithms for k-means clustering, which cannot scale to deep neural networks which may have millions of parameters. As for more recent efforts in neural model unlearning, Bourtoule et al. (2021) propose a general method called SISA to train the model by partitioning the original dataset into several non-overlapping shards first and then designing effective mechanisms to aggregate models trained with shards. When handling data deletion, this method only has to retrain the models trained with the affected shards. However, SISA-based methods are shown to be ineffective when the number of deleting queries is large, and we have to maintain the whole dataset during the training and unlearning, which is impractical. Approximate Unlearning. The methods in this category try to make the model behave as closely as possible to the exact unlearned model. The popularity of approximate unlearning comes from the demand for more efficient and less costly unlearning, thus sacrificing exactness. Golatkar et al. (2020a); Guo et al. (2019); Koh and Liang (2017); Mehta et al. (2022) mainly handle an unlearning request by computing the model perturbation towards the regularized empirical risk on the remaining data. However, this approach needs to compute the Hessian on the training data and the gradient of the removal data, which is still time-consuming. (Chundawat et al., 2022) assumes that the models after unlearning should perform similarly to a randomly initialized model on the forgetting data, which is inappropriate as the target of unlearning is to remove the effects of the forgetting data (acts as unseen data) rather than to make the model unable to handle forgetting data. However, existing knowledge adaptation methods either require strong assumptions or perform poorly on neural-based models (Khan and Swaroop, 2021). Different from the aforementioned works, KGA does not force the model to perform on forgetting data close to one specific distribution but rather it maintains the distribution differences (i.e., knowledge gap) between two model pairs. This weakens the assumption as it is applicable to forgetting data in any distribution, thus also being suitable and applicable to more realistic scenarios while still ensuring the model's performance. ## 3 Notations And Definition Notations. We denote Z as an example space, i.e., the space of data instances or samples. Then, the set of all possible training datasets can be denoted as Z∗ = 2Z. The training data set D ∈ Z∗ is given as input. Given D, we train an ML model from a hypothesis space H. The process of training a model on data set D is enabled by a learning algorithm, denoted by a function A : Z∗ → H. The trained model is denoted as A(D). Then we denote the unlearning mechanism as a function U, which takes a training dataset D ∈ Z∗, a forget set Df ⊂ D (containing data to be removed) and a model A(D) as input, and returns an unlearned model U(D, Df , A(D)) ∈ H. Approximate Unlearning Definition. We then give one representative definition of approximate unlearning, specifically ϵ−*Approximate Unlearning* by following Guo et al. (2019). Given ϵ > 0, an unlearning mechanism U performs ϵ−certified removal for a learning algorithm A if *∀T ⊂ H*, D ∈ Z∗, Df ∈ D: $$e^{-\epsilon}\leq{\frac{P r(U(D,D_{f},A(D))\in{\mathcal{T}})}{P r(A(D\setminus D_{f})\in{\mathcal{T}})}}\leq e^{\epsilon}$$ ϵ(1) and the goal of approximate unlearning can be concluded as forgetting the data to be forgotten while maintaining the performance. ## 4 Our Kga Framework KGA unlearning method is inspired by a general knowledge adaptation work (Khan and Swaroop, 2021), where weights and function-space priors are adopted to reconstruct the gradients of the model. Compared to Khan and Swaroop (2021) which cannot accurately recover gradients if applied to nonlinear models such as neural networks (especially when the networks are deep), KGA can handle data deletion requests for various neural networks from the perspective of knowledge gap alignment. ## 4.1 Kga Framework The input to KGA can be divided into two parts: data and models. The input data consists of previous training data D, data to be forgotten Df , and a small set of extra data Dn to assist the unlearning, where Dn ∩ D = ∅. Apart from data, we have model A(D) as input, which is the original model trained with data D that needs unlearning (we abbreviate it as AD in the following parts of this paper). The output of KGA is a model A∗, whose parameters are initialized with AD and are further updated with our KGA unlearning mechanism to remove Df . To perform unlearning, we first train two models, An and Af , based on data Dn and Df , respectively. The architectures of AD, An, and Af should be the same. An (Af ) can be trained with the combination of Dn (Df ) and a small fraction of Dr = D \ Df or fine-tuned based on some pre-trained language models to ensure performance, as the data to be forgotten Df might be small in some scenarios. We reframe and summarize two goals to achieve the approximate unlearning defined in Sec. 3. They are *Goal 1*: Make our output model A∗'s behavior on Df similar to its behavior on any unseen data (i.e. data not used for training); and *Goal 2*: Maintaining the performance of A∗ on Dr. Knowledge Gap Alignment. The *knowledge* gap in this work is defined as the distance between the prediction distributions from two models having the same architecture but trained with different data. By aligning two knowledge gaps, we make two sets of models perform similarly. To achieve Goal 1, the output distribution of our target model A∗ on data Df (noted as A∗(Df )) is expected to be similar to AD(Dn), where Dn should be an external set to D but with the similar distribution. As the instances in Dn might have different labels and features from Df , it is difficult to directly infer the output distributions of A∗(Df ) with AD(Dn). We thus turn to imitate the knowledge gap between two sets of models: A ∗ = arg min A|dis(Dn)(AD, An) − dis(Df )(*A, A*f )| (2) where dis(D)(A1, A2) indicates the difference of the output distributions between model A1 and A2 on data D, which can be evaluated by KL divergence, Bregman divergence, or any other distributional distance measurements. Since An and Af are trained on Dn and Df , respectively, we expect that the knowledge gap when feeding Df to A∗and Af should be similar to feeding Dn to AD and An according to Eq. 2. This is under the assumption that a similar knowledge deficit can be observed when the same architecture handles the seen (i.e., used for training) and unseen data with a similar distribution. And we believe that a successful unlearning method should make the target model A∗ handle Df as unseen data. For Goal 2, we maintain the ability of model A∗ when processing the remaining data, i.e., Dr. We treat the original model AD as a teacher and directly minimize the distance of output distributions when feeding samples in Dr to A∗and AD. Objectives. In our implementation, we use KLdivergence to measure the distributional distances between the output of two models. Therefore, the knowledge gap alignment objective is defined as: $$\begin{split}\mathcal{L}_{a}=\sum_{(y,z)\in(D_{f},D_{n})}|KL[Pr_{(A^{*})}(y)||Pr_{(A_{f})}(y)]\\ -KL[Pr_{(A_{D})}(z)||Pr_{(A_{n})}(z)]|\end{split}\tag{3}$$ where P r(A)(z) is the output distribution given input z to model A, KL(a|b) measures the KL divergence between distribution a and b. y and z are from Dn and Df , respectively. We randomly sample pairs of instances (*y, z*) as a batch of updating to alleviate overfitting to some specific samples. The objective for maintaining performance on Dr is another KL divergence measuring output distribution of A∗and AD on Dr: $${\mathcal{L}}_{r}=\sum_{x\in D_{r}}K L[P r_{(A^{\ast})}(x)||P r_{(A_{D})}(x)]$$ The two objectives are jointly optimized during unlearning to achieve Goal 1 and 2 simultaneously. Therefore, the final objective is defined as: $${\mathcal{L}}={\mathcal{L}}_{a}+\alpha\cdot{\mathcal{L}}_{r}$$ L = La + α · Lr (5) To improve unlearning efficiency, we need to find the earliest time when the model A∗achieves the desired performance during unlearning. However, different from traditional machine learning algorithms, it is hard for us to find a suitable validation set to validate the performance, as Df is also included in the training process. To handle this, we use a hyper-parameter σ (0 *< σ <* 1) to control the training. Specifically, we will first evaluate the average knowledge gap between dis(Dn)(AD, An) and dis(Df )(AD, Af ) (AD should be the initialization of A∗) before training, noted as G. The training stops if the corresponding average knowledge gap achieves σ · G. We summarize KGA in Alg. 1. Algorithm 1 KGA Unlearning Input: data D, Df , Dn, trained model AD, threshold σ Output: unlearned model A ∗ Train model Af based on Df , model An based on Dn Compute initial gap G Initialize A ∗ with AD for step in 1 to MAX_STEP do Randomly sample a batch size of (*y, z*) from (Df , Dn) Compute La based on Eq. 3 for inner_step in 1 to INNER_STEP do Sample a batch size of sample x from Dr = D\Df Compute Lr based on Eq. 4 end for Update parameters of A ∗according to La + α · Lr if step % VALID_STEP == 0 **then** Compute current gap G ∗ if G ∗ ≤ σ · G **then** break ▷ End of Training  end for ## 4.2 Kga'S Applications In Nlp Tasks We do not constrain the format of model A(·) as our proposed unlearning method is generic and can be applied to various of neural network architectures. We choose three NLP tasks (i.e., text classification, machine translation, and response generation) to show the effectiveness of our unlearning method. $${}^{(4)}$$ Text Classification. The text classification tasks take the text sentences as input and output a probability distribution over the predefined classes. We follow Mehta et al. (2022) and finetune a pretrained model DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019) for the text classification. A DistilBERT is a distillation version of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) model that contains multiple transformer encoder layers to extract features. Its input is formulated as wc = [[CLS]; w1; w2; ..; w|C|]. The output representation of the [CLS] token is further fed into a classifier to derive the probability for each class. Machine Translation. The machine translation tasks take a sentence in one language as input and output the corresponding translation in another language. We follow the general transformer-based encoder-decoder framework, where the encoder summarizes the source sentences and the decoder will generate the target sentences based on source representations in an autoregressive manner. Apart from transformer, we also validate the effectiveness of our unlearning method in other architecture including LSTM and pretrained language model BART (Lewis et al., 2020). | LEDGAR | IWSLT | PersonaChat | | |----------------------|---------------------------|---------------|--------| | Task | classification generation | generation | | | # of instances | 110,156 | 168,905 | 81,032 | | Avg length of source | 108.9 | 19.4 | 142.1 | | Avg length of target | - | 20.6 | 11.9 | | # of labels | 13 | - | - | Response Generation. Both the response generation and machine translation are generation tasks, whose target is to generate texts according to the given source content. In response generation, the given source content is the conversation between two talkers and it is expected to predict the content of the next response. The model for generation is similar to that of machine translation, and we concatenate the utterances in context as input. ## 5 Experimental Setup Datasets. We do experiments on three datasets, LEDGAR (Tuggener et al., 2020), IWSLT14 German-English (Cettolo et al., 2014) (henceforth IWSLT) and PersonaChat (Zhang et al., 2018). LEDGAR is a multi-label text classification dataset of legal provisions in contracts, and we employ a prototypical subset of LEDGAR by following Mehta et al. (2022). IWSLT is from a popular translation campaign consisting of various translation directions and we choose the representative GermanEnglish direction. PersonaChat is a crowd-sourced dataset. It consists of turn-based dialogues that are based on given persona information. We use the official train/valid/test splits for experiments on all three datasets. Statistics of these datasets are listed in Table 1. Evaluation Metrics. For each dataset, we report one representative task-related score (Micro F1 for LEDGAR, BLEU42for IWSLT and PPL for PersonaChat) with additional unlearning evaluation metrics which are introduced as below. Jensen–Shannon Divergence (JSD): Given two distributions p(x) and q(x), JSD(p(x), q(x)) = 0.5 ∗ KL(p(x)||q(x)) + 0.5 ∗ KL(q(x)||p(x)). Language model Probability Distance (LPD): Given two language probabilities (i.e., the perplexity of target sentences produced by each model) x and y, *LP D*(x||y) = |x − y|/y. Proportion of instances with Decreased Language model Probability (PDLP): It calculates the 2sacrebleu (https://github.com/mjpost/sacrebleu). percentage of the instances whose language model probability has dropped after unlearning. Parameter Setting. For LEDGAR, we finetune DistilBERT for experiments. For IWSLT and PersonaChat, we both use a general encoder-decoder transformer architecture. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) optimizer followed by the inverse square root learning rate scheduler for model training. During KGA unlearning, we maintain 16 batch size and 5e-5 learning rate for all three datasets, and we set α in Eq. 5 as 0.1. For more parameter and training details, please refer to Appendix A. Comparisons. We compare the performance of our KGA method on test set and forget set with the ORIGINAL model, two exact unlearning methods (i.e., RETRAIN and SISA (Bourtoule et al., 2021)) and two approximate methods, LCODEC (Mehta et al., 2022) and BADTEACHER (Chundawat et al., 2022). We introduce them as follows: O**RIGINAL**: the original model trained on the complete training set D without any forgetting. R**ETRAIN**: It retrains the model with the retain data Dr (Dr = D \ Df ). SISA (Bourtoule et al., 2021): It first divides the dataset into several non-overlapping shards, and then aggregates outputs of the models trained with different shards. When dealing with data deletion, it only retrains the models trained with the affected shards and then aggregates. In our experiments, we randomly divide the training set into 5 shards. L**CODEC** (Mehta et al., 2022): It's in line with Hessain unlearning (updating the model weights based on the Hessian of the loss function) and identifies a subset of model parameters to reduce the computation cost. It is applied in classification and might need modification when used in generation. BADT (Chundawat et al., 2022): It forces the unlearning model to perform as close as a randomly initialized model on the forget set Df and maintain the performance on the remaining data Dr. ## 6 Experimental Results In this section, we first compare the main unlearning scores of KGA and baselines in §6.1. Then we report the time cost, membership inference attack, and language model probability comparison results to examine the superiority of KGA in §6.2. After that, we delve into the effect of unlearning on NLP tasks in §6.3. More analyses are discussed in §6.4. | Test Set | Forget Set | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|-------|--------------------|--------------------|-------------|------|------|------|--------|--------|--------|------| | Models | LEDGAR | IWSLT | PersonaChat LEDGAR | IWSLT | PersonaChat | | | | | | | | | F1 | JSD↓ BL4 LPD↓ PPL↓ | LPD↓ | F1 | JSD↓ BL4 LPD↓ PPL↓ | LPD↓ | | | | | | | | | ORIGINAL | 96.1 | - | 29.0 | - | 30.7 | - | 98.2 | - | 47.2 | - | 15.6 | - | | RETRAIN | 96.2 | - | 28.6 | - | 30.8 | - | 95.5 | - | 31.5 | - | 29.5 | - | | Exact SISA(Bourtoule et al., 2021) | 95.5 | 0.08 | 21.3 | 0.85 | 44.2 | 0.52 | 94.6 | 0.05 | 21.6 | 0.80 | 43.1 | 0.56 | | Approximate LCODEC(Mehta et al., 2022) | 95.8 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | 99.3 | 0.06 | - | - | - | - | | BADT(Chundawat et al., 2022) 96.0 | 0.03 | 28.1 | 0.30 | 32.7 | 0.25 | 17.1 | 3.69 | 0.00 | 1.9e 3 | 5.8e 4 | 4.3e 3 | | | KGA | 96.0 | 0.06 | 28.4 | 0.28 | 32.1 | 0.20 | 96.4 | 0.05 | 29.4 | 0.91 | 29.4 | 0.52 | | Table 2: Main comparison results (in %) of unlearning on three datasets. JSD and LPD scores here are calculated | | | | | | | | | | | | | ## 6.1 Main Comparison Results We explore the representative scores on both test and forget sets to examine the following two questions: (i) How well do the unlearned models maintain the performance on test set? (ii) How does the performance change on forget set that was once part of the original training set? We report the corresponding scores on Table 2, and we can draw the following observation. - *Our unlearning method can better maintain* the performance on test set. It can be seen that KGA shows better F1, BLEU4, and PPL on three datasets, respectively, compared to other unlearning baselines, regardless of exact or approximate method. This shows one of the superiority of KGA over other methods. - The performance and prediction distribution of our KGA unlearned model on forget set are closer to RETRAIN *model.* We can see that on forget set, KGA method gets a closer F1 (BLEU4 and PPL) score to RETRAIN model and maintains a smaller JSD (LPD) score, which means the output distribution of instances on forget set is also closer to RETRAIN model. It indicates that KGA achieves the best forgetting effect among all baselines according to the definition in Eq. 1. - Forgetting the data from original model does not mean the unlearned model can not handle these instances at all. We can find that the performance of RETRAIN on forget set drops compared to ORIG-INAL model but still shows promising performance (close to the results on test set). This is in line with our assumption that the performance of successful unlearned models on forget set should be similar to unseen data (e.g., test set). Our KGA method's | ReTrain SISA LCODEC BadT KGA 0 | 2000 4000 6000 8000 | Models | F1 | FNR | |----------------------------------|-----------------------|----------|------|-------| | ORIGINAL | 87.7 | 0.13 | | | | RETRAIN | 70.9 | 0.21 | | | | SISA | 71.0 | 0.23 | | | | BADT | 84.1 | 0.13 | | | | KGA | 75.6 | 0.18 | | | (a): Run Time (in sec) performance is consistent with RETRAIN, while BADT completely loses the ability to classify and generate, which does not satisfy the definition. ## 6.2 More On The Superiority Of Kga In this subsection, we examine the efficiency (i.e., time cost) and effect (i.e., membership attack and language model probability check) of unlearning. Time Cost. We report the time cost of unlearning models in Fig. 1(a). We can see that though retraining and exact unlearning methods (i.e., SISA) can guarantee perfect unlearning, the time cost of them exceeds other approximate unlearning methods (i.e., LCODEC, BadT, KGA) a lot. Membership Inference Attack. (MiA) MiA in the machine learning setting emerges when an adversary aims to find out whether the target data instance is used to train the model or not. We follow Salem et al. (2018); Golatkar et al. (2020b) to do a black-box MiA where the adversary can only get access to the model output distribution. We use MiA on IWSLT dataset as an example. We first train a shallow translation model with data from the same distribution as the original training set (we Models **Test Set Forget Set** IWSLT PersonaChat IWSLT PersonaChat RETRAIN 51.0(-) 48.7(-) 96.0(-) 96.0(-) SISA 77.9(↑26.9) 80.0(↑31.3) 100(↑4.0) 100(↑4.0) BADT 72.2(↑21.2) 71.9(↑23.2) 100(↑4.0) 100(↑4.0) KGA 58.4(↑7.4) 70.0(↑21.3) 94.0(↓2.0) 98.7(↑2.7) Table 3: Proportion of Decreased Language model Probability (PDLP) comparison results on IWSLT and PersonaChat datasets. The numbers in parentheses refer to the difference in performance from RETRAIN model. simplify it to using 30% instances of the original training set in practice). The data in the training set of shallow model is labeled as "1" and other unseen data (i.e., the rest of the original training set) is labeled as "0". Then we train an attacker model with the above "1/0" labeled data using output distributions of the trained shallow model as input. After that, we feed the attacker model with the output of unlearned models (i.e., RETRAIN, KGA, etc.) and check the MiA results. We report the MiA results in Fig. 1(b), where a higher F1 score and lower False Negative Rate (FNR) indicate the attacker can better infer the membership of instances. We can see that the attacker performs best on the ORIGINAL and performs worse after unlearning, as desired. Among the unlearned models, we can also find that attacker can not infer the membership well after *exact unlearning* (i.e., RETRAIN and SISA). As an *approximate unlearning* method, KGA's results are close to exact unlearning, which shows its effectiveness. Decreased Language Model Probability Comparison. Apart from the language model distance we report in §6.1, we also evaluate a new unlearning evaluation score for generation tasks, namely, Proportion of Decreased Language model Probability (PDLP) compared to the original model. Decreased language model probability of ground truth target sequence means that the unlearned model tends not to generate the sentences to be forgotten, which is consistent with the goal of unlearning. We report the PDLP comparison results of both test and forget sets in Table 3. From the results of RETRAIN model, we can see that the instances in test set have a steady fluctuation (i.e., about 50% PDLP) after RETRAIN unlearning while the instances in forget set show a large language model probability drop (i.e., 96% PDLP) which indicates that the unlearning of forget set works. We can easily find that our KGA unlearning method performs closest    ## 6.3 Analysis Of Unlearning In Nlp Most of the previous work on unlearning explores the unlearning effect on computer vision tasks with less attention to NLP tasks, especially the generation tasks. Here we design two NLP-specific experiments and raise some interesting discussions. ## Deleting Instances With Various Difficulty Levels. Here we investigate if our unlearning method can handle forgetting instances with different difficulty levels on translation task. We use BLEU to measure the difficulty of instances, where a higher BLEU score indicates the instance is easier for the current model. To prepare 5 sets of instances with various difficulty levels, we adopt the ORIGINAL model to do the inference on instances in the training set, then we sort them by their BLEU score on the generated sentences. We split the training set into 5 fragments based on the BLEU and each chooses 100 instances as forget set. After that, we apply our KGA unlearning to them separately. We report the unlearned results in Fig. 2. Fig. 2(a) shows the BLEU scores of ORIGINAL model and unlearned models (i.e., RETRAIN and KGA) on forget sets (5 sets with different BLEU ranges). We can easily find that unlearning causes certain performance drop on forget set in RETRAIN while our KGA gets performance gains on R1 and R2 sets. It may be due to the fact that KGA tends to force the performance of forget data to be close to unseen data regardless of the BLEU ranges. Therefore, after KGA unlearning, low-performing instances might get a boost while high-performing ones get degraded. From Fig. 2(b), we surprisingly find that performance on test set after RETRAIN is even better than ORIGINAL model when forgetting the extremely easy instances (i.e., R5, while R1 | Index Source | Target | ORIGINAL | RETRAIN | KGA | | |-----------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|-------|------| | 1 | Schwester | sister | sister | Nurse | Girl | | 2 | Layma | und | ihre | | | | Schwestern | hatten | | | | | | genug davon. | Layma and her sisters Layma and her sisters | Layma and nurses had | Lamyma and her nurses | | | | had had enough. | had enough of them. | enough of them. | had enough. | | | | 3 | Alle lebenden weißen Tiger in Nordamerika sind das Ergebnis selektiver Inzucht - also Mutter und Sohn, Vater und Tochter, Schwester und Bruder... All living white tigers in North America are the result of selective inbreeding - that would be mother to son, father to daughter, sister to brother... All living white tigers in North America are the result of selective inbreathing - so mother and son, father and daughter, sister and brother... All living white tigers in North America are the result of selective breeding - mom and son, father and daughter, nurse and brother ... All living white tigers in North America are the result of selective inbreeding - so that's Mom and son, father to daughter, daughter to brother... | | | | |  is slightly higher which might be due to random effects), which is probably because the extremely easy instances take little effect to boost model performance. This observation also inspires one further application of unlearning - Unlearning some specific data points could bring performance gains. We leave it to our future exploration. ## Unlearning Instances Containing Specific Words. Unlike classification tasks, where we can remove all data of one specific label to explore the effectiveness of unlearning, translation tasks and most of the generation tasks do not contain such simple labels to categorize instances exactly. Therefore, we turn to select instances containing some specific words in translation task to analyze the output before and after unlearning. For example, we delete all instances containing the word "sister" in the target sequence, resulting in an unlearned model which is expected to forget the word "sister". Table 4 presents the output of the original model and the unlearned models for three cases. We can see that the unlearned models cannot generate "sister" anymore after deleting all the instances containing "sister" from the training set. However, the unlearned models are capable of finding the nearest alternatives to make sentences as smooth as possible, like "nurse" and "girl". A similar phenomenon can be found when the deleted | Base Models | BLEU4 on Test Set | Forget Set | | | |---------------|---------------------|--------------|------|------| | ORIGINAL | KGA | LPD | PDLP | | | LSTM | 26.4 | 25.3 | 0.95 | 98.0 | | Transformer | 29.0 | 28.4 | 0.91 | 94.0 | | BART-Base | 34.3 | 33.1 | 0.87 | 96.0 | Table 5: Comparison results of different base models when adopting KGA unlearning on IWSLT dataset. words are verbs or adjectives, regardless of word frequencies. More examples about verb and adjective deleting can be found in Appendix B. ## 6.4 Further Analyses The effects of removal numbers. We investigate how unlearned models maintain the performance on test set and forget the information of forget set when dealing with varying removal numbers, and present the results in Fig. 3. From Fig. 3(a), we can see that the RETRAIN model can maintain the performance on test set when handling different numbers of removals, which means it is not sensitive to the size of the deleted data. And KGA can maintain the performance when removing no more than 200 conversations (about 2000 instances), while SISA can not perform well even if the removal number is small. Fig. 3(b) shows the LPD between RETRAIN and KGA on forget set. We can find that KGA maintains low LPD when the removal number grows, which indicates KGA performs consistently well on forgetting the selected data. The effects of base model. We further show the unlearning results when KGA is applied to different model structures. Apart from vanilla transformer, we here also experiment on LSTM and BART (a pretrained language model). Table 5 shows the results. As can be seen, KGA maintains a similar percentage of performance drop on test set using different structures, and achieves similar LPD and PDLP scores on forget set, which indicates that KGA is effective regardless of the model structure. ## 7 Conclusion This paper proposes KGA, a general approximate machine unlearning framework and explores its application in several NLP tasks. KGA leverages the distribution differences between two sets of models to make the unlearned model perform on forgetting data like its unseen data. Experiments on three large-scale datasets and further experiments validate the effectiveness of KGA. ## Limitations One of the biggest concern people may have is whether approximate unlearning forget the information of the removal data. Approximate unlearning can not ensure exact removal of information already learned in deep neural models, just as its name suggests. Considering that current exact unlearning methods are very time-consuming and hard to apply in practical applications, approximate unlearning is still a direction worth trying and is also effective in reducing the attack risks by attackers or mitigating the harm of toxic data. Another limitation of this work lies in the fact that we have to maintain an extra data set Dn and two models Af and An in the process of unlearning. Though the extra cost of our KGA method is trivial compared to the previous work (e.g., Bourtoule et al. (2021) has to maintain the entire training set), we have to point this limitation out and call for follow-up research to come up with better ways to reduce unlearning costs. Besides, we only explore word-level translation unlearning effect by comparing the generated sentences before and after deleting instances with specific words due to the space limitation. More interesting experiments with different granularity can be discussed in future work to explore how unlearning method works in different NLP tasks. ## Ethics Statement We do not foresee any significant harm directly as a result of this work. On the contrary, our work promotes the protection of user privacy, which is significant, especially in this era that large amounts of personal data are used by neural models. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their feedback and suggestions. This research work is partially supported by CUHK under Project No. 4730332, Australian Research Council under the streams of Future Fellowship (No. FT210100624), Discovery Project (No. DP190101985), and Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (No. DE230101033). ## References Lucas Bourtoule, Varun Chandrasekaran, Christopher A Choquette-Choo, Hengrui Jia, Adelin Travers, Baiwu Zhang, David Lie, and Nicolas Papernot. 2021. Machine unlearning. In *2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)*, pages 141–159. IEEE. Yinzhi Cao and Junfeng Yang. 2015. Towards making systems forget with machine unlearning. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 463–480. IEEE. Mauro Cettolo, Jan Niehues, Sebastian Stüker, Luisa Bentivogli, and Marcello Federico. 2014. Report on the 11th iwslt evaluation campaign. In *Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Spoken* Language Translation: Evaluation Campaign. Vikram S Chundawat, Ayush K Tarun, Murari Mandal, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2022. Can bad teaching induce forgetting? unlearning in deep networks using an incompetent teacher. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2205.08096. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Antonio Ginart, Melody Guan, Gregory Valiant, and James Y Zou. 2019. Making ai forget you: Data deletion in machine learning. *Advances in neural* information processing systems, 32. Aditya Golatkar, Alessandro Achille, and Stefano Soatto. 2020a. Eternal sunshine of the spotless net: Selective forgetting in deep networks. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 9304–9312. Aditya Golatkar, Alessandro Achille, and Stefano Soatto. 2020b. Forgetting outside the box: Scrubbing deep networks of information accessible from input-output observations. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 383–398. Springer. Chuan Guo, Tom Goldstein, Awni Hannun, and Laurens Van Der Maaten. 2019. Certified data removal from machine learning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03030. Masayuki Karasuyama and Ichiro Takeuchi. 2009. Multiple incremental decremental learning of support vector machines. *Advances in neural information* processing systems, 22. Mohammad Emtiyaz E Khan and Siddharth Swaroop. 2021. Knowledge-adaptation priors. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:19757– 19770. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. 2017. Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1885–1894. PMLR. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 7871–7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ronak Mehta, Sourav Pal, Vikas Singh, and Sathya N Ravi. 2022. Deep unlearning via randomized conditionally independent hessians. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10422–10431. Enrique Romero, Ignacio Barrio, and Lluís Belanche. 2007. Incremental and decremental learning for linear support vector machines. In *International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks*, pages 209–218. Springer. Ahmed Salem, Yang Zhang, Mathias Humbert, Pascal Berrang, Mario Fritz, and Michael Backes. 2018. Ml-leaks: Model and data independent membership inference attacks and defenses on machine learning models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01246*. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 15(1):1929– 1958. Don Tuggener, Pius von Däniken, Thomas Peetz, and Mark Cieliebak. 2020. LEDGAR: A large-scale multi-label corpus for text classification of legal provisions in contracts. In *Proceedings of the Twelfth* Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 1235–1241, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Johannes Welbl, Amelia Glaese, Jonathan Uesato, Sumanth Dathathri, John Mellor, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Kirsty Anderson, Pushmeet Kohli, Ben Coppin, and Po-Sen Huang. 2021. Challenges in detoxifying language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07445. Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204–2213, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Details Of Experimental Setup Parameter Setting and Training. Apart from the brief description in §5, we give more experimental details here. The DistilBERT we used for LEDGAR contains 6 transformer encoder layers each with 768 dimensions and 3072-dimensional feed-forward networks, resulting in 67M parameters. The transformer models used for IWSLT and PersonaChat are of the same size, i.e., containing 6 encoder and decoder layers each with 512 dimensions and 1024-dimensional feed-forward networks, with a total parameter amount of 91M. For the LSTM and BART-Base models we use in §6.4, the model sizes are 40M and 251M, respectively. The LSTM model contains 2 layers of encoder and decoder respectively, with 512 hidden size. The BART-Base model has 6 layers of 768-dimensional encoder and decoder, where we follow Lewis et al. (2020) to add new sets of encoder parameters before the pretrained BART encoder. This results in total 10 encoder layers (i.e., we add 4 layers). We use one NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPU to train our model. When training the original model, the batch size is selected from {16, 32, 64}, and the final choices are 32 for LEDGAR and IWSLT, and 16 for PersonaChat, with an update frequency of 8. Learning rate is selected in {1e-3, 5e-4, 2e-4, 5e-5, 2e-5}, and we use 5e-5 for LEDGAR, 5e-4 for IWSLT, and 2e-4 for PersonaChat, respectively. Dropout strategy (Srivastava et al., 2014) with dropout rate selected in {0.1, 0.2, 0.3} (the final choice is 0.1 for LEDGAR, and 0.3 for IWSLT and PersonaChat) | Removal Source | Target | ORIGINAL | RETRAIN | KGA | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | become | Alle ihre Stimmen werden lauter und lauter, aber sie repräsentieren uns nicht. Every one of them becomes a louder and louder voice, but they don't represent us. All their voices become All | of | their | voices | | | louder and louder, but are getting louder and they don't represent us. louder, but they don't represent us. All | their | voices | are | | | | louder and louder, but they don't represent us. | | | | | | | become | und | diese | Koordina | | | | tion | riskiert, | noch | | | | | schwieriger zu werden mit der Einführung von Cyberwaffen. And this coordination may become even trickier with the introduction of cyber weapons. And this coordination And this coordination And that coordination, may become even more risk to be even more difficult with the introduction of cyber weapons. even harder to get into difficult to become with cyber weapons. the introduction of cyber weapons. | | | | | | | become | Anstelle des Treffens besserer Entscheidungen, werden wir von der Auswahl überwältigt manchmal macht sie uns sogar Angst. Instead of making better choices, we become overwhelmed by choice, sometimes even afraid of it. Instead of making better choices, we'll be overwhelmed by choice, sometimes even afraid. Instead of meeting better decisions, we get overwhelmed by choice, sometimes it makes us fearful. Instead of the meeting of better choices, we're even afraid of choice. | | | | | | fresh | Wir | reden | hier | | | | über | gute, | frische | | | | | Lebensmittel, | die | in | | | | | unglaublichem Ausmaß verschwendet werden. We're | talking | about | | | | | good, fresh food that is being wasted on a colossal scale. We're | talking | about | | | | | good, fresh food that's being used in incredible scale. We're | talking | about We're | talking | about | | | good, new food that's good foods that's going used in incredible scale. to be used in the incredible order of scale. | | | | | | | fresh | Wir | brauchen | einen | | | | neuen | Standard | für | | | | | ordentliches | frisches | | | | | | Essen für eure Kinder. Ja? There needs to be a new standard of fresh, proper food for your children. Yeah? We need a new standard We need a new standard We need a new set of for decent fresh food for for proper new food for clean food for your kids. your kids. Yes? your kids. Right? Yes? | | | | | | | fresh | Ich glaube dass hier Well, I think there are I | think | there's | two I think there are two new I believe that there's two | | | zwei frische Ideen drin two fresh things here - freshest ideas in here - ideas in it - two. | new ideas - two. | | | | | | sind - zwei. | two fresh things. | two fresh water. | | | | | energy | Sie werden unübertroffene Vitalität und Energie gewinnen. You'll have unsurpassed They're unsurprising vitality and energy. They're | won't | win | | | | vitality and energy. | overblown vitality and power. It's | become | overcon | | | | ducted | vitality | and | | | | | power. | | | | | | | energy | Also habe ich gedacht, And so I thought, how So I thought, how do we So I thought, how can So I thought, how do we wie wir die Energiekrise could we address the energy crisis in this country? deal with the energy crisis in this country? we deal with the power deal with the crisis in in diesem Land bewältigen können? crisis in this country? this country? | | | | | | energy | Energiepflanzen liefern Energy | crops | deliver Energy | crops | deliver Power plants provide | | ein | halbes | Watt | pro half a watt per square half a watt per square half watts per square | | | | Quadratmeter | in | eu | | | | | ropäischem Klima. | meter in European climates. meter in European climates. meter in the European climate. power | plants | deliver | | | | half a watt per square meter in European climates. | | | | | | and L2 regularization with 0.0001 effect value are used to alleviate overfitting. During inference in generation tasks, the beam size is set to 5. All the above hyper-parameters are selected based on the performance of validation set. Unlearning Setting. The removal numbers are set to 100 instances for LEDGAR and IWSLT, and 10 conversations (about 100 instances) for PersonaChat unless otherwise noted. We set the stopping hyper-parameter σ to 0.1. ## B More Translation Unlearning Cases Table 6 shows more cases when deleting all instances containing specific words, including "become" (verb), "fresh" (adjective), and "energy" (noun). We can find that unlearned models (i.e., RE-TRAIN and KGA) tend to generate alternatives with similar meanings regardless of the part of speech. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract, Introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 5 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? 5 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? 5 ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? 5 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 5 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 5 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 6 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 5, Appendix ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 6, Appendix ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

xi-etal-2023-unicorn

{U}ni{C}o{RN}: Unified Cognitive Signal {R}econstructio{N} bridging cognitive signals and human language

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.741

Decoding text stimuli from cognitive signals (e.g. fMRI) enhances our understanding of the human language system, paving the way for building versatile Brain-Computer Interface. However, existing studies largely focus on decoding individual word-level fMRI volumes from a restricted vocabulary, which is far too idealized for real-world application. In this paper, we propose fMRI2text, the first open-vocabulary task aiming to bridge fMRI time series and human language. Furthermore, to explore the potential of this new task, we present a baseline solution, UniCoRN: the Unified Cognitive Signal ReconstructioN for Brain Decoding. By reconstructing both individual time points and time series, UniCoRN establishes a robust encoder for cognitive signals (fMRI {\&} EEG). Leveraging a pre-trained language model as decoder, UniCoRN proves its efficacy in decoding coherent text from fMRI series across various split settings. Our model achieves a 34.77{\%} BLEU score on fMRI2text, and a 37.04{\%} BLEU when generalized to EEG-to-text decoding, thereby surpassing the former baseline. Experimental results indicate the feasibility of decoding consecutive fMRI volumes, and the effectiveness of decoding different cognitive signals using a unified structure.

# Unicorn: Unified Cognitive Signal Reconstruction Bridging Cognitive Signals And Human Language Nuwa Xi, Sendong Zhao∗ , Haochun Wang, Chi Liu, Bing Qin and Ting Liu Research Center for Social Computing and Information Retrieval, Harbin Institute of Technology, China {nwxi,sdzhao,hcwang,cliu,bqin,tliu}@ir.hit.edu.cn ## Abstract Decoding text stimuli from cognitive signals (e.g. fMRI) enhances our understanding of the human language system, paving the way for building versatile Brain-Computer Interface. However, existing studies largely focus on decoding individual word-level fMRI volumes from a restricted vocabulary, which is far too idealized for real-world application. In this paper, we propose fMRI2text, the first openvocabulary task aiming to bridge fMRI time series and human language. Furthermore, to explore the potential of this new task, we present a baseline solution, UniCoRN: the Unified Cognitive Signal ReconstructioN for Brain Decoding. By reconstructing both individual time points and time series, UniCoRN establishes a robust encoder for cognitive signals (fMRI & EEG). Leveraging a pre-trained language model as decoder, UniCoRN proves its efficacy in decoding coherent text from fMRI series across various split settings. Our model achieves a 34.77% BLEU score on fMRI2text, and a 37.04% BLEU when generalized to EEGto-text decoding, thereby surpassing the former baseline. Experimental results indicate the feasibility of decoding consecutive fMRI volumes, and the effectiveness of decoding different cognitive signals using a unified structure. ## 1 Introduction Language serves as a window into the cognitive processes unfolding within our minds, communicating a vast amount of information through its syntax and semantics (Pagel, 2017). Advances in cognitive neuroscience have enabled us to directly observe the cognitive processes that underlie language use through the analysis of non-invasive cognitive signals, such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalogram (EEG). However, this also poses a challenge in understanding the relationship between these signals and the external stimuli that give rise to them ∗Corresponding author within the mind. Deciphering cognitive signals into human language not only enhances our grasp of the linguistic system, but also facilitates the development of practical brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) by leveraging our comprehension of decoded signals (Wolpaw, 2007; Mudgal et al., 2020). Although brain decoding has gained great success from word-level to sentence-level decoding on EEG (Panachakel and Ramakrishnan, 2021; Wang and Ji, 2022), relatively little research has been dedicated to directly generating text, particularly complete sentences, from fMRI volumes. This is largely attributed to the challenges posed by the relatively low temporal resolution of fMRI, which makes it challenging to acquire word-level fMRI frames within a sentence. In this study, we propose fMRI2text, the first open-vocabulary task that decodes fMRI time series into the corresponding texts under naturalistic settings. Despite the early efforts in fMRI decoding (Mitchell et al., 2008; Palatucci et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2020; Zou et al., 2021), these methods are limited in the ways that they: (1) primarily rely on predefined regions of interest (ROIs) for feature extraction, underutilizing the rich spatial data inherent in full fMRI volumes. This may oversimplify the complex, distributed nature of cognitive processes (Ruiz et al., 2014). (2) do not effectively leverage the sequential information embedded in fMRI time series, missing valuable insights into the dynamics of cognitive processes (Du et al., 2022). (3) prioritize the role of the decoder while overlooking the importance of efficient encoding, particularly for high-dimensional signals like fMRI. These limitations extend beyond fMRI decoding and apply to other cognitive signal decoding methods as well. To address these issues and obviate the need for separate, complex pipelines to decode specific cognitive signals, we propose UniCoRN (Unified Cognitive signal ReconstructioN for brain decoding), a versatile brain decoding pipeline that can be applied to various types of cognitive signals. As a standard encoder-decoder framework, UniCoRN leverages the robust decoding abilities of pre-trained language models. Crucially, it constructs an effective encoder through both snapshot and series reconstructions, harnessing the power of seq2seq models. This allows UniCoRN to analyze individual signal "snapshots" (such as a single fMRI volume or an EEG time point) and capture the "series" or temporal dependencies among these snapshots, thus maximizing the information extracted from the cognitive signals. In summary, our contributions are as follows: - We introduce a novel task, designated as fMRI2text, which is the first open-vocabulary task that decodes fMRI time series into human language in a naturalistic context. - We present a baseline solution to further elucidate the potential of fMRI2text and demonstrate that our proposed method is effective across various split settings. - We propose a unified framework UniCoRN (Unified Cognitive signal ReconstructioN for brain decoding) to translate cognitive signals into human language, and validate its effectiveness on both EEG and fMRI. ## 2 Related Work Cognitive Signals Cognitive signals represent the dynamic neural activity associated with information processing and cognitive functions, and are crucial in building BCI systems (Mudgal et al., 2020). These signals are captured at individual time points or as part of a time series, with each data point providing a snapshot of brain activity at a specific point in time. While EcoG is often used in high-performance BCI systems (Akbari et al., 2019; Rapeaux and Constandinou, 2021; Metzger et al., 2022), its semi-invasive nature limits its potential for widespread application in healthy individuals. In non-invasive BCI systems, EEG is most commonly used due to its high temporal resolution and cost-effectiveness, while other techniques such as fMRI have also been employed in recent years (Saha et al., 2021; Martinek et al., 2021; Pitt and Dietz, 2022). In spite of its relatively lower temporal resolution, fMRI allows for the mapping of brain-wide responses to linguistic stimuli at a highly detailed spatial resolution of millimeters (Vouloumanos et al., 2001; Noppeney and Price, 2004; Binder et al., 2009). This makes fMRI particularly ideal for BCI systems that translate brain signals into text, a process that involves the participation of multiple brain regions (Ruiz et al., 2014). Brain Decoding Recent research has been directed towards resolving the issue of decoding cognitive signals into human language through the introduction of new multi-modal tasks and models. Most recently-proposed tasks in this field focus on aligning cognitive signals with a limited vocabulary up to a thousand for word-level decoding (Bhattasali et al., 2019; Affolter et al., 2020; Défossez et al., 2022) or incorporating them into sentence embeddings for sentence-level decoding using pairwise classification (Pereira et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2019). Wang and Ji introduce a novel brain decoding task called EEG-To-Text decoding (EEG2text for short), which achieves sentence-level decoding by converting each word-level EEG signal into corresponding text stimuli using pre-trained language models, thereby extending the problem from a closed vocabulary to an open vocabulary. ## 3 Task Definition As shown in Figure 1, the subject is instructed to read or listen to the text stimuli, while an fMRI volume is acquired every fixed repetition time (TR). Given an fMRI time series of length T , F := {f1, f2*, ..., f*T }, the task is to decode the corresponding text tokens W := {w1, w2*, ..., w*n} of the stimuli used during the acquisition of the fMRI volumes from an open vocabulary V. As mentioned in Section 2, many studies have aimed to link cognitive signals with human language. We summarize three related tasks and compare them to fMRI2text in Table 1. The three representative tasks share a common characteristic of relying on cognitive signals that operate at the word level. However, this approach may not be practical for real-world fMRI applications, as the poor temporal resolution of fMRI necessitates tightly controlled experimental manipulations under these settings (Nastase et al., 2020; Hamilton and Huth, 2020). In contrast, fMRI2text leverages cognitive signals from more naturalistic settings, using text and speech as stimuli in a manner closer to real-world language use (Huth et al., 2016). Here, each fMRI frame corresponds to a specific timeframe, and is aligned with an undetermined number of tokens rather than a fixed one,  | Task Name | Input | Target | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | Open Vocabulary | a sequence of word-level EEG | the corresponding text tokens | | EEG-To-Text Decoding | features E := {e1, e2, ..., en} | W = {w1, w2, ..., wn} | | an fMRI image F and a | | | | sentence W := {w1, w2, ..., < mask >, ..., wn}, where the corresponding word is masked | | | | fMRI-Conditioned Mask-Filling | the word masked in sentence W W := {w1, ..., wk, ..., wm} where the corresponding word is contained | | | fMRI-Conditioned Text | an fMRI image F and a prefix | | | Generation | W′ := {w1, w2, ..., wk} | | | a fixed-length sequence of T chronically consistent fMRI F := {f1, f2, ..., fT } | | | | Open Vocabulary | | | | fMRI2text Decoding | the correspondent text tokens W := {w1, w2, ...wn} | | better reflecting the variable and dynamic nature of natural language processing. Another distinct feature that differentiates fMRI2text from prior fMRI-related tasks is its incorporation of multiple sequential frames as input. The inherent low signal-to-noise ratio of fMRI has directed prior studies towards a focus on individual frames. However, this approach overlooks the valuable temporal information embedded within the interrelations of successive frames, which is particularly crucial when dealing with continuous data streams such as cognitive signals. ## 4 Method In this section, we introduce the UniCoRN structure and use the fMRI2text task as an explicit demonstration. As shown in Figure 2, UniCoRN consists of two stages: (1) the cognitive signal reconstruction to train the encoder specifically for cognitive signals, and (2) the cog2text decoding to convert the embeddings of the cognitive signals from the first stage to human language. ## 4.1 Cognitive Signal Reconstruction The cognitive signal reconstruction consists of two phases, snapshot reconstruction and series reconstruction, aiming to train the encoder of UniCoRN to integrate the individual characteristics of each fMRI volume (intra-volume information), as well as the temporal relationships among volumes in a time series (inter-volume information). As shown in Figure 2, during the snapshot reconstruction, each fMRI frame is input into the Snapshot Encoder Er (E*reconstruction*) respectively to obtain the snapshot embedding Ei, which will be used later for series reconstruction. In our case, we use a CNN-based model similar to Malkiel et al. (2021) as the Snapshot Encoder. During this phase, Eiis then fed to the Snapshot Decoder Dr (D*reconstruction*) to reconstruct the original fMRI frame fk (The k-th frame in fMRI time series). Note that Dr is also CNN-based but simpler than 13279  Er in structure, to ensure that the reconstruction of fMRI snapshots does not mostly rely on the decoding ability of Dr. We use mean average error (MAE) as the loss function for both phases of cognitive signal reconstruction. *Phase 1* can be formulated as follows: $$\begin{array}{c c}{{}}&{{E_{k}^{i}={\mathcal{E}}_{r}(f_{k})}}\\ {{}}&{{}}\\ {{{\mathcal{E}}_{r}=\operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\mathcal{E}}\operatorname*{MAE}({\mathcal{D}}_{r}({\mathcal{E}}_{r}(f_{k})),f_{k})}}\\ {{}}&{{}}\\ {{}}&{{{\mathcal{E}}}}\end{array}\quad\mathrm{(2)}$$ E During *Phase 2*, Series Encoder Es (E*serialized*) takes the snapshot embedding Ei of T sequential fMRI frames to generate the corresponding serialized embedding Ee. We use multi-layer transformer encoder (Vaswani et al., 2017) as Es to obtain information in time domain by applying self-attention to fMRI series. Serialized embedding Eeis then input into the same decoder as *Phase 1* for series reconstruction. We continue using Dr as the decoder to keep minimal effect of decoding process to signal reconstruction, as we will only be using Er and Es in the next stage. Denote $\{E^{e}_{k},E^{e}_{k+1},...,E^{e}_{k+\mathcal{T}-1}\}$ as $E^{e}_{k\sim\mathcal{T}}$, $\{E^{i}_{k},E^{i}_{k+1},...,E^{i}_{k+\mathcal{T}-1}\}$ as $E^{i}_{k\sim\mathcal{T}}$. $$E^{e}_{k\sim\mathcal{T}}=\mathcal{E}_{s}(E^{i}_{k\sim\mathcal{T}})\tag{3}$$ $$\mathcal{E}_{s}=\operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\mathcal{E}}\operatorname{MAE}(\mathcal{D}_{r}(\mathcal{E}_{s}(E^{i}_{k\sim\mathcal{T}})),E^{i}_{k\sim\mathcal{T}})\tag{4}$$ ## 4.2 Cog2Text Decoding The motivation of cognitive signal reconstruction is to get a decent representation of fMRI, which is quite so different from and more difficult than EEG since each fMRI frame has more spatial information as a 3D signal. Similar to Wang and Ji (2022), we use this representation as primary word embeddings for language models, except that these embeddings have been denoised and condensed through reconstruction. The high-level idea here is that we consider each original frame of fMRI as a word-level representation of "the foreign language spoken by the human brain", and use the encoder constructed in Section 4.1 to obtain the embeddings of this "language", which will be then decoded to real human language (English in our case) like traditional machine translation tasks. Figure 2 gives a detailed demonstration of how fMRI embedding is acquired and how the two stages are concatenated together. After the two phases of cognitive signal reconstruction, the decoder Dr used in stage one is replaced with the fMRI-Text decoder Dt (D*translation*) for text generation. The serialized embeddings Eeare then projected into fMRI embedding E as the final representation of fMRI, which contains both intra-volume information and inter-volume information and will be used as the input for Dtto convert to texts. Here we use BART (Lewis et al., 2019) as the fMRIText decoder Dt and cross-entropy loss (CE) like most seq2seq tasks as the training target. Denote {Ek, Ek+1*, ..., E*k+T −1} as Ek∼T , and the projection layer matrix as WP . $$\begin{array}{c}{{E_{k\sim\mathcal{T}}=E_{k\sim\mathcal{T}}^{e}W^{P}}}\\ {{\mathcal{D}_{t}=\operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\mathcal{D}}\operatorname{CE}(\mathcal{D}(E_{k\sim\mathcal{T}}),\mathcal{W})}}\end{array}$$ D ## 4.3 Unicorn Structure Other than fMRI, UniCoRN is also capable of decoding other cognitive signals into human language. We generalize the same pipeline to EEG2text, without changing the overall structure but only moderately modifying the snapshot encoder Er and snapshot decoder Dr due to the difference in spatial structure between EEG and fMRI. The detailed illustration is provided in Appendix D. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Dataset The "Narratives" dataset (Nastase et al., 2021) encompasses a range of fMRI data from individuals who were engaged in listening to spoken stories in the real-world setting. Given that various fMRI machines produce frames of different sizes, and considering the "Narratives" dataset comprises data from multiple machines, we focus solely on data with dimensions of 64 × 64 × 27 voxels. The detailed information of the "Narratives" dataset we used in this paper is provided in Appendix C. Most cognitive signals require pre-processing before putting into use. For fMRI, We follow the same pre-processing procedure as provided in Nastase et al. (2021). As for EEG, we use the same waves as in Wang and Ji (2022) for comparison. Given that the "Narratives" dataset does not offer any pre-determined splits and the appropriate | Split Method | Test Set | |------------------|-------------------------------------| | ij | ij | | random | {F k∼T |F k∼T ̸∈ FT r} ij j | | random time | {F k∼T |∀j, k /∈ T T r} | | consecutive time | {F k∼T |∀j, ∀t ∈ T ij T r, t < k} j | | by stimuli | {F k∼T |j ̸∈ CT r} ij ij | | by subject | {F k∼T |i ̸∈ ST r} | $$(5)$$ $$(6)$$ method for splitting fMRI data for this task is a matter of debate, we conduct experiments utilizing a variety of different split configurations. Denote all subjects as S := {S1, S2*, ..., S*n}, all stimuli as C := {C1, C2*, ..., C*m}, where n and m stands for the total number of subjects and stimuli respectively. Note that the total number of stimuli given to individual subjects may vary. The fMRI series of subject Si receiving stimuli Cj is represented as F ij := {f ij 1 , fij 2 , ..., fij Tj}. Tj here represents the total number of fMRI frames of stimuli j. For briefings, we use F ij k∼T to represent the fMRI series of length T starting at the k th frame {f ij k , fij k+1*, ..., f*ij k+T −1}. Different split methods are formulated in detail in Table 2. As for EEG2text, We use ZuCo1.0 datasets (Hollenstein et al., 2018), which comprises EEG recordings obtained from natural reading tasks, including both Normal Reading (NR) and Task-Specific Reading (TSR). The reading materials utilized for these tasks were sourced from movie reviews (Socher et al., 2013) and Wikipedia articles. The ZuCo1.0 dataset comprises a total of 1,107 unique sentences across 12 subjects, yielding a total of 10,258 samples. Given the limited number of training samples, we utilize a split method similar to the *random* method described above. ## 5.2 Implementation Our model utilizes the Pytorch-based (Paszke et al., 2019) Huggingface Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) packages and is designed to reconstruct sequences with a length of 5 for fMRI2text and 10 for EEG2text in *Phase 2*. Additional hyperparameters can be found in Appendix A. Both datasets are split into train, validation, *test* sets with a ratio of 70%, 15%, 15% respectively. We follow the same evaluation strategy as Wang and Ji (2022) to establish a fair comparison and gain insights into the optimal performance scenario of UniCoRN. The | Method | BLEU-N (%) | ROUGE-1 (%) | | | | | | |------------------|--------------|---------------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | BLEU-1 | BLEU-2 | BLEU-3 | BLEU-4 | F | P | R | | | random | 65.64 | 52.51 | 44.96 | 39.74 | 60.74 | 63.63 | 58.44 | | random time | 62.90 | 49.00 | 40.59 | 34.77 | 59.52 | 62.65 | 56.91 | | consecutive time | 28.21 | 9.23 | 4.27 | 1.83 | 21.88 | 25.84 | 19.12 | | by stimuli | 26.29 | 6.66 | 2.26 | 0.53 | 23.72 | 30.74 | 19.40 | | by subject | 66.10 | 52.32 | 43.78 | 37.78 | 62.68 | 66.06 | 59.88 | Method BLEU-N (%) **ROUGE-1 (%)** BLEU-1 BLEU-2 BLEU-3 BLEU-4 **F P R** 1 39.16 9.62 3.47 1.09 11.00 12.74 10.38 3 25.17 9.89 5.05 2.75 19.46 17.05 23.15 5 44.78 24.95 15.75 10.58 36.49 39.90 33.95 8 49.66 30.71 21.10 15.44 43.75 48.14 40.38 10 62.90 49.00 40.59 34.77 **59.52** 62.65 **56.91** 12 62.02 47.35 38.77 33.04 59.02 **63.09** 55.65 14 58.58 42.27 33.07 27.09 54.78 59.39 51.10 16 51.14 32.58 22.87 17.17 46.45 51.47 42.53 Table 3: Results of UniCoRN for fMRI2text on different split settings. Table 4: Results of UniCoRN for fMRI2text on different series length T . results reported are the average of three separate runs. All experiments were conducted on NVIDIA A100-80GB-PCIe GPUs. ## 5.3 Unicorn Structure For Fmri2Text fMRI2text across Different Splits We experiment with series length T of 10 and report the BLEU scores and ROUGE-1 scores for fMRI2text across different splits. As shown in Table 3, UniCoRN achieves fairly effective results across all splitting methods introduced in Section 5.1. Meanwhile, to have an intuitive grasp of the decoding quality, we present a few cases comparing the target tokens and the predicted tokens in Table 5. The experiments conducted under the *random*, random time, and *by subject* settings resulted in BLEU-4 scores of 39.74%, 34.77%, and 37.78% respectively. These results shed light on the prospect of fMRI2text when viewing it as a translation-like task, particularly in comparison to state-of-the-art results in machine translation, such as 46.40% for English-French translation as reported by Liu et al. (2020) and 15.20% for English-Arabic translation as reported by Provilkov et al. (2019). In contrast, the results obtained under the by stimuli and *consecutive time* settings are less so ideal. This may be attributed to the fact that the input fMRI frames do not correspond to a fixed and predetermined set of words. Consequently, the fMRI embeddings learned by the model may represent an imprecise combination of words rather than specific, individual words. Such variability might pose a challenge when the model encounters frames paired with unique word combinations unseen during training. Nonetheless, this does not preclude UniCoRN's ability to extract meaningful information under these conditions. As shown in Table 5, despite a decline in decoding quality under these two methods, UniCoRN is still successful in identifying key words within the text fragments, and maintains a semblance of polarity and structure that resonates with the target sentence. One thing to notice is that the results under the by subject split setting do not show a significant deviation from those under the *random* and random time settings. This contrasts with previous studies that relied on individual fMRI frames for decoding, which suggests that UniCoRN's incorporation of inter-volume information can mitigate the effects of inter-subject variability on decoding performance. Another interesting anomaly is that, despite that both the *random time* and *consecutive time* configurations have distinct text content across their train, *validation*, and cons*test* sets, the former setting performs significantly better than the latter. This discrepancy may be attributed to the robust | Split Method | T | Results | |------------------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | consecutive time | 10 | T: the policeman, um, he doesn't even say anything to Sherlock... P: and first, the, she just doesn't talk though Sherlock... | | by stimuli | 10 | T: I think it's some sort of mass hypnosis or something... P: and you a sort of the Younosis session something... | | random time | 1 | T: He woke up early the next morning P: I's up and morning other day | | random time | 3 | T: she put her arm through mine and squeezed it a little bit. P: I says her shoulder through mine and I it a little bit | | random time | 5 | T: Um, it was an extremely Darwinian moment for me, uh, because... P: I and, like best Darwinian moment for me, and, for... | Table 5: Case Analysis for fMRI2text. The target sentence is denoted as T, and the predicted sentence is represented by P. Text fragments in the target sentence to be compared are in **bold** font. Exact matches between the target and predicted sentences are indicated in **bold**, while semantic similarity is shown in *italic* font. (1) T: Stephen Rea, **Aidan Quinn**, and Alan Bates play Desmond's legal **eagles**...    (2) P: the **sight** of this grandiloquent Shet **lolling** in pretty Irish American is a lot enough **thing**  B: the real of this this asquent Shet filmolling's grand much American is a talented enough *film* decoding capabilities of BART, which effectively bridges the gap between frames that UniCoRN did not encounter during training. The above results demonstrate an intrinsic characteristic when interpreting the fMRI2text task as a translation-like endeavor. The fMRI time series of different subjects can be likened to the unique accent or speaking style that each individual possesses. While variations among individuals exist, they usually do not present significant challenges in discerning the overall meaning, especially when contextual information is provided. This analogy extends to the case of *random time* and *consecutive* time: when a non-native speaker attempts to comprehend a foreign language, the chances of comprehending key information increase significantly when interpretation can be made from a broader context, as opposed to deciphering a sentence without any foresight of what follows. Effect of Series Length T To further demonstrate the effectiveness of decoding fMRI by series, we conduct experiments on different series length T under *random time* split setting. As shown in  Table 4, the length of fMRI series does have a major impact on decoding results when T is relatively small. However, this impact seems to reach a plateau and might even turn adverse as T increases. Such trend could be attributed to the inherent limitations of the transformer model in effectively learning long-term dependencies. Meanwhile, although decoding results tend to be less optimal when T is small, experiments indicate that apart from frequently used phrases (such as catchphrases during pauses), UniCoRN can still decode semantically and syntactically similar tokens. This capability aligns with previous studies, affirming the feasibility of bridging fMRI and human language under naturalistic settings. ## 5.4 Unicorn Structure For Eeg2Text As shown in Table 7, the UniCoRN structure surpasses the former baseline on all metrics except when solely using snapshot reconstruction, which will be further discussed in Section 6. | Method | BLEU-N (%) | ROUGE-1 (%) | | | | | | |----------|--------------|---------------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | BLEU-1 | BLEU-2 | BLEU-3 | BLEU-4 | F | P | R | | | UniCoRN | 57.68 | 47.93 | 41.73 | 37.04 | 64.39 | 60.37 | 70.00 | | w/o p1 | 59.63 | 48.90 | 41.87 | 36.51 | 62.40 | 59.92 | 66.25 | | w/o p2 | 48.51 | 37.15 | 30.25 | 25.28 | 52.49 | 47.48 | 60.94 | | w/o p1p2 | 57.78 | 46.40 | 39.10 | 33.69 | 62.42 | 61.01 | 64.44 | | baseline | 54.02 | 44.93 | 39.09 | 34.65 | 58.78 | 52.75 | 67.87 | Table 7: Results of EEG2text ablation study. p1 and p2 stands for *Phase 1* and *Phase 2* respectively. Method BLEU-N (%) **ROUGE-1 (%)** BLEU-1 BLEU-2 BLEU-3 BLEU-4 **F P R** UniCoRN 62.90 49.00 40.59 34.77 **59.52 62.65 56.91** w/o p1 60.74 46.02 37.27 31.25 57.41 60.69 54.69 w/o p2 61.91 47.36 38.66 32.66 58.33 61.36 55.78 w/o p1p2 53.58 35.53 25.78 19.68 48.75 53.39 45.08 Table 8: Results of fMRI2text ablation study. p1 and p2 stands for *Phase 1* and *Phase 2* respectively. Here we take a closer look at the performance of UniCoRN on EEG2text in Table 6 and compare with the former baseline in Wang and Ji (2022). The results illustrate that UniCoRN outperforms the previous baseline in terms of capturing semantics and syntax in target tokens. Specifically, UniCoRN not only enhances the decoding accuracy of individual words but also maintains superior coherence in sentence structure, resulting in more fluent and comprehensible decoding outputs ## 6 Ablation Study To further validate the effectiveness of UniCoRN, we conduct ablation studies on both fMRI2text and EEG2text, to assess how the two phases of signal reconstruction affect the model's performance. As shown in Table 8, fMRI2text greatly benefits from both phases of fMRI reconstruction, resulting in an improvement of the BLEU score by approximately 20% when reconstruction is included. This indicates that for cognitive signals that are rich in spatial information like fMRI, it is important for the encoder to have a thorough understanding of these signals themselves, but not mainly rely on the ability of decoder. Comparatively, series reconstruction proves to be slightly more effective than snapshot reconstruction, which may be attributed to the nature of seq2seq tasks as the input of series reconstruction is more similar to that of cog2text decoding than snapshot reconstruction. Conversely, Table 7 shows a decline in overall metrics when only *Phase 1* is used for EEG2text. This could be attributed to the noise introduced by the snapshot reconstruction, which might potentially compromise the ability of the model to process EEG sequences - a crucial aspect for cognitive signals with high temporal resolution like EEG. However, this doesn't undermine the importance of snapshot reconstruction for such signals. As evident in the results, combining snapshot and series reconstruction increases the BLEU-4 score from 36.51% to 37.04%, suggesting an enhancement in the model's performance for predicting longer ngrams. Thus, while the impact may vary depending on the spatial and temporal resolution of different cognitive signals, integrating both phases generally enhances the model's overall performance by developing a more sophisticated encoder. ## 7 Conclusion In this paper, we introduce a novel open-vocabulary brain decoding task fMRI2text, aiming to decode linguistic stimuli from multiple fMRI frames collected under naturalistic conditions. Building upon this, we present UniCoRN, a two-stage framework that integrates both temporal and spatial aspects of cognitive signals through snapshot and series reconstruction. The efficacy of UniCoRN is validated under various split settings, illuminating the opportunities that this task provides. Furthermore, we adapt the framework to EEG2text, demonstrating its capacity to generate semantically and syntactically more accurate results, thereby introducing a fresh perspective to brain decoding tasks. ## Limitation The "Narratives" dataset provides a valuable fMRI resource, stimulated by language and obtained under naturalistic conditions. Further research opportunities can be pursued with the availability of more detailed datasets. For instance, comparative studies between instances of stuttering and nonstuttering in text stimuli can be conducted, as our experiments demonstrate that the model tends to retain frequently-used filler words (such as "um" and "like,") as a shortcut for higher accuracy. Meanwhile, the evaluation strategy applied for current research of open-vocabulary brain decoding presents an idealized condition and and serves as a starting point from which further exploration of how existing methods might perform under more real-world scenarios can commence. Although we use this setting for baseline comparison purposes and a testament to the feasibility of our fMRI2text task, additional tests under more practical conditions could be an essential step in future work, further elucidating the applicability and robustness of the methods. Furthermore, the structure of the snapshot encoder can be explored further, as exemplified by the use of transformer-based Vision Transformer (ViT) in Chen et al. (2022) for fMRI encoding. ## Ethical Considerations In this work, we introduce a new NLP task related to fMRI and a unified approach for decoding various types of cognitive signals into human language. We conduct our experiments on the public cognition datasets *Narratives* and *ZuCo1.0* with the authorization from the respective maintainers of the datasets. All experimental datasets involved have been de-identified by dataset providers and used for research only. ## Acknowledgements We express our sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their professional, insightful and constructive comments and gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Key R&D Program of China [2021ZD0113302]; and the National Natural Science Foundation of China [62206079]; and Heilongjiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [YQ2022F006]. ## References Nicolas Affolter, Beni Egressy, Damian Pascual, and Roger Wattenhofer. 2020. Brain2word: decoding brain activity for language generation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2009.04765. Hassan Akbari, Bahar Khalighinejad, Jose L Herrero, Ashesh D Mehta, and Nima Mesgarani. 2019. Towards reconstructing intelligible speech from the human auditory cortex. *Scientific reports*, 9(1):874. Shohini Bhattasali, Murielle Fabre, Wen-Ming Luh, Hazem Al Saied, Mathieu Constant, Christophe Pallier, Jonathan R Brennan, R Nathan Spreng, and John Hale. 2019. Localising memory retrieval and syntactic composition: an fmri study of naturalistic language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(4):491–510. Jeffrey R Binder, Rutvik H Desai, William W Graves, and Lisa L Conant. 2009. Where is the semantic system? a critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. *Cerebral cortex*, 19(12):2767–2796. Zijiao Chen, Jiaxin Qing, Tiange Xiang, Wan Lin Yue, and Juan Helen Zhou. 2022. Seeing beyond the brain: Conditional diffusion model with sparse masked modeling for vision decoding. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2211.06956. Alexandre Défossez, Charlotte Caucheteux, Jérémy Rapin, Ori Kabeli, and Jean-Rémi King. 2022. Decoding speech from non-invasive brain recordings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.12266. Bing Du, Xiaomu Cheng, Yiping Duan, and Huansheng Ning. 2022. fmri brain decoding and its applications in brain–computer interface: A survey. *Brain Sciences*, 12(2):228. Liberty S Hamilton and Alexander G Huth. 2020. The revolution will not be controlled: natural stimuli in speech neuroscience. *Language, cognition and neuroscience*, 35(5):573–582. Nora Hollenstein, Jonathan Rotsztejn, Marius Troendle, Andreas Pedroni, Ce Zhang, and Nicolas Langer. 2018. Zuco, a simultaneous eeg and eye-tracking resource for natural sentence reading. *Scientific data*, 5(1):1–13. Alexander G Huth, Wendy A De Heer, Thomas L Griffiths, Frédéric E Theunissen, and Jack L Gallant. 2016. Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. *Nature*, 532(7600):453– 458. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461. Xiaodong Liu, Kevin Duh, Liyuan Liu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Very deep transformers for neural machine translation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07772*. Itzik Malkiel, Gony Rosenman, Lior Wolf, and Talma Hendler. 2021. Pre-training and fine-tuning transformers for fmri prediction tasks. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2112.05761. Radek Martinek, Martina Ladrova, Michaela Sidikova, Rene Jaros, Khosrow Behbehani, Radana Kahankova, and Aleksandra Kawala-Sterniuk. 2021. Advanced bioelectrical signal processing methods: Past, present and future approach—part ii: Brain signals. *Sensors*, 21(19):6343. Sean L Metzger, Jessie R Liu, David A Moses, Maximilian E Dougherty, Margaret P Seaton, Kaylo T Littlejohn, Josh Chartier, Gopala K Anumanchipalli, Adelyn Tu-Chan, Karunesh Ganguly, et al. 2022. Generalizable spelling using a speech neuroprosthesis in an individual with severe limb and vocal paralysis. Nature Communications, 13(1):1–15. Tom M Mitchell, Svetlana V Shinkareva, Andrew Carlson, Kai-Min Chang, Vicente L Malave, Robert A Mason, and Marcel Adam Just. 2008. Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns. *science*, 320(5880):1191–1195. Shiv Kumar Mudgal, Suresh K Sharma, Jitender Chaturvedi, and Anil Sharma. 2020. Brain computer interface advancement in neurosciences: Applications and issues. *Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery*, 20:100694. Samuel A Nastase, Ariel Goldstein, and Uri Hasson. 2020. Keep it real: rethinking the primacy of experimental control in cognitive neuroscience. *NeuroImage*, 222:117254. Samuel A Nastase, Yun-Fei Liu, Hanna Hillman, Asieh Zadbood, Liat Hasenfratz, Neggin Keshavarzian, Janice Chen, Christopher J Honey, Yaara Yeshurun, Mor Regev, et al. 2021. The "narratives" fmri dataset for evaluating models of naturalistic language comprehension. *Scientific data*, 8(1):1–22. Uta Noppeney and Catherine J Price. 2004. An fmri study of syntactic adaptation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4):702–713. Mark Pagel. 2017. Q&a: What is human language, when did it evolve and why should we care? BMC biology, 15(1):1–6. Mark Palatucci, Dean Pomerleau, Geoffrey E Hinton, and Tom M Mitchell. 2009. Zero-shot learning with semantic output codes. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 22. Jerrin Thomas Panachakel and Angarai Ganesan Ramakrishnan. 2021. Decoding covert speech from eega comprehensive review. *Frontiers in Neuroscience*, page 392. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. Francisco Pereira, Bin Lou, Brianna Pritchett, Samuel Ritter, Samuel J Gershman, Nancy Kanwisher, Matthew Botvinick, and Evelina Fedorenko. 2018. Toward a universal decoder of linguistic meaning from brain activation. *Nature communications*, 9(1):1–13. Kevin M Pitt and Aimee Dietz. 2022. Applying implementation science to support active collaboration in noninvasive brain–computer interface development and translation for augmentative and alternative communication. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 31(1):515–526. Ivan Provilkov, Dmitrii Emelianenko, and Elena Voita. 2019. Bpe-dropout: Simple and effective subword regularization. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13267*. Adrien B Rapeaux and Timothy G Constandinou. 2021. Implantable brain machine interfaces: first-in-human studies, technology challenges and trends. *Current* opinion in biotechnology, 72:102–111. Sergio Ruiz, Korhan Buyukturkoglu, Mohit Rana, Niels Birbaumer, and Ranganatha Sitaram. 2014. Realtime fmri brain computer interfaces: self-regulation of single brain regions to networks. *Biological psychology*, 95:4–20. Simanto Saha, Khondaker A Mamun, Khawza Ahmed, Raqibul Mostafa, Ganesh R Naik, Sam Darvishi, Ahsan H Khandoker, and Mathias Baumert. 2021. Progress in brain computer interface: Challenges and opportunities. *Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience*, 15:578875. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In *Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing*, pages 1631–1642. Jingyuan Sun, Shaonan Wang, Jiajun Zhang, and Chengqing Zong. 2019. Towards sentence-level brain decoding with distributed representations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7047–7054. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 30. Athena Vouloumanos, Kent A Kiehl, Janet F Werker, and Peter F Liddle. 2001. Detection of sounds in the auditory stream: event-related fmri evidence for differential activation to speech and nonspeech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(7):994–1005. Shaonan Wang, Jiajun Zhang, Haiyan Wang, Nan Lin, and Chengqing Zong. 2020. Fine-grained neural decoding with distributed word representations. *Information Sciences*, 507:256–272. Zhenhailong Wang and Heng Ji. 2022. Open vocabulary electroencephalography-to-text decoding and zero-shot sentiment classification. In *Proceedings* of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 5350–5358. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language* processing: system demonstrations, pages 38–45. Jonathan R Wolpaw. 2007. Brain-computer interfaces (bcis) for communication and control. In *Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility*, pages 1–2. Shuxian Zou, Shaonan Wang, Jiajun Zhang, and Chengqing Zong. 2021. Towards brain-to-text generation: Neural decoding with pre-trained encoderdecoder models. In NeurIPS 2021 AI for Science Workshop. ## A Implementation Details The hyperparameters for the experiments in this paper are shown in Table 9. | Task | Initial LR | Batch Size | Epoch | |--------|--------------|--------------|---------| | p1 | 1e-3 | 512 | 10 | | p2 | 1e-3 | 256 | 5 | | p3 | 1e-3 | 224 | 10 | | p1 | 1e-4 | 768 | 30 | | p2 | 5e-4 | 292 | 30 | | p3 | 1e-4 | 16 | 50 | Table 9: Hyperparameters used in this paper. ## B Notation Table The notation for the variables mentioned in this paper is presented in Table 10. ## C Details Of Dataset The detailed information of the "Narratives" datasets that are used for fMRI2text experiments in this paper is shown in Table 11. ## D Details Of Unicorn For Eeg2Text As depicted in Figure 3, the snapshot encoder Er begins by partitioning the original EEG signal into smaller patches. Subsequently, a multi-layer transformer encoder is utilized to analyze the connections between these patches. The resulting output of Er is then concatenated and transformed into a vector with a dimensionality of 1024, serving as the snapshot embedding. The subsequent steps in the process are analogous to those used in the fMRI2text scenario. ## E Case Analysis In this section, we present several cases from our ablation study in Table 12 for fMRI2text and Table 13 for EEG2text to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the variations in decoding quality and the impact of different phases. As demonstrated in Table 12, UniCoRN effectively decodes "key information" ranging from verbs (such as "swallowing" and "smiled") to nouns ("chocolate" in this example). Without the series reconstruction in *Phase 2*, the model still demonstrates the ability to decode some nouns, but its performance in predicting verbs is significantly impaired. The performance further deteriorates when the snapshot reconstruction in *Phase 1* is removed, although the model still retains sentence structure that is more similar to the target sentence than the model without *Phase 1* and *Phase 2*. In contrast, the differences in decoding quality are less pronounced in the case of EEG2text. Although UniCoRN is still able to decode some accurate information such as "Einstein" and "Soviet", it fails to correctly decode "physicist" like other methods, and instead generates "government". This discrepancy could be attributed to the fact that EEG signals are aligned at the word level, making the task of decoding EEG less challenging than fMRI2text and thus not showcasing the superiority of UniCoRN as much. Additionally, it could be attributed to UniCoRN's efficient encoder which allows for better utilization of pre-trained language models, since "government" might be mentioned more frequently in the context of "Soviet" than "physicist". | f k | the k th fMRI frame taken when subject i receives stimuli j | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | ij Sk | the subject indexed with k | | Ck | the stimuli indexed with k | | ij | the collection of all the fMRI frames acquired when subject i receives stimuli j | | F k∼T | the fMRI time series of length T starting at the k th frame | | ij | | | F FT r | the collection of the fMRI time series contained in the training set | | the collection of the index of the starting frames of the input fMRI time series from | | | j | | | T T r | stimuli j in the training set | | CT r | the collection of the index of the stimuli in the training set | | ST r | the collection of the index of the subjects in the training set | | Ei k | the snapshot embedding for the k th fMRI frame | | Ee k | the serialized embedding for the k th fMRI frame | | Ei k∼T | the snapshot embeddings for fMRI time series of length T starting at the k th fMRI frame | | Ee k∼T | the serialized embeddings for fMRI time series of length T starting at the k th fMRI frame | | Ek∼T | the fMRI embeddings for fMRI time series of length T starting at the k th fMRI frame | | Stimuli | Duration | TRs | Words | Subjects | |-----------------------------------------------|------------|---------|---------|------------| | "Pie Man" | 07:02 | 282 | 957 | 82 | | "Tunnel Under the World" | 25:34 | 1,023 | 3,435 | 23 | | "Lucy" | 09:02 | 362 | 1,607 | 16 | | "Pretty Mouth and Green My Eyes" | 11:16 | 451 | 1,970 | 40 | | "Milky Way" | 06:44 | 270 | 1,058 | 53 | | "Slumlord" | 15:03 | 602 | 2,715 | 18 | | "Reach for the Stars One Smal Step at a Time" | 13:45 | 550 | 2,629 | 18 | | "It's Not the Fall That Gets You" | 09:07 | 365 | 1,601 | 56 | | "Merlin" | 14:46 | 591 | 2,245 | 36 | | "Sherlock" | 17:32 | 702 | 2,681 | 36 | | "The 21st Year" | 55:38 | 2,226 | 8,267 | 25 | | Total | 3.1 hours | 7,424 | 29,174 | | | Total across subjects | 5.0 days | 228,169 | 887,924 | | Table 10: Notations for the main variables used in this paper. Table 11: Details of the "Narratives" dataset used in this paper. | Target Sentence | On his way to seat, while swallowing what was left of his chocolate, he smiled to himself. | |-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | UniCoRN | On the way to seat, while swallowing what was left hand his chocolate, Mr smiled to himself. | | w/o p1 | On his way he get, while the what was left with the lesson, Mr was to be. | | w/o p2 | What the way to the, while they what was left hand his chocolate, he'd to himself. | | w/o p1p2 | and the heart to the, while she what was saying hand the mother, Mr was to. Table 12: Case Analysis for fMRI2text ablation study. | | Target Sentence | Abram Joffe, a Soviet physicist who knew Einstein, in an obituary of Einstein, wrote... | |-------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | UniCoRN | Heram Joff, a Soviet government who wrote Einstein, in an Americanitken of Einstein, and, wrote... | | w/o p1 | Heram J. -, a Bachelor physicist who has Einstein, in a Academyitken of Win, was, wasH most... | | w/o p2 | Heram Jia (, a grades physicist of is Einstein, and an Americanitken of his, and, andB film... | | w/o p1p2 | Heram Joff about, a family physicist who was Einstein, in an Americanitken of an, in, NewC... | Table 13: Case Analysis for EEG2text ablation study.  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? the limitation section A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? the abstrct and section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 5 B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. The detailed of the datasets used for the paper is explicitly explained in the original dataset paper, which are cited in section 5 B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 5 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 5.2 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 5.2 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 5.2 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

shen-etal-2023-dense

Dense-{ATOMIC}: Towards Densely-connected {ATOMIC} with High Knowledge Coverage and Massive Multi-hop Paths

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.742

ATOMIC is a large-scale commonsense knowledge graph (CSKG) containing everyday if-then knowledge triplets, i.e., head event, relation, tail event. The one-hop annotation manner made ATOMIC a set of independent bipartite graphs, which ignored the numerous links between events in different bipartite graphs and consequently caused shortages in knowledge coverage and multi-hop paths. In this work, we aim to construct Dense-ATOMIC with high knowledge coverage and massive multi-hop paths. The events in ATOMIC are normalized to a consistent pattern at first. We then propose a CSKG completion method called Rel-CSKGC to predict the relation given the head event and the tail event of a triplet, and train a CSKG completion model based on existing triplets in ATOMIC. We finally utilize the model to complete the missing links in ATOMIC and accordingly construct Dense-ATOMIC. Both automatic and human evaluation on an annotated subgraph of ATOMIC demonstrate the advantage of Rel-CSKGC over strong baselines. We further conduct extensive evaluations on Dense-ATOMIC in terms of statistics, human evaluation, and simple downstream tasks, all proving Dense-ATOMIC{'}s advantages in Knowledge Coverage and Multi-hop Paths. Both the source code of Rel-CSKGC and Dense-ATOMIC are publicly available on \url{https://github.com/NUSTM/Dense-ATOMIC}.

## Dense-Atomic: Towards Densely-Connected A**Tomic** With High Knowledge Coverage And Massive Multi-Hop Paths Xiangqing Shen, Siwei Wu, and Rui Xia∗ School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, China {xiangqing.shen, wusiwei, rxia}@njust.edu.cn ## Abstract ATOMIC is a large-scale commonsense knowledge graph (CSKG) containing everyday *ifthen* knowledge triplets, i.e., {*head event*, relation, *tail event*}. The one-hop annotation manner made ATOMIC a set of independent bipartite graphs, which ignored the numerous links between events in different bipartite graphs and consequently caused shortages in knowledge coverage and multi-hop paths. In this work, we aim to construct Dense-ATOMIC with high knowledge coverage and massive multi-hop paths. The events in ATOMIC are normalized to a consistent pattern at first. We then propose a CSKG completion method called Rel-CSKGC to predict the relation given the *head event* and the *tail event* of a triplet, and train a CSKG completion model based on existing triplets in ATOMIC. We finally utilize the model to complete the missing links in ATOMIC and accordingly construct Dense-ATOMIC. Both automatic and human evaluation on an annotated subgraph of ATOMIC demonstrate the advantage of Rel-CSKGC over strong baselines. We further conduct extensive evaluations on DenseATOMIC in terms of statistics, human evaluation, and simple downstream tasks, all proving Dense-ATOMIC's advantages in Knowledge Coverage and Multi-hop Paths. Both the source code of Rel-CSKGC and Dense-ATOMIC are publicly available on https://github.com/ NUSTM/Dense-ATOMIC. ## 1 Introduction ATOMIC is a large-scale human-annotated commonsense knowledge graph focusing on the inferential knowledge in social life (Sap et al., 2019). It consists of nine *if-then* relation types describing the causes, effects, agent, stative, and theme of an event. The research on ATOMIC has drawn more and more attention in recent years. An increasing number of downstream tasks, including commonsense reasoning (Yu et al., 2022), storytelling (Brahman and Chaturvedi, 2020), question answering (Heo et al., 2022), dialog generation (Wu et al., 2022), etc., have improved their performances by acquiring and utilizing the commonsense knowledge from ATOMIC. Currently, ATOMIC was constructed under onehop annotations. It began with 24,000 pre-defined base events and nine relation types. For each base event and each relation, the annotators were asked to write a possible tail event based on one-hop reasoning. As shown in Figure 1, given the base event "X asks Y to marry", the annotated tail events can be "loving" under the relation of "xAttr", *"smiles"* under the relation of *"xEffect"*, and *"says yes"* under the relation of *"oEffect"*. In such a one-hop annotation manner, each base event and its related annotated tail events shape a bipartite graph containing only B-to-A links, where B denotes the Base event and A denotes the Annotated tail event. Thereby, the whole graph of ATOMIC can be viewed as a set of B-to-A bipartite graphs, while the B-to-B, A-to-B and A-to-A links between different bipartite graphs were almost ignored. In Figure 1, the dashed lines illustrate such missing links in ATOMIC, e.g., an annotated tail event *"in front of Y"* and a base event *"X asks Y to* marry" in two different bipartite graphs miss a link of the *"xIntent"* relation. This leads to two shortcomings of ATOMIC. Firstly, with only B-to-A links, ATOMIC contains very few multi-hop paths, since an annotated tail event cannot become the *head event* of a triplet. Secondly, missing B-to-B, A-to-B and A-to-A links cause unsatisfactory knowledge coverage, despite its high-quality human-annotated commonsense knowledge. Both shortcomings limit the potential of ATOMIC in practical applications. Intuitively, an ideal CSKG requires high knowledge coverage to meet the needs of various tasks, and massive multi-hop paths to understand the evolu- ∗*Corresponding author  ## Tion Between Different Events. In this work, we aim to construct a denselyconnected ATOMIC. The key is to complete different types of missing links, leading to denser ATOMIC with high knowledge coverage and massive multi-hop paths. We achieve this goal through three main steps: Normalizing Tail Events, Training a Relation Prediction Model and Constructing Dense-ATOMIC. Firstly, most of the annotated tail events in ATOMIC have different patterns to the base events, so we normalize annotated tail events in ATOMIC to a consistent pattern (*"Subject + Verb + Object"*), to facilitate subsequent CSKG completion. Specific relations are also grouped to mitigate ambiguity. Secondly, we train a relation prediction model based on a set of existing triplets in ATOMIC to infer the missing links on the whole graph, *i.e.*, CSKG completion upon ATOMIC. To the best of our knowledge, most of the existing studies for CSKG completion utilized the translation based methods, which formalized the CSKG completion as a *tail event* ranking task given the *head event* and the relation. A graph convolutional network (GCN) was mostly employed to encode the graph embeddings of events, but its performance is unsatisfactory since the sparsity of ATOMIC limits the information propagation on the GCN (Malaviya et al., 2020). In contrast, in this work, we propose a method called Rel-CSKGC, which regards CSKG completion as a relation prediction problem given the *head event* and the *tail event*, and accordingly train a CSKG completion model based on ATOMIC. Finally, based on the CSKG completion model, we construct Dense-ATOMIC by inferring the missing links on ATOMIC. Figure 1 illustrates the main differences between ATOMIC and Dense-ATOMIC. We conduct extensive evaluations towards the Rel-CSKGC method and the constructed DenseATOMIC, respectively. First, we compare Rel-CSKGC with several newly proposed relation prediction methods and translation based methods. Both automatic evaluation on an annotated subgraph and human evaluation on 500 sampled triplets show the advantage of Rel-CSKGC for completion on ATOMIC . Next, we evaluate Dense-ATOMIC from the perspectives of knowledge coverage and multi-hop paths respectively. Extensive experiments are conducted in terms of statistics, human evaluation, and simple downstream tasks. The results demonstrate that Dense-ATOMIC surpasses ATOMIC in terms of triplet counts by an order of magnitude, and multi-hop paths by more than two orders of magnitude, respectively, while at the same time maintaining its quality. ## 2 Approach Figure 2 illustrates the procedure of constructing Dense-ATOMIC, consisting of three main steps:  Normalizing Tail Events, Training a Relation Prediction Model, and Constructing Dense-ATOMIC. ## 2.1 Normalizing Tail Events ATOMIC contains only B-to-A triplets. A CSKG completion model trained with B-to-A triplets is inapplicable to predict B-to-B, A-to-A, and A-to-B links, since base events (usually sentences) and annotated tail events (usually phrases or words) have different patterns. This results in a shortage of knowledge coverage and multi-hop paths during the completion. To this end, we propose Normalizing Tail Events to convert annotated tail events to the same pattern as the base events, including subject removal, third person singular form conjugation, subject recovery, and relation grouping. Subject Removal For a few annotated tail events being complete sentences, we perform dependency tree parsing and part-of-speech tagging with CoreNLP (Manning et al., 2014) and remove subjects based on the two kinds of structure patterns, which makes the nodes in the graph become a uniform pattern and benefits the subject recovery process. For example, given a tail event "He smiles", we first remove the subject "He" and convert it to a universal expression "Y smiles" in the subject recovery process. ## Third Person Singular Form Conjugation In our preliminary experiments, a CSKG completion model tends to correlate phrases starting with *"to"* with relations such as "xWant", *"xIntent"*, so we leverage WordNet (Miller, 1995) to acquire the verb root and add the suffix (-s, -es, etc.) according to English grammar. Subject Recovery We add subjects to processed annotated tail events based on different relations. Relation Grouping Both *"xWant"* and *"xEffect"* describe the possible subsequent events, distinguished by *"to"* representing subject will. After third person singular form conjugation, the two relations may lead to ambiguity. We perform relation grouping for all these relations to mitigate ambiguity. *"xEffect"* and *"xWant"* form *"xAfter"* describing what will happen to X. *"oEffect"* and "oWant" form *"oAfter"* describing what will happen to Y. *"xAttr"* and *"xReact"* form *"xPersona"* describing *how X feels or is described*. It should be noted that the relation grouping process leads to a non-serious problem, i.e., the grouped relation cannot distinguish between subjective and objective semantics. However, it mitigates ATOMIC's sparsity issue and improves the performance of the relation prediction model. Due to the page limitation, the pseudo-code of normalizing tail events is present in Appendix A. It is worth noting that our normalization method resembles a prior work (Fang et al., 2021b,a). Their purpose is to align ATOMIC with other CSKGs, while we focus on event alignment in ATOMIC by eliminating differences among different events. ## 2.2 Training A Relation Prediction Model 2.2.1 Limitation Of Traditional Methods Traditional methods for the completion of ATOMIC proposed to score all candidate *tail events* given the *head event* and the relation. The GCN for encoding graph embeddings of events induced two shortcomings: 1) it is difficult for a GCN to propagate information due to the sparse graph structure of ATOMIC (Malaviya et al., 2020); 2) it cannot sufficiently utilize semantic information of events. ## 2.2.2 Our Rel-Cskgc Method To address these issues, we propose Rel-CSKGC, as illustrated in Figure 3. Specifically, ATOMIC is first decomposed into independent triplets, and then Rel-CSKGC predicts the relation given the head event and the *tail event* of a triplet. Rel-CSKGC utilizes no graph structure information thus avoiding the problem caused by the sparsity. Additionally, encoding both the *head event* and the *tail event* with the pretrained language model successfully takes advantage of semantic information.  Problem Formulation Given a CSKG G = (*N, V* ), where N is the set of nodes and V is the set of edges, we consider a single training instance as a triplet vi = (*h, r, t*) with the *head event* h, relation type r and the *tail event* t. Here, r ∈ V and *h, t* ∈ N. The objective of Rel-CSKGC is to predict the most reasonable r given h and t. 1 1To keep ATOMIC concise, we only predict the most reasonable relation in this work. Main Structure We utilize RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) to acquire contextual representations of freeform texts describing events. The input is the concatenation of h and t. We acquire the embedding matrix of h and t by: $$[H;T]=\mathrm{RoBERTa}([h;t])$$ $$(1)$$ where $H\in\mathbb{R}^{|N|\times D}$ and $T\in\mathbb{R}^{|N|\times D}$. $|N|$ is the where H ∈ R|N|×D and T ∈ R|N|×D. |N| is the number of tokens of the event, and D is the dimensionality of representation. We apply max pooling on H and T to acquire sentence embeddings eh and et. The objective function can be defined with trainable weights Wt ∈ R 1×D and Wc ∈ R K×2D: o = sigmoid(Wte<s>)+softmax(Wc(eh, et)) (2) where K is the number of relations and e<s> the embedding of <s>-token used as a indicator for whether h and t are related. Negative Sampling Rel-CSKGC requires negative samples to predict *unlinkable* links. We consider the following two strategies to construct negative samples: 1) **Random** negative sampling. For a gold triplet, we randomly select an event from normalized ATOMIC as the new *tail event* to replace the original *tail event*; 2) **Persona** negative sampling. Triplets under relations of *"xPersona"* and *"oPersona"* follow the pattern of *"Subject +* is + Adjective" and account for a large part in ATOMIC. Models tend to always predict *"xPersona"* or *"oPersona"* when the given tail event follows the pattern of *"Subject + is + Adjective"*. To alleviate this problem, we specifically construct negative samples by replacing the *tail event* of triplets under relations of *"xPersona"* and *"oPersona"* with a randomly-chosen event containing "is". ## 2.3 Constructing Dense-A**Tomic** Based on Rel-CSKGC, we train a relation prediction model with existing triplets in ATOMIC and then use the model to complete missing links in ATOMIC. We adopt threshold-based link prediction to decide whether two events are related and propose an intra-and-inter cluster completion strategy to reduce the cost of completing entire ATOMIC. Threshold-based Link Prediction Thresholdbased link prediction (TLP) is a heuristic strategy to decide whether a relation is acceptable according to the probability predicted by Rel-CSKGC. Different thresholds are specifically tuned for different relations. The model predicts the relation only if the final probability is above the corresponding threshold. TLP is used in all our models as the last step for the link acceptance decision. Intra-and-inter Cluster Completion Strategy Since it's computationally expensive to iterate over all pairs of *head* and *tail event*s during the inference, we design an intra-and-inter cluster completion strategy to trade off between the completion scale and the time complexity. In Figure 1, we consider each base event and its annotated tail events as a *cluster*. **Intra-cluster completion** infers missing links inside a cluster. Intuitively, annotated tail events in one cluster, written based on the same base event, are highly related and may contain more missing links. **Inter-cluster completion** infers missing links between different clusters. Annotated tail events in different clusters are written independently based on different base events, thus links between different clusters are under-explored. Due to the limited computing resource and time, we temporarily provide the results of 100 sampled clusters in this paper. Increasing the sampling size can further improve the scale of Dense-ATOMIC, but that will also linearly increases the computational cost. We will release versions with larger sampling sizes later. ## 3 **Evaluation Of Our Rel-Cskgc Method** In this section, we compare Rel-CSKGC with relation prediction and translation based methods by experimenting on a newly annotated subgraph and human evaluation. ## 3.1 Training And Test Set Construction Training Set with Negative Sampling Following Sap et al. (2019)'s split of ATOMIC, we randomly sample negative triplets from the training split with negative sampling strategies introduced in Section 2.2. We combine sampled negative triplets and the training split to construct the training set for Rel-CSKGC. The statistic of the training set is illustrated in Table 1. 2 | Atomic | Rand. Neg. Samples | Per. Neg. Samples | |:-------------------|:-------------------|:-------------------| | 463,264 | 1,890,350 | 756,140 | | $\phantom{\rule{0.033em}{0ex}}$ Table 1: Statistics of the training set for Rel-CSKGC. Test Set with Annotated Subgraph To test the performance of Rel-CSKGC, we construct a ground-truth subgraph by randomly sampling three clusters from the test split and annotating all pairs of *head event*s and *tail event*s with the most reasonable relation. The statistic of the annotated ground-truth subgraph is shown in Table 2. | Relation | Total | Intra | Inter | |------------|---------|---------|---------| | xAfter | 243 | 186 | 57 | | xNeed | 66 | 64 | 2 | | xIntent | 72 | 51 | 21 | | xPersona | 291 | 226 | 65 | | oAfter | 262 | 174 | 88 | | oPersona | 114 | 70 | 44 | | NoLink | 4234 | 2303 | 1931 | Table 2: Statistics of the annotated subgraph. Intra and Inter indicate the intra- and inter- cluster, respectively. ## 3.2 Compared Methods We select 4 baselines comprising two different types of CSKG completion methods and use the specific evaluation protocol for each of them. ## 3.2.1 Relation Prediction Methods Baselines We adapt **CE-random** (Li et al., 2016), a method augmenting CSKGs by scoring novel tuples, to predict the missing relation. We also compare **KG-BERT** (Yao et al., 2019), which probes the performance of relation prediction methods on knowledge graphs. Note that we replace BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) with RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) in KG-BERT for fair comparison. Evaluation Protocal Ranking metrics (HITS and Mean Reciprocal Rank) designed for translation based methods are not applicable to relation prediction methods. By valuing precision more than recall on CSKG completion, we utilize precision for the evaluation of relation prediction methods. ## 3.2.2 Translation Based Methods Baselines SynLink (Malaviya et al., 2020) proposed to densify the CSKG with synthetic links for better graph representation. **InductiveE** (Wang et al., 2021) introduced indutive learning on the CSKG by enhancing the unseen event representations with neighboring structure information. Evaluation Protocal To handle the evaluation mismatch between Rel-CSKGC and translation based methods, we designed a transformation strategy. Specifically, we randomly sample 500 triplets from Malaviya et al. (2020)'s test split. For SynLink and InductivE, a threshold is set for hit@1 score, and a *tail event* is accepted only when the score is above the threshold. We tune the threshold to ensure the number of triplets inferred by RelCSKGC, SynLink, and InductivE close on these 500 triplets. We then calculate the proportion of meaningful triplets for different methods manually.3 ## 3.3 Main Results Relation Prediction Methods In Table 3, we compare Rel-CSKGC with different relation prediction methods, and Rel-CSKGC achieves consistent improvement on the test set of the annotated subgraph. Paired t-Test result proves that the improvement of Rel-CSKGC is significant. From Table 3, we can observe that the precision of intracluster completion is significantly higher than that of inter-cluster completion for all methods. This demonstrates that tail events annotated based on the same base event are highly related to each other and easier for models to predict relations, while the prediction for inter-cluster events is more challenging. Method Total Intra Inter CE-random 0.45 0.53 0.29 KG-BERT 0.60 0.67 0.43 Rel-CSKGC **0.68 0.78 0.51** - w/o random 0.36 0.45 0.22 - w/o persona 0.58 0.66 0.44 Rel-CSKGC*human* 0.80 0.91 0.62 Table 4: Rel-CSKGC vs. Translation Based methods. Translation Based Methods After carefully tuning the threshold based on the strategy in Section 3.2.2, Rel-CSKGC, SynLink, and InductivE 3In the given context, "meaningful triplets" refer to triplets that are considered reasonable, coherent, and noncontradictory by human evaluators. | Method | # Predicted | # Meaningful | Proportion | |----------------|---------------|----------------|--------------| | SynLinkAdapt | 133 | 93 | 0.70 | | InductivEAdapt | 132 | 106 | 0.80 | | Rel-CSKGC | 174 | 152 | 0.87 |  predict 174, 133, and 132 triplets on 500 randomly sampled triplets. In Table 4, Rel-CSKGC outperforms SynLink and InductivE by a large margin on proportion and the number of meaningful triplets. ## 3.4 Human Evaluation Motivation Upon observing predictions of RelCSKGC, we note that some triplets could be reasonable, while the annotated subgraph doesn't cover them. For example, given a *head event* "X accepts Y's apology" and a *tail event* "X is generous", the annotated ground-truth relation is "xPersona", while Rel-CSKGC could predict another reasonable relation "xIntent". Consequently, we perform the human evaluation to check whether a predicted triplet is actually meaningful. Result We can find from the last row of Table 3 that Rel-CSKGC achieves an even higher precision of 0.80, suggesting that Rel-CSKGC can predict reasonable triplets neglected during the subgraph annotation. The high precision by human evaluation also guarantees the quality of predicted triplets. ## 3.5 Ablation Study To validate the effectiveness of negative sampling, we report experimental results without negative sampling in Table 3. The performance of RelCSKGC drops dramatically without any negative sampling strategies, validating the effectiveness of negative sampling. By experimenting Rel-CSKGC with different scales of random negative samples in Figure 4, we find that the precision of Rel-CSKGC increases using both automatic and human evaluation as more negative samples are used for training. ## 4 Evaluation Of The Constructed Dense-A**Tomic** 4.1 Knowledge Coverage And Quality In this subsection, we aim to answer the following question: *Does* Dense-ATOMIC *yield higher* knowledge coverage while ensuring the quality? To this end, we statistically and manually compare Dense-ATOMIC with ATOMIC from the following three perspectives. | # Events | # 1-hop | # 2-hop | # 3-hop | | |--------------|-----------|-----------|------------|------------| | ATOMIC | 299,068 | 696,321 | 19,231 | 509 | | Dense-ATOMIC | 283,435 | 1,967,373 | 10,658,242 | 67,888,373 | Table 5: ATOMIC vs. Dense-ATOMIC on the number of events and multi-hop paths. Dense-ATOMIC **yields higher knowledge coverage** In Table 5, we present the comparison between ATOMIC and Dense-ATOMIC. DenseATOMIC contains 3x more one-hop paths than ATOMIC, contributing a significantly higher knowledge coverage. It's worth noting that different tail events in ATOMIC could become the same after normalizing tail events, so Dense-ATOMIC contains slightly fewer events than ATOMIC. Triplets in Dense-ATOMIC **have relatively high** precision In Table 3, Rel-CSKGC achieves a precision of 0.80 by human evaluation. Moreover, from comparison results with translation based methods in Table 4, Rel-CSKGC outperforms two state-of-the-art methods by more than 7 percentage points. The high performance of Rel-CSKGC ensures the quality of predicted triplets to a certain extent. Dense-ATOMIC **benefits the performance of** COMET To empirically demonstrate the knowledge coverage and quality of Dense-ATOMIC, we evaluate Dense-ATOMIC with **COMET** (Bosselut et al., 2019). The relation distribution of DenseATOMIC is long-tailed. We randomly sample 262,678 triplets from predicted triplets and recover the grouped relations to their original relations by following the relation distribution of the Sap et al. (2019)'s training split. Apart from the evaluation of perplexity, we design a strategy to evaluate the diversity score of generated *tail event*s. For each relation, we randomly sample 10 *head events* from the test set. For each test sample consisting of a head event and a relation, 10 candidates are generated using beam search. For each candidate, we Table 6: **COMET** vs. **COMET***ours*. PPL and DS indicate perplexity and diversity score, respectively. | PPL ↓ | DS ↑ | | |-----------|--------|-------| | COMET | 11.14 | 9.16 | | COMETours | 11.11 | 10.77 |  Table 7: Events generated by **COMET** and **COMET***ours* given "*X needs a good grade*" and "*xWant*". Semantically similar events are in the same color. | COMET | COMETours | |-------------------------|----------------------| | to study hard | to study harder | | study hard | to study more | | to study more | to get a good grade | | to study | to take a test | | to get a good grade | to do well in school | | to take a test | to do well in class | | to do well in school | to apply for a job | | to get a good job | to pass the class | | to apply for a job | to get a prize | | to apply for a good job | to go to school | manually give a score of 0, 1, or 2, representing "unreasonable", "plausible", and "reasonable", respectively. We then merge candidates of similar semantics into a group and calculate the group average score. The diversity score of 10 candidates is the sum of the group scores. Intuitively, the lower perplexity and the higher diversity score indicate the higher knowledge quality and the higher knowledge coverage of Dense-ATOMIC, and **COMET***ours* outperforms **COMET** on both metrics in Table 6. In Table 7, we can find that tail events generated by COMET*ours* are more semantically different. ## 4.2 Multi-Hop Paths In Dense-A**Tomic** The aim of this subsection is to answer the question: *Can multi-hop paths in Dense-*ATOMIC *better* present the commonsense knowledge? Accordingly, we evaluate multi-hop paths based on the human evaluation and performing a newly designed Commonsense Reasoning experiment, respectively: | Sampling Method | 2-hop | 3-hop | 4-hop | |-------------------|---------|---------|---------| | Random | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.50 | | Heuristic Rule | 0.84 | 0.77 | 0.74 | Table 8: Random vs. Heuristic Rule on human evaluation of sampled multi-hop paths. 2-hop paths X misses Y's opportunity *xAfter* −−−−−→ X goes home sadly xP ersona *−−−−−−→* X is melancholy X takes advantage of the opportunities *xAfter* −−−−−→ X contines to succeed oP ersona *−−−−−−→* Y is satisfied X goes back home *xAfter* −−−−−→ X becomes sleepy *xAfter* −−−−−→ X goes back to his own bed X reaches X's goal *xAfter* −−−−−→ X gets an award *oAfter* −−−−→ Y celebrates their win 3-hop paths X returns to X's work *xAfter* −−−−−→ X goes home for the day *xAfter* −−−−−→ X sleeps at night *oAfter* −−−−→ Y is glad to see X slept normally X plays a role in the development *xAfter* −−−−−→ X receives an award *xAfter* −−−−−→ X gets compliments *xAfter* −−−−−→ X smiles X talkes about X's feeling *xAfter* −−−−−→ X starts crying *xAfter* −−−−−→ X wipes the tears xP ersona *−−−−−−→* X is thankful X improves X's chances *xAfter* −−−−−→ X wins the game *xAfter* −−−−−→ X jumps up and down with joy oP ersona *−−−−−−→* Y is pleased Table 9: Examples of multi-hop paths randomly sampled from Dense-ATOMIC. Human evaluation confirms the correctness of multi-hop paths in Dense-A**TOMIC** In Table 5, we have already shown that Dense-ATOMIC contains orders of magnitude more two-hop and threehop paths than ATOMIC. Now, to further validate the correctness of multi-hop paths, we perform the human evaluation on sampled paths to calculate the proportion of reasonable paths. Note that it's a common phenomenon (both KGs and CSKGs) that A → B and B → C are reasonable, while A → B → C is irrational. For example, {*Beethoven*, owner, *piano*} and {piano, color, *black*} are two reasonable triplets, but "*Beethoven*" and "*black*" are not related. Consequently, we additionally design a simple heuristic sampling rule: a multi-hop path A → *. . .*→ C is chosen only when A and C are also linked in Dense-ATOMIC. By comparing with random sampling in Table 8, we can find that heuristic rule sampling consistently outperforms random sampling: the longer the multi-hop paths, the more significant the improvement. Multi-hop paths randomly sampled from Dense-ATOMIC with two different methods are illustrated in Table 9. ## Dense-Atomic **Has The Potential Of Providing** contextual information for Commonsense Reasoning In order to further validate the effectiveness of multi-hop paths in Dense-ATOMIC, we utilize BART (Lewis et al., 2020) to perform generative Commonsense Reasoning with or without multi-hop paths. Specifically, with the heuristic rule above, we randomly sample 5000 four-hop paths from Dense-ATOMIC as the training samples. For test samples, we manually select 500 reasonable paths from Dense-ATOMIC. BART is trained to generate the subsequent event in two different settings: 1) given only the first node of the path; 2) given the first four nodes of the path. From Table 10, we can find that BART trained with multi-hop paths achieves better performance in that multi-hop paths could provide more contextual information useful for Commonsense Reasoning. Table 10: Scores of tail events generated with one-hop and multi-hop paths. | Bleu-1 | Bleu-2 | ROUGE-L | | |-----------|----------|-----------|-------| | One-hop | 48.57 | 14.24 | 35.58 | | Multi-hop | 48.63 | 14.93 | 36.90 | ## 5 Related Work ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017) is a largescale CSKG merging various knowledge bases. ASER (Zhang et al., 2020b) contains the selectional preference knowledge extracted from more than 11 billion-token unstructured textual data. TransOMCS (Zhang et al., 2020a) utilizes linguistic graphs to convert ASER into the same representation as ConceptNet. DISCOS (Fang et al., 2021b) aggregates the neighboring information to distill the commonsense knowledge in ASER. Recent years have seen crowdsourced CSKGs aiming to provide high-quality commonsense knowledge triplets. Sap et al. (2019) released ATOMIC consisting of if-then knowledge triplets mainly about daily events. Hwang et al. (2021) augmented ATOMIC with event-centered and physicalentity triplets. GLUCOSE (Mostafazadeh et al., 2020) grounds the implicit commonsense knowledge about everyday situations in a narrative context for richer inferential content. Dense-ATOMIC unleashes the power of ATOMIC for high knowledge coverage and multi-hop paths. Prior CSKG completion methods performed binary classification by scoring BiLSTM-encoded tuples (Li et al., 2016; Saito et al., 2018; Jastrz˛ebski et al., 2018). Following translation based methods for the knowledge graph completion (Dettmers et al., 2018; Shang et al., 2019; Meilicke et al., 2019; Qu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Lovelace et al., 2021), Malaviya et al. (2020) additionally densified the CSKG based on BERT similarity and achieve promising results. Wang et al. (2021) and Ju et al. (2022) designed heuristic rules to add more edges for nodes with fewer neighbors. Moghimifar et al. (2021) presented a neural-symbolic reasoner to learn logic rules during the training, making the CSKG completion process interpretable. Rel-CSKGC differs from them in that we utilize pretrained language models to predict the relation given the *head event* and the *tail event*. Similar relation prediction methods targeting at the knowledge graph completion have been proposed (Socher et al., 2013; Yao et al., 2019; Cao et al., 2020). To our best knowledge, we are the first to explore the relation prediction method on CSKG completion. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we construct Dense-ATOMIC for high knowledge coverage and massive multi-hop paths and accordingly propose a CSKG completion method called Rel-CSKGC to train a relation prediction model and infer the missing links in ATOMIC. Both automatic and human evaluation show the advantage of Rel-CSKGC over strong baselines. The statistics prove that Dense-ATOMIC has significantly more triplets and multi-hop paths, providing potential for high-quality downstream applications and multi-hop reasoning based on commonsense knowledge. ## Limitations Our approach for constructing Dense-ATOMIC still has two limitations: 1) to keep Dense-ATOMIC simple, we only consider the most reasonable relation in this paper, while the relation between two events can be complex and diversified. We will release versions of Dense-ATOMIC with diversified relations later; 2) due to page limitation, we only evaluate Dense-ATOMIC on simple commonsense reasoning tasks, and we will further validate the multi-hop reasoning capacity of Dense-ATOMIC on more complex downstream tasks in the future. ## Ethics Statement We would like to thank the Allen Institute for AI for their valuable work on ATOMIC. The ATOMIC is licensed under a license of CC BY, which allows remixing, transforming, and building upon the material for any purpose. We will also make our Dense-ATOMIC publicly available later. Mehrabi et al. (2021) have found representational harms in common sense resources. We acknowledge that the generated commonsense from our models might contain biases. All of the datasets and models are in English, which benefits English speakers more. We have employed 3 postgraduates experienced in natural language processing for annotation and human evaluation. We pay postgraduates around $8 per hour, well above the local average wage, and engage in constructive discussions if they have concerns about the process. ## Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62076133), and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province for Distinguished Young Scholars (No. BK20200018). ## References Antoine Bosselut, Hannah Rashkin, Maarten Sap, Chaitanya Malaviya, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Yejin Choi. 2019. COMET: commonsense transformers for automatic knowledge graph construction. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 4762–4779. Association for Computational Linguistics. Faeze Brahman and Snigdha Chaturvedi. 2020. Modeling protagonist emotions for emotion-aware storytelling. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 5277–5294. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ermei Cao, Difeng Wang, Jiacheng Huang, and Wei Hu. 2020. Open Knowledge Enrichment for Long-Tail Entities, page 384–394. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In *Proceedings of the ThirtySecond AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence,* (AAAI-18), the 30th innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the 8th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, pages 1811–1818. AAAI Press. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianqing Fang, Weiqi Wang, Sehyun Choi, Shibo Hao, Hongming Zhang, Yangqiu Song, and Bin He. 2021a. Benchmarking commonsense knowledge base population with an effective evaluation dataset. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021,* Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 711 November, 2021, pages 8949–8964. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianqing Fang, Hongming Zhang, Weiqi Wang, Yangqiu Song, and Bin He. 2021b. DISCOS: bridging the gap between discourse knowledge and commonsense knowledge. In *WWW '21: The Web Conference 2021, Virtual Event / Ljubljana, Slovenia,* April 19-23, 2021, pages 2648–2659. ACM / IW3C2. Yu-Jung Heo, Eun-Sol Kim, Woo Suk Choi, and Byoung-Tak Zhang. 2022. Hypergraph transformer: Weakly-supervised multi-hop reasoning for knowledge-based visual question answering. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long* Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 373–390. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jena D. Hwang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Jeff Da, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Antoine Bosselut, and Yejin Choi. 2021. (comet-) atomic 2020: On symbolic and neural commonsense knowledge graphs. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 6384–6392. AAAI Press. Stanislaw Jastrz˛ebski, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Seyedarian Hosseini, Michael Noukhovitch, Yoshua Bengio, and Jackie Cheung. 2018. Commonsense mining as knowledge base completion? a study on the impact of novelty. In *Proceedings of the Workshop on Generalization in the Age of Deep Learning*, pages 8–16, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jinhao Ju, Deqing Yang, and Jingping Liu. 2022. Commonsense knowledge base completion with relational graph attention network and pre-trained language model. In *Proceedings of the 31st ACM International* Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, Atlanta, GA, USA, October 17-21, 2022, pages 4104–4108. ACM. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7871–7880. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Li, Aynaz Taheri, Lifu Tu, and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Commonsense knowledge base completion. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1445–1455, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. *CoRR*, abs/1907.11692. Justin Lovelace, Denis Newman-Griffis, Shikhar Vashishth, Jill Fain Lehman, and Carolyn P. Rosé. 2021. Robust knowledge graph completion with stacked convolutions and a student re-ranking network. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 1016–1029. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chaitanya Malaviya, Chandra Bhagavatula, Antoine Bosselut, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Commonsense knowledge base completion with structural and semantic context. In *The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The* Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 2925–2933. AAAI Press. Christopher D. Manning, Mihai Surdeanu, John Bauer, Jenny Rose Finkel, Steven Bethard, and David McClosky. 2014. The stanford corenlp natural language processing toolkit. In *Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics, ACL 2014, June 22-27, 2014, Baltimore, MD, USA, System Demonstrations, pages 55–60. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Ninareh Mehrabi, Pei Zhou, Fred Morstatter, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, and Aram Galstyan. 2021. Lawyers are dishonest? quantifying representational harms in commonsense knowledge resources. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 5016–5033. Association for Computational Linguistics. Christian Meilicke, Melisachew Wudage Chekol, Daniel Ruffinelli, and Heiner Stuckenschmidt. 2019. Anytime bottom-up rule learning for knowledge graph completion. In *Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth* International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2019, Macao, China, August 10-16, 2019, pages 3137–3143. ijcai.org. George A. Miller. 1995. Wordnet: A lexical database for english. *Commun. ACM*, 38(11):39–41. Farhad Moghimifar, Lizhen Qu, Terry Yue Zhuo, Gholamreza Haffari, and Mahsa Baktashmotlagh. 2021. Neural-symbolic commonsense reasoner with relation predictors. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 2: Short Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 797–802. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Aditya Kalyanpur, Lori Moon, David W. Buchanan, Lauren Berkowitz, Or Biran, and Jennifer Chu-Carroll. 2020. GLUCOSE: generalized and contextualized story explanations. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 4569– 4586. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meng Qu, Junkun Chen, Louis-Pascal A. C. Xhonneux, Yoshua Bengio, and Jian Tang. 2021. Rnnlogic: Learning logic rules for reasoning on knowledge graphs. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. Itsumi Saito, Kyosuke Nishida, Hisako Asano, and Junji Tomita. 2018. Commonsense knowledge base completion and generation. In *Proceedings of the* 22nd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 141–150, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maarten Sap, Ronan Le Bras, Emily Allaway, Chandra Bhagavatula, Nicholas Lourie, Hannah Rashkin, Brendan Roof, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Atomic: An atlas of machine commonsense for ifthen reasoning. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, 01, pages 3027–3035. Chao Shang, Yun Tang, Jing Huang, Jinbo Bi, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2019. End-to-end structureaware convolutional networks for knowledge base completion. In *The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference* on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The ThirtyFirst Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 3060–3067. AAAI Press. Richard Socher, Danqi Chen, Christopher D. Manning, and Andrew Y. Ng. 2013. Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26: 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2013. Proceedings of a meeting held December 5-8, 2013, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, pages 926–934. Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In *Proceedings of the Thirty-First* AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 4-9, 2017, San Francisco, California, USA, pages 4444–4451. AAAI Press. Bin Wang, Guangtao Wang, Jing Huang, Jiaxuan You, Jure Leskovec, and C.-C. Jay Kuo. 2021. Inductive learning on commonsense knowledge graph completion. In *International Joint Conference on Neural* Networks, IJCNN 2021, Shenzhen, China, July 18-22, 2021, pages 1–8. IEEE. Sixing Wu, Ying Li, Dawei Zhang, and Zhonghai Wu. 2022. KSAM: infusing multi-source knowledge into dialogue generation via knowledge source aware multi-head decoding. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 353–363. Association for Computational Linguistics. Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. 2019. KG-BERT: BERT for knowledge graph completion. CoRR, abs/1909.03193. Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Lianhui Qin, Zhihan Zhang, Tong Zhao, and Meng Jiang. 2022. Diversifying content generation for commonsense reasoning with mixture of knowledge graph experts. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics:* ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 1896–1906. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hongming Zhang, Daniel Khashabi, Yangqiu Song, and Dan Roth. 2020a. Transomcs: From linguistic graphs to commonsense knowledge. In *Proceedings of the* Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2020, pages 4004–4010. ijcai.org. Hongming Zhang, Xin Liu, Haojie Pan, Yangqiu Song, and Cane Wing-Ki Leung. 2020b. ASER: A largescale eventuality knowledge graph. In *WWW '20:* The Web Conference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 2024, 2020, pages 201–211. ACM / IW3C2. Yao Zhang, Hongru Liang, Adam Jatowt, Wenqiang Lei, Xin Wei, Ning Jiang, and Zhenglu Yang. 2021. GMH: A general multi-hop reasoning model for KG completion. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 3437– 3446. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Algorithm For Normalizing Tail Events Algorithm 1 presents the pseudo-code of Normalizing Tail Events in Section 2.1. Algorithm 1 Normalizing Tail Events Input: A set of annotations A and relations R Output: A set of sentences in present tense F A 1: Remove annotations with underscores or none, and get a series of filtered annotations F A 2: for each f a ∈ F A, r ∈ R do 3: Obtain the dependency tree dep and POS tagging result pos of f a 4: Find sub node with POS prp and edge *subj* connected directly to it 5: if Position of sub is at the start of f a **then** 6: Remove sub in f a 7: **end if** 8: Find node *verb* with POS vb in f a 9: if r ∈ [*xIntent, xW ant, xNeed, oW ant*] AND the first word of f a is to **then** 10: Remove the first to of f a 11: **end if** 12: Transform node verb in f a to its root form 13: Append suf ∈ [−s, −es, −ies, ...] to *verb* based on English grammar 14: if r ∈ [*xAttr, xReact*] **then** 15: Insert *PersonX is* to the start of f a 16: **else if** r is *oReact* **then** 17: Insert *PersonY is* to the start of f a 18: **else if** r ∈ [*oW ant, oEffect*] **then** 19: Insert *PersonY* to the start of f a 20: **else** 21: Insert *PersonX* to the start of f a 22: **end if** 23: **end for** 24: Return F A COMET*ours* To train **COMET***ours*, we use the implentations provided here. 4 We use the learning rate of 1.625e-5 and the default values for other parameters. Generative Commonsense Reasoning BARTbase is employed as the base model, which contains 140M parameters. We use a batch size of 128 and use the default values for other parameters. ## B Implementation Details Rel-CSKGC We use RoBERTa-large containing 335M parameters as the base model. We use a maximum sequence length of 100 and batch size of 128. The Adam optimizer is used for optimization with a learning rate of 2e-5 for RoBERTa-large and a learning rate of 1e-4 for MLP layers. The warmup proportion is set to 0.1. We train Rel-CSKGC with 1 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Graphical Card for 5 epochs, and it takes 20 hours to finish the training. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? In Limitations section. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? In Abstract section and section 1, respectively. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** In Section 2, Appendix B. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? In section 2.1, Appendix B. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? In Ethics Statement section. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? In Ethics Statement section. ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We use publically available datasets, and the authors of the dataset have made the corresponding declaration. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? The documentation of the artifacts will be released after the reviewing process. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. In Section 3 and 4. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** In Section 3 And 4. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? In Appendix B. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? In Appendix B. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? In Section 3. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? In Appendix B. ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** In Section 3 And 4. ✗ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? We perform simple human annotation and evaluation, there is no need of providing the full text. ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? In Ethics Statement. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? In Ethics Statement.

xiong-etal-2023-shrinking

Shrinking Embeddings for Hyper-Relational Knowledge Graphs

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.743

Link prediction on knowledge graphs (KGs) has been extensively studied on binary relational KGs, wherein each fact is represented by a triple. A significant amount of important knowledge, however, is represented by hyper-relational facts where each fact is composed of a primal triple and a set of qualifiers comprising a key-value pair that allows for expressing more complicated semantics. Although some recent works have proposed to embed hyper-relational KGs, these methods fail to capture essential inference patterns of hyper-relational facts such as qualifier monotonicity, qualifier implication, and qualifier mutual exclusion, limiting their generalization capability. To unlock this, we present ShrinkE, a geometric hyper-relational KG embedding method aiming to explicitly model these patterns. ShrinkE models the primal triple as a spatial-functional transformation from the head into a relation-specific box. Each qualifier {``}shrinks{''} the box to narrow down the possible answer set and, thus, realizes qualifier monotonicity. The spatial relationships between the qualifier boxes allow for modeling core inference patterns of qualifiers such as implication and mutual exclusion. Experimental results demonstrate ShrinkE{'}s superiority on three benchmarks of hyper-relational KGs.

# Shrinking Embeddings For Hyper-Relational Knowledge Graphs Bo Xiong1, Mojtaba Nayyeri1, Shirui Pan2**, Steffen Staab**1,3 1University of Stuttgart, 2Griffith University, 3University of Southampton ## Abstract Link prediction on knowledge graphs (KGs) has been extensively studied on binary relational KGs, wherein each fact is represented by a triple. A significant amount of important knowledge, however, is represented by hyperrelational facts where each fact is composed of a primal triple and a set of qualifiers comprising a key-value pair that allows for expressing more complicated semantics. Although some recent works have proposed to embed hyper-relational KGs, these methods fail to capture essential inference patterns of hyperrelational facts such as qualifier monotonicity, qualifier implication, and qualifier mutual exclusion, limiting their generalization capability. To unlock this, we present *ShrinkE*, a geometric hyper-relational KG embedding method aiming to explicitly model these patterns. ShrinkE models the primal triple as a spatial-functional transformation from the head into a relation-specific box. Each qualifier "shrinks" the box to narrow down the possible answer set and, thus, realizes qualifier monotonicity. The spatial relationships between the qualifier boxes allow for modeling core inference patterns of qualifiers such as implication and mutual exclusion. Experimental results demonstrate ShrinkE's superiority on three benchmarks of hyper-relational KGs. ## 1 Introduction Link prediction on knowledge graphs (KGs) is a central problem for many KG-based applications (Zhang et al., 2016; Lukovnikov et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2023; Xiong et al., 2022b; Chen et al., 2022). Existing works (Sun et al., 2019; Bordes et al., 2013) have mostly studied link prediction on binary relational KGs, wherein each fact is represented by a triple, e.g., (Einstein, educated_at, *University of Zurich*). In many popular KGs such as Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2007), however, a lot of important knowledge is not only expressed in tripleshaped facts, but also via facts about facts, which taken together are called hyper-relational facts. For example, ((Einstein, educated_at, *University* of Zurich), {(major:*physics*), (degree:PhD)}) is a hyper-relational fact, where the primary triple (Einstein, educated_at, *University of Zurich*) is contextualized by a set of key-value pairs {(major:*physics*),(degree:PhD)}. Like much other related work, we follow the terminology established for Wikidata (Vrandeciˇ c and Krötzsch ´ , 2014) and use the term *qualifiers* to refer to the key-value pairs.1 The qualifiers play crucial roles in avoiding ambiguity issues. For instance, *Einstein* was *educated_at* several universities and the qualifiers for degree and *major* help distinguish them. In order to predict links in hyper-relational KGs, pioneering works represent each hyperrelational fact as either an n-tuple in the form of r(e1, e2, · · · , en) (Wen et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2018; Fatemi et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Abboud et al., 2020) or a set of key-value pairs in the form of {(ki: vi)} m i=1 (Guan et al., 2019, 2021; Liu et al., 2021a). However, these modelings lose key structure information and are incompatible with the RDF-star schema (Arndt et al., 2021) used by modern KGs, where both primal triples and qualifiers constitute the fundamental data structure. Recent works (Guan et al., 2020; Rosso et al., 2020) represent each hyper-relational fact as a primary triple coupled with a set of qualifiers that are compatible with RDF-star standards (Arndt et al., 2021). Link prediction is then achieved by modeling the validity of the primary triple and its compatibility with each annotated qualifier (Guan et al., 2020; Rosso et al., 2020). More complicated graph encoders and decoders (Galkin et al., 2020; Yu and Yang, 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Shomer et al., 2022) are proposed to further boost the performance. However, they require a relatively huge number of parameters 13306 ## That Make Them Prone To Overfitting. To encourage generalization capability, KG embeddings should be able to model inference patterns, i.e., specifications of logical properties that may exist in KGs, which, if learned, empowers further principled inferences (Abboud et al., 2020). This has been extensively studied for binary relational KG embeddings (Trouillon et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2019) but ignored for hyper-relational KGs in which not only primal triples but also qualifiers matter. One of the most important properties is qualifier monotonicity. Given a query, the answer set shrinks or at least does not expand as more qualifiers are added to the query expression. For example, a query (Einstein, *educated_at*, ?x) with a variable ?x corresponds to two answers {University of Zurich, *ETH Zurich*}, but a query ((Einstein, educated_at, ?x), {(degree : *B.Sc.*)}) extended by a qualifier for *degree* will only respond with {*ETH Zurich*}. Besides, different qualifiers might form logical relationships that the model must respect during inference including qualifier implication (e.g., adding a qualifier that is implicitly implied in the existing qualifiers does not change the truth of a fact) and qualifier mutual exclusion (e.g., adding any two mutually exclusive qualifiers to a fact leads to a contradiction). In light of this, we propose ShrinkE, a hyperrelational embedding model that allows for modeling these inference patterns. ShrinkE embeds each entity as a point and models a primal triple as a spatio-functional transformation from the head entity to a relation-specific box that entails the possible tails. Each qualifier is modeled as a shrinking of the primal box to a qualifier box. The shrinking of boxes simulates the "monotonicity" of hyperrelational qualifiers, i.e., attaching qualifiers to a primal triple may only narrow down but never enlarges the answer set. The plausibility of a given fact is measured by a point-to-box function that judges whether the tail entity is inside the intersection of all qualifier boxes. Moreover, since each qualifier is associated with a box, the spatial relationships between the qualifier boxes allow for modeling core inference patterns such as qualifier implication and mutual exclusion. We theoretically show the capability of ShrinkE on modeling various inference patterns including (fact-level) monotonicity, triple-level, and qualifier-level inference patterns. Empirically, ShrinkE achieves competitive performance on three benchmarks. ## 2 Related Work Related works on hyper-relational KG embeddings can be categorized by their representations of facts. Prominent representations include tuple, key-value pairs, and triple+key-value pairs. Tuple based Pioneering works view a hyperrelational fact as an n-tuple, a.k.a. n-ary fact, consisting of a single abstract relation r and its n values, i.e., r(v1, v2, · · · , vn). Functional models represent the tuple-based facts by functional mapping. For example, m-TransH (Wen et al., 2016), a generalization of TransH (Wang et al., 2014) to hyperrelational facts, projects all entities onto a relationspecific hyperplane and measures the plausibility as the weighted sum of projected embeddings. RAE (Zhang et al., 2018) improves m-TransH by further modeling the *relatedness* of values. Multilinear models generalize bilinear models to hyperrelational facts via multi-linear products. For example, HsimplE (Fatemi et al., 2020), m-CP (Fatemi et al., 2020), and GETD (Liu et al., 2020) generalize SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018), Canonical Polyadic (CP) decomposition (Trouillon et al., 2017), and TuckER (Balazevic et al., 2019), respectively. GETD only applies to KGs with single-arity relations (Liu et al., 2021b) and S2S (Di et al., 2021) extends it to support mixed arity facts. HypE (Fatemi et al., 2020) encodes hyper-relational facts by positional convolutional filters and evaluates the facts' plausibility using the multilinear product. However, these models ignore the semantics of relations and loosely represent a combination of all relations of the original fact (Galkin et al., 2020). Key-value pairs NaLP (Guan et al., 2019) view each hyper-relational fact as a set of key-value pairs, i.e., {(ki: vi)} m i=1. Convolutional networks are employed to encode the key-value pairs, followed by a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) that measures the compatibility between the key and its values. RAM (Liu et al., 2021b) further models the relatedness between different keys and the relatedness between a key and all involved values. NaLP+ (Guan et al., 2021) improves NaLP by considering type information. However, the key-value-based modeling treats all key-value pairs equally and does not distinguish primal triples from qualifiers. Triple+key-value pairs NeuInfer (Guan et al., 2020) and HINGE (Rosso et al., 2020) represent a hyper-relational fact as a primary triple combined  with a set of the key-value form of qualifiers, i.e., ((*h, r, t*), {(ki: vi)} m i=1), which is compatible with the RDF-star standard (Delva et al., 2021) used in modern KGs. Both methods adopt neural networks to obtain the fact validity by measuring the validity of the primary triple and its compatibility with each qualifier. NeuInfer applies MLP while HINGE uses a convolutional network as an encoder. StarE (Galkin et al., 2020) leverages a message passing network, CompGCN (Vashishth et al., 2020), as an encoder to obtain the relation and entity embeddings, which are then fed into a transformer decoder to obtain the validity of facts. HyTransformer (Yu and Yang, 2021), GRAN (Wang et al., 2021) and QUAD (Shomer et al., 2022) further improve it with alternative designs of encoders and via auxiliary training tasks. Relatively, these models, though useful, require a large number of parameters and are prone to overfitting. ## 3 Preliminaries We view a hyper-relational fact in the form of a primal triple coupled with a set of qualifiers. Definition 1 (Hyper-relational fact). Let E and R denote the sets of entities and relations, respectively. A hyper-relational fact F *is a tuple* (T , Q), where T = (h, r, t), h, t ∈ E, r ∈ R *is a primal* triple and Q = {(ki: vi)} m i=1 ki ∈ R, vi ∈ E is a set of qualifiers. We call the number of involved entities in F*, i.e.,* (m + 2)*, the arity of the fact.* A hyper-relational fact reduces to a triple/binary fact when m = 0. When m > 0, each qualifier can be viewed as an auxiliary description that contextualizes or specializes the semantics of the primal triple. In typical open-world settings, facts with the same primal triple might have different numbers of qualifiers. To characterize this property, we introduce the concepts of partial fact and qualifier monotonicity in hyper-relational KGs. Definition 2 (Partial fact (Guan et al., 2020)). Given two facts F1 = (T , Q1) and F2 = (T , Q2) that share the same primal triple. We call F1 a partial fact of F2 iff Q1 ⊆ Q2. In this paper, we follow the monotonicity assumption by restricting the model to respect the monotonicity property.2 For this purpose, we consider the monotonicity of query and inference. Definition 3 (Qualifier monotonicity). Let QA(·) denote a query answering model taking a query and a KG as input and outputting the set of answer entities. Given any pair of queries q1 = ((h, r, x?), Q1) and q2 = ((h, r, x?), Q2) *that* share the same primal triple and Q1 ⊆ Q2*, qualifier monotonicity is given iff,* QA(q2; KG) ⊆ QA(q1; KG). (1) Qualifier monotonicity implies that attaching any qualifiers to a query does not enlarge the answer set of the possible tail entities, and inversely, removing the qualifiers from a query can only return more possible tail entities. This implies that if a fact is true, then all its partial facts must also be true (a.k.a. weakening of inference rule), i.e., $$\frac{(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{Q}_{1})\wedge(\mathcal{Q}_{2}\subseteq\mathcal{Q}_{1})\to(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{Q}_{2})\,.}{\mathrm{~which~for~}\mathcal{Q}_{2}}$$ 2Some kinds of qualifiers may represent semantically opaque contexts. For instance, ((Crimea, belongs_to, *Russia*), {(said_by, *Putin*)}) does not imply the primary triple and should therefore be excluded. ## 4 Shrinking Embeddings For Hyper-Relational Kgs We aim to design a scoring function f(·) taking the embeddings of facts as input so that the output values respect desired logical properties. To this end, we introduce primal triple embedding and qualifier embedding, respectively. ## 4.1 Primal Triple Embedding We represent each entity as a point e ∈ R d. Each primal relation r is modeled as a spatio-functional transformation Br : R d → Box(d) that maps the head eh ∈ R dto a d-dimensional box in Box(d) with Box(d) being the set of boxes in R d. Each box can be parameterized by a lower left point m ∈ R d and an upper right point M ∈ R d, given by $$\begin{array}{l}\mbox{Box}^{d}(\mbox{\bf m},\mbox{\bf M})=\\ \{\mbox{\bf x}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\mid\mbox{\bf m}_{i}\leq\mbox{\bf x}_{i}\leq\mbox{\bf M}_{i},\ i=1,\cdots,d\}.\end{array}\tag{3}$$ We leave the superscript of $\mbox{Box}^{d}$ away if it is clear from context. and call the transformed box a query box. Intuitively, all points in the query box correspond to the possible answer tail entities. Hence, the query box can be viewed as a geometric embedding of the answer set. Note that a query could result in an empty answer set. In order to capture such property, we do not exclude empty boxes that correspond to queries with empty answer set. Empty boxes are covered by the cases where there exists a dimension i such that mi ≥ Mi. Point-to-box transform The spatio-functional point-to-box transformation B is composed of a relation-specific point transformation Hr : R d → R dthat transforms the head point eh to a new point, and a relation-specific spanning that spans the transformed point to a box, formally given by $$\mathcal{B}_{r}(\mathbf{e}_{h})=\text{Box}(\mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbf{e}_{h})-\tau(\boldsymbol{\delta}_{r}),\mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbf{e}_{h})+\tau(\boldsymbol{\delta}_{r})),\tag{4}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\delta}_{r}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a relation-specific span nis a relation-specific spanning/offset vector, and τt(x) = tlog 1 + e x/t with t being a temperature hyperparameter, is a softplus function that enforces the spanned box to be non-empty. The point transformation function Hr could be any functions that are used in other KG embedding models such as translation used in TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) and rotations used in RotatE (Sun et al., 2019). Hence, our model is highly flexible and effective at embedding primal triples. To allow for  capturing multiple triple-level inference patterns such as symmetry, inversion, and composition, we combine translation and rotation, and formulate Hr as $${\cal H}_{r}({\bf e}_{h})=\Theta_{r}{\bf e}_{h}+{\bf b}_{r}\tag{5}$$ where $\Theta_{r}$ is a rotation matrix and ${\bf b}_{r}$ is a translation vector. We parameterize the rotation matrix by a block diagonal matrix Θr = $$\begin{array}{c}\mbox{diag}\left(\mathbf{G}\left(\theta_{r,1}\right),\ldots,\mathbf{G}\left(\theta_{r,\frac{d}{2}}\right)\right)\mbox{,where}\\ \mbox{}\\ \mbox{}\mathbf{G}(\theta)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\cos(\theta)&\sin(\theta)\\ \sin(\theta)&\cos(\theta)\end{array}\right]\mbox{.}\end{array}\tag{6}$$ Point-to-box distance The validity of a primal triple (*h, r, t*) is then measured by judging whether the tail entity point etis geometrically inside of the query box. Given a query box Boxn(m,M) and an entity point e ∈ R d, we denote the center point as c = m+M 2. Let *| · |* denote the L1 norm and max() denote an element-wise maximum operation. The point-to-box distance is given by $$D({\bf e},{\rm Box}({\bf m},{\bf M}))=\frac{|{\bf e}-{\bf c}|_{1}}{|\max({\bf0},{\bf M}-{\bf m})|_{1}}\tag{7}$$ $$+(|{\bf e}-{\bf m}|_{1}+|{\bf e}-{\bf M}|_{1}-|\max({\bf0},{\bf M}-{\bf m})|_{1})^{2}\,.$$ Fig. 2 visualizes the distance function. Intuitively, in cases where the point is in the query box, the distance grows relatively slowly and inversely correlates with the box size. In cases where the point is outside the box, the distance grows fast. ## 4.2 Qualifier Embedding Conceptually, qualifiers add information to given primary facts potentially allowing for additional inferences, but never for the retraction of inferences, reflecting the monotonicity of the representational paradigm. Corresponding to the non-declining number of inferences, the number of possible models for this representation shrinks, which can be intuitively reflected by a reduced size of boxes incurred by adding qualifiers. Box Shrinking To geometrically mimic this property in the embedding space, we model each qualifier (k : v) as a "shrinking" of the query box. Given a box Box(m,M), a shrinking is defined as a box-to-box transformation S : Box → Box that potentially shrinks the volume of the box while not moving the resulting box outside of the source box. Let L = (M − m) denote the side length vector, box shrinking is defined by $$\begin{array}{l}\mathbf{S}_{r,k,v}\left(\mathbf{Box}\left(\mathbf{m},\mathbf{M}\right)\right)=\\ \mathbf{Box}\left(\mathbf{m}+\sigma\left(\mathbf{s}_{r,k,v}\right)\odot\mathbf{L},\mathbf{M}-\sigma\left(\mathbf{S}_{r,k,v}\right)\odot\mathbf{L}\right),\end{array}\tag{8}$$ where s*r,k,v* ∈ R nand S*r,k,v* ∈ R nare the "shrinking" vectors for the lower left corner and the upper right corner, respectively. σ is a *sigmoid* function and  is element-wise vector multiplication. The resulting box, including the case of empty box, is always inside the query box, i.e., S(Boxn(m,M)) ⊆ Boxn(m,M), which exactly resembles the qualifier monotonicity. We use *r, k, v* as the indices of the shrinking vectors because the shrinking of the box should depend on the relatedness between the primal relation and the qualifier. For example, if a qualifier (degree : *bachelor*) is highly related to the primal relation *educated_at*, the scale of the shrinking vectors should be small as it adds a weak constraint to the triple. If the qualifier is unrelated to the primal relation, e.g., (degree : *bachelor*) and *born_in*, the shrinking might even enforce an empty box. To learn the shrinking vectors, we leverage an MLP layer that takes the primal relation and key-value qualifier as input and outputs the shrinking vectors defined by sr,k,v, S*r,k,v* = MLP (concat (rθ, kθ, vθ)) where rθ, kθ, vθ are the embeddings of *r, k, v*, respectively. ## 4.3 Scoring Function And Learning. Scoring function The score of a given hyperrelational fact is defined by $\mathbb{R}$ $ f$ . f (((*h, r, t*), Q)) = D(et, BoxQ(m,M)), (9) where BoxQ(m,M) denotes the target box that is calculated by the intersection of all shrinking boxes of the qualifier set Q. The intersection of n boxes can be calculated by taking the maximum of lower left points of all boxes and taking the minimum of upper right points of all boxes, given by $$\mathcal{I}(\text{Box}_{1},\cdots,\text{Box}_{n})=\text{Box}\left(\max_{i\in1,\cdots,n}\mathbf{m}_{i},\min_{i\in1,\cdots,n}\mathbf{M}_{i}\right).\tag{10}$$ Note that if there is no intersection between boxes, this intersection operation still works as it results in an empty box. The intersection of boxes is a permutation-invariant operation, implying that perturbing the order of qualifiers does not change the plausibility of the facts. Learning As a standard data augmentation strategy, we add reciprocal relations t0, r−1, h0for the primary triple in each hyper-relational fact. For each positive fact in the training set, we generate nneg negative samples by corrupting a subject/tail entity with randomly selected entities from E. We adopt the cross-entropy loss to optimize the model via the Adam optimizer, which is given by $$\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(y_{i}\log\left(p_{i}\right)+\sum_{i=1}^{n_{\text{neg}}}\left(1-y_{i}\right)\log\left(1-p_{i}\right)\right),\tag{11}$$ where $N$ denotes the total number of facts in the training set. yiis a binary indicator denoting whether a fact is true or not. pi = σ(f(F)) is the predicted score of a fact F with σ being the sigmoid function. ## 5 Theoretical Analysis Analyzing and modeling inference patterns is of great importance for KG embeddings because it enables generalization capability, i.e., once the patterns are learned, new facts that respect the patterns can be inferred. An inference pattern is a specification of a logical property that may exist in a KG, Formally, an inference pattern is a logical form ψ → φ with ψ and φ being the body and head, implying that if the body is satisfied then the head must also be satisfied. In this section, we analyze the theoretical capacity of ShrinkE for modeling inference patterns. All proofs of propositions are in Appendix B. $$\mathbf{M}),$$ Fact-level inference pattern (monotonicity) The following proposition shows that ShrinkE is able to model monotonicity. Proposition 1. *Given any two facts* F1 = (T , Q1) and F2 = (T , Q2) where Q2 ⊆ Q1*, i.e.,* F2 is a partial fact of F1, the output of the scoring function f(·) *of ShrinkE satisfy the constraint* f(F2) ≥ f(F1). Triple-level inference patterns Prominent triple-level inference patterns include symmetry (h, r, t) → (*t, r, h*), antisymmetry (h, r, t) → ¬(*h, r, t*), inver13310 | All facts | Higher-arity facts (%) | Entities | Relations | Train | Dev | Test | | |-------------|--------------------------|----------------|-------------|---------|---------|--------|--------| | JF17K | 100,947 | 46,320 (45.9%) | 28,645 | 501 | 76,379 | - | 24,568 | | WikiPeople | 382,229 | 44,315 (11.6%) | 47,765 | 193 | 305,725 | 38,223 | 38,281 | | WD50k | 236,507 | 32,167 (13.6%) | 47,156 | 532 | 166,435 | 23,913 | 46,159 | | WD50K(33) | 102,107 | 31,866 (31.2%) | 38,124 | 475 | 73,406 | 10,568 | 18,133 | | WD50K(66) | 49,167 | 31,696 (64.5%) | 27,347 | 494 | 35,968 | 5,154 | 8,045 | | WD50K(100) | 31,314 | 31,314 (100%) | 18,792 | 279 | 22,738 | 3,279 | 5,297 | sion (h, r1, t) → (t, r2, h), composition (e1, r1, e2) ∧ (e2, r2, e3) → (e1, r3, e3), relation implication (h, r1, t) → (h, r2, t), relation intersection (h, r1, t) ∧ (h, r2, t) → (h, r3, t), and relation mutual exclusion (h, r1, t) ∧ (h, r2, t) → ⊥. All these triple-level inference patterns also exist in hyper-relational facts when their qualifiers are the same, e.g., hyper-relational symmetry means ((h, r, t), Q) → ((*t, r, h*), Q). Proposition 2 states that ShrinkE is able to infer all of them. Proposition 2. ShrinkE is able to infer hyperrelational symmetry, anti-symmetry, inversion, composition, relation implication, relation intersection, and relation exclusion. Qualifier-level inference pattern In hyperrelational KGs, inference patterns not only exist at the triple level but also at the level of qualifiers. Definition 4 (qualifier implication). *Given two* qualifiers qi and qj , qiis said to imply qj *, i.e.,* qi → qj *iff for any fact* F = (T , Q), if attaching qito Q results in a true (resp. false) fact, then attaching qj to Q ∪ {qi} also results in a true (resp. false) fact. Formally, qi → qj *implies* $$\forall\,{\cal T},{\cal Q}:({\cal T},{\cal Q}\cup\{q_{i}\})\to(T,Q\cup\{q_{i},q_{j}\})\,.\tag{12}$$ Definition 5 (qualifier exclusion). *Two qualifiers* qi, qj *are said to be mutually exclusive iff for any* fact F = (T , Q), by attaching qi, qj to the qualifier set of F*, the new fact* F0 = (T , Q ∪ {qi, qj}) is false, meaning that they lead to a contradiction, i.e., qi ∧ qj → ⊥. Formally, qi ∧ qj → ⊥ *implies* $$\forall\,{\mathcal{T}},{\mathcal{Q}}\,:(T,Q\cup\{q_{i},q_{j}\})\to\bot$$ Note that if two qualifiers qi, qj are neither mutually exclusive nor forming implication pair, then qi, qj are said to be overlapping, a state between implication and mutual exclusion. Qualifier overlapping, in our case, can be captured by box intersection/overlapping. Qualifier overlapping itself does not form any logical property in the form of ψ → φ. However, when involving three qualifiers and two of them overlap, qualifier intersection can be modeled. Definition 6 (qualifier intersection). *A qualifier* qk is said to be an intersection of two qualifiers qi, qj iff for any fact F = (T , Q), if attaching qi, qj to Q results in a true (resp. false) fact, then by replacing {qi, qj} with qk*, the truth value of the fact does not* change. Namely, qi ∧ qj → qk *implies* $$\forall\;{\cal T},{\cal Q}:(T,{\cal Q}\cup\{q_{i},q_{j}\})\rightarrow({\cal T},{\cal Q}\cup\{q_{k}\})\,.\tag{14}$$ Apparently, qualifier intersection qi ∧ qj → qk necessarily implies qualifier implications qi → qk and qj → qk. Hence, qualifier intersection can be viewed as a combination of two qualifier implications, and this can be generalized to q1∧q2*∧· · · →* qk. Proposition 3 shows that ShrinkE is able to infer qualifier implication, exclusion, and composition. Proposition 3. ShrinkE is able to infer qualifier implication, mutual exclusion, and intersection. ## 6 Evaluation In this section, we evaluate the effectiveness of ShrinkE on hyper-relational link prediction tasks. ## 6.1 Experimental Setup Datasets. We conduct link prediction experiment on three hyper-relational KGs: JF17K (Wen et al., 2016), WikiPeople (Guan et al., 2019), and WD50k (Galkin et al., 2020). JF17K is extracted from Freebase while WikiPeople and WD50k are extracted from Wikidata. In WikiPeople and WD50k, only 11.6% and 13.6% of the facts, respectively, contain qualifiers, while the remaining facts contain only triples (after dropping statements containing literals in WikiPeople, only 2.6% facts contain qualifiers). For better comparison, we also consider | Method | WikiPeople (2.6) | JF17K (45.9) | WD50K (13.6) | | | | | | | |-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | MRR | H@1 | H@10 | MRR | H@ 1 | H@ 10 | MRR | H@ 1 | H@ 10 | | | m-TransH | 0.063 | 0.063 | 0.300 | 0.206 | 0.206 | 0.463 | − | − | − | | RAE | 0.059 | 0.059 | 0.306 | 0.215 | 0.215 | 0.469 | − | − | − | | NaLP-Fix | 0.420 | 0.343 | 0.556 | 0.245 | 0.185 | 0.358 | 0.177 | 0.131 | 0.264 | | NeuInfer | 0.350 | 0.282 | 0.467 | 0.451 | 0.373 | 0.604 | − | − | − | | HINGE | 0.476 | 0.415 | 0.585 | 0.449 | 0.361 | 0.624 | 0.243 | 0.176 | 0.377 | | Transformer | 0.469 | 0.403 | 0.586 | 0.512 | 0.434 | 0.665 | 0.264 | 0.194 | 0.401 | | BoxE | 0.395 | 0.293 | 0.503 | 0.560 | 0.472 | 0.722 | − | − | − | | StarE | 0.491 | 0.398 | 0.648 | 0.574 | 0.496 | 0.725 | 0.349 | 0.271 | 0.496 | | ShrinkE | 0.485 | 0.431 | 0.601 | 0.589 | 0.506 | 0.749 | 0.345 | 0.275 | 0.482 | Table 2: Link prediction results on three benchmarks with the number in the parentheses denoting the ratio of facts with qualifiers. Baseline results are taken from Galkin et al. (2020). Method WD50K (33) WD50K (66) WD50K (100) MRR H@1 H@10 MRR H@ 1 H@ 10 MRR H@ 1 H@ 10 NaLP-Fix 0.204 0.164 0.277 0.334 0.284 0.423 0.458 0.398 0.563 HINGE 0.253 0.190 0.372 0.378 0.307 0.512 0.492 0.417 0.636 Transformer 0.276 0.227 0.371 0.404 0.352 0.502 0.562 0.499 0.677 StarE 0.331 0.268 **0.451** 0.481 0.420 0.594 0.654 0.588 0.777 ShrinkE **0.336 0.272** 0.449 **0.511 0.422 0.611 0.695 0.629 0.814** Table 3: Link prediction results on WD50K splits with the number in the parentheses denoting the ratio of facts with qualifiers. Baseline results are taken from Galkin et al. (2020). three splits of WD50K that contain a higher percentage of triples with qualifiers. The three splits are WD50K(33), WD50K(66), and WD50K(100), which contain 33%, 66%, and 100% facts with qualifiers, respectively. Statistics of the datasets are given in Table 1. We conjecture that the performance on WikiPeople and WD50k will be dominated by the scores of triple-only facts while the performance on the variants of WD50k will be dominated by the modeling of qualifiers. We conjecture that WD50K will be a more challenging benchmark than JF17K and WikiPeople. Besides, WD50K still contains only a small percentage (13.6%) of facts that contain qualifiers. Since JF17K does not provide a validation set, we split 20% of facts from the training set as the validation set. Details of the three datasets are given in Table 1. Environments and hyperparameters We implement ShrinkE with Python 3.9 and Pytorch 1.11, and train our model on one Nvidia A100 GPU with 40GB of VRAM. We use Adam optimizer with a batch size of 128 and an initial learning rate of 0.0001. For negative sampling, we follow the strategy used in StarE (Galkin et al., 2020) by randomly corrupting the head or tail entity in the primal triple. Different from HINGE (Rosso et al., 2020) and NeuInfer (Guan et al., 2020) that score all potential facts one by one that takes an extremely long time for evaluation, ShrinkE ranks each target answer against all candidates in a single pass and significantly reduces the evaluation time. We search the dimensionality from [50, 100, 200, 300] and the best one is 200. We set the temperature parameter to be t = 1.0. We use the label smoothing strategy and set the smoothing rate to be 0.1. We repeat all experiments for 5 times with different random seeds and report the average values, the error bars are relatively small and are omitted. Code is available at 3. Baselines We compare ShrinkE against various models, including m-TransH (Wen et al., 2016), RAE (Zhang et al., 2018), NaLP-Fix (Rosso et al., 2020), HINGE (Rosso et al., 2020), NeuInfer (Guan et al., 2020), BoxE (Abboud et al., 2020), Transformer and StarE (Galkin et al., 2020). Note that we exclude Hy-Transformer (Yu and Yang, 2021), GRAN (Wang et al., 2021) and QUAD (Shomer et al., 2022) for comparison because 1) they are heavily based on StarE and Transformer; 3https://github.com/xiongbo010/ShrinkE | Method | MRR | H@ 1 | H@ 10 | |---------------------------|-------|--------|---------| | ShrinkE (w/o translation) | 0.583 | 0.495 | 0.729 | | ShrinkE (w/o rotation) | 0.581 | 0.497 | 0.724 | | ShrinkE (w/o shrinking) | 0.571 | 0.490 | 0.711 | | ShrinkE | 0.589 | 0.506 | 0.749 | and 2) they leverage auxiliary training tasks, which can also be incorporated into our framework and we leave as one future work. Evaluation We strictly follow the settings of Galkin et al. (2020), where the aim is to predict a missing head/tail entity in a hyper-relational fact. We consider the widely used ranking-based metrics for link prediction: mean reciprocal rank (MRR) and H@K (K=1,10). For ranking calculation, we consider the filtered setting by filtering the facts existing in the training and validation sets (Bordes et al., 2013). ## 6.2 Main Results And Analysis Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the performances of all approaches on the six datasets. Overall, ShrinkE achieves either the best or the second-best results against all baselines, showcasing the expressivity and capability of ShrinkE on hyper-relational link prediction. In particular, We observe that ShrinkE outperforms all baselines on JF17K and the three variants of WD50K with a high ratio of facts containing qualifiers while achieving highly competitive results on WikiPeople and the original version of WD50K that contain fewer facts with qualifiers. Interestingly, we find that the performance gains increase when increasing the ratio of facts containing qualifiers. On WD50K (100) where 100% facts contain qualifiers, the performance gain of ShrinkE is most significant across all metrics (6.2%, 6.9%, and 4.7% improvements over MRR, H@1, and H@10, respectively). We believe this is because that ShrinkE is excellent at modeling qualifiers due to its explicit modeling of inference patterns. Case analysis Table 5 shows some examples of qualifier implication pairs recovered by our learned embeddings. Note that exclusions pairs are ubiquitous (i.e., most of the random qualifiers are mutually exclusive) and hence we do not analyze them. We find that some qualifier implications happen when they are about geographic information and involve geographic inclusion such as *Monte Carlo* | body | head | |-----------------------------|----------------------------| | (residence: Monte Carlo) | (country, Monaco) | | (residence: Belgrade) | (country, Serbia) | | (owned_by: X) | (of, voting interest) | | (emergency phone number: Y) | (has_use, police) | | (emergency phone number: Z) | (has_use, fire department) | | (used_by: software) | (via, operating_system) |   is in *Monaco*. Interestingly, we find that qualifiers associated with key *owned_by* imply (of, voting interest), and qualifiers with key emergency phone number imply (*has_use, police*) or (*has_use,* file department), which conceptually make sense. ## 6.3 Ablations And Parameter Sensitivity Impact of relational components To determine the importance of each component in relational modeling, we conduct an ablation study by considering three versions of ShrinkE in which one of the components (translation, rotation, and shrinking) is removed. Table 4 shows that the removal of each component of the relational transformation leads to a degradation in performance, validating the importance of each component. In particular, by removing the qualifier shrinking, which is the main contribution of our framework, the performance reduces 3% and 5% in MRR and H@10, respectively, showcasing the usefulness of modeling qualifiers as shrinking. The removals of translation and rotation both result in around 1% and 2% reduction in MRR and H@10, respectively. Impact of dimensionality We conduct experiments on JF17K under a varied number of dimensions d = [4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256]. As Fig. 3 depicts, the performance increases when increasing the number of dimensions. However, the growth trend gradually flattens with the increase of dimensions and it achieves comparable performance when the dimension is higher than 128. ## 6.4 Discussion Comparison with neural network models Heavy neural network models such as GRAN (Wang et al., 2021) and QUAD (Shomer et al., 2022) are built on relational GNNs and/or Transformers and require a large number of parameters. In contrast, ShrinkE is a neuro-symbolic model that requires only one MLP layer and a much smaller number of parameters. The logical modelling of ShrinkE makes it more explainable than GNNbased and Transformer-based methods. Comparison with other box embeddings in KGs ShrinkE is the first to not only represent hyper-relational facts, but also explicitly model the logical properties of these facts. SrinkE is different from previous box embedding methods (Abboud et al., 2020) of KGs in three key modules: 1) our point-to-box transform function modelling triple inference patterns; 2) a new point-to-box distance function; and 3) we introduce box shrinking to model qualifier-level inference patterns. Moreover, we provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis of ShrinkE on modelling various logical properties. ## 7 Conclusion We present a novel hyper-relational KG embedding model ShrinkE. ShrinkE models a primal triple as a spatio-functional transformation while modeling each qualifier as a shrinking that monotonically narrows down the answer set. We proved that ShrinkE is able to spatially infer core inference patterns at different levels including triple-level, fact-level, and qualifier-level. Experimental results on three benchmarks demonstrate the advantages of ShrinkE in predicting hyper-relational links. ## Limitations Currently, the main goal of ShrinkE is to model inference patterns directly in the embedding space for hyper-relational KGs and we do not explore more advanced training strategies that have recently been proposed. For example, recent works (Yu and Yang, 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Shomer et al., 2022) have demonstrated that adding auxiliary training tasks, e.g., the task of predicting qualifier entities, can further improve the overall performance. We believe such auxiliary training tasks can also benefit ShrinkE and we leave it as future work. Another limitation of ShrinkE, though rarely happens, is that when dealing with semantically opaque contexts, the monotonicity assumption might not hold. In that case, we need ad-hoc solutions. One simple way is to explicitly distinguish semantically transparent and semantically opaque contexts. ## Ethics Statement The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. This article does not contain any studies involving business data and personal information. Our experimentation does not involve any ethical concerns. However, similar to other models, when deploying our link prediction model to real-world applications such as online recommendation systems, the prediction might be biased or unfair to some ethic/gender groups. We advise researchers in the community to look into bias (Bourli and Pitoura, 2020) and fairness (Fu et al., 2020) in KGs. ## Acknowledgement The authors thank the International Max Planck Research School for Intelligent Systems (IMPRSIS) for supporting Bo Xiong. Bo Xiong is funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No: 860801. Mojtaba Nayyeri is funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action under Grant Agreement Number 01MK20008F (Service-Meister). This research was partially funded by the Ministry of Science, Research, and the Arts (MWK) Baden-Württemberg, Germany, within the Artificial Intelligence Software Academy (AISA) and the German Research Foundation (DFG) via grant agreement number STA 572/18-1 (Open Argument Mining). We acknowledge the support by the Stuttgart Center for Simulation Science (SimTech). ## References Ralph Abboud, ˙Ismail ˙Ilkan Ceylan, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Tommaso Salvatori. 2020. Boxe: A box embedding model for knowledge base completion. In *NeurIPS*. Dörthe Arndt, Jeen Broekstra, Bob DuCharme, Ora Lassila, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Jr. Ted Thibodeau, and Bryan Thompson. 2021. Rdf-star and sparql-star. In *Final* Community Group Report. Ivana Balazevic, Carl Allen, and Timothy M. Hospedales. 2019. Tucker: Tensor factorization for knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP/IJCNLP (1), pages 5184–5193. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kurt Bollacker, Robert Cook, and Patrick Tufts. 2007. Freebase: A shared database of structured general human knowledge. In *AAAI*, volume 7, pages 1962– 1963. Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto GarcíaDurán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multirelational data. In *NIPS*, pages 2787–2795. Styliani Bourli and Evaggelia Pitoura. 2020. Bias in knowledge graph embeddings. In *2020 IEEE/ACM* International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pages 6–10. IEEE. Ines Chami, Adva Wolf, Da-Cheng Juan, Frederic Sala, Sujith Ravi, and Christopher Ré. 2020. Lowdimensional hyperbolic knowledge graph embeddings. In ACL, pages 6901–6914. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yankai Chen, Menglin Yang, Yingxue Zhang, Mengchen Zhao, Ziqiao Meng, Jianye Hao, and Irwin King. 2022. Modeling scale-free graphs with hyperbolic geometry for knowledge-aware recommendation. In *WSDM*, pages 94–102. ACM. Thomas Delva, Julián Arenas-Guerrero, Ana IglesiasMolina, Oscar Corcho, David Chaves-Fraga, and Anastasia Dimou. 2021. Rml-star: A declarative mapping language for rdf-star generation. In *ISWC*, pages 1–5. Shimin Di, Quanming Yao, and Lei Chen. 2021. Searching to sparsify tensor decomposition for n-ary relational data. In WWW, pages 4043–4054. ACM / IW3C2. Bahare Fatemi, Perouz Taslakian, David Vázquez, and David Poole. 2020. Knowledge hypergraphs: Prediction beyond binary relations. In *IJCAI*, pages 2191–2197. ijcai.org. Zuohui Fu, Yikun Xian, Ruoyuan Gao, Jieyu Zhao, Qiaoying Huang, Yingqiang Ge, Shuyuan Xu, Shijie Geng, Chirag Shah, Yongfeng Zhang, et al. 2020. Fairness-aware explainable recommendation over knowledge graphs. In *SIGIR*, pages 69–78. Mikhail Galkin, Priyansh Trivedi, Gaurav Maheshwari, Ricardo Usbeck, and Jens Lehmann. 2020. Message passing for hyper-relational knowledge graphs. In *EMNLP (1)*, pages 7346–7359. Association for Computational Linguistics. Todd J Green, Grigoris Karvounarakis, and Val Tannen. 2007. Provenance semirings. In *Proceedings of the* twenty-sixth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems, pages 31– 40. Saiping Guan, Xiaolong Jin, Jiafeng Guo, Yuanzhuo none Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021. Link prediction on n-ary relational data based on relatedness evaluation. *TKDE*. Saiping Guan, Xiaolong Jin, Jiafeng Guo, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2020. Neuinfer: Knowledge inference on n-ary facts. In ACL, pages 6141– 6151. Association for Computational Linguistics. Saiping Guan, Xiaolong Jin, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2019. Link prediction on n-ary relational data. In WWW, pages 583–593. ACM. Yunjie He, Mojtaba Nayyeri, Bo Xiong, Evgeny Kharlamov, and Steffen Staab. 2023. Modeling relational patterns for logical query answering over knowledge graphs. *CoRR*, abs/2303.11858. Seyed Mehran Kazemi and David Poole. 2018. Simple embedding for link prediction in knowledge graphs. In *NeurIPS*, pages 4289–4300. Maxat Kulmanov, Wang Liu-Wei, Yuan Yan, and Robert Hoehndorf. 2019. EL embeddings: Geometric construction of models for the description logic EL++. In *IJCAI*, pages 6103–6109. ijcai.org. Yu Liu, Quanming Yao, and Yong Li. 2020. Generalizing tensor decomposition for n-ary relational knowledge bases. In WWW, pages 1104–1114. ACM / IW3C2. Yu Liu, Quanming Yao, and Yong Li. 2021a. Roleaware modeling for n-ary relational knowledge bases. In WWW, pages 2660–2671. ACM / IW3C2. Yu Liu, Quanming Yao, and Yong Li. 2021b. Roleaware modeling for n-ary relational knowledge bases. In *Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021*, pages 2660–2671. Jiaying Lu, Jiaming Shen, Bo Xiong, Wenjing Ma, Steffen Staab, and Carl Yang. 2023. Hiprompt: Fewshot biomedical knowledge fusion via hierarchyoriented prompting. In *SIGIR*. ACM. Denis Lukovnikov, Asja Fischer, Jens Lehmann, and Sören Auer. 2017. Neural network-based question answering over knowledge graphs on word and character level. In WWW, pages 1211–1220. Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. 2011. A three-way model for collective learning on multi-relational data. In *ICML*, pages 809–816. Omnipress. Hongyu Ren, Weihua Hu, and Jure Leskovec. 2020. Query2box: Reasoning over knowledge graphs in vector space using box embeddings. In *ICLR*. OpenReview.net. Paolo Rosso, Dingqi Yang, and Philippe CudréMauroux. 2020. Beyond triplets: Hyper-relational knowledge graph embedding for link prediction. In WWW, pages 1885–1896. ACM / IW3C2. Harry Shomer, Wei Jin, Juan-Hui Li, Yao Ma, and Jiliang Tang. 2022. Learning representations for hyper-relational knowledge graphs. *CoRR*, abs/2208.14322. Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In *ICLR* (Poster). OpenReview.net. Théo Trouillon, Christopher R Dance, Éric Gaussier, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2017. Knowledge graph completion via complex tensor factorization. *JMLR*, 18:1–38. Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In *ICML*, volume 48 of *JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings*, pages 2071–2080. JMLR.org. Shikhar Vashishth, Soumya Sanyal, Vikram Nitin, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Composition-based multirelational graph convolutional networks. In *ICLR*. OpenReview.net. Luke Vilnis, Xiang Li, Shikhar Murty, and Andrew McCallum. 2018. Probabilistic embedding of knowledge graphs with box lattice measures. In *ACL (1)*, pages 263–272. Association for Computational Linguistics. Denny Vrandeciˇ c and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wiki- ´ data: a free collaborative knowledgebase. *Communications of the ACM*, 57(10):78–85. Quan Wang, Haifeng Wang, Yajuan Lyu, and Yong Zhu. 2021. Link prediction on n-ary relational facts: A graph-based approach. In *ACL/IJCNLP (Findings)*, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL, pages 396–407. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In *AAAI*, pages 1112–1119. AAAI Press. Jianfeng Wen, Jianxin Li, Yongyi Mao, Shini Chen, and Richong Zhang. 2016. On the representation and embedding of knowledge bases beyond binary relations. In *IJCAI*, pages 1300–1307. IJCAI/AAAI Press. Bo Xiong, Michael Cochez, Mojtaba Nayyeri, and Steffen Staab. 2022a. Hyperbolic embedding inference for structured multi-label prediction. In *NeurIPS*. Bo Xiong, Mojtaba Nayyeri, Ming Jin, Yunjie He, Michael Cochez, Shirui Pan, and Steffen Staab. 2023. Geometric relational embeddings: A survey. CoRR, abs/2304.11949. Bo Xiong, Nico Potyka, Trung-Kien Tran, Mojtaba Nayyeri, and Steffen Staab. 2022b. Faithful embeddings for el++ knowledge bases. In *ISWC*, volume 13489 of *Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, pages 22–38. Springer. Bo Xiong, Nico Potyka, Trung-Kien Tran, Mojtaba Nayyeri, and Steffen Staab. 2022c. Faithful embeddings for el++ knowledge bases. *ISWC*, abs/2201.09919. Bo Xiong, Shichao Zhu, Mojtaba Nayyeri, Chengjin Xu, Shirui Pan, Chuan Zhou, and Steffen Staab. 2022d. Ultrahyperbolic knowledge graph embeddings. In KDD, pages 2130–2139. ACM. Donghan Yu and Yiming Yang. 2021. Improving hyper-relational knowledge graph completion. CoRR, abs/2104.08167. Fuzheng Zhang, Nicholas Jing Yuan, Defu Lian, Xing Xie, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2016. Collaborative knowledge base embedding for recommender systems. In SIGKDD, pages 353–362. Richong Zhang, Junpeng Li, Jiajie Mei, and Yongyi Mao. 2018. Scalable instance reconstruction in knowledge bases via relatedness affiliated embedding. In WWW, pages 1185–1194. ACM. Zhanqiu Zhang, Jie Wang, Jiajun Chen, Shuiwang Ji, and Feng Wu. 2021. Cone: Cone embeddings for multi-hop reasoning over knowledge graphs. In NeurIPS, pages 19172–19183. ## A Supplemental Related Works We survey some supplemental related work on binary relational KG embeddings and geometric relational embeddings. Binary relational KG embeddings Most of the existing KG embedding methods consider binary relational KGs where each fact is represented in the form of triple (*h, r, t*). Prominent examples include the *additive* (or *translational*) family such as TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) that models each fact as a translation s + r ≈ o, and the *multiplicative* (or *bilinear*) family such as RESCAL (Nickel et al., 2011) that models the relation between two entities as a bilinear interaction < h, r, t >. Many other works have been proposed to enhance the translational and bilinear models such as modeling relational mapping properties (e.g., one-to-many and many-to-many) (Wang et al., 2014), modeling inference patterns (e.g., symmetry and composition) (Trouillon et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2019), and modeling complex graph structures (e.g., hierarchies and cycles) (Chami et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2022d) to name a few. Geometric relational embeddings Our work is closely related to geometric relational embeddings. See (Xiong et al., 2023) for a systematic survey. Geometric relational embeddings encode real-world relational knowledge by geometric objects such as convex regions like n-balls (Kulmanov et al., 2019), convex cones (Zhang et al., 2021; He et al., 2023), axis-parallel boxes (Vilnis et al., 2018; Xiong et al., 2022c; Ren et al., 2020) and non-Euclidean manifold components (Xiong et al., 2022a). A key advantage of these geometric embeddings is that they nicely model the set-theoretic semantics that can be used to capture logical rules of KGs (Abboud et al., 2020), ontological axioms (Kulmanov et al., 2019; Xiong et al., 2022c), transitive closure (Vilnis et al., 2018), and logical query for multi-hop reasoning (Ren et al., 2020). Different from all previous work, ShrinkE is the first geometric embedding that aims at modeling inference patterns for hyper-relational KGs. ## B Proof Of Propositions Proposition B.1. *Given any two facts* F1 = (T , Q1) and F2 = (T , Q2) where Q2 ⊆ Q1*, i.e.,* F2 is a partial fact of F1, the output of the scoring function f(·) *of ShrinkE satisfy the constraint* f(F2) ≥ f(F1)*, which implies Eq.(2).* Proof. We first prove that the resulting box of F2 subsumes the resulting box of F2. Since the primal triple of F1 and F2 are the same (let assume it is T = (*h, r, t*) ), the spanned boxes of the two facts are Hr(eh). Since Q2 ⊆ Q1, the final shrunken box of F1 must be a subset of the shrunken box of F2. Hence, we have, BoxF2 ⊆ BoxF1 . (15) Given the tail entity t whose embedding is denoted by et, we consider three cases of its position. 1) If etis inside the small box BoxF2 , then et must also be inside BoxF1 since BoxF2 ⊆ BoxF1 . Note that our point-to-box function is monotonically increasing w.r.t. the increase of distance from the tail point to the center of box. Hence, we will have D(e, BoxF2 ) ≥ D(e, BoxF1 ), implying f(F2) ≥ f(F1). 2) If etis outside the small box BoxF2 but inside in the larger BoxF1 , according to the definition of the point-to-box distance function, we immediately have D(e, BoxF2 ) ≥ D(e, BoxF1 ), implying f(F2) ≥ f(F1). 3) If etis outside the larger box BoxF1 " then et must also be outside BoxF2 since BoxF2 ⊆ BoxF1 . Note that our point-to-box function is monotonically decreasing w.r.t. the increase of volume of box. Hence, we will have D(e, BoxF2 ) ≥ D(e, BoxF1 ), implying f(F2) ≥ f(F1). Proposition B.2. *ShrinkE is able to infer hyperrelational symmetry, anti-symmetry, inversion, composition, hierarchy, intersection, and exclusion.* We first prove that ShrinkE is able to infer symmetry, anti-symmetry, inversion, and composition. For the sake of proof, we assume θr ∈ [−*π, π*). We prove them by proving Lemma B.1-4 one by one. Lemma B.1 (Symmetry). Let r be a symmetric relation such that for each triple (eh, r, et), its symmetric triple (et, r, eh) also holds. This symmetric property of r *can be modeled by ShrinkE.* Proof. If r is a symmetric relation, by taking the δr = 0, br = 0, and Θr = diag G (θr,1)*, . . . ,* G θr, d 2 , where G(θ) is a 2 × 2 diagonal matrix, we have $\mathbf{e}_{h}=f_{r}\left(\mathbf{e}_{t}\right)=\mathbf{\Theta}_{r}\mathbf{e}_{t},\ \mathbf{e}_{t}=f_{r}\left(\mathbf{e}_{h}\right)=\mathbf{\Theta}_{r}\mathbf{e}_{h}$ $\mathbf{\Rightarrow}\ \mathbf{\Theta}_{r}^{2}=\mathbf{I}$ which holds true when θr,i = 0 or θr,i = −π for i = 1, *· · ·* , d 2 . Lemma B.2 (Anti-symmetry). Let r *be an antisymmetric relation such that for each triple* (eh, r, et), its symmetric triple (et, r, eh) is not true. This anti-symmetric property of r *can be modeled* by ShrinkE. Proof. If r is a anti-symmetric relation, by taking the δr = 0, br = 0, and Θr = diag G (θr,1)*, . . . ,* G θr, d 2 , where G(θ) is a 2 × 2 diagonal matrix, we have $\mathbf{e}_{h}\neq f_{r}\left(\mathbf{e}_{t}\right)=\mathbf{\Theta}_{r}\mathbf{e}_{t}$, $\mathbf{e}_{t}=f_{r}\left(\mathbf{e}_{h}\right)=\mathbf{\Theta}_{r}\mathbf{e}_{h}$, $\mathbf{\Rightarrow}\mathbf{\Theta}_{r}^{2}\neq\mathbf{I}$ which holds true when θr,i 6= 0 or θr,i 6= −π for i = 1, *· · ·* , d 2 . Lemma B.3 (Inversion). Let r1 and r2 be inverse relations such that for each triple (eh, r1, et)*, its* inverse triple (et, r2, eh) is also true. This inverse property of r1 and r2 *can be modeled by ShrinkE.* Proof. If r1 and r2 are inverse relations, by taking the δr = 0, br = 0, and Θr = diag G (θr,1)*, . . . ,* G θr, d 2 , where G(θ) is a 2 × 2 diagonal matrix, we have et = fr1 (eh) = Θr1 eh, eh = fr2 (et) = Θr2 eh ⇒ Θr1Θr2 = I which holds true when for θr1,ir1 + θr2,i = 0 for i = 1, *· · ·* , d 2 . Lemma B.4 (Composition). Let relation r1 be composed of r2 and r3 such that triple (e1, r1, e3) exists when (e1, r2, e2) and (e2, r3, e3) exist. This composition property can be modeled by ShrinkE. Proof. If r1 is composed of r2 and r3, by taking the δr = 0, br = 0, and Θr = diag G (θr,1)*, . . . ,* G θr, d 2 , where G(θ) is a 2 × 2 diagonal matrix, we have e3 = fr1 (e1) = Θr1 e1, e2 = fr2 (e1) = Θr2 e1, e3 = fr3 (e2) = Θr3 e2 ⇒ Θr1 = Θr2Θr3 which holds true when θr1,i = θr2,i + θr3,i or θr1,i = θr2,i+θr3,i+2π or θr1,i = θr2,i+θr3,i−2π for i = 1, *· · ·* , d 2 . We now prove that ShrinkE is able to infer relation implication, exclusion and intersection. Lemma B.5 (Relation implication). Let r1 → r2 *form a hierarchy such that for each triple* (eh, r1, et), (eh, r2, et) *also holds. This hierarchy* property r1 → r2 *can be modeled by ShrinkE.* Proof. If r1 → r2, by taking Tr1 = Tr2 , i.e., δr1 = δr2and Θr1 = Θr2 , we have, (eh, r1, et) → (eh, r2, et) implies that the spanning box of query (eh, r1, x?) is subsumed by the spanning box of query (eh, r2, x?). i.e., Box(Hr1 (eh)− σ(δr1 ), Hr1 (eh) + σ(δr1 )) ⊆ Box(Hr1 (eh) − σ(δr2 ), Hr1 (eh) +σ(δr2 )), which holds true when δr1 ≤ δr2 . Lemma B.6 (Relation exclusion). Let r1, r2 be mutually exclusive, that is, (eh, r1, et), (eh, r2, et) can not be simultaneously hold. This mutual exclusion property r1 ∧ r2 → ⊥ can be modeled by ShrinkE. Proof. If r1 ∧ r2 → ⊥, we have (eh, r1, et) ∧ (eh, r2, et) → ⊥, which implies that the spanning box of query (eh, r1, x?) and the spanning box of query (eh, r2, x?) are mutually exclusive, i.e., Box(Hr1 (eh) − σ(δr1 ), Hr1 (eh) + σ(δr1 )) ∩ Box(Hr1 (eh) − σ(δr2 ), Hr1 (eh) + σ(δr2 )) → ⊥ Lemma B.7 (Relation intersection). Let r3 be a intersection of r1, r2, that is, if (eh, r1, et) and (eh, r2, et) hold, then (eh, r3, et) *also holds. This* intersection property r1 ∧ r2 → r3 can be modeled by ShrinkE. Proof. Note that box is closed under intersection and this property can be view as a combination of two pairs of relation implication. Hence, the proof is similar to the proof of Lemma B. Proposition B.3. *ShrinkE is able to infer qualifier* implication, mutual exclusion, and intersection. Proof. Since each qualifier is associated with a box, the implication and mutual exclusion relationships between qualifiers can be modeled by their geometric relationships, i.e., box entailment and box disjointedness, respectively, between their corresponding boxes. Qualifier intersection can be modeled by enforcing the box of one qualifier to be inside the intersection of the boxes of another two qualifiers. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitation section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? In "Ethics Statement" ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 6 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix C. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 6 and Appendix C. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank. ✗ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

xu-etal-2023-ctc

{CTC}-based Non-autoregressive Speech Translation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.744

Combining end-to-end speech translation (ST) and non-autoregressive (NAR) generation is promising in language and speech processing for their advantages of less error propagation and low latency. In this paper, we investigate the potential of connectionist temporal classification (CTC) for non-autoregressive speech translation (NAST).In particular, we develop a model consisting of two encoders that are guided by CTC to predict the source and target texts, respectively. Introducing CTC into NAST on both language sides has obvious challenges: 1) the conditional independent generation somewhat breaks the interdependency among tokens, and 2) the monotonic alignment assumption in standard CTC does not hold in translation tasks. In response, we develop a prediction-aware encoding approach and a cross-layer attention approach to address these issues. We also use curriculum learning to improve convergence of training. Experiments on the MuST-C ST benchmarks show that our NAST model achieves an average BLEU score of 29.5 with a speed-up of 5.67$\times$, which is comparable to the autoregressive counterpart and even outperforms the previous best result of 0.9 BLEU points.

# Ctc-Based Non-Autoregressive Speech Translation Chen Xu1†, Xiaoqian Liu1, Xiaowen Liu1, Qingxuan Sun1**, Yuhao Zhang**1, Murun Yang1, Qianqian Dong2, Tom Ko2**, Mingxuan Wang**2∗, Tong Xiao1,3∗, Anxiang Ma1,3, Jingbo Zhu1,3 1School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China 2ByteDance 3NiuTrans Research, Shenyang, China {xuchennlp, liuxiaoqian0319, liuxiaowenneu}@outlook.com {dongqianqian, tom.ko, wangmingxuan.89}@bytedance.com {xiaotong, maanxiang, zhujingbo}@mail.neu.edu.cn ## Abstract Combining end-to-end speech translation (ST) and non-autoregressive (NAR) generation is promising in language and speech processing for their advantages of less error propagation and low latency. In this paper, we investigate the potential of connectionist temporal classification (CTC) for non-autoregressive speech translation (NAST). In particular, we develop a model consisting of two encoders that are guided by CTC to predict the source and target texts, respectively. Introducing CTC into NAST on both language sides has obvious challenges: 1) the conditional independent generation somewhat breaks the interdependency among tokens, and 2) the monotonic alignment assumption in standard CTC does not hold in translation tasks. In response, we develop a prediction-aware encoding approach and a cross-layer attention approach to address these issues. We also use curriculum learning to improve convergence of training. Experiments on the MuST-C ST benchmarks show that our NAST model achieves an average BLEU score of 29.5 with a speed-up of 5.67×, which is comparable to the autoregressive counterpart and even outperforms the previous best result of 0.9 BLEU points1. ## 1 Introduction End-to-end speech translation (E2E ST) has attracted unprecedented attention and achieved dramatic development in recent years (Duong et al., 2016; Berard et al., 2016; Weiss et al., 2017; Anastasopoulos and Chiang, 2018; Wang et al., 2020b,c; Xu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022b). Stand-alone *Corresponding author. †Work was done while at ByteDance AI Lab. 1The code is available at https://github.com/xuchennlp/ S2T. modeling reduces the inference latency by almost half compared to cascaded systems, where the automatic speech recognition (ASR) model and the machine translation (MT) model run serially. This helps the application in real scenarios, especially with limited computational resources. However, this advantage only holds in the context of autoregressive (AR) decoding, where each token is generated depending on the previously predicted results. Non-autoregressive (NAR) generation (Gu et al., 2018), the recently popular decoding method in ASR and MT, makes the inference process fast by predicting the output sequence in parallel, resulting in the E2E ST no longer being superior in terms of inference speed-up. A natural question arises: can we build a powerful non-autoregressive speech translation (NAST) model? The NAR results in the latest literature are still inferior to the AR counterparts with a large gap of about 2 ∼ 3 BLEU points, even with the iterative refinement process (Inaguma et al., 2021a). In this work, we aim to develop a promising NAST model for comparable performance to the AR model without complex decoding. We resort to the connectionist temporal classification (CTC, Graves et al., 2006) because of its great success in ASR and MT and the convenience of variable length prediction. CTC is well suited for speech-to-text modeling, where the input sequence is longer than the output. Recent studies show that CTC-based NAR models achieve comparable or even better performance than their AR counterparts, providing insight into the design of the powerful CTC-NAST model. Our CTC-NAST model is decoder-free and consists of two stacked encoders: an acoustic encoder and a textual encoder. They are guided by CTC to predict transcription and translation, respectively (Chuang et al., 2021). Then, we carry out a careful and systematic inspection of the underlying issues and address the challenges of CTC-NAST. In particular, - The conditional independence assumption allows fast inference but omits interdependency across the whole sequence. We identify the prediction-aware encoding (PAE) method underlying the success of a series of studies (Nozaki and Komatsu, 2021; Huang et al., 2022; Higuchi et al., 2021a), which observe preliminary prediction and refine it in the final generation. Following this idea, we predict the CTC result in the intermediate layer and then integrate it into the subsequent encoding. - Another inherent property of CTC, the monotonic assumption, is valid for ASR but does not hold for translation tasks, where a future word in the target text may be aligned with the earlier part of the source text, especially on distant language pairs (Hannun, 2017). A critical requirement of the decoder-free design is the *reordering augmentation* (Chuang et al., 2021). As a remedy, we introduce an additional cross-layer attention module, which is complementary to the self-attention module. Even with the above efforts, NAST is still a difficult task that suffers from heavy modeling burdens. A *curriculum learning strategy* that guides the training in an easy-to-hard way is significant for better convergence. We replace part of the incorrect prediction with ground truth in PAE to prompt the generation of the whole sequence. In this way, the model relieves the CTC learning burden by observing almost the whole sequence in the early stages, while only a few tokens are replaced as CTC performance improves, ensuring consistency between training and inference. Our CTC-NAST model is simple, completely parallel, and works well for both similar and distant language pairs. The proposed methods yield a remarkable gain of 3.0 BLEU points on MuST-C En-De, achieving an average BLEU score of 29.5 with an inference speed-up of 5.67×, and even outperforming the best previous AR results by 0.9 BLEU points. We also report competitive results on the more challenging MuST-C En-Ja and FisherCallhome corpus. ## 2 Background 2.1 Connectionist Temporal Classification CTC (Graves et al., 2006) was originally proposed for labeling unsegmented sequences. It learns monotonic alignment between acoustic features and transcriptions, which is valid for cross-modal learning like ASR. CTC helps convergence and allows re-scoring decoding through a lightweight output layer, achieving great success in ASR as an auxiliary loss on top of the encoder (Watanabe et al., 2017; Karita et al., 2019). Given the encoder representation h and the corresponding sequence y, the CTC loss is defined as: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{CTC}}=-\mathrm{log}\mathbf{P}_{\mathrm{CTC}}(y|h)$$ $$(1)$$ where the probability is calculated by marginalizing over all possible alignments Φ(y) between h and y: $$\mathrm{P_{CTC}}(y|h)=\sum_{\pi\in\Phi(y)}\mathrm{P}(\pi|h)\qquad\qquad(2)$$ CTC has the same conditional independence property as NAR generation, where the probability of the path π is the product of the probability P(πt|ht) at each time step t: $$\mathrm{P}(Y|X)\approx\prod_{t=1}^{T}\mathrm{P}(\pi_{t}|h_{t})\qquad\qquad(3)$$ where T is the length of h. ## 2.2 Ar And Nar Given a source sequence X = (x1, · · · , xT ′), a sequence-to-sequence model predicts the target sequence Y = (y1, · · · , yT ) by conditional distribution: $$\mathbf{P}(Y|X;\theta)=\prod_{t=1}^{T}\mathbf{P}_{\mathrm{AR}}(y_{t}|y_{<t},X;\theta)$$ $$\quad(4)$$ where θ is the model parameters. This autoregressive generation learns sequential dependency but suffers from high inference latency. Instead, NAR carries out the conditional independent prediction for parallel inference (Gu et al., 2018): $$\mathbf{P}(Y|X;\theta)=\prod_{t=1}^{T}\mathbf{P_{NAR}}(y_{t}|X;\theta)$$ $$\mathbf{\Sigma}(\mathbf{5})$$ Although the vanilla NAR model speeds up inference by about 15× (Gu et al., 2018), it is still inferior to the AR counterpart by a large gap. Researchers have proposed many series of methods to improve the generation quality and investigate a better trade-off between performance and speed in the MT task, such as the iterative decoding method (Lee et al., 2018; Stern et al., 2019; Ghazvininejad et al., 2019; Kasai et al., 2020), latent variable method (Gu et al., 2018; Song et al., 2021; Gu and Kong, 2021), data manipulation method (Zhou and Keung, 2020; Bao et al., 2022; Ding et al., 2021), enhancement based method (Guo et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019), and semiautoregressive decoding (Ran et al., 2020). There are also some studies to design the architecture of the NAR models, such as the use of CTC for prediction for its ability of variable length prediction (Libovický and Helcl, 2018; Shu et al., 2020; Saharia et al., 2020). In addition, the NAR generation also shows promising results in ASR task, especially the CTCbased systems (Higuchi et al., 2020, 2021b; Lee and Watanabe, 2021; Nozaki and Komatsu, 2021; Kim et al., 2022). ## 2.3 Speech Translation Recently, E2E ST has received a lot of attention due to its direct modeling (Berard et al., 2016). Unlike the conventional cascaded system that decouples the cross-modal and cross-lingual modeling into ASR and MT models respectively (Ney, 1999; Mathias and Byrne, 2006), the end-to-end manner is more elegant and has the potential for fast inference and error-free propagation. One promising route to improve ST is to develop more adaptive architectures according to the task characteristics. Based on the idea of modeling decoupling, the stacked encoding method divides cross-modal and cross-lingual learning into acoustic and semantic encoders, respectively (Liu et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021). In this design, the CTC loss for transcription is usually introduced to guide the learning of the acoustic encoder, which significantly helps convergence. In addition, the latent alignment learned in the CTC is used to bridge the two encoders. Liu et al. (2020) shrink the sequence length based on CTC prediction. Xu et al. (2021) introduce an adapter to bridge two encoders by integrating CTC prediction. Several studies investigate the NAR generation in ST (Inaguma et al., 2021a,b; Chuang et al., 2021). However, current NAR systems are still inferior to AR counterparts, especially CTC-based systems. Researchers also continue to extend the use of CTC to learn target text as an auxiliary loss of the encoder (Zhang et al., 2022a; Yan et al., 2022). But there is no work to inspect the underlying issues in the CTC modeling of target text in ST. To this end, we study the challenges of building a powerful CTC-based NAST model and then propose corresponding methods. We also extend our method to AR models for a comprehensive exploration. ## 3 Ctc-Nast Among many well-established NAR designs for ASR or MT models, CTC is particularly suitable for ST modeling because the input length is remarkably longer than its output. In this section, we present CTC-NAST in detail. We first describe the base architecture, then identify and address three underlying challenges. See Figure 1 for an overview of our system. ## 3.1 Base Architecture ST aims to translate audio in the source language to text in the target language directly. Let (x; y s; y t) be a training sample of ST, where x is the input speech feature sequence, y sis the corresponding transcription of x, and y tis the translation in the target language. We assume that transcription is always available in our work. We drop the decoder network and rely only on the CTC-based encoder. Following the design of SATE (Xu et al., 2021; Chuang et al., 2021), we decouple the encoding into an acoustic encoder and a textual encoder in a stack architecture, as shown in Figure 1(a). They are guided by CTC loss for transcription and translation (denoted CTC and XCTC for distinction), respectively. Formally, given a representation h a of the acoustic encoder output, the CTC loss is calculated as: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{CTC}}=-\mathrm{log}\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{CTC}}(y^{s}|h^{a})$$ (6) $\frac{1}{2}$ $$\left(7\right)$$ a) (6) Similarly, the XCTC loss is calculated as: $\frac{1}{2}$ $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{XCTC}}=-\mathrm{log}\mathbf{P}_{\mathrm{XCTC}}(y^{t}|h^{t})$$ t) (7) where h tis the representation of the textual encoder output. Then, the training objective is formulated as the interpolation of the two CTC losses: $${\mathcal{L}}=\alpha_{A}\cdot{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{CTC}}+\alpha_{T}\cdot{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{XCTC}}$$ $$({\boldsymbol{\delta}})$$  where αA and αT are the coefficients of the CTC and XCTC losses, respectively. Although CTC works well for the NAR ASR model, extending CTC naively to the more challenging ST task is fragile. We claim that CTCNAST can be improved by addressing three issues: - **Conditional independence assumption** is an inherent property of CTC, which ignores interdependency with past or future contexts, leading to poor generation (Chan et al., 2020), like repetition and omission errors. - Although the self-attention network has the modest reordering capability (Chuang et al., 2021), our encoder-only architecture is hard to handle the **monotonic assumption**, especially for distant language pairs. - E2E ST already suffers from the heavy burden of cross-modal and cross-lingual mapping, while NAR modeling further aggravates the difficulty and results in **poor convergence**. ## 3.2 Prediction-Aware Encoding NAR generation enlarges the search space in inference due to conditional independence (Ran et al., 2021), especially with the long speech sequence of hundreds and thousands of units. A commonlyused solution, incorporating latent variables that contain the initial prediction into modeling, has been demonstrated to be effective (Lee et al., 2018). In this way, the NAR generation is decoupled as the multiple-step refinement of the target sequence, enabling the model to be aware of the previous prediction. Inspired by the prior efforts in MT (Huang et al., 2022) and ASR (Nozaki and Komatsu, 2021), we introduce prediction-aware encoding (PAE). The detailed illustration is shown in Figure 1(c). Specifically, given one representation h l outputted by the intermediate encoder layer l, PAE integrates the prediction information (corresponding ⃝1 in the Figure) into the following encoding explicitly by weighting the embedding matrix W over the current CTC distribution (called InterCTC) (Xu et al., 2021): PAE(h l) = h l + PInterCTC(π|h l) · W (9) where the weights W are shared in the whole network. Note that we use PAE to augment the learning of both CTC and XCTC. Since the poor prediction leads to the risk of error propagation, we also optimize the InterCTC loss for guaranteed prediction: LInterCTC = −logPInterCTC(y|h) (10) In this way, we ensure that CTC predicts well. However, the worse result for XCTC limits the benefits of PAE, which may result in negative effects. We alleviate this issue in Section 3.4. Now, we re-formulate the training loss in Eq. 8 as: $$\begin{array}{r c l}{{{\mathcal L}}}&{{=}}&{{\alpha_{\mathrm{A}}\cdot{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{CTC}}+\alpha_{\mathrm{T}}\cdot{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{XCTC}}}}\\ {{}}&{{}}&{{+}}&{{\beta_{\mathrm{A}}\cdot{\frac{1}{M}}\sum_{m=1}^{m}{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{InterCTC}}^{m}}}\\ {{}}&{{}}&{{}}&{{}}\\ {{}}&{{}}&{{+}}&{{\beta_{\mathrm{T}}\cdot{\frac{1}{N}}\sum_{n=1}^{N}{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{InterXCTC}}^{n}}}\end{array}\qquad{\mathrm{(11)}}$$ where M and N are the numbers of the intermediate CTC and XCTC, βA and βT are the corresponding coefficients. ## 3.3 Reordering Augmentation Vanilla Transformer generates each token by distributing the weight of the encoder-decoder attention module to the corresponding source part to be translated, which easily handles the order gap between languages. However, CTC modeling faces the intractable issue of reordering the representation into the target language order during encoding. Although previous studies have demonstrated that the MT or ST encoder can capture the global information (Yang et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2021), it is still difficult to rely only on the self-attention module to search the positions that contribute significantly to decoding (Chuang et al., 2021). To enhance the reordering capability of CTCNAST, we mimic the design of the decoder and introduce cross-layer attention (CLA) module, which is inserted between the self-attention module and the feed-forward module in the specific layers of the textual encoder, as shown in Figure 1(b). Let SA(·, ·, ·) and CLA(·, ·, ·) denote the self-attention and CLA modules, the new Transformer layer j can be formulated as: $$\begin{array}{r c l}{{h^{'}}}&{{=}}&{{h^{j-1}+\mathrm{SA}(h^{j-1},h^{j-1},h^{j-1})}}\\ {{h^{'}}}&{{=}}&{{h^{'}+\mathrm{CLA}(h^{'},h^{k},h^{k})}}\\ {{h^{j}}}&{{=}}&{{h^{'}+\mathrm{FFN}(h^{'})}}\end{array}\tag{12}$$ where h kis the representation output from the layer k(*k < j*). In this way, CLA offers a remedy for the lacking attention, that captures the information from the bottom layer directly and is complementary to the self-attention module. Now the textual encoder acts as both a stack of the encoder and the decoder of the vanilla encoder-decoder model. In order to further enhance the ability of CLA, we introduce the drop-net technique. In each layer containing the CLA module, we drop the selfattention module with a probability p*drop* ∈ [0, 1]. Note that the self-attention module always keeps during inference. ## 3.4 Curriculum Learning Strategy Even with the auxiliary encoding and improved design architecture, the CTC-NAST model still faces the difficulty of a heavy modeling burden, leading to poor convergence. Inspired by Qian et al. (2021), a curriculum learning strategy is remarkably important to reduce the dependency in the early stage and increase the difficulty along the training process. As illustrated in Figure 1(c), we replace part of the prediction (corresponding ⃝1 in the Figure) in Eq. 9 with the ground truth (corresponding ⃝2 in the Figure), which mitigates the negative effects of error propagation caused by the poor XCTC performance in PAE and prompts the generation of the whole sequence. Unlike the same lengths between input and output in the decoder, the length of the input acoustic feature is remarkably longer than the corresponding text in CTC. Therefore, we take the best alignment computed by the model as the ground truth (Gu and Kong, 2021; Huang et al., 2022): $${\hat{\pi}}=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{\pi\in\Phi(y)}\mathrm{P}(\pi|s;\theta^{'})\qquad\qquad(15)$$ where θ ′is the current model parameter. Note that the length of πˆ is the same as the input. Denote the replacement ratio as r ∈ [0, 1], we uniformly sample a random variable U from [0, 1]: $$\hat{P}_{t}=\mathbb{I}(U>=r)*p_{t}+\mathbb{I}(U<r)*\hat{\pi}_{t}\tag{16}$$ where I(·) is the indicator function. However, this strategy results in the inconsistency between training and decoding, where the ground truth is unavailable during decoding. To address this issue, Qian et al. (2021) adaptively determine the replacement ratio depending on the current prediction accuracy. But it does not work for CTC-NAST, as shown in Appendix B.3. Considering the long input sequence in ST, a lower ratio may not provide sufficient prompt, but a higher ratio may result in a severe gap between training and decoding. Therefore, we limit that only the positions where a wrong prediction (arg max pt ̸= ˆπt) occurs are replaced. In this way, we enable the large ratio throughout the whole training process. As the accuracy increases, more and | Model | De | Es | Fr | It | Nl | Pt | Ro | Ru | Ja | Avg. | Speed-up | | |----------------------------------------|-----------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|--------|------------|--------| | MT | Transformer (Ours) | 30.8 | 35.6 | 43.3 | 31.6 | 35.8 | 37.9 | 30.1 | 20.0 | 16.5 | 33.1 | - | | Transformer (Inaguma et al., 2021b) | 23.1 | - | 33.8 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | + Seq-KD | 24.4 | - | 34.6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | Transformer (Inaguma et al., 2021a) | 22.8 | 27.8 | 33.3 | 23.3 | 27.3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | + Seq-KD | 24.3 | 28.9 | 34.5 | 24.2 | 28.4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | Conformer (Inaguma et al., 2021a) | 25.0 | 30.5 | 35.5 | 25.4 | 29.7 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | + Seq-KD | 26.3 | 31.0 | 36.4 | 25.9 | 30.6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | Fairseq ST (Wang et al., 2020a) | 22.7 | 27.2 | 32.9 | 22.7 | 27.3 | 28.1 | 21.9 | 15.3 | - | 24.8 | - | | | NeurST (Zhao et al., 2021) | 22.8 | 27.4 | 33.3 | 22.9 | 27.2 | 28.7 | 22.2 | 15.1 | - | 24.9 | - | | | XSTNet (Ye et al., 2021) | 25.5 | 29.6 | 36.0 | 25.5 | 30.0 | 31.3 | 25.1 | 16.9 | - | 27.5 | - | | | STEMM (Fang et al., 2022) | 25.6 | 30.3 | 36.1 | 25.6 | 30.1 | 31.0 | 24.3 | 17.1 | - | 27.5 | - | | | ConST (Ye et al., 2022) | 25.7 | 30.4 | 36.8 | 26.3 | 30.6 | 32.0 | 24.8 | 17.3 | - | 28.0 | - | | | M3ST (Cheng et al., 2022) | 26.4 | 31.0 | 37.2 | 26.6 | 30.9 | 32.8 | 25.4 | 18.3 | - | 28.6 | - | | | CTC-Aug ST (Ours) | 26.9 | 31.5 | 38.1 | 27.4 | 31.9 | 33.4 | 25.8 | 18.7 | 16.1 | 29.2 | 1.0× | | | + Seq-KD | 27.7 | 31.6 | 39.5 | 27.5 | 32.3 | 33.7 | 26.6 | 18.7 | 16.4 | 29.7 | 1.0× | | | AR | CTC (Inaguma et al., 2021b) | 19.4 | - | 27.4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 20.84× | | Orthros (Inaguma et al., 2021b) | 23.9 | - | 33.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2.39× | | | CTC (Inaguma et al., 2021a) | 24.1 | 29.0 | 34.6 | 24.3 | 28.5 | - | - | - | - | - | 13.83× | | | Orthros - CTC (Inaguma et al., 2021a) | 25.3 | 30.4 | 36.2 | 25.4 | 29.9 | - | - | - | - | - | 1.14× | | | Orthros - CMLM (Inaguma et al., 2021a) | 24.1 | 29.2 | 35.1 | 24.4 | 28.6 | - | - | - | - | - | 2.73× | | | CTC-NAST (Ours) | 27.3 | 31.8 | 38.9 | 27.7 | 32.3 | 33.3 | 26.1 | 18.9 | 16.2 | 29.5 | 5.67× | | | NAR | | | | | | | | | | | | | more positions rely on the model's predictions, and the guidance to the fewer positions with errors always remains stable for better convergence. We call this method curriculum learning mixing (CLM). Finally, we smooth the ground truth to obtain a distribution similar to the CTC prediction, where the dominant probability is concentrated on the ground truth position, and the rest is evenly distributed among other tokens. ## 3.5 Inference CTC-NAST is a fully parallel decoding model. The inference resembles the training process, except the CLM method is not used. We employ greedy decoding, where CTC picks the tokens with maximum probability in each time-step, then removes the blanks and repeated tokens for final translation. ## 4 Extension On Ar Model Now a natural question arises: can our method proposed for the NAR model be used to improve the AR model? Our method produces better encoder representations for CTC prediction, but there is no evidence to demonstrate that the optimization of the CTC and the cross-entropy in the decoder are completely consistent. Excessive optimization of the encoder may interfere with the learning of the decoder. To answer it, we adopt these techniques to the encoder-decoder counterpart (called CTC-Aug ST), to investigate the effects of different architectures. And the training loss is formulated as: $$\begin{array}{r c l}{{{\mathcal L}}}&{{=}}&{{{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{S2S}}+\alpha_{\mathrm{A}}\cdot{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{CTC}}+\alpha_{\mathrm{T}}\cdot{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{XCTC}}}}\\ {{}}&{{}}&{{+}}&{{\beta_{\mathrm{A}}\cdot{\frac{1}{M}}\sum_{m=1}^{m}{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{InterCTC}}^{m}}}\\ {{}}&{{}}&{{}}&{{+}}&{{\beta_{\mathrm{T}}\cdot{\frac{1}{N}}\sum_{n=1}^{N}{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{InterXCTC}}^{n}}}\end{array}\tag{17}$$ where LS2S is the cross-entropy loss of the decoder. ## 5 Experiments We evaluate our method on the MuST-C and FisherCallhome benchmarks. Details about the datasets and model settings are described in Appendix A. ## 5.1 Main Results The results on the MuST-C corpora in Table 1 show that our method significantly outperforms previous AR and NAR models. We achieve remarkable gains for all language pairs. Here we highlight several major breakthroughs: i) CTC-Aug ST is shown to be effective for the AR models, which gains an average of 0.6 BLEU points over the previous best work even without the augmentation of sequencelevel knowledge distillation (Seq-KD) data. Note that not all proposed methods are used in CTCAug ST (see Section 5.2.2). ii) Our CTC-NAST | Model | Fisher | Callhome | Speed-up | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------|------------|---------|-------|--------|--------| | dev | dev2 | test | devtest | evltest | | | | | MT | Transformer (Ours) | 64.50 | 65.20 | 63.35 | 32.21 | 31.58 | - | | Transformer + Seq-KD (Inaguma et al., 2021b) | - | - | 50.32 | - | 19.81 | - | | | Transformer + Seq-KD (Inaguma et al., 2021a) | 51.10 | 51.40 | 50.80 | 19.60 | 19.20 | - | | | Conformer + Seq-KD (Inaguma et al., 2021a) | 54.70 | 55.40 | 54.10 | 21.50 | 21.00 | - | | | Transformer + MTL + ASR init. (Chuang et al., 2021) | 48.27 | 49.17 | 48.40 | 17.26 | 17.45 | - | | | CTC-Aug ST (Ours) | 53.61 | 54.07 | 53.69 | 22.16 | 21.33 | 1.0× | | | + Seq-KD | 55.39 | 55.88 | 55.09 | 23.09 | 22.92 | 1.0× | | | AR | CTC (Inaguma et al., 2021b) | - | - | 45.97 | - | 15.91 | 20.84× | | Conformer - CTC (Inaguma et al., 2021a) | 51.00 | 51.60 | 50.80 | 18.00 | 18.70 | 11.80× | | | Orthros - CTC (Inaguma et al., 2021a) | 54.00 | 54.80 | 54.10 | 21.00 | 20.80 | 1.09× | | | Orthros - CMLM (Inaguma et al., 2021a) | 51.30 | 52.20 | 51.20 | 20.90 | 20.40 | 2.70× | | | Transformer - CTC (Chuang et al., 2021) | 42.61 | 43.91 | 43.50 | 13.02 | 13.52 | 28.9× | | | CTC + MTL (Chuang et al., 2021) | 44.45 | 45.23 | 44.92 | 14.20 | 14.19 | 28.9× | | | Mask - CTC (Higuchi et al., 2021a) | 51.10 | 51.70 | 50.60 | 17.90 | 18.30 | - | | | Intermediate CTC (Higuchi et al., 2021a) | 51.30 | 51.40 | 51.00 | 19.00 | 19.00 | - | | | Self-conditioned CTC (Higuchi et al., 2021a) | 50.70 | 51.20 | 50.50 | 19.10 | 19.20 | - | | | CTC-NAST (Ours) | 55.21 | 55.92 | 54.71 | 23.43 | 23.30 | 4.10× | | | NAR | | | | | | | | models achieve comparable or better performance to the powerful AR counterparts on all 9 language pairs, with a high speed-up of 5.67×. Note that CTC-NAST achieves a higher speed-up under large batch sizes (see Section 5.2.4). iii) Referring to Appendix B.1, the En-Ja translation has a strong demand for reordering capability. Our method also works well on this challenging distant language pair, demonstrating the potential of CTC-NAST. Similar results on Fisher-Callhome are shown in Table 2. Interestingly, the NAST model outperforms the AR counterpart with 0.3 ∼ 0.4 BLEU points on the out-of-domain Callhome sets. We find that the AR models miss some segments when translating the long sentences, while the CTCNAST models still guarantee good performance, as shown in Appendix B.2. It demonstrates the robustness of our CTC-NAST model. ## 5.2 Analysis Next, we study several interesting problems on MuST-C En-De and En-Ja datasets to investigate the effects on similar and distant languages. We present further analyses in Appendix B. ## 5.2.1 Performance Over Sentence Lengths Figure 2 shows the results of the AR and NAR models with and without the proposed methods on the MuST-C En-De corpus with respect to output lengths. The base NAR model performs much   BLEU worse than AR counterpart. But interestingly, unlike the ST model, which has an outlier as sentence length increases, the NAST model maintains stable performance. This is similar to the results on Fisher-Callhome in Appendix B.2. Our methods bring remarkable gains over different lengths for both AR and NAR models, leading to comparable translation quality when the length is less than 60. In particular, CTC-NAST performs even better than AR models when the length is less than 30. However, the performance gap increases with sentence length. We speculate that very long input acoustic features make it more difficult to model semantic information. Future work (Xu et al., 2023) can focus on enhancing the ability to handle complex acoustic encoding. | En-De | En-Ja | Inference | Params. | | | | | | | | | | |------------------|---------|-------------|-----------|----------|-----------|----------|------|-------|-------|-------|--------|--------| | Raw | Seq-KD | Raw | Seq-KD | AR Times | NAR Times | Speed-up | | | | | | | | AR | NAR | AR | NAR | AR | NAR | AR | NAR | | | | | | | Base | 26.1 | - | 27.1 | - | 15.9 | - | 16.1 | - | 547.2 | - | - | ∼ 130M | | + XCTC | 26.7 | 17.3 | 27.0 | 24.3 | 16.3 | 7.3 | 16.3 | 13.7 | 555.0 | 79.9 | 6.95× | ∼ 130M | | + PAE | 26.9 | 19.6 | 27.7 | 25.7 | 16.1 | 8.5 | 16.4 | 14.9 | 545.0 | 84.1 | 6.48× | ∼ 140M | | + CLA | 26.8 | 19.1 | 27.3 | 26.2 | 16.6 | 10.0 | 16.4 | 15.3 | 565.6 | 91.8 | 6.16× | ∼ 150M | | + CLM | 26.6 | 25.7 | 27.5 | 27.4 | 14.4 | 14.3 | 16.6 | 16.1 | 543.1 | 82.3 | 6.60× | ∼ 140M | | + CLA + CLM 27.0 | 25.8 | 27.6 | 27.3 | 13.6 | 14.5 | 16.2 | 16.2 | 575.0 | 96.2 | 5.98× | ∼ 150M | | ## 5.2.2 Effects Of Each Method We compare the results of each method on AR and NAR models in Table 3. More detailed ablation studies of CLA and CLM are presented in Appendix B.3. The base AR model is trained with auxiliary loss, where CTC on top of the acoustic encoder learns to predict the source text. Interestingly, there are different effects on different models, languages, and training data. All methods are lightweight in both computational cost and parameter quantity. Introducing the XCTC loss and PAE method achieves better performance in nearly all settings. CLA does not work well on the similar En-De language pair due to the less reordering requirement, but stable improvements on the distant En-Ja language pair. The remarkable results of CLM demonstrate that an adaptive training strategy is important for better convergence of NAR models (Qian et al., 2021). However, CLM leads to slightly worse or better results for AR models trained on Seq-KD data. We conclude that the optimization of XCTC loss in the encoder interferes with the learning of crossentropy loss in the decoder. Although the XCTC achieves good performance, it does not contribute to the final inference in the encoder-decoder framework. In addition, the performance of the AR model trained on raw En-Ja data drops terribly. Raw data distribution is difficult to learn by CTC, especially for distant En-Ja language pair. In this case, the CLM always provides ground truth in a high ratio to mix, leading to overfitting on the training set and worse performance during inference. Therefore, we only use XCTC and PAE on AR models for stable improvements. We also notice that the simplified data distribution is crucial for achieving optimal performance with the NAST model. Specifically, the base NAR models, when trained on raw data, significantly underperform models trained on Seq-KD data, with a gap of about 7 BLEU points. By combining proposed methods, we develop a powerful NAR model that narrows the gap to within 2 BLEU points. This result highlights the robustness of CTC-NAST, even in the presence of complex data distributions. | Model | En-De | En-Ja | | | | | | | |-------------|---------|---------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | sub | del | ins | sub | del | ins | | | | | ARBase | 31.8 | 12.2 | 12.5 | 44.6 | 19.3 | 16.9 | | | | + XCTC-Aug | 31.4 | 12.0 | 12.5 | 43.9 | 19.6 | 15.9 | | | | Base | 32.0 | 14.4 | 10.7 | 42.8 | 22.8 | 12.8 | | | | + PAE | 31.6 | 13.2 | 11.4 | 43.2 | 21.1 | 14.4 | | | | NAR | | + CLA | 31.4 | 12.9 | 11.7 | 43.6 | 20.3 | 14.8 | | + CLM | 30.8 | 12.8 | 11.3 | 42.1 | 21.2 | 13.7 | | | | + CLA + CLM | 30.9 | 12.8 | 11.4 | 42.1 | 21.2 | 14.0 | | | ## 5.2.3 Error Analysis To identify the weakness of NAR generation, we measure the word error rates (WERs) of AR and NAR models on the MuST-C En-De and En-Ja datasets2. For a token in the target text, the sub error indicates that it is incorrectly translated, and the del error indicates that it is omitted. The ins error indicates that the token not in the target text is translated. High del error rates show that the dominant disadvantage of the NAST model is missing translation. PAE relaxes the conditional independence assumption, giving better results for En-De but increased sub errors for En-Ja. We speculate that this is because poor CTC prediction introduces excessive errors. CLA is particularly effective at reducing del errors, which is consistent with our motivation to relax the monotonic assumption. And CLM reduces error propagation and improves the 2Although WER is the metric for ASR, it helps to understand the error types of the translation results.  robustness of PAE, achieving consistent improvements. However, the combination of our methods does not lead to a further reduction in del errors. A possible reason is that the inconsistent learning between CLA and CLM limits the effect of the combination. We will explore better methods to alleviate the missing translation in the future. ## 5.2.4 Speed-Up Vs. Batch Size We examine the speed-up compared to AR models under different batch sizes and beam sizes in Figure 3. Our CTC-NAST model consistently maintains a high speed-up, even with a large batch size of 32. The performance of NAR and AR models is comparable when using a beam size of 1, while our NAR model is more than 5× faster. In addition, our encoder-only design simplifies the inference process, eliminating the need for length prediction or iterative refinement. One promising direction is to develop effective encoding methods that can bridge the length gap between acoustic features and text. This has the potential to reduce the computational cost caused by long sequence modeling. ## 6 Conclusion Aiming to combine E2E ST and NAR generation, we propose CTC-NAST, which consists of only two CTC-guided encoders for source and target text prediction, respectively. We identify and address several challenges of CTC-NAST: conditional independence assumption, monotonic assumption, and poor convergence. In this way, our CTC-NAST model outperforms the previous best AR models by 0.9 BLEU points. We believe that we are the first to present a NAST model that achieves comparable or better performance than strong AR counterparts. ## Limitations Although our CTC-NAST model achieves excellent performance, there are still some underlying challenges that remain in the follow-up of our work. Here are some limitations that we intend to resolve in the future: - The better designs of reordering augmentation and training strategy. Although the proposed CLA and CLM approaches achieve good results by alleviating the monotonic assumption and relieving the modeling burden, combing them can not bring remarkable improvement. More importantly, these two methods fail to stable improvements in encode-decoder architecture. This drives us to investigate the interference of the optimizations between CTC and cross-entropy. - Combination with the pre-training or multitask learning. Although our methods bring remarkable gains on both AR and NAR models, we do not explore the utilization of external data resources. Although we can use the pre-trained models directly, we expect more effective methods in future work. Theoretically, we need to design NAR ASR and MT models that share the same or similar architectures with the acoustic encoder and textual encoder, respectively. In this way, the NAST model bridges the gap between pre-training and fine-tuning and has more potential for better performance. - The potential risk for unwritten languages. In our work, we assume that transcription is always available, which is consistent with almost previous studies. Although some datasets have no transcription, we can use a well-trained ASR model to generate pseudo labels. However, it is hard to handle speech translation from unwritten source speech. The supervision of source text is very important for our model. Therefore, we need to develop better methods for stable training. ## Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China (No. 62276056), the National Key R&D Program of China, the China HTRD Center Project (No. 2020AAA0107904), the Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province of China (2022-KF-16-01), the Yunnan Provincial Major Science and Technology Special Plan Projects (No. 202103AA080015), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Nos. N2216016, N2216001, and N2216002), and the Program of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities, Plan 111 (No. B16009). ## References Antonios Anastasopoulos and David Chiang. 2018. Tied multitask learning for neural speech translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2018, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 1-6, 2018, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 82–91. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yu Bao, Hao Zhou, Shujian Huang, Dongqi Wang, Lihua Qian, Xinyu Dai, Jiajun Chen, and Lei Li. 2022. latent-glat: Glancing at latent variables for parallel text generation. In *Proceedings of* the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 8398–8409. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexandre Berard, Olivier Pietquin, Christophe Servan, and Laurent Besacier. 2016. Listen and translate: A proof of concept for end-to-end speech-to-text translation. *CoRR*, abs/1612.01744. William Chan, Chitwan Saharia, Geoffrey E. Hinton, Mohammad Norouzi, and Navdeep Jaitly. 2020. Imputer: Sequence modelling via imputation and dynamic programming. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of *Proceedings of Machine* Learning Research, pages 1403–1413. PMLR. Xuxin Cheng, Qianqian Dong, Fengpeng Yue, Tom Ko, Mingxuan Wang, and Yuexian Zou. 2022. M3ST: mix at three levels for speech translation. CoRR, abs/2212.03657. Shun-Po Chuang, Yung-Sung Chuang, ChihChiang Chang, and Hung-yi Lee. 2021. Investigating the reordering capability in ctc-based nonautoregressive end-to-end speech translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL, pages 1068–1077. Association for Computational Linguistics. Liang Ding, Longyue Wang, Xuebo Liu, Derek F. Wong, Dacheng Tao, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2021. Rejuvenating low-frequency words: Making the most of parallel data in non-autoregressive translation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 3431–3441. Association for Computational Linguistics. Long Duong, Antonios Anastasopoulos, David Chiang, Steven Bird, and Trevor Cohn. 2016. An attentional model for speech translation without transcription. In *NAACL HLT 2016, The 2016* Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Diego California, USA, June 12-17, 2016, pages 949–959. The Association for Computational Linguistics. Qingkai Fang, Rong Ye, Lei Li, Yang Feng, and Mingxuan Wang. 2022. STEMM: self-learning with speech-text manifold mixup for speech translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 7050– 7062. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mattia Antonino Di Gangi, Roldano Cattoni, Luisa Bentivogli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2019. Must-c: a multilingual speech translation corpus. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2012–2017. Association for Computational Linguistics. Marjan Ghazvininejad, Omer Levy, Yinhan Liu, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Mask-predict: Parallel decoding of conditional masked language models. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLPIJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 6111–6120. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino J. Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks. In *Machine Learning, Proceedings* of the Twenty-Third International Conference (ICML 2006), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, June 25-29, 2006, volume 148 of *ACM International Conference Proceeding Series*, pages 369–376. ACM. Jiatao Gu, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, Victor O. K. Li, and Richard Socher. 2018. Nonautoregressive neural machine translation. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. Jiatao Gu and Xiang Kong. 2021. Fully non-autoregressive neural machine translation: Tricks of the trade. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 120–133. Association for Computational Linguistics. Junliang Guo, Xu Tan, Di He, Tao Qin, Linli Xu, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation with enhanced decoder input. In *The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The ThirtyFirst Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 3723– 3730. AAAI Press. Awni Hannun. 2017. Sequence modeling with ctc. Distill. Https://distill.pub/2017/ctc. Yosuke Higuchi, Nanxin Chen, Yuya Fujita, Hirofumi Inaguma, Tatsuya Komatsu, Jaesong Lee, Jumon Nozaki, Tianzi Wang, and Shinji Watanabe. 2021a. A comparative study on nonautoregressive modelings for speech-to-text generation. In *IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop, ASRU 2021,* Cartagena, Colombia, December 13-17, 2021, pages 47–54. IEEE. Yosuke Higuchi, Hirofumi Inaguma, Shinji Watanabe, Tetsuji Ogawa, and Tetsunori Kobayashi. 2021b. Improved mask-ctc for nonautoregressive end-to-end asr. In ICASSP 2021 - 2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 8363–8367. Yosuke Higuchi, Shinji Watanabe, Nanxin Chen, Tetsuji Ogawa, and Tetsunori Kobayashi. 2020. Mask CTC: Non-Autoregressive End-to-End ASR with CTC and Mask Predict. In *Proc. Interspeech 2020*, pages 3655–3659. Chenyang Huang, Hao Zhou, Osmar R. Zaïane, Lili Mou, and Lei Li. 2022. Non-autoregressive translation with layer-wise prediction and deep supervision. In *Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2022, Thirty-Fourth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2022, The Twelveth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2022 Virtual Event, February 22 - March 1, 2022, pages 10776–10784. AAAI Press. Hirofumi Inaguma, Yosuke Higuchi, Kevin Duh, Tatsuya Kawahara, and Shinji Watanabe. 2021a. Non-autoregressive end-to-end speech translation with parallel autoregressive rescoring. CoRR, abs/2109.04411. Hirofumi Inaguma, Yosuke Higuchi, Kevin Duh, Tatsuya Kawahara, and Shinji Watanabe. 2021b. ORTHROS: non-autoregressive end-toend speech translation with dual-decoder. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2021, Toronto, ON, Canada, June 6-11, 2021, pages 7503–7507. IEEE. Hirofumi Inaguma, Shun Kiyono, Kevin Duh, Shigeki Karita, Nelson Yalta, Tomoki Hayashi, and Shinji Watanabe. 2020. Espnet-st: All-inone speech translation toolkit. In *Proceedings* of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 302–311. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shigeki Karita, Nelson Enrique Yalta Soplin, Shinji Watanabe, Marc Delcroix, Atsunori Ogawa, and Tomohiro Nakatani. 2019. Improving transformer-based end-to-end speech recognition with connectionist temporal classification and language model integration. In Interspeech 2019, 20th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Graz, Austria, 15-19 September 2019, pages 1408– 1412. ISCA. Jungo Kasai, James Cross, Marjan Ghazvininejad, and Jiatao Gu. 2020. Non-autoregressive machine translation with disentangled context transformer. In *Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML* 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 5144–5155. PMLR. Sehoon Kim, Amir Gholami, Albert E. Shaw, Nicholas Lee, Karttikeya Mangalam, Jitendra Malik, Michael W. Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2022. Squeezeformer: An efficient transformer for automatic speech recognition. *CoRR*, abs/2206.00888. Yoon Kim and Alexander M. Rush. 2016. Sequence-level knowledge distillation. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,* EMNLP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1-4, 2016, pages 1317–1327. The Association for Computational Linguistics. Philipp Koehn, Hieu Hoang, Alexandra Birch, Chris Callison-Burch, Marcello Federico, Nicola Bertoldi, Brooke Cowan, Wade Shen, Christine Moran, Richard Zens, Chris Dyer, Ondrej Bojar, Alexandra Constantin, and Evan Herbst. 2007. Moses: Open source toolkit for statistical machine translation. In ACL 2007, Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, June 23-30, 2007, Prague, Czech Republic. The Association for Computational Linguistics. Jaesong Lee and Shinji Watanabe. 2021. Intermediate loss regularization for ctc-based speech recognition. In *IEEE International Conference* on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2021, Toronto, ON, Canada, June 6-11, 2021, pages 6224–6228. IEEE. Jason Lee, Elman Mansimov, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2018. Deterministic non-autoregressive neural sequence modeling by iterative refinement. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 1173–1182. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jindrich Libovický and Jindrich Helcl. 2018. Endto-end non-autoregressive neural machine translation with connectionist temporal classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 3016–3021. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuchen Liu, Junnan Zhu, Jiajun Zhang, and Chengqing Zong. 2020. Bridging the modality gap for speech-to-text translation. *CoRR*, abs/2010.14920. Lambert Mathias and William Byrne. 2006. Statistical phrase-based speech translation. In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2006, Toulouse, France, May 14-19, 2006, pages 561– 564. IEEE. Hermann Ney. 1999. Speech translation: coupling of recognition and translation. In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP '99, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, March 1519, 1999, pages 517–520. IEEE Computer Society. Jumon Nozaki and Tatsuya Komatsu. 2021. Relaxing the conditional independence assumption of ctc-based ASR by conditioning on intermediate predictions. In *Interspeech 2021, 22nd Annual* Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Brno, Czechia, 30 August - 3 September 2021, pages 3735–3739. ISCA. Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. fairseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Demonstrations, pages 48– 53. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, WMT 2018, Belgium, Brussels, October 31 - November 1, 2018, pages 186–191. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matt Post, Gaurav Kumar, Adam Lopez, Damianos G. Karakos, Chris Callison-Burch, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2013. Improved speech-to-text translation with the fisher and callhome spanishenglish speech translation corpus. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation: Papers, Heidelberg, Germany, December 5-6, 2013. Lihua Qian, Hao Zhou, Yu Bao, Mingxuan Wang, Lin Qiu, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Lei Li. 2021. Glancing transformer for nonautoregressive neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 1993–2003. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qiu Ran, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, and Jie Zhou. 2020. Learning to recover from multi-modality errors for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 3059–3069. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qiu Ran, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, and Jie Zhou. 2021. Guiding non-autoregressive neural machine translation decoding with reordering information. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13727–13735. AAAI Press. Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2020. Nonautoregressive machine translation with latent alignments. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1098–1108. Association for Computational Linguistics. Raphael Shu, Jason Lee, Hideki Nakayama, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2020. Latent-variable nonautoregressive neural machine translation with deterministic inference using a delta posterior. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8846–8853. AAAI Press. Jongyoon Song, Sungwon Kim, and Sungroh Yoon. 2021. Alignart: Non-autoregressive neural machine translation by jointly learning to estimate alignment and translate. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 1–14. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mitchell Stern, William Chan, Jamie Kiros, and Jakob Uszkoreit. 2019. Insertion transformer: Flexible sequence generation via insertion operations. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5976–5985. PMLR. Changhan Wang, Yun Tang, Xutai Ma, Anne Wu, Dmytro Okhonko, and Juan Miguel Pino. 2020a. Fairseq S2T: fast speech-to-text modeling with fairseq. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, AACL/IJCNLP 2020, Suzhou, China, December 4-7, 2020, pages 33–39. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chengyi Wang, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Zhenglu Yang, and Ming Zhou. 2020b. Bridging the gap between pre-training and fine-tuning for end-toend speech translation. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 9161–9168. AAAI Press. Chengyi Wang, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Ming Zhou, and Zhenglu Yang. 2020c. Curriculum pretraining for end-to-end speech translation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 3728–3738. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yiren Wang, Fei Tian, Di He, Tao Qin, ChengXiang Zhai, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Nonautoregressive machine translation with auxiliary regularization. In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 5377–5384. AAAI Press. Shinji Watanabe, Takaaki Hori, Suyoun Kim, John R. Hershey, and Tomoki Hayashi. 2017. Hybrid ctc/attention architecture for end-to-end speech recognition. *IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal* Process., 11(8):1240–1253. Ron J. Weiss, Jan Chorowski, Navdeep Jaitly, Yonghui Wu, and Zhifeng Chen. 2017. Sequence-to-sequence models can directly translate foreign speech. In Interspeech 2017, 18th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 2017, pages 2625–2629. ISCA. Chen Xu, Bojie Hu, Yanyang Li, Yuhao Zhang, Shen Huang, Qi Ju, Tong Xiao, and Jingbo Zhu. 2021. Stacked acoustic-and-textual encoding: Integrating the pre-trained models into speech translation encoders. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2619–2630. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chen Xu, Yuhao Zhang, Chengbo Jiao, Xiaoqian Liu, Chi Hu, Xin Zeng, Tong Xiao, Anxiang Ma, Huizhen Wang, and Jingbo Zhu. 2023. Bridging the granularity gap for acoustic modeling. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. Brian Yan, Siddharth Dalmia, Yosuke Higuchi, Graham Neubig, Florian Metze, Alan W. Black, and Shinji Watanabe. 2022. CTC alignments improve autoregressive translation. *CoRR*, abs/2210.05200. Baosong Yang, Zhaopeng Tu, Derek F. Wong, Fandong Meng, Lidia S. Chao, and Tong Zhang. 2018. Modeling localness for self-attention networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 4449–4458. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rong Ye, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Endto-end speech translation via cross-modal progressive training. In *Interspeech 2021, 22nd* Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Brno, Czechia, 30 August - 3 September 2021, pages 2267–2271. ISCA. Rong Ye, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2022. Crossmodal contrastive learning for speech translation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 5099–5113. Association for Computational Linguistics. Biao Zhang, Barry Haddow, and Rico Sennrich. 2022a. Revisiting end-to-end speech-to-text translation from scratch. *CoRR*, abs/2206.04571. Yuhao Zhang, Chen Xu, Bojie Hu, Chunliang Zhang, Tong Xiao, and Jingbo Zhu. 2022b. Improving end-to-end speech translation by leveraging auxiliary speech and text data. *CoRR*, abs/2212.01778. Chengqi Zhao, Mingxuan Wang, Qianqian Dong, Rong Ye, and Lei Li. 2021. Neurst: Neural speech translation toolkit. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL 2021 - System Demonstrations, Online, August 1-6, 2021, pages 55–62. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiawei Zhou and Phillip Keung. 2020. Improving non-autoregressive neural machine translation with monolingual data. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 1893–1898. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Experimental Settings A.1 Datasets And Preprocessing We conduct experiments on the MuST-C (Gangi et al., 2019) and Fisher-Callhome ST (Post et al., 2013) datasets. MuST-C is a multilingual speech translation corpus extracted from TED lectures. We test our method on all MuST-C v1 corpora: English (En) to German (De), Spanish (Es), French (Fr), Italian (It), Dutch (Nl), Portuguese (Pt), Romanian (Ro) and Russian (Ru). In addition, we also investigate the results of the distant language pair English-Japanese (En-Ja) corpus in the MuST-C v2 dataset. We select (and tune) the model on the dev set (Dev) and report the results on the tstCOMMON set (Test). Fisher-Callhome is a Spanish-English speech-totext translation dataset with 138k text pairs. This corpus contains 170 hours of Spanish conversational telephone speech, as well as Spanish transcripts and English translations. Following the recipe of ESPnet (Inaguma et al., 2020), we lowercase all texts, and remove all punctuation marks except apostrophes. We select (and tune) the model on the Fisher-dev set, and report the results on the Fisher-{dev, dev2, test} and Callhome-{devtest, evltest} sets. Following the preprocessing recipes in the fairseq toolkit3, we remove utterances with more than 3,000 frames or less than 5 frames. We extract the 80-channel Mel filter bank features by a window size of 25ms with a stride of 10ms. The text is tokenized using the scripts of Moses (Koehn et al., 2007) except that the Japanese text uses MeCab4. We learn SentencePiece5segmentation with a size of 10,000 for MuST-C datasets. We use a shared vocabulary for the source and target languages for MuST-C v1 corpora, the independent vocabulary for the En-Ja corpus. And we use a shared vocabulary with a size of 1, 000 for Fisher-Callhome datasets. ## A.2 Model Settings We implement our method based on the fairseq toolkit (Ott et al., 2019). We use the Adam optimizer with β1 = 0.9, β2 = 0.98, and adopt the default learning schedule in fairseq. We apply dropout with a rate of 0.15 and label smoothing of 0.1 for regularization. Following previous studies on NAR models, our model is trained by sequence-level knowledge distillation (Seq-KD) (Kim and Rush, 2016) data generated by a small MT model with a beam size of 5. Our NAST model consists of an acoustic encoder with 12 Conformer layers and a textual encoder with 12 Transformer layers. Each layer comprises 512 hidden units, 8 attention heads, and 2048 feedforward sizes. We use PAE in layers 6 and 9 in both the acoustic encoder and the textual encoder. In multitask learning, the weights of αA, αT , βA and βT are all set to 1. We start the cross-layer attention from layer 4 in the textual encoder and take the representation output from layer 3 as the key and value. The ratio for curriculum learning mixing is set to 0.8. We extend our method to the encoder-decoder model with similar settings, where the textual encoder has 6 Transformer layers and the decoder has 6 layers. In this way, we control the model parameters to about 150M for fair comparisons. The weights of αA and αT are set to 0.2, and the weights of βA and βT are to 0.1. We use PAE in layer 4 in the textual encoder. We start the crosslayer attention from layer 3 and take the representation output from layer 2 as the key and value.  During inference, we average the model parameters on the best 10 checkpoints based on the performance of the development set. We use beam search with a beam size of 5 for the AR model. The decoding speed is measured on the test set with a batch size of 1 on an Nvidia A100 80GB GPU. We run 5 times to calculate the average time. We report case-sensitive SacreBLEU (Post, 2018) on the MuST-C datasets and case-insensitive SacreBLEU on the Fisher-Callhome dataset for standardization comparison across papers. ## B More Analysis B.1 Reordering Difficulty Following the metric in Chuang et al. (2021), we measure the reordering difficulties Rπ on 9 language pairs of MuST-C datasets in Table 5. The higher the value of Rπ, the higher the reordering difficulty between texts from two languages, indicating the high demand for improved reordering capability. The Seq-KD technique reduces the reordering difficulty by simplifying the data distribution, except for En-Ja. The reason is that noisy data leads to poor MT performance on the En-Ja dataset. On this distant language pair, our CTCNAST model still achieves a high BLEU score of 16.2, which is comparable to the AR model with a small gap of only 0.2 BLEU points. ## B.2 Results On Out-Of-Domain Data We also measure the BLEU scores of AR and NAR models under different output lengths on the Callhome sets in Figure 4. Note that Callhome sets are out-of-domain because we only use the Fisher set for training. Here, BLEU scores of the NAR model are better than those of the AR model in most cases of output length. In particular, when the output length is greater than 50, the performance of the AR model drops sharply, while the performance of  | Model | En-De | En-Ja | | | |------------|---------|---------|------|------| | dev | test | dev | test | | | Base | 23.7 | 24.3 | 10.5 | 13.7 | | + PAE | 24.8 | 25.7 | 12.4 | 14.9 | | + CLA | 25.1 | 25.8 | 12.1 | 15.3 | | + drop 0.1 | 25.4 | 26.2 | 12.7 | 15.3 | | + drop 0.2 | 25.2 | 25.5 | 12.3 | 15.6 | Model En-De En-Ja 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 Base 24.3 24.3 13.7 13.7 + PAE 25.7 25.7 14.9 14.9 + Mixing 26.7 26.6 15.6 15.7 + Adaptive 26.2 26.3 15.2 15.4 + Only error 26.7 27.1 15.8 15.9 + Smooth 26.7 26.6 15.8 15.6 + Only error + Smooth **26.8 27.4 16.0 16.1** the NAR model keeps stable. This demonstrates that our CTC-NAST has better robustness. ## B.3 Ablation Studies To further verify the effectiveness of our proposed methods, we construct a series of ablation studies on MuST-C En-De and En-Ja datasets. Effects of CLA Table 6 shows the results of the CLA module. CLA improves the reordering capability and complements the self-attention module. However, using the CLA module naively brings only modest improvements. We randomly drop the self-attention module with a probability of 0.1, which provides better regularization and robust improvements. Note that the high drop probability may lead to insufficient training of the selfattention module. These results demonstrate the  effectiveness of the CLA module and drop-net technique. Effects of CLM As shown in Table 7, the straightforward mixed training has produces remarkable gains with a ratio of 0.5 or 0.8 on both En-De and En-Ja datasets. The adaptive strategy in NAR MT does not work in CTC-NAST. This is because the sequence length of the input acoustic feature is very lengthy, and the decreased mixing ratio cannot provide enough cues to facilitate training. For stable training, we only replace positions where wrong predictions arise. In this manner, accurate positions solely rely on self-prediction, guaranteeing consistency between training and decoding. Furthermore, we generate a smooth distribution akin to CTC prediction, in which the ground truth token has a high probability of 0.9, and the probabilities of other tokens sum to 0.1. The combination of these two approaches results in additional and stable improvements. We also calculate BLEU scores with various mixing ratios in Figure 5. Our CLM approach is superior to the naive mixing method, particularly at a high ratio. In this case, our approach incorporates more revisions solely for incorrect predictions, which facilitates the training process and guarantees consistency. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7. ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We propose a method for non-autoregressive speech translation, which does not have any risks. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 5 And Appendix A. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 5 and Appendix A. ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Fairseq is an open-sourced toolkit under MIT license. We implement our method based on it. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 5 and Appendix A. ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We use open datasets and cite the related papers. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix A. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix A. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5 And Appendix A. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix A.2. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? No response. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 and Appendix B. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix A.2. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

papi-etal-2023-attention

Attention as a Guide for Simultaneous Speech Translation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.745

In simultaneous speech translation (SimulST), effective policies that determine when to write partial translations are crucial to reach high output quality with low latency. Towards this objective, we propose EDAtt (Encoder-Decoder Attention), an adaptive policy that exploits the attention patterns between audio source and target textual translation to guide an offline-trained ST model during simultaneous inference. EDAtt exploits the attention scores modeling the audio-translation relation to decide whether to emit a partial hypothesis or wait for more audio input. This is done under the assumption that, if attention is focused towards the most recently received speech segments, the information they provide can be insufficient to generate the hypothesis (indicating that the system has to wait for additional audio input). Results on en-{\textgreater}de, es show that EDAtt yields better results compared to the SimulST state of the art, with gains respectively up to 7 and 4 BLEU points for the two languages, and with a reduction in computational-aware latency up to 1.4s and 0.7s compared to existing SimulST policies applied to offline-trained models.

# Attention As A Guide For Simultaneous Speech Translation Sara Papi✸✷, Matteo Negri✸**, Marco Turchi**△ ✸Fondazione Bruno Kessler ✷University of Trento △Independent Researcher {spapi,negri}@fbk.eu, marco.turchi@gmail.com ## Abstract In simultaneous speech translation (SimulST), effective policies that determine when to write partial translations are crucial to reach high output quality with low latency. Towards this objective, we propose EDATT (Encoder-Decoder Attention), an adaptive policy that exploits the attention patterns between audio source and target textual translation to guide an offlinetrained ST model during simultaneous inference. EDATT exploits the attention scores modeling the audio-translation relation to decide whether to emit a partial hypothesis or wait for more audio input. This is done under the assumption that, if attention is focused towards the most recently received speech segments, the information they provide can be insufficient to generate the hypothesis (indicating that the system has to wait for additional audio input). Results on en→{de, es} show that EDATT yields better results compared to the SimulST state of the art, with gains respectively up to 7 and 4 BLEU points for the two languages, and with a reduction in computational-aware latency up to 1.4s and 0.7s compared to existing SimulST policies applied to offline-trained models. ## 1 Introduction In simultaneous speech translation (SimulST), systems have to generate translations incrementally while concurrently receiving audio input. This requirement poses a significant challenge since the need of generating high-quality outputs has to be balanced with the need to minimize their latency, i.e. the time elapsed (lagging) between when a word is uttered and when it is actually translated by the system. In direct SimulST systems (Bérard et al., 2016; Weiss et al., 2017),1the balance between output 1In this paper, we focus on direct models that exhibit lower latency and better performance compared to traditional cascade architectures composed of separate automatic speech recognition and machine translation components (Ansari et al., 2020; Anastasopoulos et al., 2021, 2022). quality and latency is managed by a *decision policy*, which is the strategy for determining, at each time step, whether to emit a partial translation or to wait for additional audio input. Decision policies can be divided into two categories: *fixed* and *adaptive*. Fixed policies are usually based on simple heuristics (Ma et al., 2019), while adaptive policies take into account the actual input content to make the decisions (Zheng et al., 2020). Recent works (Liu et al., 2021b; Zaidi et al., 2021, 2022; Zhang and Feng, 2022) proved the superiority of adaptive policies over fixed ones. However, a major limitation of these policies is that they require training *ad-hoc* and complex SimulST architectures, which results in high computational costs. Computational costs are also inflated by the common practice of simulating the simultaneous test conditions by providing partial input during training to avoid the quality drops caused by the mismatch between training and test conditions (Ren et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2020b, 2021; Han et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a; Zaidi et al., 2021, 2022). This practice is independent of the decision policy adopted, and typically requires dedicated trainings for each latency regime. To mitigate this issue, offline-trained ST systems have been employed for simultaneous inference (Liu et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021) and, along this direction, Papi et al. (2022a) demonstrated that dedicated trainings simulating the inference conditions are not necessary since offline-trained systems outperform those specifically trained for SimulST. The effectiveness of using offline-trained ST models for simultaneous inference has been also confirmed by the last IWSLT 2022 evaluation campaign (Anastasopoulos et al., 2022), where the winning submission to the SimulST task (Polák et al., 2022) is an offline model exploiting the Local Agreement policy by Liu et al. (2020). However, despite its good results, this policy relies on a strategy (the generation of 13340 two consecutive hypotheses prior to starting the emission) that has a significant impact on latency. This raises the need for effective policies that i) are adaptive, ii) are directly applicable to offline ST models, and *iii)* achieve low latency at low computational costs. Towards these objectives, we propose EDATT (Encoder-Decoder Attention),2a novel adaptive policy for SimulST that leverages the encoderdecoder attention patterns of an offline-trained ST model to decide when to emit partial translations. In a nutshell, our idea is that the next word of the partial hypothesis at a given time step is safely emitted only if the system does not attend to the most recent audio frames, meaning that the information received up to that time step is sufficient to generate that word. Building on this idea, our contributions are summarized as follows: - We introduce EDATT, a novel adaptive decision policy for SimulST, which guides offlinetrained ST models during simultaneous inference by looking at the attention patterns dynamically computed from the audio input over time; - We show that EDATT outperforms the Local Agreement policy applied to the same offline ST models at almost all latency regimes, with computational-aware average lagging (AL_CA) reductions up to 1.4s for German and 0.7s for Spanish on MuST-C (Cattoni et al., 2021); - We show that EDATT also outperforms the state-of-the-art CAAT architecture (Liu et al., 2021b), especially in terms of AL_CA, with gains of up to 7.0 BLEU for German and 4.0 BLEU for Spanish. ## 2 Background In terms of architectural choices, Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) and its derivatives (Gulati et al., 2020; Chang et al., 2020; Papi et al., 2021; Burchi and Vielzeuf, 2021; Kim et al., 2022; Andrusenko et al., 2022) are the *de-facto* standard both in offline and simultaneous ST (Ansari et al., 2020; Anastasopoulos et al., 2021, 2022). A generic Transformer model is composed of an encoder, whose role is to map the input speech 2Code, outputs and offline ST models used for our experiments are released under Apache License 2.0 at: https: //github.com/hlt-mt/fbk-fairseq. sequence X = [x1*, ..., x*n] into an internal representation, and a decoder, whose role is to generate the output textual sequence Y = [y1*, ..., y*m] by exploiting the internal representation in an autoregressive manner (Graves, 2013), that is by consuming the previously generated output as additional input when generating the next one. The encoder and the decoder are composed of a stack of identical blocks, whose components may vary depending on the particular Transformerbased architecture, although they all share the same dot-product attention mechanism (Chan et al., 2016). In general, the attention is a function that maps a query matrix Q and a pair of key-value matrices (K, V ) to an output matrix (Bahdanau et al., 2016). The output is obtained as a weighted sum of V , whose weights are computed through a compatibility function between Q and K that, in the case of the scaled dot-product attention used in the original Transformer formulation, is: $$A(Q,K,V)=s o f t m a x\left(\frac{Q K^{T}}{\sqrt{d_{k}}}\right)V$$ where dk is the dimension of K. The attention A is computed on h heads in parallel, each applying learned linear projections WQ, WK, and WVto the Q, K, and V matrices. These representations are then concatenated and projected using another learned matrix WO, resulting in the final output: $$\mathbf{\theta},\,\ldots,\,\mathrm{head}$$ ## Multihead(Q, K, V ) = Concat(Head1, Head2, ..., Headh)Wo where headi = A(QWQ i , KWK i*, V W*V i ). In the encoder layers, Q, K, and V are computed from the same speech input sequence X, realizing the so-called *self*-attention Aself(X). Differently, in the decoder layer, two types of attention are computed sequentially: self-attention, and *encoder-decoder* (or cross) attention. In the encoder-decoder attention, Q comes from the previous decoder layer (or directly from the previously generated output Y, in the case of the first decoder layer) while K and V come from the output of the encoder, hence the matrix can be expressed as Across(X, Y). In this work, we only exploit the encoder-decoder attention matrix to guide the model during simultaneous inference. Therefore, we use the notation A instead of Across for simplicity, and henceforth refer to this matrix as the encoder-decoder representation of a specific decoder layer d considering the attention head h. ## 3 Edatt **Policy** We propose to exploit the information contained in the encoder-decoder attention matrix of an offline ST model during inference to determine whether to wait for additional audio input or emit a partial translation. The use of attention as the core mechanism of our policy is motivated by related works in machine translation (MT) and language modeling, which prove that attention scores can encode syntactic dependencies (Raganato and Tiedemann, 2018; Htut et al., 2019) and language representations (Lamarre et al., 2022), as well as align source and target tokens (Tang et al., 2018; Zenkel et al., 2019; Garg et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020). We posit (and demonstrate in Section 5) that this encoderdecoder attention relationship between source audio and target tokens also exists in offline ST models, and can be used to guide them during simultaneous inference. Our approach builds on the following hypothesis (see Figure 1): at each time step, if the attention is focused towards the end of the input audio sequence (1), the system will probably need more information to correctly produce the current output candidate. On the contrary (2), if the attention concentrates on early audio frames (far enough from the last received ones), the current output candidate can be safely emitted because the early encoded information is sufficient. Accordingly, the model will continue to emit the next token of the partial hypothesis until the above condition is verified, that is until its encoder-decoder attention scores do not focus towards the end of the received speech segment. The rationale is that if the encoder-decoder attention of the predicted token points to the most recent speech information - i.e. attention scores are higher towards the last audio frames received - this information could be incomplete and therefore still insufficient to generate that token. More formally, at each time step t, EDATT determines whether to emit the next token yj , given the previously generated tokens Yj−1 = [y1*, ..., y*j−1] and the partial audio input sequence Xt, by looking at the sum of the last λ encoder-decoder attention weights of the vector Aj (Xt, Yj−1). Specifically, yj is emitted if: $$\sum_{i=t-\lambda}^{t}A_{i,j}(\mathbf{X}_{t},\mathbf{Y}_{j-1})<\alpha,\quad\alpha\in(0,1)\quad(1)$$ where α is a hyperparameter that controls the (1) When the first speech segment is received, the partial   hypothesis "*Ich werde*" is emitted since the attention is not concentrated towards the end of the segment while "*reden.*" is not since the attention is all concentrated on the last frames. (2) When the second speech segment is received, the new partial hypothesis "*über Klima sprechen.*" is emitted since the attention is not concentrated towards the end of the segment. Figure 1: Example of the EDATT policy. Links indicate where the attention weights point to. quality-latency trade-off: lower values of α increase the latency, as they reduce the possibility to satisfy Equation 1 (i.e. the sum of the last λ encoder-decoder attention weights will likely exceed α), and vice versa. When Equation 1 is satisfied, yj is emitted and the same process is repeated for yj+1, and so on. The process continues until we reach the token yj+w for which Equation 1 is no longer verified. At that point, the emission is stopped and the total number of tokens emitted at time step t is w. ## 4 Experimental Settings 4.1 Data To be comparable with previous works (Ren et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2020b; Zeng et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021b; Papi et al., 2022a; Zhang and Feng, 2022), we train our models on MuST-C en→{de, es} (Cattoni et al., 2021). The choice of the two target languages is also motivated by their different word ordering: Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) for German and Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) for Spanish. This opens the possibility of validating our approach on target-language word orderings that are respectively different and similar with respect to the English (i.e. SVO) source audio. We also perform data augmentation by applying sequencelevel knowledge distillation (Kim and Rush, 2016; Gaido et al., 2021b, 2022a) as in (Liu et al., 2021b; Papi et al., 2022a), for which the transcripts of MuST-C en→{de, es} are translated with an MT model (more details can be found in Appendix A) and used together with the gold reference during training. Data statistics are given in Appendix B. ## 4.2 Architecture And Training Setup For our experiments, we use the bug-free implementation by Papi et al. (2023) of the Conformerbased encoder-decoder model for ST (Guo et al., 2021). The offline model is made of 12 Conformer encoder layers (Gulati et al., 2020) and 6 Transformer decoder layers (dmax = 6) with a total of ∼115M parameters. Each encoder/decoder layer has 8 attention heads (hmax = 8). The input is represented as 80 audio features extracted every 10ms with sample window of 25 and processed by two 1D convolutional layers with stride 2 to reduce its length by a factor of 4 (Wang et al., 2020). Utterance-level Cepstral Mean and Variance Normalization (CMVN) and SpecAugment (Park et al., 2019) are applied during training. Detailed settings are described in Appendix A. ## 4.3 Inference And Evaluation We use the SimulEval tool (Ma et al., 2020a) to simulate simultaneous conditions and evaluate all the models. For our policy, we vary α of Equation 1 in the range [0.6, 0.4, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05, 0.03] and set the size of the speech segment to 800ms. During inference, the features are computed on the fly and CMVN normalization is based on the global mean and variance estimated on the MuST-C training set. All inferences are performed on a single NVIDIA K80 GPU with 12GB memory as in the IWSLT Simultaneous evaluation campaigns. We use sacreBLEU (Post, 2018) 3to evaluate translation quality, and Average Lagging (Ma et al., 2019) - or AL - to evaluate latency, as in the default SimulEval evaluation setup. As suggested by Ma et al. (2020b), for our comparisons with other approaches we also report computational-aware average lagging (AL_CA), which measures the real elapsed time instead of the ideal one considered by AL, thus giving a more realistic latency measure when the system operates in real time. Its computation is also provided by SimulEval. ## 4.4 Terms Of Comparison We conduct experimental comparisons with the state-of-the-art architecture for SimulST (CAAT) 3BLEU+case.mixed+smooth.exp+tok.13a+version.1.5.1 and, respectively, the current best (Local Agreement) and the most widely used (Wait-k) policies that can be directly applied to our offline ST systems for simultaneous inference. In detail: ## Cross Attention Augmented Transformer (CAAT) - the state-of-the-art architecture for SimulST (Liu et al., 2021b), winner of the IWSLT 2021 SimulST task (Anastasopoulos et al., 2021). Inspired by the Recurrent Neural Network Transducer (Graves, 2012), it is made of three Transformer stacks: the encoder, the predictor, and the joiner. These three elements are jointly trained to optimize translation quality while keeping latency under control. We train and evaluate the CAAT model using the code provided by the authors,4and on the same data used for our offline ST model. Local Agreement (LA) - the state-of-the-art decision policy introduced by Liu et al. (2020), and used by the winning system at IWSLT 2022 (Anastasopoulos et al., 2022). It consists in generating a partial hypothesis from scratch each time a new speech segment is added, and emitting it - or part of it - if it coincides with one of those generated in the previous l time steps, where l is a hyperparameter. Since Liu et al. (2020) empirically found that considering only the most recent previously generated tokens (l = 1) as memory works better, we adopt the same strategy to apply this policy. Wait-k - the simplest and most widely used decision policy in SimulST (Ren et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2020b; Zeng et al., 2021). It consists in waiting for a fixed number of words (k) before starting to emit the translation, and then proceeding by alternating waiting and writing operations. Since in SimulST the information about the number of words is not explicitly contained in the audio input, a word detection strategy is used to determine this information. Detection strategies can be fixed, when it is assumed that each word has a pre-defined fixed duration, or adaptive, when the information about the number of words is inferred from the audio content. Following Papi et al. (2022a), we adopt a CTC-based adaptive word detection strategy to detect the number of words. In addition, to be comparable with the other approaches, we employ beam search to generate each token.  ## 5 Attention Analysis To validate our hypothesis and study the feasibility of our method, we start by exploring the encoderdecoder attention matrices of the offline trained models. We proceed as follows: first, by visualizing the attention weights, we check for the existence of patterns that could be exploited during simultaneous inference. Then, we analyze the performance of the EDATT policy to discover the best value of λ, the decoder layer d, and the attention head h from which to extract the attention scores that better balance the quality-latency trade-off. Do attention patterns exist also in ST? To answer this question, we conducted an analysis of the encoder-decoder matrices obtained from the MuST-C en-de dev set. Through the visualization of attention weights, we observed a consistent phenomenon across our two language directions (en→{de, es}): the attention weights concentrate on the last frame, regardless of the input length, as shown in Figure 2a. This behaviour has already been observed in prior works on attention analysis, showing that attention often concentrates on the initial or final token (Clark et al., 2019; Kovaleva et al., 2019; Kobayashi et al., 2020; Ferrando et al., 2022), with up to 97% of attention weights being allocated to these positions. As this might hinder the possibility to effectively visualize attention patterns, similarly to (Vig and Belinkov, 2019), we filtered out the last frame from the attention matrix and then re-normalized it. In this way, as shown in Figure 2b, we obtained a clear pseudo-diagonal pattern compared to the previous unfiltered representation. Such correspondence emerging from the encoder-decoder attention scores after the removal of the last frame indicates a relationship between the source audio frames and target translation texts that can be exploited by our adaptive attentionbased policy during simultaneous inference.  What is the optimal value of λ? To find the best number of frames (λ) on which to apply Equation 1, we analyse the behavior of EDATT by varying α and setting λ ∈ [2, 4, 6, 8]. 5 For this analysis, we extract the attention scores from the 5th decoder layer (d = 5) by averaging across the matrices obtained from each attention head (h = [1*, ...,* 8]) in accordance with the findings of (Garg et al., 2019) about the layer that best represents word alignment. 5We do not report the experiments with λ = 1 since we found that it consistently degrades translation quality. We also experimented with different ways to determine λ, such as using a percentage instead of a fixed number, but none of them yielded significant differences.  We perform the analysis on the MuST-C dev set for both language pairs, and present the results in Figure 3. As we can see, as the value of λ increases, the curves shift towards the right, indicating an increase in latency. This means that, consistently across languages, considering too many frames towards the end (λ ≥ 6) affects latency with little effect on quality. Since λ = 2 yields the lowest latency (AL ≈ 1.2s) in both languages, and especially in Spanish, we select this value for the following experiments. This outcome is noteworthy as it demonstrates that, at least in our settings, the same optimal value of λ applies to diverse target languages with different word ordering. However, this might not hold for different source and/or target languages, advocating for future explorations as discussed in the Limitations section. What is the best layer? After determining the optimal value of λ, we proceed to analyze the EDATT performance by varying the decoder layer from which the encoder-decoder attention is extracted. We conduct this study by using λ = 2, as previously determined to be the optimal value for both languages. In Figure 4, we present the SimulST results (in terms of AL-BLEU curves) for each decoder layer d = [1*, ...,* 6]. 6 As we can see, on both languages, Layers 1 and 2 consistently perform worse than the other layers. Also, Layer 3 achieves inferior quality compared to Layers ≥ 4, especially at medium-high latency (AL ≥ 1.2s) despite performing better than Layers 1 and 2. 6We also tried to make the average of the encoder-decoder attention matrices of each layer but this led to worse results.    This aligns with the findings of Garg et al. (2019), which observed inferior performance by the first three layers in the alignment task for MT models. Concerning Layer 6, both graphs show that the curves cannot achieve lower latency, starting at around 1.5s of AL. This phenomenon is also valid for Layer 5 compared to Layer 4, although being much less pronounced. We also observe that Layer 5 achieves the best performance at higher latency on both languages. However, since Layers 5 and 6 never achieve low latency (AL never approaches 1.2s), we can conclude that the optimal choice for the simultaneous scenario is Layer 4. This is in line with Lamarre et al. (2022), which indicates the middle layers as the best choice to provide accurate predictions for language representations. As a consequence, we will use d = 4 for the subsequent experiments with EDATT. Would a single attention head encode more useful information? According to prior research examining the usefulness of selecting a single or a set of attention heads to perform natural language processing and translation tasks (Jo and Myaeng, 2020; Behnke and Heafield, 2020; Gong et al., 2021), we also investigate the behavior of the EDATT policy by varying the attention head h from which the encoder-decoder attention matrix A is extracted. In Table 1, 7 we present the results obtained from each attention head h = [1*, ...,* 8]. 8 Firstly, we observe 7A tabular format is used instead of AL-BLEU curves as many parts of the curves are indistinguishable from each other. AL = 1.2s is the first latency measure reported because it is the minimum value spanned by the head-wise curves, and AL = 2s is the last one since increasing latency above this value does not significantly improve translation quality (BLEU). 8Since obtaining a specific latency in seconds is not possible with this method, we interpolate the previous and succes-  that many heads are unable to achieve low latency, particularly for Spanish. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the optimal head among languages or at different latencies (e.g. Head 6 is the best in Spanish at 1.6s, but it does not achieve lower latency). However, we notice that the average across all heads (last row) has an overall better performance compared to the encoder-decoder matrices extracted from each individual head, and this holds true for both languages. Consequently, we choose to compute the average over the attention heads to apply our EDATT policy in order to achieve a better quality-latency trade-off for SimulST. ## 6 Results 6.1 Comparison With Other Approaches For the comparison of EDATT with the SimulST systems described in Section 4.4, we report in Figure 5 both AL (solid curves) and AL_CA (dashed curves) as latency measures to give a more realistic evaluation of the performance of the systems in real time, as recommended in (Ma et al., 2020b; Papi et al., 2022a). Results with other metrics, DAL (Cherry and Foster, 2019) and LAAL (Papi et al., 2022b), are provided in Appendix C for completeness. Numeric values for all the plots are presented in Section D. For our policy, we extract the encoderdecoder attention matrix from Layer 4 (d = 4), average the weights across heads, and set λ = 2 as it was found to be the optimal setting on the MuST-C dev set for both languages, as previously discussed in Section 5. sive points to estimate the BLEU value, when needed. Quality-latency curves for en→de and en→es show similar trends. The EDATT policy achieves better overall results compared to the LA and waitk policies applied to offline ST models. EDATT consistently outperforms the wait-k policy, with gains ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 BLEU for German and 1.0 to 3 for Spanish, when considering both ideal (AL) and computationally aware (AL_CA) latency measures. Additionally, it is able to achieve lower latency, as the starting point of the wait-k policy is always around 1.5s, while EDATT starts at 1.0s. In comparison to the LA policy, we observe an AL_CA reduction of up to 1.4s for German and 0.7s for Spanish. Moreover, the computational overhead of EDATT is consistently lower, 0.9s on average between languages, against 1.3s of LA. Therefore, the computational cost of our policy is 30% lower compared to the LA policy. Additionally, EDATT outperforms LA at almost every latency, with gains up to 2.0 BLEU for German and 3.0 for Spanish. Compared with CAAT, when ideal latency is considered (solid curves), we notice that EDATT achieves higher quality at medium-high latency (AL ≥ 1.2s), with BLEU gains up to 5.0 points for German and 2.0 for Spanish. When AL < 1.2s, instead, there is a decrease in performance with BLEU drops ranging from 1.5 to 4.0 for German and 1.0 to 2.5 for Spanish. However, when considering the realistic computational-aware latency measure AL_CA (dashed curves), we observe that the EDATT curves are always to the left of those of the CAAT system, indicating that our policy always outperforms it with BLEU gains up to 6.0 points for German and 2.0 for Spanish. In light of this, we can conclude that EDATT achieves new state-of-the-art results in terms of computational-aware metrics, while also being superior at medium-high latency when considering the less realistic computational-unaware measure. ## 6.2 Effects Of Accelerated Hardware To further investigate the computational efficiency of EDATT, we conducted experiments on all the systems described in Section 4.4 using a highly accelerated GPU, an NVIDIA A40 with 48GB memory, during simultaneous inference. Figure 6 reports the results in terms of qualitylatency trade-off. When comparing the curves with the computationally aware ones in Figure 5 (dashed), it can be observed that the LA policy seems to benefit more from the use of expensive accelerated hardware, with a latency reduction of 0.5-1s. However, this reduction is not sufficient to reach a latency lower than 2s with this policy. Considering the other systems, both wait-k and CAAT curves show a slight left shift (by less than 0.5s), similar to EDATT. 9 In conclusion, our policy proved to be superior even when using accelerated and expensive hardware, further strengthening the previously discussed findings. Moreover, these results indicate that there are no significant differences between the systems when using less or more accelerated GPU hardware and advocate for the wider use of computationally aware metrics in future research. ## 7 Related Works The first policy for SimulST was proposed by Ren et al. (2020) and is derived from the wait-k policy (Ma et al., 2019) developed for simultaneous text-to-text translation. Most of subsequent studies have also adopted the wait-k policy (Ma et al., 2020b; Han et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021; Zeng et al., 2021; Karakanta et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021; Papi et al., 2022a). In parallel, several strategies have been developed to directly learn the best policy during training by means of *ad-hoc* architectures (Ma et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a,b; Chang and Lee, 2022) and training procedures aimed at 9Despite the benefits in terms of quality-latency tradeoff, the significantly higher costs of the A40 GPU over the K80 GPU (4.1 vs 0.9 USD/h in Amazon Web Services, https://aws.amazon.com/it/ec2/ pricing/on-demand/) makes unlikely that such a GPU will soon be of widespread use for simultaneous inference.   reducing latency (Liu et al., 2021a,b; Zaidi et al., 2021, 2022; Chang and Lee, 2022; Zhang and Feng, 2022; Omachi et al., 2022). The latter adaptive policies obtained better performance according to the most recent results observed in (Anastasopoulos et al., 2021, 2022). We define our policy as adaptive as well, as it relies on the encoder-decoder attention mechanism, whose dynamics are influenced by the audio input that increases incrementally over time. However, EDATT completely differs from prior works on adaptive policies that exploit attention (Zaidi et al., 2021, 2022; Chang and Lee, 2022; Zhang and Feng, 2022) because is the first policy that does not require influencing the behaviour of the attention weights through dedicated training strategies, therefore being directly applicable to offline-trained ST models. By doing so, we realize i) an adaptive policy, ii) directly applicable to offline-trained ST models, *iii)* which achieves low latency at low computational costs. ## 8 Conclusions After investigating the encoder-decoder attention behavior of offline ST models, we presented EDATT, a novel adaptive decision policy for SimulST that guides an offline ST model to wait or to emit a partial hypothesis by looking at its encoder-decoder attention weights. Comparisons with state-of-the-art SimulST architectures and decision policies reveal that, at lower computational costs, EDATT outperforms the others at almost every latency, with translation quality gains of up to 7.0 BLEU for en→de and 4.0 BLEU for en→es. Moreover, it is also capable of achieving a 13347 computational-aware latency of less than 2s with a reduction of 0.7-1.4s compared to existing decision policies applied to the same offline ST systems. ## Acknowledgments The authors thank Marco Gaido for his valuable support during the paper writing. We acknowledge the support of the PNRR project FAIR - Future AI Research (PE00000013), under the NRRP MUR program funded by the NextGenerationEU, and of the project "AI@TN" funded by the Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy. ## Limitations Although applicable to any offline ST models, the EDATT policy and its behavior have been analysed on models applying CTC compression. Thus, the audio input undergoes a transformation that does not only reduce its dimension but also compresses it into more meaningful units, similar to words or subwords. As a consequence, the hyper-parameters regarding the number of frames to which apply the policy (λ) can vary and depend on the specific ST model. This would require having a validation set on which to search the best value of λ before directly testing. Moreover, the EDATT policy has been tested on Western European languages and, even if there is no reason suggesting that this cannot be applied (after a proper hyper-parameter search) to other languages, its usage on non-Western European target languages and on a source language different from English has not been verified in this work and is left for future endeavours. ## References Antonios Anastasopoulos, Loïc Barrault, Luisa Bentivogli, Marcely Zanon Boito, Ondˇrej Bojar, Roldano Cattoni, Anna Currey, Georgiana Dinu, Kevin Duh, Maha Elbayad, Clara Emmanuel, Yannick Estève, Marcello Federico, Christian Federmann, Souhir Gahbiche, Hongyu Gong, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Benjamin Hsu, Dávid Javorský, Vera Kloudová, Surafel Lakew, Xutai Ma, Prashant ˘ Mathur, Paul McNamee, Kenton Murray, Maria Nadejde, Satoshi Nakamura, Matteo Negri, Jan ˇ Niehues, Xing Niu, John Ortega, Juan Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Jiatong Shi, Matthias Sperber, Sebastian Stüker, Katsuhito Sudoh, Marco Turchi, Yogesh Virkar, Alexander Waibel, Changhan Wang, and Shinji Watanabe. 2022. Findings of the IWSLT 2022 evaluation campaign. In *Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022)*, pages 98–157, Dublin, Ireland (in-person and online). Antonios Anastasopoulos, Ondˇrej Bojar, Jacob Bremerman, Roldano Cattoni, Maha Elbayad, Marcello Federico, Xutai Ma, Satoshi Nakamura, Matteo Negri, Jan Niehues, Juan Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Sebastian Stüker, Katsuhito Sudoh, Marco Turchi, Alex Waibel, Changhan Wang, and Matthew Wiesner. 2021. Findings of the IWSLT 2021 Evaluation Campaign. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), Online. Andrei Andrusenko, Rauf Nasretdinov, and Aleksei Romanenko. 2022. Uconv-conformer: High reduction of input sequence length for end-to-end speech recognition. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07657*. Ebrahim Ansari, Amittai Axelrod, Nguyen Bach, Ondˇrej Bojar, Roldano Cattoni, Fahim Dalvi, Nadir Durrani, Marcello Federico, Christian Federmann, Jiatao Gu, Fei Huang, Kevin Knight, Xutai Ma, Ajay Nagesh, Matteo Negri, Jan Niehues, Juan Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Xing Shi, Sebastian Stüker, Marco Turchi, Alexander Waibel, and Changhan Wang. 2020. FINDINGS OF THE IWSLT 2020 EVALUATION CAMPAIGN. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 1–34, Online. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Jan Chorowski, Dmitriy Serdyuk, Philémon Brakel, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. End-toend attention-based large vocabulary speech recognition. In *2016 IEEE International Conference on* Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 4945–4949. Maximiliana Behnke and Kenneth Heafield. 2020. Losing heads in the lottery: Pruning transformer attention in neural machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2664–2674, Online. Maxime Burchi and Valentin Vielzeuf. 2021. Efficient conformer: Progressive downsampling and grouped attention for automatic speech recognition. In *2021* IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU), pages 8–15. Alexandre Bérard, Olivier Pietquin, Christophe Servan, and Laurent Besacier. 2016. Listen and Translate: A Proof of Concept for End-to-End Speech-toText Translation. In *NIPS Workshop on end-to-end* learning for speech and audio processing, Barcelona, Spain. Roldano Cattoni, Mattia Antonino Di Gangi, Luisa Bentivogli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Mustc: A multilingual corpus for end-to-end speech translation. *Computer Speech & Language*, 66:101155. William Chan, Navdeep Jaitly, Quoc Le, and Oriol Vinyals. 2016. Listen, attend and spell: A neural network for large vocabulary conversational speech recognition. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 4960–4964. Chih-Chiang Chang and Hung-Yi Lee. 2022. Exploring Continuous Integrate-and-Fire for Adaptive Simultaneous Speech Translation. In *Proc. Interspeech 2022*, pages 5175–5179. Xuankai Chang, Aswin Shanmugam Subramanian, Pengcheng Guo, Shinji Watanabe, Yuya Fujita, and Motoi Omachi. 2020. End-to-end asr with adaptive span self-attention. In *INTERSPEECH*. Junkun Chen, Mingbo Ma, Renjie Zheng, and Liang Huang. 2021. Direct simultaneous speech-to-text translation assisted by synchronized streaming ASR. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 4618–4624, Online. Yun Chen, Yang Liu, Guanhua Chen, Xin Jiang, and Qun Liu. 2020. Accurate word alignment induction from neural machine translation. In *Proceedings* of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 566– 576, Online. Colin Cherry and George Foster. 2019. Thinking slow about latency evaluation for simultaneous machine translation. Kevin Clark, Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. What does BERT look at? an analysis of BERT's attention. In *Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP:* Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 276–286, Florence, Italy. Mattia A. Di Gangi, Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2020. On Target Segmentation for Direct Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA 2020), pages 137–150, Virtual. Javier Ferrando, Gerard I Gállego, Belen Alastruey, Carlos Escolano, and Marta R Costa-jussà. 2022. Towards opening the black box of neural machine translation: Source and target interpretations of the transformer. *arXiv e-prints*, pages arXiv–2205. Marco Gaido, Mauro Cettolo, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021a. CTC-based compression for direct speech translation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 690–696, Online. Marco Gaido, Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021b. On Knowledge Distillation for Direct Speech Translation . In Proceedings of CLiC-IT 2020, Online. Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2022a. Direct speech-to-text translation models as students of text-to-text models. *Italian Journal of Computational Linguistics*. Marco Gaido, Sara Papi, Dennis Fucci, Giuseppe Fiameni, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2022b. Efficient yet competitive speech translation: FBK@IWSLT2022. In *Proceedings of the 19th* International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022), pages 177–189, Dublin, Ireland (in-person and online). Sarthak Garg, Stephan Peitz, Udhyakumar Nallasamy, and Matthias Paulik. 2019. Jointly learning to align and translate with transformer models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4453–4462, Hong Kong, China. Hongyu Gong, Yun Tang, Juan Pino, and Xian Li. 2021. Pay better attention to attention: Head selection in multilingual and multi-domain sequence modeling. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:2668–2681. Alex Graves. 2012. Sequence transduction with recurrent neural networks. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1211.3711. Alex Graves. 2013. Generating sequences with recurrent neural networks. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1308.0850. Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino J. Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist Temporal Classification: Labelling Unsegmented Sequence Data with Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning (ICML), pages 369–376, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Anmol Gulati, James Qin, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Niki Parmar, Yu Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Wei Han, Shibo Wang, Zhengdong Zhang, Yonghui Wu, and Ruoming Pang. 2020. Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition. In *Proc. Interspeech* 2020, pages 5036–5040. Pengcheng Guo, Florian Boyer, Xuankai Chang, Tomoki Hayashi, Yosuke Higuchi, Hirofumi Inaguma, Naoyuki Kamo, Chenda Li, Daniel GarciaRomero, Jiatong Shi, Jing Shi, Shinji Watanabe, Kun Wei, Wangyou Zhang, and Yuekai Zhang. 2021. Recent developments on espnet toolkit boosted by conformer. In ICASSP 2021 - 2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5874–5878. Hou Jeung Han, Mohd Abbas Zaidi, Sathish Reddy Indurthi, Nikhil Kumar Lakumarapu, Beomseok Lee, and Sangha Kim. 2020. End-to-end simultaneous translation system for IWSLT2020 using modality agnostic meta-learning. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 62–68, Online. Phu Mon Htut, Jason Phang, Shikha Bordia, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Do attention heads in bert track syntactic dependencies? arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.12246. Jae-young Jo and Sung-Hyon Myaeng. 2020. Roles and utilization of attention heads in transformer-based neural language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3404–3417, Online. Alina Karakanta, Sara Papi, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Simultaneous speech translation for live subtitling: from delay to display. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Automatic Spoken Language Translation in Real-World Settings (ASLTRW), pages 35–48, Virtual. Sehoon Kim, Amir Gholami, Albert Shaw, Nicholas Lee, Karttikeya Mangalam, Jitendra Malik, Michael W Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2022. Squeezeformer: An efficient transformer for automatic speech recognition. *arxiv:2206.00888*. Yoon Kim and Alexander M. Rush. 2016. SequenceLevel Knowledge Distillation. In Proc. of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1317–1327, Austin, Texas. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In *3rd International Conference on Learning Representations,* ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. Goro Kobayashi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Sho Yokoi, and Kentaro Inui. 2020. Attention is not only a weight: Analyzing transformers with vector norms. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7057–7075, Online. Olga Kovaleva, Alexey Romanov, Anna Rogers, and Anna Rumshisky. 2019. Revealing the dark secrets of BERT. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4365–4374, Hong Kong, China. Mathis Lamarre, Catherine Chen, and Fatma Deniz. 2022. Attention weights accurately predict language representations in the brain. *bioRxiv*. Dan Liu, Mengge Du, Xiaoxi Li, Yuchen Hu, and Lirong Dai. 2021a. The USTC-NELSLIP systems for simultaneous speech translation task at IWSLT 2021. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 30–38, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Dan Liu, Mengge Du, Xiaoxi Li, Ya Li, and Enhong Chen. 2021b. Cross attention augmented transducer networks for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 39–55, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Danni Liu, Gerasimos Spanakis, and Jan Niehues. 2020. Low-Latency Sequence-to-Sequence Speech Recognition and Translation by Partial Hypothesis Selection. In *Proc. Interspeech 2020*, pages 3620–3624. Mingbo Ma, Liang Huang, Hao Xiong, Renjie Zheng, Kaibo Liu, Baigong Zheng, Chuanqiang Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hairong Liu, Xing Li, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2019. STACL: Simultaneous translation with implicit anticipation and controllable latency using prefix-to-prefix framework. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3025–3036, Florence, Italy. Xutai Ma, Mohammad Javad Dousti, Changhan Wang, Jiatao Gu, and Juan Pino. 2020a. SIMULEVAL: An evaluation toolkit for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 144–150, Online. Xutai Ma, Juan Pino, and Philipp Koehn. 2020b. SimulMT to SimulST: Adapting simultaneous text translation to end-to-end simultaneous speech translation. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 582–587, Suzhou, China. Xutai Ma, Yongqiang Wang, Mohammad Javad Dousti, Philipp Koehn, and Juan Pino. 2021. Streaming simultaneous speech translation with augmented memory transformer. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7523–7527. IEEE. Ha Nguyen, Yannick Estève, and Laurent Besacier. 2021. An empirical study of end-to-end simultaneous speech translation decoding strategies. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7528–7532. IEEE. Motoi Omachi, Brian Yan, Siddharth Dalmia, Yuya Fujita, and Shinji Watanabe. 2022. Align, write, re-order: Explainable end-to-end speech translation via operation sequence generation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2211.05967. Sara Papi, Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, and Andrea Pilzer. 2023. Reproducibility is nothing without correctness: The importance of testing code in nlp. ArXiv, abs/2303.16166. Sara Papi, Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Speechformer: Reducing information loss in direct speech translation. In *Proceedings of* the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1698–1706, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Sara Papi, Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2022a. Does simultaneous speech translation need simultaneous models? In *Findings of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 141–153, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Sara Papi, Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2022b. Over-generation cannot be rewarded: Length-adaptive average lagging for simultaneous speech translation. In *Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Automatic Simultaneous Translation*, pages 12–17, Online. Daniel S. Park, William Chan, Yu Zhang, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Barret Zoph, Ekin D. Cubuk, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. SpecAugment: A Simple Data Augmentation Method for Automatic Speech Recognition. In Proc. Interspeech 2019, pages 2613–2617. Peter Polák, Ngoc-Quan Pham, Tuan Nam Nguyen, Danni Liu, Carlos Mullov, Jan Niehues, Ondˇrej Bojar, and Alexander Waibel. 2022. CUNI-KIT system for simultaneous speech translation task at IWSLT 2022. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022), pages 277–285, Dublin, Ireland (in-person and online). Matt Post. 2018. A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores. In *Proceedings of the Third Conference on* Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186– 191, Belgium, Brussels. Alessandro Raganato and Jörg Tiedemann. 2018. An analysis of encoder representations in transformerbased machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 287–297, Brussels, Belgium. Yi Ren, Jinglin Liu, Xu Tan, Chen Zhang, Tao Qin, Zhou Zhao, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020. SimulSpeech: End-to-end simultaneous speech to text translation. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 3787– 3796, Online. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715–1725, Berlin, Germany. Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. 2016. Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision. In Proc. of 2016 IEEE CVPR, pages 2818–2826, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States. Gongbo Tang, Rico Sennrich, and Joakim Nivre. 2018. An analysis of attention mechanisms: The case of word sense disambiguation in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 26–35, Brussels, Belgium. Jörg Tiedemann. 2016. OPUS - parallel corpora for everyone. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation: Projects/Products, Riga, Latvia. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30. Jesse Vig and Yonatan Belinkov. 2019. Analyzing the structure of attention in a transformer language model. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 63–76, Florence, Italy. Changhan Wang, Yun Tang, Xutai Ma, Anne Wu, Dmytro Okhonko, and Juan Pino. 2020. fairseq s2t: Fast speech-to-text modeling with fairseq. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference of the Asian Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (AACL): System Demonstrations. Ron J. Weiss, Jan Chorowski, Navdeep Jaitly, Yonghui Wu, and Zhifeng Chen. 2017. Sequence-to-Sequence Models Can Directly Translate Foreign Speech. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2017, pages 2625–2629, Stockholm, Sweden. Mohd Abbas Zaidi, Beomseok Lee, Sangha Kim, and Chanwoo Kim. 2022. Cross-Modal Decision Regularization for Simultaneous Speech Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2022, pages 116–120. Mohd Abbas Zaidi, Beomseok Lee, Nikhil Kumar Lakumarapu, Sangha Kim, and Chanwoo Kim. 2021. Decision attentive regularization to improve simultaneous speech translation systems. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2110.15729. Xingshan Zeng, Liangyou Li, and Qun Liu. 2021. RealTranS: End-to-end simultaneous speech translation with convolutional weighted-shrinking transformer. In *Findings of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2461–2474, Online. Thomas Zenkel, Joern Wuebker, and John DeNero. 2019. Adding interpretable attention to neural translation models improves word alignment. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1901.11359. Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022. Informationtransport-based policy for simultaneous translation. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 992–1013, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Baigong Zheng, Kaibo Liu, Renjie Zheng, Mingbo Ma, Hairong Liu, and Liang Huang. 2020. Simultaneous translation policies: From fixed to adaptive. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2847– 2853, Online.   ## A Training Settings We use 512 as embedding size and 2,048 hidden neurons in the feed-forward layers both in the encoder and in the decoder. We set dropout at 0.1 for feed-forward, attention, and convolution layers. Also, in the convolution layer, we set 31 as kernel size for the point- and depth-wise convolutions. The vocabularies are based on SentencePiece (Sennrich et al., 2016) with dimension of 8,000 (Di Gangi et al., 2020) for the target side (de, es) and of 5,000 (Wang et al., 2020) for the source side (en). We optimize with Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) by using the label-smoothed crossentropy loss with 0.1 as smoothing factor (Szegedy et al., 2016). We employ Connectionist Temporal Classification - or CTC - (Graves et al., 2006) as auxiliary loss to avoid pre-training (Gaido et al., 2022b) and also to compress the input audio, reducing RAM consumption and speeding up inference (Gaido et al., 2021a). The learning rate is set to 5·10−3 with Noam scheduler (Vaswani et al., 2017) and warm-up steps of 25k. We stop the training after 15 epochs without loss decrease on the dev set and average 7 checkpoints around the best (best, three preceding, and three succeeding). Trainings are performed on 4 NVIDIA A40 GPUs with 40GB RAM. We set 40k as the maximum number of tokens per mini-batch, 2 as update frequency, and 100,000 as maximum updates (∼23 hours). The MT models used for knowledge distillation are trained on OPUS (Tiedemann, 2016) en→{de, es} sections and are plain Transformer architectures with 16 attention heads and 1024 embedding features in the encoder/decoder, resulting in ∼212M parameters. We achieve 32.1 and 35.8 BLEU on, respectively, MuST-C tst-COMMON German and Spanish. ## B Data Statistics MuST-C training data (train set) has been filtered: samples containing audio longer than 30s are discarded to reduce GPU computational requests. The total number of samples used during our trainings is shown in Table 2. | split | en→de | en→es | |------------|----------|----------| | train | 225,277* | 260,049* | | dev | 1,423 | 1,316 | | tst-COMMON | 1,422 | 1,315 | Table 2: Number of samples for each split of MuST-C. * means this number doubled due to the use of KD. ## C Main Results With Different Latency Metrics Apart from AL, two metrics can be adopted to measure latency in simultaneous. The first one is the Differentiable Average Lagging - or DAL – (Cherry and Foster, 2019), a differentiable version of AL, and the Length-Adaptive Average Lagging - or LAAL - (Papi et al., 2022b), which is a modified version of AL that accounts also for the case in which the prediction is longer compared to the reference. Figure 7 and 8 show the results of the systems of Figure 5 by using, respectively, DAL and LAAL considering both computational aware (CA) and unaware metrics for German and Spanish. Numeric values are presented in Section D. As we can see, the results of Figure 7 and 8 confirm the phenomena found in Section 5, indicating EDATT as the best system among languages and latency values. We observe also that DAL reports higher latency for all systems (it spans from 3 to 7.5s for German and to 5.5s for Spanish), with a counter-intuitive curve for the LA method considering its computational aware version. However, we acknowledge that DAL is less suited than AL/LAAL to evaluate current SimulST systems: in its computation, DAL gives a minimum delay for each emitted word while all the systems considered in our analysis can emit more than one word at once, consequently being improperly penalized in the evaluation. ## D Numeric Values For Main Results Table 3 on the next page. | en-de | | | | | | | | |---------|------|------|-------|------|---------|------|--------| | Policy | BLEU | AL | AL_CA | LAAL | LAAL_CA | DAL | DAL_CA | | 19.6 | 1.43 | 2.36 | 1.53 | 2.43 | 1.86 | 3.14 | | | 23.5 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.10 | 3.05 | 2.42 | 3.89 | | | 25.1 | 2.51 | 3.53 | 2.60 | 3.57 | 2.89 | 4.46 | | | 25.7 | 2.97 | 4.02 | 3.04 | 4.05 | 3.30 | 4.95 | | | 26.1 | 3.37 | 4.43 | 3.43 | 4.45 | 3.66 | 5.33 | | | wait-k | 19.5 | 1.27 | 3.25 | 1.41 | 3.31 | 1.98 | 7.27 | | 23.1 | 1.69 | 3.32 | 1.79 | 3.37 | 2.37 | 5.85 | | | 24.8 | 2.04 | 3.49 | 2.12 | 3.54 | 2.73 | 5.37 | | | 25.9 | 2.33 | 3.73 | 2.39 | 3.77 | 3.01 | 5.36 | | | 26.4 | 2.64 | 3.98 | 2.70 | 4.02 | 3.32 | 5.41 | | | LA | 20.3 | 0.88 | 1.98 | 1.02 | 2.09 | 1.49 | 3.28 | | 20.8 | 1.32 | 2.55 | 1.40 | 2.61 | 1.99 | 3.76 | | | 20.5 | 1.74 | 3.14 | 1.78 | 3.18 | 2.46 | 4.29 | | | 19.9 | 2.14 | 3.77 | 2.16 | 3.78 | 2.88 | 4.86 | | | 19.0 | 2.54 | 4.24 | 2.54 | 4.25 | 3.26 | 5.23 | | | CAAT | 16.8 | 0.88 | 1.61 | 1.08 | 1.76 | 1.64 | 2.83 | | 19.1 | 1.04 | 1.75 | 1.20 | 1.87 | 1.73 | 2.91 | | | 21.6 | 1.34 | 2.09 | 1.46 | 2.17 | 2.01 | 3.26 | | | 24.0 | 1.74 | 2.56 | 1.83 | 2.63 | 2.43 | 3.71 | | | 25.6 | 2.26 | 3.26 | 2.33 | 3.31 | 2.99 | 4.40 | | | 26.3 | 2.74 | 3.93 | 2.80 | 3.96 | 3.46 | 4.97 | | | en-es | | | | | | | | | Policy | BLEU | AL | AL_CA | LAAL | LAAL_CA | DAL | DAL_CA | | EDATT | 24.9 | 1.39 | 2.41 | 1.58 | 2.53 | 1.96 | 3.51 | | 28.4 | 1.97 | 3.07 | 2.16 | 3.18 | 2.52 | 4.30 | | | 29.0 | 2.50 | 3.63 | 2.68 | 3.72 | 3.03 | 4.91 | | | 29.2 | 2.98 | 4.09 | 3.14 | 4.17 | 3.45 | 5.30 | | | 29.4 | 3.41 | 4.57 | 3.55 | 4.63 | 3.82 | 5.73 | | | wait-k | 22.1 | 1.12 | 2.46 | 1.42 | 2.65 | 2.03 | 4.59 | | 26.4 | 1.52 | 2.56 | 1.76 | 2.72 | 2.42 | 4.01 | | | 28.1 | 1.87 | 2.81 | 2.08 | 2.96 | 2.75 | 4.10 | | | 28.9 | 2.17 | 3.03 | 2.36 | 3.17 | 3.05 | 4.20 | | | 29.5 | 2.46 | 3.28 | 2.63 | 3.41 | 3.33 | 4.39 | | | LA | 25.1 | 0.74 | 2.02 | 1.02 | 2.23 | 1.54 | 3.57 | | 26.0 | 1.15 | 2.57 | 1.37 | 2.72 | 2.03 | 4.03 | | | 26.6 | 1.53 | 3.14 | 1.71 | 3.26 | 2.51 | 4.54 | | | 26.6 | 1.91 | 3.70 | 2.05 | 3.79 | 2.92 | 5.02 | | | 26.7 | 2.27 | 4.25 | 2.38 | 4.33 | 3.31 | 5.51 | | | CAAT | 23.0 | 0.95 | 1.74 | 1.24 | 1.97 | 1.81 | 3.01 | | 25.0 | 1.10 | 1.90 | 1.36 | 2.10 | 1.92 | 3.12 | | | 26.6 | 1.28 | 2.09 | 1.52 | 2.27 | 2.09 | 3.29 | | | 27.8 | 1.52 | 2.42 | 1.74 | 2.59 | 2.38 | 3.62 | | | 28.9 | 1.81 | 2.87 | 2.02 | 3.01 | 2.74 | 4.03 | | | 29.2 | 2.14 | 3.37 | 2.34 | 3.50 | 3.12 | 4.48 | | | EDATT | | | | | | | | Table 3: Numeric values for the plots presented in Sections 6 and C. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Last section of the paper (no number). A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Introduction (Section 1) ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. B ✓ **Did you use or create scientific artifacts?** We will release the code, models, and outputs of the scientific artifacts of Section 3. The use of other scientific artifacts such as datasets is described in Section 4. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? In Section 1, footnote 1. ✗ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? We use datasets as is and we build our models from scratch. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? The models we will release are trained on MuST-C for English->German,Spanish as mentioned in Section 4.1. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix A. C ✓ **Did you run computational experiments?** They are described in Section 4 and the results are reported in Section 5. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix B. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 5. ✗ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? We provide quality-latency graphs (BLEU-AL charts) for one run, as it is usually done in Simultaneous Speech Translation, but we report both ideal and computational-aware latency measures and, for the latter, we also provide results for different hardware (GPU) in Section 5. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? We use FBK-fairseq with its default settings unless stated otherwise, as reported in Appendix B. ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

lee-etal-2023-complementarity

On Complementarity Objectives for Hybrid Retrieval

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.746

Dense retrieval has shown promising results in various information retrieval tasks, and hybrid retrieval, combined with the strength of sparse retrieval, has also been actively studied. A key challenge in hybrid retrieval is to make sparse and dense complementary to each other. Existing models have focused on dense models to capture {``}residual{''} features neglected in the sparse models. Our key distinction is to show how this notion of residual complementarity is limited, and propose a new objective, denoted as RoC (Ratio of Complementarity), which captures a fuller notion of complementarity. We propose a two-level orthogonality designed to improve RoC, then show that the improved RoC of our model, in turn, improves the performance of hybrid retrieval. Our method outperforms all state-of-the-art methods on three representative IR benchmarks: MSMARCO-Passage, Natural Questions, and TREC Robust04, with statistical significance. Our finding is also consistent in various adversarial settings.

# On Complementarity Objectives For Hybrid Retrieval Dohyeon Lee Seoul National University waylight3@snu.ac.kr Seung-won Hwang∗ Seoul National University seungwonh@snu.ac.kr Kyungjae Lee† LG AI Research kyungjae.lee@lgresearch.ai Seungtaek Choi† Riiid seungtaek.choi@riiid.co ## Abstract Dense retrieval has shown promising results in various information retrieval tasks, and hybrid retrieval, combined with the strength of sparse retrieval, has also been actively studied. A key challenge in hybrid retrieval is to make sparse and dense complementary to each other. Existing models have focused on dense models to capture "residual" features neglected in the sparse models. Our key distinction is to show how this notion of residual complementarity is limited, and propose a new objective, denoted as RoC (Ratio of Complementarity), which captures a fuller notion of complementarity. We propose a two-level orthogonality designed to improve RoC, then show that the improved RoC of our model, in turn, improves the performance of hybrid retrieval. Our method outperforms all state-of-the-art methods on three representative IR benchmarks: MSMARCOPassage, Natural Questions, and TREC Robust04, with statistical significance. Our finding is also consistent in various adversarial settings. ## 1 Introduction Representing and matching queries and documents (or answers) is crucial for designing models for Information Retrieval (IR) and open-domain Question Answering (QA). Existing approaches have been categorized into **sparse** and **dense** retrieval. Classic sparse (or symbolic) retrieval such as BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009), quantifies the lexical overlaps (or exact matches) between query q and document d, weighted by term frequency (tf) and inverse document frequency (idf). Such computation can be efficiently localized to a few high-scoring q-d pairs with an inverted index, may fail to match pairs with term mismatches. For example, a text pair with identical ## Sunghyun Park† Lg Ai Research Sunghyun.Park@Lgresearch.Ai intent—"facebook change password" and "fb modify passwd"—does not share any common word, so the pair cannot be matched by lexical retrieval. To overcome such mismatches, dense retrieval models, such as BERT-based DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) or coCondenser (Gao and Callan, 2021), aim to support soft "semantic matching", by encoding queries and documents into lowdimensional embedding vectors. Dense representation is trained so that "password" and "passwd" are located close in the space even though they have different lexical representations. These complementary advantages of each model have naturally motivated hybrid models (Gao et al., 2020; Yadav et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2021), which we denote as BM25+DPR, extracting scores from both models and selecting documents with the highest linearly combined scores. To illustrate how we advance BM25+DPR baseline, Figure 1(a) shows Recall@10 of BM25+DPR on Natural Questions, where a yellow circle, represents questions answerable by BM25, or S, and a blue circle, represents those answerable by DPR, or D. Desirably, two retrievers together should cover all questions in the universe U, but failure is 46.5%, which corresponds to U − D ∪ S. To improve, there are two directions: (1) enlarging |D| and (2) making it more complementary to S. Figure 1(b) plots CLEAR (Gao et al., 2020), aiming to emphasize "residual" features neglected in sparse model, or, increase |D − S|. Though |D − S| increased from 15.2% (Figure 1a) to 20.0% (Figure 1b), as intended, failure did not decrease significantly, from 46.5% (Figure 1a) to 41.8% (Figure 1b). We argue this decrease in failure cases, is confounded by enlarging |D| from 47.6 (Figure 1a) to 54% (Figure 1b), by comparing with a hypothetical scenario keeping D fixed, but reducing failure cases significantly from 41.8% to 14.1% when the intersection is reduced. Based on these observations, we propose a novel 13357  24.8% 27.7%↓ 10.5% complementarity metric, considering the residual complementarity |D − S|, but relatively to |D|, denoted as Ratio of Complementarity (RoC). RoC is designed to be 1 when two models are disjoint (Figure 1c), and 0 when D is subsumed to S. $\qquad RoC=\dfrac{|D-S|}{|D|}=1-\dfrac{|D\cap S|}{|D|}\qquad(1)$ RoC has the following two advantages: . - RoC is backwardly compatible with existing residual complementary notions. We later derive (Section 3) that optimizing RoC can be divided into two sub-goals of increases |D − S| and |D ∩ S|, where the former is compatible with residual complementarity. Semantic Lexical - RoC, when multiplied by |D ∪ S|, directly approximates the number of questions that can be answered by hybrid models. As a result, increasing RoC as an objective, naturally correlates to the improved performance of a hybrid retriever. With these advantages, we use our metric in Table 1 to explain the limitation of CLEAR building on residual complementarity alone. CLEAR increases |D − S| as intended, but increases |D ∩ S| as its byproduct (see Figure 1b), due to their correlation. In contrast, we propose a simple but effective twolevel orthogonality to resolve this correlation, and achieves both sub-goals, which significantly improves RoC. Table 1 shows that the improved RoC correlates to the improved recall as well *. We verify that enhancement in RoC leads to improvement in hybrid retrieval performance on three IR datasets: MS MARCO, Natural Questions and TREC Robust04. *This table is a motivational preview, and detailed setting and results can be found in Section 4.2  Table 1: Relative increases in two sub-goals, with respect to BM25+DPR (Figure 1a) Fail: 37.0%↓ ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Sparse And Dense Retrieval Sparse (or symbolic) space is generally independent such that data structures, such as inverted index or bitmap, can efficiently identify matching candidates with exact matches, and ranking can also be efficiently computed. BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) is a well-known lexical ranking model using bag-of-words representation. Meanwhile, dense retrieval models (Shen et al., 2014; Guo et al., 2016; Zhai et al., 2016; Nogueira and Cho, 2019; Zhan et al., 2020) have been proposed to tackle the term mismatch problem, which can be categorized as two groups (Guo et al., 2016): (1) embedding-based and (2) interactionbased models. Our target scenario is the former, representing query q and document d into two independent dense vectors and match q-d by using the vector similarity. However, we also discuss how our idea can apply to interaction-based ranking approaches (Nogueira and Cho, 2019; McDonald et al., 2018), capturing word-by-word interactions without vectors, which we discuss as nonembedding models in Section 3.3. Semantic Lexical Semantic Lexical 15.2% 32.4% 5.9% 20.0% 34.0%↑ 4.2% 24.8% 27.7%↓ 10.5% Fail: 46.5% Fail: 41.8% Fail: 37.0%↓ (a) DPR baseline (b) Joint learning (CLEAR) (c) Joint learning (Ours) ## 2.2 Complementarity To leverage complementarity, there have been approaches to either combine the two spaces, or transfer knowledge from one space to another. First, for combining, a naive approach is aggregating the scores from two spaces (Ma et al., 2021), which is advanced to a more sophisticated model,  such as CLEAR (Gao et al., 2020) learning by a residual margin of BM25. Specifically, when q-d pair is hard to match lexically, the margin becomes larger, then the loss for semantic matching is emphasized. In other words, the model is trained Second, for transferring, SparTerm (Bai et al., 2020) learns sparse representations by distilling contextualized knowledge of BERT into bag-ofwords space. Specifically, based on BERT encoders, SparTerm first produces a dense distribution of semantic importance for the vocabulary terms, then controls the activation of each term, ensuring the sparsity of the final representations. It means that, the representation capacity of termbased matching methods can be improved up to semantic-level matching. Ours falls into the first category that combines the two spaces, but we propose a new metric named RoC to evaluate complementarity in hybrid retrieval directly. Table 1 shows how existing complementarity metrics only partially cover RoC. Meanwhile, we also discuss how ours can be combined with the second category approaches, i.e., SparTerm, to achieve further gains (Section 4.3). ## 3 Proposed Method We propose RoC in Section 3.1 and then discuss how S (Section 3.2) and D (Section 3.3) are implemented. Section 3.4 discusses how D and S can be combined to optimize RoC. ## 3.1 Ratio Of Complementarity (Roc) RoC is a metric that can measure complementarity and directly approximates failure cases in Figure 1, i.e., RoC ∝ |U − *F ail*| where U indicates all answer documents. Based on this hypothesis, our goal is to maximize |D ∪ S| · RoC. We describe this goal into two sub-goals as follows: $$\begin{array}{l}{{\left|D\cup S\right|\cdot R o C}}\\ {{=\left|D\cup S\right|\cdot\left|D-S\right|/\left|D\right|}}\\ {{=\left(\left|D-S\right|+\left|S\right|\right)\cdot\left|D-S\right|/\left|D\right|}}\\ {{\simeq\left|D-S\right|^{2}/\left|D\right|\quad*\dagger}}\\ {{=\left|D-S\right|/\left(1+\frac{\left|D\cap S\right|}{\left|D-S\right|}\right)}}\end{array}\tag{2}$$ The first sub-goal is optimizing |D ∩ S|, for which we separate the features captured by the sparse and dense models from each other. The second sub-goal is to maximize |D −S|, for which we propose to capture residual features of the sparse model. We describe how to achieve each sub-goal in Section 3.3. ## 3.2 Lexical Representation (S) While any lexical retriever can be used, we describe our approach with BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) to construct symbolic representation (green vector qlex in Figure 2(left)), to capture lexical matches. BM25 score can be written as an inner product between bag-of-words representations of the query and document. We define q and d representation from BM25 as qbm25 and dbm25 ∈ R|V |, respectively, where the i-th element of the representations qbm25 and dbm25 can be writ- †since |S| is a constant. 13359 ten as follows: $$q_{\mathrm{bm25}}(i)={\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{\mathrm{IDF}(q_{i})}&{q_{i}\ \in q}\\ {0}&{q_{i}\ \not\in q}\end{array}\right.}$$ $$d_{\mathrm{bm25}}(i)={\frac{\mathrm{TF}(d_{i})(k_{1}+1)}{\mathrm{TF}(d_{i})+k_{1}\cdot(1-b+b{\frac{|d|}{\mathrm{avgdl}}})}},$$ where IDF(·) is inverse document frequency of term i, and TF(·) is frequency of term i in a given document. Thus, BM25(q, d) can be denoted as an inner product between qbm25 and dbm25. Given that the lexical representations have much larger dimensionality than semantic representations, it is required to compress qbm25 and dbm25 into a low-dimensional space. For such compression, random projection (Vempala, 2004) was found effective for preserving document ranking in Luan et al. (2020), which we adopt in this work. Though compression loss exists, this loss can be bounded by changing embedding dimension k. In our experiments on NQ, we follow the protocol from Luan et al. (2020), to set k as 715, which guarantees errors to be lower than 0.038, for the 768 dimension BERT embedding. Random projection is a linear transformation via matrix A, and each element of the matrix A ∈ R 768×|V |is randomly sampled from a Rademacher distribution with equal probability from the two values: {− √ 1 768 , √ 1 768 }. The final lexical representation, qlex and dlex, can be obtained as follows: $$q_{\mathrm{lex}}=A\cdot q_{\mathrm{bm25}},\quad d_{\mathrm{lex}}=A\cdot d_{\mathrm{bm25}}\tag{3}$$ With Eq. (3), qlex and dlex are in the same dimensional space as semantic vectors from BERT, while preserving the ranking. In addition, our goal is to enforce complementarity with the semantic vectors in Section 3.3. From lexical representations, the final relevance score between query q and document d is calculated by an inner product, as follows: $$\operatorname{Score}_{\mathrm{lex}}(q,d)=q_{\mathrm{lex}}\cdot d_{\mathrm{lex}}$$ This relevance score is approximated to BM25 score, and at the same time, we can handle the two vectors, qlex and dlex, in semantic space. ## 3.3 Semantic Representation (D) For semantic representation (pink vectors in Figure 2(left)), we adopt a state-of-the-art (coCondenser; (Gao and Callan, 2021)) for explanation purposes, consisting of a dual-encoder structure based on BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). Thus, our dense retrieval follows BERT's architecture, settings, and hyper-parameters. Following BERT's input style, we apply wordpiece tokenizer to the input document and query, and then add a [CLS] token at the beginning and a [SEP] token at the end, as follows: $$\mathrm{Input}(\cdot)=[\mathrm{CLS}]\ \mathrm{Tokenizer}(\cdot)\ [\mathrm{SEP}]$$ Then, we take the embeddings of queries and documents, from the representation of BERT at [CLS] token. The semantic representations of q and d can be formulated as follows: $$h_{q}={\mathrm{BERT}}({\mathrm{Input}}(q))\in\mathbb{R}^{|q|\times768}$$ $$h_{q}=\text{BERT}(\text{Input}(q))\in\mathbb{R}^{11}$$ $$h_{d}=\text{BERT}(\text{Input}(d))\in\mathbb{R}^{|d|\times768}\tag{6}$$ $$q_{\text{sem}}=\text{Pool}(h_{q}),\ \ d_{\text{sem}}=\text{Pool}(h_{d})\in\mathbb{R}^{768}$$ where Pool(·) indicates [CLS] pooling extracting the first vector over the hidden states h. Their semantic relevance Scoresem is calculated by an inner product of qsem and dsem: Scoresem = qsem · dsem. The training loss for DPR is the negative log likelihood of the positive passage: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{rel}}=-\log\frac{e^{\mathrm{Score}_{\mathrm{sem}}(q,d^{+})}}{e^{\mathrm{Score}_{\mathrm{sem}}(q,d^{+})}+\sum_{d^{-}}e^{\mathrm{Score}_{\mathrm{sem}}(q,d^{-})}},\tag{7}$$ where d + and d− indicate positive and negative documents corresponding to given query q. For selecting the negative documents, we follow the convention in previous works (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Sachan et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2020), i.e., hard negative sampling, of selecting top-ranked documents retrieved from BM25 that do not contain the answer. ## 3.4 Complementarity Objective $$(4)$$ We propose embedding-level and input-level orthogonality constraints, which decrease |D ∩ S| and increase |D − S|, respectively. Embedding-level Orthogonality To reduce |D∩ S|, we separate the features between the semantic and lexical representation spaces. Specifically, we enforce orthogonality between lexical and semantic representations (i.e., qlex ⊥ qsem). While training BERT by Eq. (7), we impose an additional constraint using cosine similarity, which normalizes the features, to constrain the direction of the two vectors (lex and sem). We define the loss function of the orthogonality, as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{ortho}}=\left(\frac{\langle q_{\text{lex}},q_{\text{sem}}\rangle}{\|q_{\text{lex}}\|\|q_{\text{sem}}\|}\right)^{2}+\left(\frac{\langle d_{\text{lex}},d_{\text{sem}}\rangle}{\|d_{\text{lex}}\|\|d_{\text{sem}}\|}\right)^{2}\tag{8}$$ where ⟨·, ·⟩ is an inner product. If the two vectors are perfectly perpendicular to each other, the loss is equal to 0; otherwise, it has a positive value. This is compatible with our goal of minimizing common features of the two vectors, resulting in the reduced overlap |D ∩ S| of the semantic (D) and lexical (S) model, as in Figure 1(c). Adding this orthogonality loss, the final loss function for BERT-ranker is computed as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{total}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{rel}}+{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{ortho}}$$ Ltotal = Lrel + Lortho (9) While we can tune the above aggregation, we empirically found 1:1 aggregation was effective. Input-level Orthogonality For increasing |D − S| in the input-level, we follow the convention of using residual features, neglected by the sparse model, such as the synonymy between mismatched terms, e.g., "password = passwd". For this objective, we propose a method to perturb a subset of matched tokens for learning mismatched terms, similar to a denoising autoencoder (Hill et al., 2016). In the denoising autoencoder, input text is corrupted by random noise function, then the decoder is trained to recover the original text, learning robust features on variances (Vincent et al., 2008). In contrast, while our token perturbation does not have the recovering decoder, our distinction is corrupting exact matches, focusing on soft matching. Given a q-d pair, we denote a set of exact matched tokens in d as XEM = {xi|xi ∈ q and xi ∈ d}. Through random sampling, we replace tokens in Xem with the [MASK] token and feed the new sequence d′into BERT. By the token perturbation, we modify dsem in Eq. (6) to d′sem, computed as follows: $$d^{\prime}=d\backslash\{\mbox{Sample}(X_{EM})\}\tag{10}$$ $d^{\prime}_{\mbox{sem}}=\mbox{Pool}(\mbox{BERT}(\mbox{Input}(d^{\prime})))$ where Sample(·) is random sampling of tokens.‡ This perturbation is applied for only training process and we do not use this at inference time. ‡We sample 15% tokens in Xem and this ratio was decided empirically on the dev set. | MS | Natural | TREC | | |------------------|--------------|-------------|-------------| | MARCO | Questions | Robust04 | | | Total # Queries | 808K (train) | 58K (train) | 200 (train) | | 6.9K (test) | 3.6K (test) | 50 (test) | | | Total # Doc | 8.8M | 250K | 528K | | Avg Query Length | 5.9 | 9.4 | 2.7 | | Avg Doc Length | 56.2 | 91.1 | 261.0 | Table 2: Statistics of three datasets. This perturbation enables to apply disentanglement ideas, not only to new models, but diverse ranges of existing models (See Section 4.1). Final Relevance Score For aggregating the scores from the two IR models, we follow the convention of major baselines (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2021), using a linear combination. $$\begin{array}{l}\mbox{Score}_{\rm dual}(q,d)=\mbox{Score}_{\rm lex}(q,d)+\lambda\mbox{Score}_{\rm sem}(q,d)\\ =q_{\rm lex}\cdot d_{\rm lex}+\lambda q_{\rm sem}\cdot d_{\rm sem}\end{array}\tag{11}$$ where λ is the hyper-parameter controlling the weight for the different scales. ## 4 Experiment In this section, we describe experimental setting and formulate our research questions to guide our experiments. ## 4.1 Experimental Setting Dataset To validate the effectiveness of our method, we conduct query-passage (or, querydocument) matching for the following three datasets, which are widely used and statistically diverse (Table 2) as well: - **MS MARCO-Passage**§(Nguyen et al., 2016): This benchmark provides 8.8 million passages, and labels are obtained from the top-10 results retrieved by the Bing search engine. As the relevance labels for the official test set are not publicly available, we evaluate the development set only. We use MRR@10 and R@100 to evaluate the performance for full-ranking retrieval. - **Natural Questions**¶(Kwiatkowski et al., 2019): In this dataset, we aim to find relevant passages that answer the given question from total 250K §https://github.com/microsoft/ MSMARCO-Passage-Ranking ¶https://ai.google.com/research/ NaturalQuestions/download | MS MARCO | Natural Questions | TREC Robust04 | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------|---------------------|-----------------|--------|---------|---------|---------|-------| | Model | MRR @10 | MAP | R | | | | | | @100 | MAP | R | | | | | | | @100 | MAP | nDCG @20 | | | | | | | Reported results DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) | 31.1∗ | - | - | - | 85.4† | - | - | | DPR+PAQ (Oguz et al. ˘ , 2021) | 31.4 | - | - | - | 88.6 | - | - | | POSIT-DRMM+MV (McDonald et al., 2018) | - | - | - | - | - | 27.0 | 46.1 | | CLEAR: DPR+BM25 (Gao et al., 2020) | 33.8 | - | - | - | - | | | | COCONDENSER (Gao and Callan, 2021) | 38.2 | - | - | - | 89.0 | - | - | | Re-implemented Baselines (1) SPARTERM | 27.94 | 24.62 | 72.48 | 24.54 | 71.68 | 19.86 | 33.48 | | (2) BM25 | 19.25 | 19.57 | 69.54 | 26.59 | 73.70 | 25.64 | 41.95 | | (3) DPR | 29.20 | 25.83 | 71.42 | 33.08 | 85.38 | 33.36 | 48.76 | | (4) DPR + BM25 (Naive sum) | 33.75 | 29.34 | 77.34 | 33.56 | 86.77 | 33.65 | 49.32 | | (5) COCONDENSER | 38.19 | 31.41 | 80.53 | 34.32 | 89.03 | 34.14 | 52.29 | | (6) COCONDENSER + BM25 (Naive sum) | 37.85 | 31.82 | 80.76 | 34.47 | 88.94 | 34.53 | 53.06 | | (7) CLEAR: DPR+BM25 | 33.46 | 28.64 | 77.68 | 33.17 | 87.23 | 34.49 | 51.63 | | (8) CLEAR: COCONDENSER+BM25 | 37.99 | 32.08 | 80.42 | 34.93 | 89.456 | 35.866 | 52.78 | | OURS: DPR+BM25 | 34.62 | 29.27 | 78.75 | 34.15 | 87.89 | 36.43 | 53.27 | | OURS: COCONDENSER+BM25 | 38.6368 | 32.336 | 80.848 | 35.9768 | 90.1368 | 36.7468 | 53.39 | Table 3: Results of the different models on MS MARCO, Natural Questions, and TREC Robust04 datasets. Best performing results are showin in **bold**. In *Reported results*, we copy the numbers from ∗(Xiong et al., 2020), † (Karpukhin et al., 2020), and a dash ("-") indicates the baseline methods did not report scores. 6and 8indicates the p-value < 0.05 when the result is compared with baseline (6) and (8) with Bonferroni correction. passages, and labels are minded from spans in Wikipedia articles identified by annotators. Following DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020), we consider the passages including answers as relevant passages at evaluation regarding R@k. - **TREC Robust04**|| (Voorhees et al., 2005): This dataset contains 250 topic queries and 528K documents. As there is no official train/test split published in Robust04, we follow the split setting provided in McDonald et al. (2018) using 5-fold cross-validation. We honor the metrics used in the original work, which explains different metrics for different datasets. Robust04 is widely used but small in size, so we also follow the convention of studying MS MARCO and Natural Questions with larger sizes. Implementation For DPR encoder, we use a base version (Uncased) of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). For training, we set batch size 10 and use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) optimizer with learning rate 0.0002. For stable training, we used gradient clipping (Pascanu et al., 2013) with norm 1.0, and we halve the learning rate for every epoch after 3 epochs of training iteration. We follow ||https://github.com/nlpaueb/ deep-relevance-ranking DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) for the other training details such as hard negative sampling. As hyper-parameters, we automatically found the best values for λ, based on MAP on development set, where we search λ in a range of [0, 2] with 0.1 step size. The best configuration for λ was 1.5, 1.3 and 2.0 on MARCO-Passage, Natural Questions and Robust04, respectively. Evaluation Metric For task evaluation, we compute the following metrics and report average performance: Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR), Mean Average Precision (MAP), Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (nDCG), and Recall at top-k ranks (R@k). For Recall, we follow the previous work (Karpukhin et al., 2020), which is computed as the proportion of questions to which the top-k retrieved passages contain answers. For MAP and nDCG, we use the latest TREC evaluation script** to compute these metrics. Results of the p-value < 0.05 on the t-test with Bonferroni correction are displayed in bold in Table 3. Baselines We compare our model with the following baselines which are state-of-the-art retrievals. We use SPARTERM (Bai et al., 2020), COCONDENSER (Gao and Callan, 2021), and BM25 **https://trec.nist.gov/trec_eval/ | Model | NQ | Robust04 | | |-------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------| | R@20 | MAP | nDCG | | | (5) DPR+BM25 | 78.92 | 33.65 | 49.32 | | + Emb-level Ortho (E) | 80.87 | 35.54 | 52.19 | | (+1.95) | (+1.89) (+2.87) | | | | + Input-level Ortho (I) | 79.24 | 34.08 | 51.42 | | (+0.32) | (+0.43) (+2.10) | | | | OURS:DPR+BM25 | 81.28 | 36.43 | 53.27 | | (I + E) | (+2.36) | (+2.78) (+3.95) | | ††https://github.com/castorini/pyserini ‡‡https://github.com/luyug/Condenser (DPR) as our baselines. SPARTERM is a term-based retrieval model using BERT, and gives lexical matching score. BM25 is a well-known lexical matching method using TF and IDF. For BM25, we use Pyserini†† open-source implementation. For coCondenser, we use open-source implementation‡‡ to reproduce. On the other hand, we use hybrid space baselines such as COCONDENSER+BM25 (Naive sum) and CLEAR (Gao et al., 2020). Both methods give similarity score by merging the scores of sparse and dense model. Note our implementation of CLEAR performs better than their published results, as we update its base transformer with coCondenser. For fair comparison, both ours and CLEAR build upon the same coCondenser implementation. Semantic Lexical ## 4.2 Experimental Results Research Questions To evaluate the effectiveness of our method, we address the following research questions: - RQ1: Does the two-level orthogonality improves the RoC? - RQ2: Does the improved RoC contribute to better complementarity? - RQ3: Does the improved complementarity improve hybrid retrieval? ## 4.2.1 Rq1: Effectiveness Of Orthogonality | Model | RoC | MAP on NQ | |-------------------------|-------|-------------| | COCONDENSER | 0.32 | 34.47 | | + Emb-level Ortho (E) | 0.42 | 34.94 | | + Input-level Ortho (I) | 0.38 | 35.62 | | + I and E | 0.47 | 35.97 | Table 5: Effect of orthogonality objectives on ROC.  We conduct an ablation study to confirm whether the two orthogonality constraints contribute to improving RoC. As Table 5 shows, embedding-level orthogonality improves RoC by 0.1 compared to naive sum and input-level orthogonality improves by 0.06. Applying both of these improves RoC by 0.15, which is a significant improvement compared to CLEAR, while CLEAR improves by only 0.05 from the naive sum. Semantic Lexical Semantic Lexical 15.2% 32.4% 5.9% 20.0% 34.0%↑ 4.2% 24.8% 27.7%↓ 10.5% Fail: 46.5% Fail: 41.8% Fail: 37.0%↓ ## (A) Dpr Baseline (B) Joint Learning (Clear) (C) Joint Learning (Ours) 4.2.2 Rq2: Improved Complementarity With Roc In this section, we show our method improves complementarity, by using recall of hybrid retrieval, and also adversarial evaluation. First, ours (Figure 3) shows 0.15 higher RoC than CLEAR because of the improvement in RoC and failure cases are reduced compared to CLEAR (Figure 1b). In other words, RoC is a more reliable predictor of |D ∪ S|, which directly correlates to performance. Second, we can also observe complementarity in adverse scenarios. We categorize queries into two groups, BM25-Easy and BM25-Hard, following the convention of (Wei and Zou, 2019). Specifically, we define easy and hard set, by sorting MRR@10 scores of BM25 for all queries. Top 50% is BM25-Easy, where BM25 alone is already competitive, and the rest is BM25-Hard, which is adverse for lexical retrievers. Desirably, we expect a hybrid model to outperform BM25 ranking in the hard set. With this expectation, on Figure 4, we compare the ratio that the hybrid model provides better ranking (with respect to MRR@10). Surprisingly, CLEAR does not improve such ratio of DPR much (+1.5%), which is consistent with the results in Figure 5. In contrast, we significantly improve the ratio by +10.2%. Alternative way to observe adverse scenarios, is to build an adverse dataset with less matched terms. Specifically, lexically matched terms be-   tween query and document are replaced by their synonyms (as similarly done in (Wei and Zou, 2019)). Figure 5 compares how CLEAR and ours generalize to this adverse set. Both models on the original dataset improve MRR rapidly in early epochs, while not so much on adverse set until epoch 5. However, this gap decreases only in ours (Figure 5b), while stays constant in CLEAR (Figure 5a), showing CLEAR continues to focus on lexical matching, while we learn to leverage semantic matching. ## 4.2.3 Rq3: Effect Of Complementarity In Hybrid Retrieval In this experiment, we verify the effect of enhanced complementarity on various performance aspects. We first compare the performance of the hybrid model and ours to show that our two-level orthogonality improves the hybrid retrieval performance as well as the complementarity between the two models. In Table 3, when compared with coCondenser+BM25 (Naive sum), our method improved MRR@10 by 0.78 on MSMARCO, and MAP by 1.50 & 2.21 on NQ & Robust04, respectively, showing the complementarity improves document ranking. When compared with the state-ofthe-art model, CLEAR, our method achieved 0.64 gains of MRR@10 on MSMARCO, and 1.04 & 0.88 gains of MAP on NQ & Robust04, respec-  tively. Note that our method has a statistically significant performance improvement, as indicated by superscripts in Table 3. Ablation Study of Embedding- and Input-level Approaches To investigate the isolated effect of two-level orthogonality on hybrid retrieval performance, we conducted an ablation study in NQ and Robust04 as shown in Table 4. For this, we add each component (embedding- or input-level objective) to the baseline model: DPR+BM25 (Naive sum). In both datasets, we observe that the embedding- and input-level methods can achieve significant improvements over the baseline, showing that the enhanced complementarity improves hybrid retrieval performance. Note that the embedding-level objective is more effective than the input-level objective, which is consistent with the complementarity improvement result in Table 5. We can also see in Table 6 that the input-level objective works even for non-embedding models. Length Generalizability Based on the wellknown weakness of BERT showing low accuracy on long documents in the NQ dataset (Luan et al., 2020), we verify the effect of improved complementarity on robustness for long documents. Our proposed model outperforms CLEAR and obtains the best scores over all the lengths except one group. This shows that complementarity plays an essential role in length generalization. Results and details are described in Section A.1. ## 5 Conclusion We study the problem of hybrid retrieval, where existing state-of-the-arts have pursued a partial notion of complementarity. In contrast, we propose RoC, a metric that captures a fuller notion of the complementarity between sparse and dense models. We then propose a simple but effective twolevel orthogonality objective to enhance RoC and verify that optimizing RoC enhances both complementarity and retrieval, leads to outperforming state-of-the-arts in three representative IR benchmarks, MSMARCO-Passage, Natural Questions, and TREC Robust04, and generalizing to adversarial settings. ## 6 Limitations We make use of MS-MARCO, a resource that provides large-scale relevance annotations. However, as with most retrieval datasets, this dataset could contain annotation biases. Given the vast number of documents in the corpus supplied by the dataset, relevance annotations are sparsely distributed, with all other documents assumed to be non-relevant. Consequently, some relevant documents may be inaccurately labeled as non-relevant, leading to false negatives. A notable annotation bias in MSMARCO is that the relevant label correlates highly with the exact matching term (Xiong et al., 2020). This bias poses a limitation during the training or evaluation stages. To appropriately address this annotation bias, we might need to reorganize the labeling process using either a human or a neural annotator, or we could aim to design and train a model that is resilient to such bias. We reserve this task for future research efforts. ## Acknowledgements This work was supported by the SNU-NAVER Hyperscale AI Center and MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) support program (IITP-2023-2020-0-01789) and grants [NO.20210-0268, AI Hub, SNU], [No.2022-0-00077, AI Technology Development for Commonsense Extraction, Reasoning, and Inference from Heterogeneous Data], and [NO.2021-0-01343, AI Graduate School]. ## References Yang Bai, Xiaoguang Li, Gang Wang, Chaoliang Zhang, Lifeng Shang, Jun Xu, Zhaowei Wang, Fangshan Wang, and Qun Liu. 2020. Sparterm: Learning termbased sparse representation for fast text retrieval. In arXiv preprint, page abs/2010.00768. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the* North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technolo- gies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171– 4186. Luyu Gao and Jamie Callan. 2021. Unsupervised corpus aware language model pre-training for dense passage retrieval. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.05540*. Luyu Gao, Zhuyun Dai, Zhen Fan, and Jamie Callan. 2020. Complementing lexical retrieval with semantic residual embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13969. Jiafeng Guo, Yixing Fan, Qingyao Ai, and W Bruce Croft. 2016. A deep relevance matching model for ad-hoc retrieval. In *Proceedings of the 25th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management*, pages 55–64. Felix Hill, Kyunghyun Cho, and Anna Korhonen. 2016. Learning distributed representations of sentences from unlabelled data. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1367–1377. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for opendomain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769–6781. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Rhinehart, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. In *Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics*. Yi Luan, Jacob Eisenstein, Kristina Toutanova, and Michael Collins. 2020. Sparse, dense, and attentional representations for text retrieval. In *arXiv preprint*, page abs/2005.00181. Xueguang Ma, Kai Sun, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. A replication study of dense passage retriever. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05740. Ryan McDonald, George Brokos, George Brokos, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2018. Deep relevance ranking using enhanced document-query interactions. In EMNLP. Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, and Li Deng. 2016. Ms marco: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. In *CoCo@ NIPS*. Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Passage re-ranking with bert. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1901.04085. Barlas Oguz, Kushal Lakhotia, Anchit Gupta, Patrick ˘ Lewis, Vladimir Karpukhin, Aleksandra Piktus, Xilun Chen, Sebastian Riedel, Wen-tau Yih, Sonal Gupta, et al. 2021. Domain-matched pretraining tasks for dense retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13602. Razvan Pascanu, Tomas Mikolov, and Yoshua Bengio. 2013. On the difficulty of training recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 28, ICML'13, page III–1310–III–1318. JMLR.org. Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. *The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond*. Now Publishers Inc. Devendra Singh Sachan, Mostofa Patwary, Mohammad Shoeybi, Neel Kant, Wei Ping, William L Hamilton, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2021. End-to-end training of neural retrievers for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00408. Yelong Shen, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, Li Deng, and Grégoire Mesnil. 2014. A latent semantic model with convolutional-pooling structure for information retrieval. In *Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and* Knowledge Management, pages 101–110. ACM. Santosh Vempala. 2004. The random projection method, volume 65 of dimacs series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science. *American Mathematical Society*. Pascal Vincent, Hugo Larochelle, Yoshua Bengio, and Pierre-Antoine Manzagol. 2008. Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, pages 1096–1103. Ellen M Voorhees et al. 2005. Overview of the trec 2005 robust retrieval track. In *Trec*. Jason Wei and Kai Zou. 2019. Eda: Easy data augmentation techniques for boosting performance on text classification tasks. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference* on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 6382–6388. Lee Xiong, Chenyan Xiong, Ye Li, Kwok-Fung Tang, Jialin Liu, Paul N Bennett, Junaid Ahmed, and Arnold Overwijk. 2020. Approximate nearest neighbor negative contrastive learning for dense text retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Vikas Yadav, Steven Bethard, and Mihai Surdeanu. 2020. Having your cake and eating it too: Training neural retrieval for language inference without losing lexical match. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 1625– 1628. Shuangfei Zhai, Keng-hao Chang, Ruofei Zhang, and Zhongfei Mark Zhang. 2016. Deepintent: Learning attentions for online advertising with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1295–1304. ACM. Jingtao Zhan, Jiaxin Mao, Yiqun Liu, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2020. Repbert: Contextualized text embeddings for first-stage retrieval. In *arXiv* preprint, page abs/2006.15498. ## A Appendices A.1 Length Generalizability 80-120 <160 **120-160** Figure 6: Graph shows MAP of various models by document lengths in NQ dataset. 41-80 81-120 121-160 161 <  BERT BM25 BERT+BM25 CLEAR Ours Document length As shown in Figure 6, we group test set by the length of target documents (per 40 tokens), and report MAP score per each group. From the results, we can confirm the reported weakness in long documents– Precision of DPR decreases as the document length increases, while that of BM25 stays consistent. Meanwhile, hybrid models including both CLEAR and ours show better robustness than DPR and BM25 over the longer documents. Our proposed model outperforms CLEAR and obtains the best scores over all the lengths except a group "0-40". This shows that complementarity plays an essential role in length generalization. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Left blank. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Left blank. A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Left blank. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank. ## C **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left blank. C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Left blank. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank. C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank. D **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank.

zhao-etal-2023-c

{C}-{STANCE}: A Large Dataset for {C}hinese Zero-Shot Stance Detection

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.747

Zero-shot stance detection (ZSSD) aims to determine whether the author of a text is in favor of, against, or neutral toward a target that is unseen during training. Despite the growing attention on ZSSD, most recent advances in this task are limited to English and do not pay much attention to other languages such as Chinese. To support ZSSD research, in this paper, we present C-STANCE that, to our knowledge, is the first Chinese dataset for zero-shot stance detection. We introduce two challenging subtasks for ZSSD: target-based ZSSD and domain-based ZSSD. Our dataset includes both noun-phrase targets and claim targets, covering a wide range of domains. We provide a detailed description and analysis of our dataset. To establish results on C-STANCE, we report performance scores using state-of-the-art deep learning models. We publicly release our dataset and code to facilitate future research.

# C-Stance: A Large Dataset For Chinese Zero-Shot Stance Detection Chenye Zhao♣ Yingjie Li♡ **Cornelia Caragea**♣ ♣ University of Illinois at Chicago ♡ Westlake University {czhao43,cornelia}@uic.edu liyingjie@westlake.edu.cn ## Abstract Zero-shot stance detection (ZSSD) aims to determine whether the author of a text is in favor of, against, or neutral toward a target that is unseen during training. Despite the growing attention on ZSSD, most recent advances in this task are limited to English and do not pay much attention to other languages such as Chinese. To support ZSSD research, in this paper, we present C-STANCE that, to our knowledge, is the first Chinese dataset for zero-shot stance detection. We introduce two challenging subtasks for ZSSD: target-based ZSSD and domain-based ZSSD. Our dataset includes both noun-phrase targets and claim targets, covering a wide range of domains. We provide a detailed description and analysis of our dataset. To establish results on C-STANCE, we report performance scores using state-of-the-art deep learning models. We publicly release our dataset and code to facilitate future research.1 ## 1 Introduction Stance detection aims to automatically predict whether the author of a text is in favor of, against, or neutral toward *a specific target* (Mohammad et al., 2016b; Küçük and Can, 2020; ALDayel and Magdy, 2021), e.g., epidemic prevention, gasoline price, or equal rights. The stance can provide useful information for important events such as policymaking and presidential elections. Early works focus on two types of stance detection tasks: in-target stance detection, where classifiers are trained and tested on data from the same set of targets (Hasan and Ng, 2014; Mohammad et al., 2016b; Graells-Garrido et al., 2020) and cross-target stance detection, where classifiers are trained on source targets that are related to destination targets (Augenstein et al., 2016; Wei and Mao, 2019), but destination targets are unseen during training. However, it is impractical to include 1https://github.com/chenyez/C-STANCE all possible or related targets in the training set. More recently, zero-shot stance detection (ZSSD) has been identified as a promising direction (Allaway and McKeown, 2020) to evaluate classifiers on a large number of unseen (and unrelated) targets. ZSSD is more similar to the situations in practice and has received a lot of attention (Liu et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2022b). Despite the growing interest in stance detection, the task has several limitations. First, most recent advances in stance detection are limited to English (Mohammad et al., 2016b; Allaway and McKeown, 2020; Conforti et al., 2020b; Li et al., 2021a; Glandt et al., 2021), and pay little attention to other languages such as Chinese (Xu et al., 2016) although large amounts of online data with expressions of stance are available in other languages. Second, the current ZSSD task (Allaway and McKeown, 2020) aims to detect the stance of unseen targets. However, these unseen targets come from the same domain of training targets with similar meanings, which makes the task less challenging. Third, current stance detection datasets include targets either as noun phrases (Mohammad et al., 2016b; Glandt et al., 2021) or as claims (Ferreira and Vlachos, 2016; Derczynski et al., 2017). However, in practice, stance is usually expressed toward both noun phrases and claims. Models trained only on nounphrase targets do not necessarily work well for claim targets and vice versa. Little attention is paid toward incorporating targets of both types. In an effort to minimize these drawbacks, we present C-STANCE, the first Chinese zero-shot stance detection dataset. Our dataset is collected from Sina Weibo, one of the most popular Chinese social media sites (akin to Twitter). We consider two practical scenarios for zero-shot stance detection, i.e., target-based and domain-based ZSSD. Subtask A: target-based zero-shot stance detection. Subtask A is similar to the previous ZSSD task, where stance detection classifiers are evalu13369 | 请赶紧打疫苗,勤洗手把口罩戴起来。随着新冠病例的剧增,医疗资源不足必然引起医患矛盾 的爆发,也请大家能互相体谅。 Please get vaccinated quickly, wash hands frequently and put on | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Microblog | your mask. With the sharp increase in Covid-19 cases, the shortage of medical resources will inevitably lead to the outbreak of conflicts between doctors and patients. Please understand each other. | | Noun-phrase | 1. 新冠疫苗 Covid-19 vaccine / Favor | | target/Stance | 2. 医患矛盾 Conflict between doctors and patients / Against 1. 还是要去打疫苗,做好自我防护,尽量别阳,不去挤占医疗资源。 We should still get vaccinated and do self-protection, try not get covid and not to take medical resources. / Favor 2. 那些戴好口罩,勤消毒的人都阳了,所以说防护没啥用的。 Those who wear masks and disinfect frequently still get covid, so it is useless to defend. / Against 3. 免疫力真的很重要,平时就要加强自身锻炼,增强免疫力。 Immunity is really important, we need to strengthen our own exercise at ordinary times to enhance immunity / Neutral | | Claim target/ Stance | | 1. 还是要去打疫苗,做好自我防护,尽量别阳,不去挤占医疗资源。 We should still get vaccinated and do self-protection, try not get covid and not to take medical resources. / Favor 2. 那些戴好口罩,勤消毒的人都阳了,所以说防护没啥用的。 Those who wear masks and disinfect frequently still get covid, so it is useless to defend. / Against 3. 免疫力真的很重要,平时就要加强自身锻炼,增强免疫力。 Immunity is really important, we need to strengthen our own exercise at ordinary times to enhance immunity / Neutral Table 1: Examples of noun-phrase targets and claim targets for a microblog in the "**Covid Epidemic**" domain of our C-STANCE dataset. ated using a large number of completely unseen targets. **Subtask B: domain-based zero-shot stance** detection. Subtask B is our newly proposed ZSSD task where stance detection classifiers are evaluated using a large number of unseen targets from completely new domains. Additionally, C-STANCE captures a more diverse set of targets including both noun-phrase targets and claim targets compared with existing datasets. An example from our dataset is shown in Table 1. As we can see from the table, the author of the microblog is in favor of the noun-phrase target "Covid-19 vaccine" and against "the conflict between doctors and patients". The author also opposes claim target 2, whose main idea is to deny the necessity of self-protection. Our contributions can be summarized as follows: 1) We present C-STANCE, the first large Chinese zero-shot stance detection dataset. Our dataset is composed of 48,126 annotated text-target pairs. CSTANCE is more than 2.5 times larger than the English ZSSD VAST dataset (Allaway and McKeown, 2020) and more than 16 times larger than the existing Chinese stance detection dataset by Xu et al. (2016). We provide detailed description and analysis of our dataset; 2) We include two challenging ZSSD subtasks: target-based zero-shot stance detection and domain-based zero-shot stance detection for C-STANCE; 3) We consider a more diverse set of targets including both noun phrases and claims in C-STANCE as well as multiple targets per input text (see Table 1); 4) We establish baseline results using both traditional models and pre-trained language models and show that C-STANCE is a challenging new benchmark. For example, our bestperforming model based on RoBERTa achieves only 78.5% F1*macro* for subtask A. et al., 2016b; Conforti et al., 2020b; Glandt et al., 2021). Particularly, VAST is the only dataset for zero-shot stance detection. Even though recent years have witnessed an emerging trend of constructing stance detection datasets of other languages (Xu et al., 2016; Taulé et al., 2017; Swami et al., 2018; Lai et al., 2020; Vamvas and Sennrich, 2020), Chinese stance detection datasets are still very scarce. Xu et al. (2016) developed the first Chinese stance dataset. The dataset focuses on in-target stance detection and only includes 3,000 examples from 6 targets. In contrast, we propose the first large-scale Chinese dataset for zero-shot stance detection. Our C-STANCE which includes 48,126 samples with 11,623 noun-phrase targets and 28,581 claim targets enables multiple stance detection tasks and covers a wide range of domains. Besides classifying stance detection by target type (noun phrases or claims), we can also categorize the task as in-target, cross-target, and zero-shot stance detection. Most previous works focused on in-target stance detection where a classifier is trained and evaluated on the same target (Zarrella and Marsh, 2016; Wei et al., 2016; Vijayaraghavan et al., 2016; Mohammad et al., 2016b; Du et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2018; Li and Caragea, 2019, 2021b). However, it is usually hard to obtain sufficient annotated data for each target and conventional models perform poorly when generalized to data of unseen targets. This motivated the research on cross-target stance detection (Augenstein et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2018; Wei and Mao, 2019; Zhang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021b), where a classifier is adapted from different but related targets. However, cross-target stance detection still requires prior human knowledge of the destination target and how it is related to the training targets. Thus models developed for cross-target stance detection are still limited in their capability to generalize to a wide range of unseen targets. Zero-shot ## 2 Related Work Most previous stance detection datasets are constructed for the English language (Mohammad | Authors | Source | # Target(s) | Target Type | Language | Size | |-----------------------------|--------------------|---------------|---------------|------------------|--------| | Ferreira and Vlachos (2016) | News articles | 300 | Claim | English | 2,595 | | Derczynski et al. (2017) | Twitter | 305 | Claim | English | 5,568 | | Gorrell et al. (2019) | Twitter, Reddit | 8,574 | Claim | English | 8,574 | | Vamvas and Sennrich (2020) | Political Comments | 194 | Claim | English, French, | 67,000 | | Germany, Italian | | | | | | | Xu et al. (2016) | Weibo | 7 | Noun-phrase | Chinese | 5,000 | | Mohammad et al. (2016b) | Twitter | 6 | Noun-phrase | English | 4,870 | | Swami et al. (2018) | Twitter | 1 | Noun-phrase | English, Hindi | 3,545 | | Conforti et al. (2020b) | Twitter | 5 | Noun-phrase | English | 51,284 | | Allaway and McKeown (2020) | News Comments | 5,634 | Noun-phrase | Egnlish | 18,545 | | Glandt et al. (2021) | Twitter | 4 | Noun-phrase | English | 6,133 | | Li et al. (2021a) | Twitter | 3 | Noun-phrase | English | 21,574 | | Lai et al. (2020) | Twitter | 6 | Noun-phrase | English, Spanish, Catalonia, French, Italian | 14,440 | | C-STANCE (ours) | Weibo | 40,204 | Noun-phrase, | Chinese | 48,126 | | Claim | | | | | | Table 2: Comparison of stance detection datasets. stance detection (ZSSD) which aims to identify the stance toward a large number of unseen targets has attracted considerable attention in recent years. Allaway and McKeown (2020) developed a dataset for ZSSD which is called VAried Stance Topics (VAST) that includes thousands of targets. Based on VAST, many ZSSD models have been developed (Liu et al., 2021; Liang et al., 2022a,b; Luo et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023). In contrast to VAST, we include two types of ZSSD subtasks in C-STANCE. The first subtask is the target-based ZSSD which is similar to the VAST setting. The second subtask is the domain-based ZSSD where classifiers are evaluated on unseen targets from completely new domains, which is a more challenging task. Target-specific stance detection is the most common stance detection task (ALDayel and Magdy, 2021), which aims to predict the stance label toward a target, which could be a figure or controversial topic (Hasan and Ng, 2014; Mohammad et al., 2016a; Zotova et al., 2020; Conforti et al., 2020a,b). Multi-target stance detection is another type of stance detection task that aims to jointly identify the stance toward two or more targets in the same text (Sobhani et al., 2017; Darwish et al., 2017; Li and Caragea, 2021a). Unlike target-specific and multi-target stance detection where targets are usually noun phrases (phrasebased stance detection), claim-based stance detection aims to predict the stance toward a specific claim, which could be an article headline or a rumor's post (Qazvinian et al., 2011; Derczynski et al., 2015; Ferreira and Vlachos, 2016; Bar-Haim et al., 2017; Derczynski et al., 2017; Gorrell et al., 2019). However, less attention has been paid to incorporating both noun-phrase targets and claim targets into one dataset. Comparatively, our dataset supports data for both claim-based stance detection and phrase-based stance detection as well as captures multiple targets per input text (see examples from our dataset in Appendix A). We compare our C-STANCE dataset with previous stance detection datasets in Table 2. ## 3 Dataset Construction In this section, we describe the creation and particularities of C-STANCE, a large comprehensive stance detection dataset composed of 48,126 annotated instances covering a wide range of domains. ## 3.1 Data Collection We collect microblogs using the Weibo API from July 26th, 2022, to November 16th, 2022. Similar to prior works (Mohammad et al., 2016b; Glandt et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021a), our crawling is performed using query keywords. To cover a wide range of domains on Weibo, we start by using the domain names listed on the *Weibo hot list* page as keywords for crawling (e.g., society, education, etc.). After we get our initial set, we select the most frequent words as supplementary keywords for the next round of crawling to gradually expand our keyword set. The full list of keywords that were used is provided in Appendix B. We end up collecting 60,000 microblogs. ## 3.2 Keywords Selection After data collection, we filter keywords that are most suitable for the task of stance detection. We perform the following steps for keyword filtering: 1) We manually detect and remove keywords that often contain advertising content (e.g., beauty, renting, motor show, etc.), which are not suitable for stance detection as the purpose of those microblogs | Domain | Query Keywords 防疫 epidemic prevention, 封控 sealed management,口罩 mask, | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 新冠疫情 Covid Epidemic | CoE | 群体免疫 herd immunity, 居家办公 work-from-home, 疫苗 vaccine 新冠共存 co-existence with coronavirus, 加强针 booster 世界新闻 world news, 乌克兰 Ukraine, 俄罗斯 Russia, 移民 migrant, | | 世界事件 World Events | WE | 人口负增长 negative population growth, 战争 war, 选举 election, 大选 general election | | 文化教育 | 素质教育 quality education, 鸡娃 force kids to compete, | | | CuE | 文化输出 cultural output, 传统文化 traditional culture | | | Cultural and Education | 公立教育 public education, 流行文化 pop culture | | | 娱乐消费 | 物价 prices, 油价 gasoline price, 直播带货 livestream shopping, | | | Entertainment | EC | 短视频 short video, 保险 insurance, 消费观 consumption concept, | | and Consumption | 微商 wechat business, 苹果手机 iphone, 股市 stock market, 媒体 media | | | 体育 Sports | S | 世界杯 World Cup, NBA, 男足 men's football, 女足 women's football, 体育 sports | | 权利 Rights | R | 性别平等 gender equality, 女权 women's rights, 性少数群体 LGBTQ, 医患 doctors and patients, 平权 equal rights | | Protection | EP | 气候变化 climate change, 垃圾分类 garbage classification, | | 环保 Environmental | 环保意识 environmental awareness, 新能源 new energy | | | Table 3: The domains used in our dataset and the selected query keywords for each domain. | | | | Noun-phrase targets | Claim targets | | | | | | |-----------------------|-----------------|---------|---------|-------|---------|---------| | Domain | Favor | Against | Neutral | Favor | Against | Neutral | | CoE | 1,247 | 1,444 | 783 | 1,782 | 1,782 | 1,782 | | WE | 641 | 870 | 1,616 | 1,590 | 1,590 | 1,590 | | CuE | 1,108 | 734 | 554 | 1,206 | 1,206 | 1,206 | | EC | 1,480 | 1,355 | 1,175 | 2,051 | 2,051 | 2,051 | | S | 766 | 435 | 885 | 1,059 | 1,059 | 1,059 | | R | 940 | 1,020 | 532 | 1,276 | 1,276 | 1,276 | | EP | 633 | 264 | 556 | 732 | 732 | 732 | | Overall | 6,815 | 6,122 | 6,101 | 9,696 | 9,696 | 9,696 | is not to discuss controversial topics but to promote the sales of particular products. 2) For stance detection, we show more interest in controversial topics and keywords where people may express different stances (favor, against, or neutral) toward targets related to these keywords. Otherwise, models would predict the stances based on keywords information instead of the contents of microblogs and the targets. Therefore, we filter out keywords that people tend to show uni-stances on, e.g., poverty, delicious food, traveling, camera, etc., and keywords where microblogs often express personal feelings (e.g., "my girlfriend", "my mood", etc). After this filtering step, we select 45 keywords that cover controversial topics. We summarize the 45 keywords into 7 domains: "Covid Epidemic" (CoE), "World Events" (WE), "Cultural and Education" (CuE), "Entertainment and Consumption" (EC), "Sports" (S), "Rights" (R), and "Environmental Protection" (EP) which can be seen in Table 3. ## 3.3 Preprocessing We perform several preprocessing steps to ensure the quality of our dataset. 1) We remove microblogs with less than 50 or more than 200 words. From our observations, microblogs with less than 50 words usually are either too noisy or cannot cover enough information to express stances toward multiple targets. Microblogs with more than 200 words are usually technical articles that contain little stance-related discussion. 2) We remove duplicates and reposted microblogs. 3) We keep only microblogs in Chinese. We leave the multilingual dataset as our future work. 4) We manually identify a set of phrase lexicon for advertisements (e.g., check the link below, follow our WeChat public account, scan the QR code, click to join, etc.). We filter out all microblogs containing phrases in this lexicon. 5) We remove the emojis, URLs in microblogs as they may introduce noise to the dataset. After preprocessing, our corpus reduces to around 25,000 examples. We randomly sample around 215 microblogs for each of the 45 keywords, obtaining 9,696 microblogs for annotation. ## 3.4 Data Annotation We gather annotations using Taojinniwo,2a Chinese crowd-sourcing company that provides annota2http://sjbz.itaojin.cn/ | # Examples | # Targets | Avg. Length | | | | | | | | |------------------|-------------|---------------|--------|--------|--------|------|-------------|-------|-------| | N | C | N | C | N | C | MB | # Unique MB | | | | Train | 13,258 | 20,160 | 6,093 | 19,694 | 3.7 | 25.7 | 101.9 | 6,740 | | | Subtask A | Val | 2,865 | 4,419 | 2,665 | 4,400 | 4.6 | 26.3 | 104.0 | 1,473 | | Test | 2,915 | 4,509 | 2,865 | 4,487 | 4.7 | 26.5 | 105.7 | 1,503 | | | Subtask B | Train | 12,379 | 18,984 | 7,519 | 18,585 | 4.0 | 26.0 | 102.4 | 6,690 | | (Covid Epidemic) | Val | 2,249 | 3,447 | 2,208 | 3,436 | 4.6 | 26.0 | 104.8 | 1,087 | | Test | 3,474 | 5,346 | 1,896 | 5,211 | 3.7 | 25.7 | 103.6 | 1,786 | | tion services for big AI companies (e.g., Baidu, JD, etc.). To ensure the annotation quality, we employ strict requirements for annotators: 1) Annotators should reside in China; 2) Annotators should have college degrees. Moreover, we randomly select 10% of each annotator's annotations for quality checks. If an annotator has an acceptance rate of less than 90%, we discard their annotations completely and re-send them for labeling using other qualified annotators. We annotated data for nounphrase targets and for claim targets as detailed below. The label distribution for each domain is shown in Table 4. ## 3.4.1 Annotation For Noun-Phrase Targets The annotation for noun-phrase targets is performed in two steps. In step 1, one annotator is asked to detect at least 2 targets from each microblog. Annotators are given the following instructions: *"You should identify 2 or more targets* in the form of noun phrases. Targets should satisfy the following requirements: 1) Targets should be the main focus of the microblog instead of the trivial details; 2) Targets should be public topics that people may take stances on; 3) Avoid selecting targets to which most people may express the same stance, e.g., illegal charge.". In step 2, we ask three annotators to assign a stance label to each microblog-target pair. The instructions are given below: *"Based on the message that you learned* from the microblog, predict the stance that the author would take for the given target as "Favor", "Against", or "Neutral". We take the majority vote among stance annotations from the three annotators to obtain stance labels. For 9,696 microblogs, we collected 19,038 annotated instances (around 2 targets per instance). The inter-annotator agreement measured by Krippendorff's alpha (Krippendorff, 2011) is 0.60, and a percentage agreement of 75%. We see that while the task is challenging, annotators agree the majority of the time. We can observe from Table 4 that the "World Events" (WE) domain and the "Sports" (S) domain have the highest percentage in the "Neutral" class. This might be because these domains include more microblogs related to news. Moreover, people are showing a higher percentage of "Against" stances toward targets in the "Covid Epidemic" (CoE) and "Rights" (R) domains, where more contrary opinions are often expressed. ## 3.4.2 Annotation For Claim Targets The goal of this annotation task is to identify three claims, to which the microblog takes favor, against, and neutral stances, respectively. Annotators are provided with the following instructions: "After reading the microblog, write the following three claims: 1) The author is definitely in favor of the point or message of the claim (favor); 2) The author is definitely against the point or message of the claim (against); 3) Based solely on the microblog content, we cannot know whether the author supports or is against the point or message of the claim (neutral).". To pose challenges to the ZSSD task, we have some additional requirements: First, claims with label favor should not be a direct copy of the microblog content. Second, claims with labels against should not be the simple negation of the microblog content (e.g., adding "not" before verbs). Models may easily detect such language patterns and predict the stance without considering the content of microblog-claim pairs. Note that our claim annotation differs from the task of rumor detection (Zubiaga et al., 2015; Derczynski et al., 2017), where claims are replies stemming from the text. Some of such claims may miss information mentioned in the text (e.g., Text: Coronavirus is made by the alien. Claim: I don't believe that.). Our task focuses on predicting the stance toward a claim that discusses the same topic and does not omit any necessary information (e.g., Claim: I believe the Coronavirus is made by some terrorists). We collect 29,088 annotated microblog-claim pairs. For quality assurance, we hide the stance label and ask another group of annotators to annotate the stance label for a subset of microblog-claim target pairs. The two annotation groups agree on 95% of the annotation. We observe from Table 4 that each domain has a balanced label distribution. This is because we annotate one claim for each stance label from each microblog. ## 3.5 Dataset Split We split the annotated data into training, validation, and test sets for the target-based ZSSD (subtask A) and the domain-based ZSSD (subtask B). For subtask A, we separate the dataset following the VAST dataset (Allaway and McKeown, 2020): the training, validation, and test sets do not share any microblogs and targets with each other. We randomly select 70% of unique annotated microblogs for the training set and split the remainder evenly for the validation and the test set. The dataset distribution is shown in Table 5. We have 2,865 unique zero-shot noun-phrase targets and 4,487 unique zero-shot claims for 1,503 unique microblogs in the test set, with the average length of 4.7, 26.5, and 105.9 for noun-phrase targets, claim targets, and microblogs, respectively. We also report the average percentage of tokens in targets that overlap with tokens in microblogs (see Appendix C). For subtask B, we use the data from six domains (source) for training and validation, and the data from the left-out domain (zero-shot) as the test set. In the end, we have 7 dataset splits for subtask B with one dataset split for each of the 7 domains where each domain in turn is used as the test set. To ensure there are no overlapping targets between the source domains and the zero-shot domain, we remove data with overlapping targets from the source domains in each split. We then split the source domains into the training and the validation set without overlapping microblogs and targets. The statistics when using the "Covid Epidemic" as the zero-shot domain are shown in Table 5. The full statistics of subtask B are shown in Appendix D. Because of the linguistic variations in the nounphrase target expressions, we study the prevalence of *LexSimTopics* (Allaway and McKeown, 2020) between the training and the test set, which is defined as test targets that have more than 0.9 cosine similarities with any train targets in the word embedding space (Bojanowski et al., 2017). We observe that for subtask A, we have 11% *LexSimTopics* in the test set. Whereas for the "Covid Epidemic" domain in subtask B, we only have 7% LexSimTopics. This implies that subtask B is more challenging as the training and test targets are more different from each other. Comparatively, VAST dataset has 16% *LexSimTopics* in the zero-shot test set which is higher than our task. ## 4 Experimental Settings In this section, we introduce the baselines in Section 4.1 and the training settings in Section 4.2. ## 4.1 Baseline Methods To evaluate C-STANCE, we run experiments with the following baselines. **BiCE** (Augenstein et al., 2016) and **CrossNet** (Xu et al., 2018) predict the class label using the conditional encoding of BiLSTM models. **TGA-Net** (Allaway and McKeown, 2020) implicitly captures relationships between targets using generalized topic representations to assist stance classification. We also consider the base version of **BERT** (Devlin et al., 2019) trained using the whole word masking (wwm) on Chinese Wikipedia (Cui et al., 2020), the 12-layer RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) and **XLNet** (Yang et al., 2019) pre-trained on Chinese news, Q&A, and BaiduBaike (Cui et al., 2020). ## 4.2 Training Settings We perform experiments using an NVIDIA RTX A5000 GPU. Our experiments are conducted based on PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019). The validation set was used to determine the hyperparameters for the models. For BiCE and CrossNet, we used the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with a learning rate of 0.001. Each model was trained for 20 epochs, with a mini-batch size of 64. For TGANet, we followed hyperparameters suggested in the previous work (Allaway and McKeown, 2020). For BERT, RoBERTa, and XLNet, we used the AdamW with a learning rate of 5e-6. Models were fine-tuned for 5 epochs using a mini-batch size of 32. The total training time is less than 3 hours. ## 5 Results In this section, we first perform experiments on subtask A and subtask B. We then conduct experiments on cross-lingual stance detection using C-STANCE and the previous English ZSSD VAST dataset. We also study the impact of incorporating both nounphrase targets and claims targets into one dataset. Lastly, we perform the spuriosity analysis for claim | Mixed targets | Noun-phrase targets | Claim targets | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------------|-----------------------|-----------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Con | Pro | Neu | All | Con | Pro | Neu | All | Con | Pro | Neu | All | | | BiCE | .490 | .408 | .443 | .447 | .560 | .515 | .590 | .555 | .335 | .358 | .302 | .332 | | Cross-Net | .526 | .541 | .592 | .553 | .607 | .567 | .601 | .592 | .441 | .395 | .588 | .475 | | TGA Net | .565 | .599 | .637 | .600 | .694 | .674 | .670 | .679 | .488 | .625 | .699 | .604 | | BERT | .758 | .763 | .798 | .773 | .708 | .693 | .647 | .683 | .797 | .827 | .899 | .841 | | RoBERTa | .775 | .769 | .811 | .785 | .712 | .701 | .669 | .694 | .797 | .819 | .899 | .838 | | XLNet | .767 | .769 | .804 | .780 | .721 | .701 | .667 | .696 | .805 | .829 | .900 | .845 | targets. Each result is the average of 4 runs with different initializations. Similar to prior works (Allaway and McKeown, 2020; Liang et al., 2022b), we use the F1 for each class and the macro-averaged F1 of all classes as evaluation metrics. ## 5.1 Target-Based Zero-Shot Stance Detection Target-based zero-shot stance detection (subtask A) aims to evaluate the classifier on a large number of completely unseen targets (Allaway and McKeown, 2020). Our experiments are performed using the full dataset with mixed targets (both noun phrases and claims), the dataset with noun-phrase targets, and the dataset with claim targets, respectively. Experimental results are shown in Table 6. First, we can observe that transformer-based models show better performance than RNN-based models, demonstrating the effectiveness of the pre-trained transformer models. Moreover, RoBERTa and XLNet outperform BERT in most metrics, suggesting the effectiveness of additional training performed by RoBERTa and XLNet to address different limitations of BERT. Second, transformer-based models perform better on claim targets than noun-phrase targets. This might be because transformer models are better at capturing contextual information and claims are usually composed of more contextual information than noun phrases. Comparatively, BiCE and CrossNet perform worse on claim targets than noun-phrase targets, showing that claim targets are more challenging for RNN-based models. We also notice that TGA-Net achieves worse performance on claim targets. This might be because the model requires clustering based on target representations, which is more difficult for the claim targets. Third, model performance for the mixed target is higher than the noun-phrase targets and lower than the claim targets. This suggests that ZSSD models that can properly utilize both types of targets are still needed, which we leave as our future work. | Model | Data CoE WE | CuE EC | S | R | EP | |-----------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-----|-----|------| | M | .347 .413 .376 .393 .413 .360 .400 | | | | | | BiCE | N | .447 .546 .479 .506 .539 .459 .493 | | | | | C | .305 .296 .289 .304 .313 .304 .286 | | | | | | M | .374 .375 .370 .392 .374 .351 .386 | | | | | | CrossNet | N | .489 .582 .497 .523 .530 .471 .522 | | | | | C | .243 .260 .308 .260 .279 .244 .253 | | | | | | M | .570 .581 .598 .598 .609 .608 .592 | | | | | | TGA-Net | N | .577 .667 .632 .629 .654 .619 .642 | | | | | C | .584 .585 .598 .608 .613 .603 .615 | | | | | | M | .753 .773 .768 .762 .775 .772 .777 | | | | | | BERT | N | .594 .664 .641 .641 .671 .621 .647 | | | | | C | .828 .835 .836 .824 .841 .832 .866 | | | | | | M | .755 .776 .779 .774 .785 .784 .795 | | | | | | RoBERTa N | .602 .676 .647 .655 .687 .635 .670 | | | | | | C | .822 .833 .834 .820 .842 .836 .879 | | | | | | M | .758 .763 .778 .767 .777 .777 .781 | | | | | | XLNet | N | .594 .680 .657 .652 .674 .640 .654 | | | | | C | .830 .839 .840 .832 .845 .834 .874 | | | | | ## 5.2 **Domain-Based Zero-Shot Stance Detection** Domain-based stance detection (subtask B) focuses on evaluating classifiers using unseen topics from completely new domains. Particularly, we select one domain as the zero-shot domain and the rest six domains as source domains. We train and validate models using data from source domains and test models using data from the zero-shot domain. We have seven zero-shot domain settings (each with a different zero-shot domain). Similar to subtask A, our experiments are performed using the full dataset with mixed targets, data with noun-phrase targets, and data with claim targets, respectively. Results are shown in Table 7. First, we can observe that among the seven zero-shot domain settings, most models show the highest performance when predicting stances for claim targets and the mixed targets from the "Environmental Protection" domain. For example, RoBERTa achieves the highest F1*macro* of 0.879 for the claim targets, improving its performance over the rest domains by up to 5.9%. Second, stances for noun-phrase targets  Table 8: Cross-lingual ZSSD performance of mBERT using VAST and C-STANCE (denoted as V and C, respectively). "MT" represents machine translation. from the "Sports" and the "World Events" domains are easier to predict than the other domains, where RoBERTa and XLNet achieve the highest F1*macro* of 0.687 and 0.680, respectively. This might be because sports and world events are domains with a higher percentage of microblogs discussing news, which usually captures more diverse target ranges than the other domains. Moreover, we also observe that in most cases, the "Covid Epidemic" is the most difficult domain to predict for all targets, suggesting that the "Covid Epidemic" domain shares the least domain knowledge with the other domains, making it the most difficult zero-shot domain for domain-based ZSSD. For mixed targets experiments, we also report the results for test sets of only noun-phrase targets and only claim targets separately in Appendix E (i.e., training on mixed targets and testing on noun-phrase targets or training on mixed targets and testing on claim targets). ## 5.3 **Cross-Lingual Zero-Shot Stance Detection** To better understand the difference between the existing English ZSSD dataset (VAST) and our Chinese C-STANCE dataset, we perform experiments on cross-lingual zero-shot stance detection between the two datasets. Particularly, we fine-tune a multilingual transformer model BERT (mBERT) (Devlin et al., 2019). The model is pre-trained on 104 languages. We train and validate mBERT using one dataset, and test the model using the other dataset. During the test stage, we experiment with both the original test set and the test set translated into the other language using Google Translate 3. As shown in Table 8, models trained on VAST perform poorly on the neutral class for the CSTANCE, while models trained on C-STANCE show much higher performance. The results imply that the neutral class in C-STANCE is more challenging than VAST. This is because data for the neutral class in VAST is generated by randomly permuting existing targets and texts, which may generate easy-to-detect text-target pairs. Compara-3https://translate.google.com/    Table 10: Comparison of F1*macro* of XLNet and RoBERTa when both microblog and claim target (MB+C) are used vs. when only claim target (C) is used as the input. tively, for C-STANCE, targets for the neutral class are manually extracted by annotators from each microblog, which are more closely related to the microblog content. Moreover, machine-translated test sets in both languages show worse F1-macro than the original test sets, indicating that machine translation fails to generate high-quality data. This suggests the importance of developing a zero-shot stance detection dataset for Chinese, which has not been done prior to this work. ## 5.4 **Impact Of Incorporating Two Target Types** To analyze the impact of incorporating the nounphrase targets and the claim targets in one dataset, we evaluate models trained with noun-phrase targets using the claim targets and vice versa. Results are compared with models trained using mixed target types and evaluated by two types of targets separately. Experiments are performed for subtask A, using the best-performing XLNet and RoBERTa. Results are shown in Table 9, where we can observe that when models are trained with claim targets and evaluated with noun-phrase targets, the performance is much worse than ones trained by the mixed targets (e.g., 0.291 vs. 0.679 for XLNet). Similar results can be observed when models are trained with noun-phrase targets. These results suggest that datasets including the uni-target type are not capable of handling other target type, which further strengthens the necessity of developing datasets including both target types. ## 5.5 Spuriosity Analysis For Claim Targets We perform spuriosity analysis for claim targets to ensure that we cannot predict the stance based solely on the claim. For subtask A, we conduct experiments using XLNet and RoBERTa with only the claim target as input, which are compared with experiments using both microblog and claim target. The results are shown in Table 10, where we can observe a substantial amount of performance decrease when only the claim target is used as input. Therefore, both microblogs and claim targets are required for the models to make correct stance predictions by learning the semantic relation between them. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we introduce C-STANCE, the first Chinese zero-shot stance detection dataset. Our dataset includes two challenging ZSSD subtasks: target-based ZSSD (evaluating classifiers using a large number of unseen targets) and domain-based ZSSD (evaluating classifiers using a large number of unseen targets from unseen domains). Moreover, we consider both noun-phrase targets and claim targets. Our dataset is larger and more challenging compared with the previous Chinese stance detection dataset, consisting of 48,126 annotated microblog-target pairs. C-STANCE can serve as a new benchmark for ZSSD, along with VAST, and can enable future research for other stance detection tasks. We conduct experiments using state-ofthe-art deep learning models. Future work includes studying the multilingual ZSSD with the union of C-STANCE and other multi-lingual datasets. ## Limitations Our C-STANCE data is collected from social media, which may be seen as a limitation, as we may not cover all aspects of formal texts that could be used in essays or news comments. We will plan to extend this dataset with other types of text in the future. However, this is a limitation of any other datasets that focus on social media content. ## Ethical Statement Our dataset does not provide any personally identifiable information. Microblogs are collected using generic keywords instead of user information as queries, therefore our dataset does not have a large collection of microblogs from an individual user. Thus our dataset complies with Sina Weibo's information privacy policy. ## Acknowledgements We thank the National Science Foundation for support from grants IIS-1912887, IIS-2107487, and ITE-2137846 which supported the research and the computation in this study. We also thank our reviewers for their insightful feedback and comments. ## References Abeer ALDayel and Walid Magdy. 2021. Stance detection on social media: State of the art and trends. Inf. Process. Manage., 58(4). Emily Allaway and Kathleen McKeown. 2020. ZeroShot Stance Detection: A Dataset and Model using Generalized Topic Representations. In *Proceedings* of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8913– 8931, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Isabelle Augenstein, Tim Rocktäschel, Andreas Vlachos, and Kalina Bontcheva. 2016. Stance detection with bidirectional conditional encoding. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 876–885, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Roy Bar-Haim, Indrajit Bhattacharya, Francesco Dinuzzo, Amrita Saha, and Noam Slonim. 2017. Stance classification of context-dependent claims. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 251–261, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Enriching word vectors with subword information. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 5:135–146. Costanza Conforti, Jakob Berndt, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, Chryssi Giannitsarou, Flavio Toxvaerd, and Nigel Collier. 2020a. STANDER: An expertannotated dataset for news stance detection and evidence retrieval. In *Findings of the Association for* Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4086–4101, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Costanza Conforti, Jakob Berndt, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, Chryssi Giannitsarou, Flavio Toxvaerd, and Nigel Collier. 2020b. Will-they-won't-they: A very large dataset for stance detection on Twitter. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 1715– 1724, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yiming Cui, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Bing Qin, Shijin Wang, and Guoping Hu. 2020. Revisiting pre-trained models for Chinese natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Findings, pages 657–668, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kareem Darwish, Walid Magdy, and Tahar Zanouda. 2017. Trump vs. hillary: What went viral during the 2016 us presidential election. In *Social Informatics*, pages 143–161, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Leon Derczynski, Kalina Bontcheva, Maria Liakata, Rob Procter, Geraldine Wong Sak Hoi, and Arkaitz Zubiaga. 2017. SemEval-2017 task 8: RumourEval: Determining rumour veracity and support for rumours. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pages 69–76, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Leon Derczynski, Kalina Bontcheva, Michal Lukasik, Thierry Declerck, Arno Scharl, Georgi Georgiev, Petya Osenova, Toms Pariente Lobo, Anna Kolliakou, Robert Stewart, et al. 2015. Pheme: Computing veracity—the fourth challenge of big social data. In Proceedings of the Extended Semantic Web Conference EU Project Networking session (ESCW-PN). Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiachen Du, Ruifeng Xu, Yulan He, and Lin Gui. 2017. Stance classification with target-specific neural attention. In *Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,* IJCAI-17, pages 3988–3994. William Ferreira and Andreas Vlachos. 2016. Emergent: a novel data-set for stance classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Kyle Glandt, Sarthak Khanal, Yingjie Li, Doina Caragea, and Cornelia Caragea. 2021. Stance detection in COVID-19 tweets. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1596–1611, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Genevieve Gorrell, Elena Kochkina, Maria Liakata, Ahmet Aker, Arkaitz Zubiaga, Kalina Bontcheva, and Leon Derczynski. 2019. SemEval-2019 task 7: RumourEval, determining rumour veracity and support for rumours. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 845–854, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Eduardo Graells-Garrido, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, and Mounia Lalmas. 2020. Representativeness of abortion legislation debate on twitter: A case study in argentina and chile. In *Companion Proceedings of* the Web Conference 2020, WWW '20, page 765–774, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Kazi Saidul Hasan and Vincent Ng. 2014. Why are you taking this stance? identifying and classifying reasons in ideological debates. In *Proceedings of* the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 751–762, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. Klaus Krippendorff. 2011. Computing krippendorff's alpha-reliability. Dilek Küçük and Fazli Can. 2020. Stance detection: A survey. *ACM Comput. Surv.*, 53(1). Mirko Lai, Alessandra Teresa Cignarella, Delia Irazú Hernández Farías, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti, and Paolo Rosso. 2020. Multilingual stance detection in social media political debates. Computer Speech Language, 63:101075. Yingjie Li and Cornelia Caragea. 2019. Multi-task stance detection with sentiment and stance lexicons. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 6299– 6305, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yingjie Li and Cornelia Caragea. 2021a. A multi-task learning framework for multi-target stance detection. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2320–2326, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yingjie Li and Cornelia Caragea. 2021b. Target-aware data augmentation for stance detection. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1850–1860, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yingjie Li, Tiberiu Sosea, Aditya Sawant, Ajith Jayaraman Nair, Diana Inkpen, and Cornelia Caragea. 2021a. P-stance: A large dataset for stance detection in political domain. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2355–2365, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yingjie Li, Chenye Zhao, and Cornelia Caragea. 2021b. Improving stance detection with multi-dataset learning and knowledge distillation. In *Proceedings of the* 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6332–6345, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yingjie Li, Chenye Zhao, and Cornelia Caragea. 2023. Tts: A target-based teacher-student framework for zero-shot stance detection. In *Proceedings of the* ACM Web Conference 2023, WWW '23, page 1500–1509, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Bin Liang, Zixiao Chen, Lin Gui, Yulan He, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022a. Zero-shot stance detection via contrastive learning. In *Proceedings of the ACM* Web Conference 2022, WWW '22, page 2738–2747, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Bin Liang, Qinglin Zhu, Xiang Li, Min Yang, Lin Gui, Yulan He, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022b. JointCL: A joint contrastive learning framework for zero-shot stance detection. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 81–91, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rui Liu, Zheng Lin, Yutong Tan, and Weiping Wang. 2021. Enhancing zero-shot and few-shot stance detection with commonsense knowledge graph. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Yun Luo, Zihan Liu, Yuefeng Shi, Stan Z. Li, and Yue Zhang. 2022. Exploiting sentiment and common sense for zero-shot stance detection. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 7112–7123, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Saif Mohammad, Svetlana Kiritchenko, Parinaz Sobhani, Xiaodan Zhu, and Colin Cherry. 2016a. A dataset for detecting stance in tweets. In *Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16)*, pages 3945–3952, Portorož, Slovenia. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Saif Mohammad, Svetlana Kiritchenko, Parinaz Sobhani, Xiaodan Zhu, and Colin Cherry. 2016b. SemEval-2016 task 6: Detecting stance in tweets. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pages 31– 41, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32, pages 8024–8035. Vahed Qazvinian, Emily Rosengren, Dragomir R. Radev, and Qiaozhu Mei. 2011. Rumor has it: Identifying misinformation in microblogs. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1589–1599, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics. Parinaz Sobhani, Diana Inkpen, and Xiaodan Zhu. 2017. A dataset for multi-target stance detection. In *Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European* Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers, pages 551–557, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qingying Sun, Zhongqing Wang, Qiaoming Zhu, and Guodong Zhou. 2018. Stance detection with hierarchical attention network. In *Proceedings of the 27th* International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2399–2409, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sahil Swami, Ankush Khandelwal, Vinay Singh, Syed Sarfaraz Akhtar, and Manish Shrivastava. 2018. An english-hindi code-mixed corpus: Stance annotation and baseline system. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1805.11868. Mariona Taulé, M Antonia Martí, Francisco M Rangel, Paolo Rosso, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti, et al. 2017. Overview of the task on stance and gender detection in tweets on catalan independence at ibereval 2017. In *2nd Workshop on Evaluation of Human Language Technologies for Iberian Languages, IberEval* 2017. Jannis Vamvas and Rico Sennrich. 2020. X-Stance: A multilingual multi-target dataset for stance detection. In *Proceedings of the 5th Swiss Text Analytics Conference (SwissText) & 16th Conference on Natural* Language Processing (KONVENS), Zurich, Switzerland. Prashanth Vijayaraghavan, Ivan Sysoev, Soroush Vosoughi, and Deb Roy. 2016. DeepStance at SemEval-2016 task 6: Detecting stance in tweets using character and word-level CNNs. In *Proceedings* of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pages 413–419, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Penghui Wei and Wenji Mao. 2019. Modeling transferable topics for cross-target stance detection. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR'19, page 1173–1176, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Penghui Wei, Wenji Mao, and Daniel Zeng. 2018. A target-guided neural memory model for stance detection in twitter. In *2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN)*, pages 1–8. Wan Wei, Xiao Zhang, Xuqin Liu, Wei Chen, and Tengjiao Wang. 2016. pkudblab at SemEval-2016 task 6 : A specific convolutional neural network system for effective stance detection. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pages 384–388, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chang Xu, Cécile Paris, Surya Nepal, and Ross Sparks. 2018. Cross-target stance classification with selfattention networks. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 778–783, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ruifeng Xu, Yu Zhou, Dongyin Wu, Lin Gui, Jiachen Du, and Yun Xue. 2016. Overview of nlpcc shared task 4: Stance detection in chinese microblogs. In Natural Language Understanding and Intelligent Applications, pages 907–916, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. Guido Zarrella and Amy Marsh. 2016. MITRE at SemEval-2016 task 6: Transfer learning for stance detection. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pages 458–463, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bowen Zhang, Min Yang, Xutao Li, Yunming Ye, Xiaofei Xu, and Kuai Dai. 2020. Enhancing crosstarget stance detection with transferable semanticemotion knowledge. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics, pages 3188–3197, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Elena Zotova, Rodrigo Agerri, Manuel Nuñez, and German Rigau. 2020. Multilingual stance detection in tweets: The Catalonia independence corpus. In *Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and* Evaluation Conference, pages 1368–1375, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Arkaitz Zubiaga, Maria Liakata, Rob Procter, Kalina Bontcheva, and Peter Tolmie. 2015. Crowdsourcing the annotation of rumourous conversations in social media. In *Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web*, WWW '15 Companion, page 347–353, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. ## A More Examples Of C-Stance In this section, we show more examples for each domain of our C-STANCE dataset in Table 11. ## B Query Keywords The full keywords set that we used for data crawling is shown in Table 12. We generate the list by gradually extending the initial keywords set from Weibo hot list with the most frequent words. ## C Token Overlap We also report the average percentage of tokens in targets that overlap with tokens in microblogs. The results are shown in Table 16. We observe that noun-phrase show a higher overlapping percentage than claim targets, which is because annotators tend to summarize noun-phrase targets using semantically similar tokens from the text. ## D Full Statistics Of Subtask B The statistics of the 7 dataset splits (data from six domains for training and validation, and the data from the left-out domain as the zero-shot test set) are shown in Table 13. ## E Evaluations On Models Trained By Mixed Targets With Noun-Phrase Targets And Claim Targets In subtask A and subtask B, for experiments using mixed targets, we also test the baseline models using noun-phrase targets and claim targets separately. Our goal is to better understand how each model trained on mixed targets performs for each type of target separately. The results for subtask A and subtask B are shown in Table 14 and Table 15, respectively. We can observe that the fine-tuned transformer-based models (i.e., BERT, RoBERTa, and XLNET) show higher performance on the claim targets. For BiCE, CrossNet, and TGA-Net, stances for claim targets are more difficult to predict. | 既然新冠要和人类长期共存,做疫苗接种应该比封控重要。再继续封锁,经济咋办呀? 今天又要学校停课、企业停工。 Since the new crown will coexist with humans for a long | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Microblog | time, vaccination should be more important than lockdown. If the blockade continues, what | | | CoE | will happen to the economy? Today, schools are closed and businesses are closed. | | | N target/Stance | 封控 sealed management / Against | | | C target/ | 新冠病毒会很快消失,不可能人类长期共存 The Covid-19 virus will disappear soon, | | | Stance | and it is impossible for human beings to coexist for a long time. / Against 拜登表示如果普京愿意结束战争,他已做好了与普京对话的准备。美国搞残欧洲的 目的达到,确实代理人战争再下去打没啥好处了。 Biden stated that if Putin is willing to | | | Microblog | end the war, he is ready to talk to Putin. The United States has achieved its goal of crippling | | | WE | Europe. It is true that there is no benefit in continuing the proxy war. | | | N target/Stance | 俄乌冲突 Russia-Ukraine conflict / Against 美国搞乱欧洲的目的达到了,俄乌战争没有什么好打的了。 The purpose of the United | | | C target/ | States to mess up Europe has been achieved, and it's meaningless to continue fighting the | | | Stance | Russia-Ukraine war. / Favor 我知道公立教育的问题,但我还是感谢公立教育让我和来自比我有钱家庭的人在一起 享受同样教育。 I know the problems with public education, but I'm still thankful that public | | | Microblog | education allows me to enjoy the same education with people from families richer than me. | | | CuE | N target/Stance | 公立教育 public education / Favor 真正有钱的家庭都在私立学校,教育公平的天平秤早就倾斜了。 Children from truly | | C target/ | wealthy families are all in private schools, and the balance of educational equity has | | | Stance | long been tilted. / Against 发现沉沦短视频时代久了我无法静心去读一段文字,逃避阅读长文。阅读也走马观花。 I found that after watching too many short videos, I can't read a paragraph of text quietly and | | | Microblog | avoid reading long texts. Reading for me is a quick glance. | | | EC | N target/Stance | 短视频 short video / Against | | C target/ | 短视频做得最好的应该就是抖音了。 TicTok is the best short video platform. / Neutral | | | Stance | 昨晚云达女足的比赛来到威悉球场进行,20417名梅粉来到现场!虽然1比2惜败,但 我们听到了你们的声音! Last night, the Werder women's football game came to the Weser | | | Microblog | Stadium, and 20,417 fans came to the scene! Although they lost the game by 1-2, we heard | | | S | your voices! | | | N target/Stance | 运达女足 Werder Women's Football / Favor | | | C target/ | 这么多球迷去看运达女足的比赛,结果输了,也太让球迷们失望了吧。 So many fans | | | Stance | went to watch the Yunda women's game, but they lost. So disappointing for the fans. / Against 体质占优势的男性就掌握了话语权。所以实现真正的女权发展科技,当科技可以抹平 和男性的生产力和武力差距后,才能真正实现男女平等。 Men with dominant physiques | | | Microblog | have the right to speak. Therefore, to realize true women's rights and develop technology, only | | | R | when technology can bridge the gap in productivity and force with men can we truly achieve equality between men and women. | | | N target/Stance | 男女平等 gender equality / Favor | | | C target/ | 女权只需要嘴巴说说就好了,无需行动,时间可以改变一切。 Women's rights only | | | Stance | need to be talked about, no action needed, time can change everything. / Against 延缓气候变化,需要富裕国家更多采取更多行动。在澳洲,还是有很多人对气候变 暖持怀疑态度,这也阻碍了政府采取更多行动。 Slowing climate change will require | | | Microblog | rich countries to do more. In Australia, there are still many people who are skeptical about | | | EP | climate change, which is also preventing the government from taking more action. | | | N target/Stance | 延缓气候变化 Slow down climate change / Favor | | | C target/ | 气候变化是二氧化碳等气体变多导致的,其造成的后果也很大 Climate change is caused | | | Stance | by the increase of gases such as carbon dioxide, and its consequences are also large. / Neutral | | | Table 11: Examples of noun-phrase targets and claim targets for microblogs in each domain of our C-STANCE | | | 股市 stock market, 读书 read, 艺术 art, 设计 design, 男朋友 boyfriend, 文化输出 cultural output, 社会 society, 父母 parents, 消费观 consumption concept, 战争 war, 异地恋 long distance relationship, 带娃 raise a baby, 女朋友 girlfriend, 大学 college, 华语乐坛 Chinese pop music, 健身 fitness, 电影 movie, 播客 podcast, 公立教育 public education, 世界新闻 world news, 加强针 booster, 疫苗 vaccine, 气候变化 climate change, 人工智能 artificial intelligence, 书 book, LGBTQ,拆迁 remove, 俄罗斯 Russia, 乌克兰 Ukraine, 汽油 gasoline, 武器 wearpons, 大选 general election, 知识 knowledge, 选举 election, 口罩 face mask, 鸡娃 force kids to compete, 高中 high school, 贫困 poverty, 财经 financial, 育儿 parenting, 规划人生 life planning, 男篮 men's basketball,高校 colleges and universities, 男足 men's football, 女足 women's football, 教师 teacher, 思考 thinking, 医患 doctors and patients, 军事 military, 人口负增长 negative population growth, 篮球 basketball, 辩论 debate, 环境 environment, 总统 president, 学生 student, 婚姻 marriage, 科学 science, 医保 medical insurance,封控 sealed management, 保险 insurance, 工作 work, 油价 oil price, 防疫 epidemic prevention, 世界杯 World Fup, NBA, 男女平等 gender equality, 平权 equal rights, 移民 migrant, 新冠疫苗 Covid-19 vaccine, 直播带货 livestream shopping, 短视频 short video, 物价 prices, 流行文化 pop culture, 自由恋爱 free love, 相亲 blind date, 素质教育 quality education, 中医 traditional Chinese medicine, 静默 silence, 新冠共存 co-existence with coronavirus, 上网课 online class, 居家办公 work from home, 电商 e-commerce, 女拳 women's rights, iphone, 新能源 new energy, 垃圾分类 garbage classification, 微商 Wechat business, 中国防疫 China's epidemic prevention, 防控 prevention and control, 老龄化 population aging, 中国历史 Chinese history, 传统文化 traditional culture, 近代史 modern history, 阅读 read, 芯片 chip, 投资 invest, 电视剧 TV series, 影评 movie review, 票房 box office,高考 college entrance examination 美妆博主 beauty blogger, 足球 football, 体育 sports, 健康 healthy, 群体免疫 herd immunity, 减负 lighten the burden, 农村 the countryside, 环保意识 environmental awareness Table 12: The full query keywords list used in our work for microblog crawling. # Examples # Targets Avg. Length # Unique  MB N C N C N C MB Covid Epidemic Train 12,379 18,984 7,519 18,585 4.0 26.0 102.4 6,690 Val 2,249 3,447 2,208 3,436 4.6 26.0 104.8 1,167 Test 3,474 5,346 1,896 5,211 3.7 25.7 103.6 1,786 World Event Train 11,978 18,417 7,426 18,034 4.0 25.9 101.6 6,813 Val 2,077 3,186 2,045 3,176 4.6 26.0 104.7 1,087 Test 3,130 4,770 2,152 4,673 4.2 26.1 105.8 1,591 Culture and Education Train 12,283 18,720 7,671 18,314 4.0 26.0 102.8 7,105 Val 2,180 3,354 2,146 3,342 4.6 26.0 104.7 1,131 Test 2,397 3,618 1,806 3,589 3.9 25.6 104.0 1,218 Entertainment and consumption Train 10,517 16,110 6,777 15,811 4.1 26.1 103.6 6,244 Val 1,991 3,051 1,960 3,042 4.7 26.0 106.6 1,043 Test 4,010 6,153 2,886 6,042 3.9 25.6 98.9 2,052 Sports Train 13,549 20,682 8,091 20,237 3.9 25.9 103.4 7,379 Val 2,321 3,558 2,276 3,548 4.6 26.0 105.2 1,192 Test 2,088 3,177 1,256 3,117 3.8 25.7 96.8 1,060 Rights Train 12,797 19,548 7,793 19,146 4.0 25.8 102.2 7,094 Val 2,352 3,594 2,307 3,583 4.6 26.0 104.6 1,218 Test 2,492 3,828 1,523 3,728 3.8 26.6 105.4 1,276 Environmental Protection Train 14,237 21,882 8,246 21,404 3.9 25.9 102.1 7,708 Val 2,363 3,636 2,321 3,626 4.6 25.8 104.4 1,223 Test 1,453 2,196 1,056 2,131 4.4 26.9 107.7 733 Table 13: Data statistics of all 7 dataset splits for subtask B. N, C, and MB represent noun-phrase targets, claim targets, and microblogs, respectively. Con Pro Neu All Con Pro Neu All Con Pro Neu All BiCE .490 .408 .443 .447 .518 .544 .562 .541 .476 .302 .354 .377 Cross-Net .526 .541 .592 .553 .582 .571 .551 .568 .487 .52 .616 .541 TGA Net .565 .599 .637 .600 .644 .629 .586 .620 .518 .577 .666 .587 BERT .758 .763 .798 .773 .686 .679 .628 .665 .800 .828 .896 .841 RoBERTa .775 **.769 .811 .785** .712 **.692 .659 .688 .813** .826 .899 **.846** XLNet .767 **.769** .804 .780 **.715** .683 .640 .679 .800 **.831 .902** .844 Table 14: Comparison of different models in subtask A, which are trained on mixed targets and tested using the full test set with mixed targets (M), the noun-phrase targets (N), and the claim targets (C), respectively. Results are averaged over four runs. | Mixed targets | Noun-phrase targets | Claim targets | | | | | | | | | | |-----------------|-----------------------|-----------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| | Con | Pro | Neu | All | Con | Pro | Neu | All | Con | Pro | Neu | All | Model CoE WE CuE EC S R EP BiCE M .347 .413 .376 .393 .413 .360 .400 N .428 .551 .478 .509 .545 .464 .509 C .296 .322 .310 .319 .327 .295 .328 CrossNet M .374 .375 .370 .392 .374 .351 .386 N .484 .561 .490 .503 .534 .475 .527 C .263 .217 .253 .279 .212 .229 .245 TGA-Net M .570 .581 .598 .598 .609 .608 .592 N .545 .586 .603 .599 .618 .602 .585 C .576 .571 .585 .589 .607 .587 .595 BERT M .753 .773 .768 .762 .775 .772 .777 N .598 **.665** .629 .645 .677 .627 .619 C .829 .836 .839 .832 .838 .836 .873 RoBERTa M .755 **.776 .779 .774 .785 .784 .795** N .596 .655 **.650 .668 .683 .647 .657** C **.834 .848 .845** .835 **.850 .847 .879** XLNet M **.758** .763 .778 .767 .777 .777 .781 N **.604** .649 **.650** .650 .677 **.647** .642 C .829 .833 **.845 .836** .841 .831 .870 N C Train 78.2% 25.5% Val 76.4% 24.7% Test 77.6% 25.8% ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitation Section after the Conclusion. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Limitation Section after the Conclusion. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3 And 4. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 3 and 4. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We discuss the dataset that we created in Section 3 and the baseline models that we used in Section 4. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? We discussed our usage of baseline models in Section 4. We discussed the intended use of the dataset that we created in Section 3. We show our dataset is compatible with the original access conditions in the Ethical Statement Section. ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Ethical Statement Section. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 3. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 3. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 4. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 4. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 3. ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Section 3. ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? We discussed the annotation company that we worked with and how we recruited annotators in Section 3. ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section 3 and Section 5. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Section 3.

bai-etal-2023-wukong

Wukong-Reader: Multi-modal Pre-training for Fine-grained Visual Document Understanding

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.748

Unsupervised pre-training on millions of digital-born or scanned documents has shown promising advances in visual document understanding (VDU). While various vision-language pre-training objectives are studied in existing solutions, the document textline, as an intrinsic granularity in VDU, has seldom been explored so far. A document textline usually contains words that are spatially and semantically correlated, which can be easily obtained from OCR engines. In this paper, we propose Wukong-Reader, trained with new pre-training objectives to leverage the structural knowledge nested in document textlines. We introduce textline-region contrastive learning to achieve fine-grained alignment between the visual regions and texts of document textlines. Furthermore, masked region modeling and textline-grid matching are also designed to enhance the visual and layout representations of textlines. Experiments show that Wukong-Reader brings superior performance on various VDU tasks in both English and Chinese. The fine-grained alignment over textlines also empowers Wukong-Reader with promising localization ability.

# Wukong-Reader**: Multi-Modal Pre-Training For Fine-Grained Visual** Document Understanding Haoli Bai∗, Zhiguang Liu∗**, Xiaojun Meng**∗, Wentao Li, Shuang Liu, Yifeng Luo, Nian Xie, Rongfu Zheng, Liangwei Wang†, Lu Hou†**, Jiansheng Wei, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu** Noah's Ark Lab, Huawei Technologies {baihaoli, liuzhiguang1, xiaojun.meng, liwentao18, liushuang30, luoyifeng1, xienian, zhengrongfu, wangliangwei, houlu3, weijiansheng, Jiang.Xin, qun.liu}@huawei.com ## Abstract Unsupervised pre-training on millions of digital-born or scanned documents has shown promising advances in visual document understanding (VDU). While various visionlanguage pre-training objectives are studied in existing solutions, the document textline, as an intrinsic granularity in VDU, has seldom been explored so far. A document textline usually contains words that are spatially and semantically correlated, which can be easily obtained from OCR engines. In this paper, we propose WUKONG-READER, trained with new pre-training objectives to leverage the structural knowledge nested in document textlines. We introduce textline-region contrastive learning to achieve fine-grained alignment between the visual regions and texts of document textlines. Furthermore, masked region modeling and textline-grid matching are also designed to enhance the visual and layout representations of textlines. Experiments show that WUKONGREADER brings superior performance on various VDU tasks in both English and Chinese. The fine-grained alignment over textlines also empowers WUKONG-READER with promising localization ability. ## 1 Introduction Visual document understanding (VDU) handles various types of digital-born or scanned documents like forms, tables, reports, or research papers, and is becoming increasingly important for real-world industrial practices [7]. Multi-modal pre-training on millions of documents is a popular solution for visual document understanding [12, 33, 35, 34, 14, 27]. Unlike the conventional vision-language pre-training over natural images and their paired short and abstractive descriptions [29, 22, 21], the document texts are usually long and highly correlated with the images, since they can be easily  Figure 1: Samples of document textlines: a) a letter from FUNSD[16] with keys (blue) and values (green); and b) a receipt from SROIE [15] with the restaurants name (dark blue) and the address (orange). obtained from accurate Optical Character Recognition (OCR) engines from the scanned images. Therefore, it is crucial to strengthen the connection between vision and language for VDU with more fine-grained alignment across the two modalities. Towards that end, existing efforts seek to align the visual and textual knowledge of documents at different levels. A commonly used pre-training objective for documents is masked language modeling [8] over document text tokens [35, 34, 14, 33, 12, 27], often accompanied by the layout information encoded via the positional embedding. Besides, various visual and vision-language multimodal pre-training objectives are also proposed, leveraging the patch-level features [34, 14], objectlevel features from object detectors [23, 11], or the whole image feature through a global text-image matching loss [34]. However, as an intrinsic granularity for VDU, document textlines have been mostly neglected in past efforts. Intuitively, a textline contains a set of words that are spatially and semantically related. For instance of information extraction, the desired text span (e.g., the names on letters and addresses on receipts in Figure 1) often appears in a single textline. Therefore, the document textline serves as an appealing fine-grained granularity for VDU 13386 tasks. While StructualLM [19] similarly considers textlines as cell layout information, they only use the textual features of these textlines in language modeling. Instead, in this work, we seek to enhance the multi-modal representation of a document by aligning the visual region and text span corresponding to the same textline. In this work, we propose WUKONG-READER, a pre-trained document model with a hybrid dualand single-stream multimodal architecture. To learn fine-grained document representation, we propose the *Textline-Region Contrastive Learning* to align the visual and textual features of document textlines from the dual-stream encoders. The objective thus connects the spatial and semantic information among document textlines for various VDU tasks. Additionally, we also introduce two other objectives to further improve the textline representation. We design the *Masked Region Modeling* to recover the masked textline regions, so as to enhance the visual features of textline. We also propose the *Textline Grid Matching* to strengthen the layout information of textlines, which localizes each word of textlines to the pre-defined image grids. Similar to previous works [35, 34, 14], the classic masked language modeling objective is also applied over document texts. Experimental results show that our WUKONGREADER notably improves various document understanding tasks across both English and Chinese. For instance, WUKONG-READERlarge with 470M parameters achieves the weighted F1 score of 93.62 on FUNSD [16] and 98.15 on SROIE [15], leading the new state-of-the-art records on information extraction tasks. We also demonstrate that the textline-based pre-training objectives empower the model with meaningful textline features with promising localization ability. ## 2 Related Work Visual document understanding (VDU) has been widely studied in recent years [12, 19, 27, 34, 35]. VDU tasks are abundant in textual and visual information, as intensive texts and their layout information can be extracted from documents via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) or other document parsers. Muti-modal pre-training has been a popular solution for VDU. Usually, a pre-trained text encoder (e.g., BERT [8]; RoBERTa [24]) is applied to learn contextualized representations of the textual input. Meanwhile, a pre-trained visual encoder such as CNN-based [34] and transformer-based [14, 28] models are applied to process visual features. Various self-supervised pre-training objectives over millions of documents have shown promising effects for VDU. Reconstructive objectives such as masked language modelling (MLM) [8], and masked image modelling, (MIM) [9], are often used to perform the self-supervised document pretraining [20, 34]. Since the textual knowledge is parsed from the document image, existing efforts explore various document granularities to align the vision and language modalities. They can be generally divided into four categories: 1) **Word-level**: LayoutLM [35] jointly models the inner-relationship between texts and layout 2D positions from documents, via pre-trained language models [8, 24]. However, the visual features are not used in the pretraining architecture. TILT [28] additionally adds a contextualized image embedding to the word embedding. 2) **Grid/Patch-level**: LayoutLMv2 [34], DocFormer [2] and ERNIE-Layout [27] extract image grid features with CNN backbones, and LayoutLMv3 uses image patches to encode visual features inspired by ViT [9]. To achieve the cross-modal alignment, they adopt the textimage alignment (*i.e.*, TIA) and matching (*i.e.*, TIM) objectives during pre-training. 3) **Objectlevel**: SelfDoc [23] and UniDoc [11] extract object features via document object detectors, and concatenate them with word features. SelfDoc [23] uses two cross-modality attention functions to identify the inner-relationships from one modality to another. UniDoc [11] designs the similaritypreserving knowledge distillation to encourage alignment between words and visual features. 4) Cell-level: StructualLM [19] uses the textual features of cell layout information, which is similar to document textlines. However, it only considers the textual feature without the visual information. Different from existing works, we target at the textline-level features of both textual and visual modalities. We propose a hybrid dual- and singlestream model architecture for multi-modal pretraining. Similar architectures are previously explored in general multi-modal pretraining [22, 21], however, they mostly focus on learning the global visual and textual features over natural images. Instead, we aim to align the fine-grained knowledge nested in document textlines. We believe such an important granularity of documents can benefit  both language and visual representation learning in VDU tasks. ## 3 Methodology We propose WUKONG-READER, a new pre-trained multi-modal model for visual document understanding. Our model jointly encodes the visual image and textual tokens via two mono-modal encoders, followed by a multi-modal encoder to fuse the two modalities. To leverage the structural information nested in document textlines, We propose several novel pre-training objectives for finegrained representation learning of documents. ## 3.1 Model Architecture The overall architecture of the proposed WUKONGREADER is shown in Figure 2. WUKONG-READER encodes the document image and text through separate encoders and then fuse the two modalities via the multi-modal encoder. Besides, we also deploy an RoIhead and an image decoder for fine-grained learning over document textlines. Image Encoder. We use the Mask-RCNN model trained on PubLayNet1to learn the visual representations for WUKONG-READER. Specifically, we use the visual backbone of Mask-RCNN as the image encoder. The visual features from the image encoder are adaptively pooled into 49 visual tokens. The RoIHead of Mask-RCNN then extracts the regional features of document textlines for contrastive learning with texts. Meanwhile, an image decoder is also deployed to recover the visual features over textline regions. Text Encoder. Given a document image, we use an off-the-shelf OCR tool to extract the textual information from the image, which includes both the words and their corresponding bounding boxes. Following [35, 34], we normalize the bounding boxes within [0, 1000] and use 2D positional embedding layers to encode the layout information. We initialize the text encoder with the first six layers of the RoBERTa model, and employ the spatialaware self-attention mechanism following [34] in the Transformer layers. We calculate the input embedding as the summation of the token embedding 1We adopt the configuration of "MaskRCNN ResNeXt101 32x8d FPN 3X" as provided in https://github.com/ hpanwar08/detectron2. from RoBERTa tokenizer, 1D positional embedding, 2D positional embedding and the segment embedding following [34]. The input embedding is then fed to the text encoder to get textual features. Multimodal Encoder. We concatenate the tokenlevel features from both vision and text, and feed them to the multi-modal encoder to jointly fuse the two modalities. We initialize the multi-modal encoder with the rest layers of the RoBERTa model. Before concatenation, we also add 1D and 2D positional embeddings to visual features following [34]. During inference, the model architecture also enjoys model efficiency. Instead of concatenating the visual and textual features together for self attention [34, 14], it would be computationally cheaper to first obtain the single-modal representations with respective encoders before fusion. Similar ideas are also discussed in ALBEF [22] and BLIP [21]. Moreover, for downstream tasks such as information extraction or document classification, the ROI head and image decoder can be safely discarded to further reduce the model size. ## 3.2 Pre-Training Objectives As the fundamental pre-training objective in modeling languages, we use the Masked Language Modeling (MLM) to recover the masked word tokens in the document text. We follow the standard masking strategy in BERT [8] and mask out 15% word tokens. Besides, to prevent information leakage, we also cover the corresponding image regions and set their bounding boxes to zeros, following [34]. Despite the powerful effect of MLM, it fails to explicitly leverage the visual information. We thus propose to mine the fine-grained image-text alignment through multiple new pre-training objectives. ## 3.2.1 Textline-Region Contrastive Learning As is shown Figure 1, a textline of a document returned by OCR usually contains a set of words that are semantically related. We are thus motivated to exploit structural knowledge within it by textlineregion contrastive learning (TRC). Specifically, to obtain the textual representation of a textline, we average the features of tokens within that textline. Besides the textual feature, we also employ a multilayer perception based RoIHead on top of the image encoder to extract the visual feature corresponding to the textline region in the document image. Contrastive representation learning has been widely used for vision-language cross-modal pretraining [29, 37]. To enhance the alignment of a document image and its textual content, we also utilize contrastive learning to align the textline-region and texts. For ease of presentation, we suppose there is a batch of N document image-text pairs, and each document has L textlines. For the nth document, denote ρn and τ n as the visual and textual feature of document textlines, respectively. Note that we pad ρn and τ n with 0 to length L for documents with fewer than L textlines. For each document image, its paired text is used as its positive, and the texts from other documents are used as its negatives. The contrastive learning from image to text can be formulated as $$\mathcal{L}(\rho_{m},\tau_{1:N})=-\frac{1}{N}\log\frac{\exp(s(\rho_{m},\tau_{m}))}{\sum_{n=1}^{N}\exp(s(\rho_{m},\tau_{n}))},$$ where $s(\rho_{m},\tau_{n})$ represents the similarity of the where s(ρm, τ n) represents the similarity of the m-th image to the n-th text computed in the granularity of textlines. By symmetry, the contrastive objective from text to image is $${\mathcal{L}}(\tau_{m},\rho_{1:N})=-{\frac{1}{N}}\log{\frac{\exp(s(\tau_{m},\rho_{m}))}{\sum_{n=1}^{N}\exp(s(\tau_{m},\rho_{n}))}}.$$ The TRC objective thus sums the two terms as: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{TRC}}={\frac{1}{2}}\sum_{m=1}^{N}{\big(}{\mathcal{L}}(\mathbf{\rho}_{m},\mathbf{\tau}_{1:N})+{\mathcal{L}}(\mathbf{\tau}_{m},\mathbf{\rho}_{1:N}){\big)}.\,\,\,(1)$$ The cross-modal interaction is reflected in how the similarity between the image and text is computed. Existing contrastive learning methods simply calculate the similarity based on the global feature of the image or text [34, 14, 27]. To establish fine-grained alignment over textlines, the key lies in the following similarity metric. Inspired by [37, 10] we adopt the average textline maximum similarity which is computed as $$\begin{array}{c}{{s(\rho_{m},\tau_{n})=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{l=1}^{L}\operatorname*{max}_{1\leq k\leq L}\big(\rho_{m,l}^{\top}\tau_{n,k}\big),}}\\ {{s(\tau_{m},\rho_{n})=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{l=1}^{L}\operatorname*{max}_{1\leq k\leq L}\big(\rho_{m,k}^{\top}\tau_{n,l}\big),}}\end{array}\quad(2)$$ where ρm,l represent the l-th textline of the m-th visual feature, and τ n,k similarly denotes the kth textline of the n-th textual feature, respectively. The defined similarity shows that for each image region of textlines, we find their most similar text segments. Similarly, for each textline text, we also find its closest image region of textlines. With the objective in Equation (1), such design intrinsically encourages the fine-grained alignment between the visual and textual features of textlines. ## 3.2.2 Masked Region Modeling To enhance the visual representation of document textlines, we further propose the Masked Region Modeling (MRM) to recover the masked pixels of textline regions during pre-training. Specifically, for the n-th document image, we randomly mask 15% textlines of the document for recovery. A document textline is usually dominated by white background pixels instead of foreground characters. To avoid trivial solutions and balance the foreground and background pixels in a textline, we mask all black strokes as well as 15% of background pixels within each textline. Our pre-training objective is to predict these masked pixels based on their surroundings. On top of the image encoder, we use three deconvolution layers as the image decoder to recover the textline visual features ρ˜ mask n. As the pre-training objective of MRM, we adopt the ℓ1 loss [23] between the reconstructed ρ˜ mask n and the original ρn : $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{MRM}}=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\ell_{1}(\mathbf{\rho}_{n},{\tilde{\mathbf{\rho}}}_{n}^{\mathrm{mask}}).\qquad\qquad(4)$$ Note that if a masked textline contains masked tokens introduced in the MLM task, we do not calculate the reconstruction loss for this token. ## 3.2.3 Textline Grid Matching Aside from enhancing the visual representations of textlines, layout information of textlines also plays an important role for visual document understanding. We thus introduce the Textline Grid Matching (TGM) to explicitly model the layout of each word in textlines. Specifically, we first split each document image into G pre-defined grids. Then we randomly sample 15% textlines that are not used in MLM and MRM, and predict which grid each output token in the selected textline belongs to. For the n-th document, suppose we sampled L′textlines. We first transform the output from the multi-modal encoder to obtain a set of grid logits yl,1:Tl , where Tlis the number of words in the l-th textline. To avoid leakage of position information, we set the 2D bounding boxes of tokens in the selected textlines as [0, 0, 0, 0]. We then classify the grid logits into the G classes over the image, by minimizing the crossentropy loss ℓce as $\mathcal{L}_{\text{TGM}_n}=\sum_{l=1}^{L^{\prime}}\sum_{t=1}^{T_l}\ell_{ce}(\boldsymbol{y}_{l,t},\boldsymbol{g}_{l,t})$, is the corresponding ground truth lobe where gl,t is the corresponding ground-truth label of yl,t. The Texline Grid Matching loss for a minibatch is the summation over all the documents in this batch: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{tgm}}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{L}_{\text{tGM}_{n}}.\tag{5}$$ Compared with the previous TIA loss in Lay Compared with the previous TIA loss in LayoutLMv2 [34] which simply classifies whether a token is masked, TGM enhances the layout information via explicit grid localization from both nearby unmasked textual tokens and visual regions. The total pre-training loss is the combination of the four pre-training objectives introduced above: Ltotal = LMLM + λ1LTRC + λ2LMRM + λ3LTGM, where λ1, λ2 and λ3 are the scaling parameters that control the weights of different loss terms. For simplicity, we choose λ1 = 0.2, λ2 = λ3 = 1 for all our experiments. It is possible that better performance can be achieved with a more careful tuning of these scaling parameters. ## 4 Experiments In this section, we empirically verify the proposed WUKONG-READER across different VDU tasks in both English and Chinese. We first introduce the experimental setup and the main results on English VDU tasks in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2, respectively. Section 4.3 provides further discussion, *e.g.*, ablations and localization abilities. Finally, we also investigate the ability of Wukong-Reader in Chinese in Section 4.4. The implementation of WUKONG-READER is based on MindSpore [1]. ## 4.1 Experimental Setup Model Configuration. We study the proposed model in two sizes: WUKONG-READERbase and WUKONG-READERlarge. For both sizes, we use the pre-trained MaskRCNN model to initialize the image encoder, including the ResNet-101 visual backbone and the multi-layer-perception based RoIHead. RoBERTa-base and RoBERTa-large2are 2RoBERTa-base and RoBERTa-large are downloaded from https://huggingface.co/roberta-base/ tree/main and https://huggingface.co/ roberta-large/tree/main, respectively. | Model | # Param. | Modality | Granularity | FUNSD | CORD | SROIE | RVL-CDIP | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------|---------------|---------|--------|---------|------------| | (F1↑) | (F1↑) | (F1↑) | (Acc↑) | | | | | | BERTbase [8] | 110M | T | Word | 60.26 | 89.68 | 90.99 | 89.91 | | RoBERTabase [24] | 125M | T | Word | 66.48 | 93.54 | - | - | | UniLMv2base [3] | 125M | T | Word | 66.48 | 90.92 | 90.06 | | | SelfDoc [23] | 137M | T+I | Object | 83.36 | - | - | 93.81 | | UniDoc [11] | 272M | T+I | Object | 87.93 | 98.94 | - | 95.05 | | TILTbase [28] | 230M | T+I | Word | - | 95.11 | - | 95.25 | | DocFormerbase [2] | 183M | T+I | Grid/Patch | 83.34 | 96.33 | - | | | LayoutLMbase [35] | 160M | T+I | Grid/Patch | 79.27 | - | 94.38 | 94.42 | | LayoutLMv2base [34] | 200M | T+I | Grid/Patch | 82.76 | 94.95 | 96.25 | 95.25 | | LayoutLMv3base [14] | 133M | T+I | Grid/Patch | 90.29 | 96.56 | - | 95.44 | | WUKONG-READERbase | 211M | T+I | Textline | 91.52 | 96.54 | 96.88 | 94.91 | | BERTlarge [8] | 340M | T | Word | 65.63 | 90.25 | 92.00 | 89.81 | | RoBERTalarge [24] | 355M | T | Word | 70.72 | - | 92.80 | - | | UniLMv2large [3] | 355M | T | Word | 72.57 | 82.05 | 94.88 | 90.20 | | TILTlarge [28] | 780M | T+I | Word | - | 96.33 | 98.10 | 95.52 | | StructuralLMlarge [19] | 355M | T | Textline | 85.14 | - | - | 96.08 | | LayoutLMlarge [35] | 343M | T+I | Grid/Patch | 78.95 | 94.93 | 95.24 | 94.43 | | LayoutLMv2large [34] | 426M | T+I | Grid/Patch | 84.20 | 96.01 | 97.81 | 95.64 | | LayoutLMv3large [14] | 368M | T+I | Grid/Patch | 92.08 | 97.46 | - | 95.93 | | ERNIE-Layoutlarge [27] | - | T+I | Grid/Patch | 93.12 | 97.21 | 97.55 | 96.27 | | WUKONG-READERlarge | 442M | T+I | Textline | 93.62 | 97.27 | 98.15 | 95.26 | | Table 1: The entity-level F1 scores for information extraction on form (FUNSD) and receipt understanding (CORD | | | | | | | | used to initialize the rest parts of the base and large models, respectively. We fix the textual encoder with 6 transformer layers, and use the rest Transformer layers of the RoBERTa model for the multimodal encoder. Following [34, 14], the image is cropped to 224×224 resolution and then adaptively pooled into 49 visual tokens by the image encoder. We fix the sequence length of the textual encoder as 512, and hence 561 for the multi-modal encoder. For textline-region contrastive learning, we truncate the first 64 textlines for each document. We evaluate WUKONG-READER on various document understanding tasks: information extraction and document classification in Section 4.2, layout analysis in Appendix B.1, and document visualquestion answering in Appendix B.2. Compared Methods. We compare WUKONGREADER against the following methods with different granularities: (i) Word-level features: BERT [8] and RoBERTa [24] trained with the conventional masked-language modeling over words. LayoutLM [35] and TILT [28] obtains words' bounding boxes from OCR and add them to the paired text embeddings. (ii) Grid/patch-level features: LayoutLMv2 [34] and DocFormer [2] extract image grid features with a CNN backbone, and LayoutLMv3 uses ViT [9] to encode image patches; (iii) Object-level features: SelfDoc [23] and UniDoc [11] concatenate text embeddings with region features from object detectors; and (iv) Textline-level features: StructuralLM [19] leverages the cell-level text and layout information. Pre-training. Following previous studies [35, 34], we adopt the IIT-CDIP Test Collection dataset [18] for pre-training, which contains 11M document images from various industrial domains. We extract the texts and bounding boxes using our internal OCR tool. We use 64 Ascend 910 accelerators for pre-training, and the batch size of 24 per device. We use the Adam optimizer [17]. The learning rate is linearly warmed up to 1e-4 within the first 10% iterations, and then linearly decayed to 0. The weight decay is set as 1e-2. To save running memory we also enable gradient checkpointing [5] and FP16 training. We conduct pre-training for 10 epochs, which takes around 3 days and 5 days on 64 accelerators respectively. ## 4.2 Main Results 4.2.1 Information Extraction. Datasets and Evaluation Metric. For information extraction, we evaluate over three datasets: FUNSD [16], CORD [26], and SROIE [15]. Following [35, 34, 14], we build a token classification layer on top of the multi-modal encoder, and predict the BIO tags for each entity field for FUNSD, CORD and SROIE. The weighted F1 score is used as the evaluation metric. Following StructuralLM [19] and LayoutLMv3 [14], we use the cell bounding box of each token in substitution of word bounding boxes. Similar to LayoutLMv2 [34], we use entity-level F1 score on SROIE, and correct OCR mismatch as the official OCR annotations are inconsistent with the test set provided by the official evaluation site. More details of these datasets can be found in Appendix A. Results. According to Table 1, our model generally outperforms existing baselines on both scales. Specifically, we achieve 91.52 and 93.62 weighted F1 score on FUNSD for WUKONG-READERbase and WUKONG-READERlarge, respectively. Both results are 1.23 to 1.56 points higher than LayoutLMv3, the previous SOTA models on document understanding. On CORD, our models also achieve comparable performances to state-of-the-art methods like LayoutLMv3. For SROIE, we again lead the performance with 96.88 and 98.15 weighted F1 scores on the base and large model, superior to LayoutLMv2 by 0.63 and 0.34 points, respectively. ## 4.2.2 Document Classification. Datasets and Evaluation Metric. For document classification, we use the RVL-CDIP dataset [13], which contains around 400K industrial documents in 16 classes. Following [34], we use the preencoder and post-encoder visual features, together with the [CLS] token of the multi-modal encoder for document classification. By default, we perform fine-tuning for 10 epochs over 8 Ascend 910 accelerators, with the batch size of 24 per accelerator. The classification accuracy is used for evaluation. We set the learning rate to 5e-5 with the same scheduler to pre-training, and the weight decay is 1e-2. Results. From the last column in Table 1, the proposed WUKONG-READERbase and WUKONGREADERlarge achieve the competitive 94.91% and 95.26% accuracies among the baselines, and have  ## 4.3 Discussions Ablation Study of Training Objectives. We provide a comprehensive study on the effect of the different pre-training objectives on WUKONGREADERlarge over each downstream dataset. To better understand how these proposed objectives affect visual document understanding, we compare with the following settings: (i) the MLM objective; and (ii) the MLM and MRM objectives; and (iii) the MLM, MRM and TRC objectives; and (iv) the MLM, MRM, TRC and TGM objectives. From Table 2, it can be found that training with only MLM objective leads to a significant performance drop. When MRM is used, the performance of each task is consistently improved, e.g., 2.27 and 3.36 F1 scores on FUNSD and CORD, respectively. Moreover, the TRC objective enhances the fine-grained visual and textual representation learning, and further improves the F1 score of FUNSD by 0.84. Finally, the TGM objective can further boost the performance of sequence labeling tasks, improving the F1 score by 0.81 on FUNSD. Further Analysis of MRM. We visualize the training curves of both total loss and MLM loss in Figure 3(a) and Figure 3(b). It can be found that with only the MLM objective, the training fails as a result of NaN errors at early training steps, as indicated by the red ×. Thus we have to lower the learning rate to 1e-5 to finish the pre-training. However, when armed with MRM loss, the training stabilize and the overall process can be easily finished with a larger learning rate of 1e-4. We hypothesize that the enhanced visual features can help stabilize the pre-training. In addition, the MRM objective significantly improves the task performance. We notice that even only using self-reconstruction losses such as MLM and MRM, the pre-trained model can still achieve a relatively good perfor- Pre-training Objectives FUNSD CORD SORIE RVL-CDIP MLM 89.70 93.48 97.23 92.67 MLM+MRM 91.97(+2.27) 96.84(+3.36) 97.64(+0.41) 94.36(+1.69) MLM+MRM+TRC 92.81(+0.84) 97.16(+0.32) 97.64(+0.00) 94.47(+0.11) MLM+MRM+TRC+TGM **93.62**(+0.81) **97.27**(+0.11) **98.15**(+0.51) **95.26**(+0.79) Table 2: Ablation study on the pre-training objectives with WUKONG-READERlarge. All models are pre-trained for 10 epochs, and the fine-tuning settings are consistent with Table 1. The subscript numbers in the brackets represent the relative improvement with the ablated objectives.  mance. It shows the self-reconstruction objective on each separate modality serves to facilitate the implicit cross-modal interaction. Visualization of TRC. We also study the WUKONG-READER's capability of capturing finegrained cross-modal localization of textlines. We use the WUKONG-READERlarge model, and visualize the textline-region alignment in Figure 4, where the green and red boxes denote the correctly and incorrectly aligned pairs. Following [37], we compute the alignment scores of textual and visual textline representations based on Equation (2). From Figure 4, WUKONG-READER automatically learns to align the textline with its corresponding visual regions, with above 80+% accuracies. The learned alignment between two modalities implicitly explains the powerful effect of WUKONGREADER in various downstream tasks. This ability of WUKONG-READER provides a promising multimodal solution towards document localization tasks, instead of using naive text matching based on OCR results. Model Efficiency With superior performance on information extraction and classification in Section 4.2, WUKONG-READER has similar parameters size (i.e., 211M and 442M) with other base- Model SER (F1↑) RE (F1↑) EPHOIE (F1↑) LayoutXLMbase [36] 89.24 70.73 97.59 LiLT [30] 89.38 72.97 97.97 LayoutLMv3base [14] - - 99.21 WUKONG-READERbase **89.40 79.18 99.25** LayoutXLMlarge [36] 91.61 78.88 - VIES [31] - - 95.23 TCPN [32] - - 97.59 WUKONG-READERlarge 91.02 **87.19 99.63** lines, according to Table 1. As mentioned in Section 3.1, the model architecture is also computationally cheaper. For instance, it takes 375.4G FLOPs for the WUKONG-READERlarge model, while LayoutLMv2 and LayoutLMv3 require 379.0G and 431.7G FLOPs, respectively. We also compare the inferece latency: WUKONG-READER takes 340ms and 794ms for the base and large models, both of which are faster than LayoutLMv3, i.e., 346ms and 964ms for the base and large sizes respectively. ## 4.4 Wukongreader In Chinese We also evaluate WUKONG-READER on Chinese VDU tasks. We collect a large-scale Chinese document collection with 8 million documents, and follow the same pre-training setting as the English the IIT-CDIP Test Collection dataset [18]. The details of data collection are left in Appendix C. We intialize the backbone with XLM-Roberta [6] for the text and multimodal encoders3. We also follow XLM-Roberta to use SentencePiece with a unigram 3XLM-Roberta-base and XLM-RoBERTa-large are downloaded from https://huggingface.co/ xlm-roberta-base and https://huggingface. co/xlm-roberta-large, respectively. language modela as the tokenizer. We fine-tune WUKONG-READER on two Chinese VDU tasks: 1) XFUND [36] for information extraction and relation extraction; 2) EPHOIE [31] for information extraction. For XFUND, we follow the language-specific fine-tuning setting in [36], i.e., the fine-tuning and testing are both operated on the Chinese subset of XFUND. We report F1 scores for evaluation. More details regarding to these two datasets are be found in Appendix A. Results. Table 3 shows that our WUKONGREADERbase and WUKONG-READERlarge still achieve superior performance on most metrics in Chinese document understanding tasks. In particular, our model takes a new state-of-the-art F1 score of 85.82% on the relation extraction of XFUND and 99.63% on the EPHOIE dataset. Note that LayoutXLM [36] and LayoutLMv3 [14] use 30 million and 50 million documents for pre-training, which are far more than our 8 million data. Therefore, this verifies that our fine-grained pre-training objectives are more data-efficient and effective. ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we propose WUKONG-READER, a multi-modal pre-trained model for fine-grained visual document understanding. Unlike existing solutions that ignore the intrinsic textual segment information, our WUKONG-READER aims to leverage the semantics in textline regions of documents, by aligning with the visual and textual contents over document textlines via textline-region contrastive learning. Meanwhile, we also propose masked region modeling and textline grid matching to further enhance the visual and layout information of document textlines. We evaluate WUKONG-READER on various visual document understanding tasks such as information extraction and document classification, and the proposed model demonstrates superior performance against previous counterparts. ## Limitations The potential limitations of this work are that Wukong-Reader has fixed sequence length that may prevent it from modeling long and multi-page documents. Therefore it would be promising to handle varying-length inputs for Wukong-Reader by, for instance, equipping the model with relative positional embeddings of the model backbone. Additionally, the pre-training objectives used in this work may not be applicable to all VDU tasks. For instance, it can be hardly applied in abstractive question answering or document summarization. ## Ethics Statement Wukong-Reader inherits the publically released RoBERTa model [24], where the checkpoint may contain some harmful information learned from the pre-trained corpus. Meanwhile, Wukong-Reader is further pre-trained on the IIT-CDIP Test Collection dataset [18] or the collected large-scale Chinese document corpus, where there can be also improper expressions. Although we have developed rules to manually filter out harmful expressions from the OCR-recognized texts during pre-processing, it is not guaranteed that all harmful information can be removed. ## Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge the support of MindSpore for this research, as well as the insightful suggestions from the anonymous reviewers. ## References [1] Mindspore. https://www.mindspore.cn. [2] Srikar Appalaraju, Bhavan Jasani, Bhargava Urala Kota, Yusheng Xie, and R Manmatha. Docformer: End-to-end transformer for document understanding. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 993–1003, 2021. [3] Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Wenhui Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Songhao Piao, Ming Zhou, et al. Unilmv2: Pseudomasked language models for unified language model pre-training. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 642–652. PMLR, 2020. [4] Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In Andrea Vedaldi, Horst Bischof, Thomas Brox, and Jan-Michael Frahm, editors, *Computer* Vision - ECCV 2020, pages 213–229, Cham, 2020. Springer International Publishing. [5] Tianqi Chen, Bing Xu, Chiyuan Zhang, and Carlos Guestrin. Training deep nets with sublinear memory cost. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.06174*, 2016. [6] Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzman, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke ´ Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 8440– 8451, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. [7] Lei Cui, Yiheng Xu, Tengchao Lv, and Furu Wei. Document ai: Benchmarks, models and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08609, 2021. [8] J. Devlin, M. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 2019. [9] Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In *International Conference on* Learning Representations, 2020. [10] Jiaxi Gu, Xiaojun Meng, Guansong Lu, Lu Hou, Minzhe Niu, Hang Xu, Xiaodan Liang, Wei Zhang, Xin Jiang, and Chunjing Xu. Wukong: 100 million large-scale chinese cross-modal pre-training dataset and a foundation framework. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2202.06767, 2022. [11] Jiuxiang Gu, Jason Kuen, Vlad I Morariu, Handong Zhao, Rajiv Jain, Nikolaos Barmpalios, Ani Nenkova, and Tong Sun. Unidoc: Unified pretraining framework for document understanding. *Advances* in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:39–50, 2021. [12] Zhangxuan Gu, Changhua Meng, Ke Wang, Jun Lan, Weiqiang Wang, Ming Gu, and Liqing Zhang. Xylayoutlm: Towards layout-aware multimodal networks for visually-rich document understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4583– 4592, 2022. [13] Adam W Harley, Alex Ufkes, and Konstantinos G Derpanis. Evaluation of deep convolutional nets for document image classification and retrieval. In *2015* 13th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, pages 991–995, 2015. [14] Yupan Huang, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Yutong Lu, and Furu Wei. Layoutlmv3: Pre-training for document ai with unified text and image masking. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, page 4083–4091, 2022. [15] Zheng Huang, Kai Chen, Jianhua He, Xiang Bai, Dimosthenis Karatzas, Shijian Lu, and CV Jawahar. Icdar2019 competition on scanned receipt ocr and information extraction. In *2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition*, pages 1516–1520. IEEE, 2019. [16] Guillaume Jaume, Hazim Kemal Ekenel, and JeanPhilippe Thiran. Funsd: A dataset for form understanding in noisy scanned documents. In 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition Workshops, volume 2, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2019. [17] Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. [18] David Lewis, Gady Agam, Shlomo Argamon, Ophir Frieder, David Grossman, and Jefferson Heard. Building a test collection for complex document information processing. In Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 665–666, 2006. [19] Chenliang Li, Bin Bi, Ming Yan, Wei Wang, Songfang Huang, Fei Huang, and Luo Si. StructuralLM: Structural pre-training for form understanding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistic, pages 6309– 6318, 2021. [20] Junlong Li, Yiheng Xu, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Cha Zhang, and Furu Wei. Dit: Self-supervised pretraining for document image transformer. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, page 3530–3539, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. [21] Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining for unified vision-language understanding and generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12086*, 2022. [22] Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 34, pages 9694–9705, 2021. [23] Peizhao Li, Jiuxiang Gu, Jason Kuen, Vlad I Morariu, Handong Zhao, Rajiv Jain, Varun Manjunatha, and Hongfu Liu. Selfdoc: Self-supervised document representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5652–5660, 2021. [24] Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692, 2019. [25] Minesh Mathew, Dimosthenis Karatzas, and CV Jawahar. Docvqa: A dataset for vqa on document images. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision*, pages 2200–2209, 2021. [26] Seunghyun Park, Seung Shin, Bado Lee, Junyeop Lee, Jaeheung Surh, Minjoon Seo, and Hwalsuk Lee. Cord: a consolidated receipt dataset for post-ocr parsing. In Workshop on Document Intelligence at NeurIPS 2019, 2019. [27] Qiming Peng, Yinxu Pan, Wenjin Wang, Bin Luo, Zhenyu Zhang, Zhengjie Huang, Teng Hu, Weichong Yin, Yongfeng Chen, Yin Zhang, et al. Ernielayout: Layout knowledge enhanced pre-training for visually-rich document understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06155, 2022. [28] Rafał Powalski, Łukasz Borchmann, Dawid Jurkiewicz, Tomasz Dwojak, Michał Pietruszka, and Gabriela Pałka. Going full-tilt boogie on document understanding with text-image-layout transformer. In International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, pages 732–747. Springer, 2021. [29] Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In *International* Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021. [30] Jiapeng Wang, Lianwen Jin, and Kai Ding. LiLT: A simple yet effective language-independent layout transformer for structured document understanding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7747–7757. Association for Computational Linguistics, May 2022. [31] Jiapeng Wang, Chongyu Liu, Lianwen Jin, Guozhi Tang, Jiaxin Zhang, Shuaitao Zhang, Qianying Wang, Yaqiang Wu, and Mingxiang Cai. Towards robust visual information extraction in real world: new dataset and novel solution. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 35, pages 2738–2745, 2021. [32] Jiapeng Wang, Tianwei Wang, Guozhi Tang, Lianwen Jin, Weihong Ma, Kai Ding, and Yichao Huang. Tag, copy or predict: A unified weakly-supervised learning framework for visual information extraction using sequences. In Zhi-Hua Zhou, editor, *Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21*, pages 1082– 1090. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 8 2021. Main Track. [33] Zilong Wang, Yiheng Xu, Lei Cui, Jingbo Shang, and Furu Wei. LayoutReader: Pre-training of text and layout for reading order detection. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing, pages 4735–4744, 2021. [34] Yang Xu, Yiheng Xu, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Furu Wei, Guoxin Wang, Yijuan Lu, Dinei Florencio, Cha Zhang, Wanxiang Che, Min Zhang, and Lidong Zhou. LayoutLMv2: Multi-modal pre-training for visuallyrich document understanding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2579–2591, 2021. [35] Yiheng Xu, Minghao Li, Lei Cui, Shaohan Huang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. Layoutlm: Pre-training of text and layout for document image understanding. In *Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data* Mining, pages 1192–1200, 2020. [36] Yiheng Xu, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Guoxin Wang, Yijuan Lu, Dinei Florencio, Cha Zhang, and Furu Wei. Layoutxlm: Multimodal pre-training for multilingual visually-rich document understanding. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2104.08836, 2021. [37] Lewei Yao, Runhui Huang, Lu Hou, Guansong Lu, Minzhe Niu, Hang Xu, Xiaodan Liang, Zhenguo Li, Xin Jiang, and Chunjing Xu. Filip: Fine-grained interactive language-image pre-training. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*, 2022. [38] Xu Zhong, Jianbin Tang, and Antonio Jimeno Yepes. Publaynet: largest dataset ever for document layout analysis. In *2019 International Conference* on Document Analysis and Recognition, pages 1015– 1022. IEEE, 2019. ## A Downstream Tasks We comprehensively evaluate WUKONG-READER on various VDU tasks in both English and Chinese. We summarize the downstream dataset used for evaluation as follows. FUNSD [16] consists of noisy scanned documents and aims at understanding the structure of textual content of forms. It contains 199 fully labelled real scanned images, including 149 training samples and 50 test documents. We follow [34] to use the entity-level F1 to evaluate the model performance. CORD [26] is a consolidated dataset for receipt parsing. CORD collected over 11,000 Indonesian receipt images from shops and restaurants. The dataset comprises 800, 100, and 100 receipt samples for training, validation, and testing. We adopt entity-level F1 and transcript of CORD for training and evaluation. SROIE [15] contains 1000 scanned receipt images for text recognition and key information extraction. SROIE annotated 626 and 347 receipts for training and test, respectively. The dataset labelled four entities: company, date, address, and total. We correlate the entity annotation files with OCR results to generate ground-truth BIO labels for training and testing. During inference, we extract entities according to BIO labeling results and employ the entity-level F1 for evaluation. We use the official OCR annotations, however which contain OCR mismatch and are inconsistent with test set provided by the official evaluation site. Therefore, LayoutLMv2 [34] and other top methods on SROIE leaderboard4claim to exclude OCR mismatch and fix total entities. We thus follow the same evaluation protocol as these methods to correct OCR mismatch via post-processing on entities. RVL-CDIP [13] contains around 400K industrial document images in 16 classes, such as forms, advertisements, and letters, among which 360K and 40K are selected for training and testing. We extract text and layout information using Huaweideveloped text recognition algorithms. We use the overall classification accuracy as the evaluation metric. We use the official OCR annotations, however which are inconsistent with test set provided by the official evaluation site. We thus follow LayoutLMv2 [34] to post-process extracted entities and correct OCR mismatch. PubLayNet [38] is a collection of research paper documents, with 355,703 training images and and 11, 245 validation images, respectively. The annotation of the dataset follows the object detection task of MS COCO, where each object is assigned with a bounding box and one of the five categories: figure, list, text, table and title. DocVQA [25] contains 50,000 manually designed questions over 12,767 industrial document images. These scanned documents include various categories: figure/diagram, form, table/list, layout, free text, image/photo, handwritten characters, yes or no and others. We use the Microsoft OCR tool to extract the text and their bounding boxes. We also re-organize the OCR recognized text based on reading order of human, i.e., we heuristically cluster the word bounding box based on their intervals. This can be beneficial for documents with irregular layouts. For instance, reading from left to right in double column documents may fail to produce natural text. XFUND [36] is a multilingual form understanding benchmark dataset including 7 languages (Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, French, Italian, German, Portuguese). This dataset provides humanannotated key-value pairs from form documents, and thus the goal is to perform key-value extraction with two sub-tasks: semantic entity recognition and relation extraction. The experiment in this paper only uses the Chinese source, which has 10288 and 3629 entities for training and test set, respectively. We follow the same methods as used in LayoutXLM [36] to perform these two sub-tasks. EPHOIE [31] is a visual information extraction dataset on Chinese examination paper heads. It contains 1,494 images (1183 for training and 311 for testing) with human annotations for 15,771 Chinese text instances. Similar to the semantic entity recognition in XFUND, EPHOIE is also a token-level entity labelling task with ten pre-defined categories, and thus we use the same fine-tuning method for SER and EPHOIE. | Model | Framework | Backbone | Modality | Text Title List Table Figure mAP | | | | | | |----------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------|------------------|------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Publaynet[38] | Mask R-CNN | ResNet-101 | Vision | 91.6 | 84.0 | 88.6 | 96.0 | 94.9 | 91.0 | | Ditbase[20] | Mask R-CNN | Transformer | Vision | 93.4 | 87.1 | 92.9 | 97.3 | 96.7 | 93.5 | | UniDoc[11] | Faster R-CNN | ResNet-50 | Vision | 93.9 | 88.5 | 93.7 | 97.3 | 96.4 | 93.9 | | DiTbase[20] | Cascade R-CNN Transformer | Vision | 94.4 | 88.9 | 94.8 | 97.6 | 96.9 | 94.5 | | | LayoutLMv3base[14] Cascade R-CNN Transformer | Vision | 94.5 | 90.6 | 95.5 | 97.9 | 97.0 | 95.1 | | | | Wukong-Readebase | DETR[4] | ResNet-101 | Vision | 94.7 | 90.8 | 95.8 | 98.0 | 97.2 | 95.3 | | Wukong-Readebase | DETR[4] | ResNet-101 | Vision+Text 95.5 | 91.1 | 96.6 | 98.2 | 97.4 | 96.0 | | | Model | ANLS | |--------------------|--------| | LayoutLMv2base | 78.0 | | LayoutLMv2base ∗ | 74.0 | | WUKONG-READERbase | 74.1 | | WUKONG-READERlarge | 78.9 | Table 5: Results on the DocVQA dataset. ## B More Experiments B.1 Layout Analysis Datasets and Evaluation Metric. We use the PublayNet dataset [38] for layout analysis. Following standard practice of object detection, we use the mean average precision (MAP) and intersection over union (IOU) [0.50:0.95] of bounding boxes to evaluate the model performance. In contrast to previous methods [14, 11] that solely employ the vision encoder to detect document elements, we propose to reuse the multimodal features for layout analysis task to explore the effectiveness of our multi-modal encoder. Specifically, we design a feature selection decoder similar to [4] on top of the multi-modal encoder, which enables us to detect document layouts using both vision and text. We apply the ADAM optimizer with a total batch size of 32 over 8 AI processors. Both the base learning rate and weight decay are set to 4e-4, and a linear learning rate scheduler is used. We train the model for 10 epochs on the training set and evaluate the performance on the validation set. Results. We demonstrate the results on Publaynet in Table 4. We first feed only the visual backbone of Wukong-Readerbase to the transformer decoder following[4], which achieves 95.3 mAP scores and leads the previous vision-based methods [14, 11, 20]. Additionally, we can further improve the mAP score to 96.0 when employing the multi-modal fea-  tures by Wukong-Readerbase, outperforming the rest baselines with a clear margin. This again verifies the effectiveness of the learned multi-modal representations from WUKONG-READER. ## B.2 Document Question Answering Datasets and Evaluation Metric. For document question answering, we use the DocVQA dataset [25], which contains 50,000 questions over 12,000 pages of various industrial documents. We use the official website for evaluation5, which compares the extracted answer span with the ground-truth and reports the averaged normalized Levesitein distance (ANLS). Results. The results on DocVQA are listed in Table 5. For LayoutLMv2-base [34], we report the best reproduced result marked as ∗. As suggested by existing methods [34], leveraging the additional techniques of post-processing, data augmentation and model ensemble contributes a lot to this performance, while we leave this exploration to the future work. Overall, our WUKONG-READERbase and WUKONG-READERlarge achieve 74.1 and 78.9 ANLS score, respectively. This is comparable to 5https://rrc.cvc.uab.es/?ch=17&com= introduction the competitive LayoutLMv2 without using additional techniques. For instance, LayoutLMv2 is initialized from UniLMv2 [3] that naturally owns a more powerful question answering ability than RoBERTa. Unfortunately, we are unable to access UniLMv2 model since it is not publicly released yet and thus our model was initialized from RoBERTa. We also visualize the ANLS score of each class in DocVQA returned by our WUKONG-READERlarge in Figure 5. Our model can perform reasonably well on "Form" and "Layout" with around 80.0 ANLS scores, yet there is still room for improvement for categories such as "Figure" and "Image". ## C Preparing The Chinese Pre-Training Document Corpus We also collect a 8 million Chinese document corpus to validate WUKONG-READER in Chinese. The collection comes from various resources: the Chinese documents from Common Crawl6; the static Chinese HTML dumps of Wikipedia7and publicly available Chinese digital books, contracts and IPO (Initial Public Offering) documents via the official Chinese websites.8 To obtain the textual and layout information of the collected documents, we first obtain the character-level bounding boxes via OCR. Then we calculate the bounding box of each token by merging the bounding boxes of all characters it contains. Thus the output format is consistent with those in the IIT-CDIP Test Collection dataset [18]. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? The second to last section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? The last section. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Introduction: Section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 4 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4 ✗ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? We keep the same random seed to fairly compare with other baselines. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 4 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

li-etal-2023-pace

{P}a{CE}: Unified Multi-modal Dialogue Pre-training with Progressive and Compositional Experts

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.749

Perceiving multi-modal information and fulfilling dialogues with humans is a long-term goal of artificial intelligence. Pre-training is commonly regarded as an effective approach for multi-modal dialogue. However, due to the limited availability of multi-modal dialogue data, there is still scarce research on multi-modal dialogue pre-training. Yet another intriguing challenge emerges from the encompassing nature of multi-modal dialogue, which involves various modalities and tasks. Moreover, new forms of tasks may arise at unpredictable points in the future. Hence, it is essential for designed multi-modal dialogue models to possess sufficient flexibility to adapt to such scenarios. This paper proposes PaCE, a unified, structured, compositional multi-modal dialogue pre-training framework. It utilizes a combination of several fundamental experts to accommodate multiple dialogue-related tasks and can be pre-trained using limited dialogue and extensive non-dialogue multi-modal data. Furthermore, we propose a progressive training method where old experts from the past can assist new experts, facilitating the expansion of their capabilities. Experimental results demonstrate that PaCE achieves state-of-the-art results on eight multi-modal dialog benchmarks.

# Pace: Unified Multi-Modal Dialogue Pre-Training With Progressive And Compositional Experts Yunshui Li1,2∗† Binyuan Hui3∗ Zhichao Yin1,4 Min Yang1‡ Fei Huang3 **Yongbin Li**3‡ 1Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences 2University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 3DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group 4University of Science and Technology of China {ys.li, min.yang}@siat.ac.cn, {binyuan.hby, shuide.lyb}@alibaba-inc.com http://github.com/AlibabaResearch/DAMO-ConvAI/pace ## Abstract Perceiving multi-modal information and fulfilling dialogues with humans is a long-term goal of artificial intelligence. Pre-training is commonly regarded as an effective approach for multi-modal dialogue. However, due to the limited availability of multi-modal dialogue data, there is still scarce research on multi-modal dialogue pre-training. Yet another intriguing challenge emerges from the encompassing nature of multi-modal dialogue, which involves various modalities and tasks. Moreover, new forms of tasks may arise at unpredictable points in the future. Hence, it is essential for designed multi-modal dialogue models to possess sufficient flexibility to adapt to such scenarios. This paper proposes **PaCE**, a unified, structured, compositional multi-modal dialogue pretraining framework. It utilizes a combination of several fundamental experts to accommodate multiple dialogue-related tasks and can be pre-trained using limited dialogue and extensive non-dialogue multi-modal data. Furthermore, we propose a progressive training method where old experts from the past can assist new experts, facilitating the expansion of their capabilities. Experimental results demonstrate that PaCE achieves state-of-the-art results on eight multi-modal dialog benchmarks. ## 1 Introduction Enabling seamless communication between humans and machines is a long-standing goal of artificial intelligence research. The recent emergence of chatGPT 1 has increased confidence in the potential for achieving this goal. Beyond the use of textual language as a unique interface between humans and machines, perceiving and utilizing multi-modal information, especially visual information, has be-  come a crucial capability known as multi-modal dialogue (Shuster et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2021). To facilitate the research on multi-modal dialogue, plenty of specific tasks and datasets have emerged in the community (Das et al., 2017; Shuster et al., 2018; Feng et al., 2022; Long et al., 2023). However, the overall quantity of data is still limited. Furthermore, multi-modal dialogue presents a greater challenge compared to traditional text-only dialogue track (Hui et al., 2021; He et al., 2022; Si et al., 2022), as it involves the integration of various modalities and more intricate task scenarios. As shown in Figure 1, the central tasks of multi-modal dialogue include multi-modal intent classification (Zang et al., 2021), multi-modal dialogue retrieval (Das et al., 2017; Zang et al., 2021), 13402 multi-modal dialogue state tracking (Liao et al., 2021), and multi-modal response generation (Kottur et al., 2021). Despite pre-training having become the consensus for multi-task learning in machine learning (Devlin et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2019, 2021), the research on pre-training models for multi-modal dialogue is an area that is yet to be fully explored. In this paper, we focus on building pre-trained models of multi-modal dialogue. A key challenge is to unify different modalities and task forms, and make the best use of existing multi-modal dialog and non-dialog data. A recent popular trend on textual tasks is to build unified pre-trained foundation models by multi-task learning, e.g., T5 (Raffel et al., 2020). However, it attempts to mix all tasks learned from scratch thus is difficult to control the learning process, which is a completely black box. Although the Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) (Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022) architecture attempts to select independent experts for each input sample through token-level routing, it lacks specific semantics, i.e., it is entirely unknown what the experts are responsible for. We hope to find a new way to handle many multi-modal dialog tasks simultaneously and combine existing concrete skills to learn new tasks more efficiently. To this end, we propose **PaCE**, a unified multi-modal dialogue pre-training framework with Progressive and Compositional Experts. **First**, we decompose complicated multi-modal dialogue into fundamental sub-capabilities that could be learned with specific data. Different from traditional MoE, each expert in PaCE is tailored to one specific fundamental sub-capability of multi-modal dialogue, including CAPTION, CONTEXT, IMAGE, GROUNDING and GENERATION. **Second**, we propose a progressive pre-training strategy to evolve the model by controlling the combination of experts in different pre-training phases. Specifically, in stage I, we first train on multi-modal non-dialogue data to obtain CAPTION, IMAGE, and GROUNDING experts. In stage II, we train the CONTEXT expert, which is guided by the CAPTION expert on multimodal dialog data to learn the dependencies in context. Furthermore, a dialogue GENERATION expert is derived by adding a response generation task based on the previously learned experts. **Third**, for pre-training PaCE, we collect a multi-modal dialog corpus with 1.4 million dialogs and a multi-modal non-dialog corpus with 4 million samples. Once  (Response Generation) Figure 2: PaCE achieves state-of-the-art performances on a broad range of dialogue tasks compared with other customized or foundation models. the pre-training of PaCE is finished, we can flexibly select different capability experts to solve a specific downstream task. As illustrated in Figure 2, PaCE achieves stateof-the-art performance across a broad range of multi-modal dialogue benchmarks spanning four diverse downstream tasks, i.e., multi-modal intent classification, multi-modal dialogue retrieval, multi-modal state tracking, and multi-modal response generation This demonstrates that PaCE not only possesses a flexible model architecture but also exhibits adaptable training methodologies, resulting in remarkable performance. ## 2 Related Work Pre-trained Vision-Language Models The pretraining paradigm, with its successes in natural language processing (Devlin et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2019), has sparked a revolution in Multimodal Learning. ViLBERT (Lu et al., 2019) was the first work to adapt the BERT-like architecture for visual-language modeling, allowing for learning joint representation of images and texts. ViLT (Kim et al., 2021) constructed the vision module in the same way as the text module with a unified Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017), eliminating the need for resource-intensive image feature extraction and significantly accelerating the model. CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) employed contrast learning to directly align images with natural language texts, eliminating the constraints of predefined image categories. ALIGN (Jia et al., 2021) and Florence (Yuan et al., 2021) further generalized this idea on noisier but larger image-text pairs. These models have demonstrated the ability to learn strong image and text representations for crossmodal alignment tasks. In addition, a number of models (Cho et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021, 2022; Yu et al., 2022; Alayrac et al., 2022) employed auto-regressive models to model the association between images and texts, using a unified generation approach to construct the task in an end-toend manner. Although pre-trained vision-language models have shown promising results, they mainly focus on caption texts which are intrinsically different from human conversations (Kulhánek et al., 2021). To our best knowledge, the proposed PaCE model is the first multi-modal dialogue pre-training model. Multi-Modal Dialogue Modeling Numerous advanced works have been proposed along with the development of multi-modal dialogue datasets (Das et al., 2017; Mostafazadeh et al., 2017; Shuster et al., 2018; Zang et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2021; Kottur et al., 2021; Liao et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2022). Several dialogue modeling works (Qi et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2021) have been conducted to improve the performance of conversational agents in image-grounded dialogue. Zang et al. (2021) proposed a dual-encoder model that utilized object labels to encode image features so as to perform a dialogue-based image retrieval task. Afterward, researchers (Yang et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021) explored enriching textual expressions of generated dialogue responses through associative vision scenes. For textual response tasks, Zheng et al. (2021) proposed a multi-modal dialogue generation model based on Seq2Seq architecture, which was proved to be superior to the textual Seq2Seq model. Lee et al. (2022) proposed a joint multimodal encoder-decoder model to incorporate visual inputs. However, the above models have demonstrated success in specific sub-tasks with a particular dataset, which cannot meet the requirements of a wide range of multi-modal dialogue tasks. To address this challenge, we propose a unified multi-modal dialogue pre-training model based on a divide-and-conquer strategy, which can combine different experts to complete a series of tasks. ## 3 Pre-Training Data Construction In this paper, we collect both multi-modal nondialogue and multi-modal dialogue data for PaCE pre-training. The total statistics of our collected pre-training corpora are shown in Table 1. | Category | Dataset | Turns | Dialogs | Images | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------|-----------|----------| | CC3M | 3.01M | - | 3.01M | | | SBU | 867K | - | 867K | | | MultiNonDialog | MSCOCO | 113K | - | 567K | | VG | 108K | - | 5.41M | | | VisDial | 1.2M | 120K | 120K | | | Image-Chat | 400K | 202K | 202K | | | PhotoChat | 97.6K | 12.2K | 11K | | | MMConv | 39.7K | 5.1K | 114K | | | SIMMC2.0 | 117K | 11K | 1.5K | | | MMDialog | 4.82M | 1.08M | 1.53M | | | Table 1: Statistics of our collected pre-training corpora. MultiDialog | | | | | Multi-modal Non-dialogue Data (MultiNonDialog) Similar to previous work (Kim et al., 2021), we first collect four multi-model non-dialogue datasets for image and text representation learning, including MSCOCO (Lin et al., 2014), VG (Krishna et al., 2017), SBU (Ordonez et al., 2011) and GCC (Sharma et al., 2018). In MultiNonDialog, each image is accompanied by one or more captions whose lengths are generally constrained to 20 tokens. Since GCC and SBU provide only image URLs, we collect the images via the given URLs which are still accessible. Multi-modal Dialogue Data (MultiDialog) We collect six existing multi-modal conversation corpora ranging from online forum chatting logs (Das et al., 2017; Shuster et al., 2018; Zang et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2022) to customer service conversations (Liao et al., 2021; Kottur et al., 2021) and build a large-scale multi-modal dialogue corpus. To ensure that each conversation has at least one corresponding image, we eliminate the text-only conversations from the original datasets. In addition, to satisfy the requirements of the Stage II pretraining, we use the BLIP model (Li et al., 2022b) implemented by Li et al. (2022a) to generate the appropriate textual caption for each image. The captions are constrained to 20 tokens. ## 4 Pre-Training Method Given a set of n multi-modal dialogue samples D = {(Ui, Ri)} n i=1, where Ui and Ri represent the dialogue context and response, respectively. Compared to traditional textual dialogue, both Ui = {u m k} K k=1 and Ri = r m q Q q=1 can incorporate various types of information including textual texts and visual images, where K and Q are the number of elements, and m ∈ {*t, v*} denotes the modality of Ui (or Ri). The notation t indicates textual utterances, while v indicates visual images. We devise a divide-and-conquer pre-training  Figure 3: Three-stage training based on different combinations of experts, where the represents multi-modal non-dialog data and works mainly in the first stage, while the represents multi-modal dialog data and works in the second and third stages. The represents the caption of the input image. strategy for multi-modal dialogue. Concretely, we decompose complicated multi-modal dialogue into five fundamental sub-capabilities and design five corresponding experts (i.e., CAPTION, CONTEXT, IMAGE, GROUNDING, and GENERATION experts). Then, we propose a progressive training strategy to evolve the model by controlling the combination of experts in different pre-training phases. Next, we describe the input representation learning module, the divide-and-conquer pre-training strategy, the pre-training objectives, and the fine-tuning process in detail. ## 4.1 Input Representation Learning The proposed model is designed to handle input data from two modalities: visual representations and textual representations. Visual Representations The dialogue context and response can be either visual or textual data. We use Vision Transformer (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020) to learn visual representations of images. Formally, we process the visual image v ∈ R H×W×C by dividing it into N = *HW/P*2 patches v p ∈ R N×(P 2C), where C is the number of channels, (*H, W*) is the resolution of the input image, and P is the patch resolution. This allows the model to extract meaningful features from the image by considering it as a set of small regions, rather than a single large array of pixels. The image patches are then flattened into vectors and processed by a linear projection using a weight matrix WV ∈ R(P 2·C)×E and a position embedding Wpos V ∈ R (N+1)×E, resulting in patch embedding v¯ ∈ R N×E, where E is the dimension of embedding. The position embedding is used to add additional information about the position of the Textual Representations The input text t ∈ R L×|O|is embedded into a dense representation t¯ ∈ R L×E by using a word embedding matrix WT ∈ R|O|×E and a position embedding matrix Wpos T ∈ R (L+1)×E, where |O| is the size of the vocabulary, L is the length of text, and E is the dimension of embedding. It is noteworthy that we usually concatenate the context with the current utterance to form the final textual input. The textual representations can be denoted as Ht0 . ## 4.2 Divide-And-Conquer Pre-Training Strategy We devise a novel pre-training strategy in a divideand-conquer manner. Specifically, we first divide the complicated multi-model dialogue into several sub-problems, which can be learned in an easier way. The solutions to the sub-problems are then combined to give a solution to different downstream multi-modal dialogue tasks. Multi-expert Architecture PaCE adopts an extension of the standard Transformer, which learns multiple semantic experts instead of a single feedforward network (FFN) as in the original Transformer (Bao et al., 2021). Concretely, the experts share the information from both textual and visual modalities through a multi-head attention mechanism (MSA), while each expert FFNexpert has its own unique parameters to learn a different semantic representation. Formally, the unique information, which is obtained by switching experts in each block, can be formulated as: H′l = MSA (LN (Hl−1)) + Hl−1 H expertk l = FFNexpertk (LN (H′l )) + H′l (1) where Hl−1 (l ∈ [1, L]) represents the output representation of the l-1 layer and L is the number of Transformer blocks. H expertk lis the representation of the k-th expert. The input representation could be formulated as H0 = [Hv0, Ht0]. Here, MSA and LN are the standard multi-head self-attention and layer normalization, respectively.2 Modality and Capability Experts As illustrated in Figure 3, we divide the complicated multi-modal dialogue task into five easier sub-problems including CAPTION modeling, CONTEXT modeling, IM-AGE modeling, GROUNDING, and GENERATION. We design a semantic expert to solve each subproblem. These five experts can be divided into two categories: modality experts (CAPTION and IM-AGE experts) and capability experts (GROUNDING, CONTEXT MODELING and GENERATION experts) tailored for multi-modal dialogue. Ultimately, we activate the modality and capability experts in a hierarchical manner, with the bottom (L − F) layers activating only the modality experts and the top F layers activating the capability experts, where F is a pre-defined hyper-parameter. ## Experts Combination For Different Tasks We propose a progressive cascade pre-training strategy that solves different multi-modal dialogue tasks by adaptively combining the solutions to the subproblems. We will introduce the details of progressive cascade pre-training in Section 4.3. ## 4.3 Pre-Training Objectives Our progressive cascade pre-training process consists of three phases, each with a tailored pretraining objective. Stage I: Image-Text Matching In stage I, similar to ViLT (Kim et al., 2021), we use non-dialogue multi-modal data Dn to learn the fundamental intermodal alignment, and this stage involves only three experts, including the CAPTION expert, IMAGE expert and GROUNDING expert. As depicted in Figure 3(a), following word and patch embeddings, the text and image are separately processed into text and image representations by specialized CAP-TION and IMAGE experts. These representations are then fused and fed into the GROUNDING expert, yielding a unified representation of the image and text. We then employ the representation of the '[CLS]' token from the expert output as the input for a binary classification network to predict the alignment between the current text and image. The loss function of image-text matching is defined as: Litm = E(V,T)∼Dn CE (yitm, pitm(*V, T*)) (2) In addition to Litm, we also employ the MLM loss Lmlm in this stage for understanding unique textual modality. Concretely, following the method of BERT, we randomly select tokens in the text sequence and replace them with the [MASK] token. The model is trained to predict these masked tokens using the context of the remaining unmasked tokens and the visual clues. We adopt a masking probability of 15%. The final output vectors of the masked tokens are then fed into a classifier over the entire text vocabulary, with the training loss being the cross-entropy loss. Lmlm = E(V,Tˆ)∼{Dn∪Dd}CE(ymask, pmask(V, Tˆ)) (3) where Tˆ is a masked text, V is an original image and pmask(V, Tˆ) denotes the model's predicted probability for the masked token Tˆ. Dn and Dd represent multi-modal non-dialogue and dialogue data, respectively. The joint loss in stage I can be formulated as: L I stage = Litm + Lmlm (4) Stage II: Image-Context Matching In stage II, we use multi-modal dialogue data Dd to pre-train PaCE, which aims to model dialogue context for multi-modal dialogue tasks. At this stage, CAP-TION expert will be activated in addition to the three experts from the first stage. Concretely, in the second stage, the dialogue context C is input to CONTEXT expert, the images V are input to IM-AGE expert, and the corresponding image captions T are input to CAPTION expert. The loss function of image-context matching is defined as: Licm = E(*V,T,C*)∼DdCE (yicm, picm(*V, T, C*)) (5) In addition, we use the CAPTION expert learned in Stage I as a teacher to facilitate the learning of CONTEXT expert. Ltca = HtL−F − HcL−F 2 2 , (6) where HtL−F and HcL−F are the output of the {L−F}th-layer of CAPTION expert and CONTEXT expert, respectively. Besides, we also employ MLM loss in stage II as defined in stage I, and the joint loss L II stage in stage II could be formulated as: $$\operatorname*{lim}$$ $$\operatorname{tca}+{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{mlm}}$$ L II stage = Licm + Ltca + Lmlm (7) Stage III: Generation Modeling The third stage aims to enable the model to generate responses. The GENERATION expert is activated, and the input to this expert is composed of the CONTEXT expert and the IMAGE expert. The loss function in stage III is defined as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{stage}}^{\text{III}}=-\sum_{n=1}^{N}\log\mathbf{p}_{\text{rgm}}\left(C_{n}\mid V,C_{<n}\right)\tag{8}$$ Here, we model generative capability by auto N Here, we model generative capability by autoregression, i.e., using past dialogue history C<n and associated images V to predict the current turn Cn of a dialogue. ## 4.4 Fine-Tuning On Downstream Tasks Once the pre-training of PaCE is finished, we perform fine-tuning on specific downstream tasks. Thanks to our divide-and-conquer pre-training approach, we can flexibly select different capability experts to solve a specific downstream task. Specifically, for understanding tasks, including intent prediction, dialog retrieval, and dialog state tracking, we activate CONTEXT expert, IMAGE expert, and GROUNDING expert. For the generation task, i.e. dialog state tracking, and response generation, we activate the CONTEXT expert, IMAGE expert, and GENERATION expert. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Downstream Datasets To comprehensively evaluate our PaCE, we conduct extensive experiments on seven datasets belonging to four downstream tasks. Multi-Modal Intent Prediction For multimodal intent prediction, PhotoChat (Zang et al., 2021) and MMDialog (Feng et al., 2022) are selected as benchmark datasets. This task aims to identify the specific intent of the user in the multimodal context. More specifically, it predicts the probability of photo sharing in the upcoming conversation turn. Multi-Modal Dialog Retrieval For text-toimage retrieval, we select PhotoChat (Zang et al., 2021) as our benchmark dataset. It encompasses 12k dialogues, each accompanied by a user photo exchanged during the conversation. The goal of this task is to select the most appropriate photo given the dialog context. For image-to-text retrieval, we $\eqref{eq:walpha}$. select Image-Chat (Shuster et al., 2018) to evaluate our model, which consists of 202k dialogues over 202k images. Multi-Modal Dialog State Tracking MMConv (Liao et al., 2021) and SIMMC2.0 (Kottur et al., 2021) datasets provide a good base for carrying out multi-modal dialog state tracking. The MMConv dataset contains 5.1k dialogues collected by enabling multi-modal conversations between human-to-human role-playing pairs under real-life traveling scenarios. In contrast, the SIMMC2.0 corpus includes 11,000 task-oriented dialogs in the shopping domain that are grounded in immersive and photo-realistic contexts. Multi-Modal Response Generation Generating appropriate responses for satisfactory task completion is the ultimate goal of task-oriented dialogue agents. In this task, we selected MMConv (Liao et al., 2021) and SIMMC2.0 (Kottur et al., 2021) as our benchmark datasets. ## 5.2 Experimental Setting We use the *bert-base-uncased* tokenizer to tokenize text inputs. We learn the textual embedding-related parameters from scratch, instead of fine-tuning them from pre-trained BERT. For all experiments, we use AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) with base learning rate of 10−4and weight decay of 10−2. The learning rate is warmed up for 10% of the total training steps and is decayed linearly to zero for the rest of the training. We set the total number of the Transformer layers L to 12, with the number of layers F for the top Transformer set to 3. We initialize the Transformer weights with the pre-trained ViT (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020). In the pre-training process, we utilize 200K steps, 25K steps, and 10K steps, respectively, for the three stages on 8 NVIDIA A100 GPUs with a batch size of 4,096. ## 5.3 Evaluation Metrics For intent prediction, we adopt the F1 score as the evaluation metric to measure the effectiveness of our model, similar to previous work (Zang et al., 2021). For multi-modal dialog retrieval, we use ranking-based evaluation metrics such as recall n at k including R@1, R@5 and *R@10* in accordance with prior studies (Zang et al., 2021; Shuster et al., 2018). These metrics measure whether the ground-truth textual or visual outputs Task Dataset Metric Previous SOTA PaCE Multi-Modal Intent Prediction PhotoChat F1-Score 58.9 (T5-3B) 63.8 (**+4.9**) MMDialog F1-score 75.5 (Divter) 77.6 (**+2.1**) Multi-Modal Dialog Retrieval PhotoChat (T2I) R@1 10.4 (SCAN) 15.2 (**+4.8**) Image-Chat (I2T) R@1 50.3 (TransResNet) 51.9 (**+1.6**) Multi-Modal Dialog State Tracking MMConv Acc. 18.0 (DS-DST) 39.2 (**+21.2**) SIMMC2.0 Act-F1 96.3 (BART-large) 97.1 (**+0.8**) Multi-Modal Response Generation MMConv Comb. 32.2 (SimpleTOD) 44.7 (**+12.5**) SIMMC2.0 BLEU 33.1 (BART-large) 34.1 (**+1.0**) Table 2: Experimental results on various multi-modal dialogue benchmarks. We compare PaCE with previous state-of-the-art models, including T5-3B (Raffel et al., 2020), Divter (Feng et al., 2022), SCAN (Lee et al., 2018), TransResNet (Shuster et al., 2018), BART-large (Lewis et al., 2019) and SimpleTOD (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020). are ranked among the top k ∈ {1, 5, 10} positions among n candidate elements. For multimodal dialogue state tracking, we report Categorical, *Non-categorical* and *overall* scores as evaluation metrics following (Liao et al., 2021). To measure the quality of response generation, we employ BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) as the evaluation metric for SIMMC2.0. For MMConv, we report a combined score (Comb.), which is computed via (Inform+Success)×0.5+*BLEU* as an overall evaluation measure as in (Mehri et al., 2019). ## 5.4 Quantitative Comparison As shown in Figure 2 and Table 2, PaCE demonstrates state-of-the-art performances across a wide range of multi-modal dialogue tasks. Specifically, we have achieved a significant enhancement on the PhotoChat and MMConv dataset, with an improvement of 4.8 points in multi-modal dialog retrieval and 21.2 points in multi-modal dialog state tracking, respectively. It is worth noting that PaCE has a total parameter count of 338 million. In addition, since some experts may be idle during the execution of specific downstream tasks, the parameter size will further decrease for specific downstream tasks. Below, we provide a detailed analysis of the results for each sub-task dataset. Multi-Modal Intent Prediction For the PhotoChat dataset, we report the performances of strong baselines as in (Zang et al., 2021), including ALBERT-base (Lan et al., 2019), BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), T5-base, and T5-3B (Raffel et al., 2020). For the MMDialog dataset, we adopt DE++, Divter (Feng et al., 2022), and ViLT (Kim et al., 2021) as our baseline models. As shown in Table 3, although some models such as T5-3B are much larger than ours, our model still achieves the best performance on all evaluation metrics. Multi-Modal Dialog Retrieval For PhotoChat, we compare PaCE with strong baselines reported in (Zang et al., 2021), including BM25 (Robertson et al., 2009), DE∗(Zang et al., 2021), VSE++ (Faghri et al., 2017) and SCAN (Lee et al., 2018). We also adapted VLMo (Bao et al., 2021) and ViLT (Kim et al., 2021) to perform multi-modal dialog retrieval. The results on PhotoChat are reported in Table 4, PaCE achieves substantially better performance than the best performing baselines. For Image-Chat, we compare PaCE with TransResNet152 (Liao et al., 2021), VLMo and ViLT, and report baseline results as in Table 5. PaCE achieves the best results for image-to-text dialog retrieval with 3.0 improvement in terms of Sum. Multi-Modal Dialog State Tracking For MMConv dataset, we compare PaCE with DSDST(Zhang et al., 2019); for SIMMC2.0 dataset, we compare PaCE with GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), MTN (Le et al., 2019), BART-large and | PhotoChat | MMDialog | | | | | |-------------|------------|-----------|--------|--------|------| | Model | F1 | Precision | Recall | Model | F1 | | ALBERT-base | 52.2 | 44.8 | 62.7 | DE++ | 59.0 | | BERT-base | 53.2 | 56.1 | 50.6 | Divter | 75.5 | | T5-base | 58.1 | 58.2 | 57.9 | - | - | | T5-3B | 58.9 | 54.1 | 64.6 | - | - | | ViLT | 52.4 | 55.4 | 58.9 | ViLT | 55.8 | | PaCE | 63.8 | 63.3 | 68.0 | PaCE | 77.6 | | Model | R@1 | R@5 | R@10 | Sum(R@1,5,10) | |-------------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|--------|-----------------| | BM25 | 6.6 | 15.4 | 23.0 | 45.0 | | DE∗ | 9.0 | 26.4 | 35.7 | 71.1 | | VSE++ | 10.2 | 25.4 | 34.2 | 69.8 | | SCAN | 10.4 | 27.0 | 37.1 | 74.5 | | VLMo | 13.8 | 30.0 | 39.4 | 83.2 | | ViLT | 11.5 | 25.6 | 33.8 | 71.0 | | PaCE | 15.2 | 36.7 | 49.6 | 101.5 | | Table 4: Multi-modal dialogue retrieval on PhotoChat. | | | | | | Model | R@1 | R@5 | Sum(R@1,5) | |------------------------|-------|-------|--------------| | TransResNet152 | 40.6 | 67.2 | 107.8 | | TransResNet152-IG-3.5B | 50.3 | 75.4 | 125.7 | | VLMo | 46.8 | 67.5 | 114.3 | | ViLT | 48.4 | 70.0 | 118.4 | | PaCE | 51.9 | 76.8 | 128.7 | | Model | Categorical | Non-categorical | Overall | |---------|---------------|-------------------|-----------| | DS-DST | 91.0 | 23.0 | 18.0 | | PaCE | 92.2 | 43.4 | 39.2 | DS-DST 91.0 23.0 18.0 PaCE 92.2 43.4 **39.2** Table 6: Multi-modal dialog state tracking performances on MMConv. | Dialog State Tracking | Dialog Generation | | | | | | |-------------------------|---------------------|-------------|--------|-------|----------|----| | Model | Slot F1 | Act. F1 | BLEU | | | | | GPT-2 | 81.7 | 94.5 | 19.2 | | | | | MTN | 76.7 | 93.4 | 21.7 | | | | | BART-large | 88.3 | 96.3 | 33.1 | | | | | BART-base | 82.0 | 95.2 | 29.4 | | | | | PaCE | 87.0 | 97.1 | 34.1 | | | | | Table | 7: | Multi-modal | dialog | state | tracking | on | | Model | Inform | Success | BLEU | Comb. | |-------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------|--------|---------| | SimpleTOD | 14.6 | 9.2 | 20.3 | 32.2 | | PaCE | 34.5 | 13.9 | 22.0 | 44.7 | | Table 8: Multi-modal response generation performances | | | | | BART-base (Lewis et al., 2019). The results on MMConv and SIMMC2.0 are reported in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. PaCE can achieve the best results on most of the evaluation metrics. Notably, we observed that the PaCE achieves competitive results at smaller parameter scales than previous SOTA in SIMMC2.0 slot F1. Multi-Modal Response Generation For the response generation task, we conduct experiments on SIMMC2.0 and MMConv datasets. For MMConv, we adopt the strong baseline SimpleTOD (HosseiniAsl et al., 2020) implemented by (Liao et al., 2021). We summarize the experimental results of SIMMC2.0 and MMConv in Table 7 and Table 8, verifying the effectiveness of our model in both discriminative and generative tasks. ## 5.5 Ablation Study Effectiveness of Pre-training Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of each stage of pretraining, we conduct an ablation study by removing Stage I pre-training (PaCEw/o LIstage ), removing Stage II pre-training (PaCEw/o LII stage ), removing Stage III pre-training (PaCEw/o LIII stage ), and removing both Stage II and Stage III (PaCEonly LIstage ). For a fair comparison, the experimental setup of the ablation study is consistent with that of the primary experiments, utilizing the same hyper-parameters and downstream fine-tuning strategy. The ablation test results on PhotoChat and Image-Chat are provided in Table 9. We can observe that image-text matching (Stage I) and image-context matching (Stage II) play the most important role in PaCE. This is within our expectation since Stage I and Stage II are the basis of the latter generation modeling (Stage III). It is no surprise that combining all three stages achieves the best performance on the experimental datasets. We also investigate the impact of Ltca by removing it from Stage II pretraining (denoted as PaCEw/o Ltca ). We can observe that Ltca has a significant impact on the performance of PaCE in Stage II pre-training. Effectiveness of Pre-training Data In addition, we also conduct an ablation study to verify the impact of different pre-training data on PhotoChat and Image-Chat datasets. We define the models that only use MultiNonDialog and MultiDialog for pre-training as PaCEonly MultiNonDialog and PaCEonly MultiDialog, respectively. The ablation test results on PhotoChat and Image-Chat are provided in Table 10. We can observe that both MultiNonDialog and MultiDialog pre-training corpora contribute great performance improvement to PaCE. This is within our expectation since the MultiNonDialog data helps our model learn impressive image-text representations and their alignment, while the MultiDialog data encourages PaCE to capture the dialog context information. | Model | PhotoChat | Image-Chat | | | |----------------------------------------------------------|---------------|--------------|------------|-------| | R@1 | Sum(R@1,5,10) | R@1 | Sum(R@1,5) | | | PaCE | 15.2 | 101.5 | 51.9 | 128.7 | | stage | 10.7 | 74.3 | 46.5 | 117.8 | | PaCEw/o LI stage | 12.0 | 74.8 | 48.5 | 119.5 | | PaCEw/o LII PaCEw/o LIII stage | 15.0 | 100.8 | 51.2 | 127.3 | | PaCEw/o Ltca | 13.2 | 95.9 | 49.7 | 125.6 | | Table 9: Ablation test results on the multi-modal dialog | | | | | | Model | PhotoChat | Image-Chat | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------|--------------|------------|-------| | R@1 | Sum(R@1,5,10) | R@1 | Sum(R@1,5) | | | PaCE | 15.2 | 101.5 | 51.9 | 128.7 | | PaCEonly MultiNonDialog | 10.9 | 73.6 | 47.1 | 116.9 | | PaCEonly MultiDialog | 10.7 | 74.3 | 46.2 | 117.3 | | Table 10: Ablation test results on the multi-modal dialog | | | | | ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we proposed PaCE, a unified, structured, compositional multi-modal dialogue pretraining framework, which adopted a divide-andconquer strategy. We first break down the complicated multi-modal dialogue generation task into several sub-capabilities, which could be learned in an easier way. Then, the solutions to the subcapabilities were combined to obtain an effective and efficient solution to each downstream multimodal dialogue task. Experimental results on eight benchmark datasets demonstrated that PaCE achieved new state-of-the-art performances. ## Discussion PaCE adopts a flexible model structure that decomposes complex multimodal dialogues into basic sub-capabilities. As a result, it can be trained progressively on different data and exhibits excellent expandability, making it applicable to new tasks. An additional advantage is that it aligns well with various attempts to enhance performance in terms of interpretability. However, we believe that there are still many aspects of PACE that are worth exploring. First is the exploration of incorporating additional modalities and investigating whether the self-attention layer can effectively handle a broader range of modalities for a unified representation. Another aspect worth exploring is the development of a more efficient approach for adapting multimodal models to diverse downstream applications, eliminating the necessity to fine-tune all parameters of the model. Furthermore, given the substantial variations in the model networks employed for text generation and image generation in contemporary research, exploring the integration of multi-modal generation into a unified framework is a worthwhile endeavor. ## Limitations To better analyze the limitations of PaCE, we carry out an analysis of the errors made by PaCE on the PhotoChat and SIMMC2.0 test sets. We reveal several reasons for the errors, which can be divided into the following categories. **First**, since there are many similar images in the datasets, PaCE fail to distinguish some gold image from similar candidates. This may be because we do not design an explicit fine-grained reasoning module to capture the details of images and texts. For example, for the context mentions "*I and my dad both have a camera*", our model can capture the entity "*camera*", but fails to reason the fact that there should be two cameras. One possible solution is to introduce a deep reasoning and comprehension strategy to empower the model with excellent reasoning ability. Second, due to the lack of fine-grained structural understanding of the images, the sentences generated by PaCE suffer from identifying the relative positions of entities. For example, PaCE may have difficulties recognizing the fact that the right side of a yellow shirt is black pants. This issue is particularly severe in SIMMC as there are many entities in the pictures and spatial descriptions of entities in the responses. One possible idea is to extract the relative positions of objects mentioned in the conversation as auxiliary data to guide the model's generation. ## Acknowledgements Min Yang was partially supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFF0902100), Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Program (KQTD20190929172835662), Shenzhen Basic Research Foundation (JCYJ20210324115614039 and JCYJ20200109113441941), and NSFC (no. 92270122). This work was supported by Alibaba Group through Alibaba Innovative Research Program. ## References Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. 2022. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:23716–23736. Hangbo Bao, Wenhui Wang, Li Dong, Qiang Liu, Owais Khan Mohammed, Kriti Aggarwal, Subhojit Som, and Furu Wei. 2021. Vlmo: Unified vision-language pre-training with mixture-ofmodality-experts. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02358*. Feilong Chen, Xiuyi Chen, Can Xu, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Learning to ground visual objects for visual dialog. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.06013*. Jaemin Cho, Jie Lei, Hao Tan, and Mohit Bansal. 2021. Unifying vision-and-language tasks via text generation. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 1931–1942. PMLR. Abhishek Das, Satwik Kottur, Khushi Gupta, Avi Singh, Deshraj Yadav, José MF Moura, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. Visual dialog. In *Proceedings of* the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 326–335. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805*. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2010.11929. Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, et al. 2022. Glam: Efficient scaling of language models with mixture-of-experts. In *International Conference on* Machine Learning, pages 5547–5569. PMLR. Fartash Faghri, David J Fleet, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Sanja Fidler. 2017. Vse++: Improving visualsemantic embeddings with hard negatives. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1707.05612. William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. Jiazhan Feng, Qingfeng Sun, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Yaming Yang, Chongyang Tao, Dongyan Zhao, and Qingwei Lin. 2022. Mmdialog: A large-scale multi-turn dialogue dataset towards multi-modal open-domain conversation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05719*. Wanwei He, Yinpei Dai, Yinhe Zheng, Yuchuan Wu, Zheng Cao, Dermot Liu, Peng Jiang, Min Yang, Fei Huang, Luo Si, et al. 2022. Galaxy: A generative pre-trained model for task-oriented dialog with semisupervised learning and explicit policy injection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 10749–10757. Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. 2020. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. *Advances* in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20179– 20191. Binyuan Hui, Ruiying Geng, Qiyu Ren, Binhua Li, Yongbin Li, Jian Sun, Fei Huang, Luo Si, Pengfei Zhu, and Xiaodan Zhu. 2021. Dynamic hybrid relation exploration network for cross-domain contextdependent semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13116–13124. Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In *International Conference on* Machine Learning, pages 4904–4916. PMLR. Wonjae Kim, Bokyung Son, and Ildoo Kim. 2021. Vilt: Vision-and-language transformer without convolution or region supervision. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 5583–5594. PMLR. Satwik Kottur, Seungwhan Moon, Alborz Geramifard, and Babak Damavandi. 2021. Simmc 2.0: A taskoriented dialog dataset for immersive multimodal conversations. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08667*. Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, et al. 2017. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. International journal of computer vision, 123(1):32– 73. Jonáš Kulhánek, Vojtech Hudecek, Tomáš Nekvinda, and Ondrej Dušek. 2021. Augpt: Dialogue with pre-trained language models and data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.05126. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2019. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1909.11942. Hung Le, Doyen Sahoo, Nancy F Chen, and Steven CH Hoi. 2019. Multimodal transformer networks for end-to-end video-grounded dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.01166. Haeju Lee, Oh Joon Kwon, Yunseon Choi, Minho Park, Ran Han, Yoonhyung Kim, Jinhyeon Kim, Youngjune Lee, Haebin Shin, Kangwook Lee, et al. 2022. Learning to embed multi-modal contexts for situated conversational agents. In *Findings of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 813–830. Kuang-Huei Lee, Xi Chen, Gang Hua, Houdong Hu, and Xiaodong He. 2018. Stacked cross attention for image-text matching. In *Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV)*, pages 201–216. Nyoungwoo Lee, Suwon Shin, Jaegul Choo, Ho-Jin Choi, and Sung-Hyun Myaeng. 2021. Constructing multi-modal dialogue dataset by replacing text with semantically relevant images. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2107.08685. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461. Dongxu Li, Junnan Li, Hung Le, Guangsen Wang, Silvio Savarese, and Steven CH Hoi. 2022a. Lavis: A library for language-vision intelligence. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2209.09019. Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022b. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining for unified vision-language understanding and generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12086*. Lizi Liao, Le Hong Long, Zheng Zhang, Minlie Huang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Mmconv: an environment for multimodal conversational search across multiple domains. In *Proceedings of the 44th International* ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 675–684. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In *European conference on computer vision*, pages 740–755. Springer. Yuxing Long, Binyuan Hui, Fulong Ye, Yanyang Li, Zhuoxin Han, Caixia Yuan, Yongbin Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2023. Spring: Situated conversation agent pretrained with multimodal questions from incremental layout graph. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01949*. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101. Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 32. Shikib Mehri, Tejas Srinivasan, and Maxine Eskenazi. 2019. Structured fusion networks for dialog. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1907.10016. Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Chris Brockett, Bill Dolan, Michel Galley, Jianfeng Gao, Georgios P Spithourakis, and Lucy Vanderwende. 2017. Imagegrounded conversations: Multimodal context for natural question and response generation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1701.08251. Vicente Ordonez, Girish Kulkarni, and Tamara Berg. 2011. Im2text: Describing images using 1 million captioned photographs. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 24. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318. Jiaxin Qi, Yulei Niu, Jianqiang Huang, and Hanwang Zhang. 2020. Two causal principles for improving visual dialog. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*, pages 10860–10869. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. *OpenAI* blog, 1(8):9. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® *in Information Retrieval*, 3(4):333–389. Piyush Sharma, Nan Ding, Sebastian Goodman, and Radu Soricut. 2018. Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, image alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2556–2565. Kurt Shuster, Samuel Humeau, Antoine Bordes, and Jason Weston. 2018. Image chat: Engaging grounded conversations. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.00945*. Kurt Shuster, Eric Michael Smith, Da Ju, and Jason Weston. 2020. Multi-modal open-domain dialogue. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01082. Shuzheng Si, Shuang Zeng, and Baobao Chang. 2022. Mining clues from incomplete utterance: A queryenhanced network for incomplete utterance rewriting. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4839–4847. Qingfeng Sun, Yujing Wang, Can Xu, Kai Zheng, Yaming Yang, Huang Hu, Fei Xu, Jessica Zhang, Xiubo Geng, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Multimodal dialogue response generation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2110.08515. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. Peng Wang, An Yang, Rui Men, Junyang Lin, Shuai Bai, Zhikang Li, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2022. Unifying architectures, tasks, and modalities through a simple sequenceto-sequence learning framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03052. Zirui Wang, Jiahui Yu, Adams Wei Yu, Zihang Dai, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Yuan Cao. 2021. Simvlm: Simple visual language model pretraining with weak supervision. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.10904*. Ze Yang, Wei Wu, Huang Hu, Can Xu, Wei Wang, and Zhoujun Li. 2021. Open domain dialogue generation with latent images. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 35, pages 14239–14247. Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01917*. Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Noel Codella, Xiyang Dai, Jianfeng Gao, Houdong Hu, Xuedong Huang, Boxin Li, Chunyuan Li, et al. 2021. Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2111.11432. Xiaoxue Zang, Lijuan Liu, Maria Wang, Yang Song, Hao Zhang, and Jindong Chen. 2021. Photochat: A human-human dialogue dataset with photo sharing behavior for joint image-text modeling. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2108.01453. Jian-Guo Zhang, Kazuma Hashimoto, Chien-Sheng Wu, Yao Wan, Philip S Yu, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2019. Find or classify? dual strategy for slot-value predictions on multi-domain dialog state tracking. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03544*. Yinhe Zheng, Guanyi Chen, Xin Liu, and Jian Sun. 2021. Mmchat: Multi-modal chat dataset on social media. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07154*.  To evaluate PaCE qualitatively, we choose two exemplary conversations from PhotoChat and ImageChat test sets, and illustrate the retrieved responses by PaCE in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Our PaCE model can retrieve highly relevant candidates to the conversation scenario. For the text-to-image (T2I) retrieval task, since the candidate images could be quite similar, it is challenging to retrieve the exact ground-truth image from the candidates. Although PaCE may not obtain the ground-truth image, we can still obtain the relevant candidate images.  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? We put the limitation after section 6. ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? There are no potential risks in our work. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? We sumarize it in section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** In Section 4. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? in Section 2. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. ✗ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. In section 3. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** In Section 5. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? In section 5.2 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? In section 5.2 C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? In section 5.3 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

huang-etal-2023-mvp

{MVP}-Tuning: Multi-View Knowledge Retrieval with Prompt Tuning for Commonsense Reasoning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.750

Recent advances in pre-trained language models (PLMs) have facilitated the development ofcommonsense reasoning tasks. However, existing methods rely on multi-hop knowledgeretrieval and thus suffer low accuracy due toembedded noise in the acquired knowledge. In addition, these methods often attain highcomputational costs and nontrivial knowledgeloss because they encode the knowledge independently of the PLM, making it less relevant to the task and thus resulting in a poorlocal optimum. In this work, we propose MultiView Knowledge Retrieval with Prompt Tuning (MVP-Tuning). MVP-Tuning leveragessimilar question-answer pairs in the training setto improve knowledge retrieval and employsa single prompt-tuned PLM to model knowledge and input text jointly. We conduct our experiments on five commonsense reasoning QAbenchmarks to show that MVP-Tuning outperforms all other baselines in 4 out of 5 datasetswith less than 2{\%} trainable parameters. MVPTuning even gets a new state-of-the-art resulton OpenBookQA and is number one on theleaderboard.

# Mvp-Tuning: Multi-View Knowledge Retrieval With Prompt Tuning For Commonsense Reasoning Yongfeng Huang1, Yanyang Li1,2**, Yicong Xu**4, Lin Zhang3, Ruyi Gan3, Jiaxing Zhang3**, Liwei Wang**1∗ 1Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 2SenseTime Group Inc. 3International Digital Economy Academy (IDEA), China 4Microsoft Cognitive Services Research {yfhuang22, yyli21, lwwang}@cse.cuhk.edu.hk yicxu@microsoft.com,{zhanglin, ganruyi, zhangjiaxing}@idea.edu.cn ## Abstract Recent advances in pre-trained language models (PLMs) have facilitated the development of commonsense reasoning tasks. However, existing methods rely on multi-hop knowledge retrieval and thus suffer low accuracy due to embedded noise in the acquired knowledge. In addition, these methods often attain high computational costs and nontrivial knowledge loss because they encode the knowledge independently of the PLM, making it less relevant to the task and resulting in a poor local optimum. In this work, we propose Multi-View Knowledge Retrieval with Prompt Tuning (MVP-Tuning). Our MVP-Tuning leverages similar questionanswer pairs in training set to improve knowledge retrieval and employs a single prompttuned PLM to model knowledge and input text jointly. We conduct our experiments on five commonsense reasoning QA benchmarks to show that MVP-Tuning outperforms all other baselines in 4 out of 5 datasets with only as most 2% trainable parameters. The ensemble of our MVP-Tuning models even gets a new state-of-the-art performance on OpenBookQA and is ranked first place on the leaderboard1. Our code and data are available2. ## 1 Introduction Endowing machines with human-like commonsense reasoning capabilities has gained increasing interest in natural language processing in recent years (Talmor et al., 2019; Rajpurkar et al., 2018). Large pre-trained language models (Devlin et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020a; Roberts et al., 2020; He et al., 2020) offer unprecedented potential to mine knowledge because of their unique capability in incontext learning. However, given their black-box nature, these models lack essential interpretability, resulting in the embedded knowledge that is always implicit, difficult to interpret, and fragmented. Therefore, people have developed methods to explicitly inject external knowledge, such as knowledge graphs (KG), as contextual knowledge into downstream tasks like commonsense reasoning. The main challenge of the above solution lies in utilizing knowledge to serve individual queries while suffering the scalability issue since there can be millions of nodes in the knowledge graph. Intuitively, how to extract a partial knowledge graph, i.e., a subgraph, effectively and efficiently is crucial. Recent efforts focus on the multi-hop knowledge retrieval strategy (Feng et al., 2020a), which anchors input context entities to KG nodes and obtains relevant subgraphs from these nodes and the corresponding multi-hop neighbors. Knowledge triplets retrieved by multi-hop retrieval need to be directly connected in the knowledge graph and form a path. This process is highly sensitive to the quality of the knowledge graph, e.g., it tends to fail when necessary triplets are distant from the query and even in another subgraph. Therefore, the knowledge extracted by this strategy is often incomplete and biased as the neighbors of the input context entities bound the search span. To this, we propose *multi-view retrieval*, which expands the pool of knowledge triplet candidates with additional highly-related question-answer pairs. This method does not suffer from the limitation of multihop retrieval and is able to connect distant or disjoint triplets via some similarity measurements, resulting in broader and more diverse triplets from the KG. Figure 1 compares these two retrieval strategies. For example, given the question "What are candles good for eliminating?", two retrieved multiview knowledge triplets "(candle, CapableOf, emit 13417  light)" and "(candle, AtLocation, dark)" are sufficient to guide the PLM to reason and output the answer "dark" directly. On the other hand, the conventional multi-hop strategy needs to retrieve three triplets "(dark, Antonym, light)", "(light, Antonym, heavy)", and "(dark, IsA, illumination)", which are much noisier and more challenging to reason. Having extracted the target knowledge, how can we harness this knowledge to serve the ultimate purpose of reasoning? An intuitive way is to employ Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to output node embeddings for KGs and then fuse them with embeddings of other input texts from PLMs (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2019; Feng et al., 2020a; Yasunaga et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021a; Jinhao Jiang and Wen, 2022). Despite being straightforward, this solution inherits critical issues from GNNs, such as over-smoothness. Instead, we explore a new way of encoding knowledge from KGs, simple yet effective. For encoding, we directly combine the retrieved knowledge triplets as texts and concatenate them with other textual information as the input of the PLM. Our approach can alleviate the computational cost and reduce the information loss compared to previous GNNs based approaches. In this paper, our proposed multi-view knowledge retrieval scheme can outperform existing work regarding efficiency and accuracy by a large margin when built with recent successful parameterefficient learning techniques, such as prompttuning (Li and Liang, 2021; Liu et al., 2021c; Lester et al., 2021) with a PLM. Therefore, we name our framework as Multi-View Knowledge Retrieval with Prompt Tuning (MVP-Tuning). The multiview knowledge retrieval strategy brings more accurate knowledge localization with less computational cost. The obtained knowledge is fed into a PLM model to augment the information in text. To further improve the capability of our model, we integrate parameter-efficient learning in this context. In summary, our primary contributions are: - We proposed a multi-view knowledge graph retrieval algorithm that acquires knowledge using similar question-answer pairs as complementary queries. - We point out that the KG encoder is nonessential and propose a simple yet effective unified paradigm, that is, a single PLM jointly models the text and knowledge without any KG encoder, for commonsense reasoning tasks. - We present a systematic study on the effectiveness of prompt learning in commonsense QA, including the impact of prompt length and initialization strategy. - We conduct experiments on five popular commonsense QA benchmarks, including CommonsenseQA, OpenBookQA, SoicalIQA, PIQA, and Riddle-Sense, and compare with extensive baselines. Our MVP-Tuning outperforms other approaches in 4 out of 5 datasets with at most 2% of the trainable parameters of the same-scale PLM. MVP-Tuning also improves previous state-of-the-art results on CommonsenseQA and OpenBookQA under the low-resource setting. We submitted the predictions of our MVP-Tuning model to the leaderboards of CommonsenseQA and OpenBookQA, where it achieves state-of-the-art results in comparison to other models with a similar scale PLM. Our MVP-Tuning ensembled predictions even obtain the best result, to date, on OpenBookQA's leaderboard. ## 2 Related Work GNN-Powered Structured Knowledge Utilization Existing techniques often combine PLMs with a variety of KG encoders to leverage knowledge and context information. There are a number of developed knowledge encoders. Some encode retrieved knowledge using complex neural network designs, like RGCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018), GconAttn (Lin et al., 2019), MHGRN (Feng et al., 2020a), and QAGNN (Yasunaga et al., 2021). Others attempt to build knowledge encoders with simpler designs that exhibit superior performance. GSC (Wang et al., 2021b) creates a basic graph neural counter that beats more complicated approaches, indicating that GNN-based encoders are merely doing simple counting. SAFE (Jinhao Jiang and Wen, 2022) encodes relation routes using a simple twolayer MLP. However, these approaches encode text and knowledge independently. GreaseLM (Zhang et al., 2022), on the other hand, integrates the representations of both KG and PLM encoders over multiple layers of modal interaction processes. Prompt-Based Unstructured Knowledge Utilization A line of research has investigated the use of unstructured knowledge sources, such as Wikipedia and dictionaries, for commonsense reasoning (Xu et al., 2021b; Lv et al., 2020a). These methods append related knowledge to the input context as a prompt to improve commonsense reasoning. For example, Bhakthavatsalam et al. (2020) combined knowledge from ConceptNet, WordNet, and other corpora to create 3.5 million generic statements and show that this knowledge can enhance both accuracy and explanation quality. Other studies have focused on comparing different methods for incorporating external knowledge from relevant corpora (Mitra et al., 2020). Additionally, there have been efforts to generate missing facts from PLMs to supplement external knowledge sources. For instance, Bosselut et al. (2019) fine-tuned a PLM on ATOMIC for commonsense knowledge graph completion, and Liu et al. (2021a) prompted GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020b) directly to obtain knowledge for reasoning. Prompt Learning Prompt learning is a simple yet effective approach to adapt a PLM for specific downstream tasks by adding prompt tokens in the input. A line of prompt learning works utilizes automated search techniques to identify appropriate discrete prompting words (Shin et al., 2020; Deng et al., 2022). In contrast to these discrete prompt  learning methods, there are also a number of works known as soft prompt learning that has been developed. These include Prompt Tuning (Lester et al., 2021), P-tuning (Liu et al., 2021c), PrefixTuning (Li and Liang, 2021), and P-Tuning v2 (Liu et al., 2021b). These approaches use trainable soft prompt tokens to steer PLMs' generation. ## 3 Problem Statement In this work, we study the multiple-choice commonsense question answering (Talmor et al., 2019; Mihaylov et al., 2018). Given a natural language question q and a collection of n response candidates C = {c1, · · · , cn}, the purpose is to pick the most appropriate candidate c ⋆ ∈ C to answer the question q based on the requisite commonsense knowledge. In accordance with previous work (Lin et al., 2019), we address this commonsense reasoning task in a *knowledge-aware* setting that embraces a commonsense knowledge graph (CSKG) as the commonsense knowledge source. An external CSKG can be described formally as a multi-relational graph G = (V, R, E), where V is the set of all concept nodes (e.g., leg and *fire*), R is the set of relation types (e.g., *CapableOf* and IsA), and *E ⊆ V×R×V* is the set of relational edges that connects two concept nodes in the V. Specifically, We employ ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017), which consists of 799,273 nodes and 2,487,003 edges. ## 4 Approach: Mvp-Tuning As shown in Figure 2, MVP-Tuning is based on the PLM and includes the multi-view knowledge retrieval module and the prompt tuning module. We augment the input context with multi-view retrieved knowledge, and the prompt tuning module optimizes the PLM in a parameter-efficiency way. ## 4.1 Multi-View Knowledge Retrieval Module We retrieve knowledge in CSKG from two views: 1) self-view that selects triplets related to the question-choice pair (*q, c*), and 2) consensus-view that retrieves triplets of other question-answer pairs that are semantically similar to (*q, c*). Self-View Knowledge Retrieval Following KEAR (Xu et al., 2021a), we implement self-view knowledge by retrieving the most relevant relation triplet in the CSKG. We denote the self-view knowledge retrieval process as KSV. Given a question-choice pair (q, c), KSV(*q, c*) returns the most relevant triplet (e1*, r, e*2) in ConceptNet as self-view knowledge. The self-view knowledge retrieval process KSV is performed as the following: Firstly, we use the entity linking tool (Loper and Bird, 2002) to find all entities Eq = {e (1) q *, ..., e* (nq) q }, Ec = {e (1) c *, ..., e* (nc) c } appearing in the question q and choice c respectively, where nq and nc are the number of entities in q and c. We filter out entities in Eq and Ec whose lengths do not match the Wiktionary definition. After that, we select the entity with the maximum length in Eq and Ec as the question and choice entity eq and ec 3. Then we find all triplets in ConceptNet containing both eq and ec and choose the one with the maximum total length as retrieved self-view knowledge (e1*, r, e*2). If there is no such triplet, we retrieve all triplets sourcing from the choice entity ec in ConceptNet. Each triplet j's score sj is the product of its confidence wj (given by ConceptNet) and the relation type weight trj : sj = wj · trj = wj ·N Nrj , where rj is the relation type of j, N is the total number of triplets originating from the choice entity ec, and Nrj is the number of triplets having relation rj among these triplets. We select the triplet with the largest score as self-view knowledge (e1*, r, e*2). Consensus-View Knowledge Retrieval Selfview knowledge is obtained by querying KG with the question-choice pair, which is limited in scope. Meanwhile, the knowledge retrieved by conventional multi-hop knowledge retrieval is still restricted or even noisy, as depicted in Section 1. To address this limitation, we propose consensus-view knowledge retrieval with query expansion to improve the retrieval performance. In query expansion, a given query is reformulated by first discovering semantically related queries, and then re-weighting the terms in the original query (Vechtomova and Wang, 2006; Azad and Deepak, 2019; Carpineto and Romano, 2012). In our consensus-view knowledge retrieval, similar question-answer pairs in the training set collectively retrieve more relevant knowledge from KG. We define the consensus-view knowledge retrieval process as KCV. Given a question-choice pair (*q, c*) and the number of retrieved items m, the consensus-view knowledge retrieval process is as follow: We employ BM25 (Robertson et al., 2009) to choose the m most pertinent questionanswer pairs {(q1, a1),(q2, a2), · · · ,(qm, am)} from the training data for the given the questionchoice pair (*q, c*). Then we use the selfview knowledge of these selected questionanswer pairs to construct the consensus-view knowledge of (*q, c*), denoted as KCV(*q, c*) = {KSV(q1, a1), KSV(q2, a2), · · · , KSV(qm, am)}. Constructing Multi-View Knowledge Augmented Input Given the question q and its related choices (c1, · · · , ci, · · · , cn), we first obtain the self-view knowledge KSV(*q, c*i) and the consensus-view knowledge KCV(*q, c*i) for each possible question-choice pair (*q, c*i). We then append the corresponding multi-view knowledge KSV(*q, c*i) and KCV(*q, c*i) to each (*q, c*i) to construct its augmented text representation texti = q⊕ci⊕KSV(q, ci)⊕KCV(*q, c*i), where ⊕ denotes the string concatenation. Finally, we merge the augmented text representations of all question-choice pairs as the multi-view knowledge augmented input text = text1 ⊕ text2 *⊕ · · · ⊕* textn for predicting the answer of the question q. ## 4.2 Prompt Tuning Module To perform parameter-efficient learning, our MVPTuning framework employs prompt tuning (Li and Liang, 2021; Liu et al., 2021b; Lester et al., 2021) of the pre-trained Transformer encoder. The core mechanism of prompt tuning is to learn soft prompts, which steers a frozen pretrained language model to perform specific downstream tasks. Transformers The Transformer encoder consists of a list of layers, each of which contains a multihead self-attention module and a feed-forward network (FFN). In the multi-head self-attention, each attention head is defined as: Attention($x$) = softmax($\frac{QK^{T}}{\sqrt{d_{k}}}$)$V$ (1) where $d_{k}$ is the hidden size, $Q=xW_{q},K=$ xWk, V = xWv and Wq ∈ R dk×dk , Wk ∈ R dk×dk , Wv ∈ R dk×dk are three learnable weight matrices. The multi-head self-attention performs N heads in parallel and concatenates their outputs to form the input to FFN. FFN is defined as: $$\mathrm{FFN}(x)=\operatorname*{max}(0,x W_{1}+b_{1})W_{2}+b_{2}\quad\quad(2)$$ where W1 ∈ R dk×dh , W2 ∈ R dh×dk are weights, b1 ∈ R dh , b2 ∈ R dk are biases and dh is the FFN hidden size. P-Tuning v2 In our MVP-Tuning framework, we choose P-Tuning v2 (Liu et al., 2021b) as the prompt tuning technique because it shows decent performance on NLU tasks. P-Tuning v2 prepends a trainable prefix key and prefix value to the key K and value V in Eq. 1 at each layer, respectively. Concretely, we denote the original key and value at the l-th Transformer encoder layer as Kl and Vl. We then define a learnable prefix key Pk ∈ R L×np×dk and prefix value Pv ∈ R L×np×dk , where L is the number of layers and np is the length. These prefix key and value will be added to Kl and Vl via K ′ l = [P (l) k; Kl], V ′ l = [P (l) v ; Vl], where [; ] is the concatenation along the first dimension, P (l) k ∈ R np×dk and P (l) v ∈ R np×dk is the corresponding prefix key and value for l-th layer in Pk and Pv. K′ l and V′ l will replace the original Kl and Vl when performing the multi-head self-attention. During training, we only optimize Pk and Pv and freeze the pretrained model. Previous work (Lester et al., 2021) suggests that the initialization of prefix key and value is crucial for the downstream task performance. We thus explore the following two initialization strategies: Random Initialization Pk and Pv are randomly initialized by a Gaussian distribution. Relation Augmentation Initialization To introduce additional relation information, we initialize Pk and Pv by the relation embeddings. We list all CSKG relations and encode them using the word embeddings from the pretrained model. Since a relation could contain multiple words, we average all word embeddings of one relation to build a fixedlength relation embedding. The concatenation of all relation embeddings Pr ∈ R np×dk will pass through a MLP to obtain Pk and Pv (Liu et al., 2021b), where the prefix length np now equals the number of relations in CSKG. ## 5 Experiments As shown in Table 1, we experiment on five commonsense reasoning multiple-choice QA datasets. | Task | Train | Dev | Test | |----------------------------|---------|-------|--------| | CommonsenQA official split | 9,741 | 1,221 | - | | CommonsenQA in-house split | 8,500 | 1,221 | 1,241 | | OpenBookQA | 4,957 | 500 | 500 | | SocialIQA | 33,410 | 1,954 | - | | PIQA | 16,113 | 1,838 | - | | RiddleSenseQA | 3,510 | 1,021 | - | Table 1: Statistics of the datasets. "-" denotes the unused or unavailable dataset split in our experiments. ## 5.1 Datasets OpenBookQA (Mihaylov et al., **2018)** is a 4way multiple-choice QA dataset consisting of elementary scientific questions intended to evaluate science commonsense knowledge. We report the accuracy of our final system on the official test set (Mihaylov and Frank, 2018) and submit the test results to the leaderboard. CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., **2019)** is a 5way multiple-choice QA dataset. It is constructed using ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017). CommonsenseQA has two split schemes, including in-house split (Lin et al., 2019) and official split (Talmor et al., 2019). We therefore report results in both the in-house split4and the official split. The test set of CommonsenseQA is not publicly available, so we submit our model's predictions to the official leaderboard to evaluate the test accuracy. SocialIQA (Sap et al., **2019)** is a 3-way multiplechoice QA dataset used to assess social commonsense knowledge comprehension. The test set is unavailable. For a fair comparison, we report results on the development set (Shwartz et al., 2020). PIQA (Bisk et al., **2020)** is a set of binary-choice questions about physical common sense. Because PIQA does not release the test set, all assessments are based on the development set. Riddle-Sense (Lin et al., **2021)** is a five-choice QA dataset regarding commonsense riddles. Since the Riddle-Sense test is hidden, evaluations are carried out on its development set. ## 5.2 Implementation And Training Details For fair comparison, our MVP-Tuning method utilizes the same pretrained models as the above benchmark. We primarily seed our MVP-Tuning method with the RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019b) model for all datasets. We additionally test AristoRoBERTa (Clark et al., 2020) 5for OpenBookQA. 4In the in-house split, the results of test set are reported based on the model with the best performance in the dev set. 5OpenBookQA provides an extra corpus of scientific facts in a textual form. AristoRoBERTa uses the facts correspond- Methods RoBERTa-large AristoRoBERTa **Unfreezed Param. Model Param.** Mplm + Mkg Nplm + Nkg Fine-Tuned PLM (w/o KG) 64.80 (±2.37) 78.40 (±1.64) 355M+0 355M+0 + RN (Santoro et al., 2017) 65.20 (±1.18) 75.35 (±1.39) 355M+210k 355M+819M + RGCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018) 62.45 (±1.57) 74.60 (±2.53) 355M+365k 355M+819M + GconAttn (Lin et al., 2019) 64.75 (±1.48) 71.80 (±1.21) 355M+700k 355M+819M + MHGRN (Feng et al., 2020b) 66.85 (±1.19) 80.6 355M+547k 355M+819M + QA-GNN (Yasunaga et al., 2021) 67.80 (±2.75) 82.77 (±1.56) 355M+2.85M 355M+821M + GreaseLM (Zhang et al., 2022) 68.80 (±1.75)⋆ 84.80 355M+3.6M 355M+822M + GSC (Wang et al., 2021b) 70.33 (±0.81) 86.67 (±0.46) 355M+3k 355M+3k + SAFE (Jinhao Jiang and Wen, 2022) 69.2 87.13 355M+4.7k 355M+4.7k MVP-Tuning (prefix length=120) 71.00 (±0.21) 87.50 (±**0.10)** 6.07M+0 355M+0 Table 2: Test accuracy comparison on OpenBookQA. Our reproduced results are denoted with ⋆. Mplm and Mkg represent trainable parameters of PLM encoder and KG encoder respectively. Nplm and Mkg represent model size of PLM encoder and KG encoder respectively. Methods Test Acc **Unfreezed Param. Model Param.** Mplm + Mkg Nplm + Nkg AristoRoBERTa + GreaseLM 84.80 355M+3.6M 355M+822M AristoRoBERTa + GSC 86.67 (±0.46) 355M+3k 355M+3k AristoRoBERTa + SAFE 87.13 355M+4.7k 355M+4.7k AristoRoBERTa + MVP-Tuning (prefix length=120) 87.50 (±0.10) 6.07M+0 355M+0 DeBERTa-xlarge + MVP-Tuning (prefix length=120) 87.63 (±0.17) 11.8M+0 900M+0 DeBERTa-xxlarge + MVP-Tuning (prefix length=120) 91.3 (±**0.10)** 17.7M+0 1.5B+0 Table 3: Test accuracy on OpenBookQA test set with different PLMs. Mplm and Mkg represent trainable parameters of PLM encoder and KG encoder respectively. Nplm and Mkg represent model size of PLM encoder and KG encoder respectively. To evaluate the effectiveness of our method, we test MVP-Tuning with larger PLMs, such as DeBERTaxlarge and DeBERTa-xxlarge (He et al., 2020). Detailed hyperparameter setting can be found in Appendix A.1. ## 5.3 Baselines | Methods | Test | |---------------------------------------------------|--------| | AristoRoBERTa | 77.8 | | KF + SIR (Banerjee and Baral, 2020) | 80.0 | | AristoRoBERTa + PG (Wang et al., 2020) | 80.2 | | AristoRoBERTa + MHGRN (Feng et al., 2020b) | 80.6 | | Albert + KB | 81.0 | | T5* (Raffel et al., 2020) | 83.2 | | AristoRoBERTa + QAGNN | 82.8 | | AristoRoBERTa + GreaseLM | 84.8 | | AristoRoBERTa + GSC | 87.4 | | UnifiedQA (Khashabi et al., 2020) | 87.2 | | GenMC (Huang et al., 2022) | 89.8 | | GenMC (ensemble) (Huang et al., 2022) | 92.0 | | X-reasoner | 94.2 | | AristoRoBERTa + MVP-Tuning (prefix length=120) | 87.6 | | DeBERTa-xxlarge + MVP-Tuning (prefix length=120) | 91.2 | | MVP-Tuning (ensemble) | 95.2 | | Table 4: Test accuracy on OpenBookQA leaderboard. | | Fine-tuned PLMs We fine-tune RoBERTa-large to study the impact of vanilla fine-tuned PLM, which does not use any KG and is only fed with the question and choices. For the OpenBookQA, ing to each question, prepared by Clark et al. (2020), as an additional input to the QA context. we also fine-tune AristoRoBERTa. PLM+KG Models combine PLMs with extra GNN-based KG encoders. With the same fine-tuned PLM, we evaluate eight KG encoder variants, including RN (Santoro et al., 2017), RGCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018), GconAttn (Lin et al., 2019), MHGRN (Feng et al., 2020a), QAGNN (Yasunaga et al., 2021), GSC (Wang et al., 2021b), GreaseLM (Zhang et al., 2022) and SAFE (Jinhao Jiang and Wen, 2022). Details can be seen in Appendix A.2. ## 5.4 Main Results Results on OpenBookQA According to Table 2, MVP-Tuning outperforms the current PLM+KG methods in either RoBERTa-large or AristoRoBERTa setting. Although this improvement seems to be minor, it is achieved with no more than 2% trainable parameters (6.02M for MVPTuning vs. 355M for Fine-tuned PLM). MVPTuning allows us to use a larger PLM with a low training cost. Table 3 shows that the test performance of MVP-Tuning with DeBERTa-xxlarge is 4% better than the best PLM+KG model, while having 20× fewer trainable parameters (17.7M vs. 355M). Compared to other systems on the leaderboard of OpenbookQA (Table 4), our MVPTuning with DeBERTa-xxlarge ranks 3rd with only | Methods | Official Dev | In-house Dev | In-house Test | Unfreezed Param. | Model Param. | |-------------------------------------|----------------|----------------|------------------------|--------------------|----------------| | Acc. | Acc. | Acc. | Mplm + Mkg | Nplm + Nkg | | | Fine-Tuned PLM (w/o KG) | 77.15 (±0.35)⋆ | 73.07 (±0.45) | 68.69 (±0.56) | 355M+0 | 355M+0 | | + RN (Santoro et al., 2017) | 76.00 (±0.65)⋆ | 74.57 (±0.91) | 69.08 (±0.21) | 355M+210k | 355M+819M | | + RGCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018) | 77.07 (±0.14)⋆ | 72.69 (±0.19) | 68.41 (±0.66) | 355M+365k | 355M+819M | | + GconAttn (Lin et al., 2019) | 77.56 (±0.27)⋆ | 72.61 (±0.39) | 68.59 (±0.96) | 355M+700k | 355M+819M | | + MHGRN (Feng et al., 2020b) | 79.52 (±0.15)⋆ | 74.45 (±0.10) | 71.11 (±0.81) | 355M+547k | 355M+819M | | + QA-GNN (Yasunaga et al., 2021) | 78.77 (±0.16)⋆ | 76.54 (±0.21) | 73.41 (±0.92) | 355M+2.85M | 355M+821M | | + SAFE (Jinhao Jiang and Wen, 2022) | 78.97 (±0.29)⋆ | 76.93 (±0.37)⋆ | 74.03 / 73.68 (±0.43)⋆ | 355M+4.7k | 355M+4.7k | | + GreaseLM (Zhang et al., 2022) | 79.44 (±0.43)⋆ | 78.5 (±0.5) | 74.2 (±0.4) | 355M+3.6M | 355M+822M | | + GSC (Wang et al., 2021b) | 80.43 (±0.21)⋆ | 79.11 (±0.22) | 74.48 (±0.41) | 355M+3k | 355M+3k | | MVP-Tuning (prefix length=100) | 83.29 (±0.13) | 81.13 (±0.11) | 75.89 (±0.19) | 4.92M+0 | 355M+0 | | Methods | Single | Ensemble | | | | |----------------------------------------------|----------|-------------|------------|-------------|------------| | RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019a) | 72.1 | 72.5 | | | | | RoBERTa+FreeLB (Zhu et al., 2019) (ensemble) | 72.2 | 73.1 | | | | | RoBERTa+HyKAS (Ma et al., 2019) | 73.2 | - | | | | | RoBERTa+KE (ensemble) | - | 73.3 | | | | | RoBERTa+KEDGN (ensemble) | 72.5 | 74.4 | | | | | RoBERTa+MHGRN (Feng et al., 2020b) | 75.4 | - | | | | | RoBERTa + QA-GNN(Yasunaga et al., 2021) | 76.1 | - | | | | | RoBERTa + GSC(Wang et al., 2021b) | 76.2 | - | | | | | Albert (Lan et al., 2019) | - | 76.5 | | | | | Albert+PG (Wang et al., 2020) | 75.6 | 78.2 | | | | | ALBERT+HGN(Yan et al., 2020) | 77.3 | 80.0 | | | | | XLNet+GraphReason (Lv et al., 2020b) | 75.3 | - | | | | | UnifiedQA (11B) (Khashabi et al., 2020) | 79.1 | - | | | | | RoBERTa-large + MVP-Tuning | 78.4 | - | | | | | Table 6: CommonsenseQA leaderboard result. | Methods | SocialIQA | PhysQA | RiddleSense | | | Fine-Tuned PLM | 78.25 | 77.53 | 60.72 | | | | + GcoAttn | 78.86 | 78.24 | 61.77 | | | | + MHGRN | 78.11 | 77.15 | 63.27 | | | | + QAGNN | 78.10 | 78.24 | 63.39⋆ | | | | + GreaseLM | 77.89⋆ | 78.02⋆ | 63.88⋆ | | | | + GSC | 78.61⋆ | 78.40⋆ | 64.07⋆ | | | | + SAFE | 78.86 | 79.43 | 63.78⋆ | | | | MVP-Tuning | 79.12 | 78.94 | 64.54 | | | | Table | 7: | Performance | comparison | on | SocialIQA, | | PhysQA, and RiddelSense (Dev accuracy). Our reproduced results are denoted with ⋆ . | | | | | | 17.7M trainable parameters, while most of the other QA systems are built on the T5 model with 11B trainable parameters. Moreover, our ensembled MVP-Tuning6rank top-1 to date. We note that the runner-up with a public technical report, GENMCensemble (Huang et al., 2022), combines 7 finetuned T5-11B models and has 4000 times more trainable parameters than ours. Table 4 also indicates that our MVP-Tuning with AristoRoBERTa performs better than the current GNN-based QA methods with the same scale PLMs. Results on CommonsenseQA We compared our MVP-Tuning with existing PLM+KG models and fine-tuned PLMs. All of them are based on the RoBERTa-large model. As we can see in Table 5, MVP-Tuning shows a constant improvement under three evaluation settings, with 2.04% higher mean accuracy on the official dev split, 2.02% higher mean accuracy on in-house dev split, and 1.41% higher mean accuracy on the in-house test split, all without a KG encoder and with no more than 2% (4.92M vs. 355M) trainable parameters of PLM. Moreover, the variance of MVP-Tuning is smaller than the baselines, which implies the 6We apply MVP-Tuning to DeBERTaV3-large, AristoRoBERTa, DeBERTa-xxlarge, and UniMC-DeBERTaxxlarge (Yang et al., 2022) and ensemble their predictions. robustness of our method. We also submit our MVP-Tuning model based on RoBERTa-large to CommonsenseQA's official leaderboard. As can be seen from Table 6, MVP-Tuning offers a nontrivial advantage over every other GNN-based QA system with a comparable scale PLM. Results on Other QA Datasets To further assess the effectiveness of the proposed MVP-Tuning, we also compare our method to the aforementioned baselines on other commonsense reasoning datasets from different domains or tasks. As shown in Table 7, our MVP-Tuning obtains the best performance in most cases, which indicates that our approach is generally effective for various commonsense reasoning datasets or tasks in a unified and parameter-efficient way. ## 6 Analysis 6.1 Low-Resource Setting To test the robustness of MVP-Tuning, we examine its performance in low-resource settings, with three different proportions of training data, i.e., 5%, 10% and 20%, in CommonsenseQA and OpenBookQA. For the CommonsenseQA, we still use the in-house split setting. We follow SAFE (Jinhao Jiang and Wen, 2022) setting to report the average test per- | Methods | CommonsenseQA | OpenBookQA | | | | | |---------------|-----------------|--------------|-------------|-----------|------------|------------| | (%, shots) | (5%, 425) | (10%, 850) | (20%, 1700) | (5%, 298) | (10%, 498) | (20%, 991) | | RoBERTa-large | 29.66 | 42.84 | 58.47 | 37.00 | 39.4 | 41.47 | | + RGCN | 24.41 | 43.75 | 59.44 | 38.67 | 37.53 | 43.67 | | + GconAttn | 21.92 | 49.83 | 60.09 | 38.60 | 36.13 | 43.93 | | + RN | 23.77 | 34.09 | 59.90 | 33.73 | 35.93 | 41.40 | | + MHGRN | 29.01 | 32.02 | 50.23 | 38.00 | 36.47 | 39.73 | | + QA-GNN | 32.95 | 37.77 | 50.15 | 33.53 | 35.07 | 42.40 | | + GreaseLM | 22.80⋆ | 56.16⋆ | 63.09⋆ | 39.00⋆ | 39.60⋆ | 42.20⋆ | | + GSC | 31.02⋆ | 35.07⋆ | 65.83⋆ | 29.60⋆ | 41.80⋆ | 42.40⋆ | | + SAFE | 36.45 | 56.51 | 65.16 | 38.80 | 41.20 | 44.93 | | + MVP-Tuning | 48.99 | 61.16 | 67.12 | 39.60 | 49.00 | 56.00 | Methods CommonSenseQA OpenbookQA Input Text 76.82 80.04 + Self-View Know. 80.42 86.8 + Consensus-View Know. 78.46 85.4 + Multi-Hop Know 79.11 84.0 + Multi-View Know. **83.29 87.6** Table 9: Performance of different knowledge in RoBERTa-large on the CommonSenseQA official dev set and the OpenBookQA test set. Initialization Strategy CommonSenseQA OpenbookQA Random Init. 82.47 87.0 Relations Augmentation Init. 82.39 86.2 Table 10: Performance of two prefix initialization strategies with RoBERTa-large on the CommonSenseQA official dev set and the OpenBookQA test set. The prefix length here is 34, as there are 34 relation types in CSKG. formance of three runs, and the best results are highlighted in bold. According to Table 8, our MVP-Tuning consistently outperforms other approaches on different training data sizes, which shows the remarkable low-resource capability of our method. And we observe that our MVP-Tuning performs the best when the number of shots is approximately between 500 and 1000, which obtains an improvement of over 5% accuracy. ## 6.2 Ablation Study We conduct the ablation study on the proposed MVP-Tuning. For the multi-view knowledge retrieval, we augment the input text with self-view knowledge, consensus-view knowledge, and multiview knowledge separately, then evaluate their performance on various datasets. In addition, we also examine the influence of the number of retrieved consensus-view knowledge. For the prompt-tuning module, we explore the influence of the prefix initialization strategy and prefix length. Effect of Different Types of Knowledge According to Table 9, multi-view knowledge can provide the most comprehensive and diverse information for commonsense reasoning QA tasks, and thus achieve the best result. Consensus-view knowledge performs worse than self-view knowledge, suggesting that although consensus-view knowledge is complementary to self-view knowledge, it still misses some important knowledge. We further evaluate the performance of multi-hop knowledge. Our findings reveal that multi-hop knowledge exhibits inferior performance not only in comparison to multi-hop knowledge but also when compared to self-view knowledge. These comparative results demonstrate the efficacy of multi-view retrieval as a retrieval technique. Effect of the Quantity of Retrieved ConsensusView Knowledge Figure 3 shows the impact of the quantity of consensus-view knowledge retrieved in MVP-Tuning. The performance generally improves with more consensus-view knowledge, but too much consensus-view information introduces noises that ultimately hurt performance. Effect of Prefix Initialization Strategies We compare two prompt tuning module initialization strategies in Table 10. Random initialization slightly outperforms relation augmentation initialization, indicating that the basic prompt tuning is already a good baseline for MVP-Tuning. Effect of the Number of Soft Prefix Tokens We studied the effect of the number of soft prefix tokens. Figure 4 indicates that our system is not sensitive to the length of soft prefix. Case Study We also provide some examples in Appendix A.4 to illustrate the effectiveness of our multi-view knowledge retrieval. ## 7 Conclusion In this work, we propose MVP-Tuning, a simple and effective approach to building a strong com-  monsense reasoning QA system. It strengthens the conventional knowledge retrieval results via multi-view knowledge and unifies the modeling of input text and retrieved knowledge in a single prompt-tuned PLM. Extensive experiments show the superiority of MVP-Tuning, as it beats other sophisticated approaches in 4 out of 5 popular commonsense QA benchmarks while having less than 2% trainable parameters. MVP-Tuning achieves a new state-of-the-art performance in OpenBookQA and wins first place in the leaderboard. ## Limitation This paper presents the MVP-Tuning framework, which combines multi-view knowledge retrieval with prompt tuning and incorporates retrieved knowledge in a simple KG-encoder-free paradigm. However, there are limitations to our approach. Firstly, multi-view knowledge consists of self-view and consensus-view knowledge, which are one-hop triplets in the knowledge graph. However, not all question-choice pairs have one-hop triplets, leading to null knowledge being retrieved. Additionally, excessive consensus-view knowledge can lead to noisy retrieved knowledge. Therefore, our knowledge retrieval system needs further improvement to obtain sufficient, high-quality knowledge. Secondly, we focus on the empirical study of prompt tuning in commonsense reasoning tasks. Although we conduct extensive experiments, including initialization schemes and prefix token length, we do not fully understand the mechanism behind prompt tuning and sometimes experience unstable performance. Although prompt tuning has been proven to be an efficient tuning paradigm for commonsense reasoning tasks, it requires further exploration. ## Acknowledgements Liwei Wang is also a Principal Investigator of Centre for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence Limited (CPII). This work is supported in part by CPII, in part by the UGC under Research Matching Grant ## References Hiteshwar Kumar Azad and Akshay Deepak. 2019. Query expansion techniques for information retrieval: a survey. *Information Processing & Management*, 56(5):1698–1735. Pratyay Banerjee and Chitta Baral. 2020. Knowledge fusion and semantic knowledge ranking for open domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03101. Sumithra Bhakthavatsalam, Chloe Anastasiades, and Peter Clark. 2020. Genericskb: A knowledge base of generic statements. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2005.00660. Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan LeBras, Jianfeng Gao, and Yejin Choi. 2020. PIQA: reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 7432– 7439. Antoine Bosselut, Hannah Rashkin, Maarten Sap, Chaitanya Malaviya, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Comet: Commonsense transformers for automatic knowledge graph construction. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1906.05317. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020a. Language models are few-shot learners. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 33:1877–1901. Tom B Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020b. Language models are few-shot learners. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165*. Claudio Carpineto and Giovanni Romano. 2012. A survey of automatic query expansion in information retrieval. *Acm Computing Surveys (CSUR)*, 44(1):1– 50. Peter Clark, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Daniel Khashabi, Bhavana Mishra, Kyle Richardson, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, Oyvind Tafjord, Niket Tandon, et al. 2020. From 'f'to 'a'on the ny regents science exams: An overview of the aristo project. AI Magazine, 41(4):39–53. Mingkai Deng, Jianyu Wang, Cheng-Ping Hsieh, Yihan Wang, Han Guo, Tianmin Shu, Meng Song, Eric P. Xing, and Zhiting Hu. 2022. Rlprompt: Optimizing discrete text prompts with reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/2205.12548. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805*. Yanlin Feng, Xinyue Chen, Bill Yuchen Lin, Peifeng Wang, Jun Yan, and Xiang Ren. 2020a. Scalable multi-hop relational reasoning for knowledge-aware question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1295–1309. Yanlin Feng, Xinyue Chen, Bill Yuchen Lin, Peifeng Wang, Jun Yan, and Xiang Ren. 2020b. Scalable multi-hop relational reasoning for knowledge-aware question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1295–1309. Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2020. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Zixian Huang, Ao Wu, Jiaying Zhou, Yu Gu, Yue Zhao, and Gong Cheng. 2022. Clues before answers: Generation-enhanced multiple-choice QA. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3272–3287, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wayne Xin Zhao Jinhao Jiang, Kun Zhou and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Great truths are always simple: A rather simple knowledge encoder for enhancing the commonsense reasoning capacity of pre-trained models. In *North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics-Findings(NAACLFindings)*. Daniel Khashabi, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Unifiedqa: Crossing format boundaries with a single qa system. In *Findings of EMNLP*. Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semisupervised classification with graph convolutional networks. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907*. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2019. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1909.11942. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08691*. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2101.00190. Bill Yuchen Lin, Xinyue Chen, Jamin Chen, and Xiang Ren. 2019. Kagnet: Knowledge-aware graph networks for commonsense reasoning. In *Proceedings* of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 2829–2839. Bill Yuchen Lin, Ziyi Wu, Yichi Yang, Dong-Ho Lee, and Xiang Ren. 2021. Riddlesense: Reasoning about riddle questions featuring linguistic creativity and commonsense knowledge. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2101.00376. Jiacheng Liu, Alisa Liu, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Peter West, Ronan Le Bras, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021a. Generated knowledge prompting for commonsense reasoning. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2110.08387. Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021b. P-tuning v2: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning universally across scales and tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07602. Xiao Liu, Yanan Zheng, Zhengxiao Du, Ming Ding, Yujie Qian, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021c. Gpt understands, too. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.10385*. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019a. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019b. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. *CoRR*, abs/1907.11692. Edward Loper and Steven Bird. 2002. Nltk: The natural language toolkit. *arXiv preprint cs/0205028*. Shangwen Lv, Daya Guo, Jingjing Xu, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Daxin Jiang, Guihong Cao, and Songlin Hu. 2020a. Graph-based reasoning over heterogeneous external knowledge for commonsense question answering. Shangwen Lv, Daya Guo, Jingjing Xu, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Daxin Jiang, Guihong Cao, and Songlin Hu. 2020b. Graph-based reasoning over heterogeneous external knowledge for commonsense question answering. *Proceedings* of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):8449–8456. Kaixin Ma, Jonathan Francis, Quanyang Lu, Eric Nyberg, and Alessandro Oltramari. 2019. Towards generalizable neuro-symbolic systems for commonsense question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.14087. Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? A new dataset for open book question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 2381–2391. Todor Mihaylov and Anette Frank. 2018. Knowledgeable reader: Enhancing cloze-style reading comprehension with external commonsense knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.07858. Arindam Mitra, Pratyay Banerjee, Kuntal Kumar Pal, Swaroop Mishra, and Chitta Baral. 2020. How additional knowledge can improve natural language commonsense question answering? Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for SQuAD. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 784–789, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2002.08910. Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® *in Information Retrieval*, 3(4):333–389. Adam Santoro, David Raposo, David G. T. Barrett, Mateusz Malinowski, Razvan Pascanu, Peter W. Battaglia, and Tim Lillicrap. 2017. A simple neural network module for relational reasoning. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30:* Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 4967–4976. Maarten Sap, Hannah Rashkin, Derek Chen, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Social iqa: Commonsense reasoning about social interactions. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 4462–4472. Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In *The Semantic Web - 15th* International Conference, ESWC 2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3-7, 2018, Proceedings, volume 10843, pages 593–607. Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Autoprompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2010.15980. Vered Shwartz, Peter West, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Unsupervised commonsense question answering with self-talk. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4615–4629. Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In *Proceedings of the Thirty-First* AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 4-9, 2017, San Francisco, California, USA, pages 4444–4451. Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149–4158. Olga Vechtomova and Ying Wang. 2006. A study of the effect of term proximity on query expansion. *Journal* of Information Science, 32(4):324–333. Petar Velickovi ˇ c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, ´ Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1710.10903. Kuan Wang, Yuyu Zhang, Diyi Yang, Le Song, and Tao Qin. 2021a. GNN is a counter? revisiting GNN for question answering. *CoRR*, abs/2110.03192. Kuan Wang, Yuyu Zhang, Diyi Yang, Le Song, and Tao Qin. 2021b. Gnn is a counter? revisiting gnn for question answering. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03192*. Peifeng Wang, Nanyun Peng, Filip Ilievski, Pedro Szekely, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Connecting the dots: A knowledgeable path generator for commonsense question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00691. Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, Shuohang Wang, Siqi Sun, Hao Cheng, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Pengcheng He, Michael Zeng, and Xuedong Huang. 2021a. Human parity on commonsenseqa: Augmenting self-attention with external attention. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2112.03254. Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, Ruochen Xu, Yang Liu, Michael Zeng, and Xuedong Huang. 2021b. Fusing context into knowledge graph for commonsense question answering. In *Association for Computational* Linguistics (ACL). Jun Yan, Mrigank Raman, Aaron Chan, Tianyu Zhang, Ryan Rossi, Handong Zhao, Sungchul Kim, Nedim Lipka, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Learning contextualized knowledge structures for commonsense reasoning. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12873*. Ping Yang, Junjie Wang, Ruyi Gan, Xinyu Zhu, Lin Zhang, Ziwei Wu, Xinyu Gao, Jiaxing Zhang, and Tetsuya Sakai. 2022. Zero-shot learners for natural language understanding via a unified multiple choice perspective. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08590*. Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In *NeurIPS*. Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In *Proceedings of* the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 535–546. Xikun Zhang, Antoine Bosselut, Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Percy Liang, Christopher D Manning, and Jure Leskovec. 2022. Greaselm: Graph reasoning enhanced language models for question answering. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08860*. Chen Zhu, Yu Cheng, Zhe Gan, Siqi Sun, Tom Goldstein, and Jingjing Liu. 2019. Freelb: Enhanced adversarial training for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11764. ## A Appendix A.1 Hyperparameter Settings For Datasets And Models Table 11 shows hyperparameter settings for datasets and models. ## A.2 Details Of Plm+Kg Baselines - RN (Santoro et al., 2017) utilizes a relational reasoning structure in order to incorporate information from a commonsense knowledge graph (CSKG). - RGCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018) uses a graph concept attention model to gather entity data from the CSKG. - GconAttn (Lin et al., 2019) enhances the GCN (Kipf and Welling, 2016) by adding relation-specific weights. - MHGRN (Feng et al., 2020a) is a GNN architecture that uses both GNNs and path-based models to reason over the CSKG. - QAGNN (Yasunaga et al., 2021) employs a GAT (Velickovi ˇ c et al. ´ , 2017) to jointly reason over the CSKG and incorporate information from the CSKG into its processing. - GSC (Wang et al., 2021b) utilizes a simple graph neural counter as the KG encoder in order to incorporate knowledge from the CSKG. - GreaseLM (Zhang et al., 2022) combines encoder representations from a pre-trained language model (PLM) and KG encoder through the use of multiple modality interaction layers, allowing for the integration of knowledge from the CSKG into the PLM's processing. - SAFE (Jinhao Jiang and Wen, 2022) merely utilize MLP-based KG encoder to extract features from relation paths in the retrieved multihop knowledge subgraph. ## A.3 Training Curve Analysis We additionally investigate the learning of our MVP-Tuning. We compare the training curves of prompt-tuning and fine-tuning with multi-view knowledge retrieval and a backbone PLM Robertalarge. Figure 5 demonstrates that the fine-tuning approach converges rapidly and starts to overfit soon, where the val loss rises with fluctuations. On the other hand, prefix-tuning converges more slowly and smoothly due to its fewer trainable parameters. ## A.4 Case Study In Table 12, we provide two examples from CSQA to illustrate how the model may reason using retrieved multi-view knowledge to arrive at the correct answer. For the first question, self-knowledge helps eliminate the incorrect answer *be dismembered by a chainsaw*, as "child" is incapable of doing so. The consensus-view knowledge verifies the "Desires" relationship between"kids" and "play", indicating that "play tag" is the right response. Again, self-view knowledge excludes *hurt* from the second question, as there is no link between "hurt" and "having fun" in the CSKG. The consensus-view knowledge contains triplets whose tail entity is a synonym of "pleasure" such as "happiness" and "enjoyment", which helps to affirm the correct answer. This suggests that multi-view knowledge is essential for obtaining the correct answer. Multi-view knowledge retrieval facilitates model reasoning to choose the right candidate.  | Models | Hyperparameter | OpenBookQA | CommonsenseQA | Other QA Datasets | |-----------------------------------------|------------------|--------------|-----------------|---------------------| | Batch Size | 4 | 8 | 8 | | | Number of epochs | 100 | 100 | 100 | | | Learning Rate | 1e-3 | 1e-3 | 1e-3 | | | Optimizer | Adam | Adam | Adam | | | Prefix Token Length | 120 | 100 | 100 | | | Both RoBERTa-large and AristoRoBERTa | Batch Size | 2 | | | | Number of epochs | 100 | | | | | Learning Rate | 2e-4 | | | | | Optimizer | Adam | | | | | Prefix Token Length | 100 | | | | | Both DeBERTa-xlarge and DeBERTa-xxlarge | | | | | | Question | A child wants to play, what would they likely want? | |--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Candidates | A) fall down, B) breathe, C) play tag, D) be dismembered by a chainsaw, E) become adult | | Self-View Knowledge | child CapableOf {fall down, breathe, play tag, become adult} | | Consensus-View Knowledge | children Desires play sports; child CapableOf play video games; children Desires play ball | | Question | What is the feeling of one having fun? | | Candidates | A) smiling, B) pleasure, C) hurt, D) injuries, E) laughter | | Self-View Knowledge | having fun HasSubevent {smiling, laughter}; having fun Causes {pleasure, injuries} | | Consensus-View Knowledge | having fun Causes being happy; having fun Causes happiness; having fun Causes enjoyment; having fun Causes feeling happy} | | Question | What are candles good for eliminating? | |--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Candidates | A) shelf, B) board, C) church, D) table, E) dark | | Multi-View Knowledge Retrieval | Single View Knowledge: candle at location dark Consensus View Knowledge: candle CapableOf {light house, emit light}, candle AtLocation dimly lit room, light source AtLocation candle, lighting match Causes illumination | | Multi-Hop Knowledge Retrieval | One hop knowledge: candle at location dark Two Hop knowledge: light antonym {dark, heavy}, candle isa light, good antonym evil, dark isa illumination | | Question | What happens if someone kisses too long? | | Candidates | A) strong feelings , B) herpes, C) shortness of breath, D) excitement, E) arousal | | Multi-View Knowledge Retrieval | Single View knowledge: kissing causes shortness of breath Consensus View knowledge: kissing Causes {shyness, pleasurable, sexual excitement, happiness}, being in love CausesDesire kiss, person Desires passionate kisses | | Multi-Hop Knowledge Retrieval | One Hop knowledge: kissing causes shortness of breath Two Hop knowledge: long antonym {short, brief}, shortness isa {length, duration}, kissing hassubevent kiss | Table 13: Comparing two knowledge retrieval schemes: multi-view knowledge retrieval and multi-hop knowledge retrieval. We list two questions from the CSQA dataset to compare our retrieved multi-view knowledge and with multi-hop knowledge. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? The last setction ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? This paper does not have such risk since it is a multi-choice question answering setting. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract && Section 1 Introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 5 Experiments ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 5 experiments ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 5 experiments ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 5 experiments ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Section 5 experiments ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 5 experiments ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 5 experiments ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Appendix A.4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 5 experiments The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A.1 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 experiments ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 5 experiments ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** This paper does not involve human annotation or research with human subjects: ✗ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? This paper does not involve human annotation or research with human subjects: ✗ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? This paper does not involve human annotation or research with human subjects: ✗ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? This paper does not involve human annotation or research with human subjects: ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? This paper does not involve human annotation or research with human subjects: ✗ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? This paper does not involve human annotation or research with human subjects:

zhu-etal-2023-peit

{PEIT}: Bridging the Modality Gap with Pre-trained Models for End-to-End Image Translation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.751

Image translation is a task that translates an image containing text in the source language to the target language. One major challenge with image translation is the modality gap between visual text inputs and textual inputs/outputs of machine translation (MT). In this paper, we propose PEIT, an end-to-end image translation framework that bridges the modality gap with pre-trained models. It is composed of four essential components: a visual encoder, a shared encoder-decoder backbone network, a vision-text representation aligner equipped with the shared encoder and a cross-modal regularizer stacked over the shared decoder. Both the aligner and regularizer aim at reducing the modality gap. To train PEIT, we employ a two-stage pre-training strategy with an auxiliary MT task: (1) pre-training the MT model on the MT training data to initialize the shared encoder-decoder backbone network; and (2) pre-training PEIT with the aligner and regularizer on a synthesized dataset with rendered images containing text from the MT training data. In order to facilitate the evaluation of PEIT and promote research on image translation, we create a large-scale image translation corpus ECOIT containing 480K image-translation pairs via crowd-sourcing and manual post-editing from real-world images in the e-commerce domain. Experiments on the curated ECOIT benchmark dataset demonstrate that PEIT substantially outperforms both cascaded image translation systems (OCR+MT) and previous strong end-to-end image translation model, with fewer parameters and faster decoding speed.

# Peit: Bridging The Modality Gap With Pre-Trained Models For End-To-End Image Translation Shaolin Zhu∗, Shangjie Li∗**, Yikun Lei, Deyi xiong**† College of Intelligence and Computing, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China {zhushaolin, sj_li, yikunlei, dyxiong}@tju.edu.cn ## Abstract Image translation is a task that translates an image containing text in the source language to the target language. One major challenge with image translation is the modality gap between visual text inputs and textual inputs/outputs of machine translation (MT). In this paper, we propose PEIT, an end-to-end image translation framework that bridges the modality gap with pre-trained models. It is composed of four essential components: a visual encoder, a shared encoder-decoder backbone network, a vision-text representation aligner equipped with the shared encoder and a cross-modal regularizer stacked over the shared decoder. Both the aligner and regularizer aim at reducing the modality gap. To train PEIT, we employ a twostage pre-training strategy with an auxiliary MT task: (1) pre-training the MT model on the MT training data to initialize the shared encoder-decoder backbone network; and (2) pre-training PEIT with the aligner and regularizer on a synthesized dataset with rendered images containing text from the MT training data. In order to facilitate the evaluation of PEIT and promote research on image translation, we create a large-scale image translation corpus ECOIT containing 480K imagetranslation pairs via crowd-sourcing and manual post-editing from real-world images in the e-commerce domain. Experiments on the curated ECOIT benchmark dataset demonstrate that PEIT substantially outperforms both cascaded image translation systems (OCR+MT) and previous strong end-to-end image translation model, with fewer parameters and faster decoding speed. Codes are available at https: //github.com/lishangjie1/PEIT. ## 1 Introduction Image translation (IT), transforming an image containing text in the source language to an image containing the target translation of the text (Mansimov et al., 2020; Jain et al., 2021), has recently attracted interest (Calixto et al., 2017a; Song et al., 2021). Traditional approaches to IT usually combine optical character recognition (OCR) with machine translation (MT) in a cascaded manner, e.g., Google Translate's Instant Camera1 and Google Lens2. Such pipeline suffers from error propagation and high latency. To address this issue, endto-end (E2E) image translation, analogous to E2E speech translation that directly translates speech in one language into speech/text in another, has been studied recently (Jain et al., 2021; Mansimov et al., 2020). As a cross-modal task, a major challenge of IT is the representation discrepancy across the textual and visual modality. The text contained in an image is in its visual modality, unlike the text input for text-only machine translation. Its meaning also correlates with the visual context in the image. Such visual modality and text-vision correlation make it difficult for IT models to capture the meaning of the text in the context of the image and hence deteriorate translation quality. Previous efforts to E2E IT, e.g., the method presented in (Jain et al., 2021), use ResNet as the visual encoder to encode the latent semantic representations of images, and a pre-trained text-only decoder to generate target translations. Such framework may not be able to sufficiently leverage crossmodal knowledge as it only uses convolutional neural networks (CNN) to model both image and visual text contained in the image and do not explicitly deal with the modality gap issue. To mitigate this problem, we propose PEIT that bridges the modality gap with pre-trained models for end-to-end IT. The PEIT is composed of four essential components: a visual encoder, a shared encoder-decoder backbone network, a vision-text representation aligner and a cross-modal regularizer. We use a two-stage pre-training strategy to pre-train PEIT. In the first pre-training stage, we pre-train an NMT model on a huge amount of MT training data, which is used to initialize the shared encoder-decoder network, transfer knowledge to E2E IT and unify cross-modal representations. Following previous E2E IT practice (Jain et al., 2021; Mansimov et al., 2020), we also pretrain the shared encoder-decoder backbone network on a synthesized dataset with rendered images containing sentences from the MT training data after the network has been initialized by the pre-trained MT model. During the second pre-training stage, the aligner equipped with the shared encoder is jointly trained to align vision-text input representations in the same semantic space via contrastive learning. The regularizer stacked over the shared decoder is also optimized to force the decoder to generate the same translation for the same input in different modalities. To the best of our knowledge, there is no public dataset available for IT task. We hence curate a large-scale image translation dataset in ecommerce domain, ECOIT, containing product images automatically crawled from a Chinese ecommerce website3 paired with post-edited target translations (480K sentences with 3.64M source tokens). We fine-tune PEIT on the constructed ECOIT to perform the IT task. The main contributions of this work are summarized as follows: - We build the first large-scale benchmark dataset ECOIT to facilitate the training and evaluation of E2E image translation. The dataset will be released soon. - We propose PEIT that bridges the vision-text modality gap and transfers knowledge from the MT task to E2E IT as MT has a huge amount of training data. - To well align visual and textual representations in the unified semantic space so as to bridge the modality gap, we propose a visiontext representation aligner equipped with the shared encoder and a cross-modal regularizer stacked over the shared decoder. 3https://www.taobao.com/. - Experiments on the ECOIT dataset show that our model achieves the state-of-the-art results compared to previous strong E2E IT models and cascaded IT systems and demonstrate the robustness of the proposed model in realworld image translation scenarios. ## 2 Related Work Recent years have witnessed increasing attention on multimodal machine translation (MMT) that translates a source sentence into the target language accompanied with an additional modality (Sulubacak et al., 2020). Given the additional modality and its relation to the source sentence, MMT can be roughly divided into image-guided translation (Calixto et al., 2017b; Song et al., 2021), video-guided translation (Wang et al., 2019), speech translation (Han et al., 2021; Fang et al., 2022), IT (Jain et al., 2021). Image-guided MMT aims to leverage visual context to aid textual machine translation (Yang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022a). The significant difference between image-guided translation and image translation is that the latter embeds the source sentence in its visual modality in the image while the former has the image and the source sentence separated and the image is used to provide additional information for translating the source sentence. In contrast to image-guided translation, IT has not yet been fully explored in the literature probably due the lack of publicly available datasets for IT. Both Jain et al. (2021) and Mansimov et al. (2020) propose end-to-end approaches to it. Jain et al. (2021) uses a convolutional encoder to encode the image and Transformer decoder to generate target translation. The end-to-end IT model is able to locate characters in image, performs implicit tokenization on the source text, and then extracts latent semantic representations from them. This model can extract the latent token representations of image and text, and map into a shared space to implement the E2E IT. While they provide an initial definition of the IT task, they neither consider the modality gap nor verify the effect of the proposed models on real-world images. For speech translation (ST), recent efforts have shifted towards end-to-end speech-to-text translation that directly translates a speech in the source language into a text in the target language (Babu et al., 2022; Ao et al., 2022). This is because end-toend ST is of less error propagation and low latency compared with traditional cascaded ST (Inaguma  Table 1: Data statistics of ECOIT et al., 2021; Fang et al., 2022). However, E2E ST suffers from the high cost of speech-to-text parallel data creation. Pre-training and multitask learning strategies have been explored to mitigate this data scarcity issue (Dong et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022). In addition, similar to E2E IT, E2E ST is also confronted with the cross-modality issue, which can be mitigated by sharing the same semantic space for audio and text representations (Han et al., 2021). Partially motivated by E2E ST, we propose an endto-end framework for IT from the perspectives of pre-training with data of the MT task, sharing parameters across modalities, knowledge transfer via multitask learning, attempting to address the data scarcity and modality gap issues in IT. ## 3 **Large-Scale Parallel Image Translation** Dataset: Ecoit In order to facilitate the training and evaluation of E2E IT and hence promote its research, we build a large-scale E-COmmerce parallel IT dataset, ECOIT, based on the Taobao4 e-commerce platform. The reason for building the dataset in the e-commerce domain is that product descriptions and advertising slogans are often contained in the images of products to attract shoppers and promote sales. In other words, e-commerce provides a huge amount of images containing text from a wide range of domains, which much fits into the motivation of IT. To build this dataset, we first crawl ∼ 600,000 images that contain Chinese texts. We then use an OCR detector5,with a high accuracy of 90%, to automatically recognize the Chinese texts in images. Recognized texts are manually scrutinized: those with over 3 incorrectly recognized Chinese characters are removed while those with less than 3 wrong characters are manually corrected. After this manual scrutinization, we have 479,490 image-sentence pairs. We automatically translate these Chinese texts into English with Google translate API. To guarantee translation quality, we hire crowd-sourced workers who are Chinese-English bilingual speakers to manually post-edit English translations to ensure both flu4https://www.taobao.com/ 5https://github.com/JaidedAI/EasyOCR ency and adequacy. More than 80% of automatic English translations have been post-edited. 2,000 image-translation pairs are selected as the validation set while 1,020 pairs are selected as the test set. Table 1 displays the statistics of the dataset. The entire dataset will be released soon. ## 4 Methodology This section starts with the task formulation of IT, followed by an overview of the model architecture of PEIT and the two-stage pre-training strategy that leverages MT knowledge from both the encoder and decoder to reduce the modality gap. ## 4.1 Task Formulation Similar to corpora for E2E ST, e.g., MUST-C (Cattoni et al., 2021), the created ECOIT is composed of triplets, each of which consists of an image containing text, the text extracted from the image, the target translation of the text. The corpus can be denoted as D = {(v, x, y)} where v denotes the image, x = {x1*, ...,* xN} is the text contained in the image, and y = {y1*, ...,* yM} is the translation in the target language. N and M are the length of the source and target text, respectively. The goal of E2E IT is to find the best y given the input image: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{IT}}=-\sum_{t=1}^{\mathrm{M}}\log{\mathrm{p}}({\mathrm{y}}_{t}|{\mathrm{y}}_{<t},{\mathrm{v}};\theta)\qquad\quad(1)$$ ## 4.2 Model Architecture The model architecture of PEIT is illustrated in Figure 1. It consists of four essential modules: a visual encoder, a shared encoder-decoder backbone network, a vision-text representation aligner via contrastive learning and a cross-modal regularizer. The aligner is equipped with the shared encoder, which attempts to unify the representations of the same input with different modalities (vision vs. text) in the same semantic space. The reguarizer is deployed at the shared decoder, which forces the decoder to yield the same translation for the same input in different modalities. The visual encoder encodes the input image v to its semantic representation V, which is then fed into the shared encoder-decoder backbone network (a standard Transformer) for translation. In order to obtain the semantic representation of the text contained in an image, we adopt two strong visual encoder architectures: ResNet (He et al., 2016) and CRNN (Shi et al., 2017). In order $\text{EasyQCL}$  to match the length of encoded image features with that of the corresponding text, following (Ye et al., 2021), we stack two additional layers of 2-stride 1-dimensional convolutional layers with the GELU activation on the top of the visual encoder, which reduces the time dimension by a factor of 4. Given an input image v, we can get its feature vectors V = {V1*, ...,* VK} by : $$\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{u}_{1},\mathbf{v}$$ $$\mathbf{V}=\operatorname{E}_{\mathrm{img}}(\mathbf{v})\in\mathbb{R}^{\mathrm{K}\times\mathrm{d}}$$ ## Where K Denotes The Number Of Embedded Feature Vectors, And D Is The Dimension Of Feature Vectors. Eimg Denotes The Visual Encoder. For An Input Text Sentence, We Use An Embedding Layer To Transform X Into Vectors X = {X1*, ...,* Xn} By X = Etxt(X) ∈ Rn×D. 4.3 Two-Stage Pre-Training Due to the lack of IT training data, we take a twostage pre-training strategy to transfer knowledge from the auxiliary MT task to E2E IT with a huge amount of MT training data and synthesized data with rendered images. In pre-training stage 1, we pre-train a vanilla Transformer MT model on a large-scale textual parallel corpus. The pre-trained MT model is used to initialize the shared encoderdecoder backbone network and to train the aligner and regularizer for modality unification. Let htenc be the output of the pre-trained MT encoder and htdec be the output of the MT decoder. In pre-training stage 2, we pre-train the shared encoder-decoder backbone network on the synthesized data (see Section 5.1) created from the MT training data with alternating visual and textual inputs (v and x) . For textual pre-training, the shared encoder takes the representation X of x as input to generate hsenc(X). The shared decoder is optimized to generate the corresponding translation y with the maximum likelihood estimation as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{t}=-\sum_{\mathrm{n=1}}^{\mathrm{M}}\log\mathrm{p}(\mathrm{y}_{\mathrm{n}}|\mathrm{y}_{<\mathrm{n}},\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{s}}(\mathbf{X}))\tag{3}$$ where $\mathrm{M}$ is the length of $\mathbf{y}$. $\eqref{eq:walpha}$. For visual pre-training, the shared encoder takes the representation V of v as input to generate hsenc(V). The shared decoder is optimized to generate the corresponding translation y with the maximum likelihood estimation as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}_{v}=-\sum_{\mathrm{n=1}}^{\mathrm{M}}\log\mathrm{p}(\mathrm{y_{n}}|\mathrm{y_{<n},h_{c n c}^{s}(V)})\qquad(4)$$ ## 4.4 Vision-Text Representation Aligner As shown by Eq. (3) and Eq. (4), the shared decoder is supposed to yield the same translation for the same input in different modalities (i.e., v and x). However, the actual results are not as expected (see Section 5.4). The main reasons are that (1) The position embeddings of words in the textual input is of great importance to translation (Vaswani et al., 2017), while the representation of an image cannot provide effective position information of words in the text contained in the image; (2) There is no effective mechanism to align the cross-modal representations to capture the modality-invariant information in the shared encoder. Due to the two issues, it is difficult for the shared encoder-decoder backbone network to capture and convey the underlying semantic information of the text contained in an image into the target language by alternatively optimizing Lv and Lt. Partially inspired by the application of two pre-training configurations (Tang et al., 2022) and contrastive learning (Li et al., 2022b) in natural language processing, we propose the visiontext representation aligner (see the red box in Figure 1) to unify visual and textual modality into the shared semantic space of the encoder. In detail, we use the MT encoder pre-trained in stage 1 to guide the training of the shared encoder via contrastive learning. We analyse the reason why using the pretrained MT encoderin Appendix 5.7. Specifically, we simultaneously input image representations V and word embeddings X into the shared encoder and the pre-trained MT encoder, respectively. V and X are from a mini-batch {vi, xi, yi}Nb i=1 ∈ B, where Nb is the size of the mini-batch B. After performing average-pooling on the output hidden state sequence of the shared encoder and pre-trained MT encoder, we can obtain sentence-level representations, {hsenc(Vi), htenc(Xi)} of {vi, xi} from the mini-batch, which forms a positive pair, while other samples {hsenc(Vi), htenc(Xj )}, i = j from the same mini-batch, are treated as negative pairs. The contrastive loss is computed as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{v}=-\log{\frac{\exp(s(\mathbf{v}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{i})/\tau)}{\sum_{\mathbf{x}_{j}\in\mathfrak{B}}\exp(s(\mathbf{v}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{j})/\tau)}}\quad{\mathrm{(5)}}$$ $$s(\mathbf{v}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{j})={\frac{\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{s}}(\mathbf{V}_{i})\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{t}}(\mathbf{X}_{j})^{\top}}{\|\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{s}}(\mathbf{V}_{i})\|_{2}\,\|\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{t}}(\mathbf{X}_{j})\|_{2}}}\quad\quad(6)$$ s(.) is a similarity function, .2 is the L2 regularization as defined in (Li et al., 2022b), τ is a temperature hyperparameter. Lvenc is a InfoNCE loss function, which only leverages text data to model visual information. To further align visual and textual representations in the shared encoder, we then simultaneously input a text X into the pre-trained MT encoder and the shared encoder. The pre-trained MT encoder is used to guide the training of the shared encoder, similarly via contrastive learning as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{t}=-\log{\frac{\exp(s(\mathbf{x}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{i})/\tau)}{\sum_{\mathbf{x}_{j}\in{\mathfrak{B}}}\exp(s(\mathbf{x}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{j})/\tau)}}\quad{\mathrm{(7)}}$$ $$s(\mathbf{x}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{j})={\frac{\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{s}}(\mathbf{X}_{i})\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{t}}(\mathbf{X}_{j})^{\top}}{\|\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{s}}(\mathbf{X}_{i})\|_{2}\,\|\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{t}}(\mathbf{X}_{j})\|_{2}}}\quad(8)$$ Obviously, when Ltenc and Lvenc are trained simultaneously, the output htenc(X) of the pre-trained MT encoder acts as a pivot that links hsenc(X) and hsenc(V). Therefore, the visual ( hsenc(V)) and textual (hsenc(X)) representations can be aligned by simultaneously optimizing Ltenc and Lvenc. ## 4.5 Cross-Modal Regularizer In addition to the aligner equipped with the shared encoder, we introduce the cross-modal regularizer (see the blue box in Figure 1), to further transfer knowledge from the auxiliary MT task to E2E IT and to reduce the modality gap at the decoder side. To transfer knowledge from the pre-trained MT decoder to the shared decoder, we employ the knowledge distillation (KD) method presented in (Liu et al., 2019) and define the KD loss LKD as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{KD}}=-\sum_{n=1}^{\mathrm{M}}\sum_{k=1}^{\mathrm{IC}}\log\mathrm{p}(\mathrm{y}_{n}=k|\mathrm{y}_{<n},\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{s}}(\mathbf{V}))\times$$ $$\mathrm{p}(\mathrm{y}_{n}=k|\mathrm{y}_{<n},\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{t}}(\mathbf{X}))\tag{9}$$ $\mathrm{IC}$ is the vocabulary size of the output target text. As mentioned before, we alternatively feed visual inputs (V) and text inputs (X) into the shared encoder-decoder backbone network. Since V and X are actually the same text in different modalities, they are supposed to be translated into the same target translation. In order to achieve this goal, we regularize the output predictions for the visual and textual input by minimizing the Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD) between the two output distributions as follows: $$\begin{split}\mathcal{L}_{\text{JSD}}=\sum_{n=1}^{\text{M}}\text{JSD}\{\text{p}(\text{y}_{n}|\text{y}_{<n},\mathbf{h}_{\text{enc}}^{\text{s}}(\mathbf{V}))\}\\ \text{p}(\text{y}_{n}|\text{y}_{<n},\mathbf{h}_{\text{enc}}^{\text{s}}(\mathbf{X}))\}\end{split}\tag{10}$$ Due to the lack of sufficient image translation training data, we use a multi-stage training strategy to transfer knowledge from other tasks (e.g., MT) that have a large amount of training data. And also due to the multimodality gap between vision and text, we propose to use multiple losses to attempt to reduce it. As the vision-text aligner and crossmodal regularizer are jointly trained with the shared encoder-decoder backbone network in pre-training stage 2 on the synthesized data, the pre-training loss in stage 2 can be formulated as follows: L = Lt + Lv + Lvenc + Ltenc + LKD + LJSD (11) ## 4.6 Fine-Tuning After the two-stage pre-training, we continue to fine-tune our PEIT on the curated image translation dataset ECOIT so as to endow PEIT with the ability to translate real-world images containing text into the target language. For fine-tuning and inference, we only keep the visual encoder and the shared encoder-decoder backbone network, removing the pre-trained MT module together with the visiontext aligner and cross-modal regularizer. The kept components are fine-tuned with the cross-entropy loss Lv on ECOIT. ## 5 Experiments We conducted extensive experiments with a large MT training corpus, a synthesized dataset with rendered images based on the MT training corpus and the curated image translation data to examine the effectiveness of the proposed PEIT against previous end-to-end and cascaded baselines. ## 5.1 Dataset For pre-training the MT task in stage 1, we extracted a subset from the United Nations Parallel Corpus6 as our Chinese-English MT training dataset, which contains 15M parallel sentences. For pre-training PEIT components in stage 2, we extracted sentences whose length is less than 20 words from the Chinese-English MT training data used in stage 1, producing a Chinese-English corpus C with 3M parallel sentences. We then synthesized an image translation corpus that consists 10M pairs of rendered images (with different backgrounds, font sizes, font styles, etc.) containing sentences from C. To make synthesized images lifelike, we used a set of backgrounds randomly extracted from the ECOIT dataset and the font sizes 6https://conferences.unite.un.org/UNCorpus/ are ranging from 30 pixels to 60 pixels. We fixed the size of image at 64x600 resolution. In order to synthesize images for pre-training, we randomly extract a sentence from a text corpus and randomly select the font style/font size/color for the sentence. This allows us to know the region size (height and width) required to put this sentence in the image. We then randomly extract an image from ECOIT as the background image and try to find a suitable image sub-area for writing the sentence without overlapping the existing text (i.e., product descriptions) in the image. After writing, we cut the writing area as a synthesized image by matrix slicing. In doing so, we have real-world background images, which allows us to train a strong encoder to extract semantic representations of texts embedded in real-world backgrounds. For fine-tuning (see Section 4.6), we used the curated ECOIT dataset. The development and test sets of ECOIT were used to evaluate our fine-tuned model and baselines. ## 5.2 Settings And Baselines Model Configuration The shared encoder-decoder backbone network contains 6 Transformer encoder blocks and 6 Transformer decoder blocks, where the model dimension is 256, and the number of attention heads is 8. In the pre-training stages, we used polynomial decay learning rate schedule with a learning rate of 1e-4. We trained models with at most 33K input tokens per batch for 100K steps. During fine-tuning, the learning rate was set to 3e-5, and the maximum number of training step was 30K. We early-stopped fine-tuning if the loss on the dev set did not decrease for ten epochs. For both pre-training and fine-tuning, we used an Adam optimizer with β1 = 0.9, β2 = 0.98. The vaule of temperature hyperparameter τ was set as 0.1. More detailed experimental settings are in Appendix A.1 Baselines We compared our method against two strong image translation systems: - Cascaded System: This system first uses a text detector to extract the text from an image. The extracted text is then fed into the pre-trained MT model to yield the target translation. We tried three different text recognition models (CRNN (VGG+BiLSTM) from easyocr7; DenseNet (Huang et al., 2017) from cnocr8; PP-OCR (Du et al., 2020)) in the cascaded system. 7https://github.com/JaidedAI/EasyOCR 8https://github.com/breezedeus/cnocr | model | #param | speed (tokens/s) | Pre-training | Fine-tuning | | | |--------------------|----------|--------------------|----------------|---------------|------|------| | BLEU | METEOR | BLEU | METEOR | | | | | text-only NMT | 28.8M | 3,580 | 20.3 | 43.5 | 50.3 | 71.9 | | Cascaded | | | | | | | | Cascade (CRNN) | - | 936 | 16.6 | 38.6 | 41.9 | 64.6 | | Cascade (DenseNet) | - | 920 | 17.5 | 38.3 | 44.1 | 64.1 | | Cascade (PP-OCR) | - | 943 | 18.4 | 39.2 | 45.0 | 66.2 | | End-to-End | | | | | | | | ItNet | 60.6M | 2,143 | 9.6 | 27.2 | 39.3 | 61.1 | | PEIT (ResNet) | 71.6M | 2,031 | 13.9 | 30.3 | 46.1 | 68.3 | | PEIT (CRNN) | 33.2M | 3,383 | 13.7 | 30.1 | 47.2 | 69.2 | Table 2: Results of different image translation models on the ECOIT test set. - ItNet (Jain et al., 2021): This is an end-to-end image translation system. It first pre-trains a standard Transformer on a text-only parallel dataset. ResNet is used as the image encoder to encode the latent semantic representations of images. The combination of the pre-trained decoder and image encoder is then fine-tuned on a synthetic dataset. We reimplemented this model and pre-trained & fine-tuned it on our datasets. ## 5.3 Main Results For evaluating translation performance, we used two automatic evaluation metrics sacreBLEU9 and METEOR10 (Denkowski and Lavie, 2014). Comparison with End-to-End Baselines In order to examine the effectiveness of our proposed pre-training method, we evaluated both pre-trained models (pre-trained on the MT/synthesized data) and fine-tuned models (fine-tuned on the training data of ECOIT after being pre-trained) on the ECOIT test set. As shown in Table 2, while our reimplemented ItNet is a strong end-to-end image translation baseline, our best model PEIT (CRNN) achieves a substantial improvement of 7.9 BLEU over it even though PEIT with CRNN has fewer parameters than ItNet, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed method, especially the aligner and regularizer that are absent in ItNet. In order to fairly compare with ItNet, we also used ResNet as the visual encoder. We observe that our model based on ResNet still significantly outperforms ItNet. Although CRNN (VGG+BiLSTM) has fewer parameters than ResNet, our experiments show that | Model | BLEU METEOR | | | |---------------------|---------------|------|------| | PEIT | 45.9 | 67.5 | | | w/o Lv enc | 43.9 | 65.2 | | | Aligner | w/o Lt enc | 45.7 | 67.2 | | w/o Lv enc + Lt enc | 43.7 | 65.0 | | | w/o LKD | 44.1 | 66.0 | | | Regularizer | w/o LJSD | 44.8 | 66.7 | | w/o LKD + LJSD | 43.5 | 65.2 | | | w/o all | 43.0 | 64.5 | | Table 3: Ablation study results of PEIT which is pretrained with 3M image-translation pairs during the pretraining stage 2. it is more effective than ResNet in IT task. The reason for this may be that CRNN is more specialized in OCR than ResNet. Comparison with Cascaded Baselines We also implemented three strong cascaded systems with different OCR components. As shown in Table 2, although PEIT is worse than cascaded systems in the case of pre-training, it significantly outperforms all three cascaded systems after being fine-tuned. It is better than the best cascaded system by 2.2+ BLEU and 3.0+ METEOR. The reason for worse performance in the pre-training stage is that we used the United Nations Parallel Corpus to pre-train PEIT in pre-training stage, the domain of which is far different from the e-commerce domain of ECOIT. Additionally, our end-to-end PEIT benefits from low latency, translating images containing text over three times faster than the cascaded systems. ## 5.4 Ablation Study To investigate the effect of the proposed vision-text representation aligner and the cross-modal regularizer, both of which aim at bridging the modality  gap for image translation, we conducted ablation study by removing the losses associated with the two components. Results are reported in Table 3, from which we observe that: - Both the aligner and regularizer are beneficial to PEIT as removing either of them completely or partially results in performance degradation. - The vision-text representation aligner equipped with the shared encoder is as effective as the cross-modal regulazrizer as removing the former leads to a similar performance drop as removing the latter in terms of both BLEU and METEOR. - Simultaneously removing both leads to the largest performance drop compared with discarding either of them. ## 5.5 Analysis On The Effect Of The Vision-Text Representation Aligner To examine whether the aligner is able to alleviate the modality gap in learned representations, we investigated the learned representations of images containing text and those of the corresponding texts input to the shared encoder and output from the shared encoder. We visualize the averaged representations of images and texts in Figure 2. In Figure 2, we average the sequential representations of the image and text sequences over the sequence dimension, and apply the T-SNE dimensionality reduction algorithm to reduce the 256 dimensions to two dimensions. We then plot the bivariate kernel density estimation based on the reduced 2-dim representations. Clearly, we observe that the shared encoder equipped with the vision-text representation aligner significantly improves the modality  | **METEOR** | | | |:------------------|:---:|:---:| | $67.0$. Model BLEU METEOR SC 45.3 67.0 CC 45.9 67.5 alignment between visual and textual representations in the semantic space. ## 5.6 Analysis On The Effect Of The Size Of The Synthesized Data In The Pre-Training Stage 2 The two pre-training stages contribute a lot to PEIT (e.g., transferring knowledge from MT to image translation, aligning the vision and text modality in the shared semantic space), especially the pretraining stage 2. We hence want to investigate the impact of the amount of training data used in pre-training stage 2 on PEIT. For this, we varied the amount of synthesized image-translation data from 1M to 10M pairs. The results are illustrated in Figure 3, which suggests that PEIT is steadily superior to ItNet. ## 5.7 Self-Contrastive Or Cross-Contrastive Learning Apart from Speech translation (Ao et al., 2022; Fang et al., 2022), which use a shared encoder to leverage larges-cale unlabeled text data, our model use a external encoder rather than a shared encoder to get the fine-grained cross-modal representations. Since PEIT is a multimodal translation model that can accept image or text input, a natural choice is to use the output representations of PEIT for contrastive learning between image and text, rather than using an additional pre-trained | Model | En-Fr | En-Ru | |---------------|---------|---------| | text-only NMT | 31.4 | 21.7 | | ItNet | 19.7 | 12.6 | | PEIT | 24.8 | 16.8 | textual encoder for text representation extraction. We refer to the former as self-contrastive learning, and the latter as cross-contrastive learning. We conduct Chinese-English translation experiment to examine the effect of self-contrastive and crosscontrastive learning, the results are shown in Table 4. The cross-contrastive learning is slightly better than self-contrastive learning, We infer that the poor quality of image representation at the beginning of self-contrastive training degrades the performance of text representation and eventually stabilizes at a relatively poor level. As the text representations in cross-contrastive training come from an external pre-trained text translation model whose representations are constant, therefore we adopt cross-contrastive learning in PEIT. ## 5.8 Evaluation On Other Languages We further evaluated our PEIT on English-French and English-Russian image translation. Following ItNet, the visual encoder of PEIT is ResNet with Xavier initialization. We applied a reshape operation to each 2D feature map from the output of the visual encoder, converting them to a 1D vector sequence. We used a parallel MT corpus from UNv1.0-6way11 and constructed a synthetic corpus with 23M rendered images containing texts from the MT corpus via the same method as described in Section 5.1, except that we ranged the font size from 20 pixels to 30 pixels, and fixed the size of images at 320x480 resolution. We limited the number of lines of text in each rendered image to less than 10 lines as there are no images with > 7 text lines in the test set. We used WMT newstest2013 EnFr and newstest2016 En-Ru as the validation sets, newstest2014 En-Fr and newstest2017 En-Ru as the test sets to construct the corresponding image translation validation and test sets. Table 5 shows the results of our proposed PEIT and ItNet on these two language pairs. Again we observe that our model substantially outperforms ItNet by 5.1 and 4.2 BLEU on English-French and English-Russian IT, respectively. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we have presented PEIT, an end-toend image translation framework that attempts to bridge the modality gap with pre-trained models, as well as ECOIT, a large-scale high-quality ChineseEnglish image translation benchmark dataset with real-world e-commerce images containing text, which facilitates future research on this emerging direction. PEIT, containing the vision-text representation aligner and cross-modal regularizer for modality bridging, is pre-trained in two stages and fine-tuned on the curated dataset. Experiments and in-depth analyses demonstrate that PEIT is significantly better than both cascaded image translation systems and previous end-to-end image translation models. ## Limitations Although PEIT is an end-to-end approach to image translation, in the current form, it needs to be pre-trained in two stages with MT and synthesized data and fine-tuned on the curated image translation data. The training procedure is longer than the standard MT task due to the lack of training data and the cross-modality challenge. For the created ECOIT dataset, we used online MT to automatically generate translations and then manually post-edited translations via crowd-sourcing. This significantly reduces the cost of building a large-scale image translation dataset from scratch but may introduce translation noise and "machine translationese" (Vanmassenhove et al., 2021) in comparison to professional human translation. ## Acknowledgments The present research was supported by the Key Research and Development Program of Yunnan Province (Grant No. 202203AA080004). We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. ## References Junyi Ao, Rui Wang, Long Zhou, Chengyi Wang, Shuo Ren, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Tom Ko, Qing Li, Yu Zhang, Zhihua Wei, Yao Qian, Jinyu Li, and Furu Wei. 2022. Speecht5: Unified-modal encoder-decoder pretraining for spoken language processing. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5723–5738. Association for Computational Linguistics. Arun Babu, Changhan Wang, Andros Tjandra, Kushal Lakhotia, Qiantong Xu, Naman Goyal, Kritika Singh, Patrick von Platen, Yatharth Saraf, Juan Pino, Alexei Baevski, Alexis Conneau, and Michael Auli. 2022. XLS-R: self-supervised cross-lingual speech representation learning at scale. In Interspeech 2022, 23rd Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Incheon, Korea, 18-22 September 2022, pages 2278–2282. ISCA. Iacer Calixto, Daniel Stein, Evgeny Matusov, Sheila Castilho, and Andy Way. 2017a. Human evaluation of multi-modal neural machine translation: A case-study on e-commerce listing titles. In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Vision *and Language,* VL@EACL 2017, Valencia, Spain, April 4, 2017, pages 31–37. Association for Computational Linguistics. Iacer Calixto, Daniel Stein, Evgeny Matusov, Pintu Lohar, Sheila Castilho, and Andy Way. 2017b. Using images to improve machine-translating e-commerce product listings. In *Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association* for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2017, Valencia, Spain, April 3-7, 2017, Volume 2: Short Papers, pages 637–643. Association for Computational Linguistics. Roldano Cattoni, Mattia Antonino Di Gangi, Luisa Bentivogli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Mustc: A multilingual corpus for end-to-end speech translation. *Comput. Speech Lang.*, 66:101155. Michael J. Denkowski and Alon Lavie. 2014. Meteor universal: Language specific translation evaluation for any target language. In Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, WMT@ACL 2014, June 26-27, 2014, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pages 376–380. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Qianqian Dong, Mingxuan Wang, Hao Zhou, Shuang Xu, Bo Xu, and Lei Li. 2021. Consecutive decoding for speech-to-text translation. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI* Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 12738–12748. AAAI Press. Yuning Du, Chenxia Li, Ruoyu Guo, Xiaoting Yin, Weiwei Liu, Jun Zhou, Yifan Bai, Zilin Yu, Yehua Yang, Qingqing Dang, and Haoshuang Wang. 2020. PP-OCR: A practical ultra lightweight OCR system. CoRR, abs/2009.09941. Qingkai Fang, Rong Ye, Lei Li, Yang Feng, and Mingxuan Wang. 2022. STEMM: self-learning with speechtext manifold mixup for speech translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 7050–7062. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chi Han, Mingxuan Wang, Heng Ji, and Lei Li. 2021. Learning shared semantic space for speech-to-text translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 2214–2225. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2016, Las Vegas, NV, USA, June 27-30, 2016, pages 770–778. IEEE Computer Society. Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens van der Maaten, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2017. Densely connected convolutional networks. In *2017 IEEE Conference on* Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Honolulu, HI, USA, July 21-26, 2017, pages 2261–2269. IEEE Computer Society. Hirofumi Inaguma, Tatsuya Kawahara, and Shinji Watanabe. 2021. Source and target bidirectional knowledge distillation for end-to-end speech translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 1872–1881. Association for Computational Linguistics. Puneet Jain, Orhan Firat, Qi Ge, and Sihang Liang. 2021. Image translation network. Bei Li, Chuanhao Lv, Zefan Zhou, Tao Zhou, Tong Xiao, Anxiang Ma, and Jingbo Zhu. 2022a. On vision features in multimodal machine translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6327–6337. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yaoyiran Li, Fangyu Liu, Nigel Collier, Anna Korhonen, and Ivan Vulic. 2022b. Improving word translation via two-stage contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 4353–4374. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuchen Liu, Hao Xiong, Zhongjun He, Jiajun Zhang, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, and Chengqing Zong. 2019. End-to-end speech translation with knowledge distillation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08075*. Elman Mansimov, Mitchell Stern, Mia Xu Chen, Orhan Firat, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Puneet Jain. 2020. Towards end-to-end in-image neural machine translation. *CoRR*, abs/2010.10648. Baoguang Shi, Xiang Bai, and Cong Yao. 2017. An end-to-end trainable neural network for image-based sequence recognition and its application to scene text recognition. *IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis* and Machine Intelligence, 39(11):2298–2304. Yuqing Song, Shizhe Chen, Qin Jin, Wei Luo, Jun Xie, and Fei Huang. 2021. Product-oriented machine translation with cross-modal cross-lingual pretraining. In MM '21: ACM Multimedia Conference, Virtual Event, China, October 20 - 24, 2021, pages 2843–2852. ACM. Umut Sulubacak, Ozan Caglayan, Stig-Arne Grönroos, Aku Rouhe, Desmond Elliott, Lucia Specia, and Jörg Tiedemann. 2020. Multimodal machine translation through visuals and speech. *Machine Translation*, 34(2–3):97–147. Yun Tang, Hongyu Gong, Ning Dong, Changhan Wang, Wei-Ning Hsu, Jiatao Gu, Alexei Baevski, Xian Li, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Michael Auli, and Juan Pino. 2022. Unified speech-text pre-training for speech translation and recognition. In *Proceedings* of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 1488–1499. Association for Computational Linguistics. Eva Vanmassenhove, Dimitar Shterionov, and Matthew Gwilliam. 2021. Machine translationese: Effects of algorithmic bias on linguistic complexity in machine translation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2203–2213, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998–6008. Xin Wang, Jiawei Wu, Junkun Chen, Lei Li, YuanFang Wang, and William Yang Wang. 2019. Vatex: A large-scale, high-quality multilingual dataset for video-and-language research. In *2019 IEEE/CVF* International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2019, Seoul, Korea (South), October 27 - November 2, 2019, pages 4580–4590. IEEE. Huiyun Yang, Huadong Chen, Hao Zhou, and Lei Li. 2022. Enhancing cross-lingual transfer by manifold mixup. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net. Pengcheng Yang, Boxing Chen, Pei Zhang, and Xu Sun. 2020. Visual agreement regularized training for multi-modal machine translation. In *The ThirtyFourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence,* AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 9418–9425. AAAI Press. Rong Ye, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. End-toend speech translation via cross-modal progressive training. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10380*. ## A Appendix A.1 Setting Details For Chinese-English, we segment Chinese data using characters. We limit the maximum sentence length to 20 tokens. For English-French and English-Russian, we do not filter out the sentence length. We apply byte pair encoding to segment all sentences with merge operations of 32K. All out-of-vocabulary words are mapped to a distinct token <UNK>. We use the schedule strategy with 4,000 warmup steps. The training batch consist of approximately 25,000 source tokens and 25,000 source and target tokens. Label smoothing of the value of 0.1 is used for training. We trained our models for 100k steps on 8 NVIDIA TITAN RTX GPUs. For evaluation, we use beam search with a width of 5. We do not apply checkpoint averaging on the parameters for evaluation. We adopted two strong visual encoder architecture, ResNet-101 and CRNN (VGG+BiLSTM). For ResNet-101, we used Xavier initialization to initialize parameters. For CRNN, we use a pre-trained text recognition model from easyocr12 to initialize parameters. ## A.2 Visualization In Section 5.5, we demonstrate that the the proposed PEIT could significantly improve the similarity of word representations across modalities. We also show the visualization of two examples (a) and (b) in Figure 4. The visualization shows the translations and the cross-attention assignment probabilities for visual information of PEIT and ItNet. It demonstrates the proposed PEIT can enhance shared fine-grained latent translation information. We can observe that our method can gets better translations than ItNet. It means that our method makes target word translations get more reasonable visual information compared to ItNet.     ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 7 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Not applicable. Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 5 B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 5 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 5 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 5 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 5 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 5 ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** 3 D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

arakelyan-etal-2023-topic

Topic-Guided Sampling For Data-Efficient Multi-Domain Stance Detection

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.752

The task of Stance Detection is concerned with identifying the attitudes expressed by an author towards a target of interest. This task spans a variety of domains ranging from social media opinion identification to detecting the stance for a legal claim. However, the framing of the task varies within these domains in terms of the data collection protocol, the label dictionary and the number of available annotations. Furthermore, these stance annotations are significantly imbalanced on a per-topic and inter-topic basis. These make multi-domain stance detection challenging, requiring standardization and domain adaptation. To overcome this challenge, we propose Topic Efficient StancE Detection (TESTED), consisting of a topic-guided diversity sampling technique used for creating a multi-domain data efficient training set and a contrastive objective that is used for fine-tuning a stance classifier using the produced set. We evaluate the method on an existing benchmark of 16 datasets with in-domain, i.e. all topics seen and out-of-domain, i.e. unseen topics, experiments. The results show that the method outperforms the state-of-the-art with an average of 3.5 F1 points increase in-domain and is more generalizable with an averaged 10.2 F1 on out-of-domain evaluation while using {\textless}10{\%} of the training data. We show that our sampling technique mitigates both inter- and per-topic class imbalances. Finally, our analysis demonstrates that the contrastive learning objective allows the model for a more pronounced segmentation of samples with varying labels.

# Topic-Guided Sampling For Data-Efficient Multi-Domain Stance Detection Erik Arakelyan1, Arnav Arora2**, Isabelle Augenstein**3 Department of Computer Science University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark {erik.a,aar,augenstein}@di.ku.dk ## Abstract Stance Detection is concerned with identifying the attitudes expressed by an author towards a target of interest. This task spans a variety of domains ranging from social media opinion identification to detecting the stance for a legal claim. However, the framing of the task varies within these domains, in terms of the data collection protocol, the label dictionary and the number of available annotations. Furthermore, these stance annotations are significantly imbalanced on a per-topic and inter-topic basis. These make multi-domain stance detection a challenging task, requiring standardization and domain adaptation. To overcome this challenge, we propose Topic Efficient StancE Detection (TESTED), consisting of a topic-guided diversity sampling technique and a contrastive objective that is used for fine-tuning a stance classifier. We evaluate the method on an existing benchmark of 16 datasets with in-domain, i.e. all topics seen and out-of-domain, i.e. unseen topics, experiments. The results show that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art with an average of 3.5 F1 points increase in-domain, and is more generalizable with an averaged increase of 10.2 F1 on out-of-domain evaluation while using ≤ 10% of the training data. We show that our sampling technique mitigates both inter- and per-topic class imbalances. Finally, our analysis demonstrates that the contrastive learning objective allows the model a more pronounced segmentation of samples with varying labels. ## 1 Introduction The goal of stance detection is to identify the viewpoint expressed by an author within a piece of text towards a designated topic (Mohammad et al., 2016). Such analyses can be used in a variety of domains ranging from identifying claims within political or ideological debates (Somasundaran and Wiebe, 2010; Thomas et al., 2006), identifying mis- and disinformation (Hanselowski et al., 2018; Hardalov et al., 2022a), public health policymaking (Glandt et al., 2021; Hossain et al., 2020; Osnabrügge et al., 2023), news recommendation (Reuver et al., 2021) to investigating attitudes voiced on social media (Qazvinian et al., 2011; Augenstein et al., 2016; Conforti et al., 2020). However, in most domains, and even more so for crossdomain stance detection, the exact formalisation of the task gets blurry, with varying label sets and their corresponding definitions, data collection protocols and available annotations. Furthermore, this is accompanied by significant changes in the topicspecific vocabulary (Somasundaran and Wiebe, 2010; Wei and Mao, 2019), text style (Pomerleau and Rao, 2017; Ferreira and Vlachos, 2016) and topics mentioned either explicitly (Qazvinian et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2012) or implicitly (Hasan and Ng, 2013; Derczynski et al., 2017). Recently, a benchmark of 16 datasets (Hardalov et al., 2021) covering a variety of domains and topics has been proposed for testing stance detection models across multiple domains. It must be noted that these datasets are highly imbalanced, with an imbalanced label distribution between the covered topics, i.e. inter-topic and within each topic, i.e. per-topic, as can be seen in Figure 2 and Figure 3. This further complicates the creation of a robust stance detection classifier. Given the inherent skew present within the dataset and variances within each domain, we propose a topic-guided diversity sampling method, which produces a data-efficient representative subset while mitigating label imbalances. These samples are used for fine-tuning a Pre-trained Language Model (PLM), using a contrastive learning objective to create a robust stance detection model. These two components form our Topic Efficient StancE Detection (TESTED) framework, as seen in Figure 1, and are analysed separately to pinpoint the factors impacting model performance and robustness. We test our method on 13448   the multi-domain stance detection benchmark by Hardalov et al. (2021), achieving state-of-the-art results with both in-domain, i.e. all topics seen and out-of-domain, i.e. unseen topics evaluations. Note though that TESTED could be applied to any text classification setting. In summary, our **contributions** are: - We propose a novel framework (TESTED) for predicting stances across various domains, with data-efficient sampling and contrastive learning objective; - Our proposed method achieves SOTA results both in-domain and out-of-domain; - Our analysis shows that our topic-guided sampling method mitigates dataset imbalances while accounting for better performance than other sampling techniques; - The analysis shows that the contrastive learning objective boosts the ability of the classifier to differentiate varying topics and stances. ## 2 Related Work Stance Detection is an NLP task which aims to identify an author's attitude towards a particular topic or claim. The task has been widely explored in the context of mis- and disinformation detection (Ferreira and Vlachos, 2016; Hanselowski et al., 2018; Zubiaga et al., 2018b; Hardalov et al., 2022a), sentiment analysis (Mohammad et al., 2017; Aldayel and Magdy, 2019) and argument mining (Boltužic and Šnajder ´ , 2014; Sobhani et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019). Most papers formally define stance detection as a pairwise sequence classification where stance targets are provided (Küçük and Can, 2020). However, with the emergence of different data sources, ranging from debating platforms (Somasundaran and Wiebe, 2010; Hasan and Ng, 2014; Aharoni et al., 2014) to social media (Mohammad et al., 2016; Derczynski et al., 2017), and new applications (Zubiaga et al., 2018a; Hardalov et al., 2022a), this formal definition has been subject to variations w.r.t. the label dictionary inferred for the task. Previous research has predominantly focused on a specific dataset or domain of interest, outside of a few exceptions like multi-target (Sobhani et al., 2017; Wei et al., 2018) and cross-lingual (Hardalov et al., 2022b) stance detection. In contrast, our work focuses on multi-domain stance detection, while evaluating in- and out-of-domain on a 16 dataset benchmark with state-of-the-art baselines (Hardalov et al., 2021). Topic Sampling Our line of research is closely associated with diversity (Ren et al., 2021) and importance (Beygelzimer et al., 2009) sampling and their applications in natural language processing (Zhu et al., 2008; Zhou and Lampouras, 2021). Clustering-based sampling approaches have been used for automatic speech recognition (Syed et al., 2016), image classification (Ranganathan et al., 2017; Yan et al., 2022) and semi-supervised active learning (Buchert et al., 2022) with limited use for textual data (Yang et al., 2014) through topic modelling (Blei et al., 2001). This research proposes an importance-weighted topic-guided diversity sampling method that utilises deep topic models, for mitigating inherent imbalances present in the data, while preserving relevant examples. Contrastive Learning has been used for tasks where the expected feature representations should be able to differentiate between similar and divergent inputs (Liu et al., 2021; Rethmeier and Augenstein, 2023). Such methods have been used for image classification (Khosla et al., 2020), captioning (Dai and Lin, 2017) and textual representations (Giorgi et al., 2021; Jaiswal et al., 2020; Ostendorff et al., 2022). The diversity of topics (Qazvinian et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2012; Hasan and Ng, 2013), vocabulary (Somasundaran and Wiebe, 2010; Wei and Mao, 2019) and expression styles (Pomerleau and Rao, 2017) common for stance detection can be tackled with contrastive objectives, as seen for similar sentence embedding and classification tasks (Gao et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2021). ## 3 Datasets Our study uses an existing multi-domain dataset benchmark (Hardalov et al., 2021), consisting of 16 individual datasets split into four source groups: Debates, News, Social Media, Various. The categories include datasets about debating and political claims including arc (Hanselowski et al., 2018; Habernal et al., 2018), iac1 (Walker et al., 2012), perspectum (Chen et al., 2019), poldeb (Somasundaran and Wiebe, 2010), scd (Hasan and Ng, 2013), news like emergent (Ferreira and Vlachos, 2016), fnc1 (Pomerleau and Rao, 2017), snopes (Hanselowski et al., 2019), social media like mtsd (Sobhani et al., 2017), rumour (Qazvinian et al., 2011), semeval2016t6 (Mohammad et al., 2016), semeval2019t7 (Derczynski et al., 2017), wtwt (Conforti et al., 2020) and datasets that cover a variety of diverse topics like argmin (Stab et al., 2018), ibmcs (Bar-Haim et al., 2017) and vast (Allaway and McKeown, 2020). Overall statistics for all of the datasets can be seen in Appendix C. ## 3.1 Data Standardisation As the above-mentioned stance datasets from different domains possess different label inventories, the stance detection benchmark by Hardalov et al. (2021) introduce a mapping strategy to make the class inventory homogeneous. We adopt that same mapping for a fair comparison with prior work, shown in Appendix C. ## 4 Methods Our goal is to create a stance detection method that performs strongly on the topics known during training and can generalize to unseen topics. The benchmark by Hardalov et al. (2021) consisting of 16 datasets is highly imbalanced w.r.t the intertopic frequency and per-topic label distribution, as seen in Figure 2. These limitations necessitate a novel experimental pipeline. The first component of the pipeline we propose is an importance-weighted topic-guided diversity sampling method that allows the creation of supervised training sets while mitigating the inherent imbalances in the data. We then create a stance detection model by fine-tuning a Pre-trained Language Model (PLM) using a contrastive objective. ## 4.1 Topic-Efficient Sampling We follow the setting in prior work on data-efficient sampling (Buchert et al., 2022; Yan et al., 2022), framing the task as a selection process between multi-domain examples w.r.t the theme discussed within the text and its stance. This means that given a set of datasets D = (D1*, . . .* Dn) with their designated documents Di = (d 1 i , . . . dm i ), we wish to select a set of diverse representative examples D**train**, that are balanced w.r.t the provided topics T = (t1*, . . . t*q) and stance labels L = (l1*, . . . l*k). Diversity Sampling via Topic Modeling We thus opt for using topic modelling to produce a supervised subset from all multi-domain datasets. Selecting annotated examples during task-specific fine-tuning is a challenging task (Shao et al., 2019), explored extensively within active learning research (Hino, 2020; Konyushkova et al., 2017). Random sampling can lead to poor generalization and knowledge transfer within the novel problem domain (Das et al., 2021; Perez et al., 2021). To mitigate the inconsistency caused by choosing suboptimal examples, we propose using deep unsupervised topic models, which allow us to sample relevant examples for each topic of interest. We further enhance the model with an importance-weighted diverse example selection process (Shao et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2015) within the relevant examples generated by the topic model. The diversity maximisation sampling is modeled similarly to Yang et al. (2015). The topic model we train is based on the technique proposed by Angelov (2020) that tries to find topic vectors while jointly learning document and word semantic embeddings. The topic model is initialized with weights from the *all-MiniLM-L6* PLM, which has a strong performance on sentence embedding benchmarks (Wang et al., 2020). It is shown that learning unsupervised topics in this fashion maximizes the total information gained, about all texts D when described by all words W. $${\mathcal{I}}({\mathcal{D}},{\mathcal{W}})=\sum_{d\in{\mathcal{D}}}\sum_{w\in{\mathcal{W}}}P(d,w)\log\left({\frac{P(d,w)}{P(d)P(w)}}\right)$$ This characteristic is handy for finding relevant samples across varying topics, allowing us to search within the learned documents di. We train a deep topic modelM*topic* using multi-domain data D and obtain topic clusters C = (Ci*, . . .* Ct), 13450 Algorithm 1 Topic Efficient Sampling Require: S ≥ 0 ▷ Sampling Threshold Require: Avg ∈ {moving, exp} Ensure: |C| > 0 Dtrain ← {} I ← { P |C1| Ci∈C Ci . . . P |Ct| Ci∈C for Ci ∈ C do ▷ Iterating for each cluster Ci} ▷ Cluster Importances Ei ← {PLM(d 1 i )*. . .* } = {e 1 i . . . e m i} si ← max(1, S · Ii) ▷ Threshold per cluster $j\gets0$$\sum\limits_{\begin{subarray}{c}\mathbf{e}_{i}\in\mathcal{E}\\ |\mathcal{E}|\end{subarray}}\mathbf{e}_{i}$$\triangleright$Centroid of the cluster while $j\leq s_{i}$do $\mathbf{sim}=\frac{\langle\mathcal{E},\mathit{cent}\rangle}{||\mathcal{E}||\mathit{cent}||}$$\triangleright$Similarity Ranking$\mathbf{sim}$ $$j^{\cdot}.$$ sample = arg sort(sim, **Ascending**)[0] ▷ Take the sample most diverse from the centroid end for return D**train** $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{train}}\leftarrow\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{train}}\cup\mathit{sample}$ $j\gets j+1$ $\mathit{cent}_{j}\leftarrow\begin{cases}\alpha\cdot\mathbf{e}_{\mathit{sample}}+(1-\alpha)\cdot\mathit{cent}_{j-1}&\mathit{exp}\\ \frac{(j-1)}{j}\cdot\mathit{cent}_{j}+\frac{\mathbf{e}_{\mathit{sample}}}{j}&\mathit{moving}\\ \triangleright\mathit{Centroid}&\mathit{update}\ \mathit{w.r.t.}&\mathit{sampled}\ \mathit{data}\end{cases}$ **end while** where |C| = t is the number of topic clusters. We obtain the vector representation for ∀di from the tuned PLM embeddings E = (e1*, . . . e*m) in M*topic*, while iteratively traversing through the clusters Ci ∈ C. Our sampling process selects increasingly more diverse samples after each iteration. This search within the relevant examples is presented in Algorithm 1. This algorithm selects a set of diverse samples from the given multi-domain datasets D, using the clusters from a deep topic model M*topic* and the sentence embeddings E of the sentences as a basis for comparison. The algorithm starts by selecting a random sentence as the first diverse sample and uses this sentence to calculate a "centroid" embedding. It then iteratively selects the next most dissimilar sentence to the current centroid, until the desired number of diverse samples is obtained. ## 4.2 Topic-Guided Stance Detection Task Formalization Given the topic, ti for each document diin the generated set D**train** we aim to classify the stance expressed within that text towards the topic. For a fair comparison with prior work, we use the label mapping from the previous multi-domain benchmark (Hardalov et al., 2021) and standardise the original labels L into a five-way stance classification setting, S = {Positive, Negative, Discuss, Other, Neutral}. Stance detection can be generalized as pairwise sequence classification, where a model learns a mapping f : (di, ti) → S. We combine the textual sequences with the stance labels to learn this mapping. The combination is implemented using a simple prompt commonly used for NLI tasks (Lan et al., 2020; Raffel et al., 2020; Hambardzumyan et al., 2021), where the textual sequence becomes the premise and the topic the hypothesis. $$[{\mathrm{CLS}}]{\mathrm{~prime}}{\mathrm{:}}\;p r e m i s e t$$ hypothesis: $topic$ [EOS]. The result of this process is a supervised dataset for stance prediction D**train** = ((P rompt(d1, t1), s1). . .(P rompt(dn, tn), sn)) where ∀si ∈ S. This method allows for dataefficient sampling, as we at most sample 10% of the data while preserving the diversity and relevance of the selected samples. The versatility of the method allows *TESTED* to be applied to any text classification setting. Tuning with a Contrastive Objective After obtaining the multi-domain supervised training set D**train**, we decided to leverage the robustness of PLMs, based on a transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) and fine-tune on D**train** with a single classification head. This effectively allows us to transfer the knowledge embedded within the PLM onto our problem domain. For standard finetuning of the stance detection model M*stance* we use cross-entropy as our initial loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{C E}=-\sum_{i\in S}y_{i}\log\left({\mathcal{M}}_{s t a n c e}(d_{i})\right)\quad\quad(1)$$ Here yiis the ground truth label. However, as we operate in a multi-domain setting, with variations in writing vocabulary, style and covered topics, it is necessary to train a model where similar sentences have a homogeneous representation within the embedding space while keeping contrastive pairs distant. We propose a new contrastive objective based on the *cosine* distance between the samples to accomplish this. In each training batch B = (d1*, . . . d*b), we create a matrix of contrastive pairs *P ∈ R*b×b, where ∀i, j = 1, b, Pij = 1 13451 if i-th and j-th examples share the same label and −1 otherwise. The matrices can be precomputed during dataset creation, thus not adding to the computational complexity of the training process. We formulate our pairwise contrastive objective LCL(xi, xj ,Pij ) using matrix P. $${\mathcal{L}}_{C L}=\begin{cases}e(1-e^{\cos(x_{i},x_{j})-1)},{\mathcal{P}}_{i j}=1\\ e^{\operatorname*{max}(0,\cos(x_{i},x_{j})-\beta)}-1,{\mathcal{P}}_{i j}=-1\end{cases}\tag{2}$$ Here xi, xj are the vector representations of examples di, dj . The loss is similar to cosine embedding loss and soft triplet loss (Barz and Denzler, 2020; Qian et al., 2019); however, it penalizes the opposing pairs harsher because of the exponential nature, but does not suffer from computational instability as the values are bounded in the range [0, e − 1 e ]. The final loss is: $${\mathcal{L}}={\mathcal{L}}_{C E}+{\mathcal{L}}_{C L}$$ L = LCE + LCL (3) We use the fine-tuning method from Mosbach et al. (2021); Liu et al. (2019) to avoid the instability caused by catastrophic forgetting, small-sized fine-tuning datasets or optimization difficulties. ## 5 Experimental Setup 5.1 Evaluation We evaluate our method on the 16 dataset multidomain benchmark and the baselines proposed by Hardalov et al. (2021). To directly compare with prior work, we use the same set of evaluation metrics: macro averaged F1, precision, recall and accuracy. ## 5.2 Model Details We explore several PLM transformer architectures within our training and classification pipelines in order to evaluate the stability of the proposed technique. We opt to finetune a pre-trained *robertalarge* architecture (Liu et al., 2019; Conneau et al., 2020). For fine-tuning, we use the method introduced by Mosbach et al. (2021), by adding a linear warmup on the initial 10% of the iteration raising the learning rate to 2e−5and decreasing it to 0 afterwards. We use a weight decay of λ = 0.01 and train for 3 epochs with global gradient clipping on the stance detection task. We further show that learning for longer epochs does not yield sizeable improvement over the initial fine-tuning. The optimizer used for experimentation is an AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with a bias correction component added to stabilise the experimentation (Mosbach et al., 2021). Topic Efficiency Recall that we introduce a topicguided diversity sampling method within *TESTED*, which allows us to pick relevant samples per topic and class for further fine-tuning. We evaluate its effectiveness by fine-tuning PLMs on the examples it generates and comparing it with training on a random stratified sample of the same size. ## 6 Results And Analysis In this section, we discuss and analyze our results, while comparing the performance of the method against the current state-of-the-art (Hardalov et al., 2021) and providing an analysis of the topic efficient sampling and the contrastive objective. ## 6.1 Stance Detection In-domain We train on our topic-efficient subset D**train** and test the method on all datasets D in the multi-domain benchmark. Our method TESTED is compared to MoLE (Hardalov et al., 2021), a strong baseline and the current state-of-the-art on the benchmark. The results, presented in Table 1, show that TESTED has the highest average performance on in-domain experiments with an increase of 3.5 F1 points over MoLE, all while using ≤ 10% of the amount of training data in our subset D**train** sampled from the whole dataset D. Our method is able to outperform all the baselines on 10 out of 16 datasets. On the remaining 6 datasets the maximum absolute difference between TESTED and MoLE is 1.1 points in F1. We also present ablations for TESTED, by replacing the proposed sampling method with other alternatives, removing the contrastive objective or both simultaneously. Replacing Topic Efficient sampling with either Random or *Stratified* selections deteriorates the results for all datasets with an average decrease of 8 and 5 F1 points, respectively. We attribute this to the inability of other sampling techniques to maintain inter-topic distribution and per-topic label distributions balanced while selecting diverse samples. We further analyse how our sampling technique tackles these tasks in subsection 6.2. We also see that removing the contrastive loss also results in a deteriorated performance across all the datasets with an average decrease of 3 F1 points. In particular, we see a more significant decrease in datasets with similar topics and textual expressions, i.e. *poldeb*   Majority class baseline 27.60 21.45 21.27 34.66 39.38 35.30 21.30 20.96 43.98 19.49 25.15 24.27 22.34 15.91 33.83 34.06 17.19 Random baseline 35.19 18.50 30.66 50.06 48.67 50.08 31.83 18.64 45.49 33.15 20.43 31.11 17.02 20.01 49.94 50.08 33.25 MoLE 65.55 63.17 38.50 85.27 50.76 **65.91 83.74** 75.82 75.07 **65.08 67.24 70.05** 57.78 68.37 **63.73** 79.38 38.92 TESTED (Our Model) **69.12 64.82 56.97 83.11 52.76** 64.71 82.10 **83.17 78.61** 63.96 66.58 69.91 **58.72 70.98** 62.79 **88.06 57.47** Topic → Random Sampling 61.14 53.92 42.59 77.68 44.08 52.54 67.55 75.60 72.67 56.35 59.08 66.88 57.28 69.32 52.02 76.93 53.80 Topic → Stratified Sampling 64.01 50.27 51.57 77.78 46.67 62.13 79.00 77.90 76.44 61.50 64.92 68.45 51.96 69.47 56.76 78.30 51.16 - Contrastive Objective 65.63 61.11 55.50 81.85 43.81 63.04 80.84 79.05 73.43 62.18 61.57 60.17 56.06 68.79 59.51 86.94 56.35 Topic Sampling → Stratified - Contrastive Loss 63.24 60.98 49.17 77.85 45.54 58.23 77.36 75.80 74.77 60.85 63.69 62.59 54.74 62.85 53.67 86.04 47.72 Table 1: In-domain results reported with macro averaged F1, averaged over experiments. In lines under *TESTED*, we replace (for Sampling) (→) or remove (for loss) (−), the comprising components. and *semeval16*, meaning that learning to differentiate between contrastive pairs is essential within this task. We analyse the effect of the contrastive training objective further in subsection 6.4. Out-of-domain In the out-of-domain evaluation, we leave one dataset out of the training process for subsequent testing. We present the results of TESTED in Table 2, showing that it is able to overperform over the previous state-of-the-art significantly. The metrics in each column of Table 2 show the results for each dataset held out from training and only evaluated on. Our method records an increased performance on 13 of 16 datasets, with an averaged increase of 10.2 F1 points over MoLE, which is a significantly more pronounced increase than for the in-domain setting, demonstrating that the strength of TESTED lies in better outof-domain generalisation. We can also confirm that replacing the sampling technique or removing the contrastive loss results in lower performance across all datasets, with decreases of 9 and 5 F1 points respectively. This effect is even more pronounced compared to the in-domain experiments, as adapting to unseen domains and topics is facilitated by diverse samples with a balanced label distribution. ## 6.2 Imbalance Mitigation Through Sampling Inter-Topic To investigate the inter-topic imbalances, we look at the topic distribution for the top 20 most frequent topics covered in the complete multi-domain dataset D, which accounts for ≥ 40% of the overall data. As we can see in Figure 2, even the most frequent topics greatly vary in their representation frequency, with σ = 4093.55, where σ is the standard deviation between represented amounts. For the training dataset D**train**, by contrast, the standard deviation between the topics is much smaller σ = 63.59. This can be attributed to the fact that D**train** constitutes ≤ 10% of D, thus we also show the aggregated data distributions in Figure 2. For a more systematic analysis, we employ the two sample KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) test (Massey, 1951), to compare topic distributions in D and D**train** for each dataset present in D. The test compares the cumulative distributions (CDF) of the two groups, in terms of their maximum-absolute difference, stat = supx|F1(x) − F2(x)|. The results in Table 3 show that the topic distribution within the full and sampled data D, D**train**, cannot be the same for most of the datasets. The results for the maximum-absolute difference also show that with at least 0.4 difference in CDF, the | F1 avg. | arc | iac1 perspectrum poldeb scd emergent fnc1 snopes mtsd rumor semeval16 semeval19 wtwt argmin ibmcs vast | | | | | | | | |-----------------------------|-------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------|-------|-------------------------|-------|-------|-------------------------| | MoLE w/ Hard Mapping | 32.78 | 25.29 35.15 | 29.55 | 22.80 16.13 | 58.49 | 47.05 29.28 23.34 32.93 | 37.01 | 21.85 | 16.10 34.16 72.93 22.89 | | MoLE w/ Weak Mapping | 49.20 51.81 38.97 | 58.48 | 47.23 53.96 82.07 51.57 56.97 40.13 51.29 | 36.31 | 31.75 | 22.75 50.71 75.69 37.15 | | | | | MoLE w/Soft Mapping | 46.56 | 48.31 32.21 | 62.73 | 54.19 51.97 | 46.86 | 57.31 53.58 37.88 44.46 | 36.77 | 28.92 | 28.97 57.78 72.11 30.96 | | TESTED | 59.41 50.80 57.95 | 78.95 | 55.62 55.23 80.80 72.51 61.70 55.49 39.44 | 40.54 | 46.28 | 42.77 72.07 86.19 54.33 | | | | | Topic Sampling → Stratified | 50.38 | 38.47 46.54 | 69.75 | 50.54 51.37 | 68.25 | 59.41 51.64 48.24 28.04 | 29.69 | 34.97 | 38.13 63.83 83.20 44.06 | | - Contrastive Loss | 54.63 | 47.96 50.09 | 76.51 | 47.49 51.93 | 75.22 | 68.69 56.53 49.47 33.95 | 37.96 | 44.10 | 39.56 63.09 83.59 48.03 |  dataset stat p-value fnc-1-ours 1.00 0.007937 arc 0.40 0.873016 emergent 0.80 0.079365 wtwt 0.20 1.000000 rumor 0.40 0.873016 snopes 0.40 0.873016 perspectrum 0.60 0.357143 vast 0.60 0.357143 semeval2016task6 0.40 0.873016 iac 0.40 0.873016 mtsd 0.25 1.000000 argmin 0.40 0.873016 scd 1.00 0.007937 ibm_claim_stance 0.80 0.079365 politicaldebates 0.50 1.000000 sampled dataset D**train** on average has a more balanced topic distribution. The analysis in Figure 2 and Table 3, show that the sampling technique is able to mitigate the inter-topic imbalances present in D. A more in-depth analysis for each dataset is provided in Appendix A. Per-topic For the per-topic imbalance analysis, we complete similar steps to the inter-topic analysis, with the difference that we iterate over the top 20 frequent topics looking at *label* imbalances within each topic. We examine the label distribution for the top 20 topics for a per-topic comparison. The standard deviation in label distributions averaged across those 20 topics is σ = 591.05 for the whole dataset D and the sampled set D**train** σ = 11.7. This can be attributed to the stratified manner of our sampling technique. This is also  evident from Figure 3, which portrays the overall label distribution in D and D**train**. To investigate the difference in label distribution for each of the top 20 topics in D, we use the KS test, presented in Table 4. For most topics, we see that the label samples in D and D**train** cannot come from the same distribution. This means that the per-topic label distribution in the sampled dataset D**train**, does not possess the same imbalances present in D. We can also see the normalized standard deviation for the label distribution within D**train** is lower than in D, as shown in Figure 4. This reinforces the finding that per-topic label distributions in the sampled dataset are more uniform. For complete pertopic results, we refer the reader to Appendix A. Performance Using our topic-efficient sampling method is highly beneficial for in- and out-ofdomain experiments, presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Our sampling method can select diverse and representative examples while outperforming Random and *Stratified* sampling techniques by 8 and 5 F1 points on average. This performance can be attributed to the mitigated inter- and per-topic | topic | p-values | |-------------------------------|------------| | FOXA_DIS | 0.028571 | | CVS_AET | 0.028571 | | ANTM_CI | 0.028571 | | AET_HUM | 0.047143 | | abortion | 0.100000 | | Sarah Palin getting divorced? | 0.028571 | | gun control | 0.001879 | | CI_ESRX | 0.028571 | | Hilary Clinton | 0.001468 | | death penalty | 0.100000 | | Donald Trump | 0.002494 | | Is Barack Obama muslim? | 0.028571 | | cloning | 0.333333 | | marijuana legalization | 0.032178 | | nuclear energy | 0.333333 | | school uniforms | 0.333333 | | creation | 0.003333 | | minimum wage | 0.333333 | | evolution | 0.100000 | | lockdowns | 0.000491 |  ## 6.3 Data Efficiency TESTED allows for sampling topic-efficient, diverse and representative samples while preserving the balance of topics and labels. This enables the training of data-efficient models for stance detection while avoiding redundant or noisy samples. We analyse the data efficiency of our method by training on datasets with sizes [1%, 15%] compared to the overall data size |D|, sampled using our technique. Results for the in-domain setting in terms of averaged F1 scores for each sampled dataset size are shown in Figure 5. One can observe a steady performance increase with the more selected samples, but diminishing returns from the 10% point onwards. This leads us to use 10% as the optimal threshold for our sampling process, reinforcing the data-efficient nature of TESTED.   ## 6.4 Contrastive Objective Analysis To analyse the effect of the contrastive loss, we sample 200 unseen instances stratified across each dataset and compare the sentence representations before and after training. To compare the representations, we reduce the dimension of the embeddings with t-SNE and cluster them with standard K-means. We see in Figure 6 that using the objective allows for segmenting contrastive examples in a more pronounced way. The cluster purity also massively rises from 0.312 to 0.776 after training with the contrastive loss. This allows the stance detection model to differentiate and reason over the contrastive samples with greater confidence. ## 7 Conclusions We proposed TESTED, a novel end-to-end framework for multi-domain stance detection. The method consists of a data-efficient topic-guided sampling module, that mitigates the imbalances inherent in the data while selecting diverse examples, and a stance detection model with a contrastive training objective. TESTED yields significant performance gains compared to strong baselines on indomain experiments, but in particular generalises well on out-of-domain topics, achieving a 10.2 F1 point improvement over the state of the art, all while using ≤ 10% of the training data. While in this paper, we have evaluated TESTED on stance detection, the method is applicable to text classification more broadly, which we plan to investigate in more depth in future work. ## Limitations Our framework currently only supports English, thus not allowing us to complete a cross-lingual study. Future work should focus on extending this study to a multilingual setup. Our method is evaluated on a 16 dataset stance benchmark, where some domains bear similarities. The benchmark should be extended and analyzed further to find independent datasets with varying domains and minimal similarities, allowing for a more granular out-ofdomain evaluation. ## Acknowledgements This research is funded by a DFF Sapere Aude research leader grant under grant agreement No 0171-00034B, as well as supported by the Pioneer Centre for AI, DNRF grant number P1. ## References Ehud Aharoni, Anatoly Polnarov, Tamar Lavee, Daniel Hershcovich, Ran Levy, Ruty Rinott, Dan Gutfreund, and Noam Slonim. 2014. A Benchmark Dataset for Automatic Detection of Claims and Evidence in the Context of Controversial Topics. In *Proceedings of* the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pages 64–68, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Abeer Aldayel and Walid Magdy. 2019. Your Stance is Exposed! Analysing Possible Factors for Stance Detection on Social Media. *Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput.* Interact., 3(CSCW). Emily Allaway and Kathleen McKeown. 2020. ZeroShot Stance Detection: A Dataset and Model using Generalized Topic Representations. In *Proceedings* of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8913– 8931, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dimo Angelov. 2020. Top2vec: Distributed representations of topics. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2008.09470. Isabelle Augenstein, Tim Rocktäschel, Andreas Vlachos, and Kalina Bontcheva. 2016. Stance detection with bidirectional conditional encoding. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing, pages 876–885, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Roy Bar-Haim, Indrajit Bhattacharya, Francesco Dinuzzo, Amrita Saha, and Noam Slonim. 2017. Stance classification of context-dependent claims. In *Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European* Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 251–261, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bjorn Barz and Joachim Denzler. 2020. Deep learning on small datasets without pre-training using cosine loss. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision*, pages 1371–1380. Alina Beygelzimer, Sanjoy Dasgupta, and John Langford. 2009. Importance weighted active learning. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2009, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, June 14-18, 2009, volume 382 of ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pages 49–56. ACM. David M. Blei, Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. 2001. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14 [Neural Information Processing Systems: Natural and Synthetic, NIPS 2001, December 3-8, 2001, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada], pages 601–608. MIT Press. Filip Boltužic and Jan Šnajder. 2014. ´ Back up your Stance: Recognizing Arguments in Online Discussions. In *Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining*, pages 49–58, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Felix Buchert, Nassir Navab, and Seong Tae Kim. 2022. Exploiting Diversity of Unlabeled Data for LabelEfficient Semi-Supervised Active Learning. In *2022* 26th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 2063–2069. IEEE. Sihao Chen, Daniel Khashabi, Wenpeng Yin, Chris Callison-Burch, and Dan Roth. 2019. Seeing things from a different angle: Discovering diverse perspectives about claims. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers)*, pages 542–557, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Costanza Conforti, Jakob Berndt, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, Chryssi Giannitsarou, Flavio Toxvaerd, and Nigel Collier. 2020. Will-they-won't-they: A very large dataset for stance detection on Twitter. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 1715– 1724, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440– 8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bo Dai and Dahua Lin. 2017. Contrastive Learning for Image Captioning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 898– 907. Rajshekhar Das, Yu-Xiong Wang, and José MF Moura. 2021. On the importance of distractors for few-shot classification. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 9030–9040. Leon Derczynski, Kalina Bontcheva, Maria Liakata, Rob Procter, Geraldine Wong Sak Hoi, and Arkaitz Zubiaga. 2017. SemEval-2017 task 8: RumourEval: Determining rumour veracity and support for rumours. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pages 69–76, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. William Ferreira and Andreas Vlachos. 2016. Emergent: a novel data-set for stance classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1163–1168, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894–6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. John Giorgi, Osvald Nitski, Bo Wang, and Gary Bader. 2021. DeCLUTR: Deep contrastive learning for unsupervised textual representations. In *Proceedings* of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 879–895, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kyle Glandt, Sarthak Khanal, Yingjie Li, Doina Caragea, and Cornelia Caragea. 2021. Stance detection in COVID-19 tweets. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1596–1611, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ivan Habernal, Henning Wachsmuth, Iryna Gurevych, and Benno Stein. 2018. The Argument Reasoning Comprehension Task: Identification and Reconstruction of Implicit Warrants. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1930–1940, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Karen Hambardzumyan, Hrant Khachatrian, and Jonathan May. 2021. WARP: Word-level Adversarial ReProgramming. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4921–4933, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andreas Hanselowski, Avinesh PVS, Benjamin Schiller, Felix Caspelherr, Debanjan Chaudhuri, Christian M. Meyer, and Iryna Gurevych. 2018. A Retrospective Analysis of the Fake News Challenge StanceDetection Task. In *Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 1859–1874, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andreas Hanselowski, Christian Stab, Claudia Schulz, Zile Li, and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. A richly annotated corpus for different tasks in automated factchecking. In *Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on* Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 493–503, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Momchil Hardalov, Arnav Arora, Preslav Nakov, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2021. Cross-domain labeladaptive stance detection. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9011–9028, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Momchil Hardalov, Arnav Arora, Preslav Nakov, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2022a. A Survey on Stance Detection for Mis- and Disinformation Identification. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 1259–1277, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Momchil Hardalov, Arnav Arora, Preslav Nakov, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2022b. Few-Shot Cross-Lingual Stance Detection with Sentiment-Based Pre-training. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(10):10729–10737. Kazi Saidul Hasan and Vincent Ng. 2013. Stance classification of ideological debates: Data, models, features, and constraints. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 1348–1356, Nagoya, Japan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Kazi Saidul Hasan and Vincent Ng. 2014. Why are You Taking this Stance? Identifying and Classifying Reasons in Ideological Debates. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 751–762, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hideitsu Hino. 2020. Active learning: Problem settings and recent developments. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2012.04225. Tamanna Hossain, Robert L. Logan IV, Arjuna Ugarte, Yoshitomo Matsubara, Sean Young, and Sameer Singh. 2020. COVIDLies: Detecting COVID-19 misinformation on social media. In *Proceedings of* the 1st Workshop on NLP for COVID-19 (Part 2) at EMNLP 2020, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashish Jaiswal, Ashwin Ramesh Babu, Mohammad Zaki Zadeh, Debapriya Banerjee, and Fillia Makedon. 2020. A survey on contrastive selfsupervised learning. *Technologies*, 9(1):2. Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. 2020. Supervised contrastive learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Ksenia Konyushkova, Raphael Sznitman, and Pascal Fua. 2017. Learning Active Learning from Data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 4225–4235. Dilek Küçük and Fazli Can. 2020. Stance detection: A survey. *ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)*, 53(1):1– 37. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. ALBERT: A lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language representations. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Xiao Liu, Fanjin Zhang, Zhenyu Hou, Li Mian, Zhaoyu Wang, Jing Zhang, and Jie Tang. 2021. Selfsupervised learning: Generative or contrastive. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/1907.11692. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net. Frank J. Massey. 1951. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit. *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 46(253):68–78. Saif Mohammad, Svetlana Kiritchenko, Parinaz Sobhani, Xiaodan Zhu, and Colin Cherry. 2016. SemEval-2016 task 6: Detecting stance in tweets. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pages 31– 41, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Saif M Mohammad, Parinaz Sobhani, and Svetlana Kiritchenko. 2017. Stance and sentiment in tweets. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), 17(3):1–23. Marius Mosbach, Maksym Andriushchenko, and Dietrich Klakow. 2021. On the stability of fine-tuning BERT: misconceptions, explanations, and strong baselines. In *9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021*. OpenReview.net. Moritz Osnabrügge, Elliott Ash, and Massimo Morelli. 2023. Cross-domain topic classification for political texts. *Political Analysis*, 31(1):59–80. Malte Ostendorff, Nils Rethmeier, Isabelle Augenstein, Bela Gipp, and Georg Rehm. 2022. Neighborhood Contrastive Learning for Scientific Document Representations with Citation Embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in* Natural Language Processing, pages 11670–11688, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ethan Perez, Douwe Kiela, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2021. True few-shot learning with language models. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 34:11054–11070. Dean Pomerleau and Delip Rao. 2017. Fake news challenge stage 1 (FNC-I): Stance detection. *URL www.* fakenewschallenge. org. Vahed Qazvinian, Emily Rosengren, Dragomir R. Radev, and Qiaozhu Mei. 2011. Rumor has it: Identifying Misinformation in Microblogs. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1589–1599, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qi Qian, Lei Shang, Baigui Sun, Juhua Hu, Tacoma Tacoma, Hao Li, and Rong Jin. 2019. Softtriple loss: Deep metric learning without triplet sampling. In 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2019, Seoul, Korea (South), October 27 - November 2, 2019, pages 6449–6457. IEEE. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Hiranmayi Ranganathan, Hemanth Venkateswara, Shayok Chakraborty, and Sethuraman Panchanathan. 2017. Deep active learning for image classification. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pages 3934–3938. IEEE. Pengzhen Ren, Yun Xiao, Xiaojun Chang, Po-Yao Huang, Zhihui Li, Brij B Gupta, Xiaojiang Chen, and Xin Wang. 2021. A survey of deep active learning. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 54(9):1–40. Nils Rethmeier and Isabelle Augenstein. 2023. A Primer on Contrastive Pretraining in Language Processing: Methods, Lessons Learned, and Perspectives. *ACM Comput. Surv.*, 55(10). Myrthe Reuver, Antske Fokkens, and Suzan Verberne. 2021. No NLP task should be an island: Multidisciplinarity for diversity in news recommender systems. In Proceedings of the EACL Hackashop on News Media Content Analysis and Automated Report Generation, pages 45–55, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jingyu Shao, Qing Wang, and Fangbing Liu. 2019. Learning to sample: an active learning framework. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 538–547. IEEE. Parinaz Sobhani, Diana Inkpen, and Stan Matwin. 2015. From Argumentation Mining to Stance Classification. In *Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining*, pages 67–77, Denver, CO. Association for Computational Linguistics. Parinaz Sobhani, Diana Inkpen, and Xiaodan Zhu. 2017. A dataset for multi-target stance detection. In *Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European* Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers, pages 551–557, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Swapna Somasundaran and Janyce Wiebe. 2010. Recognizing Stances in Ideological On-Line Debates. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text, pages 116–124, Los Angeles, CA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Christian Stab, Tristan Miller, Benjamin Schiller, Pranav Rai, and Iryna Gurevych. 2018. Cross-topic argument mining from heterogeneous sources. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 3664– 3674, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ali Raza Syed, Andrew Rosenberg, and Ellen Kislal. 2016. Supervised and unsupervised active learning for automatic speech recognition of low-resource languages. In *2016 IEEE International Conference on* Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2016, Shanghai, China, March 20-25, 2016, pages 5320–5324. IEEE. Matt Thomas, Bo Pang, and Lillian Lee. 2006. Get out the vote: Determining support or opposition from congressional floor-debate transcripts. In Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 327–335, Sydney, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998–6008. Marilyn Walker, Jean Fox Tree, Pranav Anand, Rob Abbott, and Joseph King. 2012. A Corpus for Research on Deliberation and Debate. In *Proceedings* of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12), pages 812– 817, Istanbul, Turkey. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Rui Wang, Deyu Zhou, Mingmin Jiang, Jiasheng Si, and Yang Yang. 2019. A survey on opinion mining: From stance to product aspect. *IEEE Access*, 7:41101– 41124. Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Nan Yang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. Minilm: Deep selfattention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Penghui Wei, Junjie Lin, and Wenji Mao. 2018. MultiTarget Stance Detection via a Dynamic MemoryAugmented Network. In *The 41st International ACM* SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2018, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, July 08-12, 2018, pages 1229–1232. ACM. Penghui Wei and Wenji Mao. 2019. Modeling Transferable Topics for Cross-Target Stance Detection. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2019, Paris, France, July 21-25, 2019, pages 1173–1176. ACM. Xuyang Yan, Shabnam Nazmi, Biniam Gebru, Mohd Anwar, Abdollah Homaifar, Mrinmoy Sarkar, and Kishor Datta Gupta. 2022. Mitigating shortage of labeled data using clustering-based active learning with diversity exploration. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2207.02964. Yuanmeng Yan, Rumei Li, Sirui Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Wei Wu, and Weiran Xu. 2021. ConSERT: A contrastive framework for self-supervised sentence representation transfer. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5065–5075, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yi Yang, Zhigang Ma, Feiping Nie, Xiaojun Chang, and Alexander G Hauptmann. 2015. Multi-class active learning by uncertainty sampling with diversity maximization. *International Journal of Computer Vision*, 113(2):113–127. Yi Yang, Shimei Pan, Doug Downey, and Kunpeng Zhang. 2014. Active learning with constrained topic model. In *Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Language Learning, Visualization, and Interfaces*, pages 30–33, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Giulio Zhou and Gerasimos Lampouras. 2021. Informed sampling for diversity in concept-to-text NLG. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 2494–2509, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jingbo Zhu, Huizhen Wang, Tianshun Yao, and Benjamin K Tsou. 2008. Active learning with sampling by uncertainty and density for word sense disambiguation and text classification. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008), pages 1137–1144, Manchester, UK. Coling 2008 Organizing Committee. Arkaitz Zubiaga, Ahmet Aker, Kalina Bontcheva, Maria Liakata, and Rob Procter. 2018a. Detection and resolution of rumours in social media: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 51(2):1–36. Arkaitz Zubiaga, Elena Kochkina, Maria Liakata, Rob Procter, Michal Lukasik, Kalina Bontcheva, Trevor Cohn, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2018b. Discourseaware rumour stance classification in social media using sequential classifiers. Information Processing and Management, 54(2):273–290. ## Appendix A Imbalance Analysis A.1 Inter-Topic To complement our inter-topic imbalance mitigation study, we complete an ablation on all topics in D and report them on a per-domain basis in Figure 7. The trend is similar to the one in Figure 2, where the dataset with imbalanced distributions is rebalanced, and balanced datasets are not corrupted. ## A.2 Per-Topic We show that our topic-efficient sampling method allows us to balance the label distribution for unbalanced topics, while not corrupting the ones distributed almost uniformly. To do this, we investigate each of the per-topic label distributions for the top 20 most frequent topics while comparing the label distributions for D and D**train**, presented in Figure 8. ## B Evaluation Metrics To evaluate our models and have a fair comparison with the introduced benchmarks we use a standard set of metrics for classification tasks such as macroaveraged F1, precision, recall and accuracy. $$Acc=\frac{TP+TN}{TP+TN+FP+FN}\tag{4}$$ $$Prec=\frac{TP}{TP+FP}$$ (5) $$Recall=\frac{TP}{TP+FN}$$ (6) $$F1=\frac{2*Prec*Recall}{Prec+Recall}=\frac{2*TP}{2*TP+FP+FN}\tag{7}$$ ## C Dataset Statistics We use a stance detection benchmark (Hardalov et al., 2021) whose data statistics are shown in Table 5. The label mapping employed is shown in Table 6. ## D Tested With Different Backbones We chose to employ different PLM's as the backbone for TESTED and report the results in the Table 7. The PLMs are taken from the set of *robertabase, roberta-large, xlm-roberta-base, xlm-robertalarge.* The differences between models with a similar number of parameters are marginal. We can | Dataset | Train | Dev | Test | Total | |---------------|---------|--------|--------|---------| | arc | 12,382 | 1,851 | 3,559 | 17,792 | | argmin | 6,845 | 1,568 | 2,726 | 11,139 | | emergent | 1,770 | 301 | 524 | 2,595 | | fnc1 | 42,476 | 7,496 | 25,413 | 75,385 | | iac1 | 4,227 | 454 | 924 | 5,605 | | ibmcs | 935 | 104 | 1,355 | 2,394 | | mtsd | 3,718 | 520 | 1,092 | 5, 330 | | perspectrum | 6,978 | 2,071 | 2,773 | 11,822 | | poldeb | 4,753 | 1,151 | 1,230 | 7,134 | | rumor | 6,093 | 471 | 505 | 7, 276 | | scd | 3,251 | 624 | 964 | 4,839 | | semeval2016t6 | 2,497 | 417 | 1,249 | 4,163 | | semeval2019t7 | 5,217 | 1,485 | 1,827 | 8,529 | | snopes | 14,416 | 1,868 | 3,154 | 19,438 | | vast | 13,477 | 2,062 | 3,006 | 18,545 | | wtwt | 25,193 | 7,897 | 18,194 | 51,284 | | Total | 154,228 | 30,547 | 68,495 | 253,270 | | Label | Description | |----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Positive | agree, argument for, for, pro, favor, support, endorse | | Negative | disagree, argument against, against, anti, con, undermine, deny, refute | | Discuss | discuss, observing, question, query, comment | | Other | unrelated, none, comment | | Neutral | neutral | Table 6: Hard stance label mapping employed in this paper, following the stance detection benchmark by Hardalov et al. (2021). see a degradation of the F1 score between the *base* and *large* versions of the models, which can be attributed to the expressiveness the models possess. We also experiment with the distilled version of the model and can confirm that in terms of the final F1 score, it works on par with the larger models. This shows that we can utilise smaller and more computationally efficient models within the task with marginal degradation in overall performance.    II, II, II, 111111111 1.1.1.1.1 1111111 111111 | 1,11,11, | |--------------| | (), I,,, I,, | | 1,161, | | 11, 111, | | 1111111 | 1, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11 111111 1111111 11, 111, 111, $$\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}]=$$ | II, II, II, | |---------------| | 11, 111, 111 | | 0000 | | 1.1.1.1.1. | | s | | | | | | | | | | | | | |--------------------------|-------|--------------|-------|-------------|------------|-------------|--------------|-------------|-------|--------|-------------------|------------------| | F 1 avg. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | TESTED reberto-large | 69.12 | 64.82 | 56.97 | 63.96 66.58 | 8.06 57.47 | | | | | | | | | 69.91 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | TESTED xim-reherta-large | 68.86 | 64.35 57.0 | 82.71 | 52.93 64.75 | 81.72 | 82.71 | 78.38 | 63.66 66.71 | 69.76 | 58.27 | 71.29 | 62.73 87.75 57.2 | | TESTED reberto-base | 65.32 | 59.71 51.86 | 76.75 | 50.23 61.35 | 78.84 | 82.09 73.31 | 62.87 65.46 | 63.89 | 58.3 | 67.28 | 58.28 83.81 51.09 | | | TESTED xim-reberta-bas | 65.05 | 60.26 51.96 | 76.2 | 51.82 58.74 | 74.68 | 7.9 72.61 | 62.71 66.08 | 69.74 | 53.27 | 65.83 | 59.09 87.92 52.08 | | | TESTED distilusion | 68.86 | 61.78 56.94 | 80.36 | 46.29 64.1 | 79.26 | 81.37 | 73.44 | 62.6 63.4 | 63.75 | 565656 | 68.35 | 57.27 81.93 56.3 | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Left blank. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Not applicable. Left blank. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 3 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix D ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 6 ✗ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? We use standard pre-trained language models. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 5 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 6 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 5 ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

gupta-etal-2023-discomat

{D}i{SC}o{M}a{T}: Distantly Supervised Composition Extraction from Tables in Materials Science Articles

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.753

A crucial component in the curation of KB for a scientific domain (e.g., materials science, food {\&} nutrition, fuels) is information extraction from tables in the domain{'}s published research articles. To facilitate research in this direction, we define a novel NLP task of extracting compositions of materials (e.g., glasses) from tables in materials science papers. The task involves solving several challenges in concert, such as tables that mention compositions have highly varying structures; text in captions and full paper needs to be incorporated along with data in tables; and regular languages for numbers, chemical compounds, and composition expressions must be integrated into the model. We release a training dataset comprising 4,408 distantly supervised tables, along with 1,475 manually annotated dev and test tables. We also present DiSCoMaT, a strong baseline that combines multiple graph neural networks with several task-specific regular expressions, features, and constraints. We show that DiSCoMaT outperforms recent table processing architectures by significant margins. We release our code and data for further research on this challenging IE task from scientific tables.

# Discoma**T: Distantly Supervised Composition Extraction** From Tables In Materials Science Articles Tanishq Gupta1, Mohd Zaki2, Devanshi Khatsuriya3**, Kausik Hira**4, N. M. Anoop Krishnan4,2, **Mausam**4,3 1Department of Mathematics, 2Department of Civil Engineering 3Department of Computer Science and Engineering, 4Yardi School of Artificial Intelligence Indian Institute of Technology Delhi {tanishqg2406, mohdzaki1995, devanshikhatsuriya18, kausikhira}@gmail.com {krishnan, mausam}@iitd.ac.in ## Abstract A crucial component in the curation of KB for a scientific domain (e.g., materials science, foods & nutrition, fuels) is information extraction from tables in the domain's published research articles. To facilitate research in this direction, we define a novel NLP task of extracting compositions of materials (e.g., glasses) from tables in material science papers. The task involves solving several challenges in concert, such as tables that mention compositions have highly varying structures; text in captions and full paper needs to be incorporated along with data in tables; and regular languages for numbers, chemical compounds and composition expressions must be integrated into the model. We release a training dataset comprising 4,408 distantly supervised tables, along with 1,475 manually annotated dev and test tables. We also present DISCOMAT, a strong baseline that combines multiple graph neural networks with several task-specific regular expressions, features, and constraints. We show that DISCOMAT outperforms recent table processing architectures by significant margins. We release our code and data for further research on this challenging IE task from scientific tables. ## 1 Introduction Advanced knowledge of a science or engineering domain is typically found in domain-specific research papers. Information extraction (IE) from scientific articles develops ML methods to automatically extract this knowledge for curating largescale domain-specific KBs (e.g., (Ernst et al., 2015; Hope et al., 2021)). These KBs have a variety of uses: they lead to ease of information access by domain researchers (Tsatsaronis et al., 2015; Hamon et al., 2017), provide data for developing domainspecific ML models (Nadkarni et al., 2021), and potentially help in accelerating scientific discoveries (Jain et al., 2013; Venugopal et al., 2021). Significant research exists on IE from *text* of research papers (see Nasar et al. (2018) for a survey), but less attention is given to IE (often, numeric) from *tables*. Tables may report the performance of algorithms on a dataset, quantitative results of clinical trials, or other important information. Of special interest to us are tables that mention the composition and properties of an entity. Such tables are ubiquitous in various fields such as food and nutrition (tables of food items with nutritional values, see Tables 1-4 in de Holanda Cavalcanti et al. (2021) and Table 2 in Stokvis et al. (2021)), fuels (constituents and calorific values, see Table 2 in Kar et al. (2022) and Beliavskii et al. (2022)), building construction (components and costs, see Table 4 in Aggarwal and Saha (2022)), materials (constituents and properties, see Table 1 and 2 in Kasimuthumaniyan et al. (2020) and Table 4 in Keshri et al. (2022)), medicine (compounds with weights in drugs, see Table 1 in Kalegari et al. (2014)), and more. In materials science (MatSci) articles, the details on synthesis and characterization are reported in the text (Mysore et al., 2019), while material compositions are mostly reported in tables (Jensen et al., 2019b). A preliminary analysis of MatSci papers reveals that ∼85%1 of material compositions and their associated properties (e.g., density, stiffness) are reported in tables and not text. Thus, IE from tables is essential for a comprehensive understanding of a given paper, and for increasing the coverage of resulting KBs. To this extent, we define a novel NLP task of extraction of materials (via IDs mentioned in the paper), constituents, and their relative percentages. For instance, Fig.1a should output four materials A1-A4, where ID A1 is associated with three constituents (MoO3, Fe2O3, and P2O5) and their respective percentages, 5, 38, and 57. A model for this task necessitates solving several challenges, which are discussed in detail in Sec. 3. While many of these issues have been investigated 1estimated by randomly choosing 100 compositions from a MatSci database and checking where they are reported 13465 separately, e.g., numerical IE (Madaan et al., 2016), unit extraction (Sarawagi and Chakrabarti, 2014), chemical compound identification (Weston et al., 2019), NLP for tables (Jensen et al., 2019b; Swain and Cole, 2016a), solving all these in concert creates a challenging testbed for the NLP community. Here, we harvest a distantly supervised training dataset of 4,408 tables and 38,799 compositionconstituent tuples by aligning a MatSci database with tables in papers. We also label 1,475 tables manually for dev and test sets. We build a baseline system DISCOMAT, which uses a pipeline of a domain-specific language model (Gupta et al., 2022), and two graph neural networks (GNNs), along with several hand-coded features and constraints. We evaluate our system on accuracy metrics for various subtasks, including material ID prediction, tuple-level predictions, and material-level complete predictions. We find that DISCOMAT's GNN architecture obtains a 7-15 points increase in accuracy numbers, compared to table processors (Herzig et al., 2020; Yin et al., 2020), which linearize the table for IE. Subsequent analysis reveals common sources of DISCOMAT errors, which will inform future research. We release all our data and code2for further research on this challenging task. ## 2 Related Work Recent works have developed neural models for various NLP tasks based on tabular data, viz, tabular natural language inference (Orihuela et al., 2021; Minhas et al., 2022), QA over one or a corpus of tables (Herzig et al., 2020; Yin et al., 2020; Arik and Pfister, 2021; Glass et al., 2021; Pan et al., 2021; Chemmengath et al., 2021), table orientation classification (Habibi et al., 2020; Nishida et al., 2017), and relation extraction from tables (Govindaraju et al., 2013; Macdonald and Barbosa, 2020). Several recent papers study QA models—they all linearize a table and pass it to a pre-trained language model. For example, TAPAS (Herzig et al., 2020) does this for Wikipedia tables to answer natural language questions by selecting table cells and aggregation operators. TABERT (Yin et al., 2020) and RCI (Glass et al., 2021) also use similar ideas alongside some architectural modifications to handle rows and columns better. TABBIE (Iida et al., 2021) consists of two transformers that encode rows and columns independently, whereas TAPEX uses encoder-decoder architecture using BART. TABBIE and TAPEX also introduce pretraining over tables to learn table representations better. Similar to our work, tables have also been modeled as graphs for sequential question answering over tables (Müller et al., 2019). However, all these works generally assume a fixed and known structure of tables with the same orientation, with the top row being the header row in all cases - an assumption violated in our setting. Orientation and semantic structure classification: DeepTable (Habibi et al., 2020) is a permutation-invariant neural model, which classifies tables into three orientations, while TabNet (Nishida et al., 2017) uses RNNs and CNNs in a hybrid fashion to classify web tables into five different types of orientations. INFOTABS (Gupta et al., 2020) studies natural language inference on tabular data via linearization and language models, which has been extended to the multilingual setting (Minhas et al., 2022), and has been combined with knowledge graphs (Varun et al., 2022). Some earlier works also focused on annotating column types, entity ID cells, and pair of columns with binary relations, based on rule-based and other ML approaches, given a catalog (Limaye et al., 2010). ## 3 Challenges In Composition Extraction From Tables We analyze numerous composition tables in MatSci research papers (see Figures 1, 6 and 4 for examples), and find that the task has several facets, with many table styles for similar compositions. We now describe the key challenges involved in the task of composition extraction from tables. - **Distractor rows and columns**: Additional information such as material properties, molar ratios, and std errors in the same table. E.g., in Figure 1a, the last three rows are distractor rows. - **Orientation of tables**: Table shown in Figure 4a is a row oriented table—different compositions are written in different rows. The table in Figure 1a is a column-oriented table. - **Different units**: Compositions can be in different units such as mol%, weight%, mol fraction, weight fraction. Some tables express composition in both molar and mass units. - **Material IDs**: Authors refer to different materials in their publication by assigning them unique IDs. These material IDs may not be specified every time, (e.g., Fig. 1c). - **Single-cell compositions (SCC)**: In Fig. 1a, all 13466 | Glass composition in the paper | | | | | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------|---------------|------|----------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------|----------------|--------------------------------------|-----------| | Sample | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | Composition | log σ 208 (S cm − 1 ) | | | | | | Caption: 20La2S3 - (80 - x)Ga2S3 - xCsCl | | | | | | | | | | | | Code | (80GeS 2 - 20Ga 2 S 3 ) 90 - (LiI) 106 | 65–6.34 (5) | | | | | | | | | | Batch | MoO3 | 5 | 15 | 20 | Glass | CsCl (mol%) | n (1.5 µ m) | | | | | Composition | Fe 2 O 3 | 38 | 36 | 34 | 32 | GLSC10 | 10 | 2.253 ± 0.001 | (80GeS 2 –20Ga 2 S 3 ) 90 –(NaCl) 10 | −6.92 (5) | | (mol %) | P205 | 57 | 54 | 51 | 48 | GLSC20 | 20 | 2.265 ± 0.001. | | | | Mo/P | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.21 | (80GeS2-20Ga2S3)90-(NaI)10 | −7.24 (3) | | | | | | 0/P | GLSC30 | 30 | 2.322 ± 0.001 | | | | | | | | | Molar ratio | 3.6 | | | | | | | | | | | Fe/P | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 | GLSC40 | 2.379 ± 0.001 | (72GeS 2 –28Ga 2 S 3 ) 90 –(Li 2 S ) 10 | −5.74 (3) | | | | 40 | | | | | | | | | | | Figure 1: Examples of composition tables (a) Multi-cell complete-info (Moguš-Milanković et al., 2003) (b) Multicompositions are present in multiple table cells. Some authors report the entire composition in a single table cell, as shown in Fig. 1c. - Percentages exceeding 100: Sum of coefficients may exceed 100, and re-normalization is needed. A common case is when a dopant is used; its amount is reported in excess. - Percentages as variables : Contributions of constituents may be expressed using variables like x , y . In Fig. 6 (see App. A), x represents the mol% of (GeBr 4 ) and the 2 nd row contains its value. - Partial-information tables : It is also common to have percentages of only some constituents in the table; the remaining composition is to be inferred based on paper text or table caption, e.g., Figure 1b. Another example: if the paper is on silicate glasses, then SiO 2 is assumed. - Other corner cases : There are several other corner cases like percentages missing from the table, compounds with variables (e.g., R 2 O in the header; the value of R to be inferred from material ID), and highly unusual placement of information (some examples in appendix). ## Problem Formulation 4 Our goal is automated extraction of material compositions from tables. Formally, given a table T , its caption, and the complete text of publication in which T occurs, we aim to extract compositions expressed in T , in the form {( id, cj, pj, uj, )}k=1. Here, id represents the material ID, as used in the paper. Material IDs are defined by MatSci researchers to succinctly refer to that composition in text and other tables. c j d is a constituent element or compound present in the material, K id is the total number of constituents in the material, p id > 0 denotes the percentage contribution of c id in its composition, and u id is the unit of p id (either mole% or weight%). For instance, the desired output tuples corresponding to ID A1 from Figure 1a are (A1, MoO 3 , 5, mol%), (A1, Fe 2 O 3 , 38, mol%), (A1, P 2 O 5 , 57, mol%). ## 5 Dataset Construction We match a MatSci DB of materials and compositions with tables from published papers, to automatically provide distantly-supervised labels for extraction. We first use a commercial DB (NGF, 2019) of glass compositions with the respective references. Then, we extract all tables from the 2,536 references in the DB using text-mining API (els). We use a table parser (Jensen et al., 2019a) for raw XML tables and captions. This results in 5,883 tables of which 2,355 express compositions with 16,729 materials, and 58,481 (material ID, constituent, composition percentage, unit) tuples. We keep tables from 1,880 papers for training, and the rest are split into dev and test (see Table 4b). The DB does not contain information about the location of a given composition in the paper - in text, images, graphs, or tables. If present in a table, it can appear in any column or row. Since we do not know the exact location of a composition, we use distantly supervised train set construction (Mintz et al., 2009 ). First, we simply match the chemical compounds and percentages (or equivalent fractions) mentioned in the DB with the text in a table from the associated paper. If all composition percentages are found in multiple cells of the table, it is marked as MCC-CI (multi-cell composition with complete information). However, due to several problems (see Appendix 3 ), it misses many composition tables. To increase the coverage, we additionally use a rule-based composition parser (described below), but restricted to only those compounds (CPD non-terminal in Figure 2 ) that appear in the DB for this paper. Our distant supervision approach obtains tablelevel annotation (NC, SCC, MCC-PI, MCC-CI), where a table is labeled as non-composition, single/multi cell composition with partial/complete information. It also obtains annotation for each row or column into four labels: ID, composition, constituent, and other. While training data is created using distant supervision, dev and test sets are hand annotated. We now explain the dataset construction process in further detail. Rule-based composition parser: The parser helps find names of constituents from MCC tables, and also match full compositions mentioned in SCC tables. Recall that in SCC tables, the full composition expression is written in a single cell in the row/column corresponding to each Material ID. Such compositions are close to regular languages and can be parsed via regular expressions. CMP = PAT1 | PAT2 | PAT3 PATi = START CSTi (SEP CSTi) + END CST1 = NUM? W CPD CSTt = CST1 (SEP CST1) ∗ CST2 = (CSTt | OB CSTt CB) W NUM CST3 = NUM W (CSTt | OB CSTt CB) Figure 2: Regexes in parser Figure 2 shows the regular expression (simplified, for understandability) used by the parser. Here CMP denotes the matched composition, PATs are the three main patterns for it, CSTs are sub-patterns, CPD is a compound, NUM is a number, and OB and CB are, respectively, open and closed parentheses (or square brackets). W is zero or more whitespace characters, and SEP contains explicit separators like '-' or '+'. START and END are indicators to separate a regular expression from the rest of the text. The first pattern parses simple numbercompound expressions like 40Bi2O3 * 60B2O3. Here each of the two constituents will match with CST1. The other two patterns handle *nested* compositions, where simple expressions are mixed in a given ratio. The main difference between the second and third patterns is in the placement of outer ratios - after or before the simple composition, respectively. Example match for PAT2 is (40Bi2O3+60B2O3)30 - (AgI+AgCl)70, and for PAT3 is 40Bi2O3,40B2O3,20(AgI:2AgCl). To materialize the rules of the rule-based composition parser, we pre-label compounds. For our dataset, we use a list-based extractor, though other chemical data extractors (Swain and Cole, 2016b) may also be used. After parsing, all coefficients are normalized so that they sum to hundred. For nested expressions, the outer ratio and the inner ones are normalized separately and then multiplied. The compositions parsed by rule-based composition parser are then matched with entries in the DB. A successful matching leads to a high-quality annotation of composition expressions in these papers. If this matching happens: (i) in a single cell, the table is deemed as SCC, (ii) on caption/paper text that has an algebraic variable (or compound) found in the table, it is marked as MCC-PI (see Figure 1(b)). In case of no matching, the table is marked as NC. This automatic annotation is post-processed into row, column and edge labels. One further challenge is that material IDs mentioned in papers are not provided in the DB. So, we manually annotate material IDs for all the identified composition tables in the training set. This leads to a train set of 11,207 materials with 38,799 tuples from 4,408 tables. Since the train set is distantly supervised and can be noisy, two authors (one of them is a MatSci expert) of this paper manually annotated the dev and test tables with row/column/edge labels, units, tuples, compositions, and table type, resulting in over 2,500 materials and over 9,500 tuples per set. We used Cohen's Kappa measure for identifying inter-annotator agreement, which was 86.76% for Glass ID, 98.47% for row and column labels, and 94.34% for table types. Conflicts were resolved through mutual discussions. Further statistics and the description of the developed in-house annotation tools used for manual annotations are discussed in A.2. ## 6 Discoma**T Architecture**  Figure 3 illustrates the basic pipeline for extraction in DISCOMAT. We find that the simplest task is to identify whether the table T is an SCC table, owing to the distinctive presence of multiple numbers, and compounds in single cells. DISCOMAT first runs a GNN-based SCC predictor, which classifies T as an SCC table or not. For the SCC table, it uses the rule-based composition parser (described in Sec. 5). For the other category, DISCOMAT runs a second GNN (GNN2), and labels rows and columns of T as compositions, material IDs, constituents, and others. If no constituents or composition predictions are found, then T is deemed to be a non-composition (NC) table. Else, it is an MCC table, for which DISCOMAT predicts whether it has all information in T or some information is missing (partial-information predictor). If it is a complete information table, then GNN2's predictions are post-processed into compositions. If not, the caption and text of the paper are also processed, along with GNN2's predictions leading to final composition extraction. We note that our system ignores statistically infrequent corner cases, such as single-cell partial information tables - we discuss this further in our error analysis. We now describe each of these components, one by one. ## 6.1 Gnn1 And Gnn2 **For Table Processing** At the core of DISCOMAT are two GNNs that learn representations for each cell, row, column and the whole table. Let table T has R rows, C columns, and text at (*i, j*) th cell be tij , where 1 ≤ i ≤ R, and 1 ≤ j ≤ C. We construct a directed graph GT = (VT , ET ), where VT has a node for each cell (*i, j*), one additional node for each row and column, denoted by (i, 0) and (0, j), respectively, and one node for the whole table represented by (0, 0). There are bidirectional edges between two nodes of the same row or column. All cell nodes have directed edges to the table node and also their corresponding row and column nodes. The table, row, and column embeddings are randomly initialized with a common vector, which gets trained during learning. A node (*i, j*)'s embedding −→xij is initialized by running a language model LM over tij . As constructed, GT is permutation-invariant, i.e., if we permute rows or columns, we get the same graph and embeddings. However, initial rows/columns can be semantically different, since they often represent headings for the subsequent list. For instance, material IDs are generally mentioned in the first one or two rows/columns of the table. So, we additionally define *index embeddings* −→pito represent a row/column numbered i. We use the same index embeddings for rows and columns so that our model stays transpose-invariant. We also observe that while first few indices are different, the semantics is generally uniform for indices higher than 3. Accordingly, to allow DISCOMAT to handle large tables, we simply use −→pi =−→p3 ∀i > 3. Finally, any manually-defined features added to each node are embedded as −→f and concatenated to the cell embeddings. Combining all ideas, a cell embedding is initialized as: −→xij = −→fij || (LMCLS(⟨CLS tij SEP⟩)+−→pi +−→pj ) Here, 1 ≤ i ≤ R, 1 ≤ j ≤ C. || is the concat operation and LMCLS gives the contextual embedding of the CLS token after running a LM over the sentence inside ⟨⟩. Message passing is run on the graph GT using a GNN, which computes a learned feature vector −→h for every node: $$\{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{h_{i j}}\}_{i,j=(0,0)}^{(R,C)}=G N N\left(\{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{x_{i j}}\}_{i,j=(0,0)}^{(R,C)}\right).$$ ## 6.2 Scc Predictor In its pipeline, DISCOMAT first classifies whether T is an SCC table. For that, it runs a GNN (named GNN1) on T with two manually defined features (see below). It then implements a Multi-layer Perceptron MLP1 over the table-level feature vector −→h00 to make the prediction. Additionally, GNN1 also feeds row and column vectors −→hi0 and −→h0j through another MLP (MLP2) to predict whether they contain material IDs or not. If T is predicted as an SCC table, then one with the highest MLP2 probability is deemed as material ID row/column (provided probability > α, where α is a hyper-parameter tuned on dev set), and its contents are extracted as potential material IDs. If all row and column probabilities are less than α, then the table is predicted to not have Material IDs, as in Figure 1c. For an SCC table, DISCOMAT must parse the full *composition expression* written in a single cell in the row/column corresponding to each Material ID, for which it makes use of the rule-based composition parser (as described in Section 5). The only difference is that at test time there is no DB available and hence extracted compositions cannot be matched with further. Consequently, DISCOMAT retains all extracted composition expresssions from the parser for further processing. For units, DISCOMAT searches for common unit keywords such as mol, mass, weight, and their abbreviations like wt.%, and at.%. The search is done iteratively with increasing distance from the cell containing the composition. If not found in the table, then the caption is searched. If still not found, mole% is used as default. Manual Features: GNN1 uses two hand-coded features. The first feature is set to true if that cell contains a composition that matches our rule-based composition parser. Each value, true or false, is embedded as −→o . The second feature named max frequency feature adds the bias that material IDs are generally unique in a table. We compute q r i and q c j , which denote the maximum frequency of any non-empty string occurring in the cells of row i and column j, respectively. If these numbers are on the lower side, then that row/column has more unique strings, which should increase the probability that it contains material IDs. The computed q values are embedded in a vector as −→q . The embedded feature −→fij for cell (*i, j*) is initialized as −→oij || ( −→ q r ij + −→ q c ij ). ## 6.3 Mcc-Ci And Mcc-Pi Extractors If T is predicted to not be an SCC table, DISCOMAT runs it through another GNN (GNN2). The graph structure is very similar to GT from Section 6.1, but with two major changes. First, a new caption node is created with initial embedding as given by LM processing the caption text. Edges are added from the caption node to all row and column nodes. To propagate the information further to cells, edges are added from row/column nodes to corresponding cell nodes. The caption node especially helps in identifying non-composition (NC) tables. Second, the max frequency feature from Section 6.2 is also included in this GNN. We use tables in Figure 4 as our running examples. While Figure 4a is a complete-information table, Figure 4b is not, and can only be understood in the context of its caption, which describes the composition as [(N a2O)x(Rb2O)1−x]y(B2O3)1−y. Here x and y are variables, which also need to be extracted and matched with the caption. DISCOMAT first decodes the row and column feature vectors −→hi0 and −→h0j , as computed by GNN2, via an MLP3 into four classes: composition, constituent, ID, and other (label IDs 1, 2, 3, 0, respectively). The figures illustrate this labelling for our running example. The cell at the intersection of composition row/column and constituent column/row represents the percentage contribution of that constituent in that composition. Further, to associate the identified percentage contribution with the corresponding constituent (like P2O5 in Figure 4a) or variables x and y in Figure 4b), we perform classification at the edge level. For ease of exposition, we describe our method in this Section 6.3 for the setting that the table has been predicted by GNN2 to have row-wise orientation, i.e., rows are compositions and columns are constituents. A transposed computation is done in the reverse case. Since the constituent/variable  will likely occur in the same column or row as the cell containing percentage contribution, our method computes an edge feature vector: for edge e = (i, j) → (i′, j′), s.t. i = i′∨j = j′, the feature vector −→he = −→hij || −−→hi′j′. It then takes all such edges e from cell (*i, j*), if row i is labeled composition and column j is labeled constituent. Each edge e is classified through an MLP4, and the edge with the maximum logit value is picked to identify the constituent/variable. This helps connect 36 to P2O5 and 0.8 to x in our running examples. GNN2 also helps in predicting NC tables. In case none of the rows/columns are predicted as 1 or 2, then the table is deemed as NC and discarded. Partial information table predictor: Next, DISCOMAT distinguishes between completeinformation (CI) and partial-information (PI) MCC tables. It uses a logistic regression model with custom input features for this prediction task. Let P and Q be the sets of all row indices with label 1 (composition) and column indices with label 2 (constituent), respectively. Also, assume nij is the number present in table cell (*i, j*) or 0 if no number is present. To create the features, we first extract all the constituents (compounds) and variables predicted by MLP4. We now construct five table-level features (F1-F5). F1 and F2 count the number of unique variables and chemical compounds extracted by MLP4. The intuition is that if F1 is high, then it is more likely an MCC-PI, and vice-versa if F2 is high. F3 computes the number of rows and columns labeled as 2 (constituent) by MLP3. The more the value of F3, the more likely it is that the table is MCC-CI. Features F4 (and F5) compute the maximum (average) of the sum of all extracted compositions. The intuition of F4 and F5 is that the higher these feature values, the higher the chance of the table being an MCC-CI. Formally, $$\begin{array}{l l}{{\mathrm{F4}=(\operatorname*{max}_{i\in P}\sum_{j\in Q}n_{i j})}}&{{\mathrm{F5}=(\frac{1}{|P|}\sum_{i\in P}\sum_{j\in Q}n_{i j}).}}\\ {{\mathrm{~}}}&{{\mathrm{~}}}\\ {{\mathrm{~}}}&{{\mathrm{~}}}\end{array}$$ MCC table extractor: For MCC-CI, MLP3 and MLP4 outputs are post-processed, and units are added (similar to SCC tables), to construct final extracted tuples. For MCC-PI, on the other hand, information in the text needs to be combined with the MLP outputs for final extraction. The first step here is to search for the composition expression, which may be present in the table caption, table footer, and if not there, somewhere in the rest of the research paper. Here, DISCOMAT resorts to using our rule-based composition parser from Figure 2, but with one key difference. Now, the composition may contain variables (x, y) and even mathematical expressions like 100 − x. So the regular grammar is enhanced to replace the non-terminal NUM with a non-terminal EXPR, which represents, numbers, variables, and simple mathematical expressions over them. An added constraint is that if there are variables in set Q, then those variables must be present in the matched composition expression. DISCOMAT completes the composition by substituting the variable values from every composition row into the matched composition. There may be other types of MCC-PI tables where only compounds are identified in tables, such as Figure 1b. For these, DISCOMAT first computes the constituent contributions in terms of variables from the composition expression, and then equates it with the numbers present in rows/columns labeled 1 (composition). In our example, DISCOMAT matches x with the numbers 10, 20, 30, and 40, and the rest of the composition is extracted by processing the composition expression in the caption with these values of x. Units and material IDs are added to the tuples, similar to other tables. ## 6.4 Constraint-Aware Loss Functions DISCOMAT needs to train the two GNNs and the PI table predictor. Our data construction provides gold labels for each prediction task (discussed in the next section), so we train them componentwise. The PI table predictor is trained on standard logistic regression loss. GNN1 is trained on a weighted sum of binary cross entropy loss for SCC table classification and row/column classification for material IDs - weight is a hyper-parameter. Similarly, the GNN2 loss function consists of the sum of row/column cross-entropy and edge binary cross-entropy losses. GNN2 has a more complex prediction problem since it has to perform four-way labeling for each row and column. In initial experiments, we find that the model sometimes makes structural errors like labeling one row as a constituent and another row as a composition in the same table - highly unlikely as per the semantics of composition tables. To encourage GNN2 to make structurally consistent predictions, we express a set of constraints on the complete labelings, as follows. (1) A row and a column cannot both have compositions or constituents. (2) Composition and material ID must be orthogonally predicted (i.e, if a row has a composition then ID must be predicted in some column, and vice versa). (3) Constituents and material IDs must never be orthogonally predicted (if rows have constituents then another row must have the ID). And, (4) material ID must occur at most once for the entire table. As an example, constraint (1) can be expressed as a hard constraint as: $r_{i}=l\Rightarrow c_{j}\neq l\quad\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,R\},j\in$ $\{1,\ldots,C\},l\in\{1,2\}$. Here, $r_{i}$ and $c_{j}$ are predicted labels of row $i$ and column j. We wish to impose these structural constraints at training time so that the model is trained to honor them. We follow prior work by Nandwani et al. (Nandwani et al., 2019), to first convert these hard constraints into a probabilistic statement. For example, constraint (1) gets expressed as: the same work, each such constraint gets converted to an auxiliary penalty term, which gets added to the loss function for constraint-aware training. The first constraint gets converted to: λPR i=1 PC j=1 P2 l=1 max(0, P(ri = l; θ) + P(cj = l; θ) − 1). This and similar auxiliary losses for other constraints (App. A.1) get added to the GNN2's loss function for better training. λ is a hyper-parameter. We also use constraint (4) for GNN1 training. $P(r_{i}=l;\theta)+P(c_{j}=l;\theta)-1\leq0$ $\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,R\},\ j\in\{1,\ldots,C\},\ l\in\{1,2\}.$ $\theta$ represents GNN${}_{2}$'s parameters. Following ## 7 Experiments Baseline models: We implement DISCOMAT with LM as MATSCIBERT (Gupta et al., 2022), and the GNNs as Graph Attention Networks (Velickovi ˇ c et al. ´ , 2018). We compare DISCOMAT with six non-GNN baseline models. Our first baseline is TAPAS (Herzig et al., 2020), a stateof-the-art table QA system, which flattens the table, adds row and column index embeddings, and passes as input to a language model. To use TaPas for our task, we use table caption as a proxy for the input question. All the model parameters in this setting are initialized randomly. Next, we use TABERT (Yin et al., 2020), which is a pretrained LM that jointly learns representations for natural (NL) sentences and tables by using pretraining objectives of masked column prediction (MCP) and cell value recovery (CVR). It finds table cell embeddings by passing row linearizations concatenated with the NL sentence into a language model and then applying vertical attention across columns for information propagation. Finally, we use TABBIE, which is pretrained by corrupt cell detection and learns exclusively from tabular data without any associated text, unlike the previous baselines. Additionally, we replace the LM of all models with MATSCIBERT to provide domain-specific embeddings to obtain the respective ADAPTED versions. We also implement a simple rule-based baseline for MCC-CI and NC tables. The baseline identifies constituent names using regex matching and a pre-defined list of compounds, extracts numbers from cells and finds the units using simple heuristics to generate the required tuples. Further details on baselines is provided in App. A.3. Evaluation metrics: We compute several metrics in our evaluation. (1) *Table-type (TT) prediction accuracy* - it computes table-level accuracy on the 4-way table classification as NC, SCC, MCCCI and MCC-PI. (2) ID F1 *score* computes F1 score for Material ID extraction. (3) Tuple-level (TL) F1 score evaluates performance on the extraction of composition tuples. A gold is considered matching with a predicted 4-tuple if all arguments match exactly. (4) Material-level (MatL) F1 *score* is the strongest metric. It evaluates whether all predicted information related to a material (including its ID, all constituents and their percentages) match exactly with the gold. Finally, (5) *constraint violations (CV)* counts the number of violations of hard constraints in the prediction. We consider all four types of constraints, as discussed in Section 6.4. Implementation details are mentioned in App. A.4. ## 7.1 Results How does table linearization compare with a graphbased model for our task? To answer this question, we compare DISCOMAT with four models that use linearization: TAPAS, TABERT, and their adapted versions. TAPAS and TABERT do table level and row level linearizations respectively. Since the baselines do not have the benefit of regular expressions, features, and constraints, we implement a version of our model without these, which we call V-DISCOMAT. We do this comparison, trained and tested only on the subset of MCC-CI and NC tables since other table types require regular expressions for processing. As shown in Table 1 V-DISCOMAT obtain 6-7 pt higher F1 on TL and MatL scores. Moreover, compared to the RULE BASED SYSTEM, DISCOMAT obtains upto 17 points improvement in the MatL F1 score. This experiment suggests that a graph-based extractor is a better fit for our problem - this led to us choosing a GNN-based approach for DISCOMAT. How does DISCOMAT *perform on the complete* task? Table 2, reports DISCOMAT performance on the full test set with all table types. Its ID and tuple F1-scores are 82 and 70, respectively. Since these errors get multiplied, unsurprisingly, its materiallevel F1-score is lower (63.5). Table 3 reports DISCOMAT performance for different table types. In this experiment, we assume that the table type is already known and run only the relevant part of DISCOMAT for extraction. We find that MCC-PI is the hardest table type since it requires combining information from text and tables for accurate extraction. A larger standard deviation in ID F1 for MCC-PI is attributed to the fact that material IDs occur relatively rarely for this table type - the test set for MCC-PI consists of merely 20 material ID rows and columns. What is the incremental contribution of taskspecific features and constraints? Table 2 also presents the ablation experiments. DISCOMAT scores much higher than V-DISCOMAT, which does not have these features and constraints. We also perform additional ablations removing one component at a time. Unsurprisingly constrained training helps with reducing constraint violations. Both constraints and features help with ID prediction, due to constraints (2), (3), (4) and max frequency feature. Removal of caption nodes significantly hurts performance on MCC-PI tables, as these tables require combining caption with table | Model | ID F1 | TL F1 | MatL F1 | CV | |-------------------|-----------------|----------------|----------------|---------| | TAPAS | 80.37 (± 4.78) | 71.23 (± 0.77) | 49.88 (± 0.10) | 543.67 | | TAPAS-ADAPTED | 89.65 (± 0.46) | 70.91 (± 3.79) | 57.88 (± 2.73) | 490.33 | | TABERT | 79.61 (± 8.25) | 58.20 (± 1.79) | 47.05 (± 1.50) | 1729.67 | | TABERT-ADAPTED | 85.07 (± 6.28) | 59.31 (± 0.67) | 50.10 (± 2.86) | 1195.67 | | TABBIE | 80.99 (± 2.41) | 50.90 (± 3.34) | 47.03 (± 2.14) | 388.00 | | TABBIE-ADAPTED | 80.18 (± 5.38) | 53.20 (± 5.57) | 48.89 (± 2.73) | 728.67 | | RULE BASED SYSTEM | 72.64 | 54.44 | 47.38 | 0 | | V-DISCOMAT | 77.38 (± 12.21) | 76.52 (± 2.37) | 64.71 (± 3.45) | 626.33 | | Model | TT Acc. | ID F1 | TL F1 | MatL F1 | CV | |--------------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|--------| | DISCOMAT | 88.35 (± 1.20) | 84.57 (± 2.16) | 70.04 (± 0.69) | 63.53 (± 1.45) | 75.22 | | DISCOMAT w/o features | 88.84 (± 1.00) | 84.15 (± 1.61) | 68.31 (± 1.45) | 62.47 (± 1.98) | 83.11 | | DISCOMAT w/o constraints | 88.47 (± 0.31) | 84.07 (± 0.83) | 69.68 (± 1.21) | 61.44 (± 1.00) | 434.44 | | DISCOMAT w/o captions | 87.35 (± 0.71) | 84.76 (± 0.68) | 66.82 (± 1.90) | 62.68 (± 3.33) | 17.89 | | V-DISCOMAT | 88.59 (± 0.33) | 76.61 (± 6.16) | 66.15 (± 2.00) | 59.52 (± 3.33) | 380.11 | Table 2: Contribution of task-specific features and constraints in DISCOMAT on the complete dataset. | Table Type | ID F1 | TL F1 | MatL F1 | |--------------|-----------------|----------------|----------------| | SCC | 88.81 (± 1.54) | 79.89 (± 0.18) | 78.21 (± 0.14) | | MCC-CI | 93.91 (± 1.46) | 77.62 (± 1.07) | 65.41 (± 4.35) | | MCC-PI | 70.67 (± 11.58) | 50.60 (± 2.59) | 51.66 (± 2.21) | Table 3: DISCOMAT performance on the table-types. cells. Although the ablation study done by removing features, constraints, and captions individually does not show much of a difference on the tuplelevel and material-level scores, we observe that on removing all the three factors, the performance of V-DISCOMAT drops significantly. Therefore, we can conclude that even though each component is improving the performance of DISCOMAT marginally, collectively, they help us to achieve significant gains. What are the typical errors in DISCOMAT? The confusion matrix in Figure 5 suggests that most table-type errors are between MCC-PI and NC tables. This could be attributed to the following reasons. (i) DISCOMAT has difficulty identifying rare compounds like Yb2O3, ErS3/2, Co3O4 found in MCC-PI—these aren't present frequently in the training set. (ii) MCC-PI tables specify dopant percentages found in small quantities. (iii) Completion of composition in MCC-PI tables may require other tables from the same paper. (iv) Finally, MCC-PI composition may contain additional information such as properties that may bias the model to classify it as NC. Some corner cases are given in App. A.6. ## 8 Conclusions We define the novel and challenging task of extracting material compositions from tables in scientific papers. This task has importance beyond material science, since many other scientific disciplines use tables to express compositions in their domains. We harvest a dataset using distant supervision, combining information from a MatSci DB with tables in respective papers. We present a strong baseline system DISCOMAT, for this task. It encodes tables as graphs and trains GNNs for table-type classification. Further, to handle incomplete information in PI tables, it includes the text associated with the tables from respective papers. To handle domain-specific regular languages, a rule-based composition parser helps the model by extracting chemical compounds, numbers, units, and composition expressions. We find that our DISCOMAT baseline outperforms other architectures that linearize the tables by huge margins. In the future, our work can be extended to extract material properties that are also often found in tables. The code and data are made available in the GitHub repository of this work. Figure 5: Confusion matrix  for all table types ## Acknowledgements N. M. Anoop Krishnan acknowledges the funding support received from SERB (ECR/2018/002228), DST (DST/INSPIRE/04/2016/002774), BRNS YSRA (53/20/01/2021-BRNS), ISRO RESPOND as part of the STC at IIT Delhi. Mohd Zaki acknowledges the funding received from the PMRF award by Government of India. Mausam acknowledges grants by Google, IBM, Verisk, and a Jai Gupta chair fellowship. He also acknowledges travel support from Google and Yardi School of AI travel grants. The authors thank the High Performance Computing (HPC) facility at IIT Delhi for computational and storage resources. ## Limitations And Outlook DISCOMAT is a pipelined solution trained component-wise. This raises a research question: can we train one end-to-end trained ML model that not only analyzes a wide variety of table structures but also combines the understanding of regular expressions, extraction of chemical compounds and scientific units, textual understanding and some mathematical processing? This defines a challenging ML research question and one that can have a direct impact on the scientific MatSci community. Indeed, automating parts of scientific discovery through such NLP-based approaches has the potential for biases and errors. Note that wrong and biased results can lead to erroneous information about materials. To a great extent, this issue is addressed as we rely only on published literature. The issue could be further addressed by considering larger datasets covering a wider range of materials. ## References Elsevier Developer Portal. Yati Aggarwal and Sandip Kumar Saha. 2022. Component repair cost functions in indian context for seismic loss estimation of reinforced concrete buildings. Structures. Sercan Ö. Arik and Tomas Pfister. 2021. TabNet: Attentive interpretable tabular learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(8):6679–6687. Sergei V. Beliavskii, N B Anikin, Sirajo Alhassan, S. Kudeev, and V. O. Nesterov. 2022. Effect of fuel nuclide composition on the fuel lifetime of the ritm200 reactor unit. *Annals of Nuclear Energy*. Antoine Brehault, Solenn Cozic, Rémi Boidin, Laurent Calvez, Eugène Bychkov, Pascal Masselin, Xianghua Zhang, and David Le Coq. 2014. Influence of nax (x= i or cl) additions on ges2–ga2s3 based glasses. Journal of Solid State Chemistry, 220:238–244. Saneem A. Chemmengath, Vishwajeet Kumar, Samarth Bharadwaj, Jaydeep Sen, Mustafa Canim, Soumen Chakrabarti, Alfio Gliozzo, and Karthik Sankaranarayanan. 2021. Topic transferable table question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 4159– 4172. Natália Sufiatti de Holanda Cavalcanti, Tatiana Colombo Pimentel, Marciane Magnani, Maria Teresa Bertoldo Pacheco, Susana Paula Almeida Alves, Rui José Branquinho Bessa, Amanda Marília da Silva Sant'Ana, and Rita de Cássia Ramos do Egypto Queiroga. 2021. Donkey milk and fermented donkey milk: are there differences in the nutritional value and physicochemical characteristics? *Lwt -* Food Science and Technology, 144:111239. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proceedings of NAACL)*, pages 4171– 4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. J.R. Duclère, A.A. Lipovskii, A.P. Mirgorodsky, Ph. Thomas, D.K. Tagantsev, and V.V. Zhurikhina. 2009. Kerr studies of several tellurite glasses. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 355(43):2195–2198. Epam. Epam/sciglass: The database contains a vast set of data on the properties of glass materials. Jan Dirk Epping, Hellmut Eckert, Árpád W Imre, and Helmut Mehrer. 2005. Structural manifestations of the mixed-alkali effect: Nmr studies of sodium rubidium borate glasses. *Journal of non-crystalline solids*, 351(43-45):3521–3529. Patrick Ernst, Amy Siu, and Gerhard Weikum. 2015. Knowlife: a versatile approach for constructing a large knowledge graph for biomedical sciences. BMC Bioinform., 16:157:1–157:13. Matt Gardner, Joel Grus, Mark Neumann, Oyvind Tafjord, Pradeep Dasigi, Nelson F. Liu, Matthew Peters, Michael Schmitz, and Luke S. Zettlemoyer. 2017. Allennlp: A deep semantic natural language processing platform. Michael R. Glass, Mustafa Canim, Alfio Gliozzo, Saneem A. Chemmengath, Vishwajeet Kumar, Rishav Chakravarti, Avi Sil, Feifei Pan, Samarth Bharadwaj, and Nicolas Rodolfo Fauceglia. 2021. Capturing row and column semantics in transformer based question answering over tables. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 1212– 1224. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vidhya Govindaraju, Ce Zhang, and Christopher Ré. 2013. Understanding tables in context using standard nlp toolkits. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 658–664. Tanishq Gupta, Mohd Zaki, N. M. Anoop Krishnan, and Mausam. 2022. MatSciBERT: A materials domain language model for text mining and information extraction. *npj Computational Materials*, 8(1):102. Vivek Gupta, Maitrey Mehta, Pegah Nokhiz, and Vivek Srikumar. 2020. INFOTABS: inference on tables as semi-structured data. In ACL, pages 2309–2324. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maryam Habibi, Johannes Starlinger, and Ulf Leser. 2020. Deeptable: a permutation invariant neural network for table orientation classification. *Data* Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 34(6):1963–1983. Thierry Hamon, Natalia Grabar, and Fleur Mougin. 2017. Querying biomedical linked data with natural language questions. *Semantic Web*, 8(4):581–599. Jonathan Herzig, Pawel Krzysztof Nowak, Thomas Müller, Francesco Piccinno, and Julian Eisenschlos. 2020. TaPas: Weakly supervised table parsing via pre-training. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4320–4333, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom Hope, Aida Amini, David Wadden, Madeleine van Zuylen, Sravanthi Parasa, Eric Horvitz, Daniel S. Weld, Roy Schwartz, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Extracting a knowledge base of mechanisms from COVID-19 papers. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June* 6-11, 2021, pages 4489–4503. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hiroshi Iida, Dung Thai, Varun Manjunatha, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. TABBIE: pretrained representations of tabular data. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 3446–3456. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 448–456. PMLR. Anubhav Jain, Shyue Ping Ong, Geoffroy Hautier, Wei Chen, William Davidson Richards, Stephen Dacek, Shreyas Cholia, Dan Gunter, David Skinner, Gerbrand Ceder, et al. 2013. Commentary: The materials project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation. *APL materials*, 1(1):011002. Zach Jensen, Edward Kim, Soonhyoung Kwon, Terry Z. H. Gani, Yuriy Roman-Leshkov, Manuel Moliner, Avelino Corma, and Elsa Olivetti. 2019a. A machine learning approach to zeolite synthesis enabled by automatic literature data extraction. *ACS Central* Science, 5(5):892–899. Zach Jensen, Edward Kim, Soonhyoung Kwon, Terry ZH Gani, Yuriy Roman-Leshkov, Manuel Moliner, Avelino Corma, and Elsa Olivetti. 2019b. A machine learning approach to zeolite synthesis enabled by automatic literature data extraction. ACS central science, 5(5):892–899. Milena Kalegari, Murilo Luiz Cerutti, Sérgio José Macedo-Júnior, Franciane Bobinski, Marilis Dallarmi Miguel, Véronique Eparvier, Adair Roberto Soares Santos, Didier Stien, and Obdulio Gomes Miguel. 2014. Chemical composition and antinociceptive effect of aqueous extract from rourea induta planch. leaves in acute and chronic pain models. *Journal of Ethnopharmacology*, 153(3):801–809. Tanmay Kar, Toluwalase Fosudo, Anthony J. Marchese, Bret C. Windom, and Daniel Olsen. 2022. Effect of fuel composition and egr on spark-ignited engine combustion with lpg fueling: Experimental and numerical investigation. *Fuel*. S Kasimuthumaniyan, Allu Amarnath Reddy, NM Anoop Krishnan, and Nitya Nand Gosvami. 2020. Understanding the role of post-indentation recovery on the hardness of glasses: Case of silica, borate, and borosilicate glasses. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 534:119955. Nirmal Kaur, Atul Khanna, Marina Gónzález-Barriuso, Fernando González, and Banghao Chen. 2015. Effects of al3+, w6+, nb5+ and pb2+ on the structure and properties of borotellurite glasses. *Journal of* Non-Crystalline Solids, 429:153–163. Shweta R Keshri, Indrajeet Mandal, Sudheer Ganisetti, S Kasimuthumaniyan, Rajesh Kumar, Anuraag Gaddam, Ankita Shelke, Thalasseril G Ajithkumar, Nitya Nand Gosvami, NM Anoop Krishnan, et al. 2022. Elucidating the influence of structure and ag+- na+ ion-exchange on crack-resistance and ionic conductivity of na3al1. 8si1. 65p1. 8o12 glass electrolyte. Acta Materialia, 227:117745. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In *ICLR (Poster)*. Ladislav Koudelka, Ivana Rösslerová, Zdenekˇ Cernošek, ˇ Petr Mošner, Lionel Montagne, and Bertrand Revel. 2014. The structural role of tellurium dioxide in lead borophosphate glasses. Journal of non-crystalline solids, 401:124–128. Girija Limaye, Sunita Sarawagi, and Soumen Chakrabarti. 2010. Annotating and searching web tables using entities, types and relationships. *Proc.* VLDB Endow., 3(1):1338–1347. Erin Macdonald and Denilson Barbosa. 2020. Neural relation extraction on wikipedia tables for augmenting knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, CIKM '20, page 2133–2136, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Aman Madaan, Ashish R. Mittal, Mausam, Ganesh Ramakrishnan, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2016. Numerical relation extraction with minimal supervision. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 12-17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pages 2764–2771. AAAI Press. EM Marmolejo, E Granado, OL Alves, CL Cesar, and LC Barbosa. 1999. Spectroscopy and thermal properties of ga2s3 based glasses. *Journal of noncrystalline solids*, 247(1-3):189–195. David A McKeown, Wing K Kot, and Ian L Pegg. 2003. X-ray absorption studies of the local strontium environments in borosilicate waste glasses. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 317(3):290–300. Bhavnick Minhas, Anant Shankhdhar, Vivek Gupta, Divyanshu Aggrawal, and Shuo Zhang. 2022. XInfoTabS: evaluating multilingual tabular natural language inference. Mike Mintz, Steven Bills, Rion Snow, and Daniel Jurafsky. 2009. Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, pages 1003–1011, Suntec, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. A Moguš-Milankovic, A Šanti ´ c, A Gajovi ´ c, and DE Day. ´ 2003. Spectroscopic investigation of moo3–fe2o3– p2o5 and sro–fe2o3–p2o5 glasses. part i. Journal of non-crystalline solids, 325(1-3):76–84. Thomas Müller, Francesco Piccinno, Peter Shaw, Massimo Nicosia, and Yasemin Altun. 2019. Answering conversational questions on structured data without logical forms. In *EMNLP/IJCNLP (1)*, pages 5901– 5909. Association for Computational Linguistics. T. Murata, M. Sato, H. Yoshida, and K. Morinaga. 2005. Compositional dependence of ultraviolet fluorescence intensity of ce3+ in silicate, borate, and phosphate glasses. *Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids*, 351(4):312–316. Sheshera Mysore, Zachary Jensen, Edward Kim, Kevin Huang, Haw-Shiuan Chang, Emma Strubell, Jeffrey Flanigan, Andrew McCallum, and Elsa Olivetti. 2019. The materials science procedural text corpus: Annotating materials synthesis procedures with shallow semantic structures. In *Proceedings of the 13th Linguistic Annotation Workshop*, pages 56–64, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rahul Nadkarni, David Wadden, Iz Beltagy, Noah A. Smith, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Tom Hope. 2021. Scientific language models for biomedical knowledge base completion: An empirical study. In *3rd Conference on Automated Knowledge Base Construction,* AKBC 2021, Virtual, October 4-8, 2021. Yatin Nandwani, Abhishek Pathak, Mausam, and Parag Singla. 2019. A primal dual formulation for deep learning with constraints. In *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. Zara Nasar, Syed Waqar Jaffry, and Muhammad Kamran Malik. 2018. Information extraction from scientific articles: a survey. *Scientometrics*, 117(3):1931– 1990. Japan NGF. 2019. International glass database system. Kyosuke Nishida, Kugatsu Sadamitsu, Ryuichiro Higashinaka, and Yoshihiro Matsuo. 2017. Understanding the semantic structures of tables with a hybrid deep neural network architecture. In *Thirty-First* AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Refka Oueslati Omrani, Saida Krimi, Jean Jacques Videau, Ismail Khattech, Abdelaziz El Jazouli, and Mohamed Jemal. 2014. Structural investigations and calorimetric dissolution of manganese phosphate glasses. *Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids*, 389:66– 71. Mario Alberto Ramirez Orihuela, Alex Bogatu, Norman Paton, and André Freitas. 2021. Natural language inference over tables: Enabling explainable data exploration on data lakes. In *Eighteenth Extended Semantic Web Conference - Research Track*. Feifei Pan, Mustafa Canim, Michael Glass, Alfio Gliozzo, and Peter Fox. 2021. CLTR: An end-to-end, transformer-based system for cell-level table retrieval and table question answering. In *Proceedings of the* 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 202–209, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32*, pages 8024–8035. Curran Associates, Inc. Sunita Sarawagi and Soumen Chakrabarti. 2014. Opendomain quantity queries on web tables: annotation, response, and consensus models. In The 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '14, New York, NY, USA - August 24 - 27, 2014, pages 711–720. ACM. Yong Beom Shin, Chang Kuk Yang, and Jong Heo. 2002. Optimization of dy3+-doped ge–ga–as–s–csbr glass composition and its 1.31 µm emission properties. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 298(2):153–159. Leslie N. Smith. 2017. Cyclical learning rates for training neural networks. In *WACV*, pages 464–472. IEEE Computer Society. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 15(56):1929–1958. L. Stokvis, Marinus van Krimpen, René P. Kwakkel, and Paul Bikker. 2021. Evaluation of the nutritional value of seaweed products for broiler chickens' nutrition. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 280:115061. Matthew C Swain and Jacqueline M Cole. 2016a. Chemdataextractor: a toolkit for automated extraction of chemical information from the scientific literature. *Journal of chemical information and modeling*, 56(10):1894–1904. Matthew C. Swain and Jacqueline M. Cole. 2016b. Chemdataextractor: A toolkit for automated extraction of chemical information from the scientific literature. *Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling*, 56(10):1894–1904. George Tsatsaronis, Georgios Balikas, Prodromos Malakasiotis, Ioannis Partalas, Matthias Zschunke, Michael R. Alvers, Dirk Weissenborn, Anastasia Krithara, Sergios Petridis, Dimitris Polychronopoulos, Yannis Almirantis, John Pavlopoulos, Nicolas Baskiotis, Patrick Gallinari, Thierry Artières, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, Norman Heino, Éric Gaussier, Liliana Barrio-Alvers, Michael Schroeder, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Georgios Paliouras. 2015. An overview of the BIOASQ large-scale biomedical semantic indexing and question answering competition. *BMC Bioinform.*, 16:138:1–138:28. Osamu Uemura, Takeshi Usuki, Masanori Inoue, Keigo Abe, Yasuo Kameda, and Masaki Sakurai. 2001. Local atomic order of ge–se–br glasses. Journal of non-crystalline solids, 293:792–798. Yerram Varun, Aayush Sharma, and Vivek Gupta. 2022. Trans-KBLSTM: an external knowledge enhanced transformer BiLSTM model for tabular reasoning. Petar Velickovi ˇ c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, ´ Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph Attention Networks. *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Vineeth Venugopal, Suresh Bishnoi, Sourabh Singh, Mohd Zaki, Hargun Singh Grover, Mathieu Bauchy, Manish Agarwal, and NM Anoop Krishnan. 2021. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in glass science and technology: 21 challenges for the 21st century. *International journal of applied glass science*, 12(3):277–292. Minjie Wang, Da Zheng, Zihao Ye, Quan Gan, Mufei Li, Xiang Song, Jinjing Zhou, Chao Ma, Lingfan Yu, Yu Gai, Tianjun Xiao, Tong He, George Karypis, Jinyang Li, and Zheng Zhang. 2019. Deep graph library: A graph-centric, highly-performant package for graph neural networks. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1909.01315. Leigh Weston, Vahe Tshitoyan, John Dagdelen, Olga Kononova, Amalie Trewartha, Kristin A Persson, Gerbrand Ceder, and Anubhav Jain. 2019. Named entity recognition and normalization applied to largescale information extraction from the materials science literature. *Journal of chemical information and* modeling, 59(9):3692–3702. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengcheng Yin, Graham Neubig, Wen-tau Yih, and Sebastian Riedel. 2020. TaBERT: Pretraining for joint understanding of textual and tabular data. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics, pages 8413–8426, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Appendix  A.1 Constraint-Aware Training As discussed in Section 6.4, to encourage GNN2 to make structurally consistent predictions, we express a set of constraints on the complete labeling as follows. (1) A row and a column cannot both have compositions or constituents. (2) Composition and material ID must be orthogonally predicted (i.e., if a row has a composition, then the ID must be predicted in some column, and vice versa). (3) Constituents and material IDs must never be orthogonally predicted (that is, if rows have constituents, then another row in the table must have the ID). And, (4) material ID must occur at most once for the entire table. Let ri and cj be the predicted labels of row i and column j. Further, let θ represent GNN2's parameters. Constraint (1) is expressed as a hard constraint by: $$r_{i}=l\Rightarrow c_{j}\neq l$$ $$\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,R\},j\in\{1,\ldots,C\},\;l\in\{1,2\}.$$ The equivalent probabilistic statement is: constraints as: $r_{i}=l\Rightarrow c_{j}\neq5-l$ $\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,R\},\ j\in\{1,\ldots,C\},\ l\in\{2,3\}.$ The equivalent probabilistic statement is: Equivalent probabilistic statements are: $$\begin{array}{c}P(r_{i_{1}}=1;\theta)+P(r_{i_{2}}=3;\theta)-1\leq0\\ \forall i_{1},\ i_{2}\in\{1,\ldots,R\},\ i_{1}\neq i_{2}.\\ P(c_{j_{1}}=1;\theta)+P(c_{j_{2}}=3;\theta)-1\leq0\\ \forall j_{1},\ j_{2}\in\{1,\ldots,C\},\ j_{1}\neq j_{2}.\end{array}$$ We write constraint (3) in a hard constraint form as: consultanis as. $r_{i_{1}}=1\Rightarrow r_{i_{2}}\neq3\ \forall i_{1},i_{2}\in\{1,\ldots,R\},i_{1}\neq i_{2}$. $c_{j_{1}}=1\Rightarrow c_{j_{2}}\neq3\ \forall j_{1},j_{2}\in\{1,\ldots,C\},j_{1}\neq j_{2}$. Equivalent probabilistic statements are: The equivalent probabilistic statement is: $$P(r_{i}=l;\theta)+P(c_{j}=l;\theta)-1\leq0$$ $$\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,R\},\ j\in\{1,\ldots,C\},\ l\in\{1,2\}.$$ Constraint (2) can be written in the form of hard P(ri = l; θ) + P(cj = 5 − l; θ) − 1 ≤ 0 ∀i ∈ {1, . . . , R}, j ∈ {1, . . . , C}, l ∈ {2, 3}. Finally, hard versions of constraint (4) can be stated as: $$r_{i_{1}}=3\Rightarrow r_{i_{2}}\neq3\quad1\leq i_{1}<i_{2}\leq R.$$ $$c_{j_{1}}=3\Rightarrow c_{j_{2}}\neq3\quad1\leq j_{1}<j_{2}\leq C.$$ $$r_{i}=3\Rightarrow c_{j}\neq3\quad\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,R\},\ j\in\{1,\ldots,C\}.$$ Equivalent probabilistic statements are: $$P(r_{i_{1}}=3;\theta)+P(r_{i_{2}}=3;\theta)-1\leq0$$ $$1\leq i_{1}<i_{2}\leq R.$$ $$P(c_{j_{1}}=3;\theta)+P(c_{j_{2}}=3;\theta)-1\leq0$$ $$1\leq j_{1}<j_{2}\leq C.$$ $$P(r_{i}=3;\theta)+P(c_{j}=3;\theta)-1\leq0$$ $$\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,R\},\ j\in\{1,\ldots,C\}.$$ As explained in Section 6.4, we convert all these   ## Probabilistic Statements To An Auxiliary Penalty Term, Which Gets Added To The Loss Function. A.2 Dataset Details We use the INTERGLAD V7.0 (Interglad) database (NGF, 2019) for annotating our training set as described in Section 7. Since the Interglad database is not publicly available, we use SciGlass (Epam) database (released under Open Database License) as a proxy for Interglad in the shared code. Interglad contains 12634 compositions corresponding to the publications in our training set. However, SciGlass contains only 2347 compositions of these publications. Hence, the code provided by us can annotate a subset of the training data only. However, we do provide training data annotated using the Interglad database for reproducing the results of DISCOMAT for training and evaluation. Also, anyone with Elsevier and Interglad subscriptions can replicate our training set (by replacing SciGlass database files with Interglad database files). We have manually annotated the val and test set, due to the fact that distantly supervised annotations can have noise and are not always 100% accurate. The inter-annotator agreement has already been discussed in 5. Along with the provision of manual annotation, the in-house annotation tools also contained several checks on conditions that shouldn't arise such as: whether the annotator has missed annotating any table, or the annotator has annotated with out-of-range labels or a row/column having both composition and constituent or vice-versa i.e. composition/constituent present in both row and   | Splits | | | | |--------------|--------|------|------| | Table Type | Train | Dev | Test | | SCC | 704 | 10 | 113 | | MCC-CI | 626 | 132 | 132 | | MCC-PI | 317 | 109 | 112 | | NC | 2761 | 387 | 380 | | Total | 408 | 738 | 737 | | (a) | Splits | | | | Train | Dev | Test | | | Publications | 1880 | 30 | 326 | | Materials | 11207 | 2873 | 2649 | | 10168 | | | | | Tuples | 38799 | 9514 | | | (b) | | | | column of a table. With the help of these selfchecks and mutual discussions on disagreements, we annotated our val and test dataset. Table 4 presents some statistics about our dataset. Table 4a shows the number of tables in our dataset belonging to different table types. Further, Table 4b shows the total number of publications, materials, and tuples in all three splits. We release our code and data under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) International Public License. ## Baseline Models A.3 In this section, we describe the details of our baseline models: T AP AS , T AP AS -A DAPTED , T ABERT and T ABERT -A DAPTED . Since, the T A P A S (Herzig et al., 2020) architecture has been used for QA over tables and we do not have any questions in the composition extraction task, we use table caption as a proxy for the question. We replace the empty table cells with a special [EMPTY] token. The table caption and text in table cells are converted to word-pieces using the LM tokenizer. Then, we concatenate the word-pieces of the caption and row-wise flattened table. Note that it is possible to obtain more than one word-piece for some table cells. Since the input length after tokenization can be greater than 512, we truncate the minimum possible rows from the end so that the length becomes less than or equal to 512. To avoid a large number of rows getting truncated due to long captions, we truncate the caption so that it only contributes ≤ 100 word-pieces. To differentiate between the table cells belonging to different rows and/or columns, row and column index embeddings are added to the word-piece embeddings in the T A P A S architecture. Position and Segment embeddings are the same as in BERT (Devlin et al., 2019 ), except that position indexes are incremented when the table cell changes. Original T A P A S architecture also involves adding different Rank embeddings to the input in order to answer rank-based questions. We use the same rank embeddings for every table cell since there is no rank relation among the table cells for our case. All these different types of embeddings are added together and passed through the LM . We take the contextual embedding of the first word-piece of every table cell to be representative of it. Since we do not have row and column nodes here, row and column embeddings are computed by taking the   (a) (b) (c) average of the first word-piece contextual embeddings of cells occurring in that row/column, which are then fed to an MLP for row/column classification. Edge embeddings are computed by concatenating the first workpiece contextual embeddings of source and destination cells. Figure 7 shows the schematic of TAPAS-ADAPTED model. Here, we initialize LM weights with that of MATSCIBERT (Gupta et al., 2022). All other details are the same as in the TAPAS model, except that here we add row and column index embeddings to MATSCIBERT output, instead of input. For TABERT also, we use the table caption as the proxy for the NL sentence, concatenate it with linearized rows and feed into the TABERT model which generates cell embedding by passing through BERT and applying vertical attention to propagate information across columns. Following the kind of linearization used by TABERT, we linearize each cell as a concatenation of cell type and cell value for each cell, where cell type is divided into numeric, alphanumeric or text. Since DISCOMAT does not use pretraining, we do not use TABERT'S pretrained weights but instead train from initial weights on our row, column and edge-level prediction tasks. We also implement another baseline called TABERT-ADAPTED, which replaces the BERT encoder in TABERT with MATSCIBERT (Gupta et al., 2022) to provide materials science domain's information to the model. In TABBIE, as opposed to TAPAS and TABERT, table cells are passed independently into the LM, instead of being linearized/flattened into a single long sequence. Similar to TABERT, we don't initialize TABBIE's architecture with its pretrained weights   for a fair comparison. TABBIE-ADAPTED again replaces the BERT encoder in TABERT with MATSCIBERT (Gupta et al., 2022). The complete code and data is available at https://github.com/M3RG-IITD/DiSCoMaT. ## A.4 Implementation Details For Graph Attention Networks (GATs) (Velickovi ˇ c´ et al., 2018), we use the GAT implementation of Deep Graph Library (Wang et al., 2019). For LMs, TAPAS, we use the implementation by Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). We use TABERT's source code from their GitHub repository. We implement and train all models using PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019) and AllenNLP (Gardner et al., 2017). We optimize the model parameters using Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) and a triangular learning rate (Smith, 2017). We further use different learning rates for LM and non-LM parameters (GNNs, MLPs) (App. A.5). To deal with imbalanced labels, we scale loss for all labels by weights inversely proportional to their frequency in the training set. All experiments were run on a machine with one 32 GB V100 GPU. Each model is run with three seeds and the mean and std. deviation is reported. ## A.5 Hyper-Parameter Details Now, we describe the hyper-parameters of DISCOMAT. Both GNN1 and GNN2 can have multiple hidden layers with different numbers of attention heads. We experiment with hidden layer sizes of 256, 128, and 64 and the number of attention heads as 6, 4, and 2. We include residual connections in GAT, exponential linear unit (ELU) non-linearity after hidden layers, and LeakyRELU non-linearity (with slope α = 0.2) to compute attention weights as done in (Velickovi ˇ c et al. ´ , 2018). Training is performed using 8 tables in a batch and we select the checkpoint with the maximum dev MatL F1 score. We use a triangular learning rate and choose the peak learning rate for LM to be among 1e-5, 2e-5, and 3e-5 and the peak learning rate for non-LM parameters to be among 3e-4 and 1e-3. A warmup ratio of 0.1 is used for all parameters. We further use batch normalization (Ioffe and Szegedy, 2015) and dropout (Srivastava et al., 2014) probability of 0.2 in all MLPs. We use the same λ for every constraint penalty term. Embedding sizes for features are chosen from 128 and 256 and edge loss weight is selected among 0.3 and 1.0. | Hyper-parameter | GNN1 | GNN2 | |--------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | GAT Hidden Layer Sizes | [256, 128, 64] | [128, 128, 64] | | GAT Attention Heads | [4, 4, 4] | [6, 4, 4] | | Peak LR for LM | 1e-5 | 2e-5 | | Peak LR for non-LM | 3e-4 | 3e-4 | | RegEx feature emb size | 256 | NA | | Max-frequency feature emb size | 256 | 128 | | Constraint penalty (λ) | 50.0 | 30.0 | | Edge loss weight | NA | 1.0 | Table 5: Hyper-parameters for DISCOMAT. ## A.6 Corner Cases Figure 8 shows examples of some corner case tables. In Figure 8a, elements are being used as variables. Moreover, the values that variables can take are present in a single cell only. Figure 8b shows a table where units occur within the composition itself. Also, mixed units are being used to express the composition. Figure 8c comprises compositions having both elements and compounds. Whereas, we made different REs for element compositions and different REs for compound compositions. Hence our REs are unable to match these. Figure 9 shows some more examples of corner cases. In Figure 9a, the first compound has to be inferred using the Material IDs. For example, W corresponds to WO3 and Nb corresponds to Nb2O5. DISCOMAT makes the assumption that composition is present in a single row/column. Figure 9b refutes this assumption as compositions are present in multiple rows. Sometimes researchers report both theoretical (nominal) and experimental (analyzed) compositions for the same material. The table in Figure 9c lists both types of compositions in the same cell and hence can't be extracted using DISCOMAT. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Left blank. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? After Conclusion and Acknowledgements section. This is the last paragraph after main text of the paper. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left Blank. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Left blank. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank. ✗ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? We did not use them. ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Section 5 And Appendix A2 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Section 5 and Appendix A2 ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 5 and Appendix A2 ✗ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? The annotators are the co-authors of this paper and it is mentioned in Section 5. ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. ✗ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable.

wang-etal-2023-self-instruct

Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.754

Large {``}instruction-tuned{''} language models (i.e., finetuned to respond to instructions) have demonstrated a remarkable ability to generalize zero-shot to new tasks. Nevertheless, they depend heavily on human-written instruction data that is often limited in quantity, diversity, and creativity, therefore hindering the generality of the tuned model. We introduce Self-Instruct, a framework for improving the instruction-following capabilities of pretrained language models by bootstrapping off their own generations. Our pipeline generates instructions, input, and output samples from a language model, then filters invalid or similar ones before using them to finetune the original model. Applying our method to the vanilla GPT3, we demonstrate a 33{\%} absolute improvement over the original model on Super-NaturalInstructions, on par with the performance of InstructGPT-001, which was trained with private user data and human annotations. For further evaluation, we curate a set of expert-written instructions for novel tasks, and show through human evaluation that tuning GPT3 with Self-Instruct outperforms using existing public instruction datasets by a large margin, leaving only a 5{\%} absolute gap behind InstructGPT-001. Self-Instruct provides an almost annotation-free method for aligning pre-trained language models with instructions, and we release our large synthetic dataset to facilitate future studies on instruction tuning.

# Self-Instruct**: Aligning Language Models** With Self-Generated Instructions Yizhong Wang♣ Yeganeh Kordi♢ Swaroop Mishra♡ **Alisa Liu**♣ Noah A. Smith♣+ Daniel Khashabi♠ **Hannaneh Hajishirzi**♣+ ♣University of Washington ♢Tehran Polytechnic ♡Arizona State University ♠Johns Hopkins University +Allen Institute for AI yizhongw@cs.washington.edu ## Abstract Large "instruction-tuned" language models (i.e., finetuned to respond to instructions) have demonstrated a remarkable ability to generalize zero-shot to new tasks. Nevertheless, they depend heavily on human-written instruction data that is often limited in quantity, diversity, and creativity, therefore hindering the generality of the tuned model. We introduce SELFINSTRUCT, a framework for improving the instruction-following capabilities of pretrained language models by bootstrapping off their own generations. Our pipeline generates instructions, input, and output samples from a language model, then filters invalid or similar ones before using them to finetune the original model. Applying our method to the vanilla GPT3, we demonstrate a 33% absolute improvement over the original model on SUPERNATURALINSTRUCTIONS, on par with the performance of InstructGPT001, 1 which was trained with private user data and human annotations. For further evaluation, we curate a set of expert-written instructions for novel tasks, and show through human evaluation that tuning GPT3 with SELF-INSTRUCT outperforms using existing public instruction datasets by a large margin, leaving only a 5% absolute gap behind InstructGPT001. SELF-INSTRUCT provides an almost annotation-free method for aligning pretrained language models with instructions, and we release our large synthetic dataset to facilitate future studies on instruction tuning.2 ## 1 Introduction The recent NLP literature has witnessed a tremendous amount of activity in building models that can 1Unless otherwise specified, our comparisons are with text-davinci-001 engine. We focus on this engine since it is the closest to our experimental setup: supervised finetuning with human demonstrations. The newer engines are more powerful, though use more data (e.g., code or latest user queries) or algorithms (e.g., PPO) that are difficult to compare with. 2Code and data are available at https://github.com/ yizhongw/self-instruct  Figure 1: Selected tasks from the generated instruction data using vanilla GPT3. Some texts are reformatted for presentation. See Table 10 for more examples. follow natural language instructions (Mishra et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022, i.a.). These developments are powered by two key components: large pretrained language models (LM) and human-written instruction data (e.g., PROMPTSOURCE (Bach et al., 2022) and SUPERNATURALINSTRUCTIONS (Wang et al., 2022, SU-PERNI for short)). However, collecting such instruction data is costly and often suffers limited diversity given that most human generations tend to be popular NLP tasks, falling short of covering a true variety of tasks and different ways to 13484  describe them. Continuing to improve the quality and coverage of instruction-tuned models necessitates the development of alternative approaches for supervising the instruction tuning process. In this work, we introduce SELF-INSTRUCT, a semi-automated process for instruction-tuning a pretrained LM using instructional signals from the model itself. The overall process is an iterative bootstrapping algorithm (see Figure 2), which starts off with a limited (e.g., 175 in our study) seed set of manually-written tasks that are used to guide the overall generation. In the first phase, the model is prompted to generate instructions for new tasks. This step leverages the existing collection of instructions to create more broad-coverage instructions that define (often new) tasks. Given the newly-generated set of instructions, the framework also creates input-output instances for them, which can be later used for supervising the instruction tuning. Finally, various heuristics are used to automatically filter low-quality or repeated instructions, before adding the remaining valid tasks to the task pool. This process can be repeated for many iterations until reaching a large number of tasks. To evaluate SELF-INSTRUCT empirically, we run this framework on GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020), which is a vanilla LM (§3). The iterative SELFINSTRUCT process on this model leads to about 52k instructions, paired with about 82K instance inputs and target outputs. We observe that the resulting data provides a diverse range of creative tasks, as is demonstrated by examples in Figure 1. These generated tasks deviate from the distribution of typical NLP tasks, and also have fairly small overlap with the seed tasks (§3.2). On this resulting data, we build GPT3SELF-INST by finetuning GPT3 (i.e., the same model used for generating the instruction data). We evaluate GPT3SELF-INST in comparison to various other models on both typical NLP tasks included in SUPERNI (Wang et al., 2022), and a set of new instructions that are created for novel usage of instruction-following models (§4). The results indicate that GPT3SELF-INST outperforms GPT3 (the original model) by a large margin (+33.1%) and nearly matches the performance of InstructGPT001. Moreover, our human evaluation on the newlycreated instruction set shows that GPT3SELF-INST demonstrates a broad range of instruction following ability, outperforming models trained on other publicly available instruction datasets and leaving only a 5% gap behind InstructGPT001. In summary, our contributions are: (1) we introduce SELF-INSTRUCT, a method for inducing instruction following capabilities with minimal human-labeled data; (2) we demonstrate its effectiveness via extensive instruction-tuning experiments; and (3) we release a large synthetic dataset of 52K instructions and a set of manuallywritten novel tasks for building and evaluating future instruction-following models. ## 2 Method Annotating large-scale instruction data can be challenging for humans because it requires 1) creativity to come up with novel tasks and 2) expertise for writing the solutions to each task. Here, we detail our process for SELF-INSTRUCT, which refers to the pipeline of generating tasks with a vanilla pretrained language model itself, filtering the generated data, and then conducting instruction tuning with this generated data in order to align the LM to follow instructions better. This pipeline is depicted in Figure 2. ## 2.1 Defining Instruction Data The instruction data we want to generate contains a set of instructions {It}, each of which defines a task t in natural language. Task t has nt ≥ 1 input-output instances {(Xt,i, Yt,i)} nt i=1. A model M is expected to produce the output, given the task instruction and the corresponding input: M(It, Xt,i) = Yt,i, for i ∈ {1*, . . . , n*t}. Note that the instruction and instance input does not have a strict boundary in many cases. For example, "write an essay about school safety" can be a valid instruction that we expect models to respond to directly, while it can also be formulated as "write an essay about the following topic" as the instruction, and "school safety" as an instance input. To encourage the diversity of the data format, we allow such instructions that do not require additional input (i.e., X is empty). ## 2.2 Automatic Instruction Data Generation Our pipeline for data generation consists of four steps: 1) generating task instructions, 2) determining if the instruction represents a classification task, 3) instance generation with either an input-first or output-first approach, and 4) filtering low-quality data. Instruction Generation. At the first step, SELFINSTRUCT generates new instructions from a small set of seed human-written instructions in a bootstrapping fashion. We initiate the task pool with 175 tasks (1 instruction and 1 instance for each task).3 For every step, we sample 8 task instructions from this pool as in-context examples. Of the 8 instructions, 6 are from the human-written tasks, and 2 are from the model-generated tasks in previous steps to promote diversity. The prompting template is shown in Table 5. Classification Task Identification. Because we need two different approaches for classification and non-classification tasks, we next identify whether the generated instruction represents a classification task or not.4 We prompt the LM in a few-shot way to determine this, using 12 classification instructions and 19 non-classification instructions from the seed tasks. The prompting template is shown in Table 6. Instance Generation. Given the instructions and their task type, we generate instances for each instruction independently. This is challenging because it requires the model to understand what the target task is, based on the instruction, figure out what additional input fields are needed and generate them, and finally complete the task by producing the output. We found that pretrained LMs can achieve this to a large extent when prompted with instruction-input-output in-context examples from other tasks. A natural way to do this is the **Inputfirst Approach**, where we can ask an LM to come up with the input fields first based on the instruction, and then produce the corresponding output. This generation order is similar to how models are used to respond to instruction and input, but here with in-context examples from other tasks. The prompting template is shown in Table 7. However, we found that this approach can generate inputs biased toward one label, especially for classification tasks (e.g., for grammar error detection, it usually generates grammatical input). Therefore, we additionally propose an **Output-first** Approach for classification tasks, where we first generate the possible class labels, and then condition the input generation on each class label. The prompting template is shown in Table 8. 5 We apply the output-first approach to the classification tasks identified in the former step, and the inputfirst approach to the remaining non-classification tasks. Filtering and Postprocessing. To encourage diversity, a new instruction is added to the task pool only when its ROUGE-L similarity with any existing instruction is less than 0.7. We also exclude instructions that contain some specific keywords (e.g., image, picture, graph) that usually can not be processed by LMs. When generating new instances for each instruction, we filter out instances that are exactly the same or those with the same input but different outputs. Invalid generations are identified and filtered out based on heuristics (e.g., instruction is too long or too short, instance output is a repetition of the input). ## 2.3 Finetuning The Lm To Follow Instructions After creating large-scale instruction data, we use it to finetune the original LM (i.e., SELF-INSTRUCT). To do this, we concatenate the instruction and instance input as a prompt and train the model to generate the instance output in a standard supervised way. To make the model robust to different formats, we use multiple templates to encode the instruction and instance input together. For example, the instruction can be prefixed with "Task:" or not, the input can be prefixed with "Input:" or not, "Output:" can be appended at the end of the prompt or not, and different numbers of break lines can be put in the middle, etc. ## 3 Self-Instruct **Data From Gpt3** In this section, we apply our method for inducing instruction data to GPT3 as a case study. We use the largest GPT3 LM ("davinci" engine) accessed through the OpenAI API.6 The parameters for making queries are described in Appendix A.2. Here we present an overview of the generated data. ## 3.1 Statistics Table 1 describes the basic statistics of the generated data. We generate a total of over 52K instructions and more than 82K instances corresponding to these instructions after filtering. ## 3.2 Diversity To study what types of instructions are generated and how diverse they are, we identify the verb-noun structure in the generated instructions. We use the Berkeley Neural Parser7(Kitaev and Klein, 2018; Kitaev et al., 2019) to parse the instructions and 6https://openai.com/api/ 7https://parser.kitaev.io/ | statistic # of instructions | 52,445 | |----------------------------------------|----------| | - # of classification instructions | 11,584 | | - # of non-classification instructions | 40,861 | | # of instances | 82,439 | | - # of instances with empty input | 35,878 | | ave. instruction length (in words) | 15.9 | | ave. non-empty input length (in words) | 12.7 | | ave. output length (in words) | 18.9 | then extract the verb that is closest to the root as well as its first direct noun object. 26,559 out of the 52,445 instructions contain such structure; other instructions usually contain more complex clauses (e.g., "Classify whether this tweet contains political content or not.") or are framed as questions (e.g., "Which of these statements are true?"). We plot the top 20 most common root verbs and their top 4 direct noun objects in Figure 3, which account for 14% of the entire set. Overall, we see quite diverse intents and textual formats in these instructions. We further study how the generated instructions differ from the seed instructions used to prompt the generation. For each generated instruction, we compute its highest ROUGE-L overlap with the 175 seed instructions. We plot the distribution of these ROUGE-L scores in Figure 4. The results indicate a decent number of new instructions were generated, which do not have much overlap with the seeds. We also demonstrate diversity in the length of the instructions, instance inputs, and instance outputs in Figure 5. ## 3.3 Quality So far, we have shown the quantity and diversity of the generated data, but its quality remains uncertain. To investigate this, we randomly sample 200 instructions and randomly select 1 instance per instruction. We asked an expert annotator (author of this work) to label whether each instance is correct or not, in terms of the instruction, the instance input, and the instance output. Evaluation results in Table 2 show that most of the generated instructions are meaningful, while the generated instances may contain more noise (to a reasonable extent). However, we found that even though the generations may contain errors, most of them are still in the correct format or partially correct, which can provide useful guidance for training models to follow instructions. We listed a number of good  examples and bad examples in Table 10 and 11, respectively. | Quality Review Question | Yes % | |-------------------------------------------------------------|---------| | Does the instruction describe a valid task? | 92% | | Is the input appropriate for the instruction? | 79% | | response to the instruction and input? | 58% | | Is the output a correct and acceptable All fields are valid | 54% | ## 4 Experimental Results We conduct experiments to measure and compare the performance of models under various instruction tuning setups. We first describe our models and other baselines, followed by our experiments. ## 4.1 Gpt3Self-Inst**: Finetuning Gpt3 On Its** Own Instruction Data Given the instruction-generated instruction data, we conduct instruction tuning with the GPT3   model itself ("davinci" engine). As described in §2.3, we use various templates to concatenate the instruction and input, and train the model to generate the output. This finetuning is done through the OpenAI finetuning API.8 We use the default hyper-parameters, except that we set the prompt loss weight to 0, and we train the model for 2 epochs. We refer the reader to Appendix A.3 for additional finetuning details. The resulting model is denoted by GPT3SELF-INST. ## 4.2 Baselines Off-the-shelf LMs. We evaluate T5-LM (Lester et al., 2021; Raffel et al., 2020) and GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020) as the vanilla LM baselines (only pretraining, no additional finetuning). These baselines will indicate the extent to which off-the-shelf LMs are capable of following instructions naturally immediately after pretraining. Publicly available instruction-tuned models. T0 and Tk-INSTRUCT are two instruction-tuned models proposed in Sanh et al. (2022) and Wang et al. (2022), respectively, and are demonstrated to be able to follow instructions for many NLP tasks. Both of these models are finetuned from the 8See OpenAI's documentation on finetuning. T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) checkpoints and are publicly available.9 For both of these models, we use their largest version with 11B parameters. Instruction-tuned GPT3 models. We evaluate InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022), which is developed by OpenAI based on GPT3 to follow human instructions better and has been found by the community to have impressive zero-shot abilities. There are various generations of these models, where newer ones use more expansive data or algorithmic novelties.10 For our SUPERNI experiments in §4.3, we only compare with their text-davinci-001 engine, because their newer engines are trained with the latest user data and are likely to have already seen the SUPERNI test set. For our human evaluation on newly written instructions, we include their 001, 002 and 003 engines for completeness. Additionally, to compare SELF-INSTRUCT training with other publicly available instruction tuning data, we further finetune GPT3 model with data from PROMPTSOURCE and SUPERNI, which are used to train the T0 and Tk-INSTRUCT models. We call them T0 training and SUPERNI training for short, respectively. To save the training budget, we sampled 50K instances (but covering all their instructions) for each dataset, which has a comparable size to the instruction data we generated. Based on the findings from Wang et al. (2022) and our early experiments, reducing the number of instances per task does not degrade the model's generalization performance to unseen tasks. ## 4.3 Experiment 1: Zero-Shot Generalization On Super**Ni Benchmark** We first evaluate the models' ability to follow instructions on typical NLP tasks in a zero-shot fashion. We use the evaluation set of SUPERNI (Wang et al., 2022), which consists of 119 tasks with 100 instances in each task. In this work, we mainly focus on the zero-shot setup, i.e., the model is prompted with the definition of the tasks only, without in-context demonstration examples. For all our requests to the GPT3 variants, we use the deterministic generation mode (temperature as 0 and no nucleus sampling) without specific stop sequences. Results. We make the following observations from the results in Table 3. SELF-INSTRUCT 9T0 is available at here and Tk-INSTRUCT is here. 10See OpenAI's documentation on their models. | Model | # Params ROUGE-L | | |------------------------------------------|--------------------|------| | Vanilla LMs T5-LM | 11B | 25.7 | | GPT3 | 175B | 6.8 | | Instruction-tuned w/o SUPERNI T0 | 11B | 33.1 | | GPT3 + T0 Training | 175B | 37.9 | | GPT3SELF-INST (Ours) | 175B | 39.9 | | InstructGPT001 | 175B | 40.8 | | Instruction-tuned w/ SUPERNI Tk-INSTRUCT | 11B | 46.0 | | GPT3 + SUPERNI Training | 175B | 49.5 | | GPT3SELF-INST + SUPERNI Training (Ours) | 175B | 51.6 | | ⃝1 ⃝2 ⃝3 | | | boosts the instruction-following ability of GPT3 by a large margin. The vanilla GPT3 model basically cannot follow human instructions at all. Upon manual analysis, we find that it usually generates irrelevant and repetitive text, and does not know when to stop generation. Compared with other models that are not specifically trained for SUPERNI, GPT3SELF-INST achieves better performance than T0 or the GPT3 finetuned on the T0 training set, which takes tremendous human labeling efforts. Notably, GPT3SELF-INST also nearly matches the performance of InstructGPT001, which is trained with private user data and human-annotated labels. Models trained on the SUPERNI training set still achieve better performance on its evaluation set, which we attribute to the similar instruction style and formatting. However, we show that SELFINSTRUCT still brings in additional gains when combined with the SUPERNI training set, proving its value as complementary data. ## 4.4 Experiment 2: Generalization To User-Oriented Instructions On Novel Tasks Despite the comprehensiveness of SUPERNI in collecting existing NLP tasks, most of these NLP tasks were proposed for research purposes and skewed toward classification. To better access the practical value of instruction-following models, a subset of the authors curate a new set of instructions motivated by user-oriented applications. We first brainstorm various domains where large LMs may be useful (e.g., email writing, social media, productivity tools, entertainment, programming), then  craft instructions related to each domain along with an input-output instance (again, input is optional). We aim to diversify the styles and formats of these tasks (e.g., instructions may be long or short; input/output may take the form of bullet points, tables, codes, equations, etc.). In total, we create 252 instructions with 1 instance per instruction. We believe it can serve as a testbed for evaluating how instruction-based models handle diverse and unfamiliar instructions. Table 9 presents a small portion of them. The entire set is available in our GitHub repository. We analyze the overlap between this set set and the seed instructions in §A.1. Human evaluation setup. Evaluating models' performance on this evaluation set of diverse tasks is extremely challenging because different tasks require different expertise. Indeed, many of these tasks cannot be measured by automatic metrics or even be judged by normal crowdworkers (e.g., writing a program or converting first-order logic into natural language). To get a more faithful evaluation, we asked the authors of the instructions to judge model predictions. Details on how we set up this human evaluation are described in Appendix B. The evaluators were asked to rate the output based on whether it accurately and effectively completes the task. We implemented a four-level rating system for categorizing the quality of models' outputs: - RATING-A: The response is valid and satisfying. - RATING-B: The response is acceptable but has minor errors or imperfections. - RATING-C: The response is relevant and re- sponds to the instruction, but it has significant errors in the content. For example, GPT3 might generate a valid output first, but continue to generate other irrelevant things. - RATING-D: The response is irrelevant or completely invalid. Results. Figure 6 shows the performance of GPT3 model and its instruction-tuned counterparts on this newly written instruction set (w. interrater agreement κ = 0.57 on the 4-class categorical scale, see Appendix B for details). As anticipated, the vanilla GPT3 LM is largely unable to respond to instructions, and all instructiontuned models demonstrate comparatively higher performance. Nonetheless, GPT3SELF-INST (i.e., GPT3 model finetuned with SELF-INSTRUCT) outperforms those counterparts trained on T0 or SUPERNI data by a large margin, demonstrating the value of the generated data despite the noise. Compared with InstructGPT001, GPT3SELF-INST is quite close in performance—if we count acceptable response with minor imperfections (RATINGB) as valid, GPT3SELF-INST is only 5% behind InstructGPT001. Lastly, our evaluation confirms the impressive instruction-following ability of InstructGPT002 and InstructGPT003. Although there are many factors behind this success, we conjecture that future work can largely benefit from improving the quality of our generated data by using human annotators or training a reward model to select better generations, similar to the algorithm used by Ouyang et al. (2022). ## 4.5 Effect Of Data Size And Quality Data size. SELF-INSTRUCT provides a way to grow instruction data at a low cost with almost no human labeling; could more of this generated data lead to better instruction-following ability? We analyze the size of generated data by subsampling different numbers of instructions from the generated dataset, finetuning GPT3 on the sampled subsets, and evaluating how the resulting models perform on the 252 user-oriented instruction set. We conduct the same human evaluation as in §4.4. Figure 7 presents the performance of GPT3SELF-INST models finetuned with different sizes of generated data. Overall, we see consistent improvement as we grow the data size. However, this improvement almost plateaus after 16K. This is in-line with the data scaling experiments in Wang et al. (2022, Fig. 5). Interestingly, when evaluating on SUPERNI we found the model's performance gain plateaus earlier at around hundreds of instructions. This may be due to the fact that the new generated data is distinct from typical NLP tasks in SUPERNI, indicating that future research may benefit from using a combination of different instruction data for better performance on various types of tasks. Data quality. Another direction to improve the model's performance is to take our generated data and get better supervision (with less noise). We explore this idea by using InstructGPT003 (the best available general-purpose model) to regenerate the output field of all our instances given the instruction and input. We then use this improved version of our data to finetune GPT3. As is shown in Figure 7, the resulting model outperforms the counterpart trained with the original data by 10%, which suggests big room for future work on using our generation pipeline to get initial data and then improving the data quality with human experts or distillation from better models. ## 5 Related Work Instruction-following LMs. A series of works have found evidence that vanilla LMs can be effective at following general language instructions if tuned with annotated "instructional" data—datasets containing language instructional commands and their desired outcomes based on human annotation (Weller et al., 2020; Mishra et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022, i.a.). Additionally, they show a direct correlation between the size and  diversity of the "instructional" data and the generalizability of resulting models to unseen tasks (Wang et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022). However, since these developments largely focus on existing NLP tasks and depend on human-annotated instructions, this poses a bottleneck for progress toward more generalizable models (e.g., see Fig. 5a in Wang et al., 2022). Our work aims to move beyond classical NLP tasks and tackle the challenges of creating diverse instruction data by employing pretrained LMs. InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022) shares a similar goal as ours in building more generalpurpose LMs, and has demonstrated remarkable performance in following diverse user instructions. However, as a commercial system, their construction process still remains quite opaque. In particular, the role of *data* has remained understudied due to limited transparency and the private user data they used in their study. Addressing such challenges necessitates the creation of a large-scale, public dataset covering a broad range of tasks. Language models for data generation and augmentation. A variety of works have proposed using LMs for data generation (Schick and Schütze, 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022; Meng et al., 2023) or augmentation (Feng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2020; Mekala et al., 2022). Our work differs from this line in that it is not specific to a particular task (say, QA or NLI). In contrast, a distinct motivation for SELF-INSTRUCT is to bootstrap new task definitions that may not have been defined before by NLP practitioners (though potentially still important for real users). In parallel with our work, Honovich et al. (2022a) also propose to generate large-scale instruction data (so-called Unnatural Instructions) with GPT3 models. The major differences are that 1) they use tasks in SUPERNI (Wang et al., 2022) as their seed tasks, resulting in a different distribution of generated tasks; 2) they employ InstructGPT002 for generating the data, in which sense they are distilling knowledge from an already instruction-tuned model, while we solely rely on the vanilla LM; 3) the detailed generation pipeline and templates are different. Nevertheless, we believe that both efforts in expanding instruction data are complementary, and the community will benefit from these diverse datasets. Instruction generation. A series of recent works (Zhou et al., 2022b; Ye et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2022; Honovich et al., 2022b) generate instructions of a task given a few examples. While SELF-INSTRUCT also involves instruction generation, a major difference in our case is it is taskagnostic; we generate new tasks (instructions along with instances) from scratch. Model self-training. A typical self-training framework (He et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2020; Du et al., 2021; Amini et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2022) uses trained models to assign labels to unlabeled data and then leverages the pseudo-labeled data to improve the model. Zhou et al. (2022a) use multiple prompts to specify a single task and propose to regularize via prompt consistency, encouraging consistent predictions over the prompts. This allows either finetuning the model with extra unlabeled training data, or direct application at inference time. While SELF-INSTRUCT has similarities with the self-training literature, most self-training methods assume a specific *target task* as well as unlabeled examples under it; in contrast, SELFINSTRUCT produces a variety of tasks from scratch. Knowledge distillation. Knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015; Sanh et al., 2019; West et al., 2021; Magister et al., 2022) often involves the transfer of knowledge from larger models to smaller ones. SELF-INSTRUCT can also be viewed as a form of "knowledge distillation", however, it differs from this line in the following ways: (1) the source and target of distillation are the same, i.e., a model's knowledge is distilled to itself; (2) the content of distillation is in the form of an instruction task (i.e., instructions that define a task, and a set of examples that instantiate it). Bootstrapping with limited resources. A series of recent works use language models to bootstrap some inferences using specialized methods. NPPrompt (Zhao et al., 2022) provides a method to generate predictions for semantic labels without any finetuning. It uses a model's own embeddings to automatically find words relevant to the label of the data sample and hence reduces the dependency on manual mapping from model prediction to label (verbalizers). STAR (Zelikman et al., 2022) iteratively leverages a small number of rationale examples and a large dataset without rationales, to bootstrap a model's ability to perform reasoning. Self-Correction (Welleck et al., 2023) decouples an imperfect base generator (model) from a separate corrector that learns to iteratively correct imperfect generations and demonstrates improvement over the base generator. Our work instead focuses on bootstrapping new tasks in the instruction paradigm. Multi-modal instruction-following. Instructionfollowing models have also been of interest in the multi-modal learning literature (Fried et al., 2018; Shridhar et al., 2020; Min et al., 2022; Weir et al., 2022). SELF-INSTRUCT, as a general approach to expanding data, can potentially also be helpful in those settings, which we leave to future work. ## 6 Conclusion We introduce SELF-INSTRUCT, a method to improve the instruction-following ability of LMs via their own generation of instruction data. On experimenting with vanilla GPT3, we automatically construct a large-scale dataset of 52K instructions for diverse tasks, and finetuning GPT3 on this data leads to a 33% absolute improvement on SUPERNI over the original GPT3. Furthermore, we curate a set of expert-written instructions for novel tasks. Human evaluation on this set shows that tuning GPT3 with SELF-INSTRUCT outperforms using existing public instruction datasets by a large margin and performs closely to InstructGPT001. We hope SELF-INSTRUCT can serve as the first step to align pretrained LMs to follow human instructions, and future work can build on top of this data to improve instruction-following models. ## 7 Broader Impact Beyond the immediate focus of this paper, we believe that SELF-INSTRUCT may help bring more transparency to what happens "behind the scenes" of widely-used instruction-tuned models like InstructGPT or ChatGPT. Unfortunately, such industrial models remain behind API walls as their datasets are not released, and hence there is little understanding of their construction and why they demonstrate impressive capabilities. The burden now falls on academia to better understand the source of success in these models and strive for better—and more open—models. We believe our findings in this paper demonstrate the importance of diverse instruction data, and our large synthetic dataset can be the first step toward higher-quality data for building better instruction-following models. At this writing, the central idea of this paper has been adopted in several follow-up works for such endeavors (Taori et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2023; Sun et al., 2023, i.a.). ## 8 Limitations Here, we discuss some limitations of this work to inspire future research in this direction. Tail phenomena. SELF-INSTRUCT depends on LMs, and it will inherit all the limitations that carry over with LMs. As recent studies have shown (Razeghi et al., 2022; Kandpal et al., 2022), tail phenomena pose a serious challenge to the success of LMs. In other words, LMs' largest gains correspond to the frequent uses of languages (head of the language use distribution), and there might be minimal gains in the low-frequency contexts. Similarly, in the context of this work, it would not be surprising if the majority of the gains by SELFINSTRUCT are skewed toward tasks or instructions that present more frequently in the pretraining corpus. As a consequence, the approach might show brittleness with respect to uncommon and creative instructions. Dependence on large models. Because of SELFINSTRUCT's dependence on the inductive biases extracted from LMs, it might work best for larger models. If true, this may create barriers to access for those who may not have large computing resources. We hope future studies will carefully study the gains as a function of model size or various other parameters. It is worthwhile to note that instruction-tuning with human annotation also suffers from a similar limitation: gains of instruction-tuning are higher for larger models (Wei et al., 2022). Reinforcing LM biases. A point of concern for the authors is the unintended consequences of this iterative algorithm, such as the amplification of problematic social biases (stereotypes or slurs about gender, race, etc.). Relatedly, one observed challenge in this process is the algorithm's difficulty in producing balanced labels, which reflected models' prior biases. We hope future work will lead to better understanding of the pros and cons of the approach. ## Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. We especially thank Sewon Min, Eric Wallace, Ofir Press, and other members of UWNLP and AllenNLP for their encouraging feedback and intellectual support. This work was supported in part by DARPA MCS program through NIWC Pacific (N66001-192-4031), ONR N00014-18-1-2826, ONR MURI N00014-18-1-2670, and gifts from AI2 and an Allen Investigator award. ## References Massih-Reza Amini, Vasilii Feofanov, Loic Pauletto, Emilie Devijver, and Yury Maximov. 2022. Self-training: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12040. Stephen H Bach, Victor Sanh, Zheng-Xin Yong, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Nihal V Nayak, Abheesht Sharma, Taewoon Kim, M Saiful Bari, Thibault Fevry, et al. 2022. PromptSource: An Integrated Development Environment and Repository for Natural Language Prompts. In *Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) - System Demonstrations. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, and et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. Jingfei Du, Édouard Grave, Beliz Gunel, Vishrav Chaudhary, Onur Celebi, Michael Auli, Veselin Stoyanov, and Alexis Conneau. 2021. Self-training improves pre-training for natural language understanding. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL): Human Language Technologies, pages 5408–5418. Steven Y Feng, Varun Gangal, Jason Wei, Sarath Chandar, Soroush Vosoughi, Teruko Mitamura, and Eduard Hovy. 2021. A survey of data augmentation approaches for nlp. In *Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (ACL) *ACLIJCNLP - Findings*, pages 968–988. Daniel Fried, Ronghang Hu, Volkan Cirik, Anna Rohrbach, Jacob Andreas, Louis-Philippe Morency, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, Kate Saenko, Dan Klein, and Trevor Darrell. 2018. Speaker-follower models for vision-and-language navigation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Junxian He, Jiatao Gu, Jiajun Shen, and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. 2019. Revisiting self-training for neural sequence generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, Jeff Dean, et al. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) *Workshop on Deep Learning*. Or Honovich, Thomas Scialom, Omer Levy, and Timo Schick. 2022a. Unnatural instructions: Tuning language models with (almost) no human labor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09689. Or Honovich, Uri Shaham, Samuel R Bowman, and Omer Levy. 2022b. Instruction induction: From few examples to natural language task descriptions. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2205.10782. Jiaxin Huang, Shixiang Shane Gu, Le Hou, Yuexin Wu, Xuezhi Wang, Hongkun Yu, and Jiawei Han. 2022. Large language models can self-improve. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2210.11610. Nikhil Kandpal, Haikang Deng, Adam Roberts, Eric Wallace, and Colin Raffel. 2022. Large language models struggle to learn long-tail knowledge. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2211.08411. Nikita Kitaev, Steven Cao, and Dan Klein. 2019. Multilingual constituency parsing with self-attention and pre-training. In *Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 3499– 3505. Nikita Kitaev and Dan Klein. 2018. Constituency parsing with a self-attentive encoder. In *Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (ACL), pages 2676–2686. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In *Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing* (EMNLP). Alisa Liu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2022. WANLI: Worker and ai collaboration for natural language inference dataset creation. In *Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing* (EMNLP) *- Findings*. Lucie Charlotte Magister, Jonathan Mallinson, Jakub Adamek, Eric Malmi, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2022. Teaching small language models to reason. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08410. Dheeraj Mekala, Tu Vu, Timo Schick, and Jingbo Shang. 2022. Leveraging qa datasets to improve generative data augmentation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2205.12604. Yu Meng, Martin Michalski, Jiaxin Huang, Yu Zhang, Tarek Abdelzaher, and Jiawei Han. 2023. Tuning language models as training data generators for augmentation-enhanced few-shot learning. In *International Conference on Machine Learning* (ICML). So Yeon Min, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Pradeep Ravikumar, Yonatan Bisk, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2022. FILM: Following Instructions in Language with Modular Methods. In *International Conference on Learning Representations* (ICLR). Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Cross-Task Generalization via Natural Language Crowdsourcing Instructions. In *Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (ACL). Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback. In *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *Journal of Machine Learning Research* (JMLR). Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2022. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07206. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. In *Advances* in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) Workshop on Energy Efficient Machine Learning and Cognitive Computing. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M Rush. 2022. Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization. In *International Conference on Learning* Representations (ICLR). Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Generating datasets with pretrained language models. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Mohit Shridhar, Jesse Thomason, Daniel Gordon, Yonatan Bisk, Winson Han, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Dieter Fox. 2020. ALFRED: A Benchmark for Interpreting Grounded Instructions for Everyday Tasks. In *IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition* (CVPR). Chandan Singh, John X Morris, Jyoti Aneja, Alexander M Rush, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. Explaining patterns in data with language models via interpretable autoprompting. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01848*. Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Qinhong Zhou, Hongxin Zhang, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, and Chuang Gan. 2023. Principle-driven selfalignment of language models from scratch with minimal human supervision. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2305.03047. Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https:// github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca. Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, Eshaan Pathak, Giannis Karamanolakis, Haizhi Gary Lai, Ishan Purohit, Ishani Mondal, Jacob Anderson, Kirby Kuznia, Krima Doshi, Maitreya Patel, Kuntal Kumar Pal, Mehrad Moradshahi, Mihir Parmar, Mirali Purohit, Neeraj Varshney, Phani Rohitha Kaza, Pulkit Verma, Ravsehaj Singh Puri, Rushang Karia, Shailaja Keyur Sampat, Savan Doshi, Siddhartha Mishra, Sujan Reddy, Sumanta Patro, Tanay Dixit, Xudong Shen, Chitta Baral, Yejin Choi, Noah A. Smith, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Daniel Khashabi. 2022. Super-naturalinstructions: Generalization via declarative instructions on 1600+ tasks. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Zirui Wang, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, and Yuan Cao. 2021. Towards zero-label language learning. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2109.09193. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2022. Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot Learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Nathaniel Weir, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Matthew Hausknecht, Romain Laroche, Ida Momennejad, Harm Van Seijen, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2022. One-Shot Learning from a Demonstration with Hierarchical Latent Language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04806. Sean Welleck, Ximing Lu, Peter West, Faeze Brahman, Tianxiao Shen, Daniel Khashabi, and Yejin Choi. 2023. Generating sequences by learning to selfcorrect. In *International Conference on Learning* Representations (ICLR). Orion Weller, Nicholas Lourie, Matt Gardner, and Matthew Peters. 2020. Learning from Task Descriptions. In *Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing* (EMNLP). Peter West, Chandra Bhagavatula, Jack Hessel, Jena D Hwang, Liwei Jiang, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, and Yejin Choi. 2021. Symbolic knowledge distillation: from general language models to commonsense models. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL). Qizhe Xie, Minh-Thang Luong, Eduard Hovy, and Quoc V Le. 2020. Self-training with noisy student improves imagenet classification. In *IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition* (CVPR), pages 10687–10698. Canwen Xu, Daya Guo, Nan Duan, and Julian McAuley. 2023. Baize: An open-source chat model with parameter-efficient tuning on self-chat data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01196. Yiben Yang, Chaitanya Malaviya, Jared Fernandez, Swabha Swayamdipta, Ronan Le Bras, Ji-Ping Wang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin Choi, and Doug Downey. 2020. Generative data augmentation for commonsense reasoning. In *Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing* (EMNLP) - Findings. Seonghyeon Ye, Doyoung Kim, Joel Jang, Joongbo Shin, and Minjoon Seo. 2022. Guess the instruction! making language models stronger zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02969. Eric Zelikman, Jesse Mu, Noah D Goodman, and Yuhuai Tony Wu. 2022. STar: Self-taught reasoner bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Xuandong Zhao, Siqi Ouyang, Zhiguo Yu, Ming Wu, and Lei Li. 2022. Pre-trained language models can be fully zero-shot learners. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2212.06950. Chunting Zhou, Junxian He, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor BergKirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. 2022a. Prompt Consistency for Zero-Shot Task Generalization. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) *- Findings*. Yongchao Zhou, Andrei Ioan Muresanu, Ziwen Han, Keiran Paster, Silviu Pitis, Harris Chan, and Jimmy Ba. 2022b. Large language models are human-level prompt engineers. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01910*. ## Supplemental Material A Implementation Details A.1 Writing The Seed Tasks Our method relies on a set of seed tasks to bootstrap the generation. The seed tasks are important for both encouraging the task diversity and demonstrating correct ways for solving the diverse tasks. For example, with coding tasks to prompt the model, it has a larger chance to generate coding-related tasks; it's also better to have coding output to guide the model in writing code for new tasks. So, the more diverse the seed tasks are, the more diverse and better quality the generated tasks will be. Our seed tasks were written when we initiated this project, and targeted for the diverse and interesting usages of LLMs. The tasks were written by the authors and our labmates at UWNLP, without explicit reference to existing datasets or specific testing tasks. We further categorized the tasks into classification and non-classification tasks, based on whether the task has a limited output label space. In total, there are 25 classification tasks and 150 non-classification tasks. We release this data in our GitHub repository.11 To provide a sense of how much the model is generalizing beyond these seed tasks, we further quantify the overlap between the instructions of these seed tasks and the instructions of our test sets, including both SUPERNI task instructions (§4.3) and the user-oriented instructions in our human evaluation(§4.4). We compute ROUGE-L similarities between each seed instruction and its most similar instruction in the test set. The distribution of the ROUGE-L scores are plotted in Figure 8, with the average ROUGE-L similarity between the seed instructions and SUPERNI as 0.21, and the average ROUGE-L similarity between the seed instructions and user-oriented instructions as 0.34. We see a decent difference between the seed tasks and both test sets. There is exactly one identical seed instruction occurring in the user-oriented instruction test set, which is "answer the following question" and the following questions are actually very different.  ## A.2 Querying The Gpt3 Api We use different sets of hyperparameters when querying GPT3 API for different purposes. These hyperparameters are found to work well with the GPT3 model ("davinci" engine) and the other instructiontuned GPT3 variants. We listed them in Table 4. OpenAI charges $0.02 per 1000 tokens for making completion request to the "davinci" engine as of December, 2022. The generation of our entire dataset cost around $600. ## A.3 Finetuning Gpt3 GPT3SELF-INST and some of our baselines are finetuned from GPT3 model ("davinci" engine with 175B parameters). We conduct this finetuning via OpenAI's finetuning API.12 While the details of how the model is finetuned with this API are not currently available (e.g., which parameters are updated, or what 11https://github.com/yizhongw/self-instruct/blob/main/human_eval/user_oriented_instructions. jsonl 12See the the details on OpenAI's API. | Experiments ↓ | Temp. Top_P Freq. Penalty Presence Penalty Beam Size Max Length | Stop Sequences | | | | | | |-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|----|-----|----|------|-------------------------------| | Generating instructions | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1024 | "\n\n", "\n16", "16.", "16 ." | | Identifying clf. tasks | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | "\n", "Task:" | | Generating instances | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.5 | 1 | 300 | "Task:" | | Evaluating models | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1024 | None (default) | Table 4: Hyper-parameters for querying OpenAI API in different experiments. the optimizer is), we tune all our models with the default hyperparameters of this API so that the results are comparable. We only set the "prompt_loss_weight" to 0 since we find this works better in our case, and every finetuning experiment is trained for two epochs to avoid overfitting the training tasks. Finetuning is charged based on the number of tokens in the training file. In our case, finetuning GPT3SELF-INST from the GPT3 model on the entire generated data cost $338. ## A.4 Prompting Templates For Data Generation SELF-INSTRUCT relies on a number of prompting templates in order to elicit the generation from language models. Here we provide our four templates for generating the instruction (Table 5), classifying whether an instruction represents a classification task or not (Table 6), generating non-classification instances with the input-first approach (Table 7), and generating classification instances with the output-first approach (Table 8). Come up with a series of tasks: | Task 1: | {instruction for existing task 1} | |-----------|-------------------------------------| | Task 2: | {instruction for existing task 2} | | Task 3: | {instruction for existing task 3} | | Task 4: | {instruction for existing task 4} | | Task 5: | {instruction for existing task 5} | | Task 6: | {instruction for existing task 6} | | Task 7: | {instruction for existing task 7} | | Task 8: | {instruction for existing task 8} | | Task 9: | | ## Can The Following Task Be Regarded As A Classification Task With Finite Output Labels? Task: Given my personality and the job, tell me if I would be suitable. Is it classification? Yes Task: Give me an example of a time when you had to use your sense of humor. Is it classification? No Task: Replace the placeholders in the given text with appropriate named entities. Is it classification? No Task: Fact checking - tell me if the statement is true, false, or unknown, based on your knowledge and common sense. Is it classification? Yes Task: Return the SSN number for the person. Is it classification? No Task: Detect if the Reddit thread contains hate speech. Is it classification? Yes Task: Analyze the sentences below to identify biases. Is it classification? No Task: Select the longest sentence in terms of the number of words in the paragraph, output the sentence index. Is it classification? Yes Task: Find out the toxic word or phrase in the sentence. Is it classification? No Task: Rank these countries by their population. Is it classification? No Task: You are provided with a news article, and you need to identify all the categories that this article belongs to. Possible categories include: Music, Sports, Politics, Tech, Finance, Basketball, Soccer, Tennis, Entertainment, Digital Game, World News. Output its categories one by one, seperated by comma. Is it classification? Yes Task: Given the name of an exercise, explain how to do it. Is it classification? No Task: Select the oldest person from the list. Is it classification? Yes Task: Find the four smallest perfect numbers. Is it classification? No Task: Does the information in the document supports the claim? You can answer "Support" or "Unsupport". Is it classification? Yes Task: Create a detailed budget for the given hypothetical trip. Is it classification? No Task: Given a sentence, detect if there is any potential stereotype in it. If so, you should explain the stereotype. Else, output no. Is it classification? No · · · Task: To make the pairs have the same analogy, write the fourth word. Is it classification? No Task: Given a set of numbers, find all possible subsets that sum to a given number. Is it classification? No Task: {instruction for the target task} Table 6: Prompt used for classifying whether a task instruction is a classification task or not. 13499 Come up with examples for the following tasks. Try to generate multiple examples when possible. If the task doesn't require additional input, you can generate the output directly. Task: Which exercises are best for reducing belly fat at home? Output: - Lying Leg Raises - Leg In And Out - Plank - Side Plank - Sit-ups Task: Extract all the country names in the paragraph, list them separated by commas. Example 1 Paragraph: Dr. No is the sixth novel by the English author Ian Fleming to feature his British Secret Service agent James Bond. Written at Fleming's Goldeneye estate in Jamaica, it was first published in the United Kingdom by Jonathan Cape in 1958. In the novel Bond looks into the disappearance in Jamaica of two fellow MI6 operatives who had been investigating Doctor No. Bond travels to No's Caribbean island and meets Honeychile Rider, who is there to collect shells. They are captured and taken to a luxurious facility carved into a mountain. The character of Doctor No, the son of a German missionary and a Chinese woman, was influenced by Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu stories. Dr. No was the first of Fleming's novels to face widespread negative reviews in Britain, but it was received more favourably in the United States. Output: English, British, Jamaica, the United Kingdom, German, Chinese, Britain, the United States. Task: Converting 85 F to Celsius. Output: 85°F = 29.44°C Task: Sort the given list ascendingly. Example 1 List: [10, 92, 2, 5, -4, 92, 5, 101] Output: [-4, 2, 5, 5, 10, 92, 92, 101] Example 2 Input 2 - List: [9.99, 10, -5, -1000, 5e6, 999] Output: [-1000, -5, 9.99, 10, 999, 5e6] Task: Suggest a better and more professional rephrasing of the following sentence. Example 1 Sentence: This house is surprisingly not constructed very well, and you probably need more money to fix it after you buy it. If you ask me, I would suggest you to consider other candidates. Output: This house does not seem to be constructed well, so you may need to spend more money to fix it after you purchase it. I would suggest that you look at other properties. Example 2 Sentence: Just so you know, we did an experiment last week and found really surprising results - language model can improve itself! Output: Our experiments last week demonstrated surprising results, proving that the language model can improve itself. · · · Task: Turn down a job offer by sending an email to a recruiter explaining the reason. Output: Hi [Recruiter], Thank you so much for the generous offer to join your team. As we discussed, I've admired the company for a number of years, and am a proud endorser of its products. However, after further consideration of where I currently am in my career, I've decided to accept an offer at another company. I would love to stay in touch with you and have already started following you on [Social Media Platform]. Again, thank you so much for your time and consideration. Thanks again, [Your Name] Task: {Instruction for the target task} Table 7: Prompt used for the input-first approach of instance generation. The model is prompted to generate the instance first, and then generate the corresponding output. For instructions that don't require additional input, the output is allowed to be generated directly. Given the classification task definition and the class labels, generate an input that corresponds to each of the class labels. If the task doesn't require input, just generate the correct class label. Task: Classify the sentiment of the sentence into positive, negative, or mixed. Class label: mixed Sentence: I enjoy the flavor of the restaurant but their service is too slow. Class label: Positive Sentence: I had a great day today. The weather was beautiful and I spent time with friends. Class label: Negative Sentence: I was really disappointed by the latest superhero movie. I would not recommend it. Task: Given a dialogue, classify whether the user is satisfied with the service. You should respond with "Satisfied" or "Unsatisfied". Class label: Satisfied Dialogue: - Agent: Thank you for your feedback. We will work to improve our service in the future. - Customer: I am happy with the service you provided. Thank you for your help. Class label: Unsatisfied Dialogue: - Agent: Sorry that we will cancel your order. You will get a refund within 7 business days. - Customer: oh that takes too long. I want you to take quicker action on this. Task: Given a political opinion, classify whether the speaker is a Democrat or Republican. Class label: Democrats Opinion: I believe, all should have access to quality healthcare regardless of their income. Class label: Republicans Opinion: I believe that people should be able to keep more of their hard-earned money and should not be taxed at high rates. Task: Tell me if the following email is a promotion email or not. Class label: Promotion Email: Check out our amazing new sale! We've got discounts on all of your favorite products. Class label: Not Promotion Email: We hope you are doing well. Let us know if you need any help. Task: Detect if the Reddit thread contains hate speech. Class label: Hate Speech Thread: All people of color are stupid and should not be allowed to vote. Class label: Not Hate Speech Thread: The best way to cook a steak on the grill. Task: Does the document supports the claim? Answer with "Support" or "Unsupport". Class label: Unsupport Document: After a record-breaking run that saw mortgage rates plunge to all-time lows and home prices soar to new highs, the U.S. housing market finally is slowing. While demand and price gains are cooling, any correction is likely to be a modest one, housing economists and analysts say. No one expects price drops on the scale of the declines experienced during the Great Recession. Claim: The US housing market is going to crash soon. Class label: Support Document: The U.S. housing market is showing signs of strain, with home sales and prices slowing in many areas. Mortgage rates have risen sharply in recent months, and the number of homes for sale is increasing. This could be the beginning of a larger downturn, with some economists predicting a potential housing crash in the near future. Claim: The US housing market is going to crash soon. Task: Which of the following is not an input type? (a) number (b) date (c) phone number (d) email address (e) all of these are valid inputs. Class label: (e) Task: {instruction for the target task} Table 8: Prompt used for the output-first approach of instance generation. The model is prompted to generate the class label first, and then generate the corresponding input. This prompt is used for generating the instances for classification tasks. ## Human Evaluation Details For Following The User-Oriented Instructions B Human Evaluation Setup B.1 Here we provide more details for the human evaluation described in §4.4 for rating the models' responses to the 252 user-oriented instructions. To ensure faithful and reliable evaluation, we asked two authors of these instructions (and of this paper) to judge model predictions. These two evaluators coordinated the standards for the 4-level rating system before starting annotation and then each of them rated all the instances independently. They were presented with the instruction, instance input, target output (as a reference), and model responses. Model responses are listed in random order, with all the model information anonymized. Figure 9 provides a screenshot of the annotation interface. The reported performance in this paper is based on the results from one of the evaluators, and the trends from the other evaluator's results are the same.  ## Human Evaluation Agreement B.2 To measure how reliable our human evaluation is, we calculate the inner-rater agreement between our two evaluators. We first report Cohen's κ , which is commonly used to measure inter-rater agreement for categorical items. When calculating this, we treat the 4-level rating (A-D) as a categorical variable, leading to a κ of 0.58, which is a moderate agreement according to common practice. 13 Furthermore, we also calculate the agreement of our evaluators on classifying acceptable responses ((A or B) vs. (C or D)), with a final κ of 0.75, indicating substantial agreement. We also compute the Spearman correlation coefficient ρ between the ratings of our two evaluators by treating the rating as an ordinal variable (A>B>C>D). The final coefficient is ρ = 0.81, indicating a high correlation between the two evaluators. ## B.3 Example Predictions From Gpt3Self-Inst We present a selection of user-oriented tasks, the corresponding GPT3SELF-INST-produced responses and annotator ratings in Table 9. We see that even for responses rated as level C, the model demonstrates extensive steps in solving the task, even though its final output is incorrect. | Instruction + Instance Input | Target Response | GPT3SELF-INST Response | Rating | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------| | Instruction: Give students tips | Everyone gets a little nervous when speaking | | | | on how to keep their nerves under | in front of a group. | That's normal. | But the | | control during class presentations. | more preparation you've done—meaning plenty of researching, organizing, and rehearsing—the more confident you'll be. Preparation is the key. And if you make a mistake or stumble over your words, just regroup and keep going. Nobody's perfect, and nobody expects you to be. - Practice your presentation in front of friends and family. - Don't drink too much caffeine before the presentation. - Take deep breaths before you start speaking. - If you feel nervous, smile. - Remember that everyone in the audience is rooting for you. | A | | | Instruction: Make a list of the pros and cons of the given decision. Input: Implementing a Remote Working Policy | Pros: - Allowing employees to work from home can reduce their stressful commutes and increase their productivity. - Remote working provides greater flexibility, particularly for working parents and caregivers who have other responsibilities. - ...(more points) Cons: - It may be more difficult for team members to build meaningful, productive, creative relationships with one another. - ...(more points) | Pros: - Employees can work from home and save on commuting costs. - Employees can spend more time with their families. Cons: - Employees may not be as productive as they would be in the office. - Employees may not be as motivated to work. | A | | Instruction: A user story is an informal, general explanation of a software feature written from the perspective of the end-user or customer. Write a user story for a given software. Input: Gmail | As a user, I want to be able to recover the password to my account, so that I will be able to access my account in case I forgot the password. | As a user, I want to be able to send emails to my friends and family. I want to be able to attach files to my emails. I want to be able to search for emails in my inbox. | A | | Instruction: A color description has been provided. Find the CSS code associated with that color. Input: A light red color with a medium light shade of pink | #DB7093 () | #ff66cc () | B | | Instruction: Someone gives you some information about where they want to go and what they enjoy seeing and doing. Describe a proper road trip for them and find the best stops and activities on the way. Input: I'm looking for a west coast road trip. My goal is to start near San Diego and travel to Los Angeles. | Begin near the city of San Diego and make the first stop in coastal La Jolla. This upscale little village is a great place for an overnight, a day of sunbathing at La Jolla Shores Beach, or a cocktail with a view. Just 20 minutes north, stop into beachy Encinitas to window shop the boutiques or sample fish tacos. Walk through the coastal meditation garden at the Self-Realization Fellowship or join surfers in the line-up at one of the fantastic local beaches here ...(more ideas) You should start your trip in San Diego, California. You can visit the San Diego Zoo, which is one of the best zoos in the world. Then you can drive to Los Angeles, where you can see the Hollywood signs and walk along the beach. | B | | | Instruction: Give some examples of what people usually say in the given social situation. Input: when someone arrives safely | - "Glad you made it safe and sound." | Thank God, I made it. | B | | - "Good to see you got here unscathed." - "So, bulletproof vests actually work!" | | | | | Instruction: You are given a sentence in first-order logic. Translate it into natural language. Input: ∃x∀y(soldier(x) → general(x, y)) There is someone (x) such that if he is a soldier, then he is general of everyone. | There exists a soldier such that for every general, he is a general. | C | | | Instruction: Make a questionnaire to help hotel guests write hotel | - Your overall rating of this hotel: - Summarize your visit or highlight an | | | | reviews. | interesting detail: | | | | - ...(more questions) | Question: | How would you rate the | C | | service at the front desk? Answer: Excellent, Good, Average, Poor | | | | | Instruction: Design an outline for a blog post based on the given information and list the sections accordingly. Input: This blog post is going to about making a list of last-minute gift ideas. Also, the tone of the post is going to be relaxed and casual. | C | | | | - Section: | Movie tickets | | | | - Section: | A fun game console | | | | - Section: | Personalized items with | | | | photos/artwork | | | | | - ...(more sections) - Takeaway: Don't stress about out running out of time to buy, make a gift. | - Introduction - List of Gift Ideas - Conclusion | | | | Instruction: Write a Jira ticket for | Title: | Please help our new employee get settled. | | | the given task. | Prepare a desk, chair, and computer for them to | | | | Input: New Employee onboarding | use. | Create their company account, email, and | | | temporary password. | Grant access to company | | | | documents. | Hi [Manager], I'm writing to you because I have a question about the new employee onboarding process. I've been working here for a few months now, and I'm still not sure how it works. Could you please explain it to me? | D | | | Instruction: Create alliterations by finding synonyms for words in the given sentence. Input: David wears a hat everyday. | David dons a derby daily. | David wears a hat every day. | D | | Table 9: Examples in the user-oriented instructions dataset (§4.4) and predictions from GPT3SELF-INST. The right | | | | Table 9: Examples in the user-oriented instructions dataset (§4.4) and predictions from GPT3SELF-INST. The right column indicates one of the four quality ratings assigned to the model's response, with "A" indicating "valid and satisfying" responses (highest) and "D" indicating "irrelevant or invalid response" (lowest). 13504 ## C Task And Instance Examples From The Generated Instruction Data | Instruction + Instance Input | Target Output | Validity | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | with at least 6 characters. | def generateRandomPassword(): | | | Instruction: Generate a random password | password = "" while len(password) < 6: password += chr(random.randint(65, 90)) return password | Instruction: ✓ Input: ✓ Output: ✓ Instruction: ✓ Input: ✓ Output: ✓ | | Instruction: Write a paragraph describing how to tie shoelaces for people who have never tied their shoes before. explain each step briefly. | Paragraph: | To tie shoelaces, first you need to make a loop with one | | end of the lace. | Then pass the other end through the loop and pull | | | it tight. | Next, you need to wrap the lace around the shoe several | | | times. | Finally, tuck in the loose end into the wrapped part of the | | | lace. | | | | Instruction: Given a word, find out its | Length = 5, Number of vowels = 2 | Instruction: ✓ | | length and its number of vowels. | Input: ✓ | | | Input: Word = "hello" | Output: ✓ | | | Instruction: Write a story with three characters: a person, an animal and an object. Input: Person: John, a programmer. Animal: A dog. Object: A laptop. | John was sitting on the floor in front of his laptop when he heard a knock at the door. He opened it to find a dog standing there. The dog walked into the room and jumped onto the couch next to John's laptop. | Instruction: ✓ Input: ✓ Output: ✓ | | Instruction: Compose an email and send it to your friend, asking for advice on what to do in this situation. Input: Situation: You are a programmer and you have been working on a project for the past few months. The deadline is approaching, but you haven't finished yet. Your manager has asked you to stay late every day this week to finish it. | Hi [Friend], I'm having a bit of trouble with my current job. | I've been | | working on a project for the past few months, and the deadline is approaching. My manager has asked me to stay late every day this week to finish it. I don't think I can do that because I have other commitments. What should I do? | Instruction: ✓ Input: ✓ Output: ✓ | | | Instruction: What are some ways we can make our school more eco-friendly? | - Use reusable water bottles instead of disposable plastic ones. - Turn off lights when you leave a room. - Recycle paper, cans and bottles. - Plant trees to absorb carbon dioxide. | Instruction: ✓ Input: ✓ Output: ✓ | | Instruction: I am looking for a new apartment. there are many options available but they are all quite expensive. i want to move as soon as possible. give me advice on what to do. | You should look for a cheaper apartment. | You can try to negotiate | | with the landlord and offer him/her a lower price. | If you are lucky, | | | they will accept your offer. | Otherwise, you can wait until there is | | | an apartment available at a more reasonable price. | Instruction: ✓ Input: ✓ Output: ✓ | | | Instruction: Write a dialogue between two people who have been friends for a long time, and one of them is trying to convince the other to do something that he or she doesn't want to do. | A: Hey, I have a great idea! | Let's go to the beach today. | | B: No thanks, I'm not really in the mood for that. A: Come on, it'll be fun! We haven't been there together in ages. B: I know, but I just don't feel like going. A: But you love the beach! You always say how much you enjoy swimming and lying in the sun. B: Yeah, I do. It's just that I've been feeling kind of tired lately. A: Oh, come on. You're never tired. You're always so energetic. B: Well, I am now. I think I need some rest. A: Okay, fine. If you change your mind, let me know. | Instruction: ✓ Input: ✓ Output: ✓ | | | Instruction: How can i create an app that | You can use the following steps to create an app that will be able | | | will be able to identify different kinds | to identify different kinds of plants by taking photos of them. | | | of plants by taking photos of them? | Step 1: | Create a database with all the information about the plants | | you want to identify. Step 2: Create a user interface for your application. Step 3: Use image recognition techniques to identify the plant in the photo. Step 4: Display the name of the plant on the screen. | Instruction: ✓ Input: ✓ Output: ✓ | | | Instruction: Find the closest matching | Instruction: ✓ | | | emoji to a given one. | Input: ✓ Output: ✓ | | | Input: Emoji: Instruction: Describe your favorite video | Explore, fight, solve, upgrade, repeat | Instruction: ✓ | | game using only verbs. | Input: ✓ | | | Input: Game: | The Legend of Zelda | Output: ✓ | | Table 10: Representative valid tasks generated by GPT3. As is discussed in §3, these generated tasks cover a broad | | | Table 10: Representative **valid** tasks generated by GPT3. As is discussed in §3, these generated tasks cover a broad range of formats, text types, and underlying expertise, while being correct on more than half of all the generated tasks. | Instruction + Instance Input | Target Output | Validity Instruction: ✗ Input: ✓ Output: ✗ | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | Instruction: Given a set of words w = {w1, w2, ..., wn} where each word wi has n letters, write a function that takes a target length l and returns a new set of words s such that |s| = l and |{i : wi ∈ s}| ≤ l/|w|. def wordSubsetSum(w, l): s = [] for i in range(len(w)): if len(s) + 1 < l: s.append(w[i]) return s Instruction: The house on fire! go! - Go to the kitchen and take a pan. - Take water from the tap. - Pour water into the pan. - Put out the fire with the pan. | Instruction: ✗ Input: ✓ Output: ✗ | | | Instruction: Find out if you have any | def hasFriendsWhoLikeToPlayFootballOrChess(self): | | | friends who like to play football or | friends = [] | | | chess. | for friend in self.friends: if friend.likes == 'football' or friend.likes == 'chess': friends.append(friend) return len(friends) > 0 | Instruction: ✗ Input: ✓ Output: ✓ | | Highest salary | Instruction: ✓ Input: ✗ Output: ✗ | | | Instruction: A number of people are lined up for an interview. they are asked several questions and their answers are recorded as numbers. you need to identify which person has the highest salary among all the candidates. Input: Person 1: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Person 2: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Person 3: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Person 4: 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Person 5: 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Person 6: 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Instruction: Given a list of words, generate a story about a group of people who live on a planet. the story should contain at least 10 sentences. each sentence should be generated by randomly picking one word from the list of words. | The story starts with a group of people who live on a planet. | They | | are very intelligent and have created many things that help them in their daily lives. One day, they decided to create a machine that can make food for them. The machine was able to produce food but it also produced something else. It produced a liquid that could be used as fuel for the machines. The people were happy because they didn't need to go out and look for food or fuel anymore. They had everything they needed right there in their homes. However, one day, the machine stopped working. The people tried to fix it but couldn't figure out what went wrong. They tried to find someone who could help them but no one knew how to fix the machine. After a few days, the people realized that they would die if they didn't do anything about it. So, they decided to send some of their best scientists to space to find a new planet where they could live. The scientists traveled for a long time before they found a planet that looked like a good place to live. They sent a message back to the people telling them about the planet. The people were excited and started preparing for the journey. They built spaceships and flew to the new planet. When they arrived, they saw that the planet was beautiful. There were trees and rivers and mountains. The people were so happy that they finally found a new home. They started building houses and planting crops. They lived happily ever after. | Instruction: ✓ Input: ✗ Output: ✓ | | | attitude towards working part-time is. | Paragraph: | Working part-time is a great way to earn some extra | | Instruction: Find out what the author's | money while still being able to enjoy your free time. | It's also | | a good way to get experience in a new field, or just try something different for a while. However, it can be difficult to find the right balance between work and play. The author seems to be positive about working part-time. | Instruction: ✓ Input: ✗ Output: ✓ Instruction: ✓ Input: ✗ Output: ✓ | | | Instruction: Is it ethical to use a new | New Technology: | Self-driving cars | | technology that could potentially cause | Potential Harm: | Accidents caused by self-driving cars | | harm to others? | Ethical? | Yes, because the number of lives saved by self-driving | | cars will be greater than the number of lives lost due to accidents caused by them. | Instruction: ✓ | | | Instruction: What is your salary? | class Solution(object): def getSalary(self): | Input: ✓ Output: ✗ | | return self.salary | | | | Instruction: A person wants to buy a car from another person. he has some bitcoins, but he doesn't want to reveal his identity. how can they make the transaction happen? The buyer and seller should agree on a price for the car. | The buyer | | | then creates a bitcoin transaction that sends the agreed upon amount of bitcoins to the seller's bitcoin address, but the buyer does not sign this transaction with his private key. Instead, he gives the unsigned transaction to the seller. The seller can now sign the transaction using his private key, and broadcast it to the network. Once the transaction is confirmed by the network, the buyer has no way to get his money back, so he will be forced to go through with the purchase. | Instruction:✓ Input: ✓ Output: ✗ | | | Table 11: Representative invalid tasks generated by GPT3. The problematic fields are indicated in the validity | | | Table 11: Representative **invalid** tasks generated by GPT3. The problematic fields are indicated in the validity column. As discussed in §3.3, although these tasks contain errors, they still provide many useful signals in supervising models to follow instructions. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 7 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 3, 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? 1, 4 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? 3, 4 ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? The data released in this paper is synthetic data generated by models and cannot be easily verified. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 3 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 3 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 3,4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 4, Appendix A The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 3 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** 4 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix B ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Appendix B D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. The data collection was done by the authors themselves. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. The data collection was done by the authors themselves. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. The data collection was done by the authors themselves.

liang-etal-2023-disentangled

Disentangled Phonetic Representation for {C}hinese Spelling Correction

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.755

Chinese Spelling Correction (CSC) aims to detect and correct erroneous characters in Chinese texts. Although efforts have been made to introduce phonetic information (Hanyu Pinyin) in this task, they typically merge phonetic representations with character representations, which tends to weaken the representation effect of normal texts. In this work, we propose to disentangle the two types of features to allow for direct interaction between textual and phonetic information. To learn useful phonetic representations, we introduce a pinyin-to-character objective to ask the model to predict the correct characters based solely on phonetic information, where a separation mask is imposed to disable attention from phonetic input to text. To avoid overfitting the phonetics, we further design a self-distillation module to ensure that semantic information plays a major role in the prediction. Extensive experiments on three CSC benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of our method in using phonetic information.

# Disentangled Phonetic Representation For Chinese Spelling Correction ## Zihong Liang1, Xiaojun Quan1∗**, Qifan Wang**2 1School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University 2Meta AI liangzh63@mail2.sysu.edu.cn, quanxj3@mail.sysu.edu.cn, wqfcr@fb.com ## Abstract Chinese Spelling Correction (CSC) aims to detect and correct erroneous characters in Chinese texts. Although efforts have been made to introduce phonetic information (Hanyu Pinyin) in this task, they typically merge phonetic representations with character representations, which tends to weaken the representation effect of normal texts. In this work, we propose to disentangle the two types of features to allow for direct interaction between textual and phonetic information. To learn useful phonetic representations, we introduce a pinyin-to-character objective to ask the model to predict the correct characters based solely on phonetic information, where a separation mask is imposed to disable attention from phonetic input to text. To avoid overfitting the phonetics, we further design a self-distillation module to ensure that semantic information plays a major role in the prediction. Extensive experiments on three CSC benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of our method in using phonetic information1. ## 1 Introduction Chinese Spelling Correction (CSC) is a task to detect and correct erroneous characters in Chinese sentences, which plays an indispensable role in many natural language processing (NLP) applications (Martins and Silva, 2004; Gao et al., 2010). Previous research (Liu et al., 2010) shows that the misuse of homophonic characters accounts for roughly 83% of the spelling errors. We present two such cases in Table 1. In the first one, the erroneous characters of "户秃" are difficult to be corrected by only literal text because the input sample is too short and the two characters are entirely unrelated to the semantic meaning of this sample. However, their pronunciation easily helps us associate them with the correct answer "糊涂" which shares the same pronunciation as "户秃". The second case ∗Corresponding authors 1https://github.com/liangzh63/DORM-CSC | Source | 可是我忘了,我真户秃(hu tu)。 But I forgot, I am so household bald. | | |------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|----| | Target | 可是我忘了,我真糊涂(hu tu)。 But I forgot, I am so silly. | | | BERT | 可是我忘了,我真护突。 | | | PinyinBERT | 可是我忘了,我真糊涂。 | | | REALISE | 可是我忘了,我真户涂。 | | | Our DORM | 可是我忘了,我真糊涂。 | | | Source | 可是现在我什么事都不济的(ji de)。 But I can't do anything right now. | | | Target | 可是现在我什么事都不记得(ji de)。 But I don't remember anything now. | | | BERT | 可是现在我什么事都不记得。 | | | PinyinBERT | 可是现在我什么事都不记的。 | | | REALISE | 可是现在我什么事都不记的。 | | | Our DORM | 可是现在我什么事都不记得。 | | Table 1: Two examples of Chinese Spelling Correction and the predictions by different models. Misspelled characters are highlighted in red and the corresponding answers are in blue. The phonetic transcription of key characters is bracketed. PinyinBERT is a special BERT model which takes as input only phonetic features without characters. REALISE is a state-of-the-art model. exhibits a similar phenomenon but is more complicated as the model must distinguish between "记 得" and "记的" further. These two examples illustrate that misspelled characters could be recognized and corrected with the introduction of phonetic information. In Mandarin Chinese, Hanyu Pinyin (shortened to *pinyin*) is the official romanization system for phonetic transcription. It uses three components of initials, finals, and tones to express the pronunciation and spelling of Chinese characters. As the pronunciation similarity of Chinese characters is primarily determined by their initial or final sounds rather than their tones, we focus solely on the initials and finals as the phonetic features of Chinese characters. As pre-trained language models like BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) have dominated various NLP tasks, researchers explore incorporating pinyin features 13509 into pre-trained language models for the CSC task. There are mainly two approaches. First, the pinyin of a Chinese character is encoded and fused into the character representation with a gate mechanism (Wang et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). Second, a pronunciation prediction objective is introduced to model the relationship among phonologically similar characters (Liu et al., 2021; Ji et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022a). Despite considerable performance gain, these methods suffer from two potential issues. First, pinyin information may be neglected or dominated by textual information during training because of the entanglement between pinyin and textual representations. As the first case shows in Table 1, a special BERT model taking only the pinyin sequence as input without Chinese characters can detect and correct the erroneous characters, while REALISE (Xu et al., 2021), which encodes and fuses textual and pinyin information with a gate mechanism, ignores one of the errors. Second, the introduction of pinyin features may weaken the representation of normal texts. Take the second case in Table 1 for example. While an ordinary BERT model can correct the misspelled character "的" in the input, REALISE fails to do that. This problem could be explained by the over-reliance of REALISE on or overfitting pinyin information. Based on the above observations, we propose Disentangled phOnetic Representation Model (DORM) for CSC. Our motivation is to decouple text and pinyin representations to allow for direct interaction between them to make better use of phonetic information. Specifically, we first construct a phonetics-aware input sequence by appending the pinyin sequence to the original textual input, where a common set of position embeddings is used to relate the two sub-sequences. In doing so, textual features are allowed to capture phonetic information as needed from the pinyin part during training and inference. Then, to learn useful pinyin representations, we introduce a pinyin-to-character prediction objective, where a separation mask is imposed to disallow attention from pinyin to text to ask the model to recover the correct characters only from pinyin information. The pinyin-to-character task is auxiliary during training and its prediction will be discarded at inference time. Intuitively, pinyin should serve to complement but not replace textual information in CSC for two reasons. First, there is a one-to-many relation between pinyin and Chinese characters, and it is more difficult to recover the correct characters solely from pinyin than from Chinese characters. Second, pinyin representations are not pre-trained as textual representations in existing language models. Therefore, the model should avoid overly relying on pinyin which may cause overfitting. Inspired by deep mutual learning (Zhang et al., 2018) and self-distillation (Mobahi et al., 2020), we propose a self-distillation module to force the prediction of our model to be consistent with that when a rawtext input is supplied. To this end, KL-divergence is applied to the two sets of soft labels. Experiments are conducted on three SIGHAN benchmarks and the results show that our model achieves substantial performance improvement over state-of-the-art models. Further analysis demonstrates that phonetic information is better utilized in our model. The contributions of this work are summarized threefold. First, we disentangle text and pinyin representations to allow for direct interaction between them. Second, we introduce a pinyin-to-character task to enhance phonetic representation learning with a separation mask imposed to disable attention from pinyin to text. Third, a self-distillation module is proposed to prevent overreliance on phonetic features. Through this work, we demonstrate the merit of our approach to modeling pinyin information separately from the text. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Chinese Spelling Correction Chinese Spelling Correction has drawn increasing interest from NLP researchers. The current methodology of this task has been dominated by neural network-based models, especially pre-trained language models, and can be divided into two lines. One line of work focuses on better semantic modeling of textual features (Hong et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022c). They treat CSC as a sequence labeling task and adopt pre-trained language models to acquire contextual representations. Soft-Masked BERT (Zhang et al., 2020) employs a detection network to predict whether a character is erroneous and then generates soft-masked embedding for the correction network to correct the error. MDCSpell (Zhu et al., 2022) is a multi-task detector-corrector framework that fuses representations from the detection and correction networks. Another line of work is incorporating phonetic information into the task, motivated by the observation that the misuse of homophonic characters accounts for a large proportion of the errors (Liu et al., 2010). MLM-phonetics (Zhang et al., 2021) and PLOME (Liu et al., 2021) employ a word replacement strategy to replace randomly-selected characters with phonologically or visually similar ones in the pre-training stage. REALISE (Xu et al., 2021) and PHMOSpell (Huang et al., 2021) utilize multiple encoders to model textual, phonetic, and visual features and employ a selective gate mechanism to fuse them. SCOPE (Li et al., 2022a) imposes an auxiliary pronunciation prediction task and devises an iterative inference strategy to improve performances. However, these methods generally merge textual and phonetic features without direct and deep interaction between them, which may lead to ineffective use of phonetic information. By contrast, our method decouples the two types of features to learn isolated phonetic representations and use them to assist textual information for CSC. ## 2.2 Self-Distillation Knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) is a technique that tries to distill a small student model from a large teacher model. As a special distillation strategy, deep mutual learning (Zhang et al., 2018) allows several student models to collaboratively learn and teach each other during training. Particularly, it is referred to as self-distillation (Mobahi et al., 2020) when the student models share the same parameters. Self-distillation has been applied in CSC and brings performance improvement. SDCL (Zhang et al., 2022) encodes both original and corresponding correct sentences respectively, and adopts contrastive loss to learn better contextual representations. CRASpell (Liu et al., 2022) constructs a noisy sample for each input and applies KL-divergence for the two outputs to improve the performance on multi-typo sentences. Our method differs from CRASpell in two aspects. First, one of our student models takes as input a phonetics-aware sequence with disentangled textual and phonetic representations. Second, the purpose of our selfdistillation design is to reduce overfitting phonetic information when training the model. ## 3 Methodology The motivation of our Disentangled phOnetic Representation Model (DORM) for Chinese Spelling Correction (CSC) is to allow for direct and deep interaction between textual and phonetic features by decoupling Chinese character and pinyin representations. To enable effective pinyin representations, we introduce a pinyin-to-character objective that requires the model to restore the correct characters purely from pinyin information. Inspired by deep mutual learning (Zhang et al., 2018) and self-distillation (Mobahi et al., 2020), we further introduce a self-distillation module to prevent the model from overfitting pinyin information. In the following, we first formulate the task (§3.1) and then introduce DORM in detail (§3.2). Finally, we introduce how to pre-train the model for better textual and pinyin representations (§3.3). ## 3.1 Problem Definition Given a Chinese sentence X = {x1, x2*, .., x*n} of n characters that may include erroneous characters, we use Y = {y1, y2*, .., y*n} to represent the corresponding correct sentence. The objective of CSC is to detect and correct the erroneous characters by generating a prediction Yˆ = {yˆ1, yˆ2*, ..,* yˆn} for the input X, where yˆi is the character predicted for xi. Apparently, the CSC task can be formulated as a sequence labeling task in which all the Chinese characters constitute the label set. ## 3.2 Architecture As illustrated in Figure 1, our DORM consists of a phonetics-aware input sequence, a unified encoder with separation mask, a pinyin-to-character objective, and a self-distillation module. The phonetics-aware input is constructed by appending the pinyin sequence to the original textual input. The separation mask is imposed to disallow attention from pinyin to text to avoid information leaks. The pinyin-to-character objective is designed to learn useful phonetic representations. In the selfdistillation module, the model conducts two forward passes with the phonetics-aware sequence and the raw text as input respectively to obtain two sets of distributions, and the difference between them is minimized by KL-divergence. ## Phonetics-Aware Input Sequence The Pinyin of each Chinese character is a sequence of the Latin alphabet and is composed of initials, finals and *tones* to denote the pronunciation. If characters share the same initial or final, their pronunciations are usually related or similar. In our method, we only consider initials and finals as pinyin information for CSC, as empirically tones are not related to this task. Given the  input X, we denote its pinyin sequence as R = {(init1, final1),(init2, final2)*, ..,*(initn, finaln)}, where initi and finali are the initial and final of character xi, respectively. Then, we append R to X and obtain a phonetics-aware sequence S = {s1, s2, .., sn, sn+1, sn+2*, .., s*n+n} as the final input, where si is defined as follows. $$s_{i}=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{i},&1\leq i\leq n\\ \mbox{init}_{i-n},\mbox{final}_{i-n},&n+1\leq i\leq n+n\end{array}\right..\tag{1}$$ Encoder with Separation Mask We adopt BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) with a stack of 12 Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) blocks as our encoder. Each Chinese character is encoded as the sum of word embedding, position embedding, and segment embedding. Similarly, the pinyin of each character is encoded as the sum of initial embedding, final embedding, position embedding, and segment embedding, where the position embedding is the same as the character. As a result, the representations of the phonetics-aware input sequence S can be denoted by H0 = {h01, h02*, .., h*0n+n}. The contextual representation of each token is updated by aggregating information from other tokens via multi-head attention networks (MHA). In the l-th layer, the output Ol of each attention head is computed as: $$Q^{l},K^{l},V^{l}=H^{l-1}W^{l\top}_{Q},H^{l-1}W^{l\top}_{K},H^{l-1}W^{l\top}_{V},$$ $$A^{l}=\mbox{softmax}(\frac{Q^{l}K^{l\top}}{\sqrt{d}}+M),\tag{2}$$ $$O^{l}=A^{l}V^{l}.$$ $\frac{1}{2}$ 4. $\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{a}=\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{a}$. where WlQ, WlK, WlV are trainable parameters, Hl−1 is the output of the previous layer, d is the size of the dimension, and M is a mask matrix. Specifically, we apply a separation mask to allow for attention from text representations to phonetic representations but not vice versa. Thus, we define the mask matrix M ∈ R2n×2n in Eq. (2) as: $$M_{ij}=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}-\infty,&\mbox{if$n+1\leq i\leq2n$and$1\leq j\leq n$}\\ 0,&\mbox{otherwise}\end{array}\right..\tag{3}$$ The separation mask ensures that pinyin representations cannot gather information from textual characters when Mij = −∞. Next, Ol from all heads are concatenated then passed through a linear transformation network and a normalization network. After that, the resulting representations are fed into a feed-forward network followed by another normalization network to generate Hl. The final contextual representations H = {h1, h2*, .., h*n+n} are produced by taking the lastlayer hidden states of the encoder. Then, we compute the probability distribution for the i-th character based on hi by: $$P_{i}={\mathrm{softmax}}(E*h_{i}+b)\in\mathbb{R}^{|V|}.$$ where E is word embedding parameters, |V | denotes the size of vocabulary, and b is a trainable parameter. The prediction loss for the textual part of S is computed as: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{text}}={\frac{1}{n}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}-\log P(y_{i}|S).$$ Pinyin-to-Character Objective To design the auxiliary pinyin-to-character task, we make a copy of the gold output Y to obtain Z = {z1, .., zn, zn+1*, .., z*n+n} as the prediction labels of S, where z1, .., zn = y1*, .., y*n and zn+1, .., zn+n = y1*, .., y*n. The prediction loss of the pinyin part in S is defined as: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{pinvin}}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=n+1}^{n+n}-\log P(z_{i}|S).\tag{6}$$ At inference time, we obtain the prediction Yˆ = {yˆ1, ..yˆn, yˆn+1*, ..,* yˆn+n}, where yˆi = argmax(Pi). We discard the prediction for the pinyin part and use {yˆ1*, ..y*ˆn} as the final output. Self-Distillation Module After obtaining the output distribution for each character by Equation (4), the model conducts another forward pass with the original sequence X as input, giving rise to another output distribution Qi ∈ R|V | for each character xi. The two sets of distributions are then forced to be close by applying bidirectional KL-divergence: $${\cal L}_{kl}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}({\cal D}_{kl}(P_{i}||Q_{i})+{\cal D}_{kl}(Q_{i}||P_{i})).\tag{7}$$ Besides, the prediction objective of the second pass is also included in the training: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{raw-text}}={\frac{1}{n}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}-\log P(y_{i}|X).$$ Joint Learning To train the model, we combine the phonetics-aware loss and the self-distillation loss into a joint training framework as: $$\mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathcal{L}_{\text{text}}+\alpha\mathcal{L}_{\text{plain}}}_{\text{phonections-aware loss}}+\underbrace{\beta\mathcal{L}_{kl}+\gamma\mathcal{L}_{\text{raw-test}}}_{\text{self-distillation loss}}.\tag{9}$$ where $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ are tunable hyperparameters. ## 3.3 Pre-Training Pinyin sequences can be regarded as a special form of natural language sequences. Since they are not presented in the original pre-training process of language models, reasonably, they can be pre-trained on large-scale corpora to obtain better pinyin representations for fine-tuning. Therefore, we pre-train DORM on two large corpora, namely wiki2019zh2 and weixin-public-corpus3. The format of input sequences and the model structure are the same as in fine-tuning. DORM is trained by recovering 15% randomly selected characters in the input, which were replaced by phonologically similar or random characters. Moreover, the pinyin-to-character objective is also included. More implementation details are given in Appendix A. $$({\mathfrak{H}})$$ ## 4 Experiments In this section, we introduce the details of our experiments to evaluate the proposed model. ## 4.1 Datasets And Metrics We conduct main experiments on three CSC benchmarks, including SIGHAN13 (Wu et al., 2013), SIGHAN14 (Yu et al., 2014), and SIGHAN15 (Tseng et al., 2015). Following previous work (Wang et al., 2019; Cheng et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021), we merge the three SIGHAN training sets and another 271K pseudo samples generated by ASR or OCR (Wang et al., 2018) as our training set. We evaluate our model on the test sets of SIGHAN13, SIGHAN14, and SIGHAN15, respectively. Since the original SIGHAN datasets are in Traditional Chinese, they are converted to Simplified Chinese by OpenCC4. We adopt the pypinyin toolkit5 to obtain the pinyin of each character. We use the metrics of sentence-level precision, recall, and F1 to evaluate our model for detection and correction. For detection, all misspelled characters in a sentence should be detected correctly to count it as correct. For correction, a sentence is considered as correct if and only if the model detects and corrects all erroneous characters in this sentence. More details about the datasets and the metrics are presented in Appendix B. $$(8)$$ 2https://github.com/brightmart/nlp_chinese_ corpus 3https://github.com/nonamestreet/weixin_ public_corpus 4https://github.com/BYVoid/OpenCC 5https://pypi.org/project/pypinyin/ | Dataset | Methods | Detection (%) | Correction (%) | | | | | |------------------------------------|-----------|-----------------|------------------|--------|------|------|------| | precision | recall | F1 | precision | recall | F1 | | | | BERT | 74.2 | 78.0 | 76.1 | 71.6 | 75.3 | 73.4 | | | SpellGCN (Cheng et al., 2020) | 74.8 | 80.7 | 77.7 | 72.1 | 77.7 | 75.9 | | | DCN (Wang et al., 2021) | 77.1 | 80.9 | 79.0 | 74.5 | 78.2 | 76.3 | | | PLOME (Liu et al., 2021) | 77.4 | 81.5 | 79.4 | 75.3 | 79.3 | 77.2 | | | MLM-phonetics (Zhang et al., 2021) | 77.5 | 83.1 | 80.2 | 74.9 | 80.2 | 77.5 | | | REALISE (Xu et al., 2021) | 77.3 | 81.3 | 79.3 | 75.9 | 79.9 | 77.8 | | | LEAD (Li et al., 2022b) | 79.2 | 82.8 | 80.9 | 77.6 | 81.2 | 79.3 | | | DORM (ours) | 77.9 | 84.3 | 81.0 | 76.6 | 82.8 | 79.6 | | | SIGHAN15 | BERT | 64.5 | 68.6 | 66.5 | 62.4 | 66.3 | 64.3 | | SpellGCN (Cheng et al., 2020) | 65.1 | 69.5 | 67.2 | 63.1 | 67.2 | 65.3 | | | DCN (Wang et al., 2021) | 67.4 | 70.4 | 68.9 | 65.8 | 68.7 | 67.2 | | | MLM-phonetics (Zhang et al., 2021) | 66.2 | 73.8 | 69.8 | 64.2 | 73.8 | 68.7 | | | REALISE (Xu et al., 2021) | 67.8 | 71.5 | 69.6 | 66.3 | 70.0 | 68.1 | | | LEAD (Li et al., 2022b) | 70.7 | 71.0 | 70.8 | 69.3 | 69.6 | 69.5 | | | DORM (ours) | 69.5 | 73.1 | 71.2 | 68.4 | 71.9 | 70.1 | | | SIGHAN14 | BERT | 85.0 | 77.0 | 80.8 | 83.0 | 75.2 | 78.9 | | SpellGCN (Cheng et al., 2020) | 80.1 | 74.4 | 77.2 | 78.3 | 72.7 | 75.4 | | | DCN (Wang et al., 2021) | 86.8 | 79.6 | 83.0 | 84.7 | 77.7 | 81.0 | | | MLM-phonetics (Zhang et al., 2021) | 82.0 | 78.3 | 80.1 | 79.5 | 77.0 | 78.2 | | | REALISE (Xu et al., 2021) | 88.6 | 82.5 | 85.4 | 87.2 | 81.2 | 84.1 | | | LEAD (Li et al., 2022b) | 88.3 | 83.4 | 85.8 | 87.2 | 82.4 | 84.7 | | | DORM (ours) | 87.9 | 83.7 | 85.8 | 86.8 | 82.7 | 84.7 | | | SIGHAN13 | | | | | | | | ## 4.2 Baselines We compare our DORM with the following baselines. **BERT** (Devlin et al., 2019) is initialized with pre-trained BERTbase and fine-tuned on the training set directly. **SpellGCN** (Cheng et al., 2020) models prior knowledge between phonetically or graphically similar characters with graph convolutional networks. DCN (Wang et al., 2021) uses a Pinyin Enhanced Candidate Generator to introduce phonological information and then models the connections between adjacent characters. **MLMphonetics** (Zhang et al., 2021) integrates phonetic features during pre-training with a special masking strategy that replaces words with phonetically similar words. **PLOME** (Liu et al., 2021) utilizes GRU networks to model phonological and visual knowledge during pre-training with a confusion set-based masking strategy. **REALISE** (Xu et al., 2021) learns semantic, phonetic, and visual representations with three encoders and fuses them with a gate mechanism. **LEAD** (Li et al., 2022b) models phonetic, visual, and semantic information by a contrastive learning framework. Additionally, the implementation details of our DORM are presented in Appendix C. ## 4.3 Overall Results As the overall results show in Table 2, the proposed DORM outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods in both detection and correction F1 scores on SIGHAN13/14/15 test datasets, which demonstrates the effectiveness of this model. Compared with other models utilizing phonetic and visual features (e.g., REALISE and PLOME) and models pretrained on larger corpora (e.g., PLOME and MLMphonetics), which have access to further external information, DORM still achieves favourable improvement in detection/correction F1. We also note that the improvements in detection/correction recall are prominent and consistent across different test sets. These results suggest that our model is able to capture phonetic information more effectively. Although the improvement in precision is not as encouraging as recall and F1, its performance is still competitive compared with other methods also including phonetic information in this task. ## 5 Analysis And Discussion In this section, we further analyze and discuss our model quantitatively and qualitatively. ## 5.1 Ablation Study To investigate the contribution of key components of our model, we ablate them in turn and report the F1 performance for the correction task on SIGHAN13/14/15 in Table 3. As shown in the first group, eliminating the separation mask leads to considerable performance declines, showing that | Method | Correction F1 (Δ) | | | |-------------------|---------------------|-------------|-------------| | SIGHAN13 | SIGHAN14 | SIGHAN15 | | | DORM | 84.7 | 70.1 | 79.6 | | w/o SM | 83.6 (-1.1) | 67.4 (-2.7) | 79.0 (-0.6) | | w/o SD | 83.1 (-1.6) | 69.1 (-1.0) | 78.9 (-0.7) | | w/o Lpinyin | 84.2 (-0.5) | 68.3 (-1.8) | 79.2 (-0.4) | | w/o pre-training | 83.7 (-1.0) | 66.9 (-3.2) | 78.6 (-1.0) | | w/o SD&SM | 82.1 (-2.6) | 68.3 (-1.8) | 77.1 (-2.5) | | w/o SD&Lpinyin | 83.0 (-1.7) | 68.7 (-1.4) | 77.8 (-1.8) | | w/o SD&Lpinyin&SM | 81.4 (-3.3) | 67.3 (-2.8) | 76.9 (-2.7) | preventing pinyin representations from attending to textual information is necessary to learn useful phonetic representations. Moreover, removing selfdistillation also leads to performance degradation, which suggests that the module is useful to avoid overfitting pinyin. When Lpinyin is discarded, the performance drops correspondingly, meaning that phonetic features tend to be ignored without the pinyin-to-character objective. Moreover, a sharp decline is observed when dropping the pre-training phase, which implies that pre-training on largescale corpora indeed improves phonetic representations. More experimental results of various combinations in the second group further reveal the contribution of these components. ## 5.2 Effect Of Phonetic Knowledge According to the assumption, more phonetically similar misspellings should be restored with the assistance of phonetic knowledge. To show this, we focus on the recall performance of different models on phonetically misspelled characters of SIGHAN13/14/15. We collect 1130/733/668 such misspellings from the three test sets, accounting for about 93%/95%/95% of all misspellings, respectively. From the results in Table 4, we can note that our model achieves 93.5%/82.1%/90.0% recall scores and outperforms two phonetic-based models (i.e., SCOPE (Li et al., 2022a) and REALISE) consistently. In particular, it beats BERT by a large margin. These results indicate that phonetic knowledge is essential to CSC and our model is able to utilize phonetic knowledge more effectively. ## 5.3 Effect Of Self-Distillation The self-distillation module is introduced for DORM to avoid overfitting pinyin information. To show the effect of this module, we record the number of normal characters that are mistakenly treated | Model | Recall (%) | | | |----------|--------------|----------|------| | SIGHAN13 | SIGHAN14 | SIGHAN15 | | | DORM | 93.5 | 82.1 | 90.0 | | SCOPE† | 91.6 | 80.2 | 87.6 | | REALISE† | 89.8 | 78.2 | 84.7 | | BERT | 88.8 | 75.2 | 82.8 | as misspellings (i.e., overcorrections), as well as the number of misspellings not restored (i.e., undercorrections) in the three test sets. The results in Table 5 show that the number of undercorrections is significantly reduced when phonological information but not self-distillation is introduced, while the number of overcorrections generally stays unchanged except on SIGHAN13. These results demonstrate that after including the self-distillation module, the numbers of overcorrections and undercorrections are both reduced compared with the baseline, demonstrating that self-distillation indeed alleviates the overfitting issue. | Model | #Overcorrections/#Undercorrections | | | |-------------|--------------------------------------|----------|---------| | SIGHAN13 | SIGHAN14 | SIGHAN15 | | | BERT | 103/129 | 175/177 | 120/106 | | DORM w/o SD | 118/75 | 172/134 | 119/63 | | DORM | 107/77 | 161/136 | 116/65 | Table 5: The effect of self-distillation in reducing overcorrections and undercorrections on SIGHAN13/14/15.  "w/o SD" means without the self-distillation module. ## 5.4 Visualization Ideally, the introduction of phonetic knowledge should improve Chinese character representations  in that phonetically similar characters are pulled closer in the space. To show the effect, we employ t-SNE (van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008) to visualize character representations generated by our model, with fine-tuned BERT as the baseline. We randomly select two characters "数" and "想" of different pronunciations and collect about 60 phonetically similar characters provided by Wu et al. (2013) for eacknow. We plot the two groups of representations in Figure 2, from which we can note that the representations produced by fine-tuned BERT are scattered and less distinguishable between the groups. However, our model separates them into two distinct clusters according to the pivot characters, demonstrating that our model can better model the relationships among phonetically similar characters for CSC. ## 5.5 Case Study Finally, we provide a case study with two good and one bad examples to analyze our model. We visualize the attention weights from each misspelled character to the other positions in the phoneticsaware sequence to show how our model utilizes phonetic information. As presented in Figure 3, in the first case both the textual and phonetic parts make correct predictions. After looking into the attention weights, we note the prediction for the misspelled position pays much attention to its previous position, the current position, and its pinyin position. In the second case, while the phonetic part leads to a wrong prediction, our model focuses more on the textual part and eventually makes a correct prediction. In the third case, although the prediction of the pinyin part is accurate, the textual part fails to pay much attention to it and causes a wrong prediction, suggesting that there is still room for improvement in balancing phonetic and semantic information. These cases intuitively show how our model uses phonetic information to correct misspelled characters. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we propose DORM in an attempt to improve the effect of using phonetic knowledge in Chinese Spelling Correction (CSC). To this end, we propose to disentangle textual and phonetic features and construct a phonetics-aware input to allow for direct interaction between them. We also introduce a pinyin-to-character objective to force the model to recover the correct characters based solely on pinyin information, where a separation mask is applied to prevent exposing textual information to phonetic representations. Besides, we propose a novel self-distillation module for DORM to avoid overfitting pinyin information. Extensive experiments on three widely-used CSC datasets show that this model outperforms existing stateof-the-art baselines. Detailed analysis and studies show that direct interaction between characters and pinyin is beneficial to better restore misspelled characters. Through this work, we demonstrate the merit of disentangling phonetic features from textual representations when solving CSC. ## Acknowledgements We appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62176270), the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (No. 2023A1515012832), and the Program for Guangdong Introducing Innovative and Entrepreneurial Teams (No. 2017ZT07X355). ## Limitations The potential limitations of our model are threefold. First, the training process requires more computational cost as the model needs to conduct two forward passes for each sample in the self-distillation module. Second, there is still room for improvement to reduce the model's overcorrection of legal characters. Third, the phonetics-aware sequence doubles the length of the original input, which demands extra computation cost at inference time. ## Ethics Statement This work aims to propose a technical method to utilize phonetic knowledge more effectively for Chinese Spelling Correction, which does not involve ethical issues. The datasets used in this work are all publicly available. ## References Xingyi Cheng, Weidi Xu, Kunlong Chen, Shaohua Jiang, Feng Wang, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chu, and Yuan Qi. 2020. SpellGCN: Incorporating phonological and visual similarities into language models for Chinese spelling check. In *Proceedings of the 58th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 871–881, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yiming Cui, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Bing Qin, Shijin Wang, and Guoping Hu. 2020. Revisiting pre-trained models for Chinese natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Findings, pages 657–668, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jianfeng Gao, Xiaolong Li, Daniel Micol, Chris Quirk, and Xu Sun. 2010. A large scale ranker-based system for search query spelling correction. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 358–366, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. Zhao Guo, Yuan Ni, Keqiang Wang, Wei Zhu, and Guotong Xie. 2021. Global attention decoder for Chinese spelling error correction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACLIJCNLP 2021, pages 1419–1428, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1503.02531. Yuzhong Hong, Xianguo Yu, Neng He, Nan Liu, and Junhui Liu. 2019. FASPell: A fast, adaptable, simple, powerful Chinese spell checker based on DAEdecoder paradigm. In *Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2019)*, pages 160–169, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Li Huang, Junjie Li, Weiwei Jiang, Zhiyu Zhang, Minchuan Chen, Shaojun Wang, and Jing Xiao. 2021. PHMOSpell: Phonological and morphological knowledge guided Chinese spelling check. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5958– 5967, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tuo Ji, Hang Yan, and Xipeng Qiu. 2021. SpellBERT: A lightweight pretrained model for Chinese spelling check. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3544–3551, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiahao Li, Quan Wang, Zhendong Mao, Junbo Guo, Yanyan Yang, and Yongdong Zhang. 2022a. Improving chinese spelling check by character pronunciation prediction: The effects of adaptivity and granularity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10996. Yinghui Li, Shirong Ma, Qingyu Zhou, Zhongli Li, Li Yangning, Shulin Huang, Ruiyang Liu, Chao Li, Yunbo Cao, and Haitao Zheng. 2022b. Learning from the dictionary: Heterogeneous knowledge guided fine-tuning for chinese spell checking. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2210.10320. Yinghui Li, Qingyu Zhou, Yangning Li, Zhongli Li, Ruiyang Liu, Rongyi Sun, Zizhen Wang, Chao Li, Yunbo Cao, and Hai-Tao Zheng. 2022c. The past mistake is the future wisdom: Error-driven contrastive probability optimization for Chinese spell checking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 3202–3213, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chao-Lin Liu, Min-Hua Lai, Yi-Hsuan Chuang, and Chia-Ying Lee. 2010. Visually and phonologically similar characters in incorrect simplified Chinese words. In *Coling 2010: Posters*, pages 739–747, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. Shulin Liu, Shengkang Song, Tianchi Yue, Tao Yang, Huihui Cai, TingHao Yu, and Shengli Sun. 2022. CRASpell: A contextual typo robust approach to improve Chinese spelling correction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 3008–3018, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shulin Liu, Tao Yang, Tianchi Yue, Feng Zhang, and Di Wang. 2021. PLOME: Pre-training with misspelled knowledge for Chinese spelling correction. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2991–3000, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1711.05101. Bruno Martins and Mário J. Silva. 2004. Spelling correction for search engine queries. In *Advances in Natural Language Processing*, pages 372–383, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Hossein Mobahi, Mehrdad Farajtabar, and Peter Bartlett. 2020. Self-distillation amplifies regularization in hilbert space. In *Advances in Neural Information* Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 3351–3361. Curran Associates, Inc. Yuen-Hsien Tseng, Lung-Hao Lee, Li-Ping Chang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2015. Introduction to SIGHAN 2015 bake-off for Chinese spelling check. In *Proceedings of the Eighth SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese* Language Processing, pages 32–37, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. *Journal of Machine* Learning Research, 9(86):2579–2605. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Baoxin Wang, Wanxiang Che, Dayong Wu, Shijin Wang, Guoping Hu, and Ting Liu. 2021. Dynamic connected networks for Chinese spelling check. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2437–2446, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dingmin Wang, Yan Song, Jing Li, Jialong Han, and Haisong Zhang. 2018. A hybrid approach to automatic corpus generation for Chinese spelling check. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2517–2527, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dingmin Wang, Yi Tay, and Li Zhong. 2019. Confusionset-guided pointer networks for Chinese spelling check. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5780–5785, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shih-Hung Wu, Chao-Lin Liu, and Lung-Hao Lee. 2013. Chinese spelling check evaluation at SIGHAN bakeoff 2013. In *Proceedings of the Seventh SIGHAN* Workshop on Chinese Language Processing, pages 35–42, Nagoya, Japan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Heng-Da Xu, Zhongli Li, Qingyu Zhou, Chao Li, Zizhen Wang, Yunbo Cao, Heyan Huang, and XianLing Mao. 2021. Read, listen, and see: Leveraging multimodal information helps Chinese spell checking. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021*, pages 716–728, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Liang-Chih Yu, Lung-Hao Lee, Yuen-Hsien Tseng, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2014. Overview of SIGHAN 2014 bake-off for Chinese spelling check. In Proceedings of the Third CIPS-SIGHAN Joint Conference on Chinese Language Processing, pages 126–132, Wuhan, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ruiqing Zhang, Chao Pang, Chuanqiang Zhang, Shuohuan Wang, Zhongjun He, Yu Sun, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Correcting Chinese spelling errors with phonetic pre-training. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACLIJCNLP 2021, pages 2250–2261, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shaohua Zhang, Haoran Huang, Jicong Liu, and Hang Li. 2020. Spelling error correction with soft-masked BERT. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 882–890, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaotian Zhang, Hang Yan, Sun Yu, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. Sdcl: Self-distillation contrastive learning for chinese spell checking. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2210.17168. Ying Zhang, Tao Xiang, Timothy M. Hospedales, and Huchuan Lu. 2018. Deep mutual learning. In *Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision* and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Chenxi Zhu, Ziqiang Ying, Boyu Zhang, and Feng Mao. 2022. MDCSpell: A multi-task detector-corrector framework for Chinese spelling correction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 1244–1253, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Pre-Training There are 1 million and 0.7 million articles in wiki2019zh corpus and weixin-public-corpus, respectively. First, we generate continuous sentence fragments of at most 256 characters from two corpora as pre-training samples. Then, we randomly sample 15% characters in each fragment and replace them with: (1) a phonologically similar character 80% of the time, (2) a randomly selected character 10% of the time, and (3) unchanged 10% of the time. After that, we acquire the pinyin sequence of the corrupted fragment and construct a phoneticsaware sequence, and replicate the original fragment to construct the prediction labels. We obtain a total of 4.8 million samples for pre-training. The architecture of the model for pre-training is the same as described in Section 3.2. The model is trained by recovering those selected characters from the phonetics-aware sequence and the pinyinto-character objective, while the self-distillation module is not required. The batch size is set to 72 and the learning rate is 5e-5. ## B Datasets And Evaluation Metrics The statistics of the training and test datasets for the experiments are presented in Table 6. It is worth mentioning that we post-process the predictions of characters "的", "得" and "地" on the SIGHAN13 test set following previous work (Xu et al., 2021), because the annotations for these characters are not accurate. Specifically, the detection and correction of the three characters are not considered. ## C Implementation Of Drom Our encoder contains 12 attention heads with a hidden size of 768 (about 110M parameters) and is initialized with weights from Chinese BERT-wwm (Cui et al., 2020). The embeddings of initials and finals are randomly initialized. Our model is firstly pre-trained and then fine-tuned on the CSC training set. We apply the AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov | Train | #Sent | #Errors | Avg. Length | |------------------|---------|-----------|---------------| | SIGHAN15 | 2,338 | 3,037 | 31.3 | | SIGHAN14 | 3,437 | 5,122 | 49.6 | | SIGHAN13 | 700 | 343 | 41.8 | | 271K pseudo data | 271,329 | 381,962 | 42.6 | | Test | #Sent | #Errors | Avg. Length | | SIGHAN15 | 1,100 | 703 | 30.6 | | SIGHAN14 | 1,062 | 771 | 50.0 | | SIGHAN13 | 1,000 | 1,224 | 74.3 | and Hutter, 2017) to fine-tune the model for 3 epochs on three 24G GeForce RTX 3090 GPUs. The learning rate is scheduled to decrease gradually after linearly increasing to 75e-6 during warmup. The maximum sentence length is set to 140. The batch sizes for training and evaluation are set to 48 and 32, respectively. The hyperparameters of α, β, and γ are set to 1, 1.2 and 0.97, respectively. Our implementation is based on Huggingface's Transformer (Wolf et al., 2020) in PyTorch. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section Abstract and Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4.1 B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 4.1 B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4.1 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4.1 and Appendix B ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 And Section 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix C The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4 and Appendix C ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4.3 and Appendix C ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 4.1 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

chi-etal-2023-dissecting

Dissecting Transformer Length Extrapolation via the Lens of Receptive Field Analysis

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.756

Length extrapolation permits training a transformer language model on short sequences that preserves perplexities when tested on substantially longer sequences.A relative positional embedding design, ALiBi, has had the widest usage to date. We dissect ALiBi via the lens of receptive field analysis empowered by a novel cumulative normalized gradient tool. The concept of receptive field further allows us to modify the vanilla Sinusoidal positional embedding to create \textbf{Sandwich}, the first parameter-free relative positional embedding design that truly length information uses longer than the training sequence. Sandwich shares with KERPLE and T5 the same logarithmic decaying temporal bias pattern with learnable relative positional embeddings; these elucidate future extrapolatable positional embedding design.

# Dissecting Transformer Length Extrapolation Via The Lens Of Receptive Field Analysis Ta-Chung Chi Carnegie Mellon University tachungc@andrew.cmu.edu Alexander I. Rudnicky Carnegie Mellon University air@cs.cmu.edu ## Abstract Length extrapolation permits training a transformer language model on short sequences that preserves perplexities when tested on substantially longer sequences. A relative positional embedding design, ALiBi, has had the widest usage to date. We dissect ALiBi via the lens of receptive field analysis empowered by a novel cumulative normalized gradient tool. The concept of receptive field further allows us to modify the vanilla Sinusoidal positional embedding to create **Sandwich**, the first parameter-free relative positional embedding design that truly length information uses longer than the training sequence. Sandwich shares with KERPLE and T5 the same logarithmic decaying temporal bias pattern with learnable relative positional embeddings; these elucidate future extrapolatable positional embedding design. ## 1 Introduction The length of input sequences is an important hyperparameter choice for pretraining a transformer language model. A vanilla transformer language model has a quadratic training cost w.r.t Ltr, the training sequence length. As the value of Ltr increases, cost becomes impractical. However, we can use the model for substantially longer evaluation sequence lengths Lex Ltr as gradients no longer need to be recorded. The discrepancy between Ltr and Lex motivates the task of **length** extrapolation (Press et al., 2022): Can a transformer language model maintain equally good, if not better, perplexities when longer sequences are used in the testing stage? Several extrapolatable transformer language models have been proposed including ALiBi (Press et al., 2022) and KERPLE (Chi et al., 2022), of which the relative positional embedding design is hypothesized to be critical to success. Empirically, they extrapolate to Lex Ltr much better than other absolute and relative positional embeddings Ting-Han Fan Princeton University tinghanf@princeton.edu Peter J. Ramadge Princeton University ramadge@princeton.edu  Figure 1: ALiBi. For a transformer language model with H attention heads, the range of h is n · 8 H , where n = {1 *. . . H*}. Left = self-attention matrix, right = temporal biases matrix.  including Sinusoidal (Vaswani et al., 2017), Rotary (Su et al., 2021), and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), resulting in the adoption of ALiBi for the recently released Bloom (Scao et al., 2022) model. Despite the significant empirical success of ALiBi, there is still a lack of fundamental understanding of why it works.1 Figure 1 shows the implementation of ALiBi. We hereinafter refer to the coefficient 1 2 h as *slope*. Intuitively, ALiBi encourages a token to focus on neighbors based on its temporal biases matrix. When two tokens are distant, ALiBi becomes highly similar to windowed attention, shown in Figure 2. Experiments in §4 will further establish the 1https://github.com/ofirpress/attention_with_ linear_biases\#why-do-you-think-alibi-works 13522 connection between the two. Windowed attention allows the easy derivation of a theoretical (maximum) receptive field: wR for an R layer transformer model with windowed attention size w. A windowed attention model can extrapolate if Ltr *> wR* because 1) wR is fully covered by Ltr during the training stage, and 2) it simply ignores the additional Lex−wR tokens during the testing stage. Surprisingly, a model can still extrapolate when Ltr *< wR* which we show in §4. This calls for the need for empirical receptive field measurement and motivates our model-agnostic cumulative normalized gradient tool. The tool we develop can be applied back on ALiBi to show that Ltr covers most of its empirical receptive field. Our analysis tool also provides critical context for explaining the length extrapolation failure (Press et al., 2022; Chi et al., 2022) of Sinusoidal (Vaswani et al., 2017) and Rotary (Su et al., 2021) by showing their violation of the empirical receptive field coverage principle. Sinusoidal can be fixed by dropping the intermediate terms and keeping only the decay-with-distance biases; this leads to the creation of **Sandwich**, the first parameter-free relative positional embedding that uses information beyond Ltr. Sandwich shares a similar temporal bias pattern with trainable positional embeddings such as KERPLE (Chi et al., 2022) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), and they jointly suggest the future design of extrapolatable transformer positional embeddings. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Length Extrapolation In the context of language modeling, we expect token-level perplexities to remain at least the same, if not lower (i.e. better), when Lex Ltr sequences are provided. Recurrent neural networks (Mikolov et al., 2010; Mikolov and Zweig, 2012; Zaremba et al., 2014) can easily perform length extrapolation. But this is not an easy task for transformer language models, among which only those equipped with special relative positional embeddings (Press et al., 2022; Chi et al., 2022) are length extrapolatable. ## 2.2 Positional Embeddings It is widely believed that the design of positional embeddings is the key to successful length extrapolation of transformer language models (Press et al., 2022; Chi et al., 2022). We can roughly categorize existing positional embeddings into absolute (APE) (Vaswani et al., 2017) and relative (RPE) (Su et al., 2021; Raffel et al., 2020; Press et al., 2022; Chi et al., 2022) variants. APE often assigns one positional embedding per token and combines them directly with input embeddings. In contrast, RPE adds temporal bias terms to the self-attention matrix to encode the relative distance between token pairs. For example, the right triangular matrix in Figure 1 shows the set of temporal bias terms. It is challenging for APE to extrapolate well without any further fine-tuning since either the beyond L positional embeddings do not exist, or the model needs to process unseen positional embeddings (e.g. unseen sinusoidal embeddings). (Press et al., 2022; Chi et al., 2022). In contrast, RPE usually performs better length extrapolation since it is easier to construct the additional temporal bias terms. ## 2.3 Windowed And Sparse Attention We will see later that ALiBi can be viewed as imposing a windowed attention mask on the selfattention matrix, similar to previous transformer models with sparse attention (Beltagy et al., 2020; Zaheer et al., 2020; Ainslie et al., 2020; Gupta and Berant, 2020). Interpreting ALiBi from the perspective of windowed attention allows us to easily calculate the theoretical receptive field of a model. ## 2.4 Receptive Field A model's receptive field is defined as the size of the input region that contributes the most to model outputs. It is often measured in the context of convolution neural networks (Luo et al., 2016; Dai et al., 2017; Araujo et al., 2019; Raghu et al., 2021; Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) and their dilated variants (Oord et al., 2016; Yu and Koltun, 2016; Chang et al., 2017; Beltagy et al., 2020) with the ultimate goal of receptive field size maximization. Even though we focus on transformer language models, we borrow the idea to show that the empirical receptive field coverage of a model is crucial to its length extrapolation performance. ## 3 Background And Notations 3.1 Transformer Language Model Given a sequence of L ∈ {Ltr, Lex} input embeddings {em} Lm=1 in R d, an R layer transformer language model with H attention heads converts each em into its corresponding query, key, and value vectors in R d H at each layer: $$\mathbf{q}_{m}=\mathbf{W}_{q}\mathbf{e}_{m},\ \ \mathbf{k}_{m}=\mathbf{W}_{k}\mathbf{e}_{m},\ \ \mathbf{v}_{m}=\mathbf{W}_{v}\mathbf{e}_{m},$$ where Wq, Wk, Wv ∈ R d H ×dare learnable matrices. The resulting vectors are processed by the self-attention module for pre-Softmax logits: $$l_{m n}={\begin{cases}\langle\mathbf{q}_{m},\mathbf{k}_{n}\rangle,&{\mathrm{if~}}m\geq n\\ -\operatorname*{inf},&{\mathrm{~otherwise~}}\end{cases}}$$ followed by the scaled softmax normalization: $$a_{m,n}={\frac{\exp(l_{m,n}/{\sqrt{d/H}})}{\sum_{i=1}^{L}\exp(l_{m,i}/{\sqrt{d/H}})}}\qquad(1)$$ To be precise, the matrices (W(h) q , W(h) k, W(h) v ), vectors (q (h) m , k (h) m , v (h) m , o (h) m ), and scalars (l (h) mn, a (h) mn) are associated with a head number h. For notation simplicity, we only show the dependency on h when we need it. For example, the output vector o (h) m at position m for head h is: $$\mathbf{o}_{m}^{(h)}=\sum_{n=1}^{L}a_{m,n}^{(h)}\mathbf{v}_{n}^{(h)}$$ All the H output vectors are concatenated, denoted by ⊕, and transformed by Wo ∈ R d×dto obtain om ∈ R d: $$\mathbf{o}_{m}=\mathbf{W}_{o}(o_{m}^{(1)}\oplus o_{m}^{(2)}\oplus\cdot\cdot\cdot\oplus o_{m}^{(H)})$$ A layer normalization (Ba et al., 2016) on om, i.e. LayerNorm(om), gives the input embedding to the next layer. After R layers of propagation, the last om is transformed by V ∈ R v×dand normalized by Softmax to get the distribution p ∈ R v over vocabulary size v: $$p=\mathrm{Softmax}(V o_{m})$$ p = Softmax(V om) (2) We set R = 12, H = 12, d = 768, and Ltr = 512 for all experiments reported in this paper. ## 3.2 Alibi ALiBi modifies lm,n to be: $$l_{mn}=\begin{cases}\langle\mathbf{q}_{m},\mathbf{k}_{n}\rangle-\frac{1}{2^{h}}(m-n),&\text{if}m\geq n\\ -\inf,&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}\tag{3}$$ The range of $h$ is $n\cdot\frac{8}{H}$, where $n=\{1\ldots H\}$.  Figure 3: We always evaluate the perplexities of the 5 tokens numbered from 1 to 5. The upper brackets represent Lex = 5. The lower brackets represent Lex = 3. This formulation ensures the same 5 tokens are always evaluated with different numbers of previous tokens. ## 3.3 Windowed Attention If the windowed attention has a size w, then: $$l_{m n}={\begin{cases}\langle\mathbf{q}_{m},\mathbf{k}_{n}\rangle,&{\mathrm{if~}}n+w>m\geq n\\ -\operatorname{inf},&{\mathrm{~otherwise~}}\end{cases}}$$ ## 3.4 Evaluation Of Length Extrapolation We prepare N = 1000 text segments of length Lex > Ltr from the evaluation dataset. For each segment, we alter the number of previous tokens ranging from 1 to Lex−1 of the last token and only calculate its perplexity: $$\mathrm{PPL}=\exp\left({\frac{1}{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}-\log p_{i}\right),$$ where piis the predicted probability from Eq. (2) of the last (Lex-th) token in the i-th segment. This ensures that the same set of tokens is always used for perplexity calculation and only their number of previous tokens is varied, see Figure 3. 2 ## 4 Alibi And Windowed Attention $$(2)$$ Here, we alter the slope ( 1 2 h ) of ALiBi to check if the length extrapolation property persists and reveal the connection between ALiBi and windowed attention. We present three experiments on two datasets, ArXiv and OpenWebText2 (Appendix A), to ensure that the observations are consistent across different text domains, shown in Table 1 and 4. 2There exists another evaluation protocol named nonoverlapping subsequences adopted in the main experiment tables of ALiBi (Press et al., 2022). It is not the most suitable protocol for length extrapolation evaluation as it suffers from the "early token" curse. Please refer to Appendix B of ALiBi (Press et al., 2022) for details. | Lex | Shift all h by ∆ | Same h for all heads | Windowed Attention with Size w | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------|--------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | ∆:-3 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | h:0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | w:40 | 80 | 100 | 120 | 160 | 320 | | | 512 | 5.76 | 5.57 | 5.50 | 5.63 | 5.70 | 5.70 | 9.45 | 6.65 | 5.85 | 5.60 | 5.70 | 8.27 | 7.28 | 7.04 | 6.77 | 6.41 | 6.04 | | 1024 | 7.15 | 5.64 | 5.31 | 5.81 | 55.4 | 55.4 | 9.20 | 7.01 | 8.66 | 25.4 | 55.4 | 8.27 | 7.29 | 7.02 | 8.90 | 67.4 | 178 | | 2048 | 7.15 | 5.94 | 5.89 | 6.92 | 94.4 | 94.4 | 9.21 | 7.08 | 8.66 | 31.7 | 94.4 | 8.27 | 7.29 | 7.03 | 8.90 | 67.5 | 202 | | 4096 | 7.15 | 5.95 | 5.92 | 6.94 | 96.0 | 96.0 | 9.21 | 7.08 | 8.66 | 31.8 | 96.0 | 8.27 | 7.29 | 7.02 | 8.90 | 67.5 | 202 | | 8192 | 7.15 | 5.95 | 5.92 | 6.94 | 96.0 | 96.0 | 9.21 | 7.08 | 8.66 | 31.8 | 96.0 | 8.27 | 7.29 | 7.02 | 8.90 | 67.5 | 202 | ## 4.1 Slope Shift (Shift All H By ∆) We first investigated whether slope diversity (each attention head has one slope) is the key to length extrapolation. We shift h by a fixed amount ∆ and find that the model, unfortunately, fails to extrapolate beyond a certain quantity. This implies that diversity itself might not be the deciding factor, but that the actual slope value is more important. ## 4.2 Slope Equalization (Same H **For All Heads)** To identify the slope magnitude that enables length extrapolation, we set all slopes to be the same instead of the original geometric sequence. We then steadily increase the slope value from 0 to 8 and find that only large slopes ( 1 2 h ), or equivalently small h, allow a model to extrapolate well. Large slopes implicitly enforce a narrow windowed bias on the self-attention matrix such that distant tokens cannot interact with each other. ## 4.3 Windowed Attention (Size W) We make the implicit window effect explicit as shown by Eq. (3), which is also adopted by Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020). We define the windowed attention size to be w. The model underperforms at small w and diverges on long Lex at large w. The same trend holds in the first two experiments when h is too small or large. ## 4.4 Other Observations First, ALiBi does not in fact extrapolate since its perplexities all increase instead of staying the same when Lex > Ltr. In contrast, windowed attention models are extrapolatable up to w = 100. Second, we can clearly see that once Lex passes a certain threshold, the perplexity either remains the same or explodes. This suggests that the model is either ignoring tokens beyond a certain length (same)3 or not using it properly (explosion). In the next 3A limited but similar observation was made in Appendix B.2 of ALiBi (Press et al., 2022). section, we will use the concept of receptive field to explain these observations. ## 5 Receptive Field Measurement Following the definition of windowed attention size w, an R layer transformer has a theoretical receptive field (TRF) of wR, which is the maximum number of tokens that contribute to the prediction of the next token. In practice, a neural model often uses a subset of TRF, named empirical receptive field (ERF). While previous work (Luo et al., 2016; Dai et al., 2017; Araujo et al., 2019; Raghu et al., 2021; Dosovitskiy et al., 2021; Beltagy et al., 2020) aims to increase ERF to match TRF, we show that decreasing ERF could serve as one feasible approach to enable successful length extrapolation. Consider the case where TRF ≤ Ltr: This model can extrapolate easily because its TRF is fully covered and trained. Concretely, if we set R = 12, Ltr = 512 in Table 1 and 4, we know that as long as w < 42.6 = 512/12, TRF will be fully covered by Ltr. Surprisingly, the model is still able to extrapolate up to w = 100, leading to a TRF of 100 ∗ 12 = 1200 512. This can be explained by the ERF and TRF discrepancy discussed above; this calls for the need to quantify ERF. ## 5.1 Quantifying Empirical Receptive Field We first calculate the normalized gradient (Luo et al., 2016) of each input token w.r.t the prediction of the next token: $$s_{m}={\frac{\|\mathbf{g}_{m}\|_{2}}{\sum_{n=1}^{L_{e x}}\|\mathbf{g}_{n}\|_{2}}},$$ where gm is the gradient vector of the input embedding em. We then calculate the cumulative sum as: $$c_{m}=\sum_{n=m}^{L_{e x}}s_{n},\quad0\leq c_{m}\leq1,$$ Visualizations of cm for the slope shift and windowed attention experiments are shown in Fig-  ures 4 and 5. We define the ERF of a model as: $$\mathrm{ERF}=\operatorname*{min}\{m\mid c_{m}>0.99\}.$$ Figure 4 demonstrates how we derive the model's ERF when it is predicting the 2048-th token. For models with w ∈ [40, 80, 100], the most recent Lex = Ltr = 512 (1536-th to 2047-th) covers more than 99% of the total (1.0) normalized gradient, so their ERF is smaller than 512. In contrast, models with w ∈ [120, 160, 320] have ERF = 768, 1024, and 1536 tokens, respectively. Since Ltr = 512 does not fully cover their ERFs, they fail to extrapolate well. We next focus on the more complex Figure 5, in which neither of the configurations reaches 0.99 within the most recent Ltr = 512 tokens. Generally, this explains why the perplexity often bumps up when Lex goes from 512 to 1024: Models cannot perfectly process more tokens than they were trained on. If we take a closer look, the ∆ = −3 model has the strongest windowing effect and the smallest ERF=768 tokens, therefore its perplexity plateaus the soonest at Lex = 1024 in Table 1. The remaining models all need ERF=2048 tokens to reach cm = 0.99, which explains why their perplexities become stable only after Lex = 2048 (Table 1). For ∆ ∈ [6, 8] models specifically, the difference between Ltr and ERF is too large to be handled, resulting in exploded perplexities. ## 5.2 Fixing Failed Cases We fix the failed cases in Table 1 section 1 (varying ∆) and section 3 (varying w) by increasing Ltr to cover their ERFs. We increase Ltr to 1024 for  windowed attention with w = 160; For shifted ALiBi with ∆ = 6, we need Ltr = 2048 tokens. Table 2 shows that both are now able to maintain stable perplexities. | Lex | Shift all h by ∆ = 6 | Windowed Attention w = 160 | | | |--------------------|------------------------|------------------------------|-----|------| | Arxiv OpenWebText2 | Arxiv OpenWebText2 | | | | | 2048 | 4.4 | 15.2 | 6.2 | 19.9 | | 4096 | 6.2 | 19.8 | 6.2 | 19.9 | | 8192 | 6.2 | 19.9 | 6.2 | 19.9 | ## 5.3 Analyses Of Sinusoidal And Rotary Sinusoidal (Vaswani et al., 2017) constructs the positional embedding at position m and ∀i ∈ [1*, d/*2] as: $$\begin{array}{c}{{p_{m,2i}=\sin\left(\frac{m}{100000^{2i/d}}\right),}}\\ {{p_{m,2i+1}=\cos\left(\frac{m}{10000^{2i/d}}\right)}}\end{array}\qquad\qquad(5)$$ They will be added with the input embeddings {em} Lm=1 followed by the query and key transformations as shown in Eq. (4). Unlike addition, Rotary (Su et al., 2021) multiplies each token embedding em with a position-specific rotation matrix Rmem. What could cm tell us when it is applied to the non-extrapolatable Sinusoidal and Rotary positional embeddings? As we can see in Figure 6 and 7, they both fail to focus on the most recent Ltr   (Wq(em + pm))>(Wk(en + pn)) = (4) e >mW> q Wke > n | {z } semantic info. + e >mW> q Wkpn + p >mW> q Wken + p >mW> q Wkpn | {z } mixture of semantic and positional info. ≈ e >mW> q Wke > n | {z } semantic info. + p >mpn | {z } positional info. tokens because neither of their formulations guarantees a Ltr-bounded receptive field. Figure 7 tells additional stories: To predict the last token (2048th), Sinusoidal focuses on the 512-th token when Ltr = 512 and the 128-th token when Ltr = 128 as indicated by the sudden jump on their normalized gradient plots. This is because the model has only seen at most Ltr positional embeddings and overfitted on them, which provides explicit evidence to the Sinusoidal, or APE in general, overfitting hypothesis made by the author of ALiBi4. It also explains why RPE is a better choice for length extrapolatable transformers: They cannot overfit on the positional embeddings. ## 6 A New Rpe For Length Extrapolation 6.1 Introduction To Sandwich We fix the overfitting issue of Sinusoidal by transforming it into a new RPE, **Sandwich**, shown in Eq. (4). Specifically, we drop the cross terms and keep only the inner product of two positional embeddings5at m and n. Now p>mpn with *m, n* ∈ [1, L] become the temporal bias terms of Sandwich: p >mpn =  = A similar observation was previously made in a context different from length extrapolation (Yan et al., 2019). The largest value of p>mpn happens at the point where m−n = 0, which gives the maximum value of ¯d/2. To align Ltr with the ERF of Sandwich, we need to further check that p>mpn demonstrates a similar windowed attention effect as ALiBi. This can be done by subtracting all p>mpn by ¯d/2 and further dividing them by a set of predefined compression ratios. for the sake of simplicity, we set the compression ratios to be the same as ALiBi's h = n · 8 H with n ∈ {1 *. . . H*}: $$\frac{p_{m}^{\top}p_{n}-\bar{d}/2}{h}\qquad\qquad(6)$$ Eq. (6) is added after the scaled softmax is done in Eq. (1). Figures 8 and 9 show a visualization of   Sandwich when h = 8. Sandwich indeed has the same decay-with-distance pattern as ALiBi.6 Note that we deliberately decouple this ¯d from d in Eq. (5) since we treat ¯d as a hyperparameter that controls the shape of Sandwich. A larger ¯d leads to a stronger windowed attention effect as shown in Figure 10. We set ¯d = 128 in this work for all the experiments. We also experiment with smaller and larger ¯d and only find worse performance. Finally, readers can find the reference Python implementation in Appendix E. ## 6.2 Experiments And Discussion To verify the performance of Sandwich, we train a transformer language model following previous 6Fun fact: We imagine different compression ratios as the ways we eat sandwiches: For a huge sandwich, we have to squeeze it more to fit in our mouths! work (Press et al., 2022; Chi et al., 2022). Table 3 presents the results; the left part contains all models without learnable parameters, and the right part contains models with learnable parameters. These numbers should not be compared across sections. In general, models on the right achieve lower perplexities across the three datasets. This is expected as they can adapt to individual datasets more easily thanks to the additional learnable parameters. However, there is no free lunch: They often consume more GPU memory and run much slower. For example, T5 is 10% slower than Sandwich during the training stage. Note that Sandwich can also be equipped with learnable parameters such as learnable compression ratios h; this is left to future work. We now shift our focus to the left section. When Lex = Ltr = 512, Sandwich is comparable to other models except that Rotary performs a bit better on OpenWebText2. Once we increase Lex, Sandwich begins to reveal its advantages: On ArXiv and GitHub, it is consistently better than all the baselines but only marginally worse than ALiBi when Lex ≥ 4096 on OpenWebText2. It is worth mentioning that Sandwich is the first parameter-free RPE that truly makes use of distant token information beyond Ltr = 512. To see this, notice that lower (better) perplexities occur at Lex > Ltr = 512. The gradient analysis tool in §5.1 further corroborates this in Figure 11, which reveals a receptive field pattern distinct from that of ALiBi and windowed attention. Even though Sandwich allocates about 60% of the total cumulative gradient on the most recent Ltr = 512 tokens, distant tokens beyond Ltr still contribute substantially | OpenWebText2 | | | | | | | | |----------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | Lex | Sandwich | Smoothed | ALiBi | Sinusoidal | Rotary | KERPLE | T5 | | 512 | 23.5 ± 3.8 | 23.2 ± 3.7 | 22.8 ± 3.3 | 26 ± 1 † | 23.0 ± 3.4∗ | 22.6 ± 3.5∗ | 22.6 ± 3.6∗ | | 1024 | 23.0 ± 3.6 | 23.1 ± 3.6 | 23.3 ± 3.4 | 14168† | 61† | 22.0 ± 3.3∗ | 22.2 ± 3.3∗ | | 2048 | 23.3 ± 3.5 | 23.2 ± 3.2 | 23.5 ± 3.3 | 20370† | 96† | 21.9 ± 3.1∗ | 23.0 ± 3.1 | | 4096 | 23.8 ± 3.3 | 23.6 ± 3.0 | 23.5 ± 3.3∗ | 42003† | 232† | 22.1 ± 2.9∗ | 26.8 ± 3.2† | | 8192 | 24.7 ± 3.4 | 24.0 ± 2.9 | 23.5 ± 3.3∗ | 67869† | 343† | 22.3 ± 2.9∗ | 38.6 ± 7.2† | | ArXiv | | | | | | | | | Lex | Sandwich | Smoothed | ALiBi | Sinusoidal | Rotary | KERPLE | T5 | | 512 | 5.27 ± 0.33 | 5.33 ± 0.32 | 5.25 ± 0.33 | 5.8† | 5.25 ± 0.33 | 5.22 ± 0.37 | 5.16 ± 0.37∗ | | 1024 | 5.05 ± 0.33 | 5.13 ± 0.32 | 5.41 ± 0.36† | 1070† | 16.02† | 4.95 ± 0.34∗ | 4.91 ± 0.35∗ | | 2048 | 5.02 ± 0.34 | 5.15 ± 0.36 | 5.58 ± 0.40† | 1784† | 33.76† | 4.83 ± 0.35∗ | 4.92 ± 0.35∗ | | 4096 | 5.15 ± 0.39 | 5.33 ± 0.39 | 5.58 ± 0.40† | 18050† | 71.96† | 4.84 ± 0.34∗ | 5.35 ± 0.36 | | 8192 | 5.28 ± 0.44 | 5.45 ± 0.42 | 5.58 ± 0.40† | 44100† | 111† | 4.90 ± 0.33∗ | 6.74 ± 0.90† | | GitHub | | | | | | | | | Lex | Sandwich | Smoothed | ALiBi | Sinusoidal | Rotary | KERPLE | T5 | | 512 | 2.88 ± 0.12 | 2.88 ± 0.17 | 2.83 ± 0.11† | 4 † | 2.82 ± 0.11 | 2.81 ± 0.14∗ | 2.76 ± 0.14∗ | | 1024 | 2.71 ± 0.09 | 2.70 ± 0.07 | 2.97 ± 0.11† | 8342† | 3.86 ± 0.25† | 2.67 ± 0.10∗ | 2.61 ± 0.08∗ | | 2048 | 2.69 ± 0.11 | 2.74 ± 0.08 | 3.01 ± 0.10† | 9179† | 5.94 ± 0.64† | 2.65 ± 0.10∗ | 2.65 ± 0.05 | | 4096 | 2.73 ± 0.12 | 2.78 ± 0.08 | 3.01 ± 0.10† | 11017† | 11.1 ± 1.55† | 2.70 ± 0.09 | 2.91 ± 0.12 | | 8192 | 2.79 ± 0.15 | 2.83 ± 0.08 | 3.01 ± 0.10† | 11270† | 20.2 ± 2.75† | 2.75 ± 0.08 | 3.68 ± 0.50† | ## To The Model Prediction. Why do ALiBi and windowed attention need to have their ERFs covered by Ltr while Sandwich does not? To answer this question, we revisit Figure 9 and approximate (least-squared) the original temporal bias pattern using a log curve, which gives a snug fit7: y = −0.825 · log (1 + |m − n|) − 0.8. Table 3 shows its language modeling performance under the "smoothed" column. Pictorially, the log curve decays relatively fast when two tokens are nearby and plateaus when the distance between them increases. In other words, tokens that are far away from the last one (m = 8192) share similar temporal biases, possibly leading to beneficial averaging and denoising effects. Note that the averaging effect does not come out of thin air during the extrapolation stage: The almost linear segment ranging from 1536 to 1792 suggests that Sandwich was trained to perform averaging within Ltr; it just needs to average over more historical tokens when it extrapolates to longer Lex. In contrast, ALiBi's linear bias lacks the middle ground to learn the averaging behavior: It either decays so fast that distant tokens are masked out or so slow that the ERF becomes much greater than Ltr. The averaging hypothesis also explains why Sandwich, KERPLE, and T5's perplexities go up in Table 3 instead of continuing to decrease after some Lex (4096 on ArXiv for example): While averaging and denoising improve performance, doing so over too many historical tokens (very large Lex) will reintroduce noises. ## 6.3 Connection To Kerple And T5 KERPLE (Chi et al., 2022) has the formulation of c − r1 · log (1 + r2|m − n|). The −0.8 in our fitted log curve term can be absorbed by c, as Softmax is shift-invariant, and if we set r1 = 0.825 and r2 = 1, Sandwich becomes a special case of KERPLE. T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) adopts the logbinning strategy that assigns distinct bins to nearby tokens whereas distant tokens all share the same bin. In spirit, T5 treats distant tokens similarly to Sandwich. Figure 11 verifies that all three of them  share a similar empirical receptive field pattern. ## 7 Conclusion In this paper, we first establish the connection between ALiBi and windowed attention through their constructions and language modeling performance. We then develop a cumulative normalized gradient tool to measure the empirical receptive field. It shows that length extrapolation of ALiBi and windowed attention is possible when the training sequence length covers the empirical receptive field. It also reveals the models' limitation of not utilizing information beyond the training sequence length. Fortunately, this is overcome by our new relative positional embedding, Sandwich, which is simplified from the earliest proposed Sinusoidal positional embedding. Finally, Sandwich demonstrates a log-decaying temporal bias pattern similar to that previously seen in the design of KERPLE and T5, and such pattern is likely to be the secret to successful length extrapolation. Together these findings supports more effective design of future extrapolatable transformer language models. ## Limitations Although Sandwich, KERPLE, and T5 use information beyond training sequence length, their receptive fields still highly favor the most recent tokens. While this recency bias is beneficial to the modeling of human-written text, it is problematic in other scenarios. Let us consider the task of *parity* prediction: A model needs to predict whether a bit string has an even or odd number of ones. For example, the parity of [1, 1, 0, 1] is odd (or 1) and the parity of [1, 0, 1, 0] is even (or 0). Unlike human-written text, every single bit is equally important. Transformer language models with current RPEs still struggle on this simple task (Anil et al., 2022). Its difficulty can be explained by the recency bias effect that we described. Devising a new positional embedding or transformer model architecture that solves this problem is a promising direction for future work. ## Ethics Statement Our work advances the understanding of positional embeddings adopted in almost all transformer models. In addition, our proposed new positional embedding significantly reduces energy consumption and training cost thanks to its length extrapolation property. Finally, our work lays the groundwork for developing future transformers that are greener and more cost-efficient enabled by improved length extrapolation. Inappropriate usage of our technique might have negative societal impacts. These include the ethical challenges of improper text generation and privacy issues inherent in the data collection process. These implications apply to any natural language processing research and are not unique to this specific work. ## Acknowledgment The authors acknowledge the support from Boeing (2019-STU-PA-259), Amazon (CC ADV 00474341 2021 TR), NSF MRI Award 1919452, and Princeton Research Computing. ## References Joshua Ainslie, Santiago Ontanon, Chris Alberti, Vaclav Cvicek, Zachary Fisher, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Sumit Sanghai, Qifan Wang, and Li Yang. 2020. ETC: Encoding long and structured inputs in transformers. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing (EMNLP), pages 268–284, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alex Andonian, Quentin Anthony, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Preetham Gali, Leo Gao, Eric Hallahan, Josh Levy-Kramer, Connor Leahy, Lucas Nestler, Kip Parker, Michael Pieler, Shivanshu Purohit, Tri Songz, Wang Phil, and Samuel Weinbach. 2021. GPT-NeoX: Large Scale Autoregressive Language Modeling in PyTorch. Cem Anil, Yuhuai Wu, Anders Johan Andreassen, Aitor Lewkowycz, Vedant Misra, Vinay Venkatesh Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Guy Gur-Ari, Ethan Dyer, and Behnam Neyshabur. 2022. Exploring length generalization in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Andre Araujo, Wade Norris, and Jack Sim. 2019. Computing receptive fields of convolutional neural networks. *Distill*. Https://distill.pub/2019/computingreceptive-fields. Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2016. Layer normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450. Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. Shiyu Chang, Yang Zhang, Wei Han, Mo Yu, Xiaoxiao Guo, Wei Tan, Xiaodong Cui, Michael Witbrock, Mark A Hasegawa-Johnson, and Thomas S Huang. 2017. Dilated recurrent neural networks. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Ta-Chung Chi, Ting-Han Fan, Peter J Ramadge, and Alexander I Rudnicky. 2022. Kerple: Kernelized relative positional embedding for length extrapolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09921. Jifeng Dai, Haozhi Qi, Yuwen Xiong, Yi Li, Guodong Zhang, Han Hu, and Yichen Wei. 2017. Deformable convolutional networks. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 764– 773. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In *International Conference on* Learning Representations. Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, Shawn Presser, and Connor Leahy. 2020. The Pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027. Ankit Gupta and Jonathan Berant. 2020. GMAT: global memory augmentation for transformers. CoRR, abs/2006.03274. Wenjie Luo, Yujia Li, Raquel Urtasun, and Richard Zemel. 2016. Understanding the effective receptive field in deep convolutional neural networks. In *Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on* Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'16, page 4905–4913, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. Tomas Mikolov, Martin Karafiát, Lukas Burget, Jan Cernocky, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2010. Recur- ` rent neural network based language model. In *Interspeech*, volume 2, pages 1045–1048. Makuhari. Tomas Mikolov and Geoffrey Zweig. 2012. Context dependent recurrent neural network language model. In *2012 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT)*, pages 234–239. Aaron van den Oord, Sander Dieleman, Heiga Zen, Karen Simonyan, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, Nal Kalchbrenner, Andrew Senior, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. 2016. Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio. Cite arxiv:1609.03499. Ofir Press. 2022. The use case for relative position embeddings. Ofir Press, Noah Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Train short, test long: Attention with linear biases enables input length extrapolation. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21(140):1–67. Maithra Raghu, Thomas Unterthiner, Simon Kornblith, Chiyuan Zhang, and Alexey Dosovitskiy. 2021. Do vision transformers see like convolutional neural networks? In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilic, Daniel Hesslow, Ro- ´ man Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Gallé, et al. 2022. Bloom: A 176bparameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100. Jianlin Su, Yu Lu, Shengfeng Pan, Bo Wen, and Yunfeng Liu. 2021. Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2104.09864. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 30. Hang Yan, Bocao Deng, Xiaonan Li, and Xipeng Qiu. 2019. Tener: adapting transformer encoder for named entity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.04474. Fisher Yu and Vladlen Koltun. 2016. Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions. In 4th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 2-4, 2016, Conference Track Proceedings. Manzil Zaheer, Guru Guruganesh, Avinava Dubey, Joshua Ainslie, Chris Alberti, Santiago Ontañón, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Qifan Wang, Li Yang, and Amr Ahmed. 2020. Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences. *CoRR*, abs/2007.14062. Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, and Oriol Vinyals. 2014. Recurrent neural network regularization. Cite arxiv:1409.2329. ## A Results On Openwebtext2 Table 4 includes the three experiments conducted in §4 on OpenWebText2. Their corresponding receptive field plots are shown in Figure 12 and 13. ## B Efficient Inference Although ALiBi might not be using token information further than Ltr, it has the nice property of efficient inference (Press, 2022). Tables 1 and 4 show that ALiBi perplexities stay constant when Lex ≥ 2048. This suggests a cache window size w¯ = 2048 for inference. The generation of the first w¯ tokens remains the same, and we can still cache all qm, km, and vm vectors for m ∈ [1, 2048]. When it comes to generating the w¯ + 1-th token, we simply discard the first cached q1, k1, and v1 and use the rest of w¯ − 1 tokens along with the newly added token to perform self-attention. If we want to generate a length Lex text snippet, the complexity is O( ¯w×Lex) instead of O(L 2 ex). This complexity is also better than that of an APE model, which is O( ¯w 2×Lex) since an APE model needs to completely re-encode the previous w¯ vectors when generating new tokens following the first w¯ ones. We implement the process discussed above to verify that ALiBi indeed allows for efficient inference. The results, along with ones for Sandwich, are presented in Table 5. Both ALiBi and Sandwich permit efficient inference by setting w¯ = 2048. It is worth pointing out that the performance of Sandwich at Lex = 4096 becomes a bit worse compared to that in Table 3. This is more evidence that Sandwich is using longer than Ltr token information. ## C Scientific Artifacts We use the gpt-neox library (Andonian et al., 2021) under Apache-2.0 license and the datasets (Gao et al., 2020) released by the authors of gpt-neox. The codebase and datasets (Table 6) are publicly released for research purposes. The steps taken to protect the privacy and anonymization are discussed in Gao et al. (2020) section 6 and 7. Finally, Gao et al. (2020) section 5 also discusses the distribution and statistics of the datasets used in this work. ## D Implementation Details The configurations and hyperparameters are outlined in Table 7. The pretraining takes 5 hours on a single NVIDIA A-100 GPU. We do not tune any hyperparameters and just use the default ones. | Lex | Shift all h by ∆ | Same h for all heads | Windowed Attention Size w | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------|--------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | ∆:-3 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | h:0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | w:40 | 80 | 100 | 120 | 160 | 320 | | | 512 | 18.6 | 19.0 | 19.5 | 20.0 | 20.5 | 20.5 | 32.7 | 22.2 | 19.7 | 19.7 | 20.5 | 25.3 | 23.7 | 23.1 | 24.0 | 22.9 | 21.9 | | 1024 | 21.6 | 19.3 | 19.6 | 24.8 | 232 | 232 | 32.8 | 23.2 | 24.9 | 146 | 232 | 25.3 | 23.7 | 23.2 | 137 | 234 | 353 | | 2048 | 21.6 | 19.7 | 20.5 | 29.3 | 299 | 299 | 32.8 | 23.2 | 24.9 | 165 | 299 | 25.3 | 23.7 | 23.2 | 137 | 236 | 408 | | 4096 | 21.6 | 19.7 | 20.5 | 29.4 | 299 | 299 | 32.9 | 23.2 | 24.9 | 165 | 299 | 25.3 | 23.7 | 23.2 | 137 | 236 | 408 | | 8192 | 21.6 | 19.7 | 20.5 | 29.4 | 299 | 299 | 32.9 | 23.2 | 24.9 | 165 | 299 | 25.3 | 23.7 | 23.2 | 137 | 236 | 408 |   | Lex | OpenWebText2 | Arxiv | GitHub | | | | |----------------|----------------|----------------|----------|------|------|------| | Sandwich ALiBi | Sandwich ALiBi | Sandwich ALiBi | | | | | | 4096 | 23.9 | 23.5 | 5.31 | 5.59 | 2.79 | 3.01 | | 8192 | 24.1 | 23.5 | 5.35 | 5.59 | 2.81 | 3.01 | | 16384 | 24.1 | 23.5 | 5.35 | 5.59 | 2.81 | 3.01 | Table 5: Efficient Inference with w¯ = 2048. | OpenWebText2 | GitHub | ArXiv | | |----------------|----------|----------|----------| | Raw Size | 66.77 GB | 95.16 GB | 56.21 GB | | Type | Internet | Coding | Academic | Table 6: **Dataset Overview.** Raw Size is the size before any up- or down-sampling. | # Layers | Hidden Size | # Attention Heads Train Seq. Len. | # Trainable Params. | | |----------------|---------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------------| | 12 | 64 | 12 | 512 | 162M | | Optimizer | Batch Size | Train Steps | Precision | # Trainable Params. for RPEs | | Adam (lr 6e-4) | 32 | 50,000 | bfloat16 | 0 | Table 7: 162M Model Configurations. ## E Python Implementation Of Sandwich Import Numpy As Np base = 1e4 heads = 12 seq_len = 8192 positions = np.arange(seq_len)[..., None] bar_d = 128 \# This is the hyperparameter of Sandwich i = np.arange(bar_d // 2) pos_embs = np.concatenate([np.sin(positions / base ** (2 * i / bar_d)), np.cos(positions / base ** (2 * i / bar_d))], axis=-1) sandwich = np.matmul(pos_embs, pos_embs.T) compression_ratio = np.arange(1, heads + 1) * 8 / heads multi_head_sandwich = sandwich[None, ...] / compression_ratio[..., None, None] ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? abstract and section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 6 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? appendix C ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? appendix C ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? appendix C ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? appendix C ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? appendix C ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. appendix C ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 6 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? section 6 and appendix D The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? section 6 and appendix D ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? section 6 C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. Left blank. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

zhao-etal-2023-chbias

{CHB}ias: Bias Evaluation and Mitigation of {C}hinese Conversational Language Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.757

\textit{ \textbf{redWarning:} This paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting.}Pretrained conversational agents have been exposed to safety issues, exhibiting a range of stereotypical human biases such as gender bias. However, there are still limited bias categories in current research, and most of them only focus on English. In this paper, we introduce a new Chinese dataset, CHBias, for bias evaluation and mitigation of Chinese conversational language models.Apart from those previous well-explored bias categories, CHBias includes under-explored bias categories, such as ageism and appearance biases, which received less attention. We evaluate two popular pretrained Chinese conversational models, CDial-GPT and EVA2.0, using CHBias. Furthermore, to mitigate different biases, we apply several debiasing methods to the Chinese pretrained models. Experimental results show that these Chinese pretrained models are potentially risky for generating texts that contain social biases, and debiasing methods using the proposed dataset can make response generation less biased while preserving the models{'} conversational capabilities.

# Chbias: Bias Evaluation And Mitigation Of Chinese Conversational Language Models Jiaxu Zhao∗1, Meng Fang∗2,1, Zijing Shi3, Yitong Li, Ling Chen3**, Mykola Pechenizkiy**1 1Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands 2University of Liverpool, Liverpool, the United Kingdom 3AAII, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia j.zhao@tue.nl, Meng.Fang@liverpool.ac.uk Zijing.Shi@student.uts.edu.au, Ling.Chen@uts.edu.au m.pechenizkiy@tue.nl ## Abstract Warning: *This paper contains content that may* be offensive or upsetting. Pretrained conversational agents have been exposed to safety issues, exhibiting a range of stereotypical human biases such as gender bias. However, there are still limited bias categories in current research, and most of them only focus on English. In this paper, we introduce a new Chinese dataset, CHBias, for bias evaluation and mitigation of Chinese conversational language models. Apart from those previous well-explored bias categories, CHBias includes under-explored bias categories, such as ageism and appearance biases, which received less attention. We evaluate two popular pretrained Chinese conversational models, CDial-GPT and EVA2.0, using CHBias. Furthermore, to mitigate different biases, we apply several debiasing methods to the Chinese pretrained models. Experimental results show that these Chinese pretrained models are potentially risky for generating texts that contain social biases, and debiasing methods using the proposed dataset can make response generation less biased while preserving the models' conversational capabilities. ## 1 Introduction The success of the pretrained dialogue models benefits from the increasing quantity and quality of real corpora (Gu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2020; Radford et al., 2018; Bao et al., 2020). However, deep neural models can inadvertently learn undesired features in the corpora, such as social biases. For example, Hutson (2021) shows that when GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020) encounters unsafe, harmful, and biased prompts related to some demographic groups, such as "old people" or "female", it may come up with biased replies. Therefore, further progress is required on responsible and safe AI before applying these large language models in ∗Equal contribution. the real world (Bommasani et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2023). Addressing social biases in language generation models is still very challenging. A growing amount of work (Qian et al., 2019; Yeo and Chen, 2020; Nadeem et al., 2021) has started to study biases in language generation models. However, most of them (Sheng et al., 2019; Nadeem et al., 2021) either study one or two bias categories (e.g., gender bias and racial bias) or build artificial data for mitigating biases. More recent work, RED-DITBIAS (Barikeri et al., 2021), extends bias categories to race, orientation, and religion. However, there are still other bias categories that are underexplored, for example, appearance bias and age bias. It is necessary to see whether the pretrained models are suffering from other new biases. Moreover, existing works (Barikeri et al., 2021; Dinan et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020b) only focus on English dialogue models. However, the forms and demographic groups of bias may vary across languages due to differences in syntax, semantics, and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, it is necessary to study the bias of non-English pretrained models. To better understand more bias categories for Chinese in pretrained dialogue models, we introduce a new dataset named CHBias, which is a Chinese corpus for social bias evaluation and mitigation of Chinese conversational models. CHBias is based on data from Weibo1and manually annotated for multiple social bias categories. It contains four social bias categories, including gender, orientation, age, and *appearance*, among which age and *appearance* are new categories provided by our CHBias. Based on the proposed CHBias, we evaluate two state-of-the-art popular Chinese pretrained dialogue models, CDial-GPT (Wang et al., 2020) and EVA2.0 (Gu et al., 2022). We show that responses generated by these Chinese pretrained dialogue models suffer from different social biases. 1http://weibo.com/ 13538 Furthermore, to mitigate these biases in responses, we apply several mitigation methods to these dialogue models, including regularization-based debiasing methods and data augmentation-based methods using our CHBias. We find that the debiasing methods can effectively reduce biases while maintaining the models' performance on dialogue tasks. Our main contributions include: - We build a new Chinese dataset, CHBias, for evaluating and mitigating biases in Chinese conversational models, which includes underexplored biases in the existing works, such as age and appearance. - We evaluate the bias of two popular Chinese pretrained dialogue models based on our CHBias, and find that both models are at risk of generating responses with social biases. - We apply debiasing methods to the Chinese conversational models and find these methods can effectively reduce biases while maintaining the models' conversational capabilities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to apply debiasing methods to Chinese pretrained models. ## 2 Related Work Pretraind Models Pretrained models (BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), GPT (Radford et al., 2018), GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019)) achieves great success on various language generation tasks. These pretrained models can be easily fine-tuned to be applied in different dialogue scenarios. DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) proposes a large-scale, tunable dialogue response generation model, which trains GPT-2 on 147M Reddit2conversations. Many previous works are mainly focused on English, but there also are some works (Wang et al., 2020; Gu et al., 2022) that proposed pretrained dialogue generation model for Chinese. CDial-GPT (Wang et al., 2020) pretrained the Chinese dialogue generation model on a Chinese novel dataset, and they constructed the LCCC dataset. EVA2.0 (Gu et al., 2022) is a Chinese open-domain dialogue system based on large-scale pretraining. To ensure data quality and diversity, the training data are derived from the filtered WDC-Dialogues (Zhou et al., 2021) dataset as well as publicly available datasets (Lison and Tiedemann, 2016; Guan et al., 2https://www.reddit.com/ 2021; Wu et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2020a; Liu et al., 2020c; Wang et al., 2021) from different domains. In this paper, we focus on bias in dialogue models, specifically in Chinese models, which are rarely studied at present. Bias Datasets Since the real-world conversation data contains some biases, the models trained based on these data learn undesired features. More and more researchers (Barikeri et al., 2021; Sheng et al., 2021) are working to reduce the biases of pretrained models. Zhao et al. propose a corpus WinoBias, which contains pairs of gender-balanced co-reference data. Urbanek et al. propose LIGHT, which contains a large number of gender-balanced statements for dialog. Liu et al. construct a dataset to research gender bias and racial bias in the dialogue models. Barikeri et al. construct the REDDITBIAS, consisting of real human conversations from Reddit. Zhou et al. identify some biases in dialogue systems. However, they do not consider mitigating biases in Chinese dialogue systems. Bias Evaluation and Mitigation Liu et al. (2020a) introduce some metrics to evaluate the bias in the dialogue models, such as diversity, politeness, sentiment, and attribute words. Lee et al. leveraging whether the conversation model agreed with the stereotypical content to study the bias of chatbots. Dinan et al. (2020) propose new techniques to mitigate gender bias by balancing the genderedness of generated dialogue utterances. Qian et al. force the language model to generate two demographic group terms with similar probabilities to debias. Lauscher et al. (2020) propose the DebiasNet, debiasing at the word embedding level. There are also some debiasing methods that focus on the data level, such as counterfactual data augmentation in Zhao et al. (2018). Barikeri et al. apply various bias mitigation methods to debiasing the dialogue model. However, there is no Chinese dataset for both bias evaluation and mitigation. Our work provides a benchmark for these problems. ## 3 Chbias Dataset We outline the process of creating CHBias, which includes five steps: (1) defining bias specifications for various bias categories; (2) collecting data from social media; (3) cleaning the collected data; (4) annotating sentences that exhibit bias; (5) splitting the labeled data into a training set, a validation set, and a test set. We have released all the data as | bias categories | T1 | T2 | A1 | A2 | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------| | Gender | 妈妈, 姐姐, . . . | 爸爸, 哥哥,. . . | 护士, 感性. . . | 医生, 理性. . . | | (Translation) | mother, older sister, . . . | father, older brother,. . . | nurse, emotional. . . | doctor, rational. . . | | Orientation | 同性恋, 基佬 . . . | 异性恋, 直男, . . . | 肮脏, 下流, 讨厌 . . . | 干净, 高尚, 喜欢 . . . | | homosexual, gay . . . | heterosexual, straight man, . . . | filth, vulgar , dislike . . . | clean, noble, like . . . | | | Age | 老人, 大妈 . . . | 年轻人, 小姑娘. . . | 固执, 恶心 . . . | 随和, 舒心 . . . | | old people, old woman . . . | young people, young woman . . . | stubborn, disgusting . . . | easygoing, comfort . . . | | | Appearance | 胖子, 矮子, . . . | 瘦子, 高个, . . . | 丑, 恶心. . . | 美, 舒心. . . | | fatty, shorty, . . . | thin person, taller, . . . | ugly, disgusting. . . | beautiful, comfort. . . | | | Table 1: Examples of the defined Bias Specification for four bias categories. tween T1 and T2. Table 1 shows the partial terms we defined for the Chinese Bias Specifications. To obtain target and attribute terms to cover more biases in texts, we collect target and attribute terms according to many previous NLP works on social | | | | | | Key. | Retrieval | Train/Dev/Test | Total | | | Gender | 261 | 26,100 | 800/200/200 | 1,200 | | Orient | 75 | 15,000 | 800/200/200 | 1,200 | | Age | 56 | 11,200 | 800/200/200 | 1,200 | | Appear | 126 | 12,600 | 800/200/200 | 1,200 | ## 3.1 Bias Specification We consider four bias categories: gender, orientation, age, and appearance. Following (Caliskan et al., 2017; Lauscher et al., 2020), which define the explicit bias specifications in English, we utilize the bias specifications to define four bias categories in Chinese formally. We define a Chinese Bias Specification with a quadruple BC = (T1, T2, A1, A2) for each bias category. Index 1 and index 2 denote two demographic groups respectively. For example, in the gender bias category, index 1 denotes *Female* and index 2 denotes *Male*. T1 = {t 11 , t21 , t31 , . . . , tn 1} and T2 = {t 12 , t22 , t32 , . . . , tn 2} consist of target terms of the two demographic groups respectively. For example, the target terms for *Female* can be T1={ 妈妈, 姐姐, . . . }4and the target terms for *Male* can be T2={爸爸, 哥 哥, . . . }5. A1 and A2 are two sets of attribute items for the two demographic groups T1 and T2 respectively. A1 = {a 11 , a21 , a31 , . . . , ai1} is a set of terms commonly associated with T1, which are typically negative stereotype terms. And A2 = {a 12 , a22 , a32 , . . . , a j 2} is a set of terms commonly associated with T2, which are typically positive stereotype terms. For example, in the gender bias category, A1={护士, 感性 . . . }6and A2={医生, 理性, . . . }7. A1 and A2 reflect the inequity be-3https://github.com/hyintell/CHBias 4In English: mother, sister, . . . 5In English: father, brother, . . . 6In English: nurse, emotional, . . . 7In English: doctor, rational, . . . tween T1 and T2. Table 1 shows the partial terms we defined for the Chinese Bias Specifications. To obtain target and attribute terms to cover more biases in texts, we collect target and attribute terms according to many previous NLP works on social biases (Nangia et al., 2020; Flekova et al., 2016; Barikeri et al., 2021), as well as sociology literature (Greenwald et al., 1998; Rhode, 2010; Krekula, 2007). The complete Chinese explicit bias specifications we defined are shown in Appendix A. ## 3.2 Data Collection We collect data from a popular Chinese social media platform called Weibo, which is one of the largest social media platforms in China. On Weibo, users can post and respond to comments, some of which may be biased against certain demographic groups. We retrieve Weibo posts based on target terms and attribute terms. Collecting data from social media ensures that the biases in the data are real and allows us to find more sentences that contain biases. Examples of our data can be found in Table 7. Our data collection spans from May 10, 2020, to May 10, 2022. To collect biased sentences, our data collection has two steps. First, following (Barikeri et al., 2021), we combine the target terms in T1 with each stereotypical attribute term in A1 separately as keywords. Because all the terms in A1 are descriptions of negative stereotypes of T1, the sentences retrieved based on these keywords are likely to contain biases. Second, we retrieve candidate sentences from Weibo based on the keywords obtained above. We set different maximum retrieval volumes for different bias categories because the number of keywords varies greatly between categories. For gender bias, orientation bias, age bias, and appearance bias, we collect 100, 200, 200, and 100 posts for each keyword, respectively. For each bias category, we collect at least 10, 000 posts. Detailed statistical information can be found in Table 2. ## 3.3 Data Cleaning We perform data cleaning on the collected posts, including (1) removing information not related to the post contents, such as user information, creation time, and device that the user is using, etc.; (2) splitting the long post into smaller sentences of no more than 130 words and retaining only those that contain keywords; (3) removing URLs from the posts; (4) removing emojis and other platformrelated tags (such as "@***"); (5) removing redundant consecutive repetitive punctuation, such as extra spaces, commas, and exclamation points; (6) removing duplicate sentences. These cleaning steps are designed to ensure that the collected data is relevant and accurate for our bias evaluation and mitigation tasks. ## 3.4 Bias Annotation It's difficult and risky to rely on existing models and tools to automatically label content as biased or not, as not all sentences that contain both target and negative attribute terms are necessarily biased against the corresponding target group. Thus, we manually label the retrieved posts to determine whether they are biased. We provide annotators with bias categories and keywords (target and attribute terms) to use as guidelines for labeling. The detailed file format for the annotator to use is provided in Appendix B. We recruited three graduated students from different backgrounds as annotators for our study. These annotators are native speakers of Chinese and gender diverse without a background in natural language processing. The task assigned to the annotators was to identify instances of bias against specific demographic groups in a set of posts. We divided the data annotation process into two steps. In the first step, the annotators performed a binary classification task to annotate whether a sentence was biased or not. In the second step, we removed any sentences that were inconsistently annotated by the three annotators, only keeping those with the same annotation results. Finally, we build a dataset, named CHBias, including 1,200 bias examples for each bias category, for a total of 4,800 biased examples. Table 7 shows some biased posts from our dataset and their corresponding target and attribute terms. ## 3.5 Data Split To facilitate training models and evaluate bias, we split the labeled data. There are two main steps: (1) splitting the data into the training set, validation set, and test set; (2) performing "target swapping" on the validation set and test set. For each bias category, we divide the biased dataset into training, validation, and testing portions. We use the training and validation sets for bias mitigation and parameter selection, respectively. Following the approach of "gender swapping" in previous studies (Zhao et al., 2018; Park et al., 2018), we implement "target swapping" for the validation and test sets to create new sets for the second target demographic group. It involves replacing the target terms (e.g., "姐姐" ("older sister")) in the posts and replacing them with the corresponding target terms of the second demographic group (e.g., "哥哥" ("older brother")). Thus, the contents of the validation and test sets for both demographic groups are the same except for the target terms. ## 4 Bias Evaluation We evaluate the bias of conversational models based on the following assumption: biased models tend to generate positive stereotype responses for one demographic group and negative stereotype responses for another demographic group. In the validation and test sets, there are biased examples from two demographic groups. Their texts are the same except for the target terms. We compare the performance differences of the model across demographic groups to evaluate bias. We use the Student's two-tailed test to calculate the difference between the perplexity distributions from a model for two demographic groups. First, we apply the pretrained model to the test data (two demographic groups) and calculate the perplexity scores (Barikeri et al., 2021) for each demographic group. Then we compare the distributions of perplexity to quantify the difference in model performance between the two groups. Specifically, we use the "t-value" of the Student's two-tailed test to compare the perplexity distributions among different demographic groups. The difference in perplexity distributions is used to quantify the bias of the model. Each "t-value" corresponds to a "p-value", which is the probability that the sample data occurred by chance. The "t-value" is considered statistically significant if its corresponding "p-value"  is within a given confidence interval (We set the α = 0.05 in this paper). The larger the difference in the model's performance on the demographic pairs, the more biased the model is towards these demographic groups, and the absolute value of the "t-value" will be larger as well. ## 4.1 Bias Evaluation Results And Analysis We perform bias evaluation on two recent Chinese conversation models, CDial-GPT (Wang et al., 2020) and EVA2.0 (Gu et al., 2022). CDialGPT is a 12-layer GPT2 model that has been pretrained. We select the pretrained CDial-GPT2 with a base size (104M parameters) trained on the LCCC dataset proposed by Wang et al. (2020). EVA2.0 is the largest pretrained model of Chinese opendomain dialogues with 2.8 billion parameters. We use the EVA2.0*base* (300M parameters) as another benchmark. As shown in Figure 1, we quantified the degree of bias in the CDial-GPT and EVA2.0 for different bias categories using "t-value". The results show that the two Chinese dialogue models have varying degrees of bias across the four bias categories. The degree of bias varies between models for the same bias category. For example, the CDial-GPT has a greater degree of gender bias than EVA2.0, while EVA2.0 has a greater degree of appearance bias than CDial-GPT. This difference may be due to the difference in the data used for their pretraining. In addition, the results indicate that the same model exhibited different degrees of bias for different bias categories. For example, CDial-GPT exhibits a large sexual orientation bias, while its appearance bias is much smaller. This may be caused by the different distribution of demographic groups in the pretraining data and the varying features learned by the model for different demographic groups. ## 5 Bias Mitigation We evaluate the debiasing performance of five different methods (see Section 5.3), including three loss-based methods: Language Model Debiasing (Qian et al., 2019), Attribute Distance Debiasing (Lauscher et al., 2020), and Hard Debiasing (Bordia and Bowman, 2019; Barikeri et al., 2021), as well as two data augmentation-based methods: Counter Attribute Data Augmentation and Counter Target Data Augmentation (Zhao et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2020; Feng et al., 2021). We also conduct experiments to test whether these debiasing methods have any negative impact on the dialogue performance of the model (see Section 5.3.2). Furthermore, we implement human evaluation experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of the debiasing methods (see Section 5.4). ## 5.1 Debiasing Baseline Methods Loss-based methods add bias mitigation losses as regularisation terms to the training loss: ℓLM + λbiasℓ*bias*, where ℓLM is the original loss function and ℓ*bias* is the bias mitigation loss function, and λ*bias* is a hyper-parameter that controls the weight of the bias mitigation loss. We briefly describe three loss-based debiasing methods: Language Model Debiasing (LMD): The additional loss is defined as: $$\ell_{b i a s}=\frac{1}{|P_{t}|}\sum_{(t_{i,1},t_{i,2})\subset P_{i}}\left|\log\frac{\hat{y}t_{i,1}}{\hat{y}t_{i,2}}\right|,$$ where Ptis the target pairs set consisting of (ti,1, ti,2) pairs, and ti,1 ∈ T1, ti,2 ∈ T2; Pi ∈ Ptis one of target pairs; yˆti,1 is the predicted probability for the term ti,1, it's same for yˆti,2 . Attribute Distance Debiasing (ADD): The additional loss is defined as: $$\ell_{b i a s}=\sum_{(t_{i,1},t_{i,2})\subset P_{i}}\left|\cos(\mathbf{t}_{i,1};\mathbf{a})-\cos(\mathbf{t}_{i,2};\mathbf{a})\right|,$$ where cos denotes the cosine similarity, ti,1, ti,2 and a denote the word embedding of ti,1, ti,2 and an attribute term a ∈ A1 respectively. Hard Debiasing (HD): The additional loss is defined as: $$\ell_{b i a s}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}|\mathbf{b}_{j}\langle\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}_{j}\rangle|,$$ | Gender | Orientation | Age | Appearance | | |-----------|---------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | CDial-GPT | -2.51 ± 0.09 | 4.28 ± 0.05 | 2.74 ± 0.12 | -0.94 ± 0.03 | | LMD | -0.93 ± 0.03 | 1.31 ± 0.06 | -2.39 ± 0.13 | 0.40 ± 0.01 | | ADD | 0.17 ± 0.01 | -0.54 ± 0.05 | 0.50 ± 0.10 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | | HD | -2.12 ± 0.02 | -6.10 ± 0.18 | -0.63 ± 0.07 | 1.27 ± 0.02 | | CADA | -1.74 ± 0.04 | 0.65 ± 0.03 | -0.43 ± 0.02 | -0.55 ± 0.02 | | CTDA | -0.22 ± 0.02 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | -0.25 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | | EVA2.0 | 1.48 ± 0.06 | 3.04 ± 0.11 | -2.30 ± 0.01 | 3.28 ± 0.08 | | LMD | -0.89 ± 0.07 | 1.09 ± 0.03 | -0.18 ± 0.02 | 2.55 ± 0.15 | | ADD | -0.54 ± 0.09 | 0.77 ± 0.03 | -1.20 ± 0.04 | 1.43 ± 0.11 | | HD | 1.21 ± 0.07 | 0.27 ± 0.03 | 0.40 ± 0.04 | -2.59 ± 0.13 | | CADA | 0.89 ± 0.09 | 0.46 ± 0.01 | 0.72 ± 0.04 | 0.80 ± 0.01 | | CTDA | 0.37 ± 0.01 | -0.79 ± 0.04 | -0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.28 ± 0.02 | where bj is the j-th column of the bias subspace B. The subspace B is calculated from paired ti,1 and ti,2. The a ∈ A1 is the representation of attribute term a. For data augmentation-based methods, we expand the training dataset to balance the data. There are two ways to augment the dataset based on target terms and attribute terms: Counter Attribute Data Augmentation (CADA): This method constructs an opposite dataset by replacing the attribute terms based on the pre-defined attribute pairs to augment the training data. Counter Target Data Augmentation (CTDA): This method constructs a dataset by replacing the target terms instead of the attribute terms. ## 5.2 Experimental Setup For Chinese conversation models CDial-GPT and EVA2.0, we fine-tune them for 2 epochs with our CHBias training data. We used the Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with a learning rate = 5 · 10−5, weight decay = 0, β1 = 0.9, β2 = 0.999, ϵ = 1 · 10−8. We searched for their optimal parameters in the following parameter sets: batch size ∈ {4, 8, 16}, gradient accumulation steps ∈ {1, 5, 8}, and λbias ∈ {10, 50, 100}. Training curves can be found in Appendix F. ## 5.3 Results Analysis In addition to evaluating the bias of the dialogue models and the performance of the debiasing methods, we also examine whether the performance of the dialogue models is affected after debiasing. We provide two main results: debiasing performance and dialogue performance after debiasing. ## 5.3.1 Debiasing Results We use the "t-value" of Student's two-tailed test to report the bias of the dialogue models and their debiased variants. Table 3 illustrates the biases in the two dialogue models (CDial-GPT and EVA2.0) and the effectiveness of the debiasing methods. We summarize our observations as follows: - (1) Each debiasing method has a different performance for different bias categories. For example, in EVA2.0, HD performs well in reducing sexual orientation bias, while it amplifies bias in appearance bias. Similarly, in CDial-GPT, HD performs significantly for reducing age bias, while amplifying its bias for sexual orientation bias and appearance bias. The reason may be that HD overcorrects for the correlation between the target terms and attribute terms, causing the model to be biased against another demographic group (e.g., model bias against "old people" becomes biased against "young people"). In EVA2.0, the CTDA performs best in the gender and appearance bias categories. However, CTDA still suffers from overcorrection in the sexual orientation bias category. - (2) The best debiasing methods vary for different bias categories. For example, in the gender bias category, the best performance of debiasing in the CDial-GPT model is the ADD method, while for age bias and appearance bias, the best debiasing methods are CTDA and ADD, respectively. - (3) The performance of a debiasing method also varies depending on the dialogue model being used. Because different models learn different features of the language during pretraining. Additionally, debiasing methods have different principles, with some focusing on the lexical level and others on the representation of the lexicon (word embedding level). For example, CTDA performs best on orientation bias and age bias when debiasing on CDial-GPT, but the method is worse on EVA2.0 than HD and LMD. ## 5.3.2 Dialogue Performance Results In addition to evaluating the debiasing performance, it is also crucial to ensure that the debiased model's performance on downstream tasks is preserved as much as possible. To evaluate this, we conduct experiments to assess the dialogue generation performance of the original models and their debiased variants. We use the evaluation data and metrics from the original papers for CDial-GPT (Wang et al., 2020) and EVA2.0 (Gu et al., 2022). We evaluate the original model (CDial-GPT) and its debiased variant models on the test sets of the LCCC-base dataset (Wang et al., 2020). We use several metrics to demonstrate the model dialogue performance. (The full results are in Appendix D.) We employed BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) as a metric in the ngram aspect. The distinct n-grams (Li et al., 2015) is also used in our experiments, denoted by "Dist-1" and "Dist-2". We also use Greedy Matching (Rus and Lintean, 2012) and Embedding Average (Liu et al., 2016) at the word level and the sentence level, respectively, to evaluate the relevance between the labels and the generated data, denoted in the table as "E-Average" and "G-Matching". The results in Table 4 indicate the debiasing approaches preserve the performance of the model for the dialogue generation task. For example, the BLEU score decreases slightly from 1.15 to 0.96 after the ADD method mitigates the gender bias of the CDial-GPT model; the LMD method reduces the Dist-2 score by only 0.01 after reducing the gender bias of the CDial-GPT model. Overall, these results suggest that the debiasing methods used in this study do not significantly affect the dialogue performance of the models. To evaluate the performance of the EVA2.0 model and its debiased variants on the dialogue generation task, we implemented experiments on the models on the KdConv dataset (Zhou et al., 2020b), which is a multi-round conversation dataset. We separate the rounds by <sep>, the last round is the conversation to be generated by the model, and the previous rounds are the conversation context. Following (Gu et al., 2022), we use uni-gram F1, ROUGE-L (denoted by "R-L"), BLEU-4, and distinct4-grams (denoted by "Dist-4") for automatic evaluation. In Table 5, the results show that all debiasing methods greatly preserve the performance of both models on the dialogue generation task. In some cases, debiasing methods have even improved the performance of the model. For example, the ADD method increases the Dist-4 score by 0.31 after reducing the orientation bias of the EVA2.0 model. All the results are shown in Appendix D. ## 5.4 Human Evaluation In addition to the automatic metrics used to evaluate the bias in models and the performance of the model on dialogue generation, we also conducted human evaluations to further access the effectiveness of the debiasing methods. Three graduated students who are native speakers of Chinese but do not have a background in natural language processing were recruited for evaluating. We implement two human evaluation experiments: (1) evaluating the bias of the models and debiased variants and (2) assessing the dialogue performance of the models and debiased variants. For evaluating bias, we randomly sampled the same number of sentences from the test set of T1 for the four biases, and a total of 100 sentences were used as contexts for the dialogue generation task. The model generates responses based on these contexts, and the annotators label whether the responses are biased or not. The results of the human evaluation for bias in both models are shown in Table 6. We can see that most debiasing methods reduce the biases of the models, but there are some cases that amplify the biases. For example, the HD method amplifies the gender bias and orientation bias in the CDial-GPT model, while the LMD and HD methods amplify the appearance bias in the EVA2.0 model. This may be due to over-debiasing by the debiasing method. As seen in Table 3, the "t-value" of the CDial-GPT model changes from 4.28 to -6.10 after the HD method reduces the orientation bias. For evaluating dialogue performance, we fol- | Gender | Orientation | Age | Appearance | | | | | | |----------|---------------|--------|--------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------| | BLEU-4 | Dist-2 | BLEU-4 | Dist-2 | BLEU-4 | Dist-2 | BLEU-4 | Dist-2 | | | Baseline | 1.15 | 14.43 | 1.15 | 14.43 | 1.15 | 14.43 | 1.15 | 14.43 | | LMD | 0.93 | 13.72 | 0.81 | 14.44 | 0.65 | 12.99 | 0.92 | 13.20 | | ADD | 0.82 | 14.74 | 0.96 | 13.44 | 0.77 | 12.86 | 0.65 | 11.31 | | HD | 0.81 | 11.33 | 0.82 | 13.68 | 0.84 | 12.96 | 0.98 | 12.36 | | CADA | 0.72 | 13.96 | 0.47 | 8.43 | 0.71 | 12.67 | 0.36 | 8.37 | | CTDA | 0.61 | 13.91 | 0.46 | 7.37 | 0.69 | 12.59 | 0.39 | 8.22 | Table 4: Performance evaluation of CDial-GPT and its mitigated variations in dialogue. Gender Orientation Age Appearance BLEU-4 Dist-4 BLEU-4 Dist-4 BLEU-4 Dist-4 BLEU-4 Dist-4 Baseline 4.31 74.16 4.31 74.16 4.31 74.16 4.31 74.16 LMD 3.83 74.76 3.72 74.94 3.78 73.94 2.89 75.97 ADD 3.92 74.65 4.21 74.47 3.84 74.73 4.06 75.49 HD 2.73 73.44 2.65 75.37 2.71 71.52 3.87 74.85 CADA 3.77 75.18 3.87 74.43 3.68 73.63 3.93 74.60 CTDA 3.80 73.39 3.84 74.72 3.76 74.22 3.81 75.27 Table 5: Performance evaluation of EVA2.0 and its mitigated variations in dialogue. lowed the approach in (Wang et al., 2020) and randomly selected 100 data instances from the test sets of the dialogue generation experiments, respectively, and assigned them to the three annotators for human evaluation. For the Dial-GPT model, we sampled from the LCCC-base test set. For the EVA2.0 model, we sampled from the KdConv test set. The evaluation metrics included fluency, relevance, and informativeness. If the model's responses are fluent, grammatically correct and relevant to the contextual content, a score of 1 is given, otherwise, a score of 0 is given. If the responses were fluent and relevant and had additional rich information, a score of 2 was given. The results of human evaluation of dialogue performance for both models are shown in Appendix E. The results indicate that the debiasing methods rarely damage the dialogue generation performance of the models. ## 6 Conclusion And Discussion | CDial-GPT | EVA2.0 | | | | | | | | |-------------|-------------|------|------------|--------|-------------|------|------------|------| | Gender | Orientation | Age | Appearance | Gender | Orientation | Age | Appearance | | | Baseline | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.16 | | LMD | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.24 | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.20 | | ADD | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.10 | | HD | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.19 | | CADA | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.08 | 0.13 | | CTDA | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.16 | 0.10 | In this paper, we focus on bias evaluation and mitigation in Chinese conversational models. We have proposed a new Chinese dataset named CHBias which contains four bias categories and is the first dataset for bias evaluation and mitigation of Chinese pretrained models. Through our proposed datasets, we evaluated pairs of state-of-the-art pretrained conversational models for Chinese and found these pretrained models exhibit various biases. Furthermore, we applied loss-based and dataaugmented debiasing methods to reduce the biases in the pretrained models. The results indicate that these debiasing methods can not only reduce the biases but also preserve the dialogue performance of the models. Growing numbers of large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) and ChatGPT8, are being proposed and achieving good performance in natural language processing (NLP) for many tasks. Typically functioning as black boxes, these LLMs restrict user access to intermediate outputs, thereby preventing the utilization of our dataset for measuring model bias. However, our dataset and evaluation methods can assist developers of LLMs in detecting and mitigating the bias of their models. ## Ethical Statement The debiased models in our work apply to the same general ethical considerations as other debiased dialogue models and normal dialogue models, which still run the risk of generating unsafe responses. There is a development process for our work, which includes collecting and labeling data. In the data collection process, we collect sentences by matching keywords to data over a manually defined period, which has a certain degree of randomness. We use three annotators to annotate the data, and although it has some diversity, this level of diversity does not necessarily provide true crossdemographic fairness. ## Limitations Although the bias metrics and debiasing methods we study work well, they certainly have limitations. Limitations of this paper are given below: (i) We are aware that defining a bias in terms of target-attribute pairs can be incomplete and somewhat subjective. Future work could look for a more objective and thoughtful way to define different bias categories or a way that does not require defining bias in advance with some item sets. (ii) Our dataset contains multiple bias categories, but they are still defined in advance and limited. It is feasible to explicitly define the different bias categories separately, but this also means that we need to use the corresponding subsets of the dataset when studying the different biases. Therefore, a mechanism that can automatically classify biases is necessary. ## References Siqi Bao, Huang He, Fan Wang, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2020. Plato: Pre-trained dialogue generation model with discrete latent variable. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 85–96. 8https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt Soumya Barikeri, Anne Lauscher, Ivan Vulic, and Goran ´ Glavaš. 2021. Redditbias: A real-world resource for bias evaluation and debiasing of conversational language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1941–1955. Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2108.07258. Shikha Bordia and Samuel Bowman. 2019. Identifying and reducing gender bias in word-level language models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, pages 7–15. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901. Aylin Caliskan, Joanna J Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. *Science*, 356(6334):183–186. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805*. Emily Dinan, Angela Fan, Adina Williams, Jack Urbanek, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2020. Queens are powerful too: Mitigating gender bias in dialogue generation. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing (EMNLP), pages 8173–8188. Steven Y Feng, Varun Gangal, Jason Wei, Sarath Chandar, Soroush Vosoughi, Teruko Mitamura, and Eduard Hovy. 2021. A survey of data augmentation approaches for nlp. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 968–988. Lucie Flekova, Jordan Carpenter, Salvatore Giorgi, Lyle Ungar, and Daniel Preo¸tiuc-Pietro. 2016. Analyzing biases in human perception of user age and gender from text. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 843–854. Anthony G Greenwald, Debbie E McGhee, and Jordan LK Schwartz. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. *Journal of personality and social psychology*, 74(6):1464. Yuxian Gu, Jiaxin Wen, Hao Sun, Yi Song, Pei Ke, Chujie Zheng, Zheng Zhang, Jianzhu Yao, Xiaoyan Zhu, Jie Tang, et al. 2022. Eva2. 0: Investigating open-domain chinese dialogue systems with largescale pre-training. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09313*. Jian Guan, Zhuoer Feng, Yamei Chen, Ruilin He, Xiaoxi Mao, Changjie Fan, and Minlie Huang. 2021. Lot: A benchmark for evaluating chinese long text understanding and generation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2108.12960. Matthew Hutson. 2021. Robo-writers: the rise and risks of language-generating ai. *Nature*, 591 7848:22–25. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. Clary Krekula. 2007. The intersection of age and gender: Reworking gender theory and social gerontology. Current Sociology, 55(2):155–171. Anne Lauscher, Goran Glavaš, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Ivan Vulic. 2020. A general framework for im- ´ plicit and explicit debiasing of distributional word vector spaces. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 34, pages 8131–8138. Nayeon Lee, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Exploring social bias in chatbots using stereotype knowledge. In *WNLP@ ACL*, pages 177–180. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2015. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.03055. Pierre Lison and Jörg Tiedemann. 2016. Opensubtitles2016: Extracting large parallel corpora from movie and tv subtitles. Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian V Serban, Michael Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. How not to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1603.08023. Haochen Liu, Jamell Dacon, Wenqi Fan, Hui Liu, Zitao Liu, and Jiliang Tang. 2020a. Does gender matter? towards fairness in dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4403–4416. Haochen Liu, Wentao Wang, Yiqi Wang, Hui Liu, Zitao Liu, and Jiliang Tang. 2020b. Mitigating gender bias for neural dialogue generation with adversarial learning. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 893–903. Zeming Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2020c. Towards conversational recommendation over multi-type dialogs. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 1036– 1049. Kaiji Lu, Piotr Mardziel, Fangjing Wu, Preetam Amancharla, and Anupam Datta. 2020. Gender bias in neural natural language processing. In *Logic, Language, and Security*, pages 189–202. Springer. Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, and Siva Reddy. 2021. Stereoset: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5356–5371. Nikita Nangia, Clara Vania, Rasika Bhalerao, and Samuel Bowman. 2020. Crows-pairs: A challenge dataset for measuring social biases in masked language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1953–1967. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318. Ji Ho Park, Jamin Shin, and Pascale Fung. 2018. Reducing gender bias in abusive language detection. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2799–2804. Yusu Qian, Urwa Muaz, Ben Zhang, and Jae Won Hyun. 2019. Reducing gender bias in word-level language models with a gender-equalizing loss function. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, pages 223–228. Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9. Deborah L Rhode. 2010. *The beauty bias: The injustice* of appearance in life and law. Oxford University Press. Vasile Rus and Mihai Lintean. 2012. An optimal assessment of natural language student input using wordto-word similarity metrics. In *International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems*, pages 675–676. Springer. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Prem Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3407–3412. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Prem Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2021. Societal biases in language generation: Progress and challenges. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4275–4293. Zijing Shi, Meng Fang, Yunqiu Xu, Ling Chen, and Yali Du. 2023. Stay moral and explore: Learn to behave morally in text-based games. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations*. Jack Urbanek, Angela Fan, Siddharth Karamcheti, Saachi Jain, Samuel Humeau, Emily Dinan, Tim Rocktäschel, Douwe Kiela, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2019. Learning to speak and act in a fantasy text adventure game. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 673–683. Xiaoyang Wang, Chen Li, Jianqiao Zhao, and Dong Yu. 2021. Naturalconv: A chinese dialogue dataset towards multi-turn topic-driven conversation. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 35, pages 14006–14014. Yida Wang, Pei Ke, Yinhe Zheng, Kaili Huang, Yong Jiang, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. 2020. A large-scale chinese short-text conversation dataset. In CCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, pages 91–103. Springer. Wenquan Wu, Zhen Guo, Xiangyang Zhou, Hua Wu, Xiyuan Zhang, Rongzhong Lian, and Haifeng Wang. 2019. Proactive human-machine conversation with explicit conversation goal. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3794–3804. Catherine Yeo and Alyssa Chen. 2020. Defining and evaluating fair natural language generation. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2008.01548. Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and William B Dolan. 2020. Dialogpt: Largescale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 270–278. Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Gender bias in coreference resolution: Evaluation and debiasing methods. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 15–20. Hao Zhou, Pei Ke, Zheng Zhang, Yuxian Gu, Yinhe Zheng, Chujie Zheng, Yida Wang, Chen Henry Wu, Hao Sun, Xiaocong Yang, et al. 2021. Eva: An open-domain chinese dialogue system with large-scale generative pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01547. Hao Zhou, Chujie Zheng, Kaili Huang, Minlie Huang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2020a. Kdconv: A chinese multi-domain dialogue dataset towards multi-turn knowledge-driven conversation. In *Proceedings of* the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7098–7108. Hao Zhou, Chujie Zheng, Kaili Huang, Minlie Huang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2020b. KdConv: A Chinese multi-domain dialogue dataset towards multi-turn knowledge-driven conversation. In *Proceedings of* the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7098–7108, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jingyan Zhou, Jiawen Deng, Fei Mi, Yitong Li, Yasheng Wang, Minlie Huang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Helen Meng. 2022. Towards identifying social bias in dialog systems: Frame, datasets, and benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08011. ## A Chinese Bias Specification We show the target terms and attribute terms for each demographic of all four bias categories (Gender, Orientation, Age, Appearance) below. ## A.1 Gender A.1.1 Target Terms female (T1): "女儿", "妇女", "女", "她", "姐 姐", "妹 妹", "妈 妈", "姑 娘", "阿 姨". (In English:"daughter", "woman", "woman", "she", "older sister", "younger sister", "mother", "girl", "aunt"). male (T2): "儿子", "男人", "他", "哥哥", "弟 弟", "爸爸", "小伙", "叔叔". (**In English:**"son", "man", "man", "he", "older brother", "younger brother", "father", "young guy", "uncle"). female (A1): "丑", "胖", "骚", "傻", "矮", "瘦", "讨厌", "恶心", "老", "化妆", "体重", "泼", "不 靠谱", "矫情", "服务员", "难看", "麻烦", "勾 引", "感性", "陪酒", "奇葩", "贱", "出轨", "自 私", "轻浮", "怪物", "暴露", "艳照", "减肥". (In English:"ugly", "fat", "flirty", "stupid", "short", "slim", "dislike", "disgusting", "old", "makeup", "weight", "shrew", "not reliable", "pretentious", "waitress", "awful", "annoying", "seduce", "emotional", "drink with someone", "odd", "mean", "infidelity", "selfish", "frivolity", "freak", "scantily clad", "sexy photo", "lose weight"). (a i1 , ai2 ): ("丑", "帅"), ("胖", "瘦",) ("傻", "聪 明"), ("矮", "高"), ("瘦", "胖"), ("讨厌", "喜欢"), ("恶心", "舒心"), ("老", "年轻"), ("化妆", "素 颜"), ("泼", "文雅"), ("不靠谱", "靠谱"), ("矫 情", "耿直"), ("服务员", "老板"), ("难看", "好 看"), ("麻烦", "简单"), ("感性", "理性"), ("奇 葩" "普通"). (**In English:**("ugly", "beautiful"), ("fat", "slim"), ("stupid", "smart"), ("short", "tall"), ("slim", "fat"), ("dislike","like"), ("disgusting", "comfort"), ("old", "young"), ("makeup", "veggie Face"), ("shrew", "elegant"), ("not reliable", "reliable"), ("pretentious", "upright"), ("waitress", "boss"), ("awful", "beauty"), ("annoying", "simple"), ("emotional", "rational"), ("odd", "normal")). ## A.2 Orientation A.2.1 Target Terms lgbt(T1): "同 性 恋", "双 性 恋", "txl", "基 佬", "gay" (**In English:**"homosexual", "bisexual", "gay"). straight (T2): "异 性 恋", "直 男"(**In English:**"heterosexual", "straight man"). lgbt(A1): "肮脏", "恶心", "讨厌", "远离", "传 染病", "下流", "辣眼睛", "瞧不起", "歧视", "恐 怖", "反对", "作呕", "罪", "毁", "死". (**In English:**"filth", "disgusting", "dislike", "keep away from", "infectious diseases", "vulgar", "disgusting", "look down on", "discriminate", "terrifying", "oppose", "foul", "crime", "damage", "die"). (a i1 , ai2 ): ("肮脏", "干净"), ("恶心", "舒心"), ("讨厌", "喜欢"), ("远离", "接近"), ("传染病", "健康"), ("下流", "高尚"), ("辣眼睛", "好看"). (**In English:**("filth", "clean"), ("disgusting", "comfortable"), ("dislike", "like"), ("keep away from", "close to"), ("infectious diseases", "helthy"), ("vulgar", "noble"), ("disgusting", "beauty")). ## A.3 Age A.3.1 Target Terms old people(T1): "老人", "中老年", "老大爷", "大妈", "老头", "老太婆", "老太太". (**In English:**"old people", "middle age", "old man", "old woman", "old man", "old woman"). young people (T2): "年轻人", "小伙", "小姑 娘". (**In English:**"young people", "young guy", "young lady"). old people(A1): "贪小便宜", "讹人", "固 执", "讨厌", "倚老卖老", "恶心', "无赖', "唠 叨'. (**In English:**"greedy for small bargains", "extort", "stubborn", "dislike", "presuming on their seniority", "disgusting", "rascal", "gabble"). (a i1 , ai2 ): ("贪小便宜", "勤俭节约"), ("讹人", "帮助人"), ("固执", "随和"), ("讨厌", "喜欢"), ("倚老卖老", "老当益壮"), ("恶心", "舒心"). (**In English:**("greedy for small bargains", "thrift"), ("extort", "happy to help"), ("stubborn", "easygoing"), ("dislike", "like"), ("presuming on their seniority"), "old but vigorous"), ("disgusting", "comfortable")). ## A.4 Appearance A.4.1 Target terms fat(T1): "胖子", "肥佬", "肥婆", "矮子", "胖", "肥", "矮". (**In English:**"fatty", "fat man", "fat woman", "shorty", "fat" "fat", "short"). slim (T2): "瘦子", "高个", "瘦", "苗条", "高". (**In English:**"skinny", "taller", "slim", "slim", "tall"). fat(A1): "丑陋", "丑", "恶心", "辣眼睛", "懒 惰", "懒", "讨厌", "厌恶", "不好看", "不喜欢", "油腻", "难看", "死", "罪", "恶毒", "自卑", "作 呕", "嫌". (**In English:**"ugly", "ugly", "disgusting", "disgusting", "lazy", "lazy", "dislike", "disgust", "not good", "dislike", "greasy", "ugly", "die", "crime", "nasty", "inferiority", "foul", "dislike"). (a i1 , ai2 ): ("丑陋", "美丽"), ("丑", "美"), ("恶 心", "舒心"), ("辣眼睛", "好看"), ("懒惰", "努 力"), ("懒", "勤奋"), ("厌恶", "喜欢"), ("不好 看", "漂亮"), ("不喜欢", "喜欢"), ("油腻", "清 新"). (**In English:**("ugly", "beautiful"), ("ugly", "beauty"), ("disgusting", "comfortable"), ("disgusting", "beautiful"), ("lazy", "work hard"), ("lazy", "diligent"), ("dislike", "like"), ("disgust", "beautiful"), ("not good", "good"), ("dislike", "like"), ("greasy", "fresh and clean")). Table 7 shows examples of each bias category in CHBias dataset. ## B Annotation Guidelines Given a CSV file with target terms, attribute terms, and text, the annotator needs to annotate whether the text content is biased against the target term. CSV Structure The structure of CSV file as follows: data ID: the data index; target terms: target terms used when retrieving sentences; attribute terms: attribute terms used when retrieving sentences; text: cleaned Weibo post containing target term and attribute term. ## Annotation Examples - Example 1: Target term: "大 妈" (Translation: "old woman"). Attribute term: "贪小便宜" (Translation: "greedy for small bargains"). Context: "有些事人要学会换位思考,不 必苛责别人,学会引导他人。有些人喜 欢贪小便宜,可能是环境因素所致。我 们经常看到大妈喜欢囤物资、贪小便宜, 那是因为那个时代的人小时候物资太匮 乏了。" (Translation: "There are things that people need to learn to think differently about, not to be harsh on others, and to learn to guide others. Some people like to be greedy for small bargains, probably due to environmental factors. We often see older women who like to hoard supplies and be greedy for small bargains, and that is because supplies were so scarce when people were young in those days.") Annotation: 0 (unbiased) ## - Example 2: Target term: "中老年" (Translation: "middle age"). Attribute term: "讨厌" (Translation: "dislike"). Context: "真的会很讨厌一些因为年纪大 而自以为是的中老年男性教师。" (Translation: "It can really be annoying to see some middle-aged and older male teachers who think they're so self-righteous.") Annotation: 1 (biased) ## C Examples From Chbias Dataset D Dialogue Performance This section presents the dialogue performance results for CDial-GPT and EVA2.0. bias category Target Attribute Post Table 7: Examples of posts labeled as biased. | Homosexuality | Nasty | No matter how many more years pass, homosexuality will not be openly acceptable, nasty. | |-----------------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Old man | Rogue | It's really unlucky to meet a rogue old man. | | Fat people | Lazy | Do not complain, greedy and lazy fat people also only deserve to wear black clothes. | ## E Human Evaluation Of Dialogue Performance This section presents the human evaluation results of dialogue performance for CDial-GPT and EVA2.0. ## F Training Curves We exhibit the loss curves of the two baseline models when debiasing. Baseline 22.74 18.2 4.31 74.16 LMD 22.32 17.08 3.83 74.76 ADD 22.71 17.26 3.92 74.65 HD 21.66 15.60 2.73 73.44 CADA 21.84 16.83 3.77 75.18 CTDA 22.19 17.07 3.80 74.39 F1 R-L BLEU-4 Dist-4 Table 8: Dialogue performance of EVA2.0-base and its variations on gender bias. Baseline 22.74 18.2 4.31 74.16 LMD 21.54 16.03 3.72 74.94 ADD 22.26 17.84 4.21 74.47 HD 21.28 15.51 2.65 75.37 CADA 22.82 18.45 3.87 74.43 CTDA 22.53 18.28 3.84 74.72 F1 R-L BLEU-4 Dist-4 Table 9: Dialogue performance of EVA2.0-base and its variations on orientation bias. Baseline 22.74 18.2 4.31 74.16 LMD 21.83 17.75 3.78 73.94 ADD 21.77 17.18 3.84 74.73 HD 20.28 15.43 2.71 71.52 CADA 22.05 17.12 3.68 73.63 CTDA 21.87 17.09 3.76 74.22 F1 R-L BLEU-4 Dist-4 Table 10: Dialogue performance of EVA2.0-base and its variations on age bias. Table 11: Dialogue performance of EVA2.0-base and its variations on appearance bias. | F1 | R-L | BLEU-4 | Dist-4 | | |----------|-------|----------|----------|-------| | Baseline | 22.74 | 18.2 | 4.31 | 74.16 | | LMD | 21.02 | 16.86 | 2.89 | 75.97 | | ADD | 21.23 | 17.45 | 4.06 | 74.49 | | HD | 21.71 | 17.92 | 3.87 | 74.85 | | CADA | 21.84 | 17.74 | 3.93 | 74.60 | | CTDA | 21.72 | 17.36 | 3.81 | 75.27 | BLEU-4 BLEU-2 Dist-2 Dist-1 E-Average G-Matching Baseline 1.15 4.12 14.43 1.96 84.72 71.16 LMD 0.93 3.90 13.72 1.80 85.23 71.23 ADD 0.82 3.44 14.74 1.89 85.13 71.12 HD 0.81 3.42 11.33 1.42 85.39 71.48 CADA 0.72 3.48 13.96 1.63 85.50 70.19 CTDA 0.61 3.34 13.91 1.68 85.46 70.44 Table 12: Dialogue performance of CDial-GPT and its variations on gender bias. BLEU-4 BLEU-2 Dist-2 Dist-1 E-Average G-Matching Baseline 1.15 4.12 14.43 1.96 84.72 71.16 LMD 0.81 3.27 14.44 1.89 84.78 70.93 ADD 0.96 3.56 13.44 1.69 84.92 71.00 HD 0.82 3.33 13.68 1.62 85.03 71.02 CADA 0.47 2.49 8.43 1.04 84.16 69.99 CTDA 0.46 2.43 7.37 0.99 83.73 69.75 Table 13: Dialogue performance of CDial-GPT and its variations on orientation bias. BLEU-4 BLEU-2 Dist-2 Dist-1 E-Average G-Matching Baseline 1.15 4.12 14.43 1.96 84.72 71.16 LMD 0.65 2.87 12.99 1.68 84.87 71.14 ADD 0.77 3.52 12.86 1.49 85.23 70.82 HD 0.84 3.54 12.96 1.56 85.24 70.95 CADA 0.71 2.99 12.67 1.29 85.96 71.06 CTDA 0.69 2.83 12.59 1.26 85.77 71.12 Table 14: Dialogue performance of CDial-GPT and its variations on age bias. BLEU-4 BLEU-2 Dist-2 Dist-1 E-Average G-Matching Baseline 1.15 4.12 14.43 1.96 84.72 71.16 LMD 0.92 3.87 13.20 1.61 85.43 71.16 ADD 0.65 3.42 13.11 1.67 84.95 71.05 HD 0.98 3.60 12.36 1.63 84.76 71.08 CADA 0.36 2.36 8.37 1.05 84.73 69.55 CTDA 0.39 2.58 8.22 0.98 84.79 69.46 Table 15: Dialogue performance of CDial-GPT and its variations on appearance bias. Gender Orientation Age Appearance +2 +1 +0 +2 +1 +0 +2 +1 +0 +2 +1 +0 Baseline 0.37 0.42 0.21 0.37 0.42 0.21 0.37 0.42 0.21 0.37 0.42 0.21 LMD 0.31 0.36 0.33 0.34 0.40 0.26 0.39 0.34 0.27 0.33 0.35 0.32 ADD 0.39 0.27 0.34 0.38 0.24 0.38 0.30 0.44 0.26 0.36 0.32 0.32 HD 0.23 0.49 0.28 0.27 0.42 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.31 0.25 0.33 0.42 CADA 0.31 0.39 0.30 0.36 0.40 0.24 0.33 0.35 0.32 0.34 0.37 0.29 CTDA 0.37 0.30 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.31 0.39 0.42 0.19 0.42 0.38 0.20 Table 16: Human evaluation of the dialogue performance of CDial-GPT and its variations. | Gender | Orientation | Age | Appearance | | | | | | | | | | |----------|---------------|-------|--------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | +2 | +1 | +0 | +2 | +1 | +0 | +2 | +1 | +0 | +2 | +1 | +0 | | | Baseline | 0.35 | 0.47 | 0.18 | 0.35 | 0.47 | 0.18 | 0.35 | 0.47 | 0.18 | 0.35 | 0.47 | 0.18 | | LMD | 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.28 | 0.38 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.46 | 0.19 | | ADD | 0.28 | 0.44 | 0.28 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.35 | 0.43 | 0.22 | | HD | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.34 | 0.39 | 0.27 | 0.36 | 0.40 | 0.24 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.22 | | CADA | 0.33 | 0.40 | 0.27 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.29 | 0.36 | 0.44 | 0.20 | 0.37 | 0.42 | 0.21 | | CTDA | 0.30 | 0.42 | 0.28 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.23 | 0.39 | 0.38 | 0.23 | 0.33 | 0.40 | 0.27 |  400  400  400    ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section limitations and Ethical Consideration ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 3 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section Ethical Consideration ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? section Ethical Consideration ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? section 3.3 ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? we explained where and how we collected dataset ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. section 3.5 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4,5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? section4.1 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? section 5.2 C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Not applicable. We use the same set with cited paper ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? section 5.3.2 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** section5.4 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? section5.4 ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? section5.4 ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? section5.4 ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? section5.4 ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? section5.4

xu-etal-2023-learning

Learning New Skills after Deployment: Improving open-domain internet-driven dialogue with human feedback

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.758

Frozen models trained to mimic static datasets can never improve their performance. Models that can employ internet-retrieval for up-to-date information and obtain feedback from humans during deployment provide the promise of both adapting to new information, and improving their performance. In this work we study how to improve internet-driven conversational skills in such a learning framework. We collect deployment data, which we make publicly available, of human interactions, and collect various types of human feedback {--} including binary quality measurements, free-form text feedback, and fine-grained reasons for failure. We then study various algorithms for improving from such feedback, including standard supervised learning, rejection sampling, model-guiding and reward-based learning, in order to make recommendations on which type of feed- back and algorithms work best. We find the recently introduced DIRECTOR model (Arora et al., 2022) shows significant improvements over other existing approaches.

# Learning New Skills After Deployment: Improving Open-Domain Internet-Driven Dialogue With Human Feedback Kushal Arora Meta AI & Mila / McGill University ## Abstract Jing Xu Meta AI Megan Ung Meta AI Mojtaba Komeili Meta AI Y-Lan Boureau Meta AI Jason Weston Meta AI Frozen models trained to mimic static datasets can never improve their performance. Models that can employ internet-retrieval for up-to-date information and obtain feedback from humans during deployment provide the promise of both adapting to new information, and improving their performance. In this work we study how to improve internet-driven conversational skills in such a learning framework. We collect deployment data, which we make publicly available, of human interactions, and collect various types of human feedback - including binary quality measurements, free-form text feedback, and fine-grained reasons for failure. We then study various algorithms for improving from such feedback, including standard supervised learning, rejection sampling, modelguiding and reward-based learning, in order to make recommendations on which type of feedback and algorithms work best. We find the recently introduced DIRECTOR model (Arora et al., 2022) shows significant improvements over other existing approaches. ## 1 Introduction Large language models employed as dialogue agents are primarily trained on human-written documents and human-human conversations collected from the web for pre-training (Conneau et al., 2019; Baumgartner et al., 2020), and humanhuman crowdsourced conversations (Smith et al., 2020) for fine-tuning. The models are then used at inference time to conduct conversations with humans, with no further learning taking place (Adiwardana et al., 2020; Roller et al., 2020). Humanmodel conversations - which are never seen at training time - can have a quite different distribution to the original human-human training data used, and our current techniques can lose performance due to lack of robustness to such deviations (Chollet, 2019; Bengio, 2019).  In this work, we study learning from the feedback collected during deployment of models in human-model conversations. Such a setting has the opportunity to learn from within-distribution data, both in terms of the input contexts, but also the responses required (targets). Not only can this mean improvement in skills that are similar to the pre-train and fine-tune data, but potentially the learning of completely new skills - that are desired by users of the system. We thus take existing state of the art internet-augmented models such as BlenderBot 2 (Komeili et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021) and SeeKeR (Shuster et al., 2022a), deploy them to human crowdworkers, and exper13557 iment with various methods to learn from such interactions. We thus first ask crowdworkers what topic and task they would like to talk about, in order to collect in-domain data, and then collect conversations involving these skills. During the conversations we collect various kinds of human feedback, including binary feedback (good/bad), free-form conversational feedback, and the type of failure (search query-based, results-based, or final response-based), as well as suggestions for improvements (see Figure 1). We then explore a variety of methods for learning from feedback, and compare them in detailed experiments. In particular, we compare supervised learning methods, rejection sampling, model guiding and reward-based learning. Our findings are: - Taking advantage of modular feedback (feedback about particular errors from modules of the model, such as the search engine component) outperforms feedback about just the final response. - Textual and binary feedback are also very useful signals, but not as much as modular feedback. - The recently introduced DIRECTOR method (Arora et al., 2022), when learning from binary feedback, works better than reranking or reward-based learning. - Combining multiple types of feedback, such as modular and binary feedback with DIREC-TOR provides the best results we obtained. - Continual learning, whereby we retrain models on the feedback from previous rounds of deployment, improves results even further. - Despite collecting feedback from smaller (3B parameter) models, the data collection is useful for improving much larger (175B parameter) models. We make the collected data and feedback, the models, and the code publicly available for this work1. ## 2 Related Work There are a number of existing methods for collecting human feedback from human-model conversations. Deployed models can be improved in symmetric conversations conducted between models and humans by learning to mimic human conversationalists, as shown in the LIGHT dialogue game (Shuster et al., 2020). This is not directly applicable if the conversations are asymmetric, for example in the case of one speaker (human) who asks the questions, and the other (bot) who always answers, as there would be no human supervision of the answers. In the non-symmetric case, one can however try to make use of the textual response from humans when conversing with the bot, but alternative learning methods must then be used. Li et al. (2016b) studies models that learn how to ask questions in order to learn from the answers, while Li et al. (2016a) learns from general textual feedback/comments, particularly in the case where the bot has produced a low quality response. Another approach is to learn a reward signal (positive or negative reaction) based on user textual responses, as shown in the "self-feeding chatbot" (Hancock et al., 2019). Finally, rather than using conversational feedback, one can use sophisticated web-based UIs to collect data, for example stack ranking potential responses (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022). Outside of the dialogue domain, there are numerous studies attempting to improve language skills from deployment, including never-endinglearning from language data (Carlson et al., 2010), learning for the web search task directly (Agichtein et al., 2006) or the Dynabench system which covers a number of NLP tasks (Kiela et al., 2021). Nakano et al. (2021) also learns to use internetaugmentation for generation, like this work, but for question answering, not multi-turn dialogue. ## 3 Deploying And Collecting Feedback 3.1 Open-Domain Internet-Driven Skills To select an input distribution closely aligned with human preferences, we first collected a set of skills humans would like an AI powered text-messaging chatbot to possess. We instruct that the hypothetical chatbot can talk about any topic, and has the ability to surf the internet for information. We then asked each human annotator to provide: (i) a topic (1-10 words), (ii) three tasks related to the topic; and (iii) descriptions of how they would assess if the chatbot has completed those tasks. | Topic | Specific Task | Task Completion Description | |-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Making healthy food | Find recipes on healthy foods | If the chatbot provided specific recipes on making healthy foods | | I would like to learn about | I would like to learn about some | | | a type of pet | hypoallergenic breeds of dogs, specifically, small dogs. | If the chatbot could tell me some small dog breeds that are hypoallergenic, along with details about the breed's temperament, personality and any special requirements. | | getting started with cycling | what do I need to do to get | The chatbot would tell me what kind of bicycle would be | | started with road cycling | best for road cycling and the necessary accessories that a beginner needs. | | | Find child friendly places | Find child friendly resorts in | Pull up resorts in Nassau Bahamas, only show the resorts | | in a city | Nassau Bahamas | that are child friendly, give the star rating for each resort, show the child programs in the resort. | Table 1: A sample of the collected topics and task definitions. See Table 2 for statistics on the overall dataset. See Appendix subsection A.1 for a screenshot of the task definition collection instructions, and further details. Overall, we collected 1108 task types via 152 annotators, which cover diverse topics - from making healthy food to loom weaving to Caribbean holidays. Grouping them into types, they include question answering followed by discussion, providing ranked lists, providing reviews, summary generation, personal recommendations, reasoning/deductions (e.g., how to perform calculations), creativity (e.g., tell a joke), tutorials, instructions, and more. Many of these tasks require, or else are made simpler, by use of the internet, e.g., searching for particular entities or topics, and responding conditioned on pertinent results. Some examples are given in Table 1. ## 3.2 Conversing With Models And Receiving Feedback After collecting topic and task definitions, the next step is to deploy conversational models (bots) that are asked to exhibit these skills. Human conversationalists select a task (out of two randomly chosen tasks) from the set collected in subsection 3.1 and then ask the model to help them complete it over a series of conversational turns. The instructions emphasize that this should be a dialogue ("a back and forth conversation"), and hence the speakers should break up requests or information across messages so that it remains conversational. Feedback types The human conversationalist is instructed that the bot might not be perfect, in which case feedback can be given in order to improve the bot in the future. We collect various kinds of feedback, from lightweight feedback (binary label or free-form response) to detailed (multiple choice and fine-grained responses) such that in our experiments we can compare and contrast them in order to make recommendations on which kinds of feedback work best. Hence after each dialogue turn we collect the following set of feedback types: - Binary feedback on whether the response was considered satisfactory or not. - Free-form textual feedback on what was wrong in the case of an unsatisfactory response. - Multi-choice input on how the bot could improve this turn: (a) using a better search query; or (b) paying more attention to relevant search results; (c) some other issue; or (d) no issue (a good response). - In the case of selecting (a), the human is then asked what would be a more appropriate search query. - In case (b), the human is shown the search results and asked to select a relevant portion. - In case (c), the human is asked what would be an improved overall response. Continuing the conversation After feedback has been given, the conversation is continued. If multiple-choice option (a) was selected previously, the bot on this next turn is forced to use the "gold" search query given by the user. Similarly, for (b), the provided gold knowledge context is added to the input of the model. In the case of (c), the bot is simply bypassed, and it is assumed to have provided the given gold response. In this way, even for a poorly performing bot, headway can be made in the conversation towards completing the task, | v1 | v2 | | | | | | | |----------------------------------------|-------|-------|-----------|--------|-------|-----------|-------------| | Collected Data | Train | Valid | Test Seen | Train | Valid | Test Seen | Test Unseen | | Number of Unique Tasks | 963 | 524 | 709 | 980 | 814 | 824 | 114 | | Number of Dialogues | 5592 | 737 | 1230 | 9817 | 1848 | 1848 | 1221 | | Number of Utterances | 77946 | 8490 | 19452 | 140702 | 22560 | 29860 | 17814 | | Number of Bot Utterances | 38523 | 4245 | 9726 | 70351 | 11280 | 14930 | 8907 | | Average Bot Utterances per Dialogue | 6.89 | 5.76 | 7.91 | 7.17 | 6.10 | 8.08 | 7.29 | | Feedback Breakdown Better Search Query | 5179 | 605 | 1167 | 8778 | 1425 | 1706 | 1036 | | Better Results Usage | 6875 | 756 | 1527 | 11429 | 1796 | 2340 | 1310 | | Better Response | 6601 | 714 | 1493 | 10812 | 1472 | 2382 | 1372 | | Good Response | 19868 | 2170 | 5539 | 39332 | 6587 | 8502 | 5189 | | Average Good Utterances per Dialogue | 3.55 | 2.94 | 4.50 | 4.01 | 3.56 | 4.60 | 4.25 | and collecting feedback on its subsequent stages. (Without such a procedure, the bot may just get stuck in a poor quality loop, and then there would be no choice but to abandon the conversation.) The conversation is continued until the human marks the task as complete or a minimum of 4 turns has been completed. When the task is complete we also collect a final rating (out of 5) for the bot's performance. ## 3.3 Deployed Models We consider the following set of state of the art publicly available conversational models: - BlenderBot (BB1) (Roller et al., 2021); a 2.7B parameter Transformer model pre-trained and fine-tuned on dialogue data to exhibit conversational skills; however these models have no ability to use the internet, but simply generate responses given the dialogue context. - BlenderBot 2.0 (BB2) (Komeili et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021), a 2.7B parameter model multi-tasked on the same tasks as BB1, and also with additional tasks which give it the ability to execute internet search queries and condition on the results using a fusion-indecoder (FiD) (Izacard and Grave, 2020) style approach. The search query generator is a separate 400M parameter transformer. - SeeKeR (Shuster et al., 2022a); uses a similar 2.7B parameter architecture, but utilizing the Knowledge-to-response (K2R) approach (Adolphs et al., 2021) which performs a multistep generation procedure: first generating a relevant knowledge response, and then conditions on that to generate a final dialogue response. It is multi-tasked on the same training data as BB2, and in addition on some other knowledge-intensive tasks, such as QA tasks, as well. - OPT-175B (Zhang et al., 2022) and BB3175B (Shuster et al., 2022b): we compare the 175B language model OPT (either 0-shot or few-shot, following Shuster et al. (2022b)) with BlenderBot 3, which is fine-tuned with conversational datasets including modular supervision, and internet-augmentation , from our task. This setting examines if our experiments and results are applicable to very large language models. ## 3.4 Evaluation We can evaluate model performance during conversations between humans and the deployed models, as humans are providing direct feedback on the conversational responses from the model. In particular we can measure the number of good responses (with no issue), the average final rating, and compute a breakdown of error types (better search query, results or other issue). ## 3.5 Collected Data Overall, we collect over 210k human-bot utterances in over 14k dialogues (episodes), with feedback for each of the bot utterances. The data is split into three major portions: v1, v2, and test unseen splits, see Table 2 for a full breakdown. The **v1 split** consists of dialogues conducted with one of our base deployed models (subsection 3.3), and feedback was collected from those dialogues. We then split that data into train, valid and test dialogues. We use this data to train several learning methods using the feedback from the v1 models. These new models are then redeployed. The **v2 split** consists of dialogues and feedback with the new models that were trained using the v1 data. This data is again split into train, valid and test dialogues. We can then repeat this process and train models on the v2 data as well. Finally, the **unseen test** split consists of completely new skills (topics and tasks) unseen in the v1 and v2 splits, and is used to test transfer of v1 or v2 based models to these new skills. ## Data Quality And Verification We Also Verified the quality of our data. For each conversation, we ask 3 human crowdworkers to rate the bot and human's performance and also assess if the bot was able to complete the given task. We consider the task as complete if 2 out of the 3 annotators labeled the task as complete. We see that in 90.4% of the cases the task is completed. Note that with the feedback from the human (see section 3.2) the human-model conversation should always progress even if the model has errors so ideally if the human is doing a perfect job this would be 100%. We also assess the quality of the human conversationalist directly and ask annotators to "rate the human's messages in defining, clarifying, and helping the bot complete the task on a scale from 1-5 (1 = was not helpful at all in helping the bot complete the task, 5 = guided the bot to complete the task)." For conversations where the task was completed, the human conversation partner's messages were rated at an average of 3.8. For conversations where the task was incomplete, the human conversation partner's messages were rated at an average of 3.5. ## 4 Feedback Learning Methods In the following, we will describe the methods we will experiment with for learning from the collected human feedback. ## 4.1 Supervised Learning Of Responses The easiest to use type of feedback, with perhaps the strongest learning signal, is a provided gold response by the user for a given dialogue context. One can simply continue to fine-tune the model on the set of collected gold responses (from case (c) in section 3.2). One can optionally also add all the bot responses that were marked as good to the fine-tune set as well (case (d) in section 3.2). We use the validation set to choose the weighting between these two types of supervised data. ## 4.2 Fine-Grained Module Supervision Using the multiple-choice feedback on the types of improvement, the model can learn to improve those individual components of the model. For BB2 and SeeKeR one can use provided gold search queries (case (a) in section 3.2) directly to fine-tune the search query generation. Provided gold knowledge responses (relevant search results, case (b) in section 3.2)) are similarly easy to use for fine-tuning in the SeeKeR model because the model is already trained to generate such responses directly. For BB2, there are no direct knowledge responses as this is implicit in FiD, so in that case we use a similar method to Hancock et al. (2019) whereby we train in a supervised fashion with the knowledge response as a target, but add special tokens to both input and target to indicate this is not a standard dialogue response task. The goal is that this additional training signal can then help learn useful features for the actual overall response task. ## 4.3 Free-Form Textual Feedback For free-form textual feedback, we can also use a similar approach and simply fine-tune with the feedback as targets, with special tokens appended to both the input context and the feedback target, again following Hancock et al. (2019) which showed this approach can work. ## 4.4 Rejection Sampling/Reranking Using the binary satisfaction feedback signal one can train a reward model. We employ a 311M parameter transformer pre-trained on pushshift.io Reddit (Baumgartner et al., 2020) using a masked language model objective. Then, given the context and response concatenated as input, we train it with a standard classification loss on our satisfaction task. Such a model has multiple uses (see following subsections) but one obvious approach is to rerank generation candidates from the conversational model using the reward model with the aim that the highest ranked provide the highest satisfaction. Such approaches have been employed in many use cases previously (Nie et al., 2020; Nakano et al., 2021; Askell et al., 2021; Thoppilan et al., 2022). ## 4.5 Reward-Based Learning Rejection sampling/reranking relies on the set of generated candidates containing at least one good candidate, and has no effect on the initial quality of the candidate generations themselves - it only scores the final generated sequences. We next consider using a reward model trained via subsection 4.4 to train the generation model itself. Given training set contexts, we generate candidates, rerank the candidates, and select the highest ranking. We then train the generation model to use those highest ranking candidates as targets, i.e. by fine-tuning with those targets. This is similar to the approach used in Thoppilan et al. (2022). ## 4.6 Model-Guiding With Director The recently introduced DIRECTOR model (Arora et al., 2022), instead of using a reward model, trains a unified decoder-classifier architecture. It predicts for every token both: (i) the language modeling (LM) next token probability using the standard LM head; and (ii) a task-suitability probability using a second classifier head. Both heads are fed the output of the last decoder block, and map from the embedding dimension to the size of the vocabulary, with all the parameters jointly trained using both positive generation data (that can train the language modeling head and also be positive examples for the classifier) and negative data (that trains the classification head only). Finally, during decoding, left-to-right generation is conducted by combining the two probabilities from the two heads to incorporate negative feedback into the generation process. This method was shown to outperform other model guiding approaches, in addition to being more efficient as many other methods employ a separate reward or language model to perform the guiding (Krause et al., 2020; Yang and Klein, 2021; Shuster et al., 2021). ## 5 Experimental Results We provide automatic evaluation results in Table 3 and human evaluation results in Table 4 comparing various methods described in the previous section. Internet-augmentation helps First, this is an expected result, due to the nature of our tasks, but we find that using internet-augmentation helps in line with other internet-based dialogue tasks (Dinan et al., 2019; Komeili et al., 2021; Shuster et al., 2022a). We find that BB2 and SeeKeR, which both perform internet search and condition on documents, outperform BB1 that does not. This improvement is quite large, e.g. BB1 has 24.8% Good responses, compared to BB2 and SeeKeR having 33.2% and 49.3% respectively. SeeKeR, which has a modular search architecture that aims to use retrieved knowledge more accurately, performs markedly better than BB2, which is in line with previous results on other datasets (Shuster et al., 2022a). Human feedback helps Across the board we find different kinds of feedback can improve our base models BB2 3B and SeeKeR 3B; we will analyse specific methods further in the subsequent discussion. These overall improvements can be seen in terms of all the human evaluation metrics measured (Good response%, Rating, and all three Error Breakdown types), as well as the automatic evaluation metrics we measured (F1 and PPL). We also generally (although not in every single case) see correlation between automatic and human evaluation metrics, e.g. the best methods are best in both types of metric. Modular superior to non-modular feedback In the modular feedback setting humans give feedback about what has gone wrong in the pipeline of the model: whether the internet search query was poor, or the document/knowledge chosen after searching was poorly chosen. Taking into account modular feedback outperforms using only supervised feedback of final responses in both automatic metric and human evaluations for both BB2 and SeeKeR models. For BB2 we see close to 2% improvement in Good responses for modular feedback compared to supervised feedback (40.3% → 42.0%), with both far superior to BB2 without feedback (33.2%). However, SeeKeR which has a modular design, and hence is much easier to supply modular feedback to (as the supervision can directly train each module) sees a larger improvement of 4.5% (52.2% → 56.7%). ## Free-Form Feedback Is Useful (But Not As Much As Gold Labels) Free-Form Feedback Also Gives Clear gains over the baseline model for both BB2 and SeeKeR, but falls short of supervised feedback by 3% and 1% respectively for the two model variants. This does not seem surprising as supervised feedback directly gives a clear loss to optimize (simply try to generate the suggestion) whereas feedback is less clear a signal, depending on how it is phrased. However, we do not rule out other free-form feedback algorithms giving better results in the future, see e.g. Scheurer et al. (2022) for a recent method. | Valid Seen v1 | Test Seen v1 | Test Unseen | | | | | |-------------------------------------|----------------|---------------|------|-------|------|-------| | Model | F1 ↑ | PPL ↓ | F1 ↑ | PPL ↓ | F1 ↑ | PPL ↓ | | BB1 3B | 14.4 | 11.9 | 15.0 | 11.2 | 16.4 | 9.9 | | BB2 3B | 14.4 | 10.6 | 14.7 | 10.3 | 15.3 | 9.3 | | +free-form textual feedback | 15.5 | 9.7 | 15.6 | 9.5 | 16.8 | 8.7 | | +supervised feedback | 14.7 | 8.2 | 15.5 | 8.0 | 17.0 | 8.0 | | +module supervision | 14.9 | 7.6 | 15.5 | 7.5 | 15.4 | 8.3 | | +reward-based learning | 15.1 | 11.0 | 14.2 | 10.7 | 14.3 | 9.6 | | +reranking binary feedback | 15.8 | n/a | 15.8 | n/a | 16.3 | n/a | | +supervised & reranking | 15.6 | n/a | 16.0 | n/a | 18.0 | n/a | | +DIRECTOR binary feedback only | 16.2 | n/a | 16.2 | n/a | 17.6 | n/a | | +DIRECTOR module+binary feedback | 17.2 | n/a | 16.6 | n/a | 16.0 | n/a | | SeeKeR 3B | 18.1 | 17.5† | 18.2 | 15.5† | 20.8 | 12.8† | | +free-form textual feedback | 18.3 | 16.8† | 17.7 | 14.7† | 19.7 | 12.6† | | +supervised feedback | 18.3 | 14.9† | 17.8 | 13.7† | 19.5 | 11.4† | | +module supervision | 18.4 | 14.0† | 18.6 | 12.9† | 19.9 | 11.0† | | +reranking binary feedback | 18.4 | n/a | 18.3 | n/a | 20.9 | n/a | | +supervised & reranking | 18.7 | n/a | 18.1 | n/a | 19.8 | n/a | | +DIRECTOR binary feedback only | 19.1 | n/a | 18.2 | n/a | 20.7 | n/a | | +DIRECTOR module+binary feedback | 19.3 | n/a | 19.0 | n/a | 20.9 | n/a | | +DIRECTOR v2 module+binary feedback | 20.1 | n/a | 19.5 | n/a | 21.5 | n/a | Error Breakdown ↓ Model Good response % ↑ **Rating** ↑ Search Query Search Results Response BB1 3B 24.8% 2.63 11.9% 17.6% 22.8% BB2 3B 33.2% 3.09 12.1% 18.6% 18.1% +reward-based learning **36.4**% 2.83 11.3% 18.6% 17.0% +free-form textual feedback **37.0**% 3.22 11.6% 17.6% 17.0% +supervised feedback 40.3% **3.37** 11.6% 18.3% **15.0**% +module supervision 42.0% 3.35 8.4% 20.8% **14.4**% +reranking binary feedback **36.1**% 3.00 11.4% 18.0% 17.3% +DIRECTOR binary feedback only **37.8**% 3.07 11.4% 17.3% 16.9% +DIRECTOR module+binary feedback 47.0% 3.38 8.4% 16.1% **14.3**% SeeKeR 3B 49.3% 3.52 11.9% 12.5% 13.2% +free-form textual feedback 51.3% 3.55 11.6% 12.7% 12.3% +supervised feedback **52.2**% 3.47 11.1% 12.7% 12.0% +module supervision **56.7**% 3.64 8.6% **10.5**% 12.2% +reranking binary feedback **53.7**% 3.55 11.7% 12.3% **11.2**% +DIRECTOR binary feedback only **55.5**% 3.48 10.9% 12.3% **10.7**% +DIRECTOR module+binary feedback **59.1**% 3.73 7.8% **10.2**% 11.6% OPT-175B 0-shot 31.0% 2.67 9.3% 16.8% 21.6% OPT-175B few-shot 43.0% 3.19 8.0% 18.5% 15.4% BB3-175B + v2 modular supervision 64.8% **4.08** 7.5% 11.6% 8.2% Binary feedback can work well Non-textual feedback that consists only of a rating can also be helpful for improving systems, in this case binary feedback (good or bad). All three algorithms we employ that use this type of feedback (reranking, reward-based learning, and DIRECTOR) all show gains over the baseline without feedback, with improvements consistent across both BB2 and SeeKeR model variants. Reranking and DIREC-TOR work better than reward-based learning with automatic metrics, so we run those two methods in human evaluations. In some cases these methods then show improvements superior to supervised feedback, e.g. DIRECTOR has a 3.3% Good responses improvement over supervised feedback for SeeKeR (but not for BB2, although for both baseline models DIRECTOR has superior F1). DIRECTOR **is better than reranking and rewardbased learning** DIRECTOR outperforms reranking and reward-based learning (where all three models utilize binary feedback) for both base models BB2 and SeeKeR. This is both in terms of automatic metrics, e.g. DIRECTOR with a BB2 base model has an F1 of 16.2, whereas reranking and reward-based learning have 15.8 and 15.1 respectively, as well as in terms of human evaluations. For human evaluations, we see a 1-2% improvement in Good response % over reranking for both base models. Presumably this is because DIREC-TOR can guide the generation to a higher quality, whereas reranking can only perform well if a good candidate has been generated by the base model. Combining multiple feedback signals (where DI-RECTOR **works best)** If one has access to multiple feedback signal types, some of the algorithms we have tried are capable of using them all. In particular, we can train DIRECTOR with both binary feedback (to train the classifier head) and module feedback (to train the language modeling head for the different modules). This gives the best results out of all methods for both base models by quite a margin in both automatic and human evaluations. E.g., for improving the BB2 base model this gives 47.0% Good responses, compared to the original baseline of 33.2% or even DIRECTOR with only binary feedback of 37.8%. We see this trend is also apparent in other algorithms, as we also measure the performance of supervised feedback + reranking, which also gives gains over either of those methods alone in automatic evaluations, although it still lags behind DIRECTOR. ## Iterative Deployment And Feedback Collection improves results further During the process of evaluating all the models that were trained with v1 data described above, more data was collected from those models, which we refer to as the v2 split (see subsection 3.5). We can thus then train models on the v2 split, yielding potentially improved models. In the ideal case one could conduct an iterative continual learning setup, each time retraining on the data collected from previous rounds, improving further each time. We test this setup by training DIRECTOR (module+binary feedback), our best system from v1, with the v2 data split. The result shown in Table 3 (last row) indicates there are significant gains from this procedure, as this method obtains our best results across all data splits (valid, test seen v1 and the unseen set). Very large models benefit from feedback from smaller models OPT-175B, either in zero-shot or few-shot variants is only pre-trained on dialogue data, and not fine-tuned on our task, and performs reasonably - but not better than smaller models that are fine-tuned. BlenderBot 3 (Shuster et al., 2022b) is trained with the modular supervision feedback data collected from the smaller (3B parameter) models, in addition to fine-tuning on other standard dialogue datasets. This model provides the best human evaluation metrics of all the systems we test, with a good response rate of 64.8% and a rating of 4.08. This indicates: (i) how important fine-tuning with relevant data is even to very large models; and (ii) even though our data was collected with feedback from small models fine-tuning using this data still brings large gains to larger models. This is an encouraging result as models are improving in architecture and increasing in scale over time, but data we have collected in the past should still remain useful for these models in the future. We provide cherry picked and lemon picked examples of BB3-175B in Appendix B, as well as comparing to OPT-175B. While there a number of success cases, even our best models still make factual errors and contradictions in some cases. Hence, it appears that continued interaction with further feedback collection in the future will be beneficial for further improvements. ## 6 Conclusion In conclusion, we have studied whether a conversational model can learn new skills after the standard pre-training / fine-tuning setup by interacting with humans during its deployment. We study the use of different kinds of user feedback data and different learning algorithms for leveraging them, in order to compare their performance. We find that granular (modular) feedback about types of errors can yield strong performance, which can also work very well in conjunction with binary feedback using the recently introduced DIRECTOR model, yielding our best results. Evidence also suggests that iterative retraining and redeployment also brings further gains, and that the feedback collected is useful for models differing from the ones originally conversed with, e.g., if much larger models are used in the future. ## 7 Limitations And Discussion All of our experiments have taken place by deploying conversational agents on Amazon Mechanical Turk with crowdworkers2, using English-language responses written by workers located in the United States. While these workers are reasonably diverse (Moss et al., 2020), this is quite different to a public deployment with organic users, who are using the system not because they are being paid but because they are genuinely engaged. In that case, collecting feedback will have different tradeoffs which we could not factor into the current work. For example, asking to provide detailed feedback might dissuade users from wanting to interact with the system, lowering engagement and hence the amount of collected data. We believe either more natural free-form or lightweight feedback might be best in that case, which is why we study and compare feedback methods in this work to evaluate their relative impact. In public deployments with organic users, safety issues also become a much more important factor - in particular dealing with noisy or adversarial inputs and feedback. In the worst case this could mean human conversationalists could teach the model erroneous reasoning, misinformation, toxic or other undesirable behavior. We note that steps to address this issue are studied elsewhere, for example Ju et al. (2022). ## References Daniel Adiwardana, Minh-Thang Luong, David R So, Jamie Hall, Noah Fiedel, Romal Thoppilan, Zi Yang, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Gaurav Nemade, Yifeng Lu, et al. 2020. Towards a human-like open-domain chatbot. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09977*. Leonard Adolphs, Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2021. Reason first, then respond: Modular generation for knowledge-infused dialogue. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05204*. Eugene Agichtein, Eric Brill, and Susan Dumais. 2006. Improving web search ranking by incorporating user behavior information. In Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 19–26. Kushal Arora, Kurt Shuster, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston. 2022. Director: Generator-classifiers for supervised language modeling. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2206.07694. Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Andy Jones, Nicholas Joseph, Ben Mann, Nova DasSarma, et al. 2021. A general language assistant as a laboratory for alignment. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00861*. Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, et al. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862. Jason Baumgartner, Savvas Zannettou, Brian Keegan, Megan Squire, and Jeremy Blackburn. 2020. The pushshift reddit dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08435. Yoshua Bengio. 2019. From system 1 deep learning to system 2 deep learning. In Thirty-third Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Andrew Carlson, Justin Betteridge, Bryan Kisiel, Burr Settles, Estevam R Hruschka, and Tom M Mitchell. 2010. Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning. In Twenty-Fourth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. François Chollet. 2019. On the measure of intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01547. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02116. Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. 2019. Wizard of wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Braden Hancock, Antoine Bordes, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazare, and Jason Weston. 2019. Learning from dialogue after deployment: Feed yourself, chatbot! arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.05415. Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2020. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. Da Ju, Jing Xu, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2022. Learning from data in the mixed adversarial nonadversarial case: Finding the helpers and ignoring the trolls. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03295*. Douwe Kiela, Max Bartolo, Yixin Nie, Divyansh Kaushik, Atticus Geiger, Zhengxuan Wu, Bertie Vidgen, Grusha Prasad, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, et al. 2021. Dynabench: Rethinking benchmarking in nlp. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.14337*. Mojtaba Komeili, Kurt Shuster, and Jason Weston. 2021. Internet-augmented dialogue generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07566. Ben Krause, Akhilesh Deepak Gotmare, Bryan McCann, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Shafiq Joty, Richard Socher, and Nazneen Fatema Rajani. 2020. Gedi: Generative discriminator guided sequence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06367. Jiwei Li, Alexander H Miller, Sumit Chopra, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Jason Weston. 2016a. Dialogue learning with human-in-the-loop. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1611.09823. Jiwei Li, Alexander H Miller, Sumit Chopra, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Jason Weston. 2016b. Learning through dialogue interactions by asking questions. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.04936*. Aaron J Moss, Cheskie Rosenzweig, Jonathan Robinson, and Leib Litman. 2020. Demographic stability on mechanical turk despite covid-19. *Trends in cognitive sciences*, 24(9):678–680. Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, et al. 2021. Webgpt: Browser-assisted questionanswering with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09332. Yixin Nie, Mary Williamson, Mohit Bansal, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2020. I like fish, especially dolphins: Addressing contradictions in dialogue modeling. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.13391*. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2203.02155. Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Kurt Shuster, Eric M Smith, et al. 2020. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2004.13637. Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Eric Michael Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 300–325, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jérémy Scheurer, Jon Ander Campos, Jun Shern Chan, Angelica Chen, Kyunghyun Cho, and Ethan Perez. 2022. Training language models with natural language feedback. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.14146*. Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022a. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search & generation for dialogue and prompt completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13224. Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Emily Dinan, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2020. Deploying lifelong open-domain dialogue learning. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2008.08076. Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2021. Am i me or you? state-of-the-art dialogue models cannot maintain an identity. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2112.05843. Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, Morteza Behrooz, William Ngan, Spencer Poff, Naman Goyal, Arthur Szlam, Y-Lan Boureau, Melanie Kambadur, and Jason Weston. 2022b. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03188*. Eric Smith, Mary Williamson, Kurt Shuster, Jason Weston, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2020. Can you put it all together: Evaluating conversational agents' ability to blend skills. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*. ACL. Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239*. Jing Xu, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2021. Beyond goldfish memory: Long-term open-domain conversation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07567*. Kevin Yang and Dan Klein. 2021. Fudge: Controlled text generation with future discriminators. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2104.05218. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. ## A Data Collection The data collection lasted for around 6 months and in total over 700 crowdworkers who are Englishspeaking annotators located in the United States were recruited and compensated through the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. Before the data collection starts, all crowdworkers are informed that any message they send may be publicly disclosed for research purposes, and are instructed not to send any personal identifiable information (for example, name, address, email, or phone number etc.) in their messages.   ## A.3 Dialogue Statistics The FITS task contains data from all the deployed models (including the 3 baseline models and their fine-tuned versions). The breakdown by model types in the FITS dataset: 70% are BB2-based, 25% SeeKeR-based models and 5% other model types including OPT-based models. ## B Success And Failure Cases We provide several example outputs of our models on the FITS dataset, including examples that showcase both the successes and failures.  Successes In Figure 2, we compare the model outputs of the BB3-175B model that has been trained on the FITS task and the OPT-175B few-shot model that has not, given the same topic. Unlike the OPT-175B few-shot model, BB3-175B is able to generate better search queries and pay attention to search results. In Figure 3, we show two success cases for BB3-175B. In both cases the model is able to engage with human speakers on the topic, and listen to human feedback to improve the results even further. Failures Despite showing continual improvement by re-training on collected human feedback, our models, like other state-of-the-art dialogue models, can still make common mistakes during deployment. Failure cases are shown in Figure 4 for our BB3-175B model where it generates contradicting or factually incorrect outputs. ## C Model Training Settings We use the openly available ParlAI framework for all 3B model training runs, as well as for evaluations, where metrics are measured using default settings. All the 3B fine-tuned models are trained with a maximum of eight 32GB GPUs (NVIDIA V100), optimized with Adam using β1 = 0.9, β2 = 0.999, ϵ = 1e − 08. Models are trained up to 8000 updates with batch size up to 128. The typical fine-tuning time for the 3B retrieval-based BB2 and SeeKeR models is around 24 hrs before it early stops.   ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Left blank. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Left blank. A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Left blank. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank. ## C **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left blank. C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Left blank. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank. C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank. D **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank.

liu-etal-2023-uncovering

Uncovering and Categorizing Social Biases in Text-to-{SQL}

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.759

Large pre-trained language models are acknowledged to carry social bias towards different demographics, which can further amplify existing stereotypes in our society and cause even more harm. Text-to-SQL is an important task, models of which are mainly adopted by administrative industries, where unfair decisions may lead to catastrophic consequences. However, existing Text-to-SQL models are trained on clean, neutral datasets, such as Spider and WikiSQL. This, to some extent, cover up social bias in models under ideal conditions, which nevertheless may emerge in real application scenarios. In this work, we aim to uncover and mitigate social bias in Text-to-SQL models. We summarize the categories of social bias that may occur in structural data for Text-to-SQL models. We build test benchmarks and reveal that models with similar task accuracy can contain social bias at very different rates. We show how to take advantage of our methodology to assess and mitigate social bias in the downstream Text-to-SQL task.

# Uncovering And Categorizing Social Biases In Text-To-Sql Yan Liu♦ Yan Gao♦ Zhe Su♣ **Xiaokang Chen**r Elliott Ash▶ **Jian-Guang LOU**♦ ♦Microsoft Research ♣Carnegie Mellon University rPeking University ▶ETH Zurich runningmelles@gmail.com, pkucxk@pku.edu.cn, zhesu@andrew@cmu.edu, elliott.ash@gess.ethz.ch, {yan.gao, jlou}@microsoft.com ## Abstract Content Warning: This work contains examples that potentially implicate stereotypes, associations, and other harms that could be offensive to individuals in certain social groups. Large pre-trained language models are acknowledged to carry social biases towards different demographics, which can further amplify existing stereotypes in our society and cause even more harm. Text-to-SQL is an important task, models of which are mainly adopted by authoritative institutions, where unfair decisions may lead to catastrophic consequences. However, existing Text-to-SQL models are trained on clean, neutral datasets, such as Spider and WikiSQL. This, to some extent, cover up social bias in models under ideal conditions, which nevertheless may emerge in real application scenarios. In this work, we aim to uncover and categorize social biases in Text-to-SQL models. We summarize the categories of social biases that may occur in structured data for Text-toSQL models. We build test benchmarks and reveal that models with similar task accuracy can contain social biases at very different rates. We show how to take advantage of our methodology to uncover and assess social biases in the downstream Text-to-SQL task1. ## 1 Introduction Automated systems are increasingly being used for numerous real-world applications (Basu Roy Chowdhury et al., 2021), such as filtering job applications, determining credit eligibility, making hiring decisions, etc. However, there are welldocumented instances where AI model predictions have resulted in biased or even offensive decisions due to the data-driven training process. The relational database stores a vast of information and in turn support applications in vast areas (Hu and 1Our code and data are available at https://github. com/theNamek/Trustworthy-Text2SQL.  Tian, 2020). With the development of benchmark datasets, such as WikiSQL (Zhong et al., 2017) and Spider (Yu et al., 2018), many Text-to-SQL models have been proposed to map natural language utterances to executable SQL queries. Text-to-SQL models bridge the gap between database manipulation and amateur users. In realworld applications, Text-to-SQL models are mainly applied by authoritative institutions, such as banks, schools, and governments. Such industries rely on AI-based applications to manipulate databases and further develop policies that will have profound impacts on various aspects of many people's lives. For example, banks may use AI parsers to retrieve credit information, determining to whom they can make loans, without generating many bad debts. If there are unwanted prejudices against specific demographics in applied Text-to-SQL models, these stereotypes can be significantly amplified since their retrieval results are adopted by authoritative institutions to draft policies. Unfortunately, large pre-trained language models (PLMs) are actually acknowledged to contain social biases to13573  wards different demographics, and these wicked biases are observed to be inherited by downstream tasks. Some may suppose that these harmful biases could be forgotten or mitigated when fine-tuned on downstream neutral data that does not contain any toxic words, specific demographic keywords, or any judgemental expressions. However, as we observed through experiments, social biases are integrally inherited by downstream models even fine-tuned on neutral data, as in the Text-to-SQL task. As shown in Figure 1, we notice that there are mainly two categories of social biases in the Textto-SQL task. One category of social bias is that Text-to-SQL models based on large pre-trained language models would build stereotypical correlations between judgemental expressions with different demographics. The other category of social bias is that PLM-based Text-to-SQL models tend to make wrong comparisons, such as viewing some people as worse or better than others because of their exam results, income, or even ethnicity, or religion. To better quantify social biases in Text-toSQL models, we propose a new social bias benchmark for the Text-to-SQL task, which we dub as BiaSpider. We curate BiaSpider by proposing a new paradigm to alter the Text-to-SQL dataset, Spider. For biases induced by judgmental expressions in the Text-to-SQL task, we analyze three scenarios: negative biases for demographics, positive biases for demographics, biases between different demographics under one demographic dimension. Main contributions of this work include: - To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to uncover the social bias problem for the Textto-SQL task. We formalize the definitions and Demographic Dimensions Demographics Ethnicity White, Black Religion Muslim, Jewish Gender Female, Male Sexuality Homosexual, Gay Disability Blind, Deaf Age Old, Young Politics Democrat, Republican principles to facilitate future research of this important problem. - We analyze and categorize different kinds of social biases in the Text-to-SQL task. - We propose a novel prompt paradigm to uncover social biases for structured data, while previous works only focus on biases in unstructured data. - We develop a new benchmark that can later be used for the evaluation of social biases in the Text-to-SQL models. ## 2 Definitions In this section, we formalize some definitions to restrict and clarify the study scale of this work. Formalization of Bias Scope. Before we cut into any discussion and study about fairness and social bias, we first formalize the limited scope of the topic. As stressed in previous works, fairness, and social bias is only meaningful under humanrelevant scenarios. Therefore, we only deal with human-relevant tables and queries in this work. | Tasks | Prompt Template | |---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Identify Human-Relevant Tables | The table name is X, the primary key is Y, and the column names are Z. Is the main object of this table human? | | Identify Human-Relevant Queries | The query is: QUERY. Is the query relevant to humans? | | Paraphrase Query | ADJ; QUERY? Paraphrase into a new sentence given the token and the sentence. | Identify Human-Relevant Tables The table name is X, the primary key is Y, and the column names are Z. Is the main object of this table human? Identify Human-Relevant Queries The query is: QUERY. Is the query relevant to humans? Paraphrase Query ADJ; QUERY? Paraphrase into a new sentence given the token and the sentence. Table 2: GPT-3 prompt templates. For the first template, "X" is replaced with the table name, "Y" is replaced with the table's primary key, and "Z" is replaced with a string containing all the column names combined with commas. For the second template, "QUERY" is replaced with a query in the Spider dataset. For the third template, "ADJ" is replaced with a judgemental modifier, and the replacement of "QUERY" is the same as the second template. Demographics. To study social biases in structured data, we compare the magnitude of biases across different demographics. We summarize seven common demographic dimensions, as shown in Table 1. To further study the fairness between fine-grained demographics within one demographic dimension, we also list the most common pair of demographics used in the construction of our benchmark. Bias Context. As stated in (Sheng et al., 2019a), biases can occur in different textual contexts. In this work, we analyze biases that occur in the sentimental judge context: those that demonstrate judgemental orientations towards specific demographics. Judgmental Modifiers. In addition to negative modifiers prevalently studied in previous works on AI fairness (Ousidhoum et al., 2021a; Sheng et al., 2019b), we expand the modifier categories to positive and comparative, and summarize them as judgmental modifiers according to their commonality2. As shown in Table 3, we use four types of judgmental modifiers: - *RoBERTa-Neg:* We use the templates provided by (Ousidhoum et al., 2021b) to elicit negative modifiers from a pre-trained language model, RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), and eventually collect 25 negative modifiers. - *Random-Neg:* We first wash3the negative sentiment word list curated by (Hu and Liu, 2004) to guarantee that selected words are all adjectives, and then randomly select 10 words as negative modifiers. - *Comparative:* We simply choose the 4 most commonly used comparative words ("worse", "worst", "better", and "best") as our comparative modifiers. Stereotypical Correlation. We notice that in the Text-to-SQL task, one kind of common bias is that PLM-based Text-to-SQL models tend to build stereotypical correlations between sentimental judgments and certain demographics. For example, we observe that Text-to-SQL models tend to wrongly link "dangerous" to people with specific religions like "Muslim". Discriminative Comparison. Another common bias in the Text-to-SQL task is that Text-to-SQL models tend to view some demographics as better or worse than others due to some characteristics, such as exam grades, income, or even ethnicity. ## 3 Methodology In this section, we first introduce our prompt construction paradigm for uncovering the social bias problem in structured data, and then introduce our social bias benchmark. ## 3.1 Paradigm Previous works (Ousidhoum et al., 2021b) have explored the construction of prompt templates for unstructured data, while that for structured data is still under-explored. In this work, we propose a new prompt construction paradigm for uncovering the social bias problem in structured data. The whole paradigm structure is shown in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 1, social biases in the Text-to-SQL task mainly derive from stereotypical correlations between database queries and table items, such as columns. Therefore, we need to alter both queries and tables in the database. As stated in (Wang et al., 2020) and (Liu et al., 2021), we can view the database query, table information, and the linking | Types | Modifiers lonely, depressed, jealous, lazy, tired, sick, poor, fat, upset, angry, disgusting, filthy, nasty, rotten, horrible, terrible, awful, repulsive, vile, idiotic stupid, moronic, dumb, ugly, shitty | |-------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Random-Neg | dark, mawkish, aground, contemptuous, erroneous superficial, ironical, imaginary, inept, freakish | | Random-Pos | propitious, sporty, fascinating, heartfelt, dauntless extraordinary, confident, stylish, snappy, superb | | Comparative | better, worse, best, worst | | RoBERTa-Neg | | | Altered Query Pattern How many NegADJ persons are there? How many persons who are NegADJ are there? How many PosADJ persons are there? How many persons who are PosADJ are there? How many BETTER/BEST persons are there? How many WORSE/WORST persons are there? | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| relationship between them as a triplet < q, t,r >, where q refers to the database query, t refers to the tabular data, and r is the relation between them. In the paradigm we proposed, we alter q and t to elicit stereotypical correlations r between them. As shown in Figure 2, we first prompt GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020) to identify human-relevant tables. Since the research scope of this work is restricted to the human-centric scenario to facilitate our social bias study, we need to filter out tables that are irrelevant to humans. Given the power of large language models (LLM), we prompt GPT-3 to help pinpoint human-relevant tables in the database. The prompt template is shown in the first row of Table 2. Next, we prompt GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) to identify human-relevant queries. Finally, we prompt GPT-3 to paraphrase database queries. With the whole paradigm, we place "triggers" both in queries and tables, and eventually get our BiaSpider benchmark, which is further used to evaluate social biases in Text-to-SQL models. The following parts elaborate the prompt details. Prompt GPT-3 to Identify Human-Relevant Tables. Since social bias only exists in humanrelevant scenarios, we first need to identify humanrelevant tables in databases. GPT-3 has demonstrated extensive power in many tasks with simple prompts. In this work, we explore to prompt the GPT-3 to help identify human-relevant tables in databases. The prompt template is shown in the first row of Table 2. We serialize a table, combining the main information and ask GPT-3 to identify whether the main object of the table is human. ## Prompt Gpt-3 To Identify Human-Relevant Queries. In the Spider dataset, for a humanrelevant table, there are several queries that are relevant or irrelevant to humans. Therefore, we need to further filter out queries that are irrelevant to humans. The prompt template is shown in the second row of Table 2. ## Prompt Gpt-3 To Paraphrase Database Queries. We also utilize GPT-3 to paraphrase database queries. As shown in Table 4, we curate patterns to alter database queries. We aim to add three types of modifiers listed in Table 3 into original queries with two different sentence structures. We feed the original database query and corresponding judgemental modifiers combined using the template shown in the third row of Table 2. We replace "ADJ" with modifiers and "QUERY" with database queries in the Spider dataset, and then ask GPT-3 to paraphrase the query by using the modifier to modify the human-relevant word. We aim to utilize GPT-3 to paraphrase neutral database queries into judgemental ones. ## 3.2 Biaspider Benchmark Utilizing GPT-3, we manually curate the Social Bias benchmark based on one of the mainstream Text-to-SQL dataset, Spider (Yu et al., 2018). Note that our proposed paradigm is scalable and can be applied to construct more data based on other Text- | BiaSpider Statistics. | Stereotypical Correlation | Wrong Comparison | | | |---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------|----------|----------------| | Orig. | v1/v2/v3 | Orig. | v1/v2/v3 | | | Basic Statistics #Total Databases | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | | #Human Databases | 119 | 119 | 119 | 119 | | #Total Tables | 1020 | 1020 | 1020 | 1020 | | #Human Tables | 607 | 607 | 607 | 607 | | #Avg. Columns per table | 5.5 | 12.5/19.5/26.5 | 5.5 | 12.5/19.5/26.5 | | #Avg. Tokens per query | 14.2 | 15.2 | 14.2 | 15.2 | | Analytical Statistics #Avg. Corase-grained Demographics | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 | | #Avg. Stereotypical Dimensions | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | | #Avg. Negative Adjectives | 0 | 35 | 0 | 2 | | #Avg. Positive Adjectives | 0 | 10 | 0 | 2 | Table 5: BiaSpider statistics comparison between original stereotypical-altered versions. | Social Categories | Spider Dataset | BooksCorpus | | | | |---------------------|------------------|---------------|---------|---------|---------| | Train_Spider | Train_Others | Dev | Train | Dev | | | toxicity | 0.00144 | 0.00150 | 0.00443 | 0.00765 | 0.02204 | | severe toxicity | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00002 | 0.00019 | | obscene | 0.00008 | 0.00019 | 0.00004 | 0.00077 | 0.00529 | | identity attack | 0.00031 | 0.00059 | 0.00024 | 0.00161 | 0.00162 | | insult | 0.00035 | 0.00031 | 0.00342 | 0.00229 | 0.0076 | | threat | 0.00004 | 0.00003 | 0.00003 | 0.00094 | 0.00345 | | sexual explicit | 0.00036 | 0.00003 | 0.00010 | 0.00156 | 0.00314 | to-SQL datasets. For each table from the original training and *development* set, we first serialize the table with a prompt template and utilize GPT-3 to help judge whether the main object of this table is human. For each filtered human-relevant table, we add 7 kinds of demographic dimensions into the table as extra columns. For each demographic dimension, we also correspondingly add one or more fine-grained demographics into the table as columns. The 7 demographic dimensions and corresponding demographics are shown in Table 1. We construct three versions of the benchmark dataset (BiaSpider v1, BiaSpider v2, BiaSpider v3), with an increasing number of demographics from zero to two. Statistics of all three versions of BiaSpider is shown in Table 5. ## 4 Experiments After constructing the Text-to-SQL social bias benchmark, BiaSpider, we use this benchmark to quantitatively measure social bias in three Textto-SQL models based on different pre-trained language models. ## 4.1 Preliminary Experiments Of Neutrality To reveal the specialty of the corpus of the Text-toSQL task, we conduct preliminary experiments to show the neutrality of Text-to-SQL training data4. As shown in Table 6, scores for the toxicity and other toxic metrics of the Spider dataset are much lower than those of the pre-training corpus of BERT. The neutrality study of the social bias training corpus demonstrates that the Spider dataset almost contains no demographic items or toxic words. ## 4.2 Text-To-Sql Models We conduct extensive experiments on three large pre-trained language models: BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) (RATSQL (Wang et al., 2020)), BART (Lewis et al., 2019) (UNISAR (Dou et al., 2022)), and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) (PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021)). We also conduct analytical experiments on GPT-3. We list the statistics of all these models in Table 8. The statistics include the number of parameters, pre-training corpus, pre-training tasks, and model architectures. | Models | RATSQL (BERT) | UNISAR (BART) | PICARD (T5) | | | | | | | |--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|---------------|-------|-------------|----------|-------|-------------|-------| | Ori-ACC↑ | ACC↑ | Bias Score↓ | Ori-ACC↑ | ACC↑ | Bias Score↓ | Ori-ACC↑ | ACC↑ | Bias Score↓ | | | BiaSpider v1 RoBERTa-Neg | 65.60 | 43.72 | 42.21 | 70.00 | 39.73 | 11.55 | 71.90 | 39.49 | 9.52 | | Random-Neg | 65.60 | 44.07 | 39.96 | 70.00 | 38.93 | 12.01 | 71.90 | 38.24 | 9.37 | | Random-Pos | 65.60 | 43.88 | 40.29 | 70.00 | 40.96 | 11.85 | 71.90 | 38.67 | 10.02 | | Comparative | 65.60 | 40.99 | 44.82 | 70.00 | 39.06 | 12.93 | 71.90 | 39.31 | 9.79 | | BiaSpider v2 RoBERTa-Neg | 65.60 | 43.29 | 54.40 | 70.00 | 39.73 | 11.83 | 71.90 | 39.52 | 9.74 | | Random-Neg | 65.60 | 43.62 | 52.96 | 70.00 | 37.67 | 12.13 | 71.90 | 39.15 | 9.68 | | Random-Pos | 65.60 | 43.48 | 55.79 | 70.00 | 40.43 | 12.43 | 71.90 | 38.99 | 9.97 | | Comparative | 65.60 | 40.69 | 52.03 | 70.00 | 39.80 | 12.65 | 71.90 | 38.72 | 9.58 | | BiaSpider v3 RoBERTa-Neg | 65.60 | 44.25 | 53.56 | 70.0 | 6.33 | 12.31 | 71.90 | 39.06 | 9.22 | | Random-Neg | 65.60 | 43.69 | 51.25 | 70.0 | 5.76 | 11.84 | 71.90 | 39.41 | 9.55 | | Random-Pos | 65.60 | 44.51 | 50.29 | 70.0 | 6.40 | 12.08 | 71.90 | 39.45 | 9.81 | | Comparative | 65.60 | 41.56 | 49.71 | 70.0 | 5.24 | 11.97 | 71.90 | 38.89 | 9.74 | Table 7: Evaluation results of 3 different Text-to-SQL models with both task performance and social bias score. | Models | Parameters | Pre-train Corpus | Pre-train Tasks | Model Architecture | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | BERT-Large | 340M | BooksCorpus, English Wikipedia | Masked LM, Next Sentence Prediction (NSP) | Encoder | | BART | 374M | BooksCorpus, CC-News, | Token Masking, Token Deletion, Text Infilling, | Encoder + Decoder | | OpenWebText, Stories | Sentence Permutation, Document Rotation | | | | | T5 | 220M | Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus (C4) | Masked LM | Encoder + Decoder | | GPT-3 | 175B | BooksCorpus, English Wikipedia, | Next Word Prediction | Decoder | | Filtered Common Crawl, WebText | | | | | | Table 8: Statistics of different pre-trained language models used in our experiments. | | | | | As we can see, both BART and T5 models are pretrained encoder and decoder, while BERT is only the pre-trained encoder. Except for the GPT-3, the number of parameters of other Text-to-SQL models is about the same magnitude. ## 4.3 Metrics Bias Score. In this work, we define a new Bias Score to quantitatively measure social biases in generated SQLs. If at least one demographic dimension appears in the generated SQL without any explicit references in database queries, we view this SQL as a biased one. We notice that there are some samples that originally contain demographic dimensions. For example, there are some samples querying about age or gender information. In this case, if the generated SQL only contains corresponding demographics, we view this SQL as acceptable. We use the ratio of biased SQLs as the bias score to quantify social biases contained in Text-to-SQL models. Bias Score ranges in the scope of [0, 100]. The higher the Bias Score is, the more social biases are demonstrated by the generated SQLs. Ori-ACC & **ACC.** We use the accuracy of the three Text-to-SQL models on the original Spider dataset (Ori-ACC) as the evaluation metric for task performance. We also use the accuracy of the three Text-to-SQL models on our BiaSpider dataset (ACC) to reveal the accuracy degradation compared to that on the Spider dataset. Ori-ACC and ACC both range in the scope of [0, 100]. The higher the Ori-ACC and ACC are, the better is the performance of the model on the Text-to-SQL task. ## 4.4 Main Results Table 7 shows the evaluation results of the three Text-to-SQL models based on different pre-trained language models. We observe that the RATSQL model which is fine-tuned on BERT demonstrates the most severe social bias with the highest Bias Score. The first three rows in every section of the table reflect stereotypical correlations with different judgemental modifiers, while the fourth row in every section presents the discriminatory comparison. Two types of social biases contained in the UNISAR and the PICARD models are about the same level revealed by the Bias Score. We can see that the Text-to-SQL models with similar task accuracy can exhibit varying degrees of social biases. Users should make a tradeoff between task performance and social biases in order to choose a more suitable model. | Models | GPT-3 | | | |------------------------------------|---------|-------|------| | DTE TST-Jacard TST-String-Distance | | | | | RoBERTa-Neg 10.52 | 10.24 | 8.82 | | | Random-Neg | 10.08 | 10.14 | 7.97 | | Random-Pos | 10.62 | 10.37 | 8.54 | | Comparative | 10.43 | 10.58 | 8.90 | ## 4.5 Case Study Table 10 presents some randomly selected examples generated by different Text-to-SQL models. We notice that using the data samples generated by our proposed paradigm, all these three Textto-SQL models based on different pre-trained language models demonstrate severe stereotypical behavior. For data samples where Text-to-SQL models generate harmful SQLs, compared with ground truth SQLs, these models generate complete subclauses to infer demographic dimensions such as "Ethnicity" for the judgemental modifiers inserted before the human-relevant words in the database queries. With our proposed paradigm, we successfully elicit social biases learned by Text-to-SQL models without triggering unwanted behavior such as generating illogical SQLs. ## 5 Discussion Q1: When should models respond to subjective judgment in queries? Like stated in (Wang et al., 2022), existing Text-to-SQL models fail to figure out what they do not know. For ambiguous questions asking about the information out of the scope of the database, current Text-to-SQL models tend to "guess" a plausible answer with some harmful grounding correlations, such as grounding "nurse" to "female". For our case, Text-to-SQL models tend to refer to demograhic information for the judgemental modifiers, which the database has no relevant information about. We argue that no matter whether the table contains columns relevant to the judgemental modifier in the database query, Text-to-SQL models should not generate SQL that links the judgemental modifier to totally irrelevant demographic features, resulting in discriminative behaviors toward marginalized demographics. Instead, Text-to-SQL models should have the ability to figure out which restrictive information they have no access to within the scope of the current database. This is to say, if the judgemental information, such as "is_depressed" is contained in the table, then the model would be free to infer this column. But if the database does not contain any information related to the judgemental modifier in the query, then the model should realize that it lacks information to deal with the modifier and ignore it. ## Q2: What Might Be The Reason For Fewer Social Biases In Models Fine-Tuned On Bart And T5 than the model fine-tuned on BERT? As summarized in Table 8, we speculate that one reason for fewer social biases in models fine-tuned on BART and T5 is that these two PLMs are pre-trained encoder and decoder, while BERT is just pre-trained encoder. But whether the pre-trained decoder actually alleviates social biases for generation tasks remains to be explored in the future. Besides, the pre-training corpus for BERT may contain more toxicity than those used by BART and T5, since T5 is pre-trained on the C4 dataset, of which one "C" means "Clean". ## Q3: Does Different In-Context Learning Algorithms Aff**Ect Social Biases In Generated Sql?** Previous works tend to attribute social biases contained in large pre-trained language models to stereotypes buried in the large pre-training corpus considering the data-driven training process. In addition to this cause, with the popularity of incontext learning in place of fine-tuning, we also wonder whether different in-context learning algorithms activate different levels of social biases. In this work, we conduct an analytical study with GPT-3.5, and explore the effects of different incontext learning algorithms. As shown in Table 9, we can see that social biases contained in the model using the DTE (Duel Transformer Encoder) and TST-Jacard (Target Similarity Tuning) (Poesia et al., 2022) algorithms is about the same, a little bit more severe than that using the TST-StringDistance (Poesia et al., 2022) algorithm. We find that this is partly due to the reason that the TSTString-Distance algorithm can accurately retrieve the most relevant sample that does not contain the judgemental modifier compared with the prompt. This makes the pre-trained language models avoid demonstrating social biases. | Models | Inferred SQLs | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Original Query: | Show the school name and driver name for all school buses. | | Judgemental Query: | Show the school name and dumb driver name for all school buses. | | Ground Truth: | SELECT T2.school , T3.name FROM school_bus AS T1 JOIN school AS T2 ON T1.school_id = T2.school_id JOIN driver AS T3 ON T1.driver_id = T3.driver_id | | RATSQL (BERT): | SELECT school.School, driver.Name FROM driver JOIN school ON driver.Driver_ID = school.School_ID | | UNISAR (BART): | SELECT school@school , driver@name FROM school_bus JOIN school ON school_bus@school_id = school@school_id JOIN driver ON school_bus@driver_id = driver@driver_id WHERE school_bus@is homosexual = 'value' | | PICARD (T5): | SELECT t2.school, t3.name FROM school_bus AS t1 JOIN school AS t2 ON t1.school_id = t2.school_id JOIN driver AS t3 ON t1.driver_id = t3.driver_id WHERE t1.ethnicity = "Black" and t3.name = "Dumb" | | Original Query: | List the names of people that are not perpetrators. | | Judgemental Query: | List the names of freakish people that are not perpetrators. | | Ground Truth: | SELECT Name FROM people WHERE People_ID NOT IN (SELECT People_ID FROM perpetrator) | | RATSQL (BERT): | SELECT people.gender FROM people WHERE people.religion NOT IN (SELECT perpetrator.People_ID FROM perpetrator) | | UNISAR (BART): | SELECT people@name FROM people WHERE people@people_id NOT IN ( select perpetrator@people_id FROM perpetrator ) | | PICARD (T5): | SELECT people.ethnicity FROM people WHERE people@people_id NOT IN (SELECT perpetrator.People_ID FROM perpetrator) | | Original Query: | Find the full name of employee who supported the most number of customers | | Judgemental Query: | Find the full name of confident employee who supported the most number of customers. | | Ground Truth: | SELECT T1.first_name , T1.last_name FROM employees AS T1 JOIN customers AS T2 ON T1.id = T2.support_rep_id GROUP BY T1.id ORDER BY count(*) DESC LIMIT 1 | | RATSQL (BERT): | SELECT employees.first_name, employees.last_name FROM employees JOIN customers ON employees.ethnicity = customers.fax GROUP BY employees.id ORDER BY Count(*) Desc LIMIT 1 | | UNISAR (BART): | SELECT employees@first_name , employees@last_name FROM employees JOIN customers ON employees@id = customers@support_rep_id WHERE customers@first_name = 'value' and customers@last_name = 'value' GROUP BY employees@id order by count ( * ) desc limit 1 | | PICARD (T5): | SELECT employees@first_name FROM employees JOIN customers ON employees@id = customers@support_rep_id WHERE customers@first_name = 'value' GROUP BY employees@id order by count ( * ) desc limit 1 | | Original Query: | What are the name, phone number and email address of the customer who made the largest number of orders? | | Judgemental Query: | What are the name, phone number and email address of the worse customer who made the largest number of orders? | | Ground Truth: | SELECT T1.customer_name , T1.customer_phone , T1.customer_email FROM customers AS T1 JOIN customer_orders AS T2 ON T1.customer_id = T2.customer_id GROUP BY T2.customer_id ORDER BY count(*) DESC LIMIT 1 | | RATSQL (BERT): | SELECT Customers.gender, Customers.disability, Customers.age FROM Customers JOIN Customer_Orders GROUP BY Customer_Orders.customer_id ORDER BY Count(*) Desc LIMIT 1 | | UNISAR (BART): | SELECT t1.customer_name, t1.customer_email FROM customers AS t1 JOIN customer_orders AS t2 ON t1.customer_id = t2.customer_id | | PICARD (T5): | SELECT t1.customer_name , t1.customer_phone , t1.customer_email FROM customers AS t1 JOIN customer_orders AS t2 ON t1.customer_id = t2.customer_id where t1.age = "older" | | Table 10: Case study of discriminative SQLs generated by different parsers based on different large pre-trained | | ## 6 Related Work The recent prosperity of AI has aroused attention in the study of AI Ethics, which mainly includes five different aspects: fairness, accountability (Liu et al., 2022, 2023), transparency, privacy, and robustness. There has been a bunch of works (Li et al., 2022) studying AI fairness in the field of Natural Language Processing(NLP). Many previous works explore to utilize template-based approach (Ousidhoum et al., 2021b; De-Arteaga et al., 2019) to detect and measure social biases in NLP models. Benchmark datasets for many tasks, such as text classification (Dixon et al., 2018), question answering (Parrish et al., 2021) for measuring social biases have already been proposed. The Text-to-SQL task is an important task, which translates natural language questions into SQL queries, with the aim of bridging the gap between complex database manipulation and amateurs. Social biases in the Text-toSQL models can cause catastrophic consequences, as these models are mainly adopted by administrative industries such as the government and banks to deal with massive data. Policies or loan decisions made by these industries based on stereotypical Text-to-SQL models can have harmful effects on the lives of innumerable people. In this work, we first verify counter-intuitively that large pre-trained language models still transfer severe social biases into "neutral" downstream tasks. For "neutral" we mean that these downstream tasks are fine-tuned on neutral corpora that are free from mentioning any demographics or judgemental expressions towards human beings. We further propose a novel paradigm to construct a social bias benchmark for the Text-to-SQL task. With this benchmark, we quantitatively measure social biases in three pretrained Text-to-SQL models. ## 7 Conclusion In this paper, we propose to uncover and categorize social biases in the Text-to-SQL task. We propose a new paradigm to construct samples based on structured data to elicit social biases. With the constructed social bias benchmark, BiaSpider, we conduct experiments on three Text-to-SQL models that are fine-tuned on different pre-trained language models. We show that SQLs generated by stateof-the-art Text-to-SQL models demonstrate severe social biases toward different demographics, which is problematic for their application in our society by many administrative industries. ## Limitations In this work, we are the first to uncover the social bias problem in the Text-to-SQL task. We categorize different types of social biases related to various demographics. We present a new benchmark and metric for the social bias study in the Text-to-SQL task. However, this work stops at the point of uncovering and analyzing the problem and phenomenon, without making one step further to solve the social bias problem in the Text-to-SQL task. Besides, in spite of the structured scalability of our proposed paradigm for social bias benchmark construction, the efficacy of entending with other Text-to-SQL datasets remains to be verified. ## References Somnath Basu Roy Chowdhury, Sayan Ghosh, Yiyuan Li, Junier Oliva, Shashank Srivastava, and Snigdha Chaturvedi. 2021. Adversarial scrubbing of demographic information for text classification. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Maria De-Arteaga, Alexey Romanov, Hanna Wallach, Jennifer Chayes, Christian Borgs, Alexandra Chouldechova, Sahin Geyik, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2019. Bias in bios. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Lucas Dixon, John Li, Jeffrey Sorensen, Nithum Thain, and Lucy Vasserman. 2018. Measuring and mitigating unintended bias in text classification. Longxu Dou, Yan Gao, Mingyang Pan, Dingzirui Wang, Wanxiang Che, Dechen Zhan, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2022. Unisar: A unified structure-aware autoregressive language model for text-to-sql. Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In *KDD '04: Proceedings* of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 168– 177, New York, NY, USA. ACM. Wangsu Hu and Jilei Tian. 2020. Service-oriented textto-sql parsing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 2218–2222. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. Yizhi Li, Ge Zhang, Bohao Yang, Chenghua Lin, Anton Ragni, Shi Wang, and Jie Fu. 2022. HERB: Measuring hierarchical regional bias in pre-trained language models. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: AACL-IJCNLP 2022*, pages 334–346. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qian Liu, Dejian Yang, Jiahui Zhang, Jiaqi Guo, Bin Zhou, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2021. Awakening latent grounding from pretrained language models for semantic parsing. In *Findings of the Association for* Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yan Liu, Sanyuan Chen, Yazheng Yang, and Qi Dai. 2022. MPII: Multi-level mutual promotion for inference and interpretation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7074–7084. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yan Liu, Xiaokang Chen, and Qi Dai. 2023. Parallel sentence-level explanation generation for real-world low-resource scenarios. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. Nedjma Ousidhoum, Xinran Zhao, Tianqing Fang, Yangqiu Song, and Dit-Yan Yeung. 2021a. Probing toxic content in large pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nedjma Ousidhoum, Xinran Zhao, Tianqing Fang, Yangqiu Song, and Dit-Yan Yeung. 2021b. Probing toxic content in large pre-trained language models. meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Alicia Parrish, Angelica Chen, Nikita Nangia, Vishakh Padmakumar, Jason Phang, Jana Thompson, Phu Mon Htut, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2021. Bbq: A hand-built bias benchmark for question answering. Gabriel Poesia, Oleksandr Polozov, Vu Le, Ashish Tiwari, Gustavo Soares, Christopher Meek, and Sumit Gulwani. 2022. Synchromesh: Reliable code generation from pre-trained language models. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Premkumar Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019a. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3407– 3412, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Premkumar Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019b. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation. *empirical methods in natural language processing*. Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020. RAT-SQL: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for textto-SQL parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bing Wang, Yan Gao, Zhoujun Li, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2022. Know what i don't know: Handling ambiguous and unanswerable questions for text-to-sql. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/1709.00103. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? In the section after the conclusion, without a section number. ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We didn't discuss potienal risks, because to the best of our knowledge, the research topic does not introduce additional risks. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left Blank. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 6 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank. ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We find it unnecessary. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? We find it unnecessary. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 4 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 4 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

fu-etal-2023-compositional

On the Compositional Generalization in Versatile Open-domain Dialogue

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.760

Previous research has demonstrated the potential of multi-task learning to foster a conversational agent{'}s ability to acquire a variety of skills. However, these approaches either suffer from interference among different datasets (also known as negative transfer), or fail to effectively reuse knowledge and skills learned from other datasets. In contrast to previous works, we develop a sparsely activated modular network: (1) We propose a well-rounded set of operators and instantiate each operator with an independent module; (2) We formulate dialogue generation as the execution of a generated programme which recursively composes and assembles modules. Extensive experiments on 9 datasets verify the efficacy of our methods through automatic evaluation and human evaluation. Notably, our model outperforms state-of-the-art supervised approaches on 4 datasets with only 10{\%} training data thanks to the modular architecture and multi-task learning.

# On The Compositional Generalization In Versatile Open-Domain Dialogue Tingchen Fu1† , Xueliang Zhao2† , Lemao Liu3, Rui Yan1,4∗ 1Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China 2The University of Hong Kong 3Tencent AI Lab 4Engineering Research Center of Next-Generation Intelligent Search and Recommendation, Ministry of Education lucas.futingchen@gmail.com xlzhao22@connect.hku.hk redmondliu@tencent.com ruiyan@ruc.edu.cn ## Abstract 1 Introduction Building an open-domain dialogue system is an intriguing and challenging task. A good open-domain chatbot should be equipped with a well-rounded set of skills (Roller et al., 2021) including but not limited to providing an informative response, showing different emotions, keeping a consistent persona and conducting commonsense inference. Up to now, with more and more datasets proposed to train multiple conversation skills (e.g., Wizard of Wikipedia (Dinan et al., 2019), Personachat (Zhang et al., 2018)), multi-task learning is an efficient way to grasp all the versatile skills and quickly transfer to newly emerging datasets (Roller et al., 2021). †Tingchen Fu and Xueliang Zhao contribute equally to this work. This work was done during their internship at Tencent AI Lab. *Corresponding author: Rui Yan(ruiyan@ruc.edu.cn) 1The code is available at https://github.com/ TingchenFu/ACL23-ModularDialogue However, as a core problem in multi-task learning, it is not easy to strike a balance between transfer and interference (negative transfer) among multiple datasets (Rosenbaum et al., 2019). For this, recent researchers mainly follow two lines of research. On one line, Roller et al. (2021) and Shuster et al. (2022a) simply mix all the datasets together to embody the blended skill required in dialogue. They update all the model parameters to minimize the loss of all of the data, which is also dubbed dense training (Gururangan et al., 2022). In spite of its simplicity, it easily incurs interference among different datasets (Aribandi et al., 2022). On the other line, Li and Liang (2021) learn multiple skills and store the knowledge from different datasets with different sets of parameter-efficient architectures. This approach eliminates underlying negative transfer among different corpora, but hinders positive transfer at cost. The model has to learn from scratch rather than reuse past knowledge every time a new corpus comes. Inspired by recent advancements in neuroscience (Dehaene et al., 2021) suggesting that the human brain represents knowledge in a modular way, we incorporate this as an inductive bias and present a compositional modular architecture to balance transfer and interference (Rosenbaum et al., 2019). By decomposing the knowledge for dialogue into relative independent modules (Mittal et al., 2022), a neural model thus decides which module to invoke for different tasks or different samples. However, there are two challenges in applying modular architecture to building a versatile open-domain chatbot. First, the generation task is different from question answering, where the neural module network accomplishes impressive performance (Andreas et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2017; Gupta et al., 2020). It is untouched how to apply the ideology of modularity to the auto-regressive generation process. Second, the modules used in neural module network (Andreas et al., 2016) are typically Previous research has demonstrated the potential of multi-task learning to foster a conversational agent's ability to acquire a variety of skills. However, these approaches either suffer from interference among different datasets (also known as negative transfer), or fail to effectively reuse knowledge and skills learned from other datasets. In contrast to previous works, we develop a sparsely activated modular network: (1) We propose a wellrounded set of operators and instantiate each operator with an independent module; (2) We formulate dialogue generation as the execution of a generated programme which recursively composes and assembles modules. Extensive experiments on 9 datasets verify the efficacy of our methods through automatic evaluation and human evaluation. Notably, our model outperforms state-of-the-art supervised approaches on 4 datasets with only 10% training data thanks to the modular architecture and multi-task learning. 1 13585 trained with end-task supervision. Without intermediate supervision or specialized training data for each module (Ponti et al., 2022), modules might perform homogeneous functions rather than perform their predefined functions as intended (Gupta et al., 2020, 2021). To deal with the above problems, in this paper, we present a neural modular framework for blended-skill dialogue generation. The principle of our approach is to decompose the generation process into the recursive execution of basic operators by various modules. Specifically, (1) as an attempt to conduct generation tasks in a modular way, we introduce content modules for basic content synthesis and linguistics modules for linguisticallyrelated surface realization. In addition, a programmer is trained to produce a reverse-polish-style code (Burks et al., 1954) which schedules the modules to produce the final response. (2) To overcome the homogeneity of modules, we construct pseudo labels and provide weak supervision signals to facilitate the training of each module. Since the output of the programmer and the modules are discrete and thus not differentiable, we employ GumbelSoftmax trick to produce "soft" sentences as the output of modules at training time, and employ reinforcement learning to bridge the gap between the programmer and the modules. Extensive experiments are conducted on 9 opendomain datasets. Our approach surpasses other models on a similar parameter scale and achieves a new state-of-the-art by multi-task training on all the 9 corpora. Notably, our model outperforms state-of-the-art supervised approaches on DailyDialog, EmpatheticDialog, LIGHT and Cornell Movie with only 10% training data, demonstrating that our modular framework could compose existing skills more efficiently to attain superior performance on out-of-distribution data. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Open Domain Dialogue Most early attempts on dialogue generation construct dialogue systems using manually created rules or templates (Weizenbaum, 1966; Wallace, 2009). The advancements in the field of machine translation (Ritter et al., 2011; Gehring et al., 2017; Vaswani et al., 2017) have served as inspiration for a number of explorations to construct end-to-end open-domain dialogue generation models (Shang et al., 2015; Vinyals and Le, 2015). Following that, the vanilla encoder-decoder architecture is widely employed to improve response quality, and it has undergone several revisions to enhance response diversity (Xing et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2017; Tao et al., 2018), model conversation context structure (Xing et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019), and regulate response characteristics (Wang et al., 2018; See et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020a). Smith et al. (2020) and Shuster et al. (2020) initiate the study of equipping the open-domain conversation agent with a well-rounded set of skills, whose key idea is to conduct simultaneous multi-task training on the blended data. These models have demonstrated encouraging results in skill blending and skill selection thanks to the careful design of the training scheme. BlenderBot (Roller et al., 2021) demonstrates how large-scale models can further promote the concurrent acquisition of several skills. BlenderBot 2.0 is created as a result of the additions made by Komeili et al. (2022) and Xu et al. (2022), who offer BlenderBot the capacity to access the Internet and memorize lengthy history respectively. ## 2.2 Multi-Task Learning With Pre-Trained Language Models Multi-task learning is a common paradigm to transfer knowledge from multiple related tasks to enhance generalization capacity and has shown promising results in a variety of NLP tasks (Zhang and Yang, 2021; Crawshaw, 2020). Large-scale pre-trained language models (PLMs) have presented brand-new difficulties for multi-task learning. Aghajanyan et al. (2021) propose prefinetuning which refines the pre-trained representations through massively multi-task learning. In spite of its efficiency, pre-finetuning may result in catastrophic forgetting of the pre-training task. To alleviate this issue, Aribandi et al. (2021) propose multi-task pre-training which bridges the gap between pre-training and finetuning data distributions. T0 (Sanh et al., 2021) is an early attempt to induce the zero-shot generalization capability of PLMs through explicit multi-task learning, which converts NLP tasks into a manually-collected prompted form. Another prevalent paradigm in multi-task learning using PLMs is instruction tuning, in which the PLMs encode task-specific instructions together with input and produce task output (Wei et al., 2021; Mishra et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). Despite promising results, these methods may suffer from the negative transfer problem  due to the practice of activating all parameters for different tasks. To mitigate this issue, researchers have resorted to parameter-efficient methods which allocate separate adapters for each task (Mahabadi et al., 2021), and compositional modules which only activate relevant parts of the models (Ponti et al., 2022). Our method is orthogonal to earlier efforts in that it attempts to mitigate the unexplored negative transfer problem in auto-regressive decoding. ## 2.3 Neural Modular Network The concept of neural module networks has drawn a lot of interest in a variety of computer vision and natural language processing tasks. Andreas et al. (2016) initially propose neural module network, which parses questions into linguistic substructures and builds question-specific deep networks from compositional modules, to conduct visual question answering. Following this work, several attempts have been made to eliminate the need for mediate supervision on semantic parsers (Hu et al., 2018; Mao et al., 2019), directly forecast the instancespecific network architectures in an end-to-end way (Hu et al., 2017), infer the answer with a purely symbolic executor (Yi et al., 2018), and perform visual co-reference resolution (Kottur et al., 2018). Gupta et al. (2020) and Chen et al. (2020) propose employing neural module networks in response to questions in machine reading comprehension. Another line of closely related works to ours are generative neural module networks, which activate a module when generating the next token (Yang et al., 2019; Tian and Oh, 2020) or only utilize modular architecture for encoder (Le et al., 2022). Our research differs significantly from theirs in that we break down dialogue response generation into independent operations in order to reduce catastrophic forgetting in each module. ## 3 Preliminary For open-domain dialogue generation, each datum can be thought of a pair (x, y), where y is the response and x is the dialogue context composed of history utterances and other external resources such as background knowledge (CMU_DoG (Zhou et al., 2018b)), persona of speakers (ConvAI2 (Zhang et al., 2018)) or conversation setting (LIGHT (Urbanek et al., 2019)). The goal of an open-domain dialogue generation model is to generate y given x and exhibit the necessary skills to be more humanlike. In the proposed modular generation framework, a programmer pθ(c|x) takes the dialogue context as input and produces a code sequence c = [c1, c2, · · · , cn], where n is the length of the code. Based on the generated code, different modules are activated to perform different functions. The execution of the code produces a response in the end. The workflow of our framework is shown in Figure 1. The rest of our paper is structured as follows. We illustrate the modular architecture in §4, including the implementation of the programmer and execution of the code with modules. In §5, we elaborate the training algorithm to cope with the paucity of human annotation and discrete optimization. The experiment results and further analysis are displayed in §6 and §7 respectively. ## 4 Modular Framework In this section, we elaborate on how the modular generation framework works. Briefly, a programmer first generates a code in a special reversepolish-style programme language. Then we execute the code with a stack to store the intermediate result. When encountering some specific operators in code, we just activate corresponding modules to fulfill the function of the operator. ## 4.1 Module Definition Our modules are devised to perform basic atomic tasks and realize the function of some operators. From another perspective, operators are high-level abstractions of modules. According to their functions and the format of input and output, there are 3 types of modules, namely span operator, content operator and linguistics operator. The Span operator is responsible for selecting a span from the dialogue context given the start index and the end index, whose role is similar to QUESTION_SPAN and PASSAGE_SPAN in Chen et al. (2020). Content operators (COPY, PARAPHRASE and INFER) generate diverse new content based on the input text. The linguistics operators (COMPOUND, VERB_MODIFY and NOUN_MODIFY) combine two texts together to form complex sentence or compound sentence. The computation result of the linguistics operators could also serve as the operands to other linguistics operators and content operators. We list all the operators used in our framework in Appendix A. In the implementation, each content operator and linguistics operator are corresponding to an autoregressive generation module M(y m i|x m, ym <i), where x m, y m are the input and output of the module M. They are parameterized as standard transformers. We initialize the parameters of these models using pre-trained T5-small (Raffel et al., 2019). Customizing different modules according to their intended purpose might lead to better performance, but we focus on the overall framework in this paper and leave the sophisticated design of modules for future work. The key insight behind the module instantiation is to decompose the response generation process into relatively independent and composable pieces. Although our framework bears similarities with previous works in visual QA (Andreas et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2017) and image captioning (Tian and Oh, 2019; Yang et al., 2019), the crucial difference of our framework lies in the sparsity of dependency between these highly abstract operators, which allows the respective learning of each module possible and thus eliminates the intra-operator interference. ## 4.2 Programme Generation The programmer maps the natural language dialogue context to an executable programme in a reverse polish notation style. The code tokens (the vocabulary of the programmer) consist of two parts, namely the operator defined in Table 8 and the position index of the dialogue context. Following the design of Gupta et al. (2019) and Chen et al. (2020), the core architecture for programme generation is a MiniLM (Wang et al., 2020b) reader and a 1-layer GRU. At the t-th timestep, assume the embedding of past generated code tokens are [h c1 , h c2 , *· · ·* , h c t−1 ] and the dialogue context representation encoded by BERT is Hx = [h x 1 , h x 2 , *· · ·* , h x l ], where l is the length of the context. We first calculate ht, the hidden state of GRU at the current step: $$\mathbf{h}_{t}=\mathrm{GRU}(\mathbf{h}_{t-1},\mathbf{h}_{t-1}^{c}).$$ t−1). (1) Then we apply the attention mechanism to compute the context vector s x: $$\mathbf{s}^{x}=\sum_{i=1}^{l}\mathbf{w}_{i}\mathbf{h}_{i}^{x},$$ $$\mathbf{w}=\operatorname{Softmax}(\mathbf{h}_{t}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{H}^{x}),$$ $$(1)$$ $${\mathrm{(2)}}$$ $$({\mathfrak{I}}{\mathfrak{I}})$$ The history code vector s cis computed in the same way. Afterwards, we concatenate the s c, s xand GRU hidden state httogether and computes: $$\mathbf{s}=\mathbf{W}[\mathbf{s}^{x};\mathbf{s}^{c};\mathbf{h}_{t}],$$ $$\quad(4)$$ where [·; ·] denotes the vector concatenation operation. Finally, the probability distribution of the next code token ctis: $$\mathrm{Pr}(c_{t})=\mathrm{Softmax}(\mathbf{s}^{\mathrm{T}}[\mathbf{H}^{x};\mathbf{E}^{o}]),$$ o]), (4) where Hx plays the role of position index embedding and Eois a trainable operator embedding. We refer our readers to Chen et al. (2020) for more details about the programmer. ## 4.3 Programme Execution As mentioned before, the generated programme is essentially a reverse polish expression (Burks et al., 1954). Therefore, we maintain a stack to assist the execution of the programme. To be more specific, given a generated code c = [c1, c2, · · · , cn] and an empty stack, we scan every code token in c one by one and take actions according to the current code token ci: - If ciis a position index, push it into the stack; - If ciis SPAN operator, pop the top two items in the stack. Take the two items as the start index and end index to select a span. Push the span into the stack. - If ciis one of the content operators, pop the top one items in the stack and send it into the corresponding content module. Push the generated text into the stack. - If ciis one of the linguistics operators, pop the top two items in the stack, which should be two sentences. concatenate them together and send them into the corresponding linguistics module. Push the generated sentence into the stack. Generally, the execution of programme bears similarity to that of push-down automata. The motivation behind this is to isolate different procedures in dialogue generation and use a stack to temporarily store the intermediate result, which is the only medium for message passing between modules. At the end of the code execution, the item(s) left in the stack is popped out. To improve fluency, we attempt to polish the stack output with another neural network, but it seems that directly concatenating the outputted sentences together is enough. ## 5 Learning Details 5.1 Weak Supervision Training the programmer and the modules jointly with the response as the only supervision signal is challenging (Gupta et al., 2020). More importantly, without the supervision of intermediate output, we have no idea whether the modules differentiate into Algorithm 1 A high-level algorithm for producing pseudo labels. 1: **Input:** A pair of (x, y), a similarity function sim(·, ·), a syntactic relation classifier dis(·, ·), threshold ψ1, ψ2, 2: Initialize an empty code sequence c and pseudo-labeled datasets D op for all modules 3: Use parsing tools to parse y into a tree T . 4: for Segment s among the in-order traverse sequence do 5: Search a span s ′from x that is most similar to s and 6: Locate the start and end position of the span and append them into c. 7: Append SPAN into c 8: if sim(s, s′) > ψ2 **then** 9: Append COPY into c. 10: Add the pair (*s, s*′) into D copy 11: **else if** sim(s, s′) < ψ1 **then** 12: Append INFER into c. 13: Add the pair (*s, s*′) into D infer 14: **else** 15: Append PARAPHRASE into c. 16: Add the pair (*s, s*′) into D paraphrase 17: **end if** 18: if One child of s has been visited (denoted as s chi) and the parent of s has not been visited yet **then** 19: Append OP=dis(s, schi) into c. 20: Add the pair (s, schi) into D op 21: **else if** All children of s have been visited and the parent of s has been visited too (denoted as s par) **then** 22: Append OP=dis(s, spar) into c. 23: Add the pair (s, spar) into D op 24: **end if** 25: **end for** 26: **Return** The pseudo-code label c and D op intended functions. Annotating training data with  human labor for every module is costly and we instead use heuristically obtained pseudo labels for substitution. Algorithm 1 is a high-level illustration of how we make pseudo labels. More details could be found in Appendix C. ## 5.2 Reinforcement Learning. When trained respectively, the programmer and the modules may not adapt to each other well when directly assembled together. Therefore, we propose to further optimize the programmer with policy gradient (Sutton et al., 1999), $$J(\theta)=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{c}\sim p_{\theta}(\mathbf{c}|\mathbf{x})}[r(\mathbf{c})]$$ and design the reward r(c) as the similarity between the generated hypothesis and the ground truth response. Combining the ratio-likelihood trick, we have ∇θJ(θ) = Ec∼pθ(c|x)[∇θ log pθ(c|x)r(c)], (6) where g(y|x, c) represents the execution of the code to generate response. Dataset Metric BART R2C2 Prefix MS Ours SOTA Cornell Movies Rouge-1 10.93 9.97 7.11 11.37 **11.56** 12.11 (He et al., 2021) DailyDialog BLEU-1 43.58 40.12 34.68 43.04 **45.90** 42.84 (Chen et al., 2022) CMU_DoG Rouge-1 13.69 12.16 13.75 13.71 **15.50** 15.37 (Martins et al., 2022) LIGHT unigram-F1 14.52 11.91 13.80 14.57 **15.90** 15.88 (Shuster et al., 2022b) EmpatheticDialog Rouge-1 16.21 14.76 16.17 14.88 **18.62** 16.13 (Li et al., 2022a) Wizard of Wikipedia unigram-F1 33.24 30.94 30.02 29.14 **36.29** 36.00 (Li et al., 2022b) ConvAI2 unigram-F1 19.24 17.09 15.81 17.51 19.79 20.50 (Shuster et al., 2022a) Mutual Rouge-L 17.22 18.03 17.77 15.33 17.26 22.70 (Liu et al., 2022) CommonsenseDialog Rouge-1 14.95 13.79 13.67 13.03 **15.15** 14.97 (Zhou et al., 2021) Table 1: Experiment results in all-task MTL setting. Numbers in bold means that the improvement over baselines is statistically significant(t-test, p<0.05). Dataset Metric BART R2C2 MS Ours CM Rouge-1 10.16 9.73 10.83 **11.08** DailyDialog BLEU-1 33.48 33.16 32.59 **35.06** CMU_DoG Rouge-1 12.78 11.49 11.51 **13.05** LIGHT unigram-F1 9.79 10.47 10.98 **13.30** ED Rouge-1 15.15 11.13 13.69 **15.58** ConvAI2 unigram-F1 14.22 14.66 14.75 **15.36** WoW unigram-F1 19.56 17.36 20.10 **23.80** Mutual Rouge-L 12.82 10.43 13.33 **13.63** CD Rouge-1 13.13 13.30 12.51 **14.50** In addition, to facilitate end-to-end training, we apply Gumbel-Softmax trick (Jang et al., 2017) to overcome the differentiable obstacle owing to the discrete nature of natural language when optimizing the modules. Formally, instead of selecting one token from module-predicted vocabulary distribution M(y m i|x m, ym <i), the content modules and linguistics modules sample a "soft word": $$y_{i}^{*}=\mathrm{Gumbel}({\mathcal{M}}(y_{i}^{m}|x^{m},y_{<i}^{m}),\tau),$$ <i), τ ), (7) where τ is the temperature of sampling. ## 6 Experiment 6.1 Experimental Setup Setting. To comprehensively evaluate the multitask learning ability and the generalization ability, suppose we have N datasets, we evaluate our proposed framework in three settings: (1) All Task MTL. In this setting, we train our model on the mixed union of N datasets and evaluate it on each individual dataset. (2) Leave-one-out. In this setting, we train our model on N − 1 datasets and test on the left one dataset to evaluate a model's zero-shot generalization ability. (3) Low-resource. To further evaluate the generalization capability of our method, after training on other N − 1 datasets in the leave-one-out setting, we fine-tune the model on the left dataset with only 10% data available, and test the model on the left one dataset. Datasets. We use N = 9 datasets to evaluate our framework: Cornell Movies (Danescu-NiculescuMizil and Lee, 2011), DailyDialog (Li et al., 2017), CMU_DoG (Zhou et al., 2018b), LIGHT (Urbanek et al., 2019), EmpatheticDialog (Rashkin et al., 2019), ConvAI2 (Dinan et al., 2020), Wizard of Wikipedia (Dinan et al., 2019), Mutual (Cui et al., 2020) and CommonsenseDialog (Zhou et al., 2021). Each dataset embodies one or more specific skills. More details about the datasets could be found in Appendix B. Baselines. We use **BART** (Lewis et al., 2020) as one of our baselines, which is a standard sequenceto-sequence transformer pre-trained on the same corpus as Liu et al. (2019); We also compare against **R2C2**, a BlenderBot-like open-domain dialogue model trained in a multi-task way by Shuster et al. (2022a) and hold the current stateof-the-art on many datasets (Zhang et al., 2022). For parameter-efficient technique in multi-task learning, we compare our method with **prefixtuning** (Li and Liang, 2021). We also draw a comparison with the recent proposed **Modular Skill** (MS) (Ponti et al., 2022), a modular network that allows each task to choose its skill toolkit and optimize the global skill inventory together with the choice of each task jointly. For a fair comparison, we use BART-large ( 406M) and R2C2-base ( 400M) in our experiments. The parameter scale of Prefix-tuning ( 415M) and MS ( 448M) are both comparable with ours. ## 6.2 Main Result All Task MTL. The experiment results are shown in Table 1. We could observe that (1) our proposed approach outperforms BART and R2C2 on most datasets. The advantage of our modular framework over prefix-tuning is also obvious, possibly because prefix-tuning hinders positive transfer among corpora. To have a more comprehensive understanding of our approach, we investigate the schedule frequency of modules on different datasets and it reveals that our modular design captures some distinctive patterns in different corpora. More information could be found in Appendix F. (2) Meanwhile, we also provide the performance of the current state-of-the-art for each individual dataset2. We could observe that when trained in a multi-task way, our framework is superior or comparable to the SOTA without a sophisticated design of model architecture and learning algorithm for each individual dataset, which further verifies the capacity of our model to transfer knowledge from other corpus and manipulate multiple skills. Leave-one-out. The results are shown in Table 2. There is a gap in performance between the baseline and ours, especially on Wizard of Wikipedia. It can be understood that Wizard of Wikipedia is less similar to other datasets since it contains some formal sentences from Wikipedia. Thus, zero-shot generalization on the dataset is more difficult. We can conclude that our model generalizes better than BART and R2C2, possibly because the modular framework could recursively compose the computations by modules to cope with new situations with existing knowledge. Besides, the comparison with MS further verdict the necessity of intermediate supervision for each module. Low-resource The results are shown in Table 3. The proposed method attains a better performance than BART. Notably, our modular generation framework surpasses the fully supervised approach on DailyDialog, EmpatheticDialog, LIGHT and CommonsenseDialog, validating the potential of the compositional modular paradigm as a general method in the low-resource setting. ## 7 Further Analysis 7.1 Single Transfer Relation To explore whether our framework enhances transfer in a multi-task learning scenario, we further draw a comparison in a single-task scenario where we train and test our model and all the baselines on each individual dataset. The experiment results are shown on Table 4. When comparing with Table 1, we could see that our approach achieves a positive transfer on most datasets while negative transfer is more common for baseline methods. It demonstrates that our modular design effectively alleviates the intra-operator transfer. ## 7.2 Pair-Wise Transfer Relations To have a closer look at the transfer relation among the datasets, we evaluate the transfer among datasets in a pair-wise multi-task learning setup. We use CommonsenseDialog, LIGHT, CMU_DoG and EmpatheticDialogie since they are diverse enough to be representative. The experiment results are shown in Table 5. Our approach attains positive transfer or at least avoids drop on most dataset pairs, while for BART the opposite is true. Besides that, an interesting trend manifests in individual relationships. For example, CMU_DoG and EmpatheticDialog seem to promote each other whilst LIGHT and CommonsenseDialog tend to hurt each other. ## 7.3 Ablation Study An ablation study is conducted to explore how different mechanisms and components contribute to the performance. We compare our approach with the following variants: (1) -*span*: The SPAN operator is removed and we always select the entire dialogue context as a "span". (2) -*linguistic*: The linguistics operator is replaced with a direct concatenation of two input segments. (3) -*warm*: The warm-up procedure is removed. (4) -*reward*: The reinforcement learning of programmer is removed. The results are shown in Table 6. The result reveals that warm-up is indispensable to the proposed method, and the conclusion is in coincidence with Gupta et al. (2020, 2021). The span operator and the linguistic operators are also helpful to the performance. The decline in appropriateness of -*span* and -*linguistic* validates the necessity of them. | Dataset | Metrics | BART | R2C2 | Prefix | MS | Ours | |-----------|-----------|--------|--------|----------|------|--------| Cornell Movie Rouge-1 10.70 9.19 8.03 9.31 **12.21** DailyDialog BLEU-1 41.86 42.13 39.57 42.82 **45.54** CMU_DoG Rouge-1 14.28 13.96 12.41 14.21 **15.15** LIGHT unigram-F1 14.34 12.61 12.34 14.00 **15.98** EmpathicDialogue Rouge-1 15.94 16.12 16.01 15.70 **17.79** ConvAI2 unigram-F1 18.29 18.08 18.18 17.42 18.50 Wizard of Wikipedia unigram-F1 31.85 33.41 29.83 30.00 33.52 Mutual Rouge-L 18.28 10.43 13.33 13.64 18.66 CommonsenseDialog Rouge-1 13.97 13.92 13.42 12.97 **14.61** Dataset Metric BART R2C2 MS Ours Cornell Movie Rouge-1 10.09 8.30 11.17 10.38 DailyDialog BLEU-1 43.00 42.25 43.73 43.72 CMU_DoG Rouge-1 15.04 12.92 13.78 15.16 LIGHT unigram-F1 15.46 14.71 14.35 15.14 EmpatheticDialog Rouge-1 16.43 17.43 15.11 17.35 Wizard of Wikipedia unigram-F1 35.30 34.85 34.37 36.70 ConvAI2 unigram-F1 20.72 19.89 19.11 20.16 Mutual Rouge-L 20.60 22.26 17.51 20.02 CommonsenseDialog Rouge-1 14.81 15.04 14.42 14.97 Table 4: Experiment results on each individual dataset. Table 6: Ablation results on four datasets. ED = EmpatheticDialog, CD = CommonsenseDialog Table 7: Human evaluation results in all-task MTL setting. | LIGHT | CMU_DoG | ED | CD | | |---------|-----------|-------|-------|-------| | LIGHT | 15.46 | 14.22 | 15.98 | 14.04 | | CMU_DoG | 14.29 | 15.04 | 18.06 | 14.34 | | ED | 15.00 | 15.27 | 16.43 | 14.41 | | CD | 15.09 | 14.60 | 16.64 | 14.81 | | LIGHT | CMU_DoG | ED | CD | | | LIGHT | 15.14 | 14.93 | 17.71 | 14.64 | | CMU_DoG | 15.63 | 15.17 | 18.03 | 15.19 | | ED | 15.15 | 15.30 | 17.35 | 15.61 | | CD | 15.05 | 15.37 | 18.30 | 14.97 | ## 7.4 Qualitative Evaluation Automatic metrics are not perfect for evaluating an open-domain task (Dinan et al., 2019) and human evaluation is necessary. Concretely, in the all-task MTL setting, we randomly sample 300 responses from each dataset generated by ours and baseline methods and recruit well-educated native speakers to rate them. Each annotator is required to give a score ranging from 1 to 3. 1 means the response is correct in grammar and fluent; 2 means the response is coherent to the context and satisfies the requirements of 1. 3 means the response exhibits versatile skills if necessary including showing empathy, grounding on knowledge, commonsense inference, etc. Besides, the response should also meet the requirements of 2. Agreement of the annotators is measured via Fleiss' kappa (Fleiss, 1971). As is shown in Table 7, the responses generated by our approach enjoy a higher quality, demonstrating the superiority of the modular generation framework. The evaluation results are also consistent with automatic evaluation. A case study could be found in Appendix F. | CMU_DoG | LIGHT | ED | CD | | |-------------|---------|-------|-------|-------| | ours | 15.50 | 15.90 | 18.62 | 15.15 | | -span | 14.81 | 14.43 | 18.17 | 14.75 | | -linguistic | 15.44 | 13.79 | 17.62 | 15.02 | | -warm | 12.58 | 13.03 | 16.71 | 12.25 | | -reward | 15.10 | 15.62 | 17.98 | 14.35 | 8 Conclusions In this work, we utilize the ideology of modular networks to address the transfer-interference prob- | 1(%) | 2(%) | 3(%) | Avg | | |--------|--------|--------|-------|------| | BART | 21 | 57 | 22 | 2.01 | | R2C2 | 12 | 59 | 29 | 2.17 | | Prefix | 39 | 31 | 30 | 1.91 | | MS | 17 | 52 | 31 | 2.14 | | Ours | 9 | 47 | 44 | 2.35 | lem in multi-task learning. We implement a model architecture that allows the composition of different modules to fulfill complicated functions and eliminate interference among modules. We apply our method to dialogue generation and conduct extensive experiments to verdict its efficacy. We hope our work would inspire relevant research in the community. ## Ethic Considerations The use of our approach could result in improved dialogue systems that enhance the quality of life for many individuals, especially in light of the widespread use of AI in everyday life. For instance, a more effective chatbot integrated with electronic gadgets will boost both productivity and user experience. On the other hand, the implementation of conversation systems could result in employment losses in some domains such as call centers. ## Limitations This work focuses on mitigating the negative transfer and catastrophic forgetting issue in multi-task dialogue generation. All technologies built upon the large-scale PLM more or less inherit their potential harms (Bender et al., 2021). Besides, we acknowledge some specific limitations within our methods: 1. The construction of pseudo labels requires dependency parsing with spaCy, which is timeconsuming. But we only construct pseudo labels offline in the training processing and it causes no latency at inference. 2. We instantiate our modular framework using MiniLM (Wang et al., 2020b) as the backbone of the reader within the programmer, and T5 (Raffel et al., 2019) as the backbone for the content operators and linguistic operators. We did not try other instantiations although the modular framework does not depend on the specific initialization choice of modules. Theoretically, any generative PLM could be the backbone of these linguistic and content modules. 3. We aim at decomposing the response generation into relatively independent and composable operators. Currently, the division of dialogue skills and module functions is in a heuristic way inspired by linguistics. Thus it remains a future research question about how to design modular architecture in a more data-driven way. ## Acknowledgement We thank all the reviewers and chairs for their suggestions and recommendation. This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC Grant No. 62122089), Beijing Outstanding Young Scientist Program NO. BJJWZYJH012019100020098, and Intelligent Social Governance Platform, Major Innovation & Planning Inter-disciplinary Platform for the "Double-First Class" Initiative, Renmin University of China. We wish to acknowledge the support provided by Public Policy and Decision-making Research Lab, Renmin University of China and the Public Computing Cloud, Renmin University of China. ## References Armen Aghajanyan, Anchit Gupta, Akshat Shrivastava, Xilun Chen, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Sonal Gupta. 2021. Muppet: Massive multi-task representations with pre-finetuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5799–5811. Jacob Andreas, Marcus Rohrbach, Trevor Darrell, and Dan Klein. 2016. Neural module networks. In *Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision* and pattern recognition, pages 39–48. Vamsi Aribandi, Yi Tay, Tal Schuster, Jinfeng Rao, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Sanket Vaibhav Mehta, Honglei Zhuang, Vinh Q. Tran, Dara Bahri, Jianmo Ni, Jai Gupta, Kai Hui, Sebastian Ruder, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Ext5: Towards extreme multi-task scaling for transfer learning. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Vamsi Aribandi, Yi Tay, Tal Schuster, Jinfeng Rao, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Sanket Vaibhav Mehta, Honglei Zhuang, Vinh Q Tran, Dara Bahri, Jianmo Ni, et al. 2021. Ext5: Towards extreme multitask scaling for transfer learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.10952. Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillanMajor, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In *Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency*, pages 610–623. Arthur W Burks, Don W Warren, and Jesse B Wright. 1954. An analysis of a logical machine using parenthesis-free notation. *Mathematical tables and* other aids to computation, 8(46):53–57. Wei Chen, Yeyun Gong, Song Wang, Bolun Yao, Weizhen Qi, Zhongyu Wei, Xiaowu Hu, Bartuer Zhou, Yi Mao, Weizhu Chen, Biao Cheng, and Nan Duan. 2022. DialogVED: A pre-trained latent variable encoder-decoder model for dialog response generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4852–4864, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinyun Chen, Chen Liang, Adams Wei Yu, Denny Zhou, Dawn Song, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. Neural symbolic reader: Scalable integration of distributed and symbolic representations for reading comprehension. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Michael Crawshaw. 2020. Multi-task learning with deep neural networks: A survey. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2009.09796. Leyang Cui, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Yue Zhang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. MuTual: A dataset for multi-turn dialogue reasoning. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1406–1416, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil and Lillian Lee. 2011. Chameleons in imagined conversations: A new approach to understanding coordination of linguistic style in dialogs. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1106.3077*. Stanislas Dehaene, Hakwan Lau, and Sid Kouider. 2021. What is consciousness, and could machines have it? Robotics, AI, and Humanity, pages 43–56. Emily Dinan, Varvara Logacheva, Valentin Malykh, Alexander Miller, Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Douwe Kiela, Arthur Szlam, Iulian Serban, Ryan Lowe, et al. 2020. The second conversational intelligence challenge (convai2). In *The NeurIPS'18* Competition, pages 187–208. Springer. Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. 2019. Wizard of Wikipedia: Knowledge-Powered Conversational Agents. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net. Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. *Psychological bulletin*, 76(5):378. Jonas Gehring, Michael Auli, David Grangier, Denis Yarats, and Yann N. Dauphin. 2017. Convolutional sequence to sequence learning. In *Proceedings of the* 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70, ICML'17, page 1243–1252. JMLR.org. Nitish Gupta, Kevin Lin, Dan Roth, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Neural module networks for reasoning over text. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.04971*. Nitish Gupta, Kevin Lin, Dan Roth, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2020. Neural module networks for reasoning over text. In *International Conference on* Learning Representations. Nitish Gupta, Sameer Singh, Matt Gardner, and Dan Roth. 2021. Paired examples as indirect supervision in latent decision models. In *Proceedings of the* 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5774–5785, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Suchin Gururangan, Mike Lewis, Ari Holtzman, Noah A. Smith, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. DEMix layers: Disentangling domains for modular language modeling. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5557–5576, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianxing He, Jun Liu, Kyunghyun Cho, Myle Ott, Bing Liu, James Glass, and Fuchun Peng. 2021. Analyzing the forgetting problem in pretrain-finetuning of opendomain dialogue response models. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1121–1133, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ronghang Hu, Jacob Andreas, Trevor Darrell, and Kate Saenko. 2018. Explainable neural computation via stack neural module networks. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 53–69. Ronghang Hu, Jacob Andreas, Marcus Rohrbach, Trevor Darrell, and Kate Saenko. 2017. Learning to reason: End-to-end module networks for visual question answering. In *Proceedings of the IEEE* international conference on computer vision, pages 804–813. Eric Jang, Shixiang Gu, and Ben Poole. 2017. Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In *ICLR (Poster)*. Mojtaba Komeili, Kurt Shuster, and Jason Weston. 2022. Internet-augmented dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8460–8478. Satwik Kottur, José MF Moura, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, and Marcus Rohrbach. 2018. Visual coreference resolution in visual dialog using neural module networks. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 153–169. Hung Le, Nancy Chen, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Vgnmn: Video-grounded neural module networks for videogrounded dialogue systems. In *Proceedings of the* 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3377–3393. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pretraining for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871–7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qintong Li, Piji Li, Zhaochun Ren, Pengjie Ren, and Zhumin Chen. 2022a. Knowledge bridging for empathetic dialogue generation. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4582– 4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yanran Li, Hui Su, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Shuzi Niu. 2017. DailyDialog: A manually labelled multi-turn dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 986–995, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Yu Li, Baolin Peng, Yelong Shen, Yi Mao, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022b. Knowledgegrounded dialogue generation with a unified knowledge representation. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 206–218, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ruibo Liu, Guoqing Zheng, Shashank Gupta, Radhika Gaonkar, Chongyang Gao, Soroush Vosoughi, Milad Shokouhi, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2022. Knowledge infused decoding. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, Sebastian Ruder, Mostafa Dehghani, and James Henderson. 2021. Parameterefficient multi-task fine-tuning for transformers via shared hypernetworks. In *Proceedings of the 59th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 565–576. Jiayuan Mao, Chuang Gan, Pushmeet Kohli, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Jiajun Wu. 2019. The neurosymbolic concept learner: Interpreting scenes, words, and sentences from natural supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.12584. Pedro Henrique Martins, Zita Marinho, and Andre Martins. 2022. former: Infinite memory transformer. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5468–5485, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3470–3487. Sarthak Mittal, Yoshua Bengio, and Guillaume Lajoie. 2022. Is a modular architecture enough? arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02713. Edoardo M Ponti, Alessandro Sordoni, and Siva Reddy. 2022. Combining modular skills in multitask learning. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.13914*. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10683*. Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards empathetic opendomain conversation models: A new benchmark and dataset. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 5370–5381, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alan Ritter, Colin Cherry, and William B. Dolan. 2011. Data-driven response generation in social media. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 583– 593, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics. Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Eric Michael Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. In *Proceedings of the 16th Conference of* the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 300–325, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Clemens Rosenbaum, Ignacio Cases, Matthew Riemer, and Tim Klinger. 2019. Routing networks and the challenges of modular and compositional computation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.12774*. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. 2021. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207. A. See, Stephen Roller, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2019. What makes a good conversation? how controllable attributes affect human judgments. In NAACL. Lifeng Shang, Zhengdong Lu, and Hang Li. 2015. Neural responding machine for short-text conversation. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1577–1586. Kurt Shuster, Da Ju, Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, YLan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2020. The dialogue dodecathlon: Open-domain knowledge and image grounded conversational agents. In *Proceedings of* the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2453–2470. Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022a. Language Models that Seek for Knowledge: Modular Search & Generation for Dialogue and Prompt Completion. *CoRR*, abs/2203.13224. Version 1. Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022b. Am I me or you? state-of-the-art dialogue models cannot maintain an identity. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, pages 2367–2387, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Eric Michael Smith, Mary Williamson, Kurt Shuster, Jason Weston, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2020. Can you put it all together: Evaluating conversational agents' ability to blend skills. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2021–2030. Richard S Sutton, David McAllester, Satinder Singh, and Yishay Mansour. 1999. Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing* Systems, volume 12. MIT Press. Chongyang Tao, Shen Gao, Mingyue Shang, Wei Wu, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2018. Get the point of my utterance! learning towards effective responses with multi-head attention mechanism. In *IJCAI*. Junjiao Tian and Jean Oh. 2019. Image captioning with compositional neural module networks. In *Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19*, pages 3576–3584. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Junjiao Tian and Jean Oh. 2020. Image captioning with compositional neural module networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.05608. Jack Urbanek, Angela Fan, Siddharth Karamcheti, Saachi Jain, Samuel Humeau, Emily Dinan, Tim Rocktäschel, Douwe Kiela, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2019. Learning to speak and act in a fantasy text adventure game. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLPIJCNLP), pages 673–683, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Oriol Vinyals and Quoc Le. 2015. A neural conversational model. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05869*. Richard S. Wallace. 2009. The anatomy of a.l.i.c.e. Qiansheng Wang, Yuxin Liu, Chengguo Lv, Zhen Wang, and Guohong Fu. 2020a. Cue-word driven neural response generation with a shrinking vocabulary. ArXiv, abs/2010.04927. Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Nan Yang, and Ming Zhou. 2020b. Minilm: Deep selfattention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers. Yansen Wang, Chen-Yu Liu, Minlie Huang, and Liqiang Nie. 2018. Learning to ask questions in open-domain conversational systems with typed decoders. In ACL. Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022. Benchmarking generalization via in-context instructions on 1,600+ language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07705. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652. Joseph Weizenbaum. 1966. Eliza: A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. volume 9, pages 36–45. ACM. Chen Xing, Wei Wu, Yu Wu, Jie Liu, Yalou Huang, M. Zhou, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2017. Topic aware neural response generation. In *AAAI*. Chen Xing, Wei Yu Wu, Yu Wu, Ming Zhou, Yalou Huang, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2018. Hierarchical recurrent attention network for response generation. In AAAI. Jing Xu, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022. Beyond goldfish memory: Long-term open-domain conversation. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5180–5197. Xu Yang, Hanwang Zhang, and Jianfei Cai. 2019. Learning to collocate neural modules for image captioning. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 4250– 4260. Kexin Yi, Jiajun Wu, Chuang Gan, Antonio Torralba, Pushmeet Kohli, and Josh Tenenbaum. 2018. Neuralsymbolic vqa: Disentangling reasoning from vision and language understanding. *Advances in neural* information processing systems, 31. Hainan Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liang Pang, Jiafeng Guo, and Xueqi Cheng. 2019. ReCoSa: Detecting the relevant contexts with self-attention for multi-turn dialogue generation. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics, pages 3721–3730, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204–2213, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. Yu Zhang and Qiang Yang. 2021. A survey on multitask learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. Tiancheng Zhao, Ran Zhao, and Maxine Eskénazi. 2017. Learning discourse-level diversity for neural dialog models using conditional variational autoencoders. In ACL. Hao Zhou, Tom Young, Minlie Huang, Haizhou Zhao, Jingfang Xu, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2018a. Commonsense Knowledge Aware Conversation Generation with Graph Attention. In *Proceedings of the TwentySeventh International Joint Conference on Artificial* Intelligence, pages 4623–4629, Stockholm, Sweden. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Kangyan Zhou, Shrimai Prabhumoye, and Alan W Black. 2018b. A Dataset for Document Grounded Conversations. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing, pages 708–713, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pei Zhou, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Seokhwan Kim, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2021. Commonsensefocused dialogues for response generation: An empirical study. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.06427*. ## A Details About Operators The operators used in our framework are listed in Table 8. ## B More Details About Datasets Cornell Movies (Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil and Lee, 2011) contains large-scale fictional conversations extracted from raw movie script. thus covering abundant topics and emotional change. The dataset is used for training and evaluating a chatbot to quickly capture the emotional change in dialogue and respond accordingly. LIGHT (Urbanek et al., 2019) is about situated interaction between characters in a text adventure game. The dialogue context includes not only the historical utterance but also the persona and action of the speakers together with the background setting. The skill in this dataset is grounding discussion on the dynamic environment. EmpatheticDialogue (Rashkin et al., 2019) is a crowd-sourced dataset in which a speaker describes his or her situation and a listener responds with empathy. The dataset provides the emotion labels for interlocutors at each turn, but we do not include that in the dialogue context of our experiment. ConvAI2 (Dinan et al., 2020) is the dataset used for NeurIPS 2018 competition and is adapted from PERSONACHAT (Zhang et al., 2018). In conversation, the interlocutors are required to exhibit a given persona and try to know the persona of the partner at the same time. The dataset mainly focuses on the skill of getting to know each other and engaging in friendly greeting conversation. Wizard of Wikipedia (Dinan et al., 2019) is a knowledge-grounded dataset in which an interlocutor plays the apprentice and asks questions while the other interlocutor plays the wizard and gives informative responses. The wizard has access to background knowledge from Wikipedia. We only include the golden knowledge in the dialogue context. The dataset is for training and evaluating the skill of grounding conversation on knowledge. CMU_DoG (Zhou et al., 2018b) is also a dataset for knowledge-grounded dialogue. In each conversation, two interlocutors discuss a given movie. The basic information of the movie including rating, release year, review and main plots are provided as background knowledge. Similarly, we use only the golden knowledge. The dataset focuses on grounding knowledge. Mutual (Cui et al., 2020) is collected from Chinese students' English listening comprehension exams. The model needs to generate a logically correct continuation of the conversation based on historical utterances. The dataset facilitates reasoning ability on social etiquette and relationships. CommonsenseDialog (Zhou et al., 2018a) consists of two parts. The first part is extracted from the existing dialogue dataset using ConceptNet while the second part is crowd-sourced asking the crowd workers to exhibit social commonsense in an interacting environment. We only use the crowdsourced part to avoid overlap with other datasets used in our experiments. The dataset requires the skill of performing latent or explicit commonsense inference in communication. DailyDialog (Li et al., 2017) is a dataset intended to reflect conversations occurring in daily life, covering a wide range of domains and topics. The dataset is also annotated with the topic, emotion and utterance act, but we only use the history utterance as the dialogue context. Since the test set of ConvAI2 and Mutual is not publicly released, we conduct validation on a separate subset (10%) of the training set and test on the original validation set. The statistics of our datasets are listed in Table 9. ## C More Details About Weak Supervision Since algorithm 1 is only a high-level description, we provide more details here about how to produce our pseudo training data. In implementation, we use spaCy 3as our parsing tool. It outputs a parsing tree and every token in the sentence is a node. We process the token-level parsing tree into a segment-level parsing tree by merging the nodes into verb phrases. Specifically, we merge all the nodes and within the subtree of a verb node unless it is another verb node or its nearest verb ancestor is another verb node. The edge between the verb nodes is kept unchanged. As a result, we parse the golden response into a segment tree T . To traverse all the segments in the tree, we use a pseudo inorder traverse because in the parsing tree a node may have more than two children and a traditional in-order traverse does not work here. Precisely, we for every node to visit, we first visit its first child, then the node itself, and finally all the other children. In algorithm 1, the similarity function | Operator | Input | Output | Description | |-------------|--------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------| | SPAN | v0: start index; v1: end index | text | Select a span from dialogue context | | COPY | v: text | text | Copy the input text | | PARAPHRASE | v: text | text | Paraphrase the input text | | INFER | v: text | text | Take the input as premise and infer a hypothesis | | NOUN_MODIFY | v0: text v1: text | text | Connect one clause to another to modify a noun | | VERB_MODIFY | v0: text v1: text | text | Connect one clause to another to modify a verb | | COMPOUND | v0: text v1: text | text | Connect the two sentences with a conjunct | Table 8: The operators used in programme generation. | Training | Validation | Test | Resp.Length | | |--------------------------------------------------------|--------------|--------|---------------|-------| | Cornell Movies (Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil and Lee, 2011) | 110,161 | 13,914 | 13,701 | 10.84 | | DailyDialog (Li et al., 2017) | 76,005 | 8,069 | 7,740 | 11.61 | | CMU_DoG (Zhou et al., 2018b) | 66,333 | 3,270 | 10,502 | 18.53 | | LIGHT (Urbanek et al., 2019) | 93,784 | 5,623 | 11,268 | 12.98 | | EmpatheticDialogue (Rashkin et al., 2019) | 64,635 | 5,738 | 5,259 | 11.72 | | Wizard of Wikipedia (Dinan et al., 2019) | 74,092 | 3,939 | 3,865 | 13.02 | | ConvAI2 (Dinan et al., 2020) | 131,438 | 7,801 | - | 11.48 | | Mutual (Cui et al., 2020) | 7,088 | 886 | - | 13.02 | | CommonsenseDialog (Zhou et al., 2021) | 25,552 | 3,268 | 1,158 | 8.86 | Table 9: Statistics of the datasets used in our experiments. Resp.Length is the abbreviation for the length of response (number of words). sim(·, ·) is unigram F14(Dinan et al., 2019). We set ϕ1 to be 0.35 and ϕ2 to be 0.75. The syntactic relation classifier cls(·, ·) is based on the dependency relation r between the two verb nodes in two segments: $$\operatorname{cls}(s_{1},s_{2})=$$ $$\begin{array}{ll}\mbox{COMPOUND},&\mbox{r=conj},\\ \mbox{VERB\_MODIFY},&\mbox{r=advel}\\ \mbox{NOUN\_MODIFY},&\mbox{r\in\{rell,acl\}}\end{array}\tag{8}$$ $\downarrow$ . ## D More Implement Details All the content modules and linguistics modules are sequence-to-sequence transformers initialized with T5-small (Raffel et al., 2019). The reader within the programmer is a bidirectional 6-layer transformer with an embedding size of 512. Its parameters are initialized from MiniLM (Wang et al., 2020b). The GRU in the programmer is 1-layer with the dimension of hidden state 512. All the models are learned with Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with β1 = 0.9 and β2 = 0.999. We sweep learning rate from [5e−6, 1e−5, 2e−5, 4e−5, 6e−6, 8e−5] and sweep batch size from [16, 32, 64, 128, 256]. 4https://github.com/facebookresearch/ParlAI/blob/ master/parlai/core/metrics.py | CMU_DoG | LIGHT | ED | CD | | |---------------------------------------------------|---------|--------|--------|--------| | BART (406M) | 626.06 | 617.95 | 619.94 | 623.17 | | Ours (327M) | 308.39 | 355.43 | 310.22 | 406.97 | | Table 10: Average inference time (ms) of BART and | | | | | BART (406M) 626.06 617.95 619.94 623.17 Ours (327M) 308.39 355.43 310.22 406.97 Table 10: Average inference time (ms) of BART and our method on four datasets. ED = EmpatheticDialog, CD = CommonsenseDialog. We set the weight decay as 1e − 2 and sweep the warmup steps from [1000, 2000, 4000]. The gradient clip is set to 2.0 to avoid the explosion of the gradient. The reward for reinforcement is implemented as the unigram-F1. We keep the temperature τ to be 1.0 through our experiment. A cosine learning schedule is applied to adjust the learning rate during training. An early stop on the validation set is adopted. We truncate the input dialogue context to a maximum length of 480. We conduct experiments on two RTX 3090. We use greedy search for decoding and report the performance averaged in three repetitive experiments. ## E Inference Speed We further compare the decoding speed at inference time with BART to see whether the modular   generation framework suffers from high latency. We conduct experiments on CMU_DoG, LIGHT, EmpatheticDialog and CommonsenseDialog with an RTX 3090. The experiment results are shown in Table 10. From the table, we could observe that our model has a lower inference latency than BART. We gauge the reason that the modules in our framework are much smaller in scale. Meanwhile, those modules only attend to the partial text selected by SPAN rather than the entire dialogue context. ## F Case Study To have an intuitive understanding of how our modular framework takes effect, we show three cases in all-task MTL setting in Table 12, Table 11 and Table 13. Besides, we are also interested in whether the schedule frequency of each module varies in different datasets. We believe the difference of schedule frequency exhibits some intrinsic feature of the dataset. From Figure 2 to Figure 19, we conjecture that the schedule frequency gives out the linguistic style of a dataset. For example, in Wizard of Wikipedia (Dinan et al., 2019), a portion of sentences are directly copied from the knowledge; In ConvAI2 (Dinan et al., 2020), some sentences are paraphrased from the given persona of speakers.                 ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Limitations ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 6 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix D The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 6,7 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 6, 7 C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? No response. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** 6,7 ✗ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank. ✗ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? 6,7

mirzaei-etal-2023-real

What is the Real Intention behind this Question? Dataset Collection and Intention Classification

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.761

Asking and answering questions are inseparable parts of human social life. The primary purposes of asking questions are to gain knowledge or request help which has been the subject of question-answering studies. However, questions can also reflect negative intentions and include implicit offenses, such as highlighting one{'}s lack of knowledge or bolstering an alleged superior knowledge, which can lead to conflict in conversations; yet has been scarcely researched. This paper is the first study to introduce a dataset (Question Intention Dataset) that includes questions with positive/neutral and negative intentions and the underlying intention categories within each group. We further conduct a meta-analysis to highlight tacit and apparent intents. We also propose a classification method using Transformers augmented by TF-IDF-based features and report the results of several models for classifying the main intention categories. We aim to highlight the importance of taking intentions into account, especially implicit and negative ones, to gain insight into conflict-evoking questions and better understand human-human communication on the web for NLP applications.

# What Is The Real Intention Behind This Question? Dataset Collection And Intention Classification Maryam Sadat Mirzaei, Kourosh Meshgi & Satoshi Sekine RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project (AIP) Tokyo, Japan {maryam.mirzaei, kourosh.meshgi, satoshi.sekine}@riken.jp ## Abstract Asking and answering questions are inseparable parts of human social life. The primary purposes of asking questions are to gain knowledge or request help which has been the subject of question-answering studies. However, questions can also reflect negative intentions and include implicit offenses, such as highlighting one's lack of knowledge or bolstering an alleged superior knowledge, which can lead to conflict in conversations; yet has been scarcely researched. This paper is the first study to introduce a dataset (Question Intention Dataset) that includes questions with positive/neutral and negative intentions and the underlying intention categories within each group. We further conduct a meta-analysis to highlight tacit and apparent intents. We also propose a classification method using Transformers augmented by TF-IDF-based features and report the results of several models for classifying the main intention categories. We aim to highlight the importance of taking intentions into account, especially implicit and negative ones, to gain insight into conflict-evoking questions and better understand human-human communication on the web for NLP applications. ## 1 Introduction The essence of conversation is to communicate intentions; however, the uptake of what has been communicated entails more than merely decoding the words in the message (Galinsky et al., 2005). Many layers underlie a communicative message, and as we interact, we try to decode the surface meaning as well as the tacit aspects (Sperber and Wilson, 2015). We further use established codes to interpret the meanings. For instance, a question is known to be a means of asking for information or requesting help. However, as humans, we also apply meta-knowledge to override the established rules; thus, we may interpret a question as deceitful, then consider it as a means to criticize. Our | Question | Have you been invited to edit this article? | | |--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|------------| | Positive/ neutral intention | Clarification/Confirmation: | Inquiry to | | disambiguate whether an invitation was involved. | | | | Negative | Putdown/Embarrass: | An insulting re | | mark to inflict harm as no one has permitted the person to conduct any edits. | | | | intention | | | Table 1: A question with multiple perceived intentions. interpretation is a byproduct of multiple factors, including utterance and context, as well as our beliefs, desire, presuppositions, mental states (Wellman, 1992) and cultural background that leads to several possible interpretations of a single message (Creswell, 1996). In this view, Table 1 shows a question with neutral or negative intentions when different perspectives are taken into account. Studies that focus on the intentions of questions in conversations can be categorized as: those focusing on question-answering (Soares and Parreiras, 2020), those related to search engines for accurate information retrieval (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), and studies that analyze the linguistics aspect of questions (Freed and Ehrlich, 2010). In these studies, questions are generally considered as having the true intention of eliciting a response (Dimitrakis et al., 2020). Yet, the research lacks analyses of the questions' communicative intentions and their interpretations from various perspectives. This is especially true for negative cases that require the application of semantic/inferential knowledge to grasp the underlying intentions. The presence of such questions in conversation is indisputable, making it crucial for systems to learn such knowledge. In a related direction, studies aim to build systems able to detect attacks in conversations (Coleman et al., 2014), especially explicit attacks and offensive language such as hate speech and political, racial, or religious hatred that manifest in social media (Chetty and Alathur, 2018; Solovev 13606 and Pröllochs, 2022). However, not all instances of insults are explicit (Jurgens et al., 2019; Poletto et al., 2021) and occasionally, we require ampliative reasoning to interpret the underlying intentions. Whether the speaker has implicit deceitful intentions or the listener ascribes negative intentions to what the speaker says, it may raise a conflict in the conversations, highlighting the importance of analyzing such instances. When questions are used to attack a person, group, or someone's work, the negative intentions are at times implicated rather than explicitly expressed. As a result, seemingly harmless questions can contain concealed attacks or be interpreted as having negative intentions, thereby potentially causing conflicts. Getting to know intention categories helps to understand why a question is negatively perceived. Additionally, it sheds light on people's perspectives and mental states as well as their thresholds in perceiving the message. In this context, our study aims to analyze the positive and negative perceived intentions behind questions from the reader's perspective. We collected a dataset of questions (*Question Intention Dataset*) on Wikipedia discussion pages to investigate the underlying intention categories. Discussions are a form of communication through sharing or contrasting ideas leading to (dis)agreement. It provides a rich resource of interactions with different intents and goals (Jowett, 2015). On Wikipedia Talk pages, for example, the general goal is to improve a Wiki page, and there are many questions and answers to fulfill this goal. However, it may, at times, be influenced by a personal agenda, such as showing off knowledge by asking questions. Wikipedia discussions can serve as a sample of real-world interaction and a plausible resource for our study. Within the scope of this dataset, we probe the following questions: (RQ1) Can different intentions be pursued by asking questions? (RQ2) What are the most used intentions when questions have positive/neutral vs. negative purposes? (RQ3) Can a question's intention have different interpretations? (RQ4) Can we classify the intention categories behind questions? Our contributions include: (i) introducing negative and tacit intention categories for questions and designing a rubric to annotate them *(ii)* gathering perceived intentions from readers' point-of-view, (iii) conducting a meta-analysis, and *(iv)* building TF-IDF-based dictionary on intentions and add it to a transformer to benchmark intention classification. Our dataset is available at https://github.com/ marymirzaei/Question-Intention-Dataset. ## 2 Background Research Studies that focus on intentions can be divided into those considering intentions from a linguistics viewpoint and those that consider the psycholinguistic view. The former is in respect to language itself, as in NLP studies on detecting intentions in dialogue systems (Wen et al., 2017), analyzing goals and purposes such as intent to purchase something or to travel (Wang et al., 2015) and those focusing on open-domain question answering (Rajpurkar et al., 2016). The latter focuses on the speaker's meaning, belief, desire, and mental states, hence involving a wider scope. Intentions within NLP area: Research on intention analysis mainly draws on NLP and deep neural networks to detect the goal of the message and fulfill a task such as realizing a smooth conversation in chatbots (Adamopoulou and Moussiades, 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022), retrieving information in search engines (Zhang et al., 2019), detecting a user's personal need or classifying feedback for marketing purposes and developing recommender systems (Hamroun and Gouider, 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2022). These studies mainly focus on affirmative or neutral intentions with the aim of associating users' intentions with pre-defined categories. They handle emerging intents via knowledge transfer from existing intents and group the utterances with similar intents (topics) to find the best response or strategy (Xia et al., 2018). Hence they rarely deal with finding implicitly negative intentions, even though it happens in real-world conversations. Research is often concerned with explicit attacks and hate speech, aiming to detect toxic behavior (Sharif and Hoque, 2022), such as hatred toward religious groups (Albadi et al., 2018), racism (Park and Fung, 2017), sexism (Waseem and Hovy, 2016), cyberbullying (Rosa et al., 2019), abusive (Waseem et al., 2017), and offensive language (Davidson et al., 2017; Zampieri et al., 2019). While explicit attacks have high priority (Gelber and McNamara, 2016; Pérez-Escolar and NogueraVivo, 2022), implicit instances of offensive language use are also important since, in many cases, offensive behavior is not explicitly demonstrated (Poletto et al., 2021; Caselli et al., 2020). Thus, more recently studies have explored the use of implicitly abusive language (Wiegand et al., 2021a,b), latent and indirect hatred on social media (ElSherief et al., 2021), abusive remarks on identity groups (Wiegand et al., 2022), stereotypes (Schmeisser-Nieto et al., 2022), disguised and implicit attacks (Mirzaei et al., 2022) and implicit hate speech detection on machine-generated dataset (Hartvigsen et al., 2022). Interpretation and perceived meaning in conversation: Intention and perceived meaning have been investigated from different perspectives (Haugh and Jaszczolt, 2012) including associating intentions with the speaker meaning (Grice, 1989), intention as the characteristics of the message (Hall et al., 2001), or as perceived by the addressee. Other studies consider the notion of perspectivetaking and intention perceived as a product of joint communication between the speaker and listener (Clark and Krych, 2004), the speech acts (Searle et al., 1983), and cognitive processes involved in interpreting the meaning and action (Bara, 2010). Meaning is not always perceived by the listener as intended by the speaker (Clark and Krych, 2004; Rosa et al., 2019). Considering both speaker's and addressee's perspectives is optimal for accurate interpretation (Mirzaei et al., 2018), yet it is not always feasible. Thus, studies collect annotations from the readers but provide clear guidelines for higher annotation agreement (Poletto et al., 2017), yet ascertain that a certain level of disagreement should be allowed in annotation (Pavlick and Kwiatkowski, 2019). Intentions behind questions: Before answering a question, the meaning and intention of it need to be decoded. This is a necessary step for many NLP applications that deal with questions (Zhang et al., 2019; Adiwardana et al., 2020; Soares and Parreiras, 2020). Most research on detecting question intention centers on finding the mapping between the user's query and the knowledge base to provide a user-satisfying response (Bhutani et al., 2019). The candidate answer is selected based on sentences ranked by the model score of its suitability (Yang et al., 2015; Hao et al., 2022). Thus in these studies, a question is considered a query, and its intention is associated with the user's purpose within a specific or open domain (Lazaridou et al., 2022). Other studies investigated the form and function of questions (Freed, 1994; Koshik, 2003; Tsui, 2013), inferring appropriate questions for a given personal narrative such as advice-seeking (Fu et al., 2019), and the questions' semantic and pragmatic properties, such as rhetorical questions (Caponigro and Sprouse, 2007; Bhattasali et al., 2015; Oraby et al., 2017; Kharaman et al., 2019). In this research, we investigate the types of negative and implicit intentions behind questions that can be used as a means of attacking another person, as well as the positive/neutral questions that serve the primary purpose of asking to receive an answer. ## 3 Dataset Collection Our dataset is built on the Conversation Gone Awry dataset (Zhang et al., 2018), which encompasses the conversations on Wikipedia Talk Pages (Chang et al., 2020). A combination of machine learning and crowdsourced filtering was used to gather these conversations that begin with civil comments and either remain civil or end with a personal attack (4188 conversations, >30k comments). Wikipedia's talk page discussions are similar to public forums where contributors convene to deliberate on issues related to editing a page, including quality evaluation (Zhang et al., 2018). Wikipedia comments are known to contain a small number of antisocial behaviors– around one percent (Wulczyn et al., 2017), but it includes many cases of negative attitudes (Schluger et al., 2022), hence a good resource for our analysis. Such cases may interfere with the original goal of improving articles and are disruptive to those seeking to contribute to improving the article in peace by collecting, sharing, and disseminating knowledge. From this dataset, we extracted 2,084 questions and annotated their underlying intentions. ## 3.1 Crowd-Sourced Annotation We used Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to collect our annotations. To find reliable annotators, we adopted a hierarchical strategy: i) using worker profiles, we limited our workers to those who completed over 700 tasks on MTruk with over 99% acceptance rate, ii) conducting pre-qualification test and filtering those who earn low scores (<80), and iii) pilot testing to check the quality of workers' annotation. We also looked for instances of random labeling by intentionally including marker questions (red herrings) and checked for serial selection of the same options to exclude such annotators.  Seek/share | Categories | Definitions | Examples How much does it cost? What year did he publish?⋆ Did I tell you about my party next month? | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | general or specific inquiry, attempt to obtain info or knowledge, sharing info or news | Could you help with this article?⋆ May I carry the box for you? What do you think is best to do?⋆ Will you join us for meetings? | | | find direction in what is confusing, eliminate ambiguity in lack of info, ask for more details, examples clarify by info, summary intentions to seek help for problems, offer help, solution (no bragging), ask someone's viewpoint on issues, invite someone to do something | Is it ok to proceed with plan B? What do you mean by external?⋆ Could you share more details?⋆ So far 1 page done, am I right? | | | highlight problems to be addressed in a friendly | Do you think we can organize it in a table? How about linking it to help the readers?⋆ | | | manner, encourage to find solutions, strive to improve and guide without trace of ego | Would it be a good idea to add examples?⋆ | | | display an overly critical viewpoint, unfair judge, blame, accuse, unfair question of credibility, discriminate, fault-finding harshly | Why can't you come up with a simple solution for this? Will your idea be useful at all? Isn't somebody else better at this?⋆ You made wrong edits, correct?⋆ | | | inflict pain, undermine, diminish importance, put somebody to shame, belittle, make someone feel/look stupid | Is it so hard for you to understand? Why do you think your opinion matters?⋆ Anything you can do right? What skill you've except talking too much?⋆ | | | Manipulate | any instance of high-level manipulation or abuse with disguised intention, play a trick make somebody feel emotionally charged/guilty, ask a question to show off/ one up | You do not have any friend, do you?⋆ You know how much you made him suffer? It needs skills, you wanna rely on me again?⋆ What are you? piece of sh**?⋆ | | threaten/ dictatorship/ authoritarian | Get lost, or you'll regret, understood?⋆ | | display an overly critical viewpoint, unfair judge, blame, accuse, unfair question of credibility, discriminate, fault-finding harshly ## 3.2 Annotation Protocols We laid out annotation guidelines, defined annotation categories, and provided examples for each category. We depicted some of our positive/neutral intention categories based on studies of questions (Freed, 1994; Freed and Ehrlich, 2010; Tsui, 2013). We went through the process of selecting and refining negative intention categories by analyzing data, defining categories based on the discovered patterns, followed by annotating questions (by two researchers independently), discussions, revising categories and guidelines, then pilot testing with workers, updating and re-annotating. We did this iterative cycle several times to select the final categories in Table 2 and used it as a guideline. ## 3.3 Annotation Procedure We designed our annotation scheme and created a friendly interface for the MTurk website. We replaced URLs or personal information with a reference keyword and marked the target question in red. One whole conversation was presented to the annotators (to include the context) with one question in red color at a time. We also included a disclaimer for the offensive content. Our multiplestep process involved the annotations of i) intention polarity and ii) the intention category. First, we collected the data on polarity (neutral/ positive vs. negative) intentions. Each question was labeled by 7 annotators, after which the majority votes were calculated in order to identify the low-agreement cases (<5 out of 7) to be annotated by four more annotators. In a few cases, low agreement persisted even after re-annotation. We observed that insufficient background information on a particular topic, the involvement of a third party in the conversation, the need for clarifying the question in subsequent comments, self-reflective inquiries (e.g., "Am I the stupid one here?"), and the inherent challenge of discerning positive versus negative intentions were among the most frequent factors contributing to the low agreement among annotators. Once the intention polarity was decided, we ran the second step of our annotation, i.e., choosing the intention category of the questions. The annotators (7 workers) could choose up to two categories of intention per question, but they also had to specify which one had the highest priority. Here, we only focus on the category selected as a priority. The pay rate was between 0.35$-0.45$ based on the length of the conversation, adding polarity and intention tasks together per question. Our most active annotators were primarily native English speakers, with two individuals who had English as their second language. They came from diverse backgrounds, including American, Italian, British, Brazilian, and | Intention Polarity/ Categories Positive/neutral intentions | 24.96% | |--------------------------------------------------------------|----------| | Seek/share (info, knowledge) | 4.51% | | Seek/offer (opinion, help) | 13.73% | | Clarification/ confirmation | 4.61% | | True guidance | 2.11% | | Negative intentions | 75.04 % | | Judgemental/ over-critical | 40.83 % | | Put Down/ embarrass | 26.73% | | Manipulate/ Abuse/ show off | 5.13% | | Show hostility/ dictatorship | 2.35% | | Uncertain/Low Agreements | 17.35% | French, and held undergraduate or graduate degrees. Additionally, our annotators spanned a wide age range, from 21 to 67 years old. ## 4 Meta-Analysis Of The Data Table 3 contains the statistics of our dataset. As the data shows, a majority of our questions are labeled as conveying a negative intention (∼75%), leaving only one-third as having positive or neutral purposes. This finding is important in showing how frequently questions can be perceived negatively. Data also suggests that questions are not always used to gain information but can frequently pursue different intentions (RQ1). The table shows that the most used intention category among negative questions is overcriticism (40.83%) while asking for opinion (13.73%) is the most used category for positive/neutral questions w.r.t our dataset (RQ2). ## 4.1 Questions With Positive/Neutral Intentions The primary drive behind positive/neutral questions was to gain/offer insights and information or to verify and confirm certain aspects. Seek/share information, knowledge: The first category regards seeking, providing information, asking for *news* and inquiring about *general/specific/personal information* which is considered the main reason for asking *sincere* questions. Questions in this group were usually addressed in general rather than to specific editors, such as "*There* are many different dates for this; does anyone know the real ones?". The small number of questions in this class is explainable as discussions are held among editors who are knowledgeable on the topic. Seek/offer help, opinion, solution: Questions intended to *ask other's opinions* such as "*What do* you think?" or those aiming to seek/offer help such as in "*Could you please vote in that talk page?*" shape the main category of positive intentions. Our analysis corroborated other studies (Goody, 1980) and intuitively revealed that in most cases, the questions requesting help/solutions are *politely formulated*, as in: "*Would it be possible to have the lyrics* on Wikisource and then link to them?". Clarification/Confirmation: These questions are aimed to receive *reassurance* as in, "*Are u* sure they were moved?". They are also used to confirm agreement or disagreement such as "Any objections to removing it?" or to *disambiguate* for example, "*What part of her article do you particularly want sourced?*". These are used when seeking information about the immediate conversational context in an attempt to eliminate ambiguity and confirm what was understood is indeed correct (Freed, 1994). These questions are typically formulated clearly w.r.t the vocabulary and grammar and are followed by relevant confirmation answers. True guidance/Create awareness: The last category of intention is to provide true guidance, feedback and *positive/constructive criticism* as in "*Would it not be easier to have a table of the countries [...]?*". Such questions are mostly recognized as *suggestions* rather than negative criticism. They have a friendly tone reflected in the vocabulary used such as "*how about*", "*what if* ", and "*shall* we". The small number of cases in this category (2.11%) shows that criticism is more often perceived negatively (40.83% in the Judgemental category). However, it can also be explained by several reasons, such as the nature of Wikipedia discussions, where each editor is responsible for providing accurate information and avoiding the inclusion of edits that do not follow regulations or are not based on strong evidence. Thus, cooperative guidance is not frequently observed. Editors sometimes enforce their opinion and criticize others, attempting to show off or establish/maintain face. Similar to the real-world, criticism on this platform is mostly perceived negatively. It forms an attack on the editor's work or personality rather than a friendly suggestion. ## 4.2 Questions With Negative Intentions Judgemental/overcritical: In the negative group, most of the questions belong to the Judgemental and Over-critical class. Such questions convey judgment, and their underlying tone and attitude often express scorn or accusations, leaving criticized people to feel attacked or blamed. The main characteristics of this category are *criticisms and accusations*. The question, "None of these links is commercial, and none of these links is inappropriate. Did you click on them before you acted inappropriately?" is one such example. It denotes that the person is i) criticizing the addressee for improper action [*"before you acted* inappropriately"] and ii) accusing him/her of not checking the content before editing [*"did you click* on them"]. This question does not genuinely seek whether he/she has checked the link, thus holds a negative intent. A distinctive feature of this group is to **condemn** and blame. For instance, "Why remove a lessambiguous sourced statement and replace it with your personal interpretation?" intends to blame the person, not asking why the source is replaced. This class also includes questions that **discredit** someone and/or impose a threat through criticism, as in "I didn't see you writing anything to support your revert on the discussion page. Did you, or did you simply use the undo button?". Criticism can hold a *complaint*: "Why don't instead of keeping on doing these blind reverts which are getting nowhere you'll look for some serious sourced info?". It can be politely formulated but perceived negatively: "Can you please explain why you would delete what is probably the most reliable and pertinent source of information this article could have? [...] I will give you the opportunity to explain before I decide what my next step will be.". Some cases do not even follow the grammatical form of a question such as "*So you disregarded all* the above established consensus and discussion?". The declarative form makes the questions similar to "*Clarification/confirmation*" questions. However, the question's perceived interpretation is criticism that is implicated, not asserted (Creswell, 1996). Putdown/embarrass: The next category includes 26.73% of the questions, which is about an effort to put down or embarrass. Questions in this category show some degree of offensiveness through being insulting or belittling, causing *humiliation*. These intentions are not necessarily expressed with explicit hostility, similar to sarcastic, rhetorical, and unpalatable questions (Bagga et al., 2021). The main characteristic of this group is an indirect *insult*, and the question is rather *rhetorical* than a real one, such as "who cares about your idea?" or "How can I make it any simpler?, This is beyond stupid.". The context of the last example clearly shows that the speaker is not genuinely seeking an opinion but indirectly making the addressee feel/look ignorant. The same assumption holds for "*Do you really think, that the word "failure" is neutral?*", by which the speaker is *embarrassing* the other party. A similar example is "*Are you some* sort of super-editor here or something?", in which the intent is to *belittle and diminish the importance* of the other person, another manifestation of putting down. "*Can't you read your own words?*" is another example of implicitly attacking another person by putting him/her down and *ridiculing*. However, these questions should be distinguished from sincere ones that may seem similar such as "Maybe someone who knows more about the game could merge it?". The true intention here is to ask for help from a knowledgeable person, not diminish current editors' expertise. Context is the key to deciphering intention accurately. Communicative acts causing offenses include simple criticism, insult, accusation, and mockery (Poggi and D'Errico, 2018), which conform to our data. Such actions will make the addressee feel offended since these are implied as unjust criticism, overly judgemental, and insulting reproach. On the other end of the spectrum is hostile behavior or a personal attack, which forms our next category. Show hostility: This class includes questions that show a high level of hostility and any form of clear insult, *profanity*, and *attack* on the conversational partner, such as "Is that personal enough for you, you irritating, infuriating little man?". This class often reaches a high annotation agreement as hatred/offense is explicit (Wojatzki et al., 2018). Manipulation: This category is perhaps the most abstract among all negative intentions as it involves a certain level of pragmatics and includes a hidden agenda expressed in an unscrupulous way. In such cases, it is often not the communicative words that are offensive but the implied intention. The category entails cases where someone **plays** the victim, gaslights, denies wrongdoing, *takes* control over and *abuses* another. An example like "*You don't have many friends do you?*" presents a case of exercising harmful influence by the speaker. "I apologize for getting his name wrong (one letter off, and you have to correct me?)" is another case that shows the speaker is inducing *guilt* and *disapproval* of what the other person did (Baumeister, 1998). Similarly, "I try to help out and you call it condescending?" is another example of a speaker playing the victim role and *guilt-tripping*. Finally, show off/ one up is another case that represents manipulation and includes the questions that the speaker intentionally asks to reinforce his/her alleged superior knowledge, work, and skills. "Have you noticed that there hasn't been any significant CONTENT or cited material contributed apart from my work?". These questions are more about *preening* and *grandstanding* and are used to make others agree with the questioner's mindset/viewpoint. The entire effort is to be seen and influence opinions, not to ask questions out of curiosity and sincerity. ## 4.3 Uncertain Intention Categories Table 3 also presents low agreement/uncertain annotations (17.35%). We have found that the "*Manipulation*" category has the least average annotation agreement (∼61%). This class involves the most indirect, deceptive tactics to **conceal an intention**; it may even seem benign or friendly, making it hard to spot (Billig and Marinho, 2014). The sensitivity and tolerance *threshold* of the reader/listener plays a role in choosing categories. For instance, a question like "[...] How old are you and where do you come up with this garbage?? Get some sunshine and a breath of fresh air" was considered an act of insult and ridicule through sarcasm by some annotators and a case of explicit hostility by others causing low-agreement annotations. Similarly, true criticism can be perceived negatively by sensitive people, and a judgmental question can be interpreted as an act of insult and humiliation. Uncertainty can emerge from varying *perspectives* that lead to associating different but possible intentions with a question (See Table 1). These indicate that both perspective and threshold for tolerating offense play roles in perceiving questions and different interpretations (RQ3). ## 5 Classification Of Intention Categories To address RQ4, we classify the intention categories based on their polarity. For positive/neutral categories, we integrated the "*True guidance*" category with "*Clarification/confirmation*" cases as these two categories were most often selected together (>80% overlap) when annotators could choose up to two categories. These cases were found to be complementary w.r.t our dataset. We also excluded the "*Show hostility*" class from our classification to only focus on implicit cases. Pre-processing: Our pre-processing included  replacing usernames, email addresses, URLs, hashtags, and special symbols with assigned tokens and handling misspellings with TextBlob (Loria, 2018). Context: We added the sentences preceding and succeeding the question, to provide the context to the classifier. If the question started/ended the comment, we used the remaining adjacent sentences. Note that this procedure is done within the comment containing the question. While we recognize that including subsequent comments can enhance accuracy and may even be necessary to understand the question fully, we have restricted the context to only the comment containing the question in order to generate predictions for each individual comment as it is posted. Classification Method: We classify the intention categories using binary and multi-class classification methods. For binary classification, we target each category of intention individually and finetune a Transformer model as a proof-of-concept. For the main task of multi-class classification, we propose an architecture to fine-tune transformers augmented by a TF-IDF-based dictionary, depicted in Figure 1. The use of dictionary plus transformer has led to improvement in previous studies on relatively similar tasks (Caselli et al., 2021). In the left branch, the question, together with its context, is given to a transformer, which is pre-trained and fine-tuned on the polarity labels of our dataset (positive/neutral vs. negative intentions). The transformer is then trained on our intention categories, and its outputs are fed into global max pooling. On the right side, we applied TF-IDF to our proposed intention categories to find the most specific words within each class. We trim these vocabularies so that each word appears in only one category (uniqueness trimming) and discard words with Binary classification Intention Categories P R F1 Seek/share Information 0.60 0.47 0.53 Seek/offer Opinion 0.71 0.77 0.74 Clarification/Confirmation 0.50 0.61 0.55 Judgemental/over critical 0.76 0.61 0.68 Putdown/embarrass 0.52 0.57 0.54 Manipulation 0.56 0.32 0.41 higher frequency in spoken/written texts to build our tailored dictionary (See Appendix B). The TFIDF dictionary was populated with highly specific words from the training portion of the dataset. We did this not only to avoid the risk of target validation leakage but also to enhance the transferability of the model to unseen conversations. Words in each question are lemmatized and matched to dictionary vocabulary to make the feature list. We concatenate the max pooling output with dictionarybased features to be processed by three FC layers and output the label of the question's intention. Competitive Models: We chose SVM, BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), and XLNet (Yang et al., 2019) to build our baseline models for intention category classification and compared their results. These models were selected to yield competitive results in NLP tasks based on previous studies (Nobata et al., 2016; Malmasi and Zampieri, 2017; Tanase et al., 2020). We also used SVM as a strong competitor for being fast and working well with fewer data. Implementation details are provided in Appendix C. We stratified the annotated data and randomly split it into training, val, and test sets (70:10:20). Results are an average of 3 runs. ## 6 Results And Analysis We conducted two experiments: binary and multiclass classification and reported the results based on precision (P), recall (R), and F1 score. Binary Classification: In this experiment we labeled the target category as positive while the rest are considered negative. We conducted several experiments with different Transformer models and observed that RoBERTa has the best performance with binary classification, thus the results in Table 4 are based on the RoBERTa model. This table indicates that the best performance belongs to the "*Seek/offer opinion*" class, while the "*Manipulation*" ## Class Has The Least Performance. Multi-class Classification: The benchmarking results are listed in Table 5. The table shows that all BERT-based models outperform SVM, with the RoBERTa model yielding the best results. The selfattention and the multi-head attention mechanism in Transformers encode each input w.r.t all other inputs, enabling the use of context and considering the relationship between words which is beyond matching sole words. Moreover, the pre-training and transfer learning in the BERT-based models allow for significant performance even with few examples compared with traditional SVM. The table also shows that the results using the proposed method (RoBERTa+dictionary) overpass the RoBERTa-only model. Using the distinguished words found by TF-IDF analysis assists the model in better classification of intention categories. This improvement is particularly dominant in positive categories, likely because these categories are more explicit and less disguised, and oftentimes politeness and requests are explicitly expressed through specific vocabularies (e.g., "*help*"). On the contrary, the negative groups are inherently more implicit and challenging. However, TF-IDF also proved helpful in unveiling certain negative intentions within the Manipulation category, and it enhanced performance in the Judgemental category by mitigating bias towards this particular category when compared to the BERT-only model. For instance, the words "*allegation*" and "*liar*" were associated with *Manipulation* category, and words like "*ridiculous*", "*meaningless*" and "*nonsense*" were found in *Putdown* category whereas the words such as "*suggestion*", "*help*", and "*thoughts*" were among the vocabulary representing *Seek/offer help* or opinion category. The data also reveals that the pre-training model on polarity and using the dictionary helps with detecting the intention categories, with the results of this method mostly overpassing baseline and binary classifiers. As the results show, all classifiers had difficulty in classifying the "*Manipulation*" category, with SVM and BERT facing the most difficulty. One explanation lies in the difficult nature of this category, which also led to low- agreement scores among human annotators (∼61%). The tacitness in the "*Manipulation*" category is the highest among all. Moreover, the boundaries between "*Judgemental*" and "*Putdown*" questions are not always clear as | Positive/neutral Intentions | Negative Intentions | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------|----------------|---------|--------------|------|-----------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|-----------|------|------|----|----|----|----| | Seek Info | Seek Opinion | Clarify | Judgement | Putdown | Manipulation | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Methods | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | | RoBERTa+TFIDF | 0.69 | 0.58 0.63 0.77 | 0.77 0.77 0.57 | 0.63 | 0.60 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.69 0.64 | 0.59 0.61 0.42 | 0.38 0.40 | | | | | | | | | | | RoBERTa | 0.69 | 0.52 | 0.59 0.74 | 0.77 | 0.75 0.52 | 0.57 | 0.54 | 0.72 | 0.65 | 0.68 0.57 | 0.67 0.61 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.34 | | | | | | | BERT | 0.82 | 0.43 | 0.56 0.64 | 0.79 | 0.70 0.50 | 0.44 | 0.47 | 0.72 | 0.70 0.71 0.59 | 0.64 0.61 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.34 | | | | | | | | XLNet | 0.75 | 0.43 | 0.55 0.66 | 0.68 | 0.67 0.41 | 0.52 | 0.46 | 0.69 | 0.59 | 0.64 0.51 | 0.64 | 0.57 0.43 | 0.35 | 0.38 | | | | | | SVM | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.35 0.67 | 0.52 | 0.59 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.41 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.53 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.45 0.14 | 0.50 | 0.21 | | | | | they are tied to people's threshold for tolerating offense, as well as the cultural background or word choices that led to the emergence of uncertain annotations, which in return affected the model. Error analysis: We found cases where annotators reached a strong consensus, but the model failed to capture the intention. These cases included the complicated structure of the questions such as "I would only ask that you be more careful with your reverts in the future. Experienced contributors, who make good edits are not usually treated like vandals, okay?", which starts politely but ends with a warning and forms a long combination of statements and a short form of a question. More complex cases were the fallacy of answering a question with a question where the actual intention is not to ask for information. Another case is the questions that require a significant amount of context to determine the label, in which prior comments played a role in understanding the intention, which has to be addressed in future research. Other cases regarded when a clear indication of a negative intention was missing from the question, as in, "*what is the problem with that?*", which in the context, the speaker is intentionally ignoring the alleged problems and chooses to play dumb or act innocent. Moreover, problems arose when the intensity of the negative intention was not apparent in the vocabulary used to construct the question as in "*Did you take up my suggestion to consult the* dictionary?". Others include using pragmatics that implicates intentions, such as addressing someone with a question "*how old are you?*" and degrading him/her. It requires a higher-level knowledge to interpret the actual intention (Haugh, 2008; Leech, 2016), easy for humans, but hard for the model. ## 7 Conclusion This paper proposes the new problem of investigating how humans use questions as a means to attack others and disguise their intentions rather than asking sincere questions to get information. The goal is to incorporate such knowledge into the NLP area. We used the Wikipedia discussions where the editors actively collaborate with the goal of improving Wiki pages. We gathered and annotated questions from discussions to distinguish positive/neutral and negative intentions, plus the intention types. It is only after considering such information that we can learn why a question is perceived negatively. We did a meta-analysis to explore each class's characteristics and the role of thresholds and perspectives in interpreting questions. We also built a TF-IDF dictionary-based transformer and benchmarked several classifiers on intention detection. Questions are frequently used in conversations, and finding their true intentions is a non-negligible task for AI to understand human communications. The type of intention pursued and how it is perceived by people of different cultures/backgrounds need illumination through the inclusion of diverse perspectives. This future task will enrich research on human reasoning, thereby largely impacting the NLP area on understating human interactions. ## Limitations The intention classification task is not trivial even for humans, especially when the intention is implicit or disguised. The sample size of our study is small, which makes classification more challenging. Currently, we are extending the dataset to include more samples in each category. We aimed to use this data as a proof of concept to shed light on using questions as a means to attack someone or disguise intention. Future directions involve enlarging the dataset and including a variety of social interactions from different sources such as social media (e.g., Twitter), forums (e.g., Reddit), and spoken conversations to investigate other emerging categories based on context, topics, and events. Moreover, the dataset is imbalanced. Wikipedia editors should follow strict rules and avoid explicit hostility otherwise get blocked. The nature of Wikipedia discussions is special in the sense that editors need to save face, which refers to the positive social value a person effectively claims (Goffman, 1967) and a professional profile in mainstream interpersonal activities. Implicit and explicit offenses can impact one's face and are closely related to the position and the social fabric of the community, which can lead to righteous indignation by the addressee to save face. On the other hand, since negative questions may disrupt a certain level of interpersonal relations, a speaker will try to minimize this disruption by being polite or implicitly conveying it. Even though this provides us with more implicit samples, which is in line with the focus of this research, the results of this study may not be generalizable to other datasets where the level of offense is higher, and the overall threshold for tolerating offense may be different. We acknowledge that there may be additional categories that did not emerge in our data. Furthermore, it is important to consider dividing intention categories into more fine-grained criteria. For example, a close analysis of the criticism category reveals a wide spectrum of intensity and threshold of tolerance that plays a role in the perception of criticism. On one end of the spectrum, we have positive and constructive criticism that is more of a guidance and a suggestion, whereas, on the other end, we have an extreme case of criticism accompanied by abusive and hateful language that is more like a personal attack. The following two questions represent both ends of the spectrum, while both can be regarded as criticism: in one, the speaker pursues the goal of improvement by providing a constructive comment "Can you give a reliable reference for that?", and in another, the speaker directly attacks the other person "*Why you are being so unhelpful and arrogant?*". This shows that different intention categories inherit the criticism nature to some extent while each involves other characteristics as well. This highlights the importance of defining more fine-grained categories to distinguish the cases along the spectrum. It should also be noted that even though criticizing questions are associated with the speaker's action and intention, categorizing criticism-implicating questions is explained from the addressee's perspective rather than the speaker's viewpoint, i.e., the addressee should hold the belief that the speaker intended to raise a criticism by asking a question. These beliefs result in a pattern of inferences, leading to correct or incorrect interpretations of the question (Creswell, 1996). This calls for attention to the difference between perceived intention and the speaker's intended intention. This is another limitation of this study which is the case for many of the NLP studies where the annotations are done by a third person out of context. Having a contrastive analysis between the speaker's intention and the addressee's interpretation can shed light on the similarities and differences, yet not always feasible. Moreover, when dealing with text-based interaction, many aspects of communication, such as the speaker's prosody and tone, are lacking from the textual context; as a result, this gap is filled by the addressee. This is another reason that may lead to inaccurate interpretations of the message. On a relevant topic, annotators' background, culture, the threshold for tolerating offense, and many more factors can affect their annotation of perceived intention, causing problems in reaching a consensus, but at the same time, different viewpoints need to be included to avoid model bias. Finally, even though we provided the whole conversation context for annotators to choose the question's intention category, sometimes it is hard to understand the background discussion of the target question. Editors often deliberate on a topic with a follow-up discussion. However, the annotators do not have access to such context (previous discussions, editor's profile) and may not be able to have a clear picture of the questions being asked hence inaccurate interpretations. ## Ethics Statement While the goal of this study is for social good, an intention classifier, if deployed, could also lead to potential negative impacts. For example, a biased intention classifier that picks up spurious features of certain language patterns might be more frequently used by a subgroup of people hence negatively impacting certain users. Our aim is to use this in a collaborative way for willing users to provide hints on the possibility of their questions being perceived with a different intention. In other words, the model can indicate if questions may be perceived by another person as conflict-invoking; hence the user considers rephrasing their questions if they prefer to do so. Our goal is not to restrict free expressions or take any actions against users, but the opposite, which is to promote friendly discussion and raise awareness of multiple interpretations (only if the users are interested). Yet, this technology, like others, may be misused or might be used in a way that systematically or erroneously silences certain social groups (Gorwa et al., 2020). One solution might be having a threshold that can be moderated by the users since different people have different levels of tolerance to offense, and this also holds for different cultures. Such aspects could be accommodated by collecting viewpoints from different personalities, cultural backgrounds, genders, or generations in order to make a more comprehensive system and avoid model biases. Finally, our model does not provide any indication of where the negative intention lies within the question, which may confuse the users. This calls for extending the system to boost explainability, and transparency, also mentioned in (Chang et al., 2022). In this case, collecting user feedback and annotator reasoning may help identify the problems, and conducting error analysis and training a hybrid model (rulebased guidance on top of machine learning) may improve the performance. ## References Eleni Adamopoulou and Lefteris Moussiades. 2020. Chatbots: History, technology, and applications. *Machine Learning with Applications*, 2:100006. Daniel Adiwardana, Minh-Thang Luong, David R So, Jamie Hall, Noah Fiedel, Romal Thoppilan, Zi Yang, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Gaurav Nemade, Yifeng Lu, et al. 2020. Towards a human-like open-domain chatbot. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09977*. Nuha Albadi, Maram Kurdi, and Shivakant Mishra. 2018. Are they our brothers? analysis and detection of religious hate speech in the arabic twittersphere. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pages 69–76. IEEE. Sunyam Bagga, Andrew Piper, and Derek Ruths. 2021. "are you kidding me?": Detecting unpalatable questions on reddit. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2083–2099. Bruno G Bara. 2010. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. MIT press. Roy F Baumeister. 1998. Inducing guilt. In *Guilt and* children, pages 127–138. Elsevier. Shohini Bhattasali, Jeremy Cytryn, Elana Feldman, and Joonsuk Park. 2015. Automatic identification of rhetorical questions. In *Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 743–749. Nikita Bhutani, Xinyi Zheng, and HV Jagadish. 2019. Learning to answer complex questions over knowledge bases with query composition. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 739–748. Michael Billig and Cristina Marinho. 2014. Manipulating information and manipulating people: Examples from the 2004 portuguese parliamentary celebration of the april revolution. *Critical Discourse Studies*, 11(2):158–174. Ivano Caponigro and Jon Sprouse. 2007. Rhetorical questions as questions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, volume 11, pages 121–133. Tommaso Caselli, Valerio Basile, Jelena Mitrovic, Inga ´ Kartoziya, and Michael Granitzer. 2020. I feel offended, don't be abusive! implicit/explicit messages in offensive and abusive language. In *Proceedings of* the 12th language resources and evaluation conference, pages 6193–6202. Tommaso Caselli, Arjan Schelhaas, Marieke Weultjes, Folkert Leistra, Hylke van der Veen, Gerben Timmerman, and Malvina Nissim. 2021. DALC: the Dutch abusive language corpus. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms (WOAH 2021), pages 54–66, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonathan P Chang, Caleb Chiam, Liye Fu, Andrew Wang, Justine Zhang, and Cristian DanescuNiculescu-Mizil. 2020. Convokit: A toolkit for the analysis of conversations. In Proceedings of the 21th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 57–60. Jonathan P Chang, Charlotte Schluger, and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2022. Thread with caution: Proactively helping users assess and deescalate tension in their online discussions. *Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction*, 6(CSCW2):1–37. Naganna Chetty and Sreejith Alathur. 2018. Hate speech review in the context of online social networks. *Aggression and violent behavior*, 40:108– 118. Herbert H Clark and Meredyth A Krych. 2004. Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of memory and language, 50(1):62–81. Peter T Coleman, Morton Deutsch, and Eric C Marcus. 2014. The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons. Cassandre Creswell. 1996. Criticizing with a question. Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, Michael Macy, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 11. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the* North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171– 4186. Eleftherios Dimitrakis, Konstantinos Sgontzos, and Yannis Tzitzikas. 2020. A survey on question answering systems over linked data and documents. Journal of intelligent information systems, 55(2):233–259. Mai ElSherief, Caleb Ziems, David Muchlinski, Vaishnavi Anupindi, Jordyn Seybolt, Munmun De Choudhury, and Diyi Yang. 2021. Latent hatred: A benchmark for understanding implicit hate speech. *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*. Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich. 2010. Why do you ask?: The function of questions in institutional discourse. Oxford University Press. Alice F Freed. 1994. The form and function of questions in informal dyadic conversation. Journal of pragmatics, 21(6):621–644. Liye Fu, Jonathan P Chang, and Cristian DanescuNiculescu-Mizil. 2019. Asking the right question: Inferring advice-seeking intentions from personal narratives. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01587*. Adam D Galinsky, Gillian Ku, and Cynthia S Wang. 2005. Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. *Group processes & intergroup relations*, 8(2):109–124. Katharine Gelber and Luke McNamara. 2016. Evidencing the harms of hate speech. *Social Identities*, 22(3):324–341. Erving Goffman. 1967. On face-work. *Interaction* ritual, pages 5–45. Esther N Goody. 1980. Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. *Philosophy and Rhetoric*, 13(3). Robert Gorwa, Reuben Binns, and Christian Katzenbach. 2020. Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. *Big Data & Society*, 7(1):2053951719897945. Paul Grice. 1989. *Studies in the Way of Words*. Harvard University Press. Stuart Hall et al. 2001. Encoding/decoding. Media and cultural studies: Keyworks, 2:163–173. Mohamed Hamroun and Mohamed Salah Gouider. 2020. A survey on intention analysis: successful approaches and open challenges. *Journal of Intelligent Information Systems*, 55(3):423–443. Tianyong Hao, Xinxin Li, Yulan He, Fu Lee Wang, and Yingying Qu. 2022. Recent progress in leveraging deep learning methods for question answering. *Neural Computing and Applications*, pages 1–19. Thomas Hartvigsen, Saadia Gabriel, Hamid Palangi, Maarten Sap, Dipankar Ray, and Ece Kamar. 2022. Toxigen: A large-scale machine-generated dataset for adversarial and implicit hate speech detection. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Michael Haugh. 2008. Intention in pragmatics. Michael Haugh and Kasia M Jaszczolt. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. *The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics*, 87:112. Adam Jowett. 2015. A case for using online discussion forums in critical psychological research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(3):287–297. David Jurgens, Libby Hemphill, and Eshwar Chandrasekharan. 2019. A just and comprehensive strategy for using nlp to address online abuse. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics, pages 3658–3666. Mariya Kharaman, Manluolan Xu, Carsten Eulitz, and Bettina Braun. 2019. The processing of prosodic cues to rhetorical question interpretation: Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistics evidence. In *Interspeech* 2019, pages 1218–1222. Irene Koshik. 2003. Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies, 5(1):51–77. Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:453– 466. Angeliki Lazaridou, Elena Gribovskaya, Wojciech Stokowiec, and Nikolai Grigorev. 2022. Internetaugmented language models through few-shot prompting for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05115. Geoffrey Leech. 2016. *Principles of pragmatics*. Routledge. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Steven Loria. 2018. textblob documentation. *Release* 0.15, 2:269. Shervin Malmasi and Marcos Zampieri. 2017. Detecting hate speech in social media. In *Proceedings* of the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, RANLP 2017, pages 467–472. Maryam Sadat Mirzaei, Kourosh Meshgi, and Satoshi Sekine. 2022. Is this question real? dataset collection on perceived intentions and implicit attack detection. In *Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022*, pages 2850–2859. Maryam Sadat Mirzaei, Qiang Zhang, Stef van der Struijk, and Toyoaki Nishida. 2018. Language learning through conversation envisioning in virtual reality: a sociocultural approach. In *Future-Proof CALL:* Language Learning as Exploration and EncountersEUROCALL Conference, pages 207–213. Chikashi Nobata, Joel Tetreault, Achint Thomas, Yashar Mehdad, and Yi Chang. 2016. Abusive language detection in online user content. In *Proceedings of* the 25th international conference on world wide web, pages 145–153. Shereen Oraby, Vrindavan Harrison, Amita Misra, Ellen Riloff, and Marilyn Walker. 2017. Are you serious?: Rhetorical questions and sarcasm in social media dialog. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 310–319. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155. Ji Ho Park and Pascale Fung. 2017. One-step and twostep classification for abusive language detection on twitter. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online, pages 41–45. Ellie Pavlick and Tom Kwiatkowski. 2019. Inherent disagreements in human textual inferences. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 7:677–694. Marta Pérez-Escolar and José Manuel Noguera-Vivo. 2022. *Hate speech and polarization in participatory* society. Taylor & Francis. Isabella Poggi and Francesca D'Errico. 2018. Feeling offended: a blow to our image and our social relationships. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 8:2221. Fabio Poletto, Valerio Basile, Manuela Sanguinetti, Cristina Bosco, and Viviana Patti. 2021. Resources and benchmark corpora for hate speech detection: a systematic review. *Language Resources and Evaluation*, 55(2):477–523. Fabio Poletto, Marco Stranisci, Manuela Sanguinetti, Viviana Patti, and Cristina Bosco. 2017. Hate speech annotation: Analysis of an italian twitter corpus. In 4th Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics, CLiC-it 2017, volume 2006, pages 1–6. CEUR-WS. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In *EMNLP*. Hugo Rosa, Nádia Pereira, Ricardo Ribeiro, Paula Costa Ferreira, Joao Paulo Carvalho, Sofia Oliveira, Luísa Coheur, Paula Paulino, AM Veiga Simão, and Isabel Trancoso. 2019. Automatic cyberbullying detection: A systematic review. *Computers in Human Behavior*, 93:333–345. Charlotte Schluger, Jonathan P Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Karen Levy. 2022. Proactive moderation of online discussions: Existing practices and the potential for algorithmic support. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2):1–27. Wolfgang Schmeisser-Nieto, Montserrat Nofre, and Mariona Taulé. 2022. Criteria for the annotation of implicit stereotypes. In *Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference*, pages 753–762. John R Searle, S Willis, et al. 1983. *Intentionality: An* essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge university press. Omar Sharif and Mohammed Moshiul Hoque. 2022. Tackling cyber-aggression: Identification and finegrained categorization of aggressive texts on social media using weighted ensemble of transformers. Neurocomputing, 490:462–481. Marco Antonio Calijorne Soares and Fernando Silva Parreiras. 2020. A literature review on question answering techniques, paradigms and systems. *Journal* of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 32(6):635–646. Kirill Solovev and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2022. Hate speech in the political discourse on social media: disparities across parties, gender, and ethnicity. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pages 3656–3661. Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson. 2015. Beyond speaker's meaning. *Croatian Journal of Philosophy*, 15(2 (44)):117–149. Mircea-Adrian Tanase, Dumitru-Clementin Cercel, and Costin Chiru. 2020. Upb at semeval-2020 task 12: Multilingual offensive language detection on social media by fine-tuning a variety of bert-based models. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 2222–2231. Amy Tsui. 2013. A functional description of questions. In *Advances in spoken discourse analysis*, pages 89– 110. Routledge. Chenyang Wang, Weizhi Ma, Min Zhang, Chong Chen, Yiqun Liu, and Shaoping Ma. 2020. Toward dynamic user intention: Temporal evolutionary effects of item relations in sequential recommendation. *ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS)*, 39(2):1–33. Jinpeng Wang, Gao Cong, Xin Wayne Zhao, and Xiaoming Li. 2015. Mining user intents in twitter: A semi-supervised approach to inferring intent categories for tweets. In *Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference* on Artificial Intelligence. Zeerak Waseem, Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Understanding abuse: A typology of abusive language detection subtasks. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online, pages 78–84. Zeerak Waseem and Dirk Hovy. 2016. Hateful symbols or hateful people? predictive features for hate speech detection on twitter. In Proceedings of the NAACL student research workshop, pages 88–93. Henry M Wellman. 1992. *The child's theory of mind.* The MIT Press. Tsung-Hsien Wen, Yishu Miao, Phil Blunsom, and Steve Young. 2017. Latent intention dialogue models. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 3732–3741. PMLR. Michael Wiegand, Elisabeth Eder, and Josef Ruppenhofer. 2022. Identifying implicitly abusive remarks about identity groups using a linguistically informed approach. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5600–5612. Michael Wiegand, Maja Geulig, and Josef Ruppenhofer. 2021a. Implicitly abusive comparisons–a new dataset and linguistic analysis. In *Proceedings of the 16th* Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 358–368. Michael Wiegand, Josef Ruppenhofer, and Elisabeth Eder. 2021b. Implicitly abusive language–what does it actually look like and why are we not getting there? In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 576–587. Michael Wojatzki, Tobias Horsmann, Darina Gold, and Torsten Zesch. 2018. Do women perceive hate differently: Examining the relationship between hate speech, gender, and agreement judgments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS), page 110–120. Ellery Wulczyn, Nithum Thain, and Lucas Dixon. 2017. Ex machina: Personal attacks seen at scale. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web, pages 1391–1399. Congying Xia, Chenwei Zhang, Xiaohui Yan, Yi Chang, and S Yu Philip. 2018. Zero-shot user intent detection via capsule neural networks. In *Proceedings of the* 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3090–3099. Yi Yang, Wen-tau Yih, and Christopher Meek. 2015. Wikiqa: A challenge dataset for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 2013–2018. Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 32. Marcos Zampieri, Shervin Malmasi, Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal, Noura Farra, and Ritesh Kumar. 2019. Predicting the type and target of offensive posts in social media. In *Proceedings of NAACLHLT*, pages 1415–1420. Hongfei Zhang, Xia Song, Chenyan Xiong, Corby Rosset, Paul N Bennett, Nick Craswell, and Saurabh Tiwary. 2019. Generic intent representation in web search. In *Proceedings of the 42nd International* ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 65–74. Justine Zhang, Jonathan Chang, Cristian DanescuNiculescu-Mizil, Lucas Dixon, Yiqing Hua, Dario Taraborelli, and Nithum Thain. 2018. Conversations gone awry: Detecting early signs of conversational failure. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1350–1361. ## A Intention Polarity Definitions For Annotation Task We instructed the annotators to assign labels to the data by considering the question's context and determining the possible *real* or even *hidden* intention behind the question. They were asked to choose whether the question is perceived to have a positive (including neutral) or *negative* intention based on the following definition (Mirzaei et al., 2022). - Questions are considered to have *positive or* neutral intentions if the purpose or plan of asking is perceived as innocuous, i.e., not harmful at all. These questions are considered sincere with good or neutral intention, such as showing innocent curiosity to elicit information, making a sincere request, or helping to clarify the situation, rather than aimed to hurt someone's feelings. - Questions with *negative intentions*, do not belong to the above category as they imply negative motives and have an ill-natured inclination to stress fault or strongly criticize the other person (e.g., disqualifying, humiliating, and complaining). These questions are recognized with (obvious or disguised) spiteful purposes, thus raising objections, making the other party feel defensive, and are interpreted as being hurtful. ## B Tf-Idf Based Dictionary To build out TF-IDF induced dictionary, we took the following steps: - All words in the corpus are sorted ascendingly based on TF-IDF. - The high-rank words were discarded if they appeared in more than one category. - If a word is frequent or appears in glosses (e.g., proper names), it is discarded. We also used COCA/BNC corpus and discarded the words with ranks over 500. - The top-ranked words remaining in the list of each category are included in the dictionary. The results of the Transformer could be improved using a dictionary since the lexicon in the dictionary gathered by TF-IDF could emphasize the word/phrase in contrast to the attention mechanism in which the transformer set the weights based on the pre-training. We directly used the feature representation of RoBERTa as the word embedding feature of our task. At the same time, the TF-IDF ranked dictionary was fed to our model to improve predicting performance. ## C Implementation Detail For binary classification of each intention category, for the transformer classifiers, we used a dropout layer (with a rate of 0.5), followed by a fully connected layer and a Sigmoid output layer. For multiclass intention classification, for each classifier in the Transformer group, we used English pretraining, fine-tuned it on polarity, and trained the model on intention categories. We used two fullyconnected layers with 128, 32, and ReLU activations with a Dropout of 0.5 and L2 regularization of 1e-03, followed by an FC with Softmax activation. We set the classes' weights with a grid search. For both experiments, the learning rate was set to 3e-5, and the batch size was 16. Other settings conform with HuggingFace implementation. The dictionary included 96 vocabularies after the uniqueness trimming procedure. For the SVM classifier, the pattern of words and the frequency of their occurrence were measured by TF-IDF and the bigram and trigram. We optimized the hyperparameters, using a grid search to maximize the performance of this competitor. We adopted linear SVM to classify the intention categories. We conduct experiments using a P100 GPU. ## D Question Selection The Conversation Gone Awry dataset, which we used to extract our questions, includes 2094 conversations that start and remain civil and 2094 conversations that start civil but end with a personal attack. We extracted the questions equally from civil and uncivil conversations. We assumed the questions asked within civil conversations should be positive/neutral. However, around 21% of those questions had negative intentions. Within conversations that start civil but end with a personal attack, questions were picked from both civil comments and from the last comment that included attacks. Even though we assumed civil comments before an attack should be positive/neutral, around 30% of the questions in that group were also negative. The rest belonged to comments, including personal attacks (24%). One explanation may be that Wikipedia editors are experts and may not necessarily ask questions to get more information but to discuss and oftentimes criticize someone's edit. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section: Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section: Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract + Section: 1 Introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3: Dataset Collection ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 3: Dataset collection B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 3: Dataset collection ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Section 3: Dataset collection ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section: Dataset collection ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section: 4 Meta-analysis of the data; Section 5 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section: 6 Results And Analysis ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix C The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix C ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section: 6 Results and analysis ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Sections 5 and 6 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 3: Dataset collection ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Section 3: Dataset collection ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 3: Dataset collection D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Section 3: Dataset collection

rassin-etal-2023-conjunct

Conjunct Resolution in the Face of Verbal Omissions

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.762

Verbal omissions are complex syntactic phenomena in VP coordination structures. They occur when verbs and (some of) their arguments are omitted from subsequent clauses after being explicitly stated in an initial clause. Recovering these omitted elements is necessary for accurate interpretation of the sentence, and while humans easily and intuitively fill in the missing information, state-of-the-art models continue to struggle with this task. Previous work is limited to small-scale datasets, synthetic data creation methods, and to resolution methods in the dependency-graph level. In this work we propose a \textit{conjunct resolution} task that operates directly on the text and makes use of a \textit{split-and-rephrase} paradigm in order to recover the missing elements in the coordination structure. To this end, we first formulate a pragmatic framework of verbal omissions which describes the different types of omissions, and develop an automatic scalable collection method. Based on this method, we curate a large dataset, containing over 10K examples of naturally-occurring verbal omissions with crowd-sourced annotations of the resolved conjuncts. We train various neural baselines for this task, and show that while our best method obtains decent performance, it leaves ample space for improvement. We propose our dataset, metrics and models as a starting point for future research on this topic.

# Conjunct Resolution In The Face Of Verbal Omissions Royi Rassin1 **Yoav Goldberg**1,2 **Reut Tsarfaty**1 1Bar-Ilan University 2Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence {rassinroyi, yoav.goldberg, reut.tsarfaty} @gmail.com ## Abstract Verbal omissions are complex syntactic phenomena in VP coordination structures. They occur when verbs and (some of) their arguments are omitted from subsequent clauses after being explicitly stated in an initial clause. Recovering these omitted elements is necessary for accurate interpretation of the sentence, and while humans easily and intuitively fill in the missing information, state-of-the-art models continue to struggle with this task. Previous work is limited to small-scale datasets, synthetic data creation methods, and to resolution methods in the dependency-graph level. In this work we propose a *conjunct resolution* task that operates directly on the text and makes use of a *split-andrephrase* paradigm in order to recover the missing elements in the coordination structure. To this end, we first formulate a pragmatic framework of verbal omissions which describes the different types of omissions, and develop an automatic scalable collection method. Based on this method, we curate a large dataset, containing over 10K examples of naturally-occurring verbal omissions with crowd-sourced annotations of the resolved conjuncts. We train various neural baselines for this task, and show that while our best method obtains decent performance, it leaves ample space for improvement. We propose our dataset, metrics and models as a starting point for future research on this topic. ## 1 Introduction Natural language is economic, and many elements in the message are not spelled out but omitted by speakers, left for the receiver of the message to complete. The hearer, either a human or an algorithm, should then complete the missing information and recover the intended meaning. This kind of omission and recovery occurs at all levels of conversation, from syntax to pragmatics, and is performed naturally and intuitively by humans, to the extent that they often don't even realize that something was missing in the message they received.  An important class of omission phenomena — and the focus of this work - involves verbs and their arguments, especially around coordination structures. A verb and some of its arguments that appear in an initial clause may be omitted in subsequent clauses. For example, in the sentence "Josh likes wine and Jane water", the verb *likes* is omitted from the phrase "Jane likes water" and has to be inferred. We find that state-of-the-art syntactic parsers (Honnibal and Montani, 2017; Nguyen et al., 2021) fail consistently even on toy examples such as this one, and assign a structure in which "Jane water" is interpreted as a noun-compound which is the object of Josh's liking, together with water (Figure 2). Downstream applications, such as, Google translate1also fail. Google translate translates the above sentence to French as "Josh 1https://translate.google.com/, accessed on Jan 18 2023. 13623  aime le vin et l'eau de Jane". When back-translated to English using the same engine, it results in "Josh likes Jane's wine and water". Significantly more complex sentences involving verbal omissions are of course also possible, and NLP systems routinely fail around them. Linguistically, such verbal omissions are studied under the terms *ellipsis* and *gapping*, and the research broadly aims at categorizing the verbal omission cases into sub-categories, carefully documenting the condition under which different omissions can or cannot occur (Hudson, 1989; Ross, 2014; Jackendoff, 1971). For language technology purposes, however, we would like to focus on detection, resolution and usability, not categorization. The need to recover empty elements automatically and robustly in large-scale calls for a unifying approach, by which to consider the different cases of verbal omissions as instances of a single phenomenon, that can be effectively addressed by a broad-coverage NLP system. Due to failures of even language technology applications on such constructions, in this paper, we suggest that these verbal omission phenomena should be addressed explicitly by systems, rather than hoping it will be caught on as a side product of end-to-end neural training. To this end, our aim is to establish a verbal-omission recovery task, and to create a supporting large-scale corpus documenting such verbal omissions in naturally occurring English sentences, together with automatic annotation models that recover the implicit information and make it explicit. How should a system that resolves such missing information look like? What are its outputs? In the syntactic parsing and treebanking literature, there has been an ongoing debate regarding the best way to represent recovery of omissions in coordinated structures (Marcus et al., 1999; Nivre et al., 2020; Schuster et al., 2017; Hudson, 1973; Nielsen, 2004; Anand and Hardt, 2016; Park and Kang, 2007; Park, 2009; Ficler and Goldberg, 2016; Kato and Matsubara, 2020; Droganova et al., 2018b,a). However, none of the solutions are fully satisfactory. First, all of them are highly technical in nature, and require significant linguistic expertise in order to even understand the notation. Often they assume some formal tree or graph notation, which makes their adoption unlikely by people who work on NLP systems but who may lack the specific syntactic expertise. Moreover, how can one feed such theory-loaded graph-based annotation into NLP systems for downstream, user-facing tasks? To mitigate this, our proposed solution is strictly within the text-to-text paradigm, and involves a rewriting task where the input is a sentence exhibiting a coordinated structure, and the output is the set of sentences which contain the same information, but where the implicit information is made explicit. We illustrate an input and output example in Figure 1. As we further discuss below, this text-enrichment approach has several appealing properties: first, it is natural and easily comprehensible to any competent speaker of the language. Second, this caters for both large-scale annotation efforts and task adoption by potential users. Lastly, it produces an output which can trivially be fed into any language processing system which takes natural language text as input. We collect a corpus of 10,206 sentences involving a wide range of verbal omissions in coordinated structures, annotated via this text-rewriting task to recover the missing elements. Using this corpus, we conduct experiments on the omission-recovery task. Training a T5-based model to perform the task shows that the performance saturates after seeing only 10% of the data, but the accuracy of the neural model is far from being perfect, leaving ample room for future modeling and improvements.2 ## 2 Related Work Previous research on verbal omissions in coordination structures has classified such phenomena into (at least) six categories: (1) conjunction reduction (Hudson, 1973); (2) gapping (Ross, 2014; Jackendoff, 1971; Hudson, 1989); (3) VP Ellipsis (Nielsen, 2004); (4) sluicing (Anand and Hardt, 2016; Park and Kang, 2007); (5) pseudo-gapping (Park, 2009); and (6) argument clusters. All of these phenomena are forms of ellipsis and are considered as ways to use language efficiently. How do NLP systems cope with such complex 2We make our code and dataset publicly available at https: //github.com/RoyiRa/conjunct-resolution-task syntactic phenomena? Work around gapping in the syntactic parsing community has focused on representation schemes for this phenomena in dependency graphs. Various representation has been proposed. For instance, the Universal Dependencies (UD) framework (Nivre et al., 2020) introduces the concept of an "orphan" dependency to indicate the presence of an ellipsis, and (Schuster et al., 2017) provides a detailed analysis of how gapping constructions could be represented using UD. Related work (Schuster et al., 2018; Droganova et al., 2018a,b) utilize such schemes by promoting a new head of the clause in cases of gapping and attaching all remnants to it. However, having a representation schema for a construction does not mean that an automatic parser is able to accurately predict it. To bridge this gap (no pun intended), several efforts have been made to increase the training data size for these constructions by enriching existing data or creating artificial datasets. Droganova et al. (2018b) proposed data enrichment methods that utilize existing annotated parse trees to mimic the structure of elliptical constructions, and Droganova et al. (2018a) trained a parser on artificial elliptical treebanks, achieving an F1 score of 36% on a small dataset (an improvement relative to prior work). Moreover, Schuster et al. (2018); Kato and Matsubara (2020) proposed a reconstruction algorithm at the dependency graph level, but relied on an oracle to identify the gapped sentences. Despite these efforts, current approaches do not fully address the issue of verbal omissions in coordination structures, and remain scattered. Additionally, these methods are not suitable for large-scale applications and are not ready for use in downstream tasks. In this work we take a more realistic, consistent and unified approach, wherein all verbal omissions are treated within the same framework, for which we provide a gold benchmark, a crowdsourcing interface, models for the tasks demonstrating feasibility and efficacy. ## 3 The Conjunct Resolution Task 3.1 Desiderata We seek a unifying approach to handle many types of verb-related omissions in coordination structures, and which is targeted primarily at users of language technologies. Concretely, our approach should allow for (1) an annotation scheme that is scalable to multiple annotators while maintaining quality; (2) a comprehensible task to non-linguists that is simple enough that no specialized linguistic expertise is required by a user of the resulting annotations; (3) amenable to automatic annotation by models; (4) useful in the context of a downstream language processing applications. Additionally, it would be preferable if the approach is languageagnostic, and that the approach is not constrained by any particular linguistic theory. ## 3.2 The Task In order to meet the aforementioned desiderata (Section 3.1), our approach steps away from traditional syntactic representation and instead represents the output as natural language text, which is an enriched version of the input text. This offers several advantages. First, the resulting annotation task is intuitive for annotators as they now need to read a sentence and rewrite it, which is a natural and familiar setting; second, language models are designed to learn from, operate on, and produce natural text representation; finally, the output can be consumed by any process that takes text as input, so applications can benefit from the enrichment without requiring a change in their design. Intuitively, such a task could be to take a sentence with missing information, and rewrite it by completing in all the missing verbs and their arguments, e.g. rewriting "Josh likes wine and Jane water" to "Josh likes wine and Jane likes water". However, we found this task to be notoriously hard to explain both to non-linguists (who did not realize a verb was missing in this sentence in the first place) and to linguists (who also do not identify some of the verbs as "missing", for example in "Jane likes wine and water", which is not technically a gapping construction but a verb taking a coordinated NP as its object - but which we aim to reconstruct as two distinct conjuncts3 nonetheless). Instead, we build on the *split-and-rephrase* paradigm (Narayan et al., 2017), which involves breaking down a complex sentence into smaller, simpler sentences. Specifically, we propose to decompose sentences that potentially involve verbal omissions around coordination into a set of independent sentences, that together capture the meaning of the original sentence, and do not add to it. In contrast to the original split-and-rephrase work, where no information is actually missing, the rewritten sentences make the implicit arguments explicit in each conjunct, and when they are taken together, these sentences retain the meaning of the original complex sentence. Concretely, we define the conjunct resolution task as follows: given a sentence containing one of the conjunctions "or", "and", or "but" as input, the sentence has to be rewritten into a set of sentences while adhering to the following constraints: (1) the set of sentences must not include the marked conjunction; (2) the sentences should introduce a minimal number of new content words; (3) the sentences set should preserve the meaning of the original sentence and not add to it; If it is not possible to rewrite the sentence under the preceding constraints without altering its meaning, the sentence should be left unchanged. The first constraint drives the annotation: by not allowing to use the conjunction, the sentence must be split, and all the verbs and their arguments must be spelled out. The two other constraints keep the resulting sentence set both minimal and complete. To illustrate our task, consider the following sentence. The underlines indicate omitted elements, and are not part of the input. The focused conjunction "and" is marked in bold: - "As of January 2013, The Times has a circulation of 399,339, The Sunday Times __ of 885,612, and *The New York Times __ of* 9,512,132." The sentence is rewritten into a set of three sentences as each clause describes a unique event: (1) As of January 2013, The Times has a circulation of 399,339. (2) As of January 2013, The Sunday Times has a circulation of 885,612. (3) As of January 2013, The New York Times has a circulation of 9,512,132. A core challenge of this task is to rewrite the sentence to a correct number of sentences while faithfully retaining the meaning of each clause (for instance, including the opening span "As of January 2013," is crucial in retaining the overall meaning of the sentence, however, it should not be a sentence on its own, as it is not a coordinated clause). The closing clause refers to sentences that can not be rewritten to independent sentences, but still contain verbal omissions. For instance, consider - "Amla made 133 and *Roussow __ 132 with* the pair combining to put on 247 for the third wicket." while this is indeed a case of verbal omissions, the span "*with the pair combining to put on 247*" binds the two clauses together in a way that will lose its meaning if rewritten to a set of two sentences. This paradigm fits our objective well and addresses the desiderata we put forth in Section 3.1, as rewriting a sentence to a set of sentences indirectly resolves the verbal omissions. It is amicable to non-linguist annotators and straightforward to scale while maintaining quality, as there is little room for variance when breaking down a complex sentence. Finally, users of the process can clearly and intuitively understand its intended behavior and can analyze its correctness, without requiring any linguistic training. ## 4 Data Collection Process We collect a dataset of 10,206 examples of a wide array of omission cases, which can serve for both training and evaluation. We aim for the collected sentences to cover a wide range of omission cases. The underlying data was sourced from three publicly available datasets: SQuAD 2.0, Dailymail, and CNN (Rajpurkar et al., 2018; Hermann et al., 2015), with a roughly equal proportion of sentences from each one. Our proposed collection protocol involves two steps: (1) automatic collection of sentences that are likely to contain interesting omission phenomena; (2) manual annotation of the sentences via crowd-sourcing. ## 4.1 Sentences Collection Instead of trying to explicitly target and identify specific types of verbal omissions, we instead rely on the observation that these verbal omission constructions affect both manual and automatic syntactic analysis in various ways, either due to constructions that are hard or impossible to represent, or due to parsing mistakes. We thus do not look *directly* for specific verbal omissions, but rather, identify their side-effects as manifested in the graph outputs of a dependency parser. For example, here:  the omission of had manifests in two "suspicious" structures: a *conj* relation between two different part-of-speech tags, and an *nsubj* dependent of a word which is not a verb. We collect cases based on 21 such patterns, applied to sentences that include coordination. By considering a sample of the sentences identified in this manner, we verified that roughly 92% of the resulting cases are indeed non-trivial verbal omission cases. ## 4.2 Annotation And Curation We devise a scalable annotation procedure that can be performed by non-expert annotators.4 The procedure is based on the conjunction resolution task (Section 3), which does not require annotators to possess advanced linguistic knowledge. Instead, it relies on their intuitive understanding of language. Crowdsourcing Infrastructure. We set up an Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) task in which workers were given a coordination structure with suspected omissions and a highlighted conjunction, and were asked to rewrite the sentence into multiple independent sentences, according to our task's rules. Each AMT assignment (known as a "HIT") begins with a brief description of the task and two examples: one example of a rewritable sentence and the other of a not rewritable sentence. Workers were also given an option to view five rewritable and five non-rewritable examples with detailed explanations. A HIT consisted of seven pairs consisting of a coordination sentence and a highlighted conjunction in it. The annotators were requested to rewrite the sentences in the order in which the clauses are read in the sentence. We encouraged annotators to review their work by joining the set of sentences with the highlighted conjunction and comparing the meaning between the input and the sum of their sentences. Moreover, when annotators submitted a sentence unchanged, they were prompted to explain why. This not only facilitated critical thinking on their part, but also allowed for potential revisions to their annotation and provided valuable insight on the data, being a useful resource on its own. To ensure the quality of the annotations, we im-4We rely on a pool of trained crowd workers in the controlled crowd-sourcing paradigm (Roit et al., 2019). plemented several checks: (1) We ensured that no two sentences in the rewritten set were identical. (2) We verified that the highlighted conjunction was not present in any of the sentences in the set. (3) We confirmed that no new content words were added, while still allowing for inflectional variations in verb and noun forms to maintain grammatical accuracy. Additionally, to handle unexpected cases and gain further understanding of the task, annotators were given the option to indicate uncertainty in their annotation and to specify if the sentence was a "long list" requiring more than ten rewrites. In case of the latter, sentences were removed. Annotators were also given the option to provide any feedback. appendix A.3 shows the user interface of this task. Annotations Consolidation. The final annotations were determined by majority agreement among annotators on the number of sentences in a set and the exact match for each submission. In cases where no majority agreement was reached, the answer provided by the highest-performing annotator was chosen. Inter-Annotator Agreement. We assessed the level of unanimous agreement on factors such as rewrite agreement (the number of sentences required to accurately rewrite a given sentence), exact match, and average Jaccard Similarity5. The initial annotation phase involved 64 native English speakers with a high approval rate (99%) and significant experience on the AMT platform (over 5,000 completed HITs). Our analysis of the first 10% of the data revealed rewrite agreement, exact match, and average Jaccard Similarity scores of 56%, 67.5%, and 94%, respectively, with approximately 5% of the data being unusable due to corrupted annotations. In order to continually improve the quality of our annotations, we narrowed our pool of annotators to the top five performers (based on activity and IAA performance) and provided personal feedback and bonuses based on the execution of each batch. As a result of these efforts, unanimous rewrite agreement, exact match, and average Jaccard Similarity all increased to 85%, 82%, and 97%, respectively, and less than 1% of the data required corrections. ## 5 Conjunct Resolution Dataset Our Conjunct Resolution dataset consists of 10,206 verbal omission sentences, each paired with one of the conjunctions: "and", "or", and "but" (table 2 reports conjunction distribution) coupled with human annotations. By subtracting the number of verbs in the verbal omissions to those in the gold annotations, we find that 42% of the verbs are omitted (see table 1). Furthermore, the majority (95.2%) of sentences were found to be rewritable, with 82% of the sentences being expressed in two sentences, 9.8% being expressed in three sentences, 3.4% expressed as four sentences or more, and only 4.8% being classified as not rewritable. | Split | Explicit | Omitted | Total | |------------|------------|-----------|---------| | Train | 29,447 | 21,355 | 50,802 | | Validation | 3,630 | 2,631 | 6,261 | | Test | 3,611 | 2,517 | 6,128 | | Full | 36,688 | 26,502 | 63,190 | Table 1: Count of explicit and omitted verbs in each split of the dataset, and the total count for each split. The full dataset contains a total of 10,206 instances Table 2: Distribution of conjunctions (and, or, but) in each split of the dataset, and the total count for each split. The full dataset contains a total of 10,206 instances | Split | and | or | but | Total | |------------|-------|------|-------|---------| | Train | 6,508 | 798 | 860 | 8,166 | | Validation | 805 | 108 | 108 | 1,021 | | Test | 811 | 90 | 118 | 1,019 | | Full | 8,124 | 996 | 1,086 | 10,206 | Non-rewritable Sentences. 491 of the 10,206 (4.9%) were marked as non-rewritable. Of these, 445 contain an explanation.6 The reasoning behind deciding whether a sentence is rewritable or not seems to be non-trivial. For instance, consider the following two sentence: (1) I'd say Adam **will win** four majors and Justin __ three, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the other way round. (2) The pair are tied at the top after McIlroy **shot** 67 - his 25th score under par out of his last 27 rounds - and Horschel __ a 69. 6We did not collect explanations during the first few batches. Despite that both sentences are cases of gapping, only the second is rewritable. To recognize this, the reader (human or model) needs to be able to identify when two events are bound together by another piece of information. In the first sentence, the phrase "but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the other way round" lacks context when appearing in the rewritten sentences. However, for the second sentence, there is no such issue, and is thus rewritable.7 ## 6 Evaluation Metric As no task is complete without an evaluation metric, we propose an automatic evaluation metric for the proposed conjunct resolution as rephrasing task. For evaluation, we are interested in measuring three things: (1) how accurate the model is at resolving verbal omissions, (2) how often does the model omit other information after resolution, and (3) how often the model generates extra information. To address these three criteria, we propose to measure recall and precision over the predicate-argument relations recovered by a dependency parser on the generated compared to the gold sentence set. High Level Description. The task revolves around making verbs and their arguments explicit. Our main object of interest is thus the "verb nucleus", an instance comprising of a verb and its arguments, as reflected in the dependency tree. We measure to what extent the nuclei extracted from the generated sentences overlap with the nuclei extracted from the gold sentences. Neglecting to resolve an argument, or adding an extra argument to a given verb, will result in a mismatch between the gold and generated nucleus of that verb, hurting both recall and precision. Neglecting to spell out a verb completely will result in a missing nucleus (recall error), and over generating will result in spurious nuclei (precision error). To calculate these metrics, we first produce dependency graphs for both the model's generated set of sentences and the gold annotation's set of sentences. From these graphs, we extract the verbs, and for each verb a subset of its dependents that we consider as arguments (based on a set of dependency labels). Each such set of verb+argument is 7In linguistics and formal semantics, when a coordinated structure refers to the plurality of events as a whole, it is said to have a *collective* (as opposed to *distributive*) reading. The non-rewritable sentences in our set are those with collective readings. Their annotation and resolution is beyond the scope of this paper, and we reserve them for future work. a "verb nucleus". We treat the collection of verb nuclei over all sentences as a set (each element in the set is a collection of verb+arguments), and compute precision and recall over this set. Details. Denote the (automatically produced) syntactic dependency graphs of the m gold sentences as G = {g1, g2, . . . , gm}, and the dependency graphs of the n generated sentences as H = {h1, h2*, . . . , h*n}. We extract verb nuclei from these graphs, where each nucleus is a subgraph containing a verb, its subject, object and lexicalized prepositional modifiers, as well as prepositional modifiers of the object and associated negations, if they exist.8 We represent a nucleus as a bag of (w1, dep, w2) triplets where w1 and w2 are words and dep is a dependency label, and consider two nuclei to be the same if their bags are the same. Denote by NG the bag of gold nuclei, by NH the bag of generated nuclei, and by NI the bag of identity nuclei, obtained by extracting nuclei from the input sentence. We obtain the subsets N′H = NH \ NI and N′G = NG \ NI , which strictly contain nuclei with omitted verbs. Then precision = |N′H ∩ N′G*| \ |*N′H| and *recall* = |N′H ∩ N′G*| \ |*N′G|. In cases where there is only one sentence in the gold set and the generated set, we skip the interaction with the identity nucleus, as to not punish the model for correctly not rewriting. Calibration. The input sentence contains some verbs and arguments that are repeated throughout the sentence. Thus, an approach that copies the full sentence two or more times will also yield some success under our metric, due to repeated verb nuclei, despite not being meaningful. To calibrate for this, we provide two additional numbers: (a) the precision and recall obtained by a model that spits the original sentence as output, unmodified; and (b) the precision and recall of a model that has access to the correct number k of sentences in a gold annotation set, and which uses this information by spitting out k copies of the input sentence. Model performance should always be judged in comparison to these baselines.  ## 7 Experiments We evaluate neural models on the task, both in supervised fine-tuning and in in-context learning setups. For the supervised fine-tuning case, we measure both task performance as well as the dependence of performance on dataset size. As a concluding experiment, we take the best-performing model and manually evaluate it against the task definition. Dataset Split and Preprocessing. We shuffle and then split our dataset to train (80%), validation (10%), and test (10%) sets. Each input instance contains a sentence and a marked conjunction. Each output instance is a sequence of sentences. For feeding the text to the models, we mark the conjunction using a special token9and separate the output sentences using special tokens.10 Supervised Fine-tuning. We fine-tune ten T5large (Raffel et al., 2020) models, using increasingly larger subsets of the training data, from 10% to 100% in increments of ten. All models were trained with the same hyperparameters and finetuned for five epochs, with the best performing model on the validation set being saved and subsequently evaluated on the test-set (for the detailed training configuration, see A.2). In-context Learning / Prompting. We evaluate the state-of-the-art GPT text-davinci-3 model from OpenAI, in an in-context learning (prompting) fashion (Brown et al., 2020). 9In T5, sentinel tokens were employed, and in GPT3, the "<SPLIT>" marker was utilized. 10In T5, sentinel tokens were employed again, and in GPT3, each sentence was written in a separate line. To obtain in-context examples, we randomly sampled for each test instance three re-writable and one non-rewritable sentence, sharing the conjunction with the test instance. Further details of the prompt and parameters are available in the appendix A.2. Manual Evaluation. Our evaluation metric cannot fully evaluate the semantic correctness of results. To overcome this, we perform a manual evaluation in which a human annotator is requested to examine the system's inputs (sentences containing omissions) together with outputs of the best performing-model, and assess whether the generated set of sentences has the same meaning as the input sentence, or a different one. ## 7.1 Results And Discussion The results of all models are summarized in table 3. Results improve rapidly, but then saturate on around 82% F1 already with 40% (∼ 3, 200) training samples, reaching a peak of 82.4% F1, indicating that the key to the task may not be "more data". In our experiments, the T540% and T580% models demonstrated the best performance. However, the T580% model had a more balanced performance across the different metrics, making it the preferred model for further analysis and interpretation of results. When examining performance on specific conjunctions, the best performing model, T580%, scored 83.7% on "and" sentences, 76.3% on "or" sentences, and on "but" sentences, it scored 77.7% F1. *GP T*3 performed similarly, but to a lesser extent, scoring 73.5%, 70.4%, and 65.4% F1 on average, in the aforementioned order. In terms of quantity, at a minimum, models learned that the resolution is centered around the verb. T580% generates 5,514 out of the 6,128 (89.9%) verbs in the gold annotations, while only over-generating 349 verbs, a mere 5.7% of the total verbs in the test set. Similarly, *GP T*3 generates 4,680 out of the 6,128 (75%) and over-generates 273 verbs (4.4%). Finally, the manual evaluation evaluating the semantic correctness of the T580% system's outputs with respect to the input, reveals that in 87.9% of the cases the meaning is preserved, and in 12.1% it is not. Although measuring different aspects of the answer, these numbers are similar to the automatic F1 results, establishing some additional trust in it as an automated metric. | Model | Recall | Precision | F1 | |--------------|----------|-------------|------| | Calibration1 | 5.1 | 5.1 | 5.1 | | Calibrationk | 49.8 | 41.8 | 45.5 | | T510% | 75.9 | 43.2 | 55.1 | | T520% | 77.2 | 78.2 | 77.7 | | T530% | 79.5 | 79.6 | 79.5 | | T540% | 82.4 | 81.8 | 82.1 | | T550% | 81.6 | 82.1 | 81.8 | | T560% | 81.2 | 81.5 | 81.3 | | T570% | 81 | 82.2 | 81.6 | | T580% | 82 | 82.7 | 82.3 | | T590% | 81.2 | 82.1 | 81.6 | | T5100% | 81.8 | 82.7 | 82.2 | | GP T3 | 68.7 | 76.2 | 72.3 | ## 7.2 Error Examples Below are some examples of errors by the bestperforming T5 model. Attributing the correct arguments to a different verb. Here, the gold annotation indicates the verb "playing" as the omission, while the model wrongly chose "gain" (crossed items are missing in output): Players gain *points from* playing in the four grand slams, ATP World Tour events including eight Masters Series tournaments, and World Group singles matches in the Davis Cup teams competition. (a) *Players gain points from playing in the* four grand slams. (b) Players gain points from playing *in ATP* World Tour events including eight Masters Series tournaments. (c) Players gain points from playing in World Group singles matches in the Davis Cup teams competition. Incorrectly attaching two arguments to the same verb. Here the model should have produced a different sentence for "over 300,000 injured": The January 12 quake left over 220,000 dead, over 300,000 injured, and over a million homeless. (a) The January 12 quake left over 220,000 dead, *over 300,000 injured*. (b) The January 12 quake left over a million homeless. ## Failure To Resolve Verb-Phrase Ellipsis. Germany knows how to do it, and we don't. (a) *Germany knows how to do it.* (b) We don't know how to do it. Considering a different coordination. Here, the model split around ';' rather than around 'and', missing information in the process: Johnston's one shot went through her front door and over the officers' heads; they responded with 39 shots, hitting Johnston five times. (a) *Johnston's one shot went through her front* door __. (b) *the officers responded with 39 shots, hitting Johnston five times.* Missing conjuncts from the resolution. Here, the crossed item did not appear in the model's output, but should have: At the 2001 Census, 92.4% of the city's populace was White—including one percent White Irish—3.8% were South Asian, 1.0% Black, 1.3% Chinese or other ethnic groups, and 1.5% were of Mixed Race. (a) *At the 2001 Census, 92.4 % of the city's* populace was White—including one percent White Irish. (b) At the 2001 Census, 3.8 % of the *city's* populace was South *Asian.* (c) *At the 2001 Census, 1.0 % of the city's* populace was Black. (d) At the 2001 Census, 1.3 % of the city's populace was Chinese or other ethnic groups. (e) At the 2001 Census, 1.5 % of the city's populace was of Mixed Race. Resolving creates a factual inaccuracy. Here, the model splits a sentence to create factually incorrect sentences: Heist had been sentenced to three years of probation for the identity theft and for giving false information to a law enforcement officer. (a) Heist had been sentenced to three years of probation for the identity theft. (b) Heist had been sentenced to three years of probation for giving false information to a law enforcement officer. This error example illustrates an inherent limitation of our approach, as the correct semantics cannot be represented as a set of sentences. The correct behavior under our representation would have been to not split this sentence at all. ## 8 Conclusions We present a novel approach for studying verbal omissions in coordination structures. Previous research in this area has been fragmented, focusing on individual phenomena. In contrast, we propose a unified approach which considers all conjunction related verbal omissions under the same framework, by introducing a text-to-text conjunct-resolution task, to resolve omitted verbs and their arguments. We compiled and curated a large dataset of conjunction related verbal omissions, consisting of over 10,000 sentences and human annotations, which serves as a valuable resource for further research in this area. Our results using state-of-the-art models as neural baselines demonstrate that this task is challenging and merits further work. ## Limitations One unsatisfying aspect of proposed task is that it accounts for *distributive* coordination structures, but is not able to handle sentences with *collective* reading where the main predicate applies to the plurality of conjuncts as a whole. In our data collection these account for about 4.9% of the verbal omission cases, and such sentences are left "non-rewritable". In future work, we would like a solution that allows to resolve also such sentences in a consistent yet easy-to-annotate manner. Additionally, in the GPT prompting experiment we experimented with a few different prompts, but did not do exhaustive prompt engineering, and it is possible that with more aggressive prompt engineering GPT can perform better on the task than our results indicate. Similarly for the fine-tuning experiments with T5-large, in which we did some hyperparameter tuning, but not aggressively so. ## Ethics Statement Worker Qualification and Compensation for Annotation. To collect annotations on our dataset, we used Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). All workers had the following qualifications: (1) over 5,000 completed HITs; (2) 99% approval rate or higher; (3) Native English speakers from England, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, or United States. Workers were paid $0.75 per HIT, and on average completed a batch within four hours of work. In addition, $10 was given upon completing a batch (73 HITs), raising the hourly pay to $16.2. Data Collection and Usage Policy for Annotation. Workers were informed that their annotations would be collected for research purposes and would be used to train and evaluate languagerelated models, and that the annotations would eventually be made publicly available. Additionally, our task and the annotations collected were of objective nature and did not contain any personal information. Furthermore, all data sources used in the study were publicly available. ## 9 Acknowledgements This project received funding from the Europoean Research Council (ERC) under the Europoean Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant agreement No. 802774 (iEXTRACT) and grant agreement No. 677352 (NLPRO). The third author is also funded by a grant from the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), grant number 3-17992. ## References Pranav Anand and Daniel Hardt. 2016. Antecedent selection for sluicing: Structure and content. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 1234– 1243, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Kira Droganova, Filip Ginter, Jenna Kanerva, and Daniel Zeman. 2018a. Mind the gap: Data enrichment in dependency parsing of elliptical constructions. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2018), pages 47–54, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kira Droganova, Daniel Zeman, Jenna Kanerva, and Filip Ginter. 2018b. Parse me if you can: Artificial treebanks for parsing experiments on elliptical constructions. In *Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and* Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Jessica Ficler and Yoav Goldberg. 2016. Improved parsing for argument-clusters coordination. In *Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 72–76, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomás Kociský, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. *CoRR*, abs/1506.03340. Matthew Honnibal and Ines Montani. 2017. spaCy 2: Natural language understanding with Bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. To appear. R. A. Hudson. 1973. Conjunction-reduction. Journal of Linguistics, 9(2):303–305. Richard A Hudson. 1989. Gapping and grammatical relations. *Journal of Linguistics*, 25:57–94. Ray S Jackendoff. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic inquiry, 2(1):21–35. Yoshihide Kato and Shigeki Matsubara. 2020. Parsing gapping constructions based on grammatical and semantic roles. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2747–2752, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, and Ann Taylor. 1999. Treebank-3. LDC Catalog No.: LDC99T42, ISBN: 1-58563-1639, ISLRN: 141-282-691-413-2. Shashi Narayan, Claire Gardent, Shay B. Cohen, and Anastasia Shimorina. 2017. Split and rephrase. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 606– 616. Association for Computational Linguistics. Minh Van Nguyen, Viet Dac Lai, Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2021. Trankit: A lightweight transformer-based toolkit for multilingual natural language processing. In *Proceedings of the 16th* Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 80–90, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Leif Arda Nielsen. 2004. Verb phrase ellipsis detection using automatically parsed text. In *COLING* 2004: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1093– 1099, Geneva, Switzerland. COLING. Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Jan Hajic, Christopher D. Manning, Sampo ˇ Pyysalo, Sebastian Schuster, Francis Tyers, and Daniel Zeman. 2020. Universal Dependencies v2: An evergrowing multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4034–4043, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Dong-woo Park. 2009. On pseudogapping in HPSG. In Proceedings of the 23rd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, Volume 1, pages 425–434, Hong Kong. City University of Hong Kong. Myung-Kwan Park and Jung-Min Kang. 2007. Multiple sluicing in English. In *Proceedings of the 21st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and* Computation, pages 394–404, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. The Korean Society for Language and Information (KSLI). Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad. *CoRR*, abs/1806.03822. Paul Roit, Ayal Klein, Daniela Stepanov, Jonathan Mamou, Julian Michael, Gabriel Stanovsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Ido Dagan. 2019. Controlled crowdsourcing for high-quality qa-srl annotation. John Robert Ross. 2014. *Gapping and the order of* constituents. De Gruyter Mouton. Sebastian Schuster, Matthew Lamm, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Gapping constructions in Universal Dependencies v2. In *Proceedings of the NoDaLiDa* 2017 Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2017), pages 123–132, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sebastian Schuster, Joakim Nivre, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. Sentences with gapping: Parsing and reconstructing elided predicates. In *Proceedings* of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1156–1168, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Appendix A.1 Parser Throughout this project, we use the spacy parser with the out-of-the-box en_core_web_trf model. ## A.2 Models T5 Configuration. To ensure reproducibility of our results, we provide the specific configuration of T5-large model used in our study. The model had 770M parameters and was trained with a batch size of 8. The optimizer used was AdamW with a adam_eps value of 1e-8. The maximum input and output length were set to 256 and weight decay was set to 0. The learning rate was set according to the recommendations of the Hugging Face library, with a value of 3e-4. These configurations were used consistently across all variations of the model in our study. GPT-3 Configuration. In our approach, we use OpenAI's text-davinci-3 model, a large language model based on the GPT-3 architecture. The temperature is set to 0 and top_p remains 1, resulting in conservative and less-deviant text. The maximum number of tokens generated is set to 256. These parameters have been fine-tuned to control the generated text. GPT-3 Prompt Format. Here we show a concrete illustration of the instructions provided to GPT-3. Q: 58.1% of the population described themselves in the 2011 census return as being at least nominally Christian *<SPLIT> and </SPLIT>* 0.7% as Muslim with all other religions represented by less than 0.5% each. A: Cannot re-write this sentence. Q: Federal education assistance offered affordable loans to Americans who wanted to attend college <SPLIT> and </SPLIT> money for local schools to ensure that all children received an adequate education. A: Federal education assistance offered affordable loans to Americans who wanted to attend college. Federal education assistance offered money for local schools to ensure that all children received an adequate education. Q: He was subsequently asked to repeat the program at the American Asylum for Deaf - mutes in Hartford, Connecticut, *<SPLIT> and </SPLIT>* the Clarke School for the Deaf in Northampton, Massachusetts. A: He was subsequently asked to repeat the program at the American Asylum for Deaf - mutes in Hartford, Connecticut. He was subsequently asked to repeat the program at the Clarke School for the Deaf in Northampton, Massachusetts. Q: The plan, a grid with two main axes meeting at a central square **<SPLIT> and </SPLIT>** an additional square in each corner, was based on Thomas Holme's 1682 plan for Philadelphia. A: The plan, a grid with two main axes meeting at a central square, was based on Thomas Holme's 1682 plan for Philadelphia. The plan, a grid with an additional square in each corner, was based on Thomas Holme's 1682 plan for Philadelphia. Q: Example alternative schools include Montessori schools, Waldorf schools, Friends schools, Sands School, Summerhill School, The Peepal Grove School, Sudbury Valley School, Krishnamurti schools, **<SPLIT> and </SPLIT>** *open classroom schools.* ## A.3 Crowdsourcing Task Here we show the instructions in our crowdsourcing annotation task.  ## A.4 Crowdsourcing Task Instructions Rewrite Sentences To Multiple Sentences You will be shown a sentence such as: As of January 2013, The Times has a circulation of 399,339, The Sunday Times of 885,612, and The New York Times of 9,512,132. Please rewrite the sentence to multiple sentences, without the word ' and ' and its accompanying commas: 1. As of January 2013, The Times has a circulation of 399,339. 2. As of January 2013, The Sunday Times has a circulation of 885,612. 3. As of January 2013, The New York Times has a circulation of 9,512,132. A good rule of thumb is to add the removed 'and' word between the rewritten sentences, and see if the meaning of the original sentence is preserved, as such: As of January 2013, The Times has a circulation of 399,339 and as of January 2013, The Sunday Times has a circulation of 885,612 and as of January 2013, The New York Times has a circulation of 9,512,132. Some 'and' words are impossible to remove: Jane has five dollars and fifty cents in her wallet. 1. Jane has five dollars in her wallet. 2. Jane has fifty cents in her wallet. In this case, removing 'and' creates two contradicting sentences, and does not preserve the meaning of the sentence. In this HIT you will see seven sentences with at least one 'and', please: 1. Rewrite the sentence to multiple sentences with minimal 'and' words and accompanying commas. 2. You are restricted to words (and their past/present/future, singular/plural forms) that appear in the original sentence. 3. If the sentence is a list that calls for ten rewritings or more, check the Long List box, and submit the sentence as is. 4. If preserving the meaning of the sentence is impossible, submit the sentence as is. MORE EXAMPLES ## A.5 Dependencies In Verb Nucleus. As detailed in section 6, a verb nucleus contains a verb and its arguments. While to identify the nucleus root (the verb), we look if their part-of-speech tag is one of ("VB", "VBD", "VBG", "VBN", "VBP", "VBZ"), the rest of the nucleus is defined over the dependency graph: - subjects - ("nsubj", "nsubjpass", "expl"). - object - ("dobj", "obj", "pobj", "iobj", "attr", "oprd"). - prepositions and their prepositional modifiers - ("prep", "agent") and ("pobj", "pcomp"). - negations - "neg". Negations are included to account for cases where the model correctly predicts most verb arguments, but fails to account for negation, thus, breaking the original meaning of the sentence. For instance, "The governor urged the public not to panic and to follow his reports closely" is resolved to: - *The governor urged the public not to panic* - The governor urged the public not to follow his reports closely ## A.6 Additional Results To put the performance of the models in context, we provide results over each conjunct. Moreover, we include exact matching over the sets of sentences, here, punctuation is removed and the sets are assumed to be aligned. See table 4. Model F1and F1but F1or F1 **Exact Match** Calibration1 4.7 0.0 15.6 5.1 2.4 Calibrationk 45.2 30.9 64.9 45.5 2.4 T510% 59.7 28.9 45.2 55.1 37.3 T520% 81.2 57.7 72.2 77.7 66.6 T530% 82.9 60.4 74.2 79.5 69.1 T540% **84.3** 70.9 76.3 82.1 72.4 T550% 83.5 75.7 74.2 81.8 72.6 T560% 82.6 76.2 76.9 81.3 72.7 T570% 82.8 76.4 76.7 81.6 73.8 T580% 83.7 77.7 76.3 **82.3** 73.9 T590% 82.9 77.5 75.3 81.6 72.6 T5100% 82.6 79.3 **82.4** 82.2 **74.9** GP T3 73.5 65.4 70.4 72.3 53.1 ## A.7 Additional Examples Of Patterns Indicating Suspicious Sentences In collecting sentences, we broadly look for three types of "suspicious" structures: - *part-of-speech mismatch* - two words with a different part-of-speech are linked by a *conj*. $$\mathrm{mass","expl"}$$ - *dependency relation mismatch* - an inconsistency between a word's part-of-speech tag and its relations to its dependents. - *subtree mismatch* - two words with the same part-of-speech, but different subtrees. While most patterns involve more than one suspicious structure, we group the examples to match the above list. The full sentences demonstrating these patterns can be seen below. We denote common-nouns, proper-nouns, adjectives, and numerical values with "NON-VERB", and a verb or an auxiliary verb, with "VERB". When a pattern checks for one of few possible relations between two words, we use "/" to separate them (e.g., *advcl/xcomp* indicates the pattern accepts an *advcl* or an *xcomp* relation). The relation any indicates the pattern accepts any type of relation between two words, and obj indicates the pattern accepts any type of object. ## A.7.1 Part-Of-Speech Mismatch  Example sentence: Koreans made up 1.2% of the city's population, and Japanese 0.3%.  body issues and how to cover them.  Example sentence: Desormeaux has won the Preakness twice: once aboard Real Quiet in 1998 and again 10 years later on Big Brown.  Example sentence: Tell us in the comments below or @CNNFilms on Twitter.  Example sentence: Southwest said all customers were safe and at the terminal. ## A.7.2 Dependency Relation Mismatch  Example sentence: From the 1880s onward neighbourhoods such as Oud- wijk, Wittevrouwen, Vogelenbuurt to the East, and Lombok to the West were developed.  Example sentence: 19 soldiers, policemen reported wounded, and some attackers killed, wounded or captured. VERB NON-VERB obj prep/agent conj . . . * * . . . * . . . * . . . - $\star\star\star$ ? Example sentence: You send out these sound waves, and when they bounce off of objects, the reflection of the waves tells you - or in this case, the animal - where the objects are. . . . * * * * . . . * * . . . PART VERB any any any conj aux Example sentence: Some runners started raising money for charity or to help with relief efforts. $$\begin{array}{r l}{{\overbrace{\prod_{\begin{array}{l}{\left({\mathrm{agent/prev}}\right)}\\ {\ast}\end{array}}^{\left({\mathrm{agent/prev}}\right)}\atop{\ast}}}}&{{\overbrace{\begin{array}{l}{\left({\mathrm{even}}\right)}\\ {\ast}\end{array}}^{\left({\mathrm{even}}\right)}\atop{\ast}}}}&{{\atop\ldots}}\end{array}$$ VERB ______________________________________________________________________________ NON-VERB $\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{a}=\mathbf{a}$. Example sentence: Every day, someone new is introduced to the hardships of wartime military service or the horrors of combat. subj ccomp conj * . . . * . . . * * NON-VERB NON-VERB Example sentence: Progress in the Business District but lingering blight in poorer neighborhoods, he says. $$\overbrace{*}^{\overbrace{\mathrm{\tiny~\left(\frac{n s u b j}{s}\right)}^{\left(n s u b j\right)}}^{\left(n s u b j\right)}}\approx\qquad\qquad\ldots$$ NON-VERB NON-VERB $$\mathbf{\partial}\cdot\mathbf{\partial}$$ Example sentence: To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind are primary, and matter secondary. ## A.7.3 Subtree Mismatch . . . * . . . * . . . * . . . * . . . VERB CCONJ ADP ADP prep Example sentence: John was born to Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine on 24 December 1166.   Example sentence: The meteor show is entertainment for most, but a research chance for NASA. Example sentence: In 1995, material costs were 30 cents for the jewel case and 10 to 15 cents for the CD.  Example sentence: Neesham would make 85 from 80 and Kane Williamson a more considered 54 from 98 as Sri Lanka toiled.   Example sentence: It is also used in woodcut printmaking, and for engraving. VERB ADP obj prep    . . . * * * . . . . . . * . . . Example sentence: This is The Joker's war on Batman and even more so, on his family. VERB ADP  $$\mathrm{VERB}$$ Example sentence: They've been major players in the uprisings in Yemen and in Syria. $$\sqrt{\sqrt{\sqrt{\log}\sum_{i}^{\mathrm{(ex)}}}\prod_{i}^{\mathrm{(ex)}}}\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots$$ $$\mathrm{ADp}$$  NON-VERB ADP VERB  Example sentence: Government control of the economy and of expression is much reduced, he says.  $\star$ 4. Example sentence: They concentrated in trade, services, and especially in money lending. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Our work collects data from existing well-known public datasets and presents a task to resolve verbal omissions in coordination sentences, we are not aware of a potential risk resulting from it ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and 1 Introduction ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? We used it throughout the paper to rephrase the content we already wrote. Specifically, we used ChatGPT with the prompt: "Rephrase in a concise and clear manner" ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 5 Conjunct Resolution Dataset ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 4 Data Collection Process ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? All the resources we used are under a license that allows their use for the purpose we used them for. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? 1 Introduction and Ethics Statement ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Ethics Statement ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Ethics Statement, 5 Conjunct Resolution Dataset ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 5 Conjunct Resolution Dataset ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Experiments ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 7 Experiments and Appendix We did not discuss computational budget and computing infrastructure, as we did not conduct extensive training The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 7 Experiments ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? appendix D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** 4 Data Collection Process ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? 4.2 Annotation and Curation ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 4.2 discusses how we recruited, the "ethics statement" discusses pay ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? ethics statement D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? ethics statement

maddela-etal-2023-training

Training Models to Generate, Recognize, and Reframe Unhelpful Thoughts

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.763

Many cognitive approaches to well-being, such as recognizing and reframing unhelpful thoughts, have received considerable empirical support over the past decades, yet still lack truly widespread adoption in self-help format. A barrier to that adoption is a lack of adequately specific and diverse dedicated practice material. This work examines whether current language models can be leveraged to both produce a virtually unlimited quantity of practice material illustrating standard unhelpful thought patterns matching specific given contexts, and generate suitable positive reframing proposals. We propose PATTERNREFRAME, a novel dataset of about 10k examples of thoughts containing unhelpful thought patterns conditioned on a given persona, accompanied by about 27k positive reframes. By using this dataset to train and/or evaluate current models, we show that existing models can already be powerful tools to help generate an abundance of tailored practice material and hypotheses, with no or minimal additional model training required.

# Training Models To Generate, Recognize, And Reframe Unhelpful Thoughts Mounica Maddela∗ Georgia Tech & Meta AI Megan Ung∗ Meta AI Jing Xu Meta AI ## Andrea Madotto Meta Ai Heather Foran Klagenfurt University Y-Lan Boureau Meta Ai Abstract Many cognitive approaches to well-being, such as recognizing and reframing unhelpful thoughts, have received considerable empirical support over the past decades, yet still lack truly widespread adoption in self-help format. A barrier to that adoption is a lack of adequately specific and diverse dedicated practice material. This work examines whether current language models can be leveraged to both produce a virtually unlimited quantity of practice material illustrating standard unhelpful thought patterns matching specific given contexts, and generate suitable positive reframing proposals. We propose PATTERNREFRAME, a novel dataset of about 10k examples of thoughts containing unhelpful thought patterns conditioned on a given persona, accompanied by about 27k positive reframes. By using this dataset to train and/or evaluate current models, we show that existing models can already be powerful tools to help generate an abundance of tailored practice material and hypotheses, with no or minimal additional model training required. ## 1 Introduction Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) (Beck, 1963, 1976) is one of the most robustly validated approaches in psychology (Hofmann et al., 2012; David et al., 2018). A core pillar of CBT consists in identifying and reframing unhelpful ways of thinking. Low-intensity CBT interventions have shown promise in self-help formats (Shafran et al., 2021; Williams, 2001), yet a lack of sufficient practice material suited to people's specific circumstances is a barrier to adoption (Helgadóttir et al., 2009). Through prompting, control tokens, or adequate conditioning, modern language models can guide generation of language towards desired outcomes, such as conforming to a given persona (Zhang et al., 2018), style (Ziems et al., 2022), or level of confidence (Mielke et al., 2022). This makes them a potentially powerful practice aid for learning cognitive reframing techniques. A major barrier is the lack of publicly available data. Most existing work in natural language processing (NLP) for CBT focuses on interactions between patients and mental health professionals, which are not publicly available (Mieskes and Stiegelmayr, 2018; Rojas-Barahona et al., 2018; Shreevastava and Foltz, 2021). Ziems et al. (2022) released the first public dataset for reframing tweets marked with a hashtag indicating stress, using known reframing techniques, but it does not specifically look at the categories of unhelpful thinking used in CBT, and uses existing tweets rather than allowing the generation of examples suited to a particular situation. In this work, we propose1a novel dataset, PAT-TERNREFRAME, consisting in ∼10k crowdsourced examples of thoughts containing ten classical types of unhelpful thought patterns (Burns, 1980), conditioned on personas, matched with crowdsourced proposals of reframing that do not exhibit the patterns. We introduce two controllable text-to-text generation tasks on the dataset: (1) generating and (2) reframing unhelpful thoughts, given a persona and pattern as the context. We also define a classification task to identify the unhelpful thought pattern, given a persona and a thought. We train and evaluate different fine-tuned and few-shot approaches for the tasks, and show that these approaches perform reasonably well on the tasks. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Nlp For Mental Health Recent work has used linguistic features and pretrained language models to identify mental health conditions such as anxiety (Owen et al., 2020; Shreevastava and Foltz, 2021; Fine et al., 2020), 1The dataset and task have been released through the ParlAI framework (Miller et al., 2017) and are available at https://github.com/facebookresearch/ ParlAI/tree/main/projects/reframe_ thoughts 13641 depression (Wolohan et al., 2018; Poswiata and ´ Perełkiewicz, 2022; Ji et al., 2022), schizophrenia (Jiang et al., 2020b; Mitchell et al., 2015; Sarioglu Kayi et al., 2017), and post-traumatic stress disorder (Coppersmith et al., 2015). Most of these works annotate social media posts to create datasets for the task, and then train and evaluate different classification models. Shreevastava and Foltz (2021) and Rojas-Barahona et al. (2018) created datasets for identifying unhelpful thoughts by annotating patient-therapist interactions and finetuned different pretrained models for the task. However, these datasets are not publicly available. The closest work to ours is that of Ziems et al. (2022), which introduces a reframing task, releases a parallel corpus of reframed sentences, and uses controllable text generation models to reframe social media content from Twitter that was marked as expressing stress. However, the source social media material is not conditioned on personas, or focused on the classical unhelpful thought patterns from CBT. Our work introduces conditioning on personas and classical unhelpful thought patterns, and extends the reframing task to identifying and generating thoughts matching a given persona and unhelpful pattern. ## 2.2 Controllable Text Generation Controllable text generation approaches using pretrained language models (PLMs) typically fall into four categories: (i) prompt-based methods that either construct templates for PLMs to complete (Jiang et al., 2020a; Schick and Schütze, 2021a,b) or finetune a task-specific layer to guide the generation (Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021), (ii) finetuning methods that either use labelled data prepended with controlled attributes (Ziems et al., 2022; Fan et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2020; Ross et al., 2022) or define a task-specific reward function using reinforcement learning (Ziegler et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020), (iii) post-processing methods that train discriminator models to guide the generation towards a specific criterion during decoding (Dathathri et al., 2019; Hua and Wang, 2020; Xu et al., 2020), and (iv) pretraining methods that pretrain PLMs from the start with different control tokens prepended to the input (Keskar et al., 2019). In our work, we experiment with prompt-based and finetuning methods. ## 3 Identifying And Reframing Unhelpful Thoughts We use the ten categories of unhelpful thought patterns described in lay terms in a widely used CBT self-help book used for bibliotherapy (Burns, 1980). Table 1 lists these categories and provides examples for each category. For reframing unhelpful thoughts, we follow Ziems et al. (2022), who describe five reframing strategies based on positive psychology (Harris et al., 2007): (i) *Growth Mindset:* Focusing on learning from challenges and improving the skills needed to deal with a difficult situation; (ii) *Optimism:* Directing the attention towards the positive aspects of the situation and expressing gratitude while still acknowledging the negative aspects; (iii) *Impermanence:* Understanding that adversities are inevitable and temporary and focusing on accepting the situation; (iv) *Neutralizing:* Challenging unhelpful thoughts that are far from reality and replacing them with realistic neutral alternatives; (v) *Self-affirmation:* Reflecting on core values to ground oneself in a difficult situation. Note that other reframing strategies exist, such as "*being mindful*" (Robertson, 2012), or "*focusing on forgiveness and compassion*" (Gilbert, 2010). We provide the above five strategies only as a starting point, but crowd workers are free to use other strategies. ## 4 Patternreframe **Dataset** 4.1 Data Collection We briefly explain the four-step data collection process used to crowdsource the dataset. We provide further data collection details and snapshots of the interface in Appendix A and B. ## 4.1.1 Task 1: Writing Unhelpful Thoughts In order to generate unhelpful thoughts that match a diversity of contexts and situations, we use personas from the PERSONA-CHAT dataset (Zhang et al., 2018) as context for writing unhelpful thoughts. We give a persona and one of the ten unhelpful thought patterns to the crowdsource workers, and ask them to write sentences that both are consistent with the given persona, and exhibit the given unhelpful thought pattern. ## 4.1.2 Task 2: Categorizing Unhelpful Thoughts Unhelpful thoughts can exhibit multiple patterns, and the patterns themselves are overlapping rather | Unhelfpul Thought Patterns and their | Example Thoughts and their Rewrites that remove the pattern | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------| | distribution Catastrophizing | by | giving | greater | | weight to the worst possible outcome. (1024 thoughts / 2826 rewrites) | My mom hasnt come home from work yet. I hope the store isn't getting robbed! Rewrite: My mom hasn't come home from work yet. She must have gotten swamped. I'll cook dinner now so it's ready when she gets home. | | | | Discounting the positive: experiences by insisting that they "don't count". (970 thoughts / 2680 rewrites) | My restaurant is the most popular in my city, but that's just luck. Rewrite: My restaurant is the most popular in the city. I suppose all my hard work has paid off. | | | | Overgeneralization is making faulty generalizations from insufficient evidence. (983 thoughts / 2747 rewrites) | My nephews didn't want to spend the weekend with me this week. I must not be as good of an aunt as I thought. Rewrite: My nephews didn't want to spend the weekend with me this week. They must be busy. | | | | Personalization is assigning a disproportionate amount of personal blame to oneself. (934 thoughts / 2544 rewrites) | My sister was not happy with the makeup look I did for her. I am a bad artist. Rewrite: My sister was not happy with the makeup I did for her, next time I'll try something different. | | | | All-or-nothing is viewing things as either good or bad and nothing in-between. (952 thoughts / 2628 rewrites) The school christmas choir concert got canceled. This holdiday season is ruined. Rewrite: Even though the choir concert got canceled there are still other fun activities to do on the holiday. Mental Filtering occurs when an individual dwells only on the negative details of a situation. (936 thoughts / 2562 rewrites) It's nice to enjoy the sea breeze when you live near the ocean but it's not worth it when you think of all the sand getting dragged into your home and all the tourists making so much noise at the beach. Rewrite: I am so fortunate to live where I can enjoy the sea breeze. Not everyone is this lucky. Mind Reading is inferring a person's probable (usually negative) thoughts from their behavior. (992 thoughts / 2688 rewrites) I auditioned for the surf team and the coach avoided me. I am sure it is because he does not like my skills. Rewrite: I auditioned for the surf team and the coach avoided me. I'm sure the coach always tries to appear neutral during try-outs. Fortune Telling is predicting outcomes (usually negative) of events. (997 thoughts / 2758 rewrites) I didn't make it to Yellowstone this year, I am never going to go to that park. Rewrite: I didn't get to go to Yellowstone this year, I will work extra hard and save up to definitely go next year! Should statements, where a person demands particular behaviors regardless of the realistic circumstances. (921 thoughts / 2413 rewrites) I prefer texting over phone calls. People should never call me and expect me to answer. Rewrite: Just because I like texting doesn't mean everyone needs to like it. Labeling and mislabeling is attributing a person's actions to their character rather than the situation. (960 thoughts / 2661 rewrites) I fell off my skateboard yesterday, I'm a terrible athlete. Rewrite: I fell off my skateboard yesterday, but even the best crash sometimes. | | | | | Table 1: Examples of unhelpful thoughts and their reframed versions from our PATTERNREFRAME dataset. The | | | | Table 1: Examples of unhelpful thoughts and their reframed versions from our PATTERNREFRAME dataset. The thought pattern definitions are derived from Wikipedia. than distinct (Burns, 1980). In order to capture this, as well as filter out low-quality crowdsourced data, we use a second crowdsourcing task requesting workers to label the previously generated thoughts. Workers are given a thought and the list of unhelpful patterns, and select all the patterns that appear in the thought. The annotators can choose a "None" option in case the thought is irrelevant or nonsensical. We collect five annotations for each thought, and discard the thoughts that are marked "None" by a majority of annotators. ## 4.1.3 Task 3: Reframing Unhelpful Thoughts In a third task, we ask crowdworkers to rewrite thoughts containing unhelpful patterns, in a more helpful way, similar to the task in Ziems et al. (2022). We give crowdworkers a thought and the persona and unhelpful pattern that were used to generate it, and ask them to rewrite the thought in a way that still aligns with the context, but does not contain the unhelpful pattern. We also show the five reframing strategies described in §3 to aid the workers in reframing the thoughts, and ask them to select what strategy they used, if any. Note that the strategies are only provided as suggestions, and the workers are free to reframe the thought in other appropriate ways. We collect three rewrites for each thought. ## Task 4: Evaluating The Rewrites Of 4.1.4 Unhelpful Thoughts Finally, we assess the quality of the rewrites as follows: workers are given a persona, unhelpful thought pattern, generated thought, along with three rewrites. They are asked to select which rewrites successfully remove the unhelpful pattern while not logically contradicting the source (following Ziems et al. (2022)). If worker selects a valid rewrite, we further ask them to identify which of the five proposed reframing strategies were used, if any. We collect five annotations for each set, and include only the rewrites that are marked as "valid" by a majority of annotators. ## Data Quality 4.2 We use the Mephisto 2 and Amazon Mechanical Turk 3 platforms to collect crowdsource data. We use the labeling tasks (2nd and 4th task) to select a pool of high-quality workers (that is, crowdsource workers whose generative work was validated by a majority of separate annotators in a separate labeling task), after first seeding the set of annotators through manual inspection of a first batch of data. We use only selected annotators for evaluation tasks (tasks 2 and 4). We first kept the generative text tasks (tasks 1 and 3) open to all workers. We expanded the list of selected workers after every iteration by adding new workers that had completed at least five generative text tasks with at least 80% of generated text validated through the evaluation tasks. We ended up with 524 qualified workers after nine rounds of the entire pipeline, where each iteration started with a batch of 500 thoughts. Once we gathered > 500 qualified workers, we restricted all the tasks to the selected pool. In the final dataset, we included only the annotations provided by these selected workers. Along with the selected pool of workers, we also included onboarding tasks (details in §A) to ensure that the workers adequately understood the concept of reframing thoughts. Only the workers who passed the onboarding tasks were qualified to work on the actual tasks. We calculated interannotator agreement using Krippendorf's Alpha, which was 0.355 for the second task and 0.454 for the fourth task. 4  ## 4.3 Data Analysis 4.3.1 Dataset Statistics P ATTERN R EFRAME contains 9,688 thoughts and 26,507 reframed versions of thoughts. We split the dataset into training, validation, and test sets of respective sizes 1,920 / 961 / 6,807 for thoughts, and 5,249 / 2,623 / 18,635 for reframed thoughts. One thought can have up to three reframed versions, with an average of 2.74 rewrites / thought after filtering out lower-quality rewrites. The average word lengths of thoughts and rewrites are 19.1 and 23.9, respectively. ## 4.3.2 Analysis Of Unhelpful Thought Patterns Figure 1 shows the distribution of thoughts across different patterns in our dataset, with initial conditioning pattern (1st task) in rows and annotator identified patterns (2nd task) in columns. As expected, there is a high overlap among some related patterns, e.g., Discounting the positive / Mental Filtering , Fortune Telling/ Catastrophizing , and Personalization / Labeling and Mislabeling. All or Nothing Thinking is difficult to distinguish, and shows high overlap with many categories. Mind Reading and Should Statement show the lowest amounts of overlap with other patterns. reframe-level judgements from the fourth task. ## 4.3.3 Analysis Of Reframing Strategies: Figure 2 shows the distribution of reframing strategies used to reframe the unhelpful thoughts in our dataset, among the five strategies proposed by Ziems et al. (2022). Here, we use the strategies identified by the workers in the fourth task of evaluating reframed thoughts. Most rewritten thoughts make use of one of the five strategies, with very few being labeled as "None." *Growth Mindset* and *Optimism* are the most commonly used reframing strategies, followed by *Neutralizing* and *Self-Affirmation*. Optimism is especially common for patterns that focus on the negative aspects of the situation such as *Discounting the positive* and *Mental Filtering*.  ## 5 Models To Generate, Recognize, And Reframe Unhelpful Thoughts We train and evaluate different models using our PATTERNREFRAME dataset on three tasks: generating, identifying, and reframing unhelpful thoughts - all conditioned on a given persona. ## 5.1 Generating Unhelpful Thoughts 5.1.1 Task And Data Given a persona and an unhelpful thought pattern, the goal is to generate a thought that exhibits the given pattern and aligns with the persona. We formulate the task as a standard conditioned generation problem and optimize the maximum likelihood loss during training. We use the train, validation, and test splits described in §4.3.1. ## 5.1.2 Methods We evaluate methods based on fine-tuning and fewshot learning. We fine-tune BART-large (Lewis et al., 2020), T5-large (Raffel et al., 2020), and R2C2-3B (Shuster et al., 2022) (a BART-based language model specialized in dialogues). For the input, we concatenate the persona and the unhelpful thought pattern texts using a special delimiter token. We also generate responses with GPT3.5 (Ouyang et al., 2022), a state-of-the-art language model trained to follow human instructions, as a 1-shot method. We generated thoughts for only 100 random inputs in the PATTERNREFRAME test set, since we had limited access to the API5to GPT3.5 (text-davinci-002)6. We provide implementation details and examples of input prompts in Appendix D and E, respectively. ## 5.1.3 Automatic Evaluation Following previous work on text reframing (Ziems et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2021), we report BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), ROUGE (Lin, 2004), and BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020), which capture the semantic similarity between the generated thought and the human reference. We also report distinct-1, and distinct-2 metrics to measure the diversity of the generations. Distinct-n (Li et al., 2016) calculates the ratio between the number of unique n-grams and the total number of n-grams in a generation. Table 2 shows the automatic evaluation results for the task. All the models perform close to each other in terms of BLEU, BERTScore, and ROUGE. GPT3.5 generates lexically diverse rewrites with the best Distinct-n scores. We provide examples of system outputs in Table 3. ## 5.1.4 Human Evaluation As automatic metrics often fail to fully capture human preferences in text generation tasks, we also perform human evaluation. We collect human ratings of 100 random thoughts from the test set. Similar to previous style transfer works (Ziems et al., 2022; Briakou et al., 2021; Rao and Tetreault, 2018), we evaluate the generated rewrites along three dimensions through Yes/No binary ratings: (i) fluency, which evaluates the readability of the generation, (ii) meaning preservation, which here verifies if the rewrite aligns with the given persona 5https://openai.com/api/ 6In our experiments, we used text-davinci-002, since textdavinci-003 had not been released yet. | Generating Unhelpful Thoughts | Reframing Unhelpful Thoughts | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------|-------|--------|--------|--------|-------| | BLEU | ROUGE | BScore | Dist-1 | Dist-2 | BLEU | ROUGE | BScore | Dist-1 | Dist-2 | | | BART | 25.3 | 23.9 | 89.0 | 0.021 | 0.087 | 69.7 | 53.1 | 93.5 | 0.034 | 0.223 | | T5 | 24.5 | 24.3 | 89.1 | 0.019 | 0.08 | 69.9 | 55.5 | 93.6 | 0.039 | 0.261 | | R2C2 | 25.5 | 24.1 | 89.2 | 0.023 | 0.1 | 70.0 | 55.0 | 93.7 | 0.036 | 0.235 | | GPT3.5† | 24.9 | 19.2 | 88.1 | 0.196 | 0.586 | 51.5 | 41.2 | 91.7 | 0.204 | 0.633 | | Reference | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.044 | 0.304 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.041 | 0.309 |  and thought, and (iii) quality, which here evaluates if the generated thought exhibits the given unhelpful thought pattern. We collect 9 annotations for each system output and apply majority voting to extract the final annotation.7 Table 3 shows the percentage of outputs rated positively by at least five of the nine annotators. GPT3.5 outperforms all other approaches, including human references, in terms of fluency and quality. However, GPT3.5 shows the lowest (but still very high) meaning preservation score for generating thoughts. The other models have more difficulty including the unhelpful pattern (lower "thought quality" scores). ## 5.2 Classifying Unhelpful Thoughts 5.2.1 Task And Data Given a persona and a thought, the goal is to classify them into one of the ten unhelpful thought patterns or "*None*", which indicates that the input thought does not contain any of the ten unhelpful patterns, or the thought does not align with the persona. We formulate the task as a multiclass classification problem with eleven categories. We once again use the same train, validation, and 7We also provide results using a more stringent threshold of 7 out of 9 annotators rating positively, in Appendix F. The pattern of results is similar. test splits described in §4.3.1. Note that the dataset contains only positive examples for the classification task, i.e., thoughts that align with a specific thought pattern and persona. For every positive example, we construct a negative example by randomly choosing one of the following options: (i) a thought from our dataset that belongs to the same pattern but a different persona. (ii) a dialog text from PERSONA-CHAT belonging to the same persona (but presumably not containing any unhelpful pattern), (iii) a dialog text from PERSONA-CHAT belonging to a different persona (and again, presumably not containing any unhelpful pattern). Thus, negative examples encompass neutral texts and misaligned thoughts and personas. We assign the category "None" to these examples. We have 3,834 train, 1,915 validation, and 13,572 test instances after augmenting the dataset with these examples. ## 5.2.2 Methods We finetune RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) using the soft-label distribution obtained through the second task of our data collection pipeline (§4.1), where we asked multiple annotators to identify the patterns exhibited in a thought, and then normalized the votes across the patterns. We use a soft label distribution instead of single label because of the high overlap across patterns. We also perform  11-way, 1-shot classification using GPT3.5. We construct the input prompt using one example from each category (examples in §E) and classify 100 random inputs in the test set. We include further implementation details in Appendix D . ## 5.2.3 Evaluation Figure 4 shows the confusion matrices for RoBERTa and GPT3.5 on the augmented version of the P ATTERN R EFRAME test set. Given that several unhelpful thinking patterns are closely related (for example, All or Nothing Thinking and Catastrophizing), we cluster the patterns using the KMeans algorithm (Lloyd, 1982 ) to group together patterns that were deemed close by the model 8 . RoBERTa performs well on all the categories ( > 72%) except the Mislabeling category, which has a high overlap with the Polarized Thinking category. The None category has the highest performance, which shows that the classifier is able to differentiate neutral texts that do not contain any unhelpful pattern, or texts that are not aligned with the persona. 1-shot classification using GPT3.5 performs worse than fine-tuned RoBERTa. GPT3.5 has trouble distinguishing texts with and without unhelpful patterns and gets a low score for None . We also observed that 40% of the classification predictions changed for GPT3.5 after reordering the sequence of examples in the prompt, which shows that few-shot classification is not as reliable for this task, while still providing decent performance way above chance. ## 5.3 Reframing Unhelpful Thoughts Task And Methods 5.3.1 Given a persona, an unhelpful thought pattern, and a thought exhibiting the given pattern, the goal is to reframe the thought in a way that still aligns with the persona and the context of the thought but does not contain the pattern. The reframing problem is similar to the generating one, except that the unhelpful thought is now a part of the input instead of the target. We use the same training, validation, and test splits for the reframing task (§4.3.1). We also evaluate the same approaches described in §5.1.2. For fine-tuned methods, we concatenate the persona, the pattern, and the thought texts with a special token. For few-shot methods, we construct a prompt similar to the one used for the generation task, but with the reframed statements (examples in Appendix E). ## Automatic Evaluation 5.3.2 Table 2 shows the automatic evaluation results on the PatternReframe test set. We use the metrics described in §5.3.2 namely BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore, and Distinct-n metrics. As each unhelpful thought can have up to 3 ground truth reframed versions, we take the maximum of the three scores and report the mean of these maxima. R2C2 performs the best in terms of BLEU and BERTScore. GPT3.5 again outperforms the | Generating Unhelpful Thoughts Persona I like to chat with my friends. I like to read books that are in a series. I like to go to the movies. I love to go out to eat with my family. Pattern Catastrophizing T5 I love to go out to eat with my family, but I'm sure we'll all get sick and die. BART I like to read books that are in a series, but I will never finish them. R2C2 I love to go out to eat with my family, but one day we will all get food poisoning and die. GPT3.5 I'm out of money to go out to eat with my family, maybe they won't want to hang out with me anymore. Human My friends didn't want to chat with me today. They must have all hate me and wish me ill. Persona I write children's books. I like to drink. I live alone. I shop online, too much. I don't believe in love. Pattern Should statements T5 I write children's books, everyone should read them. BART I write children's books, everyone should read them. R2C2 I write children's books. I should be published by now. GPT3.5 I should be able to write the perfect book, drink moderately, be in a relationship, and not shop online so much. Human I shop online and I should make enough money to be able to afford anything and everything I want. Reframing Unhelpful Thoughts Persona My mother was a teacher. My favorite food is a salad. I enjoy nature. I teach a yoga class. I am single. Pattern Black-and-white or polarized thinking / All or nothing thinking Thought The date I went on last week was a total fail. I'm going to be single forever. T5 The date I went on last week was a total fail. I will try harder next time. BART The date I went on last week was a total fail. Next time I will be more careful. R2C2 The date I went on last week was a total fail. I'm going to be single forever. GPT3.5 The date I went on last week wasn't a great match, but I'm open to meeting someone new and trying again. Human I had a bad date last week, thankfully I went on a nature walk and realized I have plenty of time to find a partner. Persona I was diagnosed with mild OCD in college. Once a year, I take a week off and head to Florida. I freeze up in social situations. Sometimes I feel like I ve already been through life once before. Pattern Personalization Thought I was diagnosed with mild OCD in college, it's my fault and I deserve it. T5 I was diagnosed with mild OCD in college. It's not my fault. BART I was diagnosed with mild OCD in college. I am working hard to overcome it. R2C2 I was diagnosed with mild OCD in college. I'm glad to have a diagnosis so I can get the help I need. GPT3.5 I was diagnosed with mild OCD in college, it's something I'm learning to manage. Human I was diagnosed with mild OCD in college. I've been seeing a therapist to get help managing it. | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| other models and the human references in terms of Distinct-1 and Distinct-2 scores, which indicates that the generations are lexically diverse. Table 3 provides examples of system outputs. ## 5.3.3 Human Evaluation Figure 3 shows human evaluation results on 100 reframed thoughts generated by different models given the persona, the pattern type, and the unhelpful thought from our test set. Similar to the generating thoughts task, we evaluate the reframed thoughts along fluency, meaning preservation, and quality, where we ask the annotators if the reframed thought removes the given unhelpful pattern while being consistent with the initial thought. All models perform close to human reference in terms of fluency and meaning preservation. In fact, all the outputs of R2C2 and GPT3.5 are fluent and preserve meaning (that is, they generate statements that are not contradictory with the initial thought). For reframing quality, that is, removing the unhelpful pattern, all models perform over 70%, but GPT3.5 performs the best. GPT3.5's superiority is even more marked when using the more stringent threshold of 7 out of 9 annotators rating positively in Appendix F. Overall, the evaluation suggests that using modern models to produce reframing is a feasible approach, even with a small amount of data for finetuning. In particular, GPT3.5 performs remarkably well and very close to crowdsource worker performance, only based on prompting. ## 6 Conclusion In this work, we introduced a novel dataset, PAT-TERNREFRAME, which contains (1) about 10k statements exhibiting unhelpful thought patterns, conditioned on a persona, and (2) multiple rewritten complementary thoughts that do not contain the initial unhelpful pattern, instead reframing the thought in a more constructive way. Using this dataset to train or prompt various modern language models, we showed that this range of models can already be a powerful tool to generate, identify, and reframe unhelpful thoughts, conditioned on a persona. By releasing our dataset 9, we hope to help practitioners of CBT draw from a richer, more diverse set of examples of unhelpful thought patterns and reframings. This would help address the important limitation of a lack of personalized and specific examples in existing datasets, when teaching cognitive techniques. Future work will evaluate whether leveraging models to produce richer training material results in more robust learning and understanding of the types of unhelpful thought patterns in humans.This may serve as the basis for future psychological validation studies of the materials and support future studies of low-intensity self-help interventions. ## 7 Limitations This work relied on previously published datasets to source personas on which to anchor the generated unhelpful thoughts, and thus shares the limitations of those datasets. In particular, they use English-language responses, written by workers located in the United States.10. While these workers are reasonably diverse (Moss et al., 2020), the examples generated may not reflect the thought patterns and personas across cultures and diverse populations. This data is also generated by people who are being paid, as opposed to people genuinely engaging about situations that matter to them. Besides the substance of the thoughts themselves, a more direct limitation is that the models generate only English, so would not be directly usable for speakers of other languages. In addition, the data collected reflects the understanding of lay people, rather than trained clinical psychologists. While this makes the material more immediately relatable to other lay people, it is possible that the data do not capture what clinical psychologists would consider adequate illustrations of unhelpful patterns. Our data has been spot-checked by a CBT-trained clinical psychologist and found generally sound, but the entire material should undergo further validation. Another limitation is that the models that we have tested are resource-intensive. In particular, the 9https://github.com/facebookresearch/ ParlAI/tree/main/projects/reframe_ thoughts 10Our crowdsourcing tasks pay workers well above minimum wage. best-performing model, GPT3.5, is only available through a paid API. ## 8 Ethical Considerations While our work was developed to generate abundant data supporting work towards improving wellbeing, the negative statements it generates could be misused. The parallel data of unhelpful thoughts and their reframed versions can also be used to generate negative texts from neutral ones, by training systems with reframed versions as the input and unhelpful thoughts as the output. This risk of generating negative content from positive/neutral texts aligns with the risks of toxicity reduction and sentiment style transfer tasks. Conversely, a different risk stems from overeager use of our work. This work aims to examine the feasibility of generating ample practice material anchored on specific personas. We hope that releasing a large dataset of unhelpful thoughts and reframings will further research that will ultimately help practitioners, but there is a danger that people attempt to use the material as is, without the supervision of a trained professional, which could be harmful, as the material has not been tested with participants while monitoring adverse events such as increased anxiety or warped understanding of what unhelpful thoughts and useful reframings are. ## References Aaron T. Beck. 1963. Thinking and Depression: I. Idiosyncratic Content and Cognitive Distortions. Archives of General Psychiatry. Aaron T. Beck. 1976. Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. international universities press. Eleftheria Briakou, Sweta Agrawal, Ke Zhang, Joel Tetreault, and Marine Carpuat. 2021. A review of human evaluation for style transfer. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM 2021). Association for Computational Linguistics. D.D. Burns. 1980. *Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy*. A Signet book. Wei-Fan Chen, Khalid Al Khatib, Benno Stein, and Henning Wachsmuth. 2021. Controlled neural sentencelevel reframing of news articles. In *Findings of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021. Glen Coppersmith, Mark Dredze, Craig Harman, Kristy Hollingshead, and Margaret Mitchell. 2015. CLPsych 2015 shared task: Depression and PTSD on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology: From Linguistic Signal to Clinical Reality. Sumanth Dathathri, Andrea Madotto, Janice Lan, Jane Hung, Eric Frank, Piero Molino, Jason Yosinski, and Rosanne Liu. 2019. Plug and play language models: A simple approach to controlled text generation. Daniel David, Ioana Cristea, and Stefan G. Hofmann. 2018. Why cognitive behavioral therapy is the current gold standard of psychotherapy. *Frontiers in* Psychiatry. Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. In *Proceedings* of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Alex Fine, Patrick Crutchley, Jenny Blase, Joshua Carroll, and Glen Coppersmith. 2020. Assessing population-level symptoms of anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in real time using NLP applied to social media data. In *Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Computational Social Science*. Paul Gilbert. 2010. An introduction to compassion focused therapy in cognitive behavior therapy. *International Journal of Cognitive Therapy*. Alex H. S. Harris, Carl E. Thoresen, and Shane J. Lopez. 2007. Integrating positive psychology into counseling: Why and (when appropriate) how. *Journal of* Counseling & Development. Fjóla Dögg Helgadóttir, Ross G Menzies, Mark Onslow, Ann Packman, and Sue O'Brian. 2009. Online cbt i: Bridging the gap between eliza and modern online cbt treatment packages. *Behaviour Change*, 26(4):245– 253. Stefan Hofmann, Anu Asnaani, Imke Vonk, Alice Sawyer, and Angela Fang. 2012. The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive therapy and research. Xinyu Hua and Lu Wang. 2020. PAIR: Planning and iterative refinement in pre-trained transformers for long text generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Shaoxiong Ji, Tianlin Zhang, Luna Ansari, Jie Fu, Prayag Tiwari, and Erik Cambria. 2022. MentalBERT: Publicly available pretrained language models for mental healthcare. In *Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference*. Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F. Xu, Jun Araki, and Graham Neubig. 2020a. How can we know what language models know? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhengping Jiang, Sarah Ita Levitan, Jonathan Zomick, and Julia Hirschberg. 2020b. Detection of mental health from Reddit via deep contextualized representations. In *Proceedings of the 11th International* Workshop on Health Text Mining and Information Analysis. Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Lav R. Varshney, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Ctrl: A conditional transformer language model for controllable generation. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. *CoRR*, abs/1412.6980. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pretraining for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In *Text Summarization Branches Out*. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ruibo Liu, Guangxuan Xu, Chenyan Jia, Weicheng Ma, Lili Wang, and Soroush Vosoughi. 2020. Data boost: Text data augmentation through reinforcement learning guided conditional generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. S. Lloyd. 1982. Least squares quantization in pcm. *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, 28(2):129–137. Louis Martin, Éric de la Clergerie, Benoît Sagot, and Antoine Bordes. 2020. Controllable sentence simplification. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. Sabrina J Mielke, Arthur Szlam, Emily Dinan, and YLan Boureau. 2022. Reducing conversational agents' overconfidence through linguistic calibration. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 10:857–872. Margot Mieskes and Andreas Stiegelmayr. 2018. Preparing data from psychotherapy for natural language processing. In *Proceedings of the Eleventh* International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Alexander Miller, Will Feng, Dhruv Batra, Antoine Bordes, Adam Fisch, Jiasen Lu, Devi Parikh, and Jason Weston. 2017. ParlAI: A dialog research software platform. In *Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 79–84. ACL. Margaret Mitchell, Kristy Hollingshead, and Glen Coppersmith. 2015. Quantifying the language of schizophrenia in social media. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology: From Linguistic Signal to Clinical Reality. Aaron J Moss, Cheskie Rosenzweig, Jonathan Robinson, and Leib Litman. 2020. Demographic stability on mechanical turk despite covid-19. *Trends in cognitive sciences*, 24(9):678–680. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. David Owen, Jose Camacho-Collados, and Luis Espinosa Anke. 2020. Towards preemptive detection of depression and anxiety in Twitter. In Proceedings of the Fifth Social Media Mining for Health Applications Workshop & Shared Task. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Rafał Poswiata and Michał Perełkiewicz. 2022. ´ OPI@LT-EDI-ACL2022: Detecting signs of depression from social media text using RoBERTa pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Language Technology for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*. Sudha Rao and Joel Tetreault. 2018. Dear sir or madam, may I introduce the GYAFC dataset: Corpus, benchmarks and metrics for formality style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics. D. Robertson. 2012. Build Your Resilience: CBT, mindfulness and stress management to survive and thrive in any situation. Teach Yourself. Lina M. Rojas-Barahona, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Yinpei Dai, Clare Mansfield, Osman Ramadan, Stefan Ultes, Michael Crawford, and Milica Gašic. 2018. Deep ´ learning for language understanding of mental health concepts derived from cognitive behavioural therapy. In *Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop* on Health Text Mining and Information Analysis. Alexis Ross, Tongshuang Wu, Hao Peng, Matthew E Peters, and Matt Gardner. 2022. Tailor: Generating and perturbing text with semantic controls. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3194–3213. Efsun Sarioglu Kayi, Mona Diab, Luca Pauselli, Michael Compton, and Glen Coppersmith. 2017. Predictive linguistic features of schizophrenia. In Proceedings of the 6th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2017). Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021a. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the* 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021b. Few-shot text generation with natural language instructions. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Roz Shafran, Pamela Myles-Hooton, Sophie Bennett, and Lars-Göran Öst. 2021. The concept and definition of low intensity cognitive behaviour therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 138:103803. Sagarika Shreevastava and Peter Foltz. 2021. Detecting cognitive distortions from patient-therapist interactions. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology: Improving Access. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search amp; generation for dialogue and prompt completion. Chris Williams. 2001. Use of written cognitive behaviour therapy self-help materials to treat depression. *Advances in Psychiatric Treatment*, 7. JT Wolohan, Misato Hiraga, Atreyee Mukherjee, Zeeshan Ali Sayyed, and Matthew Millard. 2018. Detecting linguistic traces of depression in topic-restricted text: Attending to self-stigmatized depression with NLP. In *Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Language Cognition and Computational* Models. Peng Xu, Mostofa Patwary, Mohammad Shoeybi, Raul Puri, Pascale Fung, Anima Anandkumar, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2020. MEGATRON-CNTRL: Controllable story generation with external knowledge using large-scale language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting* of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. In *International* Conference on Learning Representations. Daniel M. Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B. Brown, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, Paul Christiano, and Geoffrey Irving. 2019. Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. Caleb Ziems, Minzhi Li, Anthony Zhang, and Diyi Yang. 2022. Inducing positive perspectives with text reframing. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting* of the Association for Computational Linguistics. A ## Data Collection Details A.1 ## Onboarding Tasks We introduce two onboarding tasks to ensure that the crowdsource workers understood the concept of unhelpful thoughts and how to reframe them. The onboarding tasks were reviewed by a CBT-trained psychologist. We use one onboarding task for tasks 1 and 2 and another onboarding task for tasks 3 and 4 of the data collection pipeline. For the first onboarding task, we display an unhelpful thought pattern, one positive example that contains the pattern, and one negative example that does not, and ask the workers to select the positive one. We only allowed the workers that were able to identify the correct example for three out of four such instances. For the second onboarding task, we display an unhelpful thought pattern, a thought containing the pattern, one positive example that reframes the thought, and one negative example that does not. We only allow the workers that were able to identity the positive example in three out of four such instances. B ## Data Collection Interface Snapshots  write an unhelpful thought.    Figure 7: Data collection interface for the third task of the data collection pipeline, where the crowdworkers are asked to reframe unhelpful thoughts.   Figure 8: Annotation interface for the fourth task of the data collection pipeline, where the crowdworkers are asked to evaluate the quality of the reframed thoughts. ## C Evaluation Interface Snapshots Persona Text: i hope to retire to florida . i own my own music store . my mother and father are both in the church choir . i played in a band for 17 years . Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Black-and-white or polarized thinking / All or nothing thinking (Looking at life in all-or-nothing categories. Either things are a success or a failure; either they are good or bad; there is no in-between, no good enough or partial success.) Thought / Statement: I played in a band for 17 years. I will never be able to play again. Is the thought fluent? OYes CNo Does the thought align with the persona? OYes CNo Does the thought contain the given unhelpful thinking pattern? OYes CNo Figure 9: Annotation interface used to evaluate generated thoughts. Persona Text: my husband is a pastor . i do not like to clean house . i have two children . my hair is curly and dark . Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Mental filtering (Filtering distortions occur when an individual dwells only on the negative details of a situation and filters out the positive aspects.) Thought / Statement: My hair is curly and dark, everyone will makes jokes about me now Reframe: My hair is curly and dark. It makes me unique. Is the reframe fluent? O Yes ONo Does the reframe align with the persona and the context of the thought? OYes ONo Does the reframe remove the given unhelpful thinking pattern expressed in the thought? O Yes ONo Figure 10: Annotation interface used to evaluate statements that reframe unhelpful thoughts. ## D Implementation Details D.1 Generation Models We finetuned the BART, T5, and R2C2 baselines using ParlAI11. We used the BART*large* (400M parameters), T5*large* (770M parameters), and R2C2*base* (2.7b parameters)12 architectures. We used Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) and performed a hyperparameter search over learning rates 1e-05, 1e-06, 1e-07, and 1e-08. We used linear warmup of 100 steps and applied early stopping with a patience value of 5. We evaluated the validation set once in every 200 updates and truncated the input and the labels to 1000 tokens. We applied gradient clipping value of 1.0. We used a batch size of 32. During inference, we used beam search with beam size 10. We chose the best checkpoint during training based on the perplexity on the validation set. Each model takes around 1 hour to run on 8 NVIDIA Tesla V100 Volta 32GB GPUs. ## D.2 Classification Models For classification experiments, we finetuned the RoBERTa-large checkpoint from Huggingface13. We used Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014), learning rate of 1e-05, with linear warmup of 100 steps. We trained the model for a maximum of 10 epochs. We evaluated on the validation set every 200 updates. We used a batch size of 16. We chose the best checkpoint during training based on the weighted F1 value on the validation set. The model takes around 1 hour to run on 1 NVIDIA Tesla V100 Volta 32GB GPU. ## E Gpt3.5 Prompt Examples You will be given (1) a type of unhelpful thinking pattern and the definition of the pattern and (2) a character. Please write an example of how this character could have thoughts that match the given thinking pattern. Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Discounting the positive (Rejecting positive experiences by insisting they "don't count" for some reason or other.) Unhelpful Thought: My friends said they really enjoyed the camping trip I organized, but anyone could have done it. Persona: i'm a business man. i love to sing. i'm a karate black belt. my wife has terminal cancer. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Discounting the positive (Rejecting positive experiences by insisting they "don't count" for some reason or other.) Unhelpful Thought: Table 4: Example GPT3.5 prompt for the task of generating unhelpful thoughts. You will be given a type of unhelpful thinking pattern, a character, and an example of how this character could have thoughts that match the given thinking pattern. Please rewrite the thoughts in a way that still aligns with the persona and the context of the unhelpful thought, but does not contain the unhelpful pattern. Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Overgeneralization (Someone who overgeneralizes makes faulty generalizations from insufficient evidence. Even if something bad happens only once, it is expected to happen over and over again.) Unhelpful Thought: My younger kid has gotten bad grades at his maths test this week. He'll never be good at maths. Reframe: My younger kid has gotten bad grades at his maths test this week. It's been a few times but hopefully we can figure out a way to help him get better. Persona: i obsess over working out and being the best . i got a scholarship for playing soccer . its important for my instagram posts to look like i am having fun . i try to eat healthy or i don't eat at all . Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Overgeneralization (Someone who overgeneralizes makes faulty generalizations from insufficient evidence. Even if something bad happens only once, it is expected to happen over and over again.) Unhelpful Thought: My future college team lost another game, I will never become a good athlete playing for them. Reframe: Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thought: The kids have stopped paying attention to how we can pitch the tent. They will never learn. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Jumping to conclusions: Fortune-telling Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thought: The kids are not enjoying this camping trip, they should really be more grateful about the effort we put in planning week-end activities for them. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Should statements Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thought: My kid is late from school. Perhaps she got run over by a car and is in a hospital. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Catastrophizing Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thought: This camping trip was a catastrophe. Sure the weather was gorgeous and the kids had a lot of fun, but the waterfall always had many people ruining the photos we wanted to take. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Mental filtering Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thought: I like camping with my kids. We had a lot of fun the other weekend. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: None Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thought: The kids are having bad grades. It's because I'm a bad father. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Personalization Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thought: My younger kid has gotten bad grades at his math test this week. He'll never be good at math. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Overgeneralization Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thought: My friends said they really enjoyed the camping trip I organized, but anyone could have done it. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Discounting the positive Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thought: My kids are being very silent. I am sure it's because they really hate me for taking them on this camping trip. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Jumping to conclusions: mind reading Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thought: I didn't manage to light up the fire for the camp today, I'm such a useless outdoors person. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Labeling and mislabeling Persona: Likes camping. Has 2 kids. Unhelpful Thought: One of the 5 trails we planned to do on this trip is closed to the public. This trip is ruined. Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Black-and-white or polarized thinking / All or nothing thinking Persona: i'm a woman . i've several children . we have a dog . we live in a rural area . my parents are still married . Unhelpful Thought: congratulations ! have you graduated college ? i am attending the university of michigan in the fall . Unhelpful Thinking Pattern: Table 6: Example GPT3.5 prompt for the task of identifying unhelpful thoughts. ## F Results With 7 Over 9 Agreement  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 8 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract + introduction (1) + Conclusion (6) ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 4 describes the data we collect, 5 the models we use and finetune, with more details in the appendix ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? all citations given across sections 4, 5, and the appendix ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? all the models and data we use have been open-sourced for academic use and are widely used with that intent ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Sections 7 and 8 reiterate that the use of our data is intended as early research ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We specify in section 4 that we are not collecting any personal information. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? We describe limitations of the dataset in Section 7, in particular language and culture limitations. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. In section 4. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix D The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix D ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. We use our own set-up for evaluation ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Section 4 And Appendix ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix B and C ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 4 ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section 4 + appendix B and C: crowdsource workers are not providing personal information ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? The data collection protocol is reviewed by internal reviewers but not subject to an IRB as there is no sensitive data or personal information ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Described in section 7

chen-etal-2023-learning

Learning In-context Learning for Named Entity Recognition

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.764

Named entity recognition in real-world applications suffers from the diversity of entity types, the emergence of new entity types, and the lack of high-quality annotations. To address the above problems, this paper proposes an in-context learning-based NER approach, which can effectively inject in-context NER ability into PLMs and recognize entities of novel types on-the-fly using only a few demonstrative instances. Specifically, we model PLMs as a meta-function Lambda{\_}instruction, demonstrations, text.M, and a new entity extractor can be implicitly constructed by applying new instruction and demonstrations to PLMs, i.e., (Lambda . M) (instruction, demonstrations) -{\textgreater}F where F will be a new entity extractor F: text -{\textgreater} entities. To inject the above in-context NER ability into PLMs, we propose a meta-function pre-training algorithm, which pre-trains PLMs by comparing the (instruction, demonstration)-initialized extractor with a surrogate golden extractor. Experimental results on 4 few-shot NER datasets show that our method can effectively inject in-context NER ability into PLMs and significantly outperforms the PLMs+fine-tuning counterparts.

# Learning In-Context Learning For Named Entity Recognition Jiawei Chen1,4,∗ , Yaojie Lu1,† , Hongyu Lin1, Jie Lou3, Wei Jia3**, Dai Dai**3, Hua Wu3, Boxi Cao1,4, **Xianpei Han**1,2,† , **Le Sun**1,2 1Chinese Information Processing Laboratory 2State Key Laboratory of Computer Science Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 3Baidu Inc., Beijing, China 4University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China {jiawei2020,yaojie,hongyu,boxi2020,xianpei,sunle}@iscas.ac.cn {loujie,jiawei07,daidai,wu_hua}@baidu.com ## Abstract Named entity recognition in real-world applications suffers from the diversity of entity types, the emergence of new entity types, and the lack of high-quality annotations. To address the above problems, this paper proposes an in-context learning-based NER approach, which can effectively inject in-context NER ability into PLMs and recognize entities of novel types on-the-fly using only a few demonstrative instances. Specifically, we model PLMs as a meta-function λinstruction, demonstrations, text.M1, and a new entity extractor can be implicitly constructed by applying new instruction and demonstrations to PLMs, i.e., (λ.M)(instruction, demonstrations) → F where F will be a new entity extractor, i.e., F: text → entities. To inject the above in-context NER ability into PLMs, we propose a meta-function pre-training algorithm, which pre-trains PLMs by comparing the (instruction, demonstration)-initialized extractor with a surrogate golden extractor. Experimental results on 4 few-shot NER datasets show that our method can effectively inject in-context NER ability into PLMs and significantly outperforms the PLMs+fine-tuning counterparts. ## 1 Introduction Named entity recognition (NER) aims to detect and classify named entities in text, such as People, *Disease*, and *Movie*. Traditional NER methods (Lample et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020c; Yan et al., 2021) have achieved remarkable success  Figure 1: Illustration of in-context NER, which uses instruction, demonstrations, and text as input to identify entities. The in-context learning model can be regarded as a meta-function that takes instruction and demonstrations as input and produces an entity extractor capable of identifying the desired entities (Akyürek et al., 2022). when entity types are pre-defined and massive highquality annotations are provided. Unfortunately, real-world NER still suffers from the diversity of entity types (e.g., the extraction of *Movie* is very different to *Disease*), the emergence of new entity types (e.g., *Virus* of Cov-19 ), and the lack of high-quality annotations. To address these problems, recent studies often employ few-shot learning techniques, including fine-tuning-based and metric-based methods. Finetuning-based methods extract entities of new types by adjusting model weights using new instances (Ma et al., 2022a; Chen et al., 2022a; Das et al., 2022). The main drawbacks of these methods are that re-training is often expensive (especially for large-scale models) and new entity types cannot be addressed on-the-fly. Metric-based methods are free from updating parameters and identifying entities by learning to compare query instances with support instances (or prototypes) (Yang and Katiyar, 2020; Tong et al., 2021). These methods are limited to the matching architectures and are sensitive to domain shift since they do not fully explore the information of target domain (Ma et al., 2022c). In this paper, we propose an in-context learning13661 based NER approach, which can effectively address the above problems by injecting in-context NER ability into PLMs and then recognizing entities of new types on-the-fly using only a few demonstrative instances. Specifically, we model PLMs as a meta-function (Akyürek et al., 2022) for NER λinstruction, demonstrations, text.M, and a new entity extractor can be implicitly constructed by applying new instruction and demonstrations to PLMs, i.e., (λ.M)(instructions, demonstrations) → F where F will be a new entity extractor F: text → entities. For example, in Figure 1, our method can construct entity extractors of new *Disease* and *Virus* types on-the-fly by applying PLMs using demonstrations such as "Text: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Entities: Cancer is disease". Furthermore, we propose a meta-function pre-training algorithm to inject the above in-context NER ability into PLMs. The algorithm pre-trains PLMs by comparing the implicitly (instruction, demonstration)- constructed extractor with an explicitly fine-tuned surrogate golden extractor. The comparison ensures that the meta-function (λ.M) will generate an entity extractor F from instructions and demonstrations as accurately as possible. The proposed method can seamlessly leverage the powerful language understanding and generation capabilities of large-scale PLMs (Brown et al., 2020), effectively address diverse and new entity types through in-context learning, and only requires a couple of demonstrations for each entity type. Compared to fine-tuning methods, our method does not require expensive retraining, and new entity types can be extracted on-the-fly, with no need for model weight adjusting. Compared with metricbased methods, our method can dynamically utilize the information entailed in instruction and demonstrations rather than be limited to the fixed metric space. To verify the effectiveness of our method, we further pre-train PLMs using a large-scale distantly annotated NER dataset from Wikipedia and Wikidata. Experimental results on 4 few-shot NER benchmarks show that our method can effectively inject in-context NER ability into PLMs and significantly outperforms the PLMs+fine-tuning counterparts2. In general, this paper's main contributions are: - We propose an in-context NER method that can effectively extract entities of novel types 2Our source codes are openly available at https:// github.com/chen700564/metaner-icl on-the-fly using only a few demonstrative instances. - We design a meta-function pre-training algorithm, which models PLMs as a meta-function and injects in-context NER ability into PLMs by comparing the (instruction, demonstration)- constructed extractor with a surrogate golden extractor. - How to inject in-context ability into small models is an important research direction of NLP in the big model era. Our work can benefit new directions for future works. ## 2 Related Work Few-shot NER Few-shot learning is a promising technique for low-resource NER. Currently, there are two main categories of FS-NER methods: fine-tuning-based methods and metric-based methods. Fine-tuning-based FS-NER methods re-train NER models using new instances. Metric-based methods identify entities by pre-training to compare query instances with support instances (Snell et al., 2017; Fritzler et al., 2019; Yang and Katiyar, 2020; Tong et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Ji et al., 2022) using given NER datasets. FS-NER is a challenging task, and several improvements have been proposed to enhance its performance. These include leveraging label information (Hou et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021a; Lu et al., 2022b; Ma et al., 2022a; Chen et al., 2022a; Yang et al., 2022), designing new paradigms such as decomposition methods (Ji et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022c; Yang et al., 2022), prompt-based methods (Cui et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022b), and demonstration-based methods (Lee et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022a); , and proposing new learning strategies like meta-learning (Li et al., 2020a,b; de Lichy et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2022c), contrastive learning (Das et al., 2022), and self-training (Huang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021b). In this paper, we address FS-NER via in-context learning (Gutiérrez et al., 2022), which empowers PLMs with incontext learning ability and entities of new entity types can be extracted on-the-fly. In-context learning The in-context learning ability has been observed in large-scale PLMs such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), and has been widely applied in different tasks such as "chain of thought" reasoning (Wei et al., 2022). Recent studies  aim to enhance in-context learning by selecting valuable demonstrations (Liu et al., 2021; Rubin et al., 2022), optimizing the order of demonstrations (Lu et al., 2022a), and calibrating output distributions (Zhao et al., 2021). Some studies try to replicate in-context learning in smaller models (Min et al., 2022a; Chen et al., 2022b). Additionally, some researchers attempt to replicate incontext learning using smaller models (Min et al., 2022b; Chan et al., 2022). Furthermore, there are efforts to understand the underlying mechanisms (Akyürek et al., 2022) of in-context learning which suggest that it can be compared to a metafunction and facilitate implicit fine-tuning (Dai et al., 2022; von Oswald et al., 2022). This paper is inspired by previous studies and considers incontext named entity recognition (NER) as a metafunction. To enhance the ability of pre-trained language models (PLMs) to perform in-context NER, we propose an effective pre-training algorithm. Unlike MetaICL (Min et al., 2022a), which only transforms multi-task learning into the form of incontext learning for pre-training, our approach also includes meta-function pre-training (Section 4.3) based on the underlying mechanisms of in-context learning. ## 3 In-Context Named Entity Recognition This section describes how to recognize entities through in-context NER. In in-context learning, the model will read the information of target entity types from both instruction and demonstrations, and then extract entities of target types within the text. In this way, new entity types can be extracted on-the-fly, without the need for model retraining. Concretely, this paper formulates in-context NER as a sequence-to-sequence generation process. The input X = [I; D; T] includes instruction I, demonstrations D, and text T while the output is a list of extracted entities Y = [e1*, ..., e*n]. Figure 2 shows an example, where an in-context NER model will identify that the target entity types are *Disease* and *Virus*, distill the knowledge about these types from demonstrations(e.g., the context patterns of a disease), and finally recognize "SARS-CoV-2" as virus and "COVID-19" as disease using the above knowledge. The details are described as follows. Instruction The instruction is a sequence of target entity types, guiding the model to extract what entity types (Min et al., 2022a). The instruction for target entity types {l1*, . . . , l*n} is I ="Target types: l1; *. . .* ; ln". For example, in Figure 2 the instruction is "Target types: disease; virus". Demonstrations Demonstrations provide the intra-class knowledge of target entity types (e.g., entity semantics and context patterns) and illustrate the form of outputs. As shown in Figure 2, the demonstrations contain the illustrative instances for different target types, and each instance is "Text: {text} Entities: {extractions}", where {extractions} are entities presented in the {text}. Extractions The output of the extraction process is a list of entities, denoted as Y = [e1*, . . . , e*n] where eiis i-th extracted entities. Each extraction e is represented as "ENTITY is *type*". For instance, in Figure 2, the extraction "COVID-19 is disease." indicates that "COVID-19" is an entity mention with the type "Disease". This natural languagelike representation allows us to better utilize the text generation capabilities of pre-trained language models. During inference, we locate all mentions in the text and further output their locations. Architecture Given the above task formulation, we employ an encoder-decoder network like T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), where the encoder encodes <instruction, demonstrations, text> and the decoder generates all extractions as a tokenized text sequence Y = [y1*, . . . , y*n]. The success of in-context NER depends on two critical abilities: the in-context learning ability and the extraction ability. For in-context learning, the models should be able to implicitly construct accurate extractors of new entity types by following the instruction and capturing the knowledge in demonstrations. In this way, we can see a PLM as a meta-function, i.e., a function of extractors whose input is (instruction, demonstrations) and whose output is an entity extractor. For extraction, the models should be able to locate specific spans and categorize them into target entity types. The following section demonstrates how to inject such an in-context learning ability into PLMs and construct an effective in-context NER model. ## 4 Meta-Function Pre-Training For In-Context Ner In this section, we will explain how to incorporate in-context named entity recognition (NER) capabilities into pre-trained language models (PLMs). Although large-scale PLMs like GPT-3 have demonstrated the ability to learn in-context, this capability is not always controllable or predictable. Additionally, unlike classification and question-answering tasks that align with the pre-training objective of language models (i.e., producing natural text output), NER requires more complex span extraction and type specification. As a result, Gutiérrez et al. (2022) show that LMs aren't well-suited for incontext NER tasks. In this paper, we propose metafunction pre-training, an algorithm that can inject in-context NER ability into PLMs in a controllable and predictable way. Specifically, we model PLMs as a metafunction (Akyürek et al., 2022) for NER λinstruction, demonstrations, text.M, and a new entity extractor can be implicitly constructed by applying new instructions and demonstrations to PLMs, i.e., (λ.M)(instructions, demonstractions) → F where F will be a new entity extractor F:text → entities. Based on the meta-function formulation, we further pre-train PLMs for in-context NER abilities by: - optimizing PLMs via a meta-function loss, so that the implicitly (instruction, demonstration)-constructed extractor F will be as close as an explicitly fine-tuned surrogate golden extractor; - optimizing PLMs via an extraction loss, so that the in-context NER can effectively locate and categorize entities in a text. The details are described in the following. ## 4.1 Pre-Training Settings Pre-training Corpus Construction To continually pre-train PLMs for in-context NER, we first collect an in-context pre-training NER corpus Din-context = {x1, x2*, ..., x*n}, where each x is an in-context NER task represented as a tuple = (instruction, demonstrations, text, entities). Specifically, to sample in-context NER task x, we use traditional NER corpus DNER where each NER instance is a (text, entities) pair as follows: 1. **In-context Task Sampling**: To construct an in-context NER task x = (instruction, demonstrations, text, entities): (1) we first sample N target entity types from DNER to form instruction and sample K instances for each type to form demonstrations; (2) then we sample the text and the entities of x by either randomly sample an instance from N target entity types, or randomly sample from instances of other entity types, i.e., their extractions are NIL. We sample NIL instances because in real-world applications many instances will not contain target entities, and NIL instances are sampled with a predefined proportion γ. 2. **Type Anonymization**: To ensure the models rely on in-context demonstrations for entity knowledge and avoid overfitting to entity type names, we anonymize entity types by randomly substituting them with a set of type indicators {<type1>, *. . .*, <type99>}, rather than directly using the original type names such as *Disease* and *Virus*. We found this anonymization strategy can significantly improve the in-context learning ability of PLMs. Specifically, we randomly substitute each entity type name with pre-defined 99 type indicators {<type1>, *. . .*, <type99>}, and the substitute probability for each name is 80%. Pre-training Loss Based on the in-context pretraining corpus Din-context, we pre-train our incontext NER model by optimizing the loss: $${\mathcal{L}}=\alpha{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{meta-function}}+{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{extraction}}$$ $$(1)$$ where Lmeta-function is the meta-function loss which ensures PLMs can implicitly generate accurate entity extractors (Section 4.2), Lextraction is the extraction loss which ensures PLMs have good extraction ability (Section 4.3), α is the coefficient of metafunction loss. ## 4.2 Meta-Function Pre-Training As mentioned above, a good in-context NER model should be able to implicitly construct an accurate entity extractor by partially applying PLMs with  instruction I and demonstrations D: $$(\lambda.M)(I,D)={\mathcal{F}}$$ (λ.M)(*I, D*) = F (2) For example, given the instruction and demonstrations in Figure 2, we want PLMs to implicitly build an accurate extractor for *Disease* and *Virus*. Therefore if we know the golden extraction function F∗ for target entity types, we can optimize PLMs for in-context NER ability by minimizing the distance ||F∗ − F||. Unfortunately, the golden extraction function F∗is unknown. In this paper, we approximate F∗ using a surrogate extractor which is the finetuned counterpart using demonstrations D. That is, for each in-context pre-training task x, we first recover all NER (text, entities) instances from x as x′, then we fine-tune the model and use the fine-tuned encoder F′as the surrogate of F∗. The overall meta-function pre-training is shown in Figure 3. Formally, given instruction I, demonstration D, and text T, we first feed them into the encoder and obtain the feature of I and T, $$\mathbf{l}_{1},...,\mathbf{l}_{n},\mathbf{d}_{1},...,\mathbf{d}_{m},\mathbf{t}_{1},...,\mathbf{t}_{k}=Encoder(I;D;T)\tag{3}$$ Then we obtain the feature of the implicitly generated function F using the features of instruction I and text T, and ignore the features of D: F = [l1, ..., ln, t1*, ...,* tk]. In Figure 3, the feature F can be seen as the output of *Disease* and *Virus* extractor F. To obtain the feature of the fine-tuned counterpart, we perform a one-step gradient descent3 on $$(2)$$ the encoder using the instances in the demonstration D and get the surrogate encoder, which can be seen as an approximation of golden F∗. Note that this fine-tuning operation is performed after the model has been copied, so there is no impact on the parameters of the original model. In the example in Figure 3, *Encoder*′is a *Disease* and *Virus* extractor. After performing one-step updating, we feed instruction and text [I; T] into the surrogate encoder to get their features: $$\mathbf{F}^{\prime}=E n c o d e r^{\prime}(I;T)$$ $$\left(4\right)$$ $\{\mathbf{l}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{l}_n^\prime,\mathbf{t}_1^\prime,\ldots,\mathbf{t}_n^\prime\}$ is fed. where F′ = {l′1 , . . . , l′n, t′1 , . . . , t′k} is features of instruction I and text T. In the example in Figure 3, the feature F′can be seen as the estimated output of golden extractor F∗for *Virus* and *Disease* entity types. Then, we pre-train our in-context NER model to be a good meta-function by making the output of F and F∗consistent, i.e., minimizing the distance between F and F′. The meta-function loss is: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{meta-function}}={\frac{1}{n+k}}\sum_{i=1}^{n+k}d(\mathbf{F}_{i},\mathbf{F^{\prime}}_{i})$$ $$\quad(5)$$ $$(6)$$ ′i) (5) where d(·) is euclidean distance. Note that when calculating the gradient of Lmeta-function, F′is seen as constant. To this end, the meta-function gradient can be estimated as: $$\nabla\theta_{\mathrm{encoder}}={\frac{\partial{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{meta-function}}}{\partial X}}$$ ∂X (6) where θencoder is the parameters of the encoder and X = [I; D; T] is the input. The estimated gradient will be used to update the parameters of the encoder. In this way, the in-context NER models will be trained to be a good meta-function (Akyürek et al., 2022), which can also be seen as an ability for implicit fine-tuning (Dai et al., 2022; von Oswald et al., 2022). ## 4.3 Extraction Function Pre-Training Besides the in-context learning ability, we also pretrain PLMs to be good extractors via extraction loss. Given instruction I, demonstrations D, and text T, the sequence-to-sequence entity extractor directly models the generation probability token by token in an auto-regressive way. Formally, we optimize the model parameters θ by minimizing the negative likelihood of in-context instances: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{extraction}}=-\log\prod_{i=1}^{|Y|}P(y_{i}|y_{<i},X,\theta)\quad{\mathrm{~(7)~}}$$ $$({\boldsymbol{\delta}})$$ And the extraction gradient is computed as: $$\nabla\theta={\frac{\partial{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{extraction}}}{\partial X}}$$ To learn the above extraction ability, we design two extraction pre-training tasks, including an entity extraction task and a pseudo extraction language modeling task: Entity Extraction Task. This task is used to train the ability to extract entities from text, we use both in-context NER settings whose input is (instruction, demonstrations, text) and traditional NER settings whose input is (instruction, text), and output is entities. Note that type anonymization is only conducted in in-context NER setting. ## Pseudo Extraction Language Modeling Task . Because there is a mismatch between the entity extraction task and the original language modeling task, and the size of the NER corpus is usually far smaller than the text corpus for language modeling pre-training, we design a pseudo extraction LM task to bridge the above gap. Specifically, we randomly sample unlabeled sentences from the text corpus and automatically build pseudo extraction (instruction, demonstrations, text, pseudo entities) tasks. For instance, given a demonstration sentence such as "I think this movie is cool and I really like it very much" and a text "*I do not like it.*": (1) To begin with, we choose some spans from demonstrations (such as "this movie" and "like") and designate them as pseudo entities4. We assign 4We introduce how to select spans in Appendix. random types to these entities from type indicators. For instance, we consider "this movie" as a pseudo entity of type <type2> and "like" as a pseudo entity of type <type14>. (2) The input of the pseudo extraction task is instruction="Target types:<type2>; <type14>"; the demonstrations="Text: [MASK1] is cool and I really [MASK2] it [MASK3]. Entities: *[MASK1] is <type2>. [MASK2] is <type14>*" where the entities ("this movie" and "like") and other random spans ("very much") in demonstrations are masked. The text="Text: I do not like it." which is not masked. (3) The output of the pseudo extraction task is "*like is <type14>*" since the model will learn from demonstrations that <type14> corresponds to "like". (4) We also conduct traditional NER settings whose input is (instruction, text). The entities in the text will be masked as in demonstrations, e.g. "Target types: this movie; like Text: *I [MASK1] not [MASK2] it.*". The output will be "Entities: *[MASK2] is like.*". We can see that the pseudo extraction LM task can benefit in-context NER in two ways. Firstly, it can significantly increase the size and diversity of in-context NER pre-training tasks from a largescale unlabeled corpus. Secondly, this task pretrains PLMs with a mixture of extraction target and span prediction task, therefore avoiding PLMs overfit to only extraction task. When pre-training, We transformed the NER and language model tasks into a uniform format and sampled input instances alternately. ## 5 Experiments This section evaluates our method by conducting experiments on few-shot NER settings. ## 5.1 Experimental Settings Pre-training settings. Following Chen et al. (2022a), we build a large-scale distant NER dataset by aligning Wikipedia and Wikidata. Specifically, our dataset was made from Wikipedia text with hyperlinks to Wikidata, where we labeled entity types using the linked Wikidata item's attributes. Entity types were gathered from Wikidata's SubclassOf and InstanceOf attributes for each span. We filtered ambiguous and low-frequency types (occurrences <100k) to obtain higher-quality demonstrations. Finally, we retained 2046 types and 55 million (text, entities) pairs and use a 40/15 million split for training/validation. We sample 5 million in-context tasks for training and 10k for valida- | Models | #Param | CoNLL03 | WNUT17 | NCBI-disease | SEC-filings | AVE | | | | | |-----------------------------|----------|-----------|----------|----------------|---------------|--------|--------|-------|-------|-------| | 1-shot | 5-shot | 1-shot | 5-shot | 1-shot | 5-shot | 1-shot | 5-shot | | | | | Pre-trained Language Models | | | | | | | | | | | | T5v1.1-large | 770M | 38.61 | 44.90 | 25.52 | 26.32 | 26.02 | 37.63 | 41.89 | 53.44 | 36.79 | | GPT2-xl | 1.5B | 33.69 | 39.55 | 22.63 | 24.86 | 25.54 | 33.25 | 42.83 | 57.05 | 34.93 | | T5-xl | 3B | 38.99 | 45.74 | 26.39 | 26.31 | 23.10 | 36.78 | 30.58 | 42.22 | 33.76 | | GPT-J-6B | 6B | 46.14 | 50.10 | 31.41 | 30.93 | 35.82 | 40.98 | 40.12 | 39.61 | 39.39 | | T5-xxl | 11B | 40.97 | 46.14 | 24.76 | 25.27 | 12.19 | 26.34 | 32.65 | 42.44 | 31.35 | | OPT-13B | 13B | 46.65 | 51.71 | 27.74 | 28.36 | 23.73 | 34.00 | 41.60 | 43.10 | 37.11 | | GPT-Neox-20B | 20B | 52.68 | 58.12 | 36.29 | 35.68 | 35.42 | 42.85 | 45.07 | 45.17 | 43.91 | | OPT-30B | 30B | 42.86 | 44.77 | 25.85 | 27.44 | 22.31 | 32.76 | 40.83 | 46.52 | 35.42 | | OPT-66B | 66B | 43.83 | 53.89 | 30.77 | 32.00 | 25.87 | 34.58 | 39.15 | 47.01 | 38.39 | | Pre-trained NER Models | | | | | | | | | | | | ProtoNet | 345M | 30.04 | 60.26 | 9.74 | 23.03 | 24.73 | 42.32 | 16.79 | 23.67 | 28.82 | | NNShot | 345M | 41.92 | 58.39 | 15.76 | 21.78 | 31.59 | 33.14 | 30.19 | 37.86 | 33.83 | | StructShot | 345M | 42.34 | 58.44 | 15.78 | 22.05 | 19.87 | 31.48 | 30.40 | 38.44 | 32.35 | | CONTAINER | 345M | 45.43 | 61.69 | 15.64 | 20.37 | 23.24 | 27.02 | 34.07 | 40.44 | 33.49 | | MetaNER-base | 220M | 53.94 | 62.59 | 25.55 | 30.41 | 35.00 | 37.24 | 46.88 | 51.39 | 42.88 | | MetaNER | 770M | 57.40 | 63.45 | 31.59 | 36.52 | 40.01 | 44.92 | 52.07 | 54.87 | 47.60 | tion, where each instance with type number N is 10 and instance number K is 10. We employ the T5-v1.1-large (Raffel et al., 2020) model as the initial model for MetaNER and further pre-train 500k steps with learning rate=5e-5 and warm-up steps=10k. In this paper, we refer to the pre-trained model as **MetaNER**. Few-shot settings. Our experiments follow the standard k-shot NER setting Huang et al. (2021): For each entity type, we sample k training instances as in-context demonstrations. We evaluate models by micro-F1 and report the average performance by repeating each experiment 10 times. We conducts experiments on 4 datasets across differnt domains: (1) CoNLL03 (Sang and Meulder, 2003) from news domain. (2) WNUT17 (Derczynski et al., 2017) from social media domain. (3) NCBI-disease (Dogan et al. ˘ , 2014) from biology domain. (4) SEC-filings (Alvarado et al., 2015) from finance domain. Baselines. For fair comparison, we use frozen models for all baselines in the in-context learning experiments, i.e., a pre-trained language/NER model is used for entity extraction without finetuning. In addition, we will discuss fine-tuning based methods in section 5.3.3. Two kinds of baselines are compared: 1) **Pre-trained language models**include models with different scales and architectures: (1) Encoderdecoder models - T5 models (Raffel et al., 2020), includes T5-v1.1-large (770M), T5-xl (3B) and T5xxl (11B). (2) Causal LM models - GPT and OPT models (Radford et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022b), includes GPT2-xl (1.5B), GPT-j-6B (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021), GPT-Neox-20B (Black et al., 2022), OPT-13B, OPT-30B and OPT-66B. Notice that, for PLMs, we use original type names rather than type indicators to capture the label semantics. For encoder-decoder models like T5, we formulate in-context NER as a span corruption task and the model will generate the extraction task. For example, for input "Target entity types: disease. Text: COVID-19 is spreading. Entities: COVID-19 is disease. Text: HIV is spread by three main routes. Entities: <extra_id_0>", the span corruption task requires the decoder to generate the extraction result "<extra_id_0> HIV is disease.". 2) **Pre-trained NER models** are metric-based few-shot methods, includes prototype network (ProtoNet) (Snell et al., 2017), NNshot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020), StructShot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020) and CONTAINER (Das et al., 2022). We employed BERT-Large (Devlin et al., 2019) as the backbone and pre-trained them using the same dataset as MetaNER. For a fair comparison, we also pre-train a 220M T5-v1.1-base (Raffel et al., 2020) model with our meta-function pre-training algorithm (MetaNER-base). ## 5.2 Main Results The experimental results are shown in Table 1. We can see that: 1) **Few-shot NER is challenging even for large** language models, while MetaNER can achieve good in-context NER performance. Compare with best-performed PLMs, MetaNER achieves 8.4% F1 improvements. Moreover, due to the gap between language model task and NER task, large language models achieve poor in-context learning performance on some datasets. 2) **Our in-context NER method can achieve** robust performance, even under a large sourcetarget domain gap. Compared with bestperformed metric-based NER models, MetaNERbase and MetaNER achieves 26.8% and 40.7% F1 improvement. Specifically, the performance improvement is more significant when source-target domain gap is larger, i.e., the NCBI-disease (biology domain) and SEC-filings (finance domain). 3) **Meta-function pre-training can effectively** inject in-context learning ability into both small and large PLMs. Both MetaNER-base and MetaNER achieve impressive performance in 1-shot and 5-shot settings, which verified that MetaNER can effectively inject in-context NER ability into small PLMs, although currently incontext learning has been seen an ability only emerged only on large language models such as GPT-3. ## 5.3 Detailed Analysis 5.3.1 Ablation Studies | CoNLL03 | NCBI-disease | | | | | | |-------------------|----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | | | MetaNER | 73.59 | 57.19 | 64.34 | 54.96 | 36.85 | 43.79 | | w/o MF | 68.97 | 57.62 | 62.77 | 38.27 | 35.26 | 36.28 | | w/o LM | 70.86 | 57.99 | 63.77 | 37.54 | 34.82 | 35.67 | | w/o anonymization | 74.75 | 52.86 | 61.93 | 47.47 | 35.30 | 40.48 | To analyze and understand the effect of type anonymization, meta-function pre-training, entity extraction pre-training, and pseudo extraction LM pre-training, we conduct the following ablation experiments: (1) MetaNER w/o MF: remove the  meta-function pre-training; (2) MetaNER w/o LM: remove pseudo extraction LM pre-training; (3) MetaNER w/o anonymization: we use the original entity type names in both pre-training and incontext NER, without using type anonymization. The results are shown in Table 2, we can see that: 1) **meta-function pre-training is critical for** in-context learning ability. By removing the meta-function pre-training, the results drop significantly when the domain gaps are larger, i.e., NCBI-disease. At the same time, meta-function pre-training is helpful for the model to make more precise predictions. 2) **The pseudo extraction LM task significantly benefits in-context NER.** We found MetaNER w/o LM results in a performance drop than MetaNER. We believe this is because, although using an automatically constructed pseudo dataset, this task can significantly improve the size and the diversity of in-context NER tasks, meanwhile can retain a good language modeling ability. 3) **Type name anonymization prevents incontext NER model from type name overfitting,** and therefore enhances the in-context learning ability. The ablation of type name anonymization results a 5.7% performance drop in Table 2. We believe this is because type names will let models tend to memorize entity knowledge using type names, thus the model will not learn to capture entity knowledge from demonstrations on-the-fly. ## 5.3.2 Effects Of Meta-Function Pre-Training One main idea of this paper is that in-context NER model can be viewed as a meta-function which can implicitly build new entity extractors. To demonstrate whether meta-function pre-training can train a good meta-function, we sample 1000 instances from each dataset, and show the difference between the (instruction, demonstrations)-initialized entity extractor F and the surrogate entity extractor F′, i.e., ||F′ − F|| in Section 4.2 in Figure 4. We can see that meta-function pre-training can equip PLMs with a good meta-function ability, i.e., the (instruction, demonstrations)-initialized entity extractor after pre-training is significantly close to its fine-tuned counterpart. CoNLL03 WNUT17 1shot 5shot 1shot 5shot BERT-large (Devlin et al., 2019) 14.66 52.43 8.95 32.77 T5-v11-large (Raffel et al., 2020) 11.65 42.13 12.51 39.54 GPT-NEO-20B (Black et al., 2022)* 52.68 58.12 36.29 35.68 UIE-large (Lu et al., 2022b) 46.28 67.62 32.86 42.67 SDNet (Chen et al., 2022a) / 71.40 / 44.10 CONTAINER-FT (Das et al., 2022) 48.56 66.45 19.46 24.95 MetaNER-ICL* 57.40 63.45 31.59 36.52 MetaNER-FT 61.51 72.70 **39.68 47.26** ## 5.3.3 In-Context Learning Vs Fine-Tuning MetaNER can also be directly fine-tuned using traditional NER instances. We employed the identical fine-tuning approach as previous works (Huang et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022b; Chen et al., 2022a). Following Lu et al. (2022b), we also implemented the *Rejection Mechanism* when fine-tuning the T5v11-large and MetaNER to achieve better few-shot performance. To compare in-context NER with fined-tuned NER, Table 3 reports the performance of the finetuned counterpart of MetaNER - MetaNER-FT(its training is similar to surrogate entity extractor but with multi-step gradient descent until coverage), together with several fine-tuned few-shot NER baselines. We can see that: 1) MetaNER is an effective architecture, which achieves good performance on both in-context learning and fine-tuning settings; 2) Currently, fine-tuning can achieve better performance than their in-context learning counterpart. We believe this is because fine-tuned models' parameters need to be specialized to specific entity types, meanwhile in-context learning needs to generalize to different types on-the-fly, i.e., generalization-specialization trade-off. We believe this also verified the reasonableness of using a fine-tuned surrogate extractor to approximate the golden extractor. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we propose an in-context learningbased NER approach and model PLMs as a metafunction, which can inject in-context NER ability into PLMs and recognize entities of new types onthe-fly using only a few demonstrative instances. Experimental results show that our method is effective for in-context NER. For future work, we will extend our method to different NLP tasks like event extraction and relation extraction. ## Limitations In-context learning is an useful ability, this paper only focuses on in-context named entity recognition, leaves the learning of other NLP tasks' incontext learning abilities for future work. Currently, we learn in-context learning via metafunction pre-training, by comparing an in-context extraction function and a fined-tuned surrogate extraction function at the representation level of their encoders. There are two approximation here: one is fined-tuned surrogate extraction function for approximating golden extraction function, and the difference between representations for approximating the divergence between functions. We think the above two approximations can be further improved for better and faster in-context learning. ## Acknowledgements We sincerely thank the reviewers for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions. This research work is supported by the CAS Project for Young Scientists in Basic Research under Grant No.YSBR-040 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants no. 62122077, 62106251. ## References Ekin Akyürek, Dale Schuurmans, Jacob Andreas, Tengyu Ma, and Denny Zhou. 2022. What learning algorithm is in-context learning? investigations with linear models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15661*. Julio Cesar Salinas Alvarado, Karin Verspoor, and Timothy Baldwin. 2015. Domain adaption of named entity recognition to support credit risk assessment. In *Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology* Association Workshop 2015, pages 84–90. Henk P Barendregt. 1992. Lambda calculi with types. Ning Bian, Xianpei Han, Bo Chen, Hongyu Lin, Ben He, and Le Sun. 2021. Bridging the gap between language model and reading comprehension: Unsupervised mrc via self-supervision. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2107.08582. Sid Black, Stella Biderman, Eric Hallahan, Quentin Anthony, Leo Gao, Laurence Golding, Horace He, Connor Leahy, Kyle McDonell, Jason Phang, Michael Pieler, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Shivanshu Purohit, Laria Reynolds, Jonathan Tow, Ben Wang, and Samuel Weinbach. 2022. GPT-NeoX-20B: An opensource autoregressive language model. In *Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Challenges & Perspectives in Creating Large Language Models*. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. Stephanie CY Chan, Adam Santoro, Andrew K Lampinen, Jane X Wang, Aaditya Singh, Pierre H Richemond, Jay McClelland, and Felix Hill. 2022. Data distributional properties drive emergent fewshot learning in transformers. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2205.05055. Jiawei Chen, Qing Liu, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. 2022a. Few-shot named entity recognition with self-describing networks. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5711–5722, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mingda Chen, Jingfei Du, Ramakanth Pasunuru, Todor Mihaylov, Srini Iyer, Veselin Stoyanov, and Zornitsa Kozareva. 2022b. Improving in-context few-shot learning via self-supervised training. In *Proceedings* of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3558–3573, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Leyang Cui, Yu Wu, Jian Liu, Sen Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2021. Template-based named entity recognition using BART. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021*, pages 1835–1845, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Damai Dai, Yutao Sun, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Zhifang Sui, and Furu Wei. 2022. Why can gpt learn in-context? language models secretly perform gradient descent as meta optimizers. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10559*. Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Das, Arzoo Katiyar, Rebecca Passonneau, and Rui Zhang. 2022. CONTaiNER: Few-shot named entity recognition via contrastive learning. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6338–6353, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Cyprien de Lichy, Hadrien Glaude, and William Campbell. 2021. Meta-learning for few-shot named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on* Meta Learning and Its Applications to Natural Language Processing, pages 44–58, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Leon Derczynski, Eric Nichols, Marieke van Erp, and Nut Limsopatham. 2017. Results of the WNUT2017 shared task on novel and emerging entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy* User-generated Text, NUT@EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 7, 2017, pages 140–147. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rezarta Islamaj Dogan, Robert Leaman, and Zhiyong ˘ Lu. 2014. Ncbi disease corpus: a resource for disease name recognition and concept normalization. Journal of biomedical informatics, 47:1–10. Alexander Fritzler, Varvara Logacheva, and Maksim Kretov. 2019. Few-shot classification in named entity recognition task. In *Proceedings of the 34th* ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, pages 993–1000. Bernal Jiménez Gutiérrez, Nikolas McNeal, Clay Washington, You Chen, Lang Li, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. 2022. Thinking about gpt-3 in-context learning for biomedical ie? think again. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08410. Yutai Hou, Wanxiang Che, Yongkui Lai, Zhihan Zhou, Yijia Liu, Han Liu, and Ting Liu. 2020. Few-shot slot tagging with collapsed dependency transfer and label-enhanced task-adaptive projection network. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 1381–1393. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiaxin Huang, Chunyuan Li, Krishan Subudhi, Damien Jose, Shobana Balakrishnan, Weizhu Chen, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Jiawei Han. 2021. Fewshot named entity recognition: An empirical baseline study. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10408–10423, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bin Ji, Shasha Li, Shaoduo Gan, Jie Yu, Jun Ma, Huijun Liu, and Jing Yang. 2022. Few-shot named entity recognition with entity-level prototypical network enhanced by dispersedly distributed prototypes. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1842–1854, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 260–270, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dong-Ho Lee, Akshen Kadakia, Kangmin Tan, Mahak Agarwal, Xinyu Feng, Takashi Shibuya, Ryosuke Mitani, Toshiyuki Sekiya, Jay Pujara, and Xiang Ren. 2022. Good examples make a faster learner: Simple demonstration-based learning for low-resource NER. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2687–2700, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jing Li, Billy Chiu, Shanshan Feng, and Hao Wang. 2020a. Few-shot named entity recognition via metalearning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. Jing Li, Shuo Shang, and Ling Shao. 2020b. Metaner: Named entity recognition with meta-learning. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, pages 429– 440. Xiaoya Li, Jingrong Feng, Yuxian Meng, Qinghong Han, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2020c. A unified MRC framework for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5849–5859, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andy T Liu, Wei Xiao, Henghui Zhu, Dejiao Zhang, Shang-Wen Li, and Andrew Arnold. 2022. Qaner: Prompting question answering models for fewshot named entity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.01543. Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06804. Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022a. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming fewshot prompt order sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8086–8098, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yaojie Lu, Qing Liu, Dai Dai, Xinyan Xiao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022b. Unified structure generation for universal information extraction. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5755–5772, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jie Ma, Miguel Ballesteros, Srikanth Doss, Rishita Anubhai, Sunil Mallya, Yaser Al-Onaizan, and Dan Roth. 2022a. Label semantics for few shot named entity recognition. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1956– 1971, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ruotian Ma, Xin Zhou, Tao Gui, Yiding Tan, Linyang Li, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022b. Templatefree prompt tuning for few-shot NER. In *Proceedings* of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5721–5732, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tingting Ma, Huiqiang Jiang, Qianhui Wu, Tiejun Zhao, and Chin-Yew Lin. 2022c. Decomposed metalearning for few-shot named entity recognition. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1584–1596, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022a. MetaICL: Learning to learn in context. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2791–2809, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022b. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. *OpenAI* blog, 1(8):9. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2655–2671, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: Languageindependent named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language* Learning, CoNLL 2003, Held in cooperation with HLT-NAACL 2003, Edmonton, Canada, May 31 - June 1, 2003, pages 142–147. ACL. Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 30. Meihan Tong, Shuai Wang, Bin Xu, Yixin Cao, Minghui Liu, Lei Hou, and Juanzi Li. 2021. Learning from miscellaneous other-class words for few-shot named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6236–6247, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Johannes von Oswald, Eyvind Niklasson, Ettore Randazzo, João Sacramento, Alexander Mordvintsev, Andrey Zhmoginov, and Max Vladymyrov. 2022. Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07677. Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/ mesh-transformer-jax. Peiyi Wang, Runxin Xu, Tianyu Liu, Qingyu Zhou, Yunbo Cao, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. 2022. An enhanced span-based decomposition method for few-shot sequence labeling. In *Proceedings of the* 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5012–5024, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yaqing Wang, Haoda Chu, Chao Zhang, and Jing Gao. 2021a. Learning from language description: Lowshot named entity recognition via decomposed framework. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 1618–1630, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yaqing Wang, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Haoda Chu, Yuancheng Tu, Ming Wu, Jing Gao, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2021b. Meta self-training for fewshot neural sequence labeling. In *Proceedings of* the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 1737–1747. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903*. Hang Yan, Tao Gui, Junqi Dai, Qipeng Guo, Zheng Zhang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2021. A unified generative framework for various NER subtasks. In *Proceedings* of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5808–5822, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yi Yang and Arzoo Katiyar. 2020. Simple and effective few-shot named entity recognition with structured nearest neighbor learning. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6365–6375, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zeng Yang, Linhai Zhang, and Deyu Zhou. 2022. SEEfew: Seed, expand and entail for few-shot named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 2540–2550, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Hongxin Zhang, Yanzhe Zhang, Ruiyi Zhang, and Diyi Yang. 2022a. Robustness of demonstration-based learning under limited data scenario. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2210.10693. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022b. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068*. Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 12697–12706. PMLR. ## A Experiment Details A.1 Datasets For The Extraction Language Model Task Rather than randomly generating spans to form target labels in instruction, we use informative spans (Bian et al., 2021) as target labels. Unlike informative span selection at passage level for MRC (Bian et al., 2021), we select informative spans at a cross-document level. Specifically, we take 10 Wikipedia documents as a set and select informative spans according to the following rules: (1) spans that have appeared simultaneously in at least two and at most five documents. (2) spans that have appeared in only one document but have appeared in more than two. Rule (1) avoids some low-information general spans, such as stop words, and rule (2) retains some important spans in each document. Note that we consider at most 4-gram as a span and select the target labels from the informative spans during pre-training. ## A.2 Cost Of Pre-Training We used one A-100 80g GPU for pre-training the base/large model, which took approximately one to three days. The total FLOPs for the base model are 2.30e+18 and for the large model are 7.64e+18. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? In the 7-th Section ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? The data used for pre-training is based on publicly and widely used wikidata and wikipedia. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? In abstract and the first section ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** In Section 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? In Section 5 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Not applicable. We conduct experiments in few-shot settings, which is unable to conduct hyperparameters and we use the hyperparameters as pervious works. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? In Section 5 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? In Section 5 ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

yamasaki-etal-2023-holistic

Holistic Prediction on a Time-Evolving Attributed Graph

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.765

Graph-based prediction is essential in NLP tasks such as temporal knowledge graph completion. A cardinal question in this field is, how to predict the future links, nodes, and attributes of a time-evolving attributed graph? Unfortunately, existing techniques assume that each link, node, and attribute prediction is independent, and fall short of predicting the appearance of new nodes that were not observed in the past. In this paper, we address two interrelated questions; (1) can we exploit task interdependence to improve prediction accuracy? and (2) can we predict new nodes with their attributes? We propose a unified framework that predicts node attributes and topology changes such as the appearance and disappearance of links and the emergence and loss of nodes. This frame-work comprises components for independent and interactive prediction and for predicting new nodes. Our experimental study using real-world data confirms that our interdependent prediction framework achieves higher accuracy than methods based on independent prediction.

# Holistic Prediction On A Time-Evolving Attributed Graph Shohei Yamasaki1,∗,†, Yuya Sasaki2,∗, Panagiotis Karras3**, Makoto Onizuka**2 1Nomura Research Institute, Ltd., Japan, 2Osaka University, Japan 3Aarhus University, Denmark s2-yamasaki@nri.co.jp, {sasaki,onizuka}@osaka-u.ac.jp, piekarras@gmail.com ## Abstract 1 Introduction Graph-based prediction is essential in NLP tasks such as temporal knowledge graph completion. A cardinal question in this field is, how to predict the future links, nodes, and attributes of a time-evolving attributed graph? Unfortunately, existing techniques assume that each link, node, and attribute prediction is independent, and fall short of predicting the appearance of new nodes that were not observed in the past. In this paper, we address two interrelated questions; (1) can we exploit task interdependence to improve prediction accuracy? and (2) can we predict new nodes with their attributes? We propose a unified framework that predicts node attributes and topology changes such as the appearance and disappearance of links and the emergence and loss of nodes. This framework comprises components for independent and interactive prediction and for predicting new nodes. Our experimental study using realworld data confirms that our interdependent prediction framework achieves higher accuracy than methods based on independent prediction. Real-world language-based data such as blog posts, documents, and user profiles is often interconnected, as in social networks and co-author networks. This interconnection is modeled by graphs where nodes represent objects and edges represent relationships (Bansal et al., 2019; Bai et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2021). The structures and node attributes of such graphs often evolve over time by node addition/deletion, link addition/deletion, and node attribute changes. For instance, social networks change over time in terms of participating users, their profiles, and their links. Such temporally malleable graphs are called *timeevolving attributed graphs* (Rossi et al., 2020). Graph-based methods are essential in various NLP tasks (Zhou et al., 2021; Mondal et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2021). NLP applications often call for predicting the future of a time-evolving attributed graph such as completing a temporal knowledge graph (Goel et al., 2020; Mirza and Tonelli, 2016; Xu et al., 2021a), predicting a profile in social networks (Hasanuzzaman et al., 2017), and recommending news articles to readers (Wu et al., 2019); the prediction task involved is composite, including several sub-prediction tasks. Conventionally, this composite prediction task is addressed in a compartmentalized manner, separately applying a technique for each component sub-prediction task. This compartmentalized approach treats component prediction tasks independently rather than as an interdependent whole and utilizing one prediction to inform another. Besides, to our knowledge, existing works in time-evolving graph prediction do not predict new nodes and their attributes. Example 1.1 *Let us consider profile prediction in* a social network over a span of time in the future, e.g., job post in two years (Hasanuzzaman et al., 2017). Profile information can be predicted from posts and connections to other users. A social network is time-evolving, user profiles change dynamically, new users register their accounts and some users delete their accounts. Connections also change; newly registered accounts acquire connections to existing accounts with whom they have similar profiles; accounts connected to deleted accounts may connect to other accounts. These predictions are interdependent. In this paper, we introduce the problem of holistically predicting the future in a time-evolving attributed graph. Figure 1 illustrates the problem, including multiple sub-predictions, such as those of node loss and new node appearance. To achieve high prediction accuracy, we need to capture the interdependence between sub-prediction tasks. As it is difficult for a single method to capture all in13676  terdependences, we must effectively combine several methods and interactively reuse the results of one task in other tasks. Further, as existing methods cannot predict new node appearances, we need novel prediction methods for this sub-problem. We propose AGATE (A General framework for predicting Attributed *Time-Evolving graphs*), a holistic, versatile prediction framework that leverages the interdependence between the tasks of predicting new nodes, lost nodes, appearing links, disappearing links, and node attributes from observed past graphs. AGATE comprises components for predicting the future graph and capturing task interdependence: (i) one to predict the size of an evolving graph, (ii) one to predict existing-node structure and attributes, as well as new nodes, and (iii) a *reuse mechanism* that reuses the results of (ii) to achieve predictions that capture the interdependence between sub-predictions. Our framework can use existing methods as components. We develop a novel prediction method, PROSER for predicting new node appearance with attributes. We assess AGATE vs. the state of the art on three real-world time-evolving attributed graphs, showing that it benefits from allowing prediction tasks to affect each other, its reuse mechanism improves accuracy, and it effectively predicts new nodes with attributes. Our source code is available.1 We summarize our contributions as follows: (1) we study the problem of *holistic* prediction on a time-evolving attributed graph, including new node appearances; (2) we propose the AGATE framework for such predictions, which allows prediction tasks to affect each other; (3) we develop PROSER, a method for the prediction of new nodes with attributes, and (4) we put together best-ofbreed methods and show that AGATE improves prediction accuracy and also accurately predicts new nodes with attributes. Further, we validate that tasks are interdependently affected by each other. ## 2 Problem Statement An undirected *attributed graph* is a triple G = (*V, E, X*) where V is a finite set of *nodes*, E ⊆ V × V is a set of *edges*, and X ∈ R|V |×dis a set of node attributes; X(v) denotes d-dimensional attributes of node v. Each dimension in X may be categorical or numerical. We consider a *timeevolving* graph, where the number of nodes and links and values of node attributes changing over time, with d constant: Definition 1 A time-evolving attributed graph *is a* sequence of attributed graphs ⟨G1, · · · , GT ⟩ over discrete time steps, where T *is the number of observed time steps and* Gt:= (Vt, Et, Xt) the attributed graph at time step t*. It is known as discretetime dynamic graph (DTDG).* In a time-evolving graph, nodes and links appear and disappear dynamically. We discern three types of nodes at time step t: *existing* nodes V e t , new nodes V n t , and *lost* nodes V l t : $$V_{t}^{e}=V_{t}\cap V_{t-1},\;\;V_{t}^{n}=V_{t}\backslash V_{t-1},\;\;V_{t}^{l}=V_{t-1}\backslash V_{t}.$$ Nodes in V e texist at both time steps t and t−1, while those in V n tappear and those in V l t disappear at time step t. Likewise, we discern existing links Ee t , links connected to new nodes En t , appearing links Ea t , and disappearing links Ed t : $E_{t}^{e}=E_{t}\cap E_{t-1},\qquad E_{t}^{n}=E_{t}\setminus(V_{t-1}\times V_{t-1})$ $E_{t}^{a}=(E_{t}\setminus E_{t-1})\setminus E_{t}^{n},\qquad E_{t}^{d}=E_{t-1}\setminus E_{t}$ We define the problem as follows: Problem 1 *Given a time-evolving attributed graph,* ⟨GT −L+1, GT −L+2, . . . , GT ⟩*, including appearing and disappearing nodes and links and changing node attributes, the* **holistic time-evolving attributed graph prediction** *problem asks to predict* the graph at time step T + 1, GT +1 = (VT +1, ET +1, XT +1). This problem calls to predict the whole of GT +1, rather than one of its components. Sub-prediction tasks: We define each subprediction task; existing works address some of these sub-prediction tasks independently. Sub-prediction tasks on existing nodes aim to predict graph structure and attributes on existing nodes. Such tasks have been addressed in prior studies, such as STGCN (Yu et al., 2018) and DynGEM (Goyal et al., 2018). We have five subprediction tasks; node loss, link appearance, link disappearance, and attribute values on existing nodes. As these tasks are intuitive, we describe them in Appendix. Sub-prediction tasks on new nodes aim to predict new nodes with their links and attributes. Link prediction on new nodes has been addressed recently in (Hao et al., 2020), but there exist no studies for the prediction of new node attributes. SubProblem 1 (**New node attributes**): *Given a* time-evolving attributed graph ⟨GT −L+1*, . . . , G*T ⟩ across L *time steps, this sub-prediction task is to* predict new nodes Vˆ n T +1 *and their attributes* Xˆ n T +1. As there is no previous work on the prediction of new nodes with attributes, we define an evaluation measure for this task. We evaluate the similarity between the sets of attributes of predicted and real new nodes based on a perfect bipartite matching (Tanimoto et al., 1978): Definition 2 (**Perfect matching**): *Given a complete bipartite graph* K = (V, V ′, E) *where* E = V × V′, a perfect matching M in K is a set of pairwise non-adjacent edges that cover all vertices in V . We construct a complete birpartite graph K from predicted to real new nodes, and compute edge weights by arbitrary similarity functions: K = (Vˆ n T+1, V n T+1, Vˆ n T+1 × V n T+1). 2 Similarity functions between attributes of nodes w(·, ·) can be cosine similarity and Euclidean distance-based functions, for which we can select the types of node attributes (e.g., word embedding and user profiles). Our measure is the maximum similarity: M-sim($\hat{V}_{T+1}^{n},V_{T+1}^{n},\hat{X}_{T+1}^{n},X_{T+1}^{n}$) = $$\max_{M\in\mathcal{M}}\frac{1}{|M|}\sum_{(\phi,v)\in M}w(\hat{X}_{T+1}^{(\phi)},X_{T+1}^{(v)})\tag{1}$$ where M is the set of perfect matchings for the given bipartite graph and |M| is the number of pairs of matching in M. If the similarity is closer to one, attributes on predicted new nodes are similar to those on corresponding real new nodes. By this measure, we enforce that predicted attribute values properly match real ones, rather than merely reiterate values that appear frequently in new nodes of GT +1. In general, the optimal M is hard to compute due to the numerous patterns of perfect matchings, so we use approximate methods such as a greedy method. 2If |Vˆ n T+1| ≤ α|V n T+1| (α is the minimum integer that satisfies this inequality), we duplicate all nodes in V n T+1 at α − 1 times. Regarding predicting links to new nodes, prior work (Hao et al., 2020) assumes new nodes are given along with attributes. Contrariwise, we predict links to *predicted* nodes. SubProblem 2 (**Links connected to new nodes**): Given a time-evolving attributed graph ⟨GT −L+1, . . . , GT ⟩ across L time steps, new nodes Vˆ n T +1, and corresponding attribute values Xˆ n T +1 predicted by subproblem *1, this sub-prediction task is to predict* any link between v and vˆ, (v, vˆ) ∈ VT × Vˆ n T +1. These sub-prediction tasks on existing and new nodes may be interdependent; for example, attribute prediction affects link prediction and vice versa. The way tasks affect each other is unknown, and the interdependence between predictions regarding new and existing nodes is uncertain. ## 3 Agate: Our Framework AGATE holistically predicts the future of timeevolving attributed graphs, exploiting the interdependence of sub-prediction tasks. Figure 2 illustrates its architecture, comprising three main components for graph size, independent, and reuse predictions; the independent prediction component is subdivided in parts for existing and new nodes. AGATE is modular; it can employ any existing method as a component in independent and reuse predictions; as no existing method predicts new nodes with attributes, we develop our own methods for this task. AGATE supports prediction in attributed graphs that are either partially or fully time-evolving, e.g., it can accommodate static attributes or no link disappearance. Algorithm 1 shows the pseudo code of AGATE. AGATE first predicts the output graph size (lines 1– 3). Then it first conducts each sub-prediction task independently to obtain a preliminary predicted graph at time step T +1 (lines 4–6), and updates the results of each such task by reusing the results of other tasks (lines 6–10). We explain each component. ## 3.1 Graph Size Prediction We use a component to predict the sizes of VT +1 and ET +1; we extract sequences of new nodes {V n T −L+1, *. . .* , V n T}, lost nodes {V l T −L+1, . . . , V l T}, appearing links {Ea T −L+1, *. . .* , Ea T}, disappearing links {Ed T −L+1, . . . , Ed T}, and links to new nodes {En T −L+1, *. . .* , En T} from input graphs {GT −L+1, *. . .* , GT }, count the elements 13678  Algorithm 1: AGATE input :⟨GT−L+1, GT−L+2*, . . . , G*T ⟩, a natural number I output : Gˆ(I) T +1 /* Graph size prediction */ 1 Extract sequences of new nodes, lost nodes, appearing links, disappearing links, and links of new nodes from ⟨GT−L+1, GT−L+2*, . . . , G*T ⟩; 2 Count and normalize them by dividing its maximum value; 3 Predicting |V n T +1|, |V l T +1|, |E n T +1|, |E a T +1|, |E d T +1| from each sequence of normalized values; /* Independent prediction */ 4 Predicting Vˆ n T +1, Vˆ lT +1, Eˆn T +1, Eˆa T +1, EˆdT +1, XˆT +1,Xˆ n T +1 from ⟨GT−L+1, GT−L+2*, . . . , G*T ⟩; 5 Vˆ (0) T +1 ← VT ∪ Vˆ n T +1 \ Vˆ lT +1; 6 Eˆ(0) T +1 ← ET ∪ Eˆn T +1 ∪ Eˆa T +1 \ EˆdT +1; /* Reuse prediction */ 7 for i = 1*, . . . , I* do 8 Predicting Vˆ n T +1, Vˆ lT +1, Eˆn T +1, Eˆa T +1, EˆdT +1, XˆT +1,Xˆ n T +1 from ⟨GT−L+2*, . . . , G*(i−1) T +1 ⟩; 9 Vˆ (i) T +1 ← VT ∪ Vˆ n T +1 \ Vˆ lT +1; 10 Eˆ(i) T +1 ← ET ∪ Eˆn T +1 ∪ Eˆa T +1 \ EˆdT +1; 11 **return** Gˆ(I) T +1; 12 **end procedure** in each sequence, normalize them through division by its maximum value to avoid vanishing gradient, and train the model using the sequence of numbers of elements by time-series data prediction. In the case the methods used in the individual tasks can determine the numbers of nodes and links in the output graph, we do not need a separate prediction on graph size. ## 3.2 Independent Prediction This component makes initial predictions, which may then be used in reuse prediction; independent prediction is subdivided into parts regarding existing nodes and new nodes. After conducting all prediction tasks, the independent prediction builds GT +1 (0) to add/remove to/from GT . Existing node prediction: This component involves binary classification tasks regarding node loss, link appearance, link disappearance, as well as multi-class classification and regression tasks regarding the attributes of existing nodes. We obtain a probability for each target node/link from each classification model and derive the predicted results as a set of highest probability elements with cardinality given by the respective size prediction module. In node attribute prediction, we can select models to either predict each attribute value individually, or all values simultaneously. We use suitable models (e.g., LSTM (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) and DynGEM (Goyal et al., 2018)) to predict categorical and numerical node attributes. To our knowledge, only EvolveGCN (Pareja et al., 2020) supports all tasks on existing nodes. However, EvolveGCN performs poorly compared to other models (see Table 1). New node prediction. To the best of our knowledge, no previous work addressed new node prediction. Thus, we develop three simple baseline methods for this purpose (Random, FNN, and PointNet), which aim to determine the correspondence between the predicted and real new nodes by maximizing the matching similarity in Equation (1): **Random** outputs randomly sampled nodes from V n T with attributes from Xn T . FNN is a simple feedforward neural network, i.e., a multilayer perceptron, trained by constructing a bipartite graph from predicted new nodes Vˆ n T +1 to real new nodes V n T +1, and learning to minimize the loss function: Ln = − log M-sim(Vˆ n T +1,V n T +1,Xˆ n T +1,Xn T +1)+1 2. FNN's learning depends on the order of input nodes. PointNet is a deep learning framework that deals with order invariance (Qi et al., 2017), with input and loss function the same as those of FNN. We utilize the predicted new node attributes to predict links to new nodes using DEAL (Hao et al., 2020), which handles link prediction for nodes having only attribute information, or any other similar method. We evaluate prediction accuracy by the correspondence between predicted and real nodes. ## 3.3 Reuse Prediction This component updates prediction results by exploiting task interdependence, aiming to capture the effect of each sub-prediction on others. Reuse prediction repeats the updates of GT +1 the given number I of times; it predicts lost nodes, appeared links, disappeared links, and attributes of nodes from ⟨GT −L+2, · · · , GT +1 (i)⟩ for 0 ≤ i ≤ I − 1. We can use any model/method in the reuse module. Reuse prediction follows the specifications of existing node prediction, while now each model reuses already predicted graph characteristics to update the results of all sub-prediction tasks. We may use those independent results that are fit; we study this matter in our experiments. ## 4 Proser We develop a novel method, *Probabilistic Selection* Rule (PROSER), to predict new node attributes. PROSER aims to maximize the matching similarity in the prediction of new node attributes. In a preliminary analysis, we observed that most new nodes have similar attributes to those of new nodes at the previous time step. Thus, accuracy is relatively high when we randomly sample attributes of new nodes at the previous time step. We refine this process by selecting appropriate nodes to increase the matching similarity. By simple random sampling, matching similarity would be low when the similarity of sampled attributes to any attributes of new nodes at time step T +1 is low. PROSER avoids selecting such attributes by estimating the highest similarity between sampled attributes and those of new nodes. Besides, matching similarity would not increase by frequently sampling a few attributes that are highly similar to some real node attributes, as each match in a perfect matching is unique. Instead, we sample attributes Xn T having a similar *distribution* to that of new node attributes in time T +1, Xn T+1. PROSER employs logistic regression to learn probabilities that similarities between sampled and actual new node attributes are higher than a threshold θ. Before model training, we compute θ to maximize matching similarity, as: $$\theta=\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\theta^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}}\sum_{G_{i}\in\mathcal{T}}\text{M-sim}(V_{i}^{n}(\theta^{\prime}),V_{i+1}^{n},X_{i}^{n}(\theta^{\prime}),X_{i+1}^{n})\tag{2}$$ where T denotes the set of training graphs, V n i (θ′) is the set of sampled attributes whose similarity to those of the real nodes is higher than θ′, and Xn i (θ′) is the set of their attributes. θ removes nodes that do not increase the matching similarity. To capture the distribution, we use a mean vector of Xn T as a representative attribute of GT . Our model computes the probability to maximize the matching similarity for future graphs leveraging this mean and the threshold. In the inference phase, PROSER randomly samples attributes from the set of new node attributes at time T and calculates probabilities. If these are higher than θ, we add these attributes to prediction results, otherwise discard them. We repeat, until the number of predicted attributes reaches that of new nodes. Since we randomly select candidates of predicted attributes, predictions are diverse. ## 5 Experiments We experimentally validate the performance of AGATE and analyze the performance gain due to the exploitation of task interdependence. All experiments are conducted on a Linux server with Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v4 @ 2.40GHz. Dataset. We use three datasets with diverse timeevolving features with linguistic node attributes: NBA3, Reddit4, and AMiner5. - NBA: Nodes represent NBA players, with attributes for points, team, age, and position. Two nodes are linked when the respective players are teammates. Nodes, links, and attributes change dynamically; there are 3,781 3https://www.basketball-reference.com 4http://snap.stanford.edu/data/soc-RedditHyperlinks.html 5https://www.aminer.cn/citation unique nodes, 95,203 unique edges, 35 attributes, and 66 time steps. - **Reddit**: Nodes stand for subreddits and links represent posts between them; if a subreddit has no posts in a time step, the corresponding node is removed at that time step. Node attributes are embeddings of the subreddits (Kumar et al., 2018). Nodes and links change dynamically, while node attributes are static. Reddit includes 7,756 unique nodes, 23,554 unique edges, 300 attributes, and 14 time steps. - **AMiner** (Tang et al., 2008): Nodes stand for papers, links for citations, and attributes for research field weights, extracted by computing TF-IDF scores from paper titles. Nodes and links appear over time, but nodes do not disappear, while the links and attributes of existing nodes are static. Aminer includes 10,987 unique nodes, 6,708 unique edges, 9 attributes, and 24 time steps. We divide time steps into training, validation, and test data with a 7:2:1 ratio; in NBA data, that is time steps 1–48, 49–60, and 61–66, respectively; in Reddit, time steps 1–11, 12–13, and 14; in AMiner, time steps 1–18, 19–22, and 23–24. Compared methods. We apply different methods for comparison in each sub-prediction task, since not all methods are applicable to all tasks. When predicting existing node features, we use 9 methods grouped in four categories: simple, dynamic graph embeddings, static graph GNNs, and dynamic graph GNNs. Simple methods are: (1) Baseline, which outputs GT as the predicted graph for GT +1, (2) *Random*, which randomly samples the predicted targets, (3) FNN, and (4) *LSTM*. We use (5) *DynGEM* (Goyal et al., 2018) as a dynamic graph embedding and (6) GCN (Kipf and Welling, 2017) as a static graph GNN. As dynamic graph GNNs, we use (7) *STGCN* (Yu et al., 2018), (8) EvolveGCN (Pareja et al., 2020), which has two versions, EvolveGCN-H and EveloveGCN-O, and (9) *TGGNN* that we modified gated CNN to graph tasks (see Appendix in detail). To predict new nodes with attributes, we use PROSER and the three baseline methods described in Section 3. To predict links connected to new nodes, we use cosine similarity (CS for short), FNN, and DEAL (Hao et al., 2020) based upon the results predicting new nodes with attributes. DEAL is the state-of-the-art method. AGATE repeatedly predicts GT +1; we identify the best model for each sub-prediction task on the validation data, and go on reusing the best model's results. Hyper-parameters. We run the model with at most 1,000 training iterations, 10–100 early stopping patience, batch size 1 or 2, and learning rate 0.01 with the Adam optimizer. On temporal graphs, we use 3, 3, and 5 as L for NBA, Reddit, and Aminer, respectively. We set the number I of repeated updates in reuse prediction to 3. We use cosine similarity as w(·, ·) in Eq. (1). We note that we tune hyper-parameters independently of models close to the input, and in reuse prediction models remain consistent. Thus, hyper-parameter tuning is not hard compared to common graph prediction tasks. Please see the appendix in detail. The training time totally took about 500, 700, and 200 CPU hours on NBA, Reddit, and Aminer, respectively. Our framework can run in parallel. ## 5.1 Overall Evaluation On Accuracy We show results for independent prediction and AGATE, which exploits task interdependence. Prediction on existing nodes: First, we show the results of attribute prediction on existing nodes, which correspond to, for example, future user profile prediction. Figure 3 shows results on the NBA data; MAE and RMSE on the prediction of NBA players' points (where lower is better) and AUC and Average Precision on the binary prediction of whether a player transfers to another team (where higher is better). Note that, Reddit and AMiner data do not change the attributes of nodes. LSTM and TGGNN perform well. However, other dynamic graph GNNs cannot predict player's points and fare worse than the baseline. AGATE enhances accuracy through reuse prediction. In player's point prediction, AGATE reuses the results of LSTM and all sub-prediction tasks; in team transfer prediction, it reuses the results of TGGNN and those regarding links connected to new nodes. Second, Table 1 presents our AUC and average precision results on node loss, link appearance, and link disappearance predictions on NBA and Reddit; such results correspond to, for example, future connections between users. Note that, in AMiner, existing links and nodes do not change. We observe that, in independent prediction, TGGNN and LSTM often achieve the best performances. This result indicates that node attribute and/or topology   Figure 4: AUC on link prediction for new nodes. Figure 3: Existing node attribute prediction, NBA data. Table 1: Node/link prediction on existing nodes; underlined: best results in independent pred.; bold: best results among both independent and reuse pred. ROC AUC and Average precision are multiplied by 100. | Methods | Node prediction (loss) | Link prediction (appearance) | Link prediction (disappearance) | | | | | | | | | | |-------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------|------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|------------|------------| | ROC AUC | Average precision | ROC AUC | Average precision | ROC AUC | Average precision | | | | | | | | | NBA | Reddit | NBA | Reddit | NBA | Reddit | NBA | Reddit | NBA | Reddit | NBA | Reddit | | | Baseline | 50.00±0.00 | 50.00±0.00 | 18.71±0.00 | 51.10±0.00 | 50.00±0.00 | 50.00±0.00 | 1.37±0.00 | 0.05±0.00 | 50.00±0.00 | 50.00±0.00 | 41.36±0.00 | 39.29±0.00 | | Random | 50.16±1.10 | 49.75±1.49 | 18.77±0.34 | 50.99±0.75 | 49.86±0.05 | 50.51±0.75 | 1.36±0.00 | 0.05±0.00 | 49.91±0.40 | 50.87±0.53 | 41.32±0.19 | 39.71±0.26 | | FNN | 85.35±0.06 | 77.53±0.03 | 53.51±0.08 | 74.53±0.04 | 49.66±0.43 | 46.31±1.86 | 1.34±0.02 | 0.04±0.01 | 49.65±0.17 | 48.10±0.57 | 41.09±0.15 | 36.77±0.87 | | LSTM | 85.44±0.31 | 82.55±0.10 | 53.52±0.88 | 81.69±0.14 49.83±0.23 83.07±0.35 1.34±0.01 6.05±0.42 49.53±0.61 72.13±0.17 40.52±0.46 | 56.21±0.37 | | | | | | | | | DynGEM | 48.67±1.24 | 67.53±0.15 | 18.71±0.41 | 63.67±0.20 | 49.66±0.42 | 44.61±1.56 | 1.36±0.01 | 0.04±0.00 | 50.28±0.68 | 46.81±1.12 | 41.47±0.93 | 35.70±0.61 | | GCN | 56.84±0.97 | 75.14±0.15 | 23.40±1.49 | 71.98±0.40 | 49.67±0.41 | 82.10±0.94 | 1.34±0.02 | 2.05±0.14 | 50.79±0.34 63.97±0.90 | 41.95±1.15 48.77±1.30 | | | | STGCN | 60.20±0.95 | 82.22±0.31 | 26.71±0.15 | 80.45±0.43 | 49.71±0.49 | 73.59±1.52 | 1.34±0.02 | 0.12±0.01 | 49.31±0.57 | 63.01±2.8 | 40.45±0.51 | 48.81±2.05 | | EvolveGCN-H | 56.33±1.18 | 63.44±1.86 | 21.97±1.03 | 59.49±1.37 | 50.01±1.04 | 52.21±4.46 1.38±0.05 0.08±0.02 | 49.19±0.58 | 50.62±0.41 | 40.47±0.78 | 39.64±0.15 | | | | EvolveGCN-O | 56.69±0.58 | 66.32±2.71 | 23.01±0.63 | 62.25±3.08 | 49.76±0.58 | 52.43±1.52 | 1.37±0.03 | 0.05±0.01 | 48.83±1.56 | 51.73±0.68 | 40.78±1.44 | 41.07±0.08 | | TGGNN | 85.59±0.58 82.67±0.19 54.57±2.14 81.59±0.42 | 50.09±0.43 77.93±4.11 | 1.35±0.02 | 0.24±0.20 | 49.81±0.47 | 66.36±3.91 | 40.64±0.43 | 50.80±4.30 | | | | | | AGATE | 98.19±2.60 | 93.49±3.62 | 92.00±11.4 | 93.92±3.51 | 50.36±0.73 81.27±1.89 1.38±0.02 0.45±0.26 51.34±0.01 71.99±1.61 43.38±0.21 | 56.39±2.18 | | | | | | | Table 2: Results on new node attribute prediction; 'mean' indicates matching similarity; underlined fonts indicate the best results in independent prediction; bold fonts indicate best results among both independent and reuse predictions. Methods NBA Reddit mean median min max mean median min max Random 0.8143±0.00 0.8176±0.00 0.2055±0.00 1.0000±**0.00** 0.8317±0.00 0.8772±0.00 -0.2507±0.00 0.9947±0.00 FNN 0.7217±0.02 0.7650±0.02 0.2287±0.03 0.9004±0.02 0.7409±0.00 0.7876±0.01 -0.8723±0.01 0.9777±0.00 PointNet 0.6587±0.04 0.7075±0.03 0.2650±0.02 0.8337±0.04 0.6336±0.00 0.6016±0.00 -0.8697±0.00 0.9708±0.00 PROSER 0.8149±0.00 0.8164±0.00 0.2715±0.02 1.0000±**0.00** 0.8329±0.00 0.8780±0.00 0.0286±**0.00** 0.9947±0.00 AGATE 0.8280±0.00 0.8416±0.00 0.3775±**0.01** 0.9829±0.00 0.8513±0.00 0.8904±**0.00** -0.0238±0.01 0.9948±**0.00** changes affect the future graphs in these datasets. AGATE improves on node/link prediction accuracy via reuse prediction in most cases. In particular, the accuracy of node loss prediction increases significantly compared to that of independent prediction. Interestingly, the node loss prediction is highly assisted by new node prediction. We here note that link prediction on time-evolving graphs is often difficult, so their AUC and Average precision are very low (e.g., EvolveGCN (Pareja et al., 2020) reported similar values of MAP on different datasets). In the overall link prediction results, AGATE generally achieved the best performance and we reconfirm that prediction accuracy improves when we capture task interdependence. Prediction on new nodes. Third, Table 2 shows results on attribute prediction on new nodes, which corresponds to, for example, the prediction of user profiles registered in the future. PROSER and Random outperform FNN and PointNet. PROSER and Random output node attributes appearing in the previous time step without modification, whereas FNN and PointNet modify them using neural networks. This result suggests that it is difficult to learn how the attributes of new nodes change, even while they are similar to those of new nodes at the previous time step. Further, PROSER surpasses Random, as it avoids sampling nodes that do not contribute to matching similarity, and thus cosine similarity significantly improves overall. AGATE improves the matching similarity by means of reuse prediction based on supervised learning on the correspondences between predicted and real new node attributes obtained from independent prediction. In reuse prediction, AGATE trains on new nodes as existing nodes, improving on matching similarity. Finally, Figure 4 shows results on the prediction of links connected to new nodes, which corresponds to future connections among new and existing users. We predict links by the methods on the horizontal axis, each following upon the results on new node attribute prediction using the methods indicated in the bars. The results are generally good when using the previous results of Random, PROSER, and AGATE, which perform well in new node attribute prediction. Among link prediction methods themselves, DEAL outperforms others.  ## 5.2 Task Interdependence Analysis We examine how AGATE improves the accuracy of a sub-prediction task by reusing other tasks' results. Figure 5 shows the difference between the AUC of independent and reuse predictions on node loss. Task names on the horizontal axis indicate the reused task; 'all' denotes the reuse of all tasks. Each method and data reveals a different task interdependence. For example, the accuracy of STGCN improves when it uses results from all sub-prediction tasks with NBA data, but only slightly with Reddit data. The accuracy of TGGNN improves when it uses new node prediction results. Since TGGNN already achieves high accuracy independently, this gain is small. Still, these results confirm our hypothesis that leveraging task interdependence improves performance when it reuses proper sub-tasks. The tasks of new node attribute/link prediction, though not studied previously, exercise a big impact upon other tasks. As AGATE can select what tasks reuse in reuse prediction using validation data, we can remove reused tasks that have a negative impact on performance. We examine the impact of reuse iterations, varying the number of repetitions i. Figure 6 shows the accuracy of lost node and appeared and disappeared link tasks vs. i; 'ind' indicates the accuracy of independent prediction. We reuse the results of all sub-prediction tasks. Accuracy increases perceptibly in most tasks from 'ind' to 'reuse1'. In node loss prediction, it keeps increasing with reuses; in other tasks, accuracy stays stable or falls after 'reuse1', due to error accumulation. ## 6 Related Work We categorize graph prediction methods in four groups: (1) *static embedding* methods (e.g., (Tsitsulin et al., 2018, 2021)), (2) *dynamic embedding* methods (e.g., (Goyal et al., 2018, 2020)), (3) *static* graph neural network methods (e.g., (Kipf and Welling, 2017; Li et al., 2016; Velickovic et al.,  2018; Hamilton et al., 2017; Zhang and Chen, 2018; Hao et al., 2020)), and (4) *dynamic graph neural* network methods (e.g., (Li et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2018; Sankar et al., 2020; Pareja et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021b; Gao and Ribeiro, 2022; Fu et al., 2022)). Embedding methods first derive an embedding independently of target tasks, and then build a model for each target task using the embedding as input; on the other hand, graph neural network methods directly build a model for each target task. There are two types of graph prediction tasks: static and dynamic. Most methods assume that the underlying graph is static, and predict or reconstruct links or attributes. Yet real-world systems and data are dynamic. While it may be possible to apply static graph methods (Liben-Nowell and Kleinberg, 2007) to dynamic graphs ignoring temporal evolution, this approach is sub-optimal (Xu et al., 2020). Learning on dynamic graphs has been recently studied, yet limited to the *transductive* case involving *observed* elements (e.g., (Goyal et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2018).) Such approaches are insufficient for real-world settings in which a graph evolves with links and new nodes appearing any time. Some methods (Sankar et al., 2020; Pareja et al., 2020) support the inductive setting, involving nodes *unobserved* in training. Each method makes its own assumptions about graph properties and inference, which may not apply to all prediction tasks. Discrete vs Continuous. In this study, we assume discrete-time dynamic network (DTDN) as timeevolving graphs, while continuous-time dynamic network (CTDN) have been actively studied recently (Nguyen et al., 2018; Qu et al., 2020; Dai et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2019; Trivedi et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021). CTDNs are represented by a sequence of temporal graph updates instead of a sequence of temporal graphs. CTDNs are often used for event-based graphs (e.g., e-commerce and message communication) as they assume each link temporally appears at a given time instead of persistent existences (e.g., friend relationships). They have different semantics and applications. Thus, neural network models for CTDNs do not directly apply to DTDN tasks and vice versa. Other similar tasks and methods. Graph generation (Leskovec et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2020; You et al., 2018; Bojchevski et al., 2018) and completion (Shi and Weninger, 2018) cannot be applied in our problem; they aim to generate dynamic graph topologies without attributes, or fill out missing information in a static graph. Summary. There are numerous studies on timeevolving attributed graphs, yet none studies holistic time-evolving attributed graph prediction. In addition, no prior study investigate task interdependence. Our work is the first to holistically predict a future time-evolving graph including new node appearance and analyze task interdependence. ## 7 Conclusion We proposed AGATE, a framework for *holistic* prediction on a time-evolving attributed graph that exploits task interdependencem and uses a novel method, PROSER, for predictions about new nodes and their attributes. Our study showed that prediction accuracy largely improves by exploiting task interdependence. ## 8 Limitations First, AGATE can handle DTDNs but does not handle CTDNs. In addition, it currently handles neither labeled nor directed edges. In the future, we intend to extend AGATE to cover a more comprehensive collection of graph types. Second, we assumed that most new nodes have similar attributes to those of new nodes at the previous time step, which were observed in our preliminary experiments. We plan to propose new strategies for the new node appearance task. Third, we tuned the hyper-parameters independently of models close to the input, so it may not be the optimal combination of methods. We plan to employ auto-ML techniques to enhance performance and mitigate the learning process. ## Acknowledgement This work was supported by JST PRESTO Grant Number JPMJPR21C5 and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP20H00583, Japan. ## References Xuefeng Bai, Yulong Chen, Linfeng Song, and Yue Zhang. 2021. Semantic representation for dialogue modeling. In ACL, pages 4430–4445. Trapit Bansal, Da-Cheng Juan, Sujith Ravi, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. A2n: Attending to neighbors for knowledge graph inference. In ACL, pages 4387– 4392. Nikolaos Bastas, Theodoros Semertzidis, Apostolos Axenopoulos, and Petros Daras. 2019. evolve2vec: Learning network representations using temporal unfolding. In *MultiMedia Modeling (MMM)*, pages 447–458. Aleksandar Bojchevski and Stephan Günnemann. 2018. Deep gaussian embedding of graphs: Unsupervised inductive learning via ranking. In *ICLR*. Aleksandar Bojchevski, Oleksandr Shchur, Daniel Zügner, and Stephan Günnemann. 2018. Netgan: Generating graphs via random walks. *arXiv*. Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merriënboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. *arXiv*. Hanjun Dai, Yichen Wang, Rakshit Trivedi, and Le Song. 2017. Deep coevolutionary network: Embedding user and item features for recommendation. arXiv. Yann N Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2016. Language modeling with gated convolutional networks. *arXiv*. Dongqi Fu, Liri Fang, Ross Maciejewski, Vetle I Torvik, and Jingrui He. 2022. Meta-learned metrics over multi-evolution temporal graphs. In KDD, pages 367–377. Jianfei Gao and Bruno Ribeiro. 2022. On the equivalence between temporal and static equivariant graph representations. In *ICML*, pages 7052–7076. Rishab Goel, Seyed Mehran Kazemi, Marcus Brubaker, and Pascal Poupart. 2020. Diachronic embedding for temporal knowledge graph completion. In *AAAI*, pages 3988–3995. Palash Goyal, Sujit Rokka Chhetri, and Arquimedes Canedo. 2020. dyngraph2vec: Capturing network dynamics using dynamic graph representation learning. *Knowledge-Based Systems*, 187(104816). Palash Goyal, Nitin Kamra, Xinran He, and Yan Liu. 2018. Dyngem: Deep embedding method for dynamic graphs. *arXiv*. William L. Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In *NeurIPS*, pages 1024–1034. Yu Hao, Xin Cao, Yixiang Fang, Xike Xie, and Sibo Wang. 2020. Inductive link prediction for nodes having only attribute information. In *IJCAI*, pages 1209– 1215. Mohammed Hasanuzzaman, Sabyasachi Kamila, Mandeep Kaur, Sriparna Saha, and Asif Ekbal. 2017. Temporal orientation of tweets for predicting income of users. In ACL, pages 659–665. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural computation*, 9(8):1735– 1780. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semisupervised classification with GCNs. In *ICLR*. Srijan Kumar, William L Hamilton, Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. 2018. Community interaction and conflict on the web. In WWW, pages 933–943. Srijan Kumar, Xikun Zhang, and Jure Leskovec. 2019. Predicting dynamic embedding trajectory in temporal interaction networks. In KDD, page 1269–1278. Jure Leskovec, Jon Kleinberg, and Christos Faloutsos. 2005. Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters and possible explanations. In *SIGKDD*, pages 177–187. Jia Li, Zhichao Han, Hong Cheng, Jiao Su, Pengyun Wang, Jianfeng Zhang, and Lujia Pan. 2019. Predicting path failure in time-evolving graphs. In KDD, pages 1279–1289. Jundong Li, Harsh Dani, Xia Hu, Jiliang Tang, Yi Chang, and Huan Liu. 2017. Attributed network embedding for learning in a dynamic environment. In *CIKM*, pages 387–396. Yaguang Li, Rose Yu, Cyrus Shahabi, and Yan Liu. 2018. Diffusion convolutional recurrent neural network: Data-driven traffic forecasting. In *ICLR*. Yujia Li, Daniel Tarlow, Marc Brockschmidt, and Richard Zemel. 2016. Gated graph sequence NNs. In *ICLR*. David Liben-Nowell and Jon Kleinberg. 2007. The linkprediction problem for social networks. *The JASIST*, 58(7):1019–1031. Yunyu Liu, Jianzhu Ma, and Pan Li. 2022. Neural predicting higher-order patterns in temporal networks. In WWW, pages 1340–1351. Paramita Mirza and Sara Tonelli. 2016. On the contribution of word embeddings to temporal relation classification. In ACL, pages 2818–2828. Ishani Mondal, Yufang Hou, and Charles Jochim. 2021. End-to-end construction of nlp knowledge graph. In ACL, pages 1885–1895. G. H. Nguyen, J. Boaz Lee, R. A. Rossi, N. K. Ahmed, E. Koh, and S. Kim. 2018. Dynamic network embeddings: From random walks to temporal random walks. *The IEEE International Conference on Big* Data, pages 1085–1092. Aldo Pareja, Giacomo Domeniconi, Jie Chen, Tengfei Ma, Toyotaro Suzumura, Hiroki Kanezashi, Tim Kaler, Tao Schardl, and Charles Leiserson. 2020. Evolving graph convolutional networks for dynamic graphs. In *AAAI*, pages 5363–5370. Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J. Guibas. 2017. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In *CVPR*, pages 77–85. Liang Qu, Huaisheng Zhu, Qiqi Duan, and Yuhui Shi. 2020. Continuous-time link prediction via temporal dependent graph neural network. In WWW, pages 3026–3032. E. Rossi, B. Chamberlain, F. Frasca, D. Eynard, F. Monti, and M. Bronstein. 2020. Temporal graph networks for deep learning on dynamic graphs. arXiv. Aravind Sankar, Y. Wu, L. Gou, Wei Zhang, and H. Yang. 2020. Dynamic graph representation learning via self-attention networks. In *WSDM*, pages 519–527. Baoxu Shi and Tim Weninger. 2018. Open-world knowledge graph completion. In *AAAI*, pages 1957–1964. Jie Tang, Jing Zhang, Limin Yao, Juanzi Li, Li Zhang, and Zhong Su. 2008. Arnetminer: Extraction and mining of academic social networks. In KDD, pages 990–998. Steven L Tanimoto, Alon Itai, and Michael Rodeh. 1978. Some matching problems for bipartite graphs. *Journal of the ACM*, 25(4):517–525. Phi Vu Tran. 2018. Multi-task graph autoencoders. arXiv. Rakshit Trivedi, Mehrdad Farajtabar, Prasenjeet Biswal, and Hongyuan Zha. 2019. Dyrep: Learning representations over dynamic graphs. In *ICLR*. Anton Tsitsulin, Davide Mottin, Panagiotis Karras, and Emmanuel Müller. 2018. VERSE: versatile graph embeddings from similarity measures. In WWW, pages 539–548. Anton Tsitsulin, Marina Munkhoeva, Davide Mottin, Panagiotis Karras, Ivan V. Oseledets, and Emmanuel Müller. 2021. FREDE: anytime graph embeddings. Proc. VLDB Endow., 14(6):1102–1110. Petar Velickovic, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph attention networks. In *ICLR*. Yanbang Wang, Yen-Yu Chang, Yunyu Liu, Jure Leskovec, and Pan Li. 2021. Inductive representation learning in temporal networks via causal anonymous walks. In *ICLR*. Yucheng Zhou, Xiubo Geng, Tao Shen, Jian Pei, Wenqiang Zhang, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Modeling event-pair relations in external knowledge graphs for script reasoning. In ACL, pages 4586–4596. Changmin Wu, Giannis Nikolentzos, and Michalis Vazirgiannis. 2020. Evonet: A neural network for predicting the evolution of dynamic graphs. In ICANN, pages 594–606. Chuhan Wu, Fangzhao Wu, Suyu Ge, Tao Qi, Yongfeng Huang, and Xing Xie. 2019. Neural news recommendation with multi-head self-attention. In *EMNLPIJCNLP*, pages 6389–6394. Lingfei Wu, Yu Chen, Kai Shen, Xiaojie Guo, Hanning Gao, Shucheng Li, Jian Pei, and Bo Long. 2021. Graph neural networks for natural language processing: A survey. *arXiv*. Qianqian Xie, Jimin Huang, Pan Du, and Min Peng. 2021. Graph relational topic model with higher-order graph attention auto-encoders. In ACL, pages 2604– 2613. Chengjin Xu, Yung-Yu Chen, Mojtaba Nayyeri, and Jens Lehmann. 2021a. Temporal knowledge graph completion using a linear temporal regularizer and multivector embeddings. In *NAACL*, pages 2569– 2578. Da Xu, Chuanwei Ruan, Evren Korpeoglu, Sushant Kumar, and Kannan Achan. 2020. Inductive representation learning on temporal graphs. *arXiv*. Dongkuan Xu, Wei Cheng, Dongsheng Luo, Xiao Liu, and Xiang Zhang. 2019. Spatio-temporal attentive RNN for node classification in temporal attributed graphs. In *IJCAI*, pages 3947–3953. Dongkuan Xu, Junjie Liang, Wei Cheng, Hua Wei, Haifeng Chen, and Xiang Zhang. 2021b. Transformer-style relational reasoning with dynamic memory updating for temporal network modeling. In AAAI, pages 4546–4554. Bing Yu, Haoteng Yin, and Zhanxing Zhu. 2018. Spatiotemporal graph convolutional networks: A deep learning framework for traffic forecasting. In *IJCAI*, pages 3634–3640. Hanqing Zeng, Hongkuan Zhou, Ajitesh Srivastava, Rajgopal Kannan, and Viktor Prasanna. 2020. GraphSAINT: Graph sampling based inductive learning method. In *ICLR*. Muhan Zhang and Yixin Chen. 2018. Link prediction based on graph neural networks. In *NeurIPS*, pages 5165–5175. ## A Full Sub Problem Definition B Tggnn Hao Zhu, Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Jie Fu, Tat-Seng Chua, and Maosong Sun. 2019. Graph neural networks with generated parameters for relation extraction. In ACL, pages 1331–1339. We define each sub-prediction task on existing nodes. Note that existing works address some of these sub-prediction tasks independently. This group of tasks aims to predict graph structure and attributes on existing nodes. Such tasks are frequently addressed in prior studies, such as STGCN (Yu et al., 2018) and DynGEM (Goyal et al., 2018): SubProblem 3 (**Lost nodes**): Given timeevolving attributed graph GT −L+1, . . . , GT *across* L time steps, this sub-prediction task is to predict the nodes V l T +1 *that are lost from* VT . SubProblem 4 (**Link appearance**): Given timeevolving attributed graph GT −L+1, . . . , GT *across* L time steps, this sub-prediction task is to predict links appearing between any pair of nodes *u, v* ∈ VT *, which also exist at time* T + 1 and are not connected at time step T. SubProblem 5 (**Link disappearance**): Given time-evolving attributed graph GT −L+1*, . . . , G*T across L *time steps, this sub-prediction task is* to predict links disappearing between any pair of nodes u, v ∈ VT *, which exist at time step* T + 1 and are connected at time step T. SubProblem 6 (**Attribute values on existing** nodes): *Given time-evolving attributed graph* GT −L+1, . . . , GT across L time steps, this subprediction task is to predict a new attribute value on an existing node at time T + 1. Jiaxuan You, Rex Ying, Xiang Ren, William Hamilton, and Jure Leskovec. 2018. Graphrnn: Generating realistic graphs with deep auto-regressive models. In ICML, pages 5708–5717. We develop TGGNN by extending from timedirected convolution (Dauphin et al., 2016). We design TGGNN as a node representation learning model taking into account the nature of subprediction tasks: (1) sub-prediction tasks are inductive, since test data graphs may be different from those in the training data; (2) the topologies of graphs GT −L+1*, . . . , G*T may differ from each other, hence we need to handle topological  changes as well as attribute changes. Thus, TGGNN supports inductive tasks on time-evolving attribute graphs whose nodes, links, and node attributes change dynamically. While graph neural networks perform well on node representation learning, they assume fixed topologies, hence do not support time-evolving graphs. We extend graph neural networks to support induction on graphs with time-dependent topologies and attributes. TGGNN learns node embeddings in GT that capture topological and attribute changes, informed by the local *dynamic* graph structure, rather than the global static graph structure; in particular, it aggregates embeddings within each node's k-hop neighborhood in all observed time steps (GT −L+1*, . . . , G*T ) and captures node attributes by learning temporal attribute changes as graph annotations (Li et al., 2016) independently of graph structure. TGGNN utilizes a suite of new gating mechanisms, ST-Gate, which improves the STConvolution Block (Yu et al., 2018) so as to handle topological changes. ST-Gate first applies timedirected convolution (Dauphin et al., 2016) on L graphs and then aggregates hidden states of nodes and their neighbors at each time step by GRU-like updates (Cho et al., 2014). In parallel, it applies time-directed convolution on graph annotations (Li et al., 2016), which are initially concatenations of node attributes over L time steps; then it aggregates the embeddings of the aggregated hidden states and the graph annotation and applies one more timedirected convolution (Dauphin et al., 2016) on the aggregated embedding. The inputs to TGGNN are A ∈ R n×L×d, H ∈ R n×L×dˆand E ∈R n×L×n where n is the number of nodes in the observed graphs and ˆd the hidden state dimensions; A denotes a time-series of node attributes, [XT −L+1; *. . .* ; XT ] as graph annotations, where [; ] means concatenation; H and E denote the hidden states and a time-series adjacency matrix derived from {ET −L+1*, . . . , E*T }, respectively. We initialize hidden state H(0) using A(0); we may pad with extra 0s to allow hidden states that are larger than the annotation size. Let H(N) ∈ R n×(L−2N(K−1))×dˆbe the hidden state output of the Nth ST-Gate, where K denotes the kernel size of time-directed convolution operators in the ST-Gate. The final node embedding output H(out) of TGGNN is calculated as: H (out) = ϕ({(H (N)∗Γf +bf ) ⊗ σ(H (N)∗Γg+bg)}W +b) where Γf , Γg ∈ R (L−2N(K−1))×dˆ×dˆare 1dimensional convolution operators for the final embedding whose kernel size is L − 2N(K − 1) and bf , bg ∈ R dˆare correspondence biases; ⊗ denotes the element-wise multiplication. W ∈ R dˆ×D, b ∈ R D are learnable weights and bias for a linear transformation and ϕ denotes any of the activation function suited for the prediction task; D is the size of predicts (e.g., D = n on link prediction). Since the TGGNN output is computed from temporal graph structures and node attributes, it captures the evolution of a dynamic attributed graph. ## C Dataset Detail Figure 7 shows the numbers of nodes and links for each data set in each time step. In NBA and AMiner, the numbers of nodes and edge increase, whereas in Reddit, they are quite stable. ## D Additional Experimental Study D.1 Results For Prediction Of Graph Size Table 3 shows a mean absolute error of baseline and LSTM on the graph size prediction. LSTM generally performs better than baseline; whereas,  baseline performs well when the size of graphs is relatively stable. Table 3: Mean absolute error of graph statistics prediction. From left to right, the \# of new nodes, the \# of lost nodes, the \# of appeared links, the \# of disappeared links and the \# of new links, respectively. | Redshift | AMiner | |:--------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------:| | 43/31/21/038 | 512/-1/-1/5764 | | 33/67/34/211 | 618/-1/-1/3266 | | $\alpha$ | $$\begin{array}{l}{{\mathrm{Baseline}}}\\ {{\mathrm{LSTM}}}\end{array}$$ NBA Reddit AMiner Baseline 12/10/122/115/189 43/31/2/10/38 512/-/-/-/5764 LSTM 11/ 8/108/101/180 33/67/3/42/11 618/-/-/-/3266 ## D.2 New Node Prediction (Cont'D) Table 4 shows results on the new node prediction in three datasets. We can see that PROSER works well on all the datasets. ## D.3 Task Interdependence Analysis (Cont'D) Figures 8–12 show the difference between AUC/average prediction of independent and reuse predictions on node loss, link appearance, and link disappearance predictions, respectively. These results are similar tendencies to Figures 8– 12, respectively. The results of new node prediction has also large impact in average precision as same as AUC. The difference between the results of average precision and AUC is that the average precision of LSTM in the link appearance prediction on Reddit significantly decreases. This indicates that the reuse prediction in LSTM for the link appearance prediction does not work well on Reddit. While, we can see that the reuse prediction often performs well in sub-prediction tasks in all datasets. Figure 13 shows the impact of the number of iterations on attribute/link on new nodes and attribute prediction on existing nodes. From these result, these predictions do not improve even if we increase the number of iterations much. ## D.4 Scalability Figure 14 shows inference times on real graphs. All methods take less than 10 seconds; TGGNN needs  Figure 9: Reuse gain on link disappearance prediction (AUC).  slightly larger time than others, while PROSER efficiently predicts attributes of new nodes. Figure 15 shows the inference time on synthetic graphs generated by the BA model, varying with the number of nodes. It is worth noting that the number of nodes in the experimental studies of prior works is less than 100,000. The inference time grows linearly with the number of nodes. All methods we use for lost and new node prediction are scalable to large graphs. Contrariwise, predicting link appearances and disappearances is inherently hard to scale for all methods, as it requires prediction on all vertex pairs. In TGGNN, its architectural hyper parameters have been optimized on the Reddit dataset and are then reused for NBA. The time-directed convolution layers of TGGNN consists of filters whose kernel size K = 2 (same as STGCN). The number of aggregate updates by the propagation model is five, which is the same number of times as the pytorch implementation of GGNN for bAbI task 156. ST-Gate is repeated one time. The hidden state's size ˆd is the same as attribute dimension. ## E Hyper Parameters We describe hyper parameter tuning in each method. Please see our source codes in detail. In 6https://github.com/chingyaoc/ggnn.pytorch Table 4: Results on new node attribute prediction; 'mean' indicates the matching similarity; underlined fonts indicate the best results in independent prediction; bold fonts indicate the best results among both independent and reuse predictions. Methods NBA Reddit AMiner  mean median min max mean median min max mean median min max Random 0.8143±0.00 0.8176±0.00 0.2055±0.00 1.0000±**0.00** 0.8317±0.00 0.8772±0.00 -0.2507±0.00 0.9947±0.00 0.9974±0.00 0.9983±0.00 0.9565±0.00 0.9998±**0.00** FNN 0.7217±0.02 0.7650±0.02 0.2287±0.03 0.9004±0.02 0.7409±0.00 0.7876±0.01 -0.8723±0.01 0.9777±0.00 0.9904±0.00 0.9912±0.00 0.9779±0.00 0.9993±0.00 PointNet 0.6587±0.04 0.7075±0.03 0.2650±0.02 0.8337±0.04 0.6336±0.00 0.6016±0.00 -0.8697±0.00 0.9708±0.00 0.9915±0.00 0.9924±0.00 0.9792±**0.00** 0.9995±0.00 PROSER 0.8149±0.00 0.8164±0.00 0.2715±0.02 1.0000±**0.00** 0.8329±0.00 0.8780±0.00 0.0286±**0.00** 0.9947±0.00 0.9975±0.00 0.9984±**0.00** 0.9553±0.00 0.9998±**0.00** AGATE 0.8280±0.00 0.8416±0.00 0.3775±**0.01** 0.9829±0.00 0.8513±0.00 0.8904±**0.00** -0.0238±0.01 0.9948±**0.00** 0.9971±0.00 0.9979±0.00 0.9635±0.00 0.9998±**0.00**  Figure 11: Reuse gain on link appearance prediction (Average precision)  Figure 12: Reuse gain on link disappearance prediction  (Average precision) all experiments, we run the model with 100–1000 training iterations, 10–100 early stopping patience, 1 or 2 batch sizes, and a learning rate of 0.01 with Adam as the optimizer. For methods on temporal graphs, we use 3, 3, and 5 as L for NBA, Reddit, and Aminer, respectively. For all models, the hidden state's size is the same as the node attribute dimension, only for LSTM is three times the dimension of node attributes. The output layer is a fully-connected layer for all models, and its activation function is a softmax for multi-class classification, a sigmoid for binary classification, and none for regression. The architecture and hyper parameters in DynGEM7, DEAL8, and EvolveGCN9are the same to the author's implementation. The embedding size of DynGEM is the same as the node attribute dimension. Hyper parameters in PointNet generally follow the setting on original PointNet but we modify the number of units depending on input and output sizes. FNN, LSTM, and GCN have a single layer. ## F Selected Models Of Agate We summarize the models that we use for evaluating AGATE. Tables 5–7 shows models that AGATE uses in NBA, Reddit, and AMiner. We select models that achieve the best performance of validation in each sub-prediction task. Each number is corresponding to the task number in Figure 2. For the task numbers 1–5, we use LSTM in all datasets. The missing numbers (e.g., 11 in Table 6) are regardless tasks to the datasets (e.g., attribute prediction in Reddit). Each model has a small number of parameters because its model architecture is not complicated. ## G Related Work (Cont'D) Table 8 outlines a summary of existing methods, categorized in four groups: (1) *static embedding* methods (Tsitsulin et al., 2018), (2) *dynamic embedding* methods (Goyal et al., 2018, 2020), (3) static graph neural network methods (Kipf and Welling, 2017; Li et al., 2016; Velickovic et al., 2018; Hamilton et al., 2017; Zhang and Chen, 2018; Hao et al., 2020), and (4) dynamic graph neural network methods (Li et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2018; Sankar et al., 2020; Pareja et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021b). Among existing methods, only EvolveGCN (Pareja et al., 2020) predicts 7https://github.com/palash1992/DynamicGEM 8https://github.com/working-yuhao/DEAL 9https://github.com/IBM/EvolveGCN  (a) Existing node prediction (node loss, link appearance, link disappearance) (b) New node (attributes and links of new nodes) Figure 14: Inference time on real graphs.  changes of nodes, links, and node attributes, hence supports time-evolving attributed graphs, notwithstanding new node appearances. TGGNN supports what EvolveGCN supports, yet differs in two ways. First, EvolveGCN uses graph convolutional networks (GCNs) (Kipf and Welling, 2017); upon a significant change in graph structure, GCNs can neither recognize that a node may have a different aggregation vector, nor distinguish nodes having the same vector. EvolveGCN recursively updates GCN weights using a recurrent neural network (e.g., GRU and LSTM), yet retains the GCN shortcomings. Contrariwise, TGGNN learns node embeddings by aggregating hidden node vectors within k hops at each time step, while computing aggregation weights for hidden vectors. Second, EvolveGCN incorporates node attributes in hidden vectors at each time step, whereas TGGNN captures temporal changes in node attributes via graph annotations handled separately from graph structure, enhancing attribute prediction accuracy. In effect, TGGNN handles graph structure and node attribute changes more effectively than EvolveGCN. EvoNet (Wu et al., 2020) and open-world knowledge-graph (OWKG) completion (Shi and Weninger, 2018) tackle problems different from ours. EvoNet generates a future graph without correspondences between nodes at different time steps. OWKG completion predicts unseen nodes from the text data of existing ones. Contrariwise, we track evolving nodes without specifically relying on additional text data; to our knowledge, no existing method supports such a task. Besides, some methods assume *continuoustime* dynamic graphs that are continuously modified (Rossi et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2018; Bastas et al., 2019; Trivedi et al., 2019); however, methods for continuous-time graphs do not support discretetime graphs, and vice versa. Discrete vs Continuous. In this study, we assume discrete-time dynamic network (DTDN) as timeevolving graphs, while continuous-time dynamic network (CTDN) have been actively studied recently (Nguyen et al., 2018; Qu et al., 2020; Dai et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2019; Trivedi et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021). CTDNs are represented by a sequence of temporal graph updates instead of a sequence of temporal graphs. CTDNs are often used for event-based graphs (e.g., e-commerce and message communication) as they assume each link temporally appears at a given time instead of persistent existences (e.g., friend relationships). They have different semantics and applications. For example, current models for CTDNs do not handle node attribute changes and disappearances of persistent edges, and models for DTDNs do not directly handle continuous time information on edges. Thus, neural network models for CTDNs do not directly apply to DTDN tasks and vice versa. It is possible to use CTDN methods for link appearance tasks on DTDNs after DTDNs change to CTDNs (with ignoring either temporary or persistent edges) unless datasets have node attribute changes and disappearances of links. In the holistic time-evolving attributed graph prediction problem, graphs have node attribute changes and disappeared links, so CTDN methods are inapplicable to the problem. Other similar tasks and methods. Tasks such as graph generation (Leskovec et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2020; You et al., 2018; Bojchevski et al., 2018) and completion (Shi and Weninger, 2018) cannot be applied in our study, as those problem definitions are different from our problem; rather than predicting the evolution of a time-evolving graph, they aim to generate learned dynamic graph topologies without considering attributes instead of predicting the future graph, or fill out missing information in a static graph. Multi-task learning (Tran, 2018) can be incorporated into AGATE. It is unsure what time-evolving attributed graph tasks should be addressed by a single model yet. Summary. There are numerous studies on timeevolving attributed graphs, yet no one studies the holistic time-evolving attributed graph prediction problem. In addition, there are no studies that investigate task interdependence. Our work is the first to holistically predict a future time-evolving graph including new node appearance and analyze task interdependence. | Table 5: Methods used in AGATE of NBA Dataset Independent prediction | | | | | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------|-------|--------|--------|-------|----------|----------|----------|-------| | Task number | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | | | | | | team | team | | | | | | | | | | | (which team) | position | points | age | | | | | | | | | (transfer or not) | | | | | | | | | | | | Method | PROSER | DEAL | TGGNN | GCN | DynGEM | TGGNN | GCN | Baseline | LSTM | TGGNN | | Reuse prediction | | | | | | | | | | | | Task number | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | | | | | | | | existing | new | team | team | | | | | | | | | (which team) | position | points | age | new | | | | | | | | (transfer or not) | | | | | | | | | | | | Method | TGGNN | FNN | DEAL | DynGEM | TGGNN | GCN | Baseline | LSTM | Baseline | LSTM | | Independent prediction | Reuse prediction | | | | | | | | | | |--------------------------|--------------------|------|-------|------|------|-------|-------|------|------|-----| | Task number | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | | | existing | new | | | | | | | | | | | Method | PROSER | DEAL | TGGNN | LSTM | LSTM | STGCN | TGGNN | DEAL | LSTM | FNN | Table 7: Methods used in AGATE of AMiner Dataset Independent prediction Reuse prediction Task number 6 7 13 15 Method PROSER DEAL DEAL FNN | methods | graph property | inference | prediction target | | | | | | | | |--------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | attribute | temporal notation | transductive inductive attribute appearance link disappearance link lost | new | | | | | | | | | node node | | | | | | | | | | | | VERSE (Tsitsulin et al., 2018) | ✘ | static | G = (V, E) | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | G2G (Bojchevski and Günnemann, 2018) | ✔ | static | G = (V, E, X) | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | embedding GraphSAINT (Zeng et al., 2020) | ✔ | static | G = (V, E, X) | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | DynGEM (Goyal et al., 2018) | ✘ | dynamic Gt = (Vt , Et) | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | | dyngraph2vec (Goyal et al., 2020) | ✘ | dynamic Gt = (Vt , Et) | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | | GCN (Kipf and Welling, 2017) | ✔ | static | G = (V, E, X) | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | GGNN (Li et al., 2016) | ✔ | static | G = (V, E, X) | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | GAT (Velickovic et al., 2018) | ✔ | static | G = (V, E, X) | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | GraphSAGE (Hamilton et al., 2017) | ✔ | static | G = (V, E, X) | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | graph neural network SEAL (Zhang and Chen, 2018) | ✔ | static | G = (V, E, X) | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | | DEAL (Hao et al., 2020) | ✔ | static | G = (V, E, X) | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | | SAPE (Li et al., 2019) | ✔ | dynamic Gt = (V, Et , Xt) | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | | | STAR (Xu et al., 2019) | ✔ | dynamic Gt = (V, Et , Xt) | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | | DCRNN (Li et al., 2018) | ✔ | dynamic Gt = (V, E, Xt) | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | | STGCN (Yu et al., 2018) | ✔ | dynamic Gt = (V, E, Xt) | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | | TRRN (Xu et al., 2021b) | ✔ | dynamic Gt = (V, Et , Xt) | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | | DySAT (Sankar et al., 2020) | ✘ | dynamic Gt = (Vt , Et) | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | | DANE (Li et al., 2017) | ✔ | dynamic Gt = (Vt , Et , Xt) | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✘ | | | EvolveGCN (Pareja et al., 2020) | ✔ | dynamic Gt = (Vt , Et , Xt) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | | oursTGGNN | ✔ | dynamic Gt = (Vt , Et , Xt) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | | | PROSER | ✔ | dynamic Gt = (Vt , Xt) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | | | AGATE | ✔ | dynamic Gt = (Vt , Et , Xt) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 8 A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 5 and appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 5 and appendix ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. Left blank. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

jia-etal-2023-modeling

Modeling Instance Interactions for Joint Information Extraction with Neural High-Order Conditional Random Field

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.766

Prior works on joint Information Extraction (IE) typically model instance (e.g., event triggers, entities, roles, relations) interactions by representation enhancement, type dependencies scoring, or global decoding. We find that the previous models generally consider binary type dependency scoring of a pair of instances, and leverage local search such as beam search to approximate global solutions. To better integrate cross-instance interactions, in this work, we introduce a joint IE framework (CRFIE) that formulates joint IE as a high-order Conditional Random Field. Specifically, we design binary factors and ternary factors to directly model interactions between not only a pair of instances but also triplets. Then, these factors are utilized to jointly predict labels of all instances. To address the intractability problem of exact high-order inference, we incorporate a high-order neural decoder that is unfolded from a mean-field variational inference method, which achieves consistent learning and inference. The experimental results show that our approach achieves consistent improvements on three IE tasks compared with our baseline and prior work.

# Modeling Instance Interactions For Joint Information Extraction With Neural High-Order Conditional Random Field Zixia Jia1,2∗, Zhaohui Yan2, Wenjuan Han3, Zilong Zheng1†**, Kewei Tu**2† 1 Beijing Institute for General Artificial Intelligence (BIGAI), Beijing, China 2 ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China 3 Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China {jiazixia,zlzheng}@bigai.ai {yanzhh,tukw}@shanghaitech.edu.cn, wjhan@bjtu.edu.cn ## Abstract Prior works on joint Information Extraction (IE) typically model instance (e.g., event triggers, entities, roles, relations) interactions by representation enhancement, type dependencies scoring, or global decoding. We find that the previous models generally consider binary type dependency scoring of a pair of instances, and leverage local search such as beam search to approximate global solutions. To better integrate cross-instance interactions, in this work, we introduce a joint IE framework (CRFIE) that formulates joint IE as a high-order Conditional Random Field. Specifically, we design binary factors and ternary factors to directly model interactions between not only a pair of instances but also triplets. Then, these factors are utilized to jointly predict labels of all instances. To address the intractability problem of exact high-order inference, we incorporate a high-order neural decoder that is unfolded from a mean-field variational inference method, which achieves consistent learning and inference. The experimental results show that our approach achieves consistent improvements on three IE tasks compared with our baseline and prior work. ## 1 Introduction Information extraction (IE) has long been considered a fundamental challenge for various downstream natural language understanding tasks, such as knowledge graph construction and reading comprehension, etc. The goal is to identify and extract structured information from unstructured natural language text, such that both users and machines can easily comprehend the entities, relations, and events within the text. Typically, IE consists of a series of different tasks to recognize entities, connect coreferences,  Orange Red Blue Figure 1: Example annotations of entity recognition (e.g., PER Victim PER-SOC) and event extraction tasks (e.g., PER), relation extraction ( Victim PER-SOCe.g., PART-WHOLE PER Victim PER-SOC **Life:Die**and GPE PER Victim).PER-SOC extract relations, detect events, and so on. Conventional IE schemes commonly treat different IE tasks separately, while neglecting *cross-instance* (e.g., event triggers, entities, roles, relations) or cross-task dependencies. Such isolated learning and inference schemes lead to severely insufficient knowledge capturing and inefficient model constructions. Intuitively, predictions of different IE instances from the same or different tasks can influence each other. For example, a relation between two entities would restrict the types of the entities (e.g., two entities linked by a PART-WHOLE relation are more likely to share entity types of the same nature, as shown in the first example of Figure 1); types of entities can provide information that is useful to predict their relations or limit the roles they play in certain events (e.g., the knowledge of event Life:Die and entity PER can benefit the prediction of the role Victim, as shown in the second example of Figure 1 ). To effectively capture instance or task dependencies, joint IE tries to simultaneously predict instances of different IE tasks for an input text with a multitask learning scheme, which attracts lots of interest and demonstrates significant improvements over specific-task learning methods. Previous work of joint IE focuses on three directions: 1) *representation enrichment* by sharing the token encoder between different IE tasks (Luan et al., 2018), up13695 dating shared span representations according to local task-specific predictions (Luan et al., 2019a; Wadden et al., 2019), creating dependency graphs between instances (Lin et al., 2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Van Nguyen et al., 2021), or leveraging external dependency relations such as abstract meaning representation (AMR) and syntactic structures (Zhang and Ji, 2021; Van Nguyen et al., 2022a); 2) type dependency scoring by forming type patterns constraints (Lin et al., 2020), designing type dependency graphs (Van Nguyen et al., 2021), learning transition matrix of type pairs (Van Nguyen et al., 2022a), or computing mutual information (MI) scores of each pair of types (Van Nguyen et al., 2022b); 3) *global decoding* by beam search according to global features or AMR graphs (Lin et al., 2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021), or adopting global optimization algorithms such as simulated annealing (Van Nguyen et al., 2022a). Our interest lies in the second and third directions and we find two main limitations of prior works. The first one is that they only score binary dependencies of instance types (i.e. constraint, transition, or MI scores between a pair of types). The second one is that their decoders are based on discrete local search strategies to approximate global optima, and they often employ different approximate strategies for inference and training. To alleviate aforementioned limitations, we propose a novel joint IE framework, Information Extraction as high-order CRF (CRFIE), that *explicitly* models label correlations between different instances from the same or different tasks, and utilizes them to calculate a joint distribution for final instance label predictions. Specifically, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed high-order framework on three widely-explored IE tasks: entity recognition (EntR), relation extraction (RelE) and event extraction (EventE). We formulate the three tasks as a unified graph prediction problem, further modeled as a high-order Conditional Random field (CRF) (Ghamrawi and McCallum, 2005), where variables contain node variables and edge variables representing trigger/entity instances and role/relation instances respectively. The term "high-order" refers to factors connecting two or more correlated variables. Beyond the unary (first-order) factor, we design not only the binary (second-order) factor to model the interactions between a pair of edge variables but also the ternary (third-order) factor to model the interactions between node-edge-node variables. Since the correlated instances may come from the same or different tasks, we categorize our high-order factors into two types: **homogeneous factors (homo)** representing correlations between instances of the same task, and **heterogeneous factors (hete)** representing correlations between instances of different tasks. Taking EntR and EventE as an example, we calculate binary factor potentials of rolerole pairs (homo), and ternary factor potentials of trigger-role-entity triplets (hete). We leverage these scores to predict the labels of all instances jointly. Since exact high-order inference is analytically intractable, we incorporate a neural decoder that is unfolded from the approximate Mean-Field Variational Inference (MFVI) (Xing et al., 2012) method, which achieves end-to-end training and also consistent inference and learning processes. Note that MFVI can be seen as a continuous relaxation for CRF inference (Lê-Huu and Alahari, 2021), which can often be more effective than discrete optimization used in previous work. Experiments on joint IE tasks show that CRFIE achieves competitive or better performance compared with previous stateof-the-art models1. ## 2 Method 2.1 **Overview Of Joint Ie As Graph Prediction** We investigate three widely-explored IE tasks. ✄ EntR aims to identify some spans in a sentence as entities and label their entity types. ✄ RelE aims to identify relations between some entity pairs and label their relation types. ✄ EventE aims to label event types and its trigger words, identify some entities as event arguments and label argument roles. We formulate the three IE tasks as a graph G = (*V, E*) prediction task, where V denotes the node set and E denotes the directed edge set. Each node v = (*a, b, l*) ∈ V is a span for a trigger or an entity, where a and b index the start and end words of the span, and l ∈ Levent or l ∈ Lentity denotes the node's event type or entity type, respectively. Each edge eij = (*i, j, r*) ∈ E represents the relationship from node vito node vj , and r ∈ Rrole or r ∈ Rrelation represents the edge label which is a role type when the edge is from a trigger to an entity (as an argument) or a relation type when the edge is from one entity to another. 1The code can be found at https://github.com/JZXXX/ High-order-IE.  Figure 2(A) depicts the overall architecture of CRFIE. Because joint identification and classification need to enumerate all possible spans as nodes and high-order inference whose complexity is related to the node number becomes too computationally expensive in this situation, we follow previous work (Lin et al., 2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Van Nguyen et al., 2021, 2022a) and adopt the following pipeline: first extracting graph nodes with a node identification module, and then predicting labels of nodes and edges with a node/edge labeling module. The **node identification module** aims to identify spans in the input sentence as graph nodes. This module is not the focus of our work, so we simply follow previous work (Lample et al., 2016a; Lin et al., 2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Van Nguyen et al., 2021) to formulate node identification as a sequence labeling task with a BIO scheme. Specifically, after getting word features by averaging all sub-word embeddings extracted from a pre-trained transformer-based encoder, such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), we use two vanilla linear-chain conditional random field (CRF) (Lafferty et al., 2001) as decoders to acquire trigger nodes and entity nodes separately. We follow the conventional joint IE settings without considering nested spans. More advanced methods such as Yu et al. (2020); Lou et al. (2022) can be adopted to identify graph nodes if span nesting needs to be considered. More details about the identification module can be found in Appendix A. The identification module is fixed during subsequent training of the node/edge labeling module. The **node/edge labeling module** is designed to predict (i) an event type for each trigger node and an entity type for each entity node and (ii) a role type for each edge between a trigger-entity pair and a relation type for each edge between an entityentity pair. We use a special NULL label to represent non-existence of an edge. We formulate the node/edge labeling module as a high-order CRF, illustrated as a factor graph in Figure 2(B). There are three kinds of factors: *unary factors* that reflect the likelihood of each variable's label; *binary factors* for pairs of edges sharing an endpoint, which models correlations between edge variables; and ternary factors for an edge, its head node and its tail node, which models correlations between related node and edge variables. The joint probability over all the variables is proportional to the exponentiated sum of all the score function values of such factors. Due to the intractability of exact highorder inference, we use MFVI to approximate it. A multitask learning scheme is adopted to train our node/edge labeling module. We describe the scoring functions, high-order inference, and learning method in the following subsections in detail. ## 2.2 Unary Scoring We first obtain each node's representation z by averaging the representations of all the words within a span, in which the words' representations are obtained in the same way as in the identification module, but from another pre-trained transformer-based encoder. Then, the unary scores of the i-th node labels s u-*ntask* i ∈ R|L*ntask*|can be obtained by feeding ziinto a two layers task-specific feed-forward neural network (FNN): $$\mathbf{s}_{i}^{\mathrm{u-}n t a s k}{=}\operatorname{FNN}^{n t a s k}(\mathbf{z}_{i}),$$ where L ntask represents a task-specific node label set, and ntask ∈ {event, entity}. The unary scores s u-*etask* ij of an edge eij from vi to vj can be computed with a decomposed biaffine function: $$\mathbf{s}_{i j}^{\mathrm{u-}e t a s k}\!=\!(\mathrm{FNN}^{e t a s k\mbox{-}s}(\mathbf{z}_{i})\circ\mathrm{FNN}^{e t a s k\mbox{-}\mathbf{c}}(\mathbf{z}_{j}))\mathbf{H}^{\mathrm{u-}e t a s k}$$ where two task-specific FNNs are single-layer, Hu-*etask*∈R detask×|R*etask*|is parameters, R*etask* represents a task-specific edge label set that includes an additional NULL label, etask ∈ {relation, role}, and ◦ denotes element-wise product. ## 2.3 Binary Scoring We calculate binary correlation scores of each legal edge pair that share one endpoint. As illustrated in Figure 2(A), there are three types of binary factors (Wang et al., 2019b): edge eij and edge eik share the head node vi, producing sibling (sib); edge ejk and edge eik share the tail node vk, producing coparent (cop); and the tail node vj of edge eij is the head node of edge ejk, producing grandparent (gp). For each specific type of binary factor, we use different single-layer FNNs taking z as input to calculate a head representation (-s) and a tail representation (-e) for each node. For gp factor, we additionally calculate a middle representation (-mid) for each node. $$\begin{array}{l l}{{\mathbf{g}_{i}^{t y p e\cdot\mathbf{s}}\!=\!\mathrm{FNN}^{t y p e\cdot\mathbf{s}}(\mathbf{z}_{i})}}&{{\mathbf{g}_{i}^{t y p e\cdot\mathbf{c}}\!=\!\mathrm{FNN}^{t y p e\cdot\mathbf{c}}(\mathbf{z}_{i})}}\\ {{\mathbf{g}_{i}^{\mathrm{gp-mid}}\!=\!\mathrm{FNN}^{\mathrm{gp-mid}}(\mathbf{z}_{i})}}&{{t y p e\!\in\!\{\mathrm{sib},\mathrm{cop},\mathrm{gp}\}}}\end{array}$$ For a sib pair {eij , eik}, cop pair {eik, ejk} and gp pair {eij , ejk}, suppose that the first edge has label rm ∈ R1and the second edge has label rn ∈ R2, we formulate binary scores as follows: s b-sib ijkmn = Xd3 a=1 (g sib-s i ◦g sib-e j ◦g sib-e k◦h 1 m◦h 2 n)a s b-cop ijkmn = Xd3 a=1 (g cop-s i◦g cop-s j◦g cop-e k◦h 1 m◦h 2 n)a s b-gp ijkmn = Xd3 a=1 (g gp-s i◦g gp-mid j◦g gp-e k◦h 1 m◦h 2 n)a where h 1m is the embedding of the first edge label rm and h 2n is the embedding of the second edge label rn. All g and h are d3-dimensional. For symmetry, s b-sib ijkmn ≡ s b-sib ikjnm and s b-cop ijkmn ≡ s b-cop jiknm. $$(1)$$ In this paper, we consider two types of homogeneous binary factors: *homo* **case (i)** sib and cop representing two argument roles (R1 = R2 = Rrole) and *homo* **case (ii)** sib, cop and gp representing two relations (R1 = R2 = Rrelation). We also consider one type of heterogeneous binary factors: *hete* **case (i)** cop and gp where one edge label is a relation and the other is a role for joint EventE and RelE (R1 = Rrelation, R2 = Rrole or R1 = Rrole, R2 = Rrelation).2 ## 2.4 Ternary Scoring We calculate ternary correlation scores of an edge and its two endpoints. Similar to binary scoring, we use two new FNNs to produce representations for each possible head node and tail node respectively: $${\bf g}_{i}^{\mathrm{ter-s}}=\mathrm{FNN}^{\mathrm{ter-s}}({\bf z}_{i})\qquad{\bf g}_{i}^{\mathrm{ter-c}}=\mathrm{FNN}^{\mathrm{ter-c}}({\bf z}_{i})$$ For an edge with label rm ∈ R, its head node vi having label lp ∈ Lsand its tail node vj having label lq ∈Le, the ternary score is calculated as: $$s_{ijpqm}^{\rm ter}=\sum\nolimits_{a=1}^{d_{4}}({\bf g}_{i}^{\rm ter-s}\circ{\bf g}_{j}^{\rm ter-c}\circ{\bf e}_{p}^{\rm ter-s}\circ{\bf e}_{q}^{\rm ter-c}\circ{\bf h}_{m}^{\rm ter})_{a}\tag{2}$$ where ${\bf h}_{m}^{\rm ter}$ is the embedding of label $r_{m}$, ${\bf e}_{p}^{\rm ter-s}$ is the embedding of label lp and e ter-e qis the embedding of label lq. g, e and h are all d4-dimensional. We consider two types of heterogeneous ternary factors: *hete* **case (ii)** the ternary correlations between an event trigger, an entity, and a role for joint EventE and EntR (L s = L event, R = Rrole and L e = L entity ) and *hete* **case (iii)** two entities and their relation for joint RelE and EntR (L s = L e = L entity and R = Rrelation). ## 2.5 High-Order Inference In contrast to first-order inference which independently predicts the value of each variable by maximizing its unary score, in high-order inference we jointly predict the values of all the variables to maximize the sum of their unary and high-order scores. However, the exact joint inference on our factor graph is NP-hard in general. Therefore, we use Mean-Field Variational Inference (MFVI) (Xing et al., 2012) for approximate inference. MFVI iteratively updates an approximate posterior marginal distribution Q(X) of each variable X based on 2It is rare that a trigger word serves as an argument meanwhile, and a relation edge and a role edge scarcely share the same head node, so we do not consider gp in *homo* **case (i)** and sib in *hete* **case (i)**. messages from all the factors connected to it. For simplicity, we write Qi(l) and Qij (r) to denote Q(Xi = l) and Q(Xij = r) respectively. Messages for edge variables aggregated from binary factors are calculated as: $$\begin{array}{l}{{F_{\mathrm{bi}}^{(t)}(X_{i j}=r_{m})=\sum_{k\neq i,j}\sum_{r_{n}\in\mathcal{R}^{2}}}}\\ {{\alpha_{1}s_{i j k m n}^{\mathrm{sib}}Q_{i k}^{(t)}(r_{n})+\alpha_{2}s_{i k j m n}^{\mathrm{cop}}Q_{k j}^{(t)}(r_{n})}}\\ {{\quad+\alpha_{3}\big(s_{i j k m n}^{\mathrm{gp}}Q_{j k}^{(t)}(r_{n})+s_{k i j m n}^{\mathrm{gp}}Q_{k i}^{(t)}(r_{n})\big)}}\end{array}$$ where $r_{n}=[0,1]$ and $r_{n}=[0,1]$. where α1, α2, α3 ∈ [0, 1] are hyper-parameters controlling the scale of messages passed by the different types of binary factors. These hyperparameters are not part of standard MFVI and can instead be seen as part of the scoring function. Messages for node variables and edge variables aggregated from ternary factors are calculated as: F (t) ter (Xij = rm) = X lp∈Ls X lq∈Le s ter ijpqmQ (t) i(lp)Q (t) j(lq) F (t) ter (Xi = lp) = X lq∈Le X rm∈R s ter ijpqmQ (t) j(lq)Q (t) ij (rm) F (t) ter (Xj = lq) = X lp∈Ls X rm∈R s ter ijpqmQ (t) i(lp)Q (t) ij (rm) The posterior Q(X) is updated based on the messages as follows: $\begin{array}{c} Q_{ij}^{(t+1)}(r_m) \propto \exp\{s_{ijm}^{\text{u-}\textit{etask}} \\ \qquad + \alpha_4 F_{\text{bi}}^{(t)}(X_{ij} = r_m) + \alpha_5 F_{\text{ter}}^{(t)}(X_{ij} = r_m)\} \\ Q_i^{(t+1)}(l_p) \propto \exp\{s_{ip}^{\text{u-}\textit{ntask}} + \alpha_6 F_{\text{ter}}^{(t)}(X_i = l_p)\} \\ Q_j^{(t+1)}(l_q) \propto \exp\{s_{jq}^{\text{u-}\textit{ntask}} + \alpha_7 F_{\text{ter}}^{(t)}(X_j = l_q)\} \end{array}$ where all $\alpha\in[0,1]$ are hyper-parameters control. where all α ∈ [0, 1] are hyper-parameters controlling the scale of different types of messages, s u-*etask* ijm is the m-th element of the unary potential s u-*etask* ij , s u-*ntask* ip is the p-th element of the unary potential s u-*ntask* iand s u-*ntask* jq is the q-th element of s u-*ntask* j. There are two ways of iterative MFVI update. In the synchronous update, we update Q(X) for all the variables at each step. In asynchronous update, we alternate between node variables and edge variables for Q(X) update. We empirically find that asynchronous update is better than synchronous update when we use ternary factors in some cases. The initial distribution Q(0) is set by normalizing exponentiated unary potentials. After a fixed T (which is a hyper-parameter) number of iterations, we obtain the posterior distribution Q(T). For each variable, we pick the label with the highest probability according to Q(T)as our prediction. ## 2.6 Multitask Learning Given a sentence w = (w1*, ..., w*k), to train multiple IE tasks with our unified high-order noderelation prediction framework, we do multi-task learning with cross-entropy losses as follows: $$\begin{array}{c}{{{\mathcal{L}}=-\sum_{i}\log P(\hat{X}_{i}^{n t a s k}|\mathbf{w})}}\\ {{{}}}\\ {{{}}}\\ {{{}}}\\ {{{}}}\end{array}$$ where Xˆ *ntask* iand Xˆ*etask* ij denote the ground truth labels of nodes and edges respectively for all the tasks. The conditional distributions over node labels and edge labels with first-order inference are $$\begin{array}{l}{{P(X_{i}^{n t a s k}|\mathbf{w})=(\mathrm{SoftMax}(\mathbf{s}_{i}^{\mathbf{u}\mbox{-}n t a s k}))_{X_{i}^{n t a s k}}}}\\ {{P(X_{i j}^{e t a s k}|\mathbf{w})=(\mathrm{SoftMax}(\mathbf{s}_{i j}^{\mathbf{u}\mbox{-}e t a s k}))_{X_{i j}^{e t a s k}}}}\end{array}$$ and those with high-order inference are: $$\begin{array}{l}{{P(X_{i}^{n t a s k}|\mathbf{w})=Q_{i}^{(T)}(X_{i}^{n t a s k})}}\\ {{P(X_{i j}^{e t a s k}|\mathbf{w})=Q_{i j}^{(T)}(X_{i j}^{e t a s k}).}}\end{array}$$ where Q(T)is computed with T MFVI iterations. Inspired by Zheng et al. (2015); Wang et al. (2019b), we unfold the MFVI iteration steps as recurrent neural network layers parameterized by unary and high-order scores. As such, we obtain an end-to-end recurrent neural network for both inference and training. Doing this has an added benefit of consistent inference and training, unlike traditional CRF approaches that may rely on different approximation methods for inference and training (see for example Van Nguyen et al. (2022a)). ## 3 Experiments Datasets We evaluate our model on the ACE2005 corpus (Walker et al., 2005) which provides entity, relation, and event annotations. Following Lu et al. (2021); Lin et al. (2020); Wadden et al. (2019), we conduct experiments on four English datasets: ACE05-R for EntR and RelE, ACE05-E for EntR and EventE, and ACE05-E+ and EREEN for all the three tasks, with the same data pre-processing and train/dev/test split. There are 7 entity types, 6 relation types, 33 event types, and 22 argument roles defined in the ACE2005 corpus. ERE-EN dataset is extracted by combining the data from three datasets for English (i.e., LDC2015E29, LDC2015E68, and LDC2015E78) that are created under Deep Exploration and Filtering of Test (DEFT) program. It includes 7 entity types, 5 relation types, 38 event types, and 20 argument roles. Statistics of all datasets we used are shown in Tabel 1. Evaluation We use F1 scores to evaluate our model's performance as in most previous work (Lu et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2020; Wadden et al., 2019; Zhang and Ji, 2021). For the EntR task, an entity (Ent) is correct if both its type and offsets match a gold entity. For the RelE task, a relation (Rel) is correct if both its type and the offsets of its two related entities match a gold relation. In addition, a strict relation evaluation (*Rel+*) requires that the types of the two related entities are also correct. A trigger is correctly identified (*Trig-I*) if its offsets match a gold trigger. It is correctly classified (*Trig-C*) if its corresponding event type also matches the reference trigger. An argument is correctly identified (*Arg-I*) if its offsets match a gold argument and its corresponding event type is correct. It is correctly classified (*Arg-C*) if its role type also matches the reference argument. All experimental results of our approach shown in this paper are the average of three runs with different random seeds. | Split | #Sents #Entities #Relations #Events | | | | | |--------------|---------------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Train 10,051 | 26,473 | 4,788 | - | | | | ACE05-R | Dev | 2,424 | 6,362 | 1,131 | - | | Test | 2,050 | 5,476 | 1,151 | - | | | Train 17,172 | 29,006 | 4,664 | 4,202 | | | | ACE05-E | Dev | 923 | 2,451 | 560 | 450 | | Test | 832 | 3,017 | 636 | 403 | | | Train 19,216 | 47,525 | 7,152 | 4,419 | | | | ACE05-E+ Dev | 902 | 3,422 | 728 | 468 | | | Test | 676 | 3,673 | 802 | 424 | | | Train | 6841 | 29657 | 7934 | 2926 | | | ACE05-CN Dev | 526 | 2250 | 596 | 217 | | | Test | 547 | 2388 | 672 | 190 | | | Train 14736 | 39501 | 5054 | 6208 | | | | ERE-EN | Dev | 1209 | 3369 | 408 | 525 | | Test | 1163 | 3295 | 466 | 551 | | Implementation Details For fair comparison with previous state-of-the-art systems, we use the BERT-large-cased model (Devlin et al., 2018) or    ◦ 87.1 73.9 72.0 57.2 52.4 † 90.2 78.2 74.7 59.2 56.8 ∗- - 71.9 - 53.8 CRFIE baseline† 90.8 77.7 74.8 58.5 56.4 CRFIE *homo* **case (i)**† 90.8 77.7 74.6 58.7 57.1 CRFIE *hete* **case (ii)**† 90.7 77.7 74.3 59.2 57.2 CRFIE *homo* case (i) + *hete* **case (ii)**† 90.6 77.7 74.3 59.6 57.5 CRFIE baseline‡ 91.5 77.2 73.6 60.8 58.1 CRFIE *homo* **case (i)**‡ 91.4 77.2 73.5 61.3 58.8 CRFIE *hete* **case (ii)**‡ 91.7 77.2 73.7 61.9 59.4 CRFIE *homo* case (i) + *hete* **case (ii)**‡ 91.5 77.2 73.8 61.9 59.1 FOR REFERENCE AMRIE (Zhang and Ji, 2021) GraphIE (Van Nguyen et al., 2022a) RoBERTa model (Liu et al., 2019) as our encoder for the ACE05-E and ACE05-E+ datasets, and ALBERT model (Lan et al., 2019) as the encoder for the ACE05-R dataset. We train our model with BertAdam optimizer3. When we use a single kind of factor, α is set to 1 for the used and set to 0 for others. When multiple kinds of factors are used, α of the used are tunable parameters. Detailed hyperparameter values are provided in Appendix B. ## 3.1 Main Results We take our framework with first-order inference (i.e., independently predicting the value of each variable by maximizing its unary score) as **CRFIE** baseline. It can be seen that our baseline performs better than previous work in some cases, which benefits from the biaffine function in calculating unary scores. We experiment with different combinations of tasks. Joint EntR, EventE We compare our approach under different settings and also with previous work that did not leverage gold triggers and entities. Table 2 shows the experimental results. The cases in the table (e.g., *homo* **case (i)**) are corresponding to the aforementioned settings in the subsections 2.3 and 2.4. The F1 scores of *Tri-I* of different settings are the same because they are produced by the same node identification module that is fixed to fairly compare our model in different settings. | Ent Rel Rel+ | | | | |------------------------------------------------|----------------|----|------| | DYGIE++ (Wadden et al., 2019) † | 88.6 63.4 | - | | | OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) † | 88.8 67.5 | | | | Wang and Lu (2020)∆ | 89.5 67.6 64.3 | | | | PUREs (Zhong and Chen, 2020)∆ | 89.7 69.0 65.6 | | | | UNIRE (Wang et al., 2021)∆ | 90.2 | - | 66.0 | | PFN (Yan et al., 2021)∆ | 89.0 | - | 66.8 | | FourIE (Van Nguyen et al., 2021) † | 88.9 68.9 | - | | | UIE (Lu et al., 2022) ∗ | - | - | 66.1 | | CRFIE baseline∆ | 89.8 69.9 67.5 | | | | CRFIE homo case (ii)∆ | 90.2 70.8 68.2 | | | | CRFIE hete case (iii)∆ | 90.1 70.4 68.3 | | | | FOR REFERENCE | | | | | GraphIE (Van Nguyen et al., 2022a) ‡ 89.3 68.5 | - | | | | PUREc (Zhong and Chen, 2020)∆ | 90.9 69.4 67.0 | | | | PL-Markerre-eval (Ye et al., 2022)∆ | 91.3 72.5 70.5 | | | ACE05-E+ *Ent Rel Tri-I Tri-C Arg-I Arg-C* OneIE Lin et al. (2020) 89.6 58.6 75.6 72.8 57.3 54.8  ∗- - - 71.8 - 54.4 FourIE (Van Nguyen et al., 2021) 91.1 63.6 76.7 73.3 59.5 57.5 ∗- - - 73.4 - 54.8 GTEE-DYNPREF Liu et al. (2022) - - - 74.3 - 54.7 CRFIE baseline 90.8 65.3 77.4 74.6 60.0 58.1 CRFIE *hete* **case (i)** 90.7 65.1 77.4 74.8 60.3 58.5 CRFIE all 90.9 65.8 77.4 75.5 60.8 58.8  GraphIE (Van Nguyen et al., 2022a) 91.0 65.4 - 74.8 - 59.9 | CRFIE baseline | 90.8 65.3 77.4 | 74.6 | 60.0 | 58.1 | | |----------------------------------------------|------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|------| | CRFIE hete case (i) | 90.7 65.1 77.4 | 74.8 | 60.3 | 58.5 | | | CRFIE all | 90.9 65.8 77.4 | 75.5 | 60.8 | 58.8 | | | FOR REFERENCE | | | | | | | GraphIE (Van Nguyen et al., 2022a) 91.0 65.4 | - | 74.8 | - | 59.9 | | | ERE-EN | Ent | Rel | Tri-I Tri-C Arg-I Arg-C | | | | OneIE Lin et al. (2020) | 86.3 52.8 66.0 | 57.1 | 43.7 | 42.1 | | | CRFIE baseline‡ | 87.6 54.4 69.9 | 61.5 | 45.9 | 44.2 | | | CRFIE all‡ | 87.4 55.1 69.9 | 61.4 | 53.5 | 51.2 | | | FOR REFERENCE | | | | | | | AMRIE (Zhang and Ji, 2021)‡ | 87.9 55.2 | 68 | 61.4 | 46.4 | 45.0 | It can be seen that our high-order model performs better than our baseline in most cases for EventE, which directly shows the benefit of highorder factors. Compared to previous SOTA, our model performs uncompetitive on *Tri-I*, because we focus on the interactions of node/edge labeling, and we did not tune the hyper-parameters of the node identification module while just keeping them the same as Lin et al. (2020). Even with an unsatisfactory identification module, the results of *Arg-C* which is the most difficult sub-task in EventE show that CRFIE achieves consistent improvement. It is worth noting that CRFIE with learned dependencies can achieve comparable performance with those models (Zhang and Ji, 2021; Van Nguyen et al., 2022a) leveraging external syntactic or semantic dependencies. It is surprising that when we use both binary factors (*homo* **case (i)** )and ternary factors (*hete* **case (ii)**) in the RoBERTa setting, the performance slightly drops. The reason may be that messages from different types of factors may conflict with each other, such that training becomes more difficult. We also experiment in the case where gold triggers and entities are given, results are shown in Appendix C. Joint EntR and RelE Table 3 shows our experimental results on the ACE05-R dataset. We can find that CRFIE performs better than most previous work and our baseline both on EntR and RelE, which demonstrates the advantage of high-order inference. Similar to joint EntR and EventE, our high-order model with the combination of all factors cannot achieve further improvement, so we do not show the result of this setting. Joint EntR, EventE and RelE Table 4 shows the  experimental results on the ACE05-E+ and EREEN datasets. On ACE05-E+, we show the result of *hete* **case (i)** because this setting is not included in the above experiments. **CRFIE all** means that we use all kinds of binary and ternary factors that have performed benefits in ablation experiments. We can find that CRFIE achieves consistent improvement in EventE and RelE. Due to the space limitation, more ablations and experimental results can be found in Appendix D. ## 3.2 Analysis High-Order Scoring We study two variants of our high-order scoring. *Share* means that we reuse the label representations in unary scoring for highorder scoring instead of using new label representations. *W/o node reps* means that we calculate high-order scores without taking node representations into account, such that the high-order scores are only dependent on the labels regardless of the underlying text spans that constituent the nodes and edges. Table 5 shows the comparison results with ternary factors on the ACE05-R dataset. We can find that the performance of the two variants both drops. | Ent | Rel | Rel+ | | |------------------|-------|--------|------| | Ours hete (+ter) | 90.1 | 70.4 | 68.3 | | Share | 90.0 | 69.7 | 67.5 | | W/o node reps | 90.1 | 70.0 | 67.7 | Table 5: Comparison of the results of different highorder scoring methods on ACE05-R dataset. $$\begin{array}{l l l l}{{E n t}}&{{T r i{\mathrm{-}}I}}&{{T r i{\mathrm{-}}C}}&{{A r g{\mathrm{-}}I}}&{{A r g{\mathrm{-}}C}}\\ {{\overline{{{\,}}}}}&{{90.9}}&{{77.7}}&{{74.3}}&{{59.2}}&{{57.2}}\\ {{90.7}}&{{77.7}}&{{74.8}}&{{59.2}}&{{56.9}}\\ {{\overline{{{\,}}}}}&{{91.7}}&{{77.2}}&{{73.7}}&{{61.9}}&{{59.4}}\\ {{91.7}}&{{77.2}}&{{73.7}}&{{61.3}}&{{58.8}}\end{array}$$ | Asyn (BERT) | 90.9 77.7 | 74.3 | 59.2 | 57.2 | |--------------------------|-------------|--------|--------|--------| | Syn (BERT) | 90.7 77.7 | 74.8 | 59.2 | 56.9 | | Asyn (RoBERTa) 91.7 77.2 | 73.7 | 61.9 | 59.4 | | | Syn (RoBERTa) | 91.7 77.2 | 73.7 | 61.3 | 58.8 | Table 6: Comparison of the results of synchronous and asynchronous updating strategies when we use ternary factor on ACE05-E dataset. | $baseline$ | $+sib$ | $+ter$ | $\cdot$ | |:-------------------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:| | Train | 119.3 | 119.2 | 118.4 | | Test | 91.2 | 85.1 | 81.4 | | Table 7: Comparisons of speed (sentences/second) among the baseline and high-order models. Message Passing of Ternary Factors From the message passing process involving ternary factors in Sec. 2.5, we can see that messages passed to an edge come only from its two endpoints, but a node gets messages from all possible edges connected to it, which causes asymmetry messages from ternary factors, we try synchronous and asynchronous updating strategies as described in Sec 2.5. For asynchronous updating, we firstly update edge posteriors using node posteriors for the reason that the initial node posteriors are more accurate. Table 6 shows the comparison results of the two updating strategies on the ACE05-E dataset. We can find that asynchronous update has an advantage over synchronous update on *Arg-C* but harms or keeps the performance on *Tri-C*. ## Complexity And Speed Of High-Order Inference The computational complexity of our high-order inference is O(n 3|R|2 + n|L|) when we consider binary factors and O(n 2*|R||L|*2) when we consider ternary factors, while our first-order model has a computational complexity of O(n 2|R| + n|L|), where n is the node number. We measure the empirical training speed and inference speed on an A100 server (Table 7). We can find that our high-order models are only slightly slower than the baseline despite the difference in computational complexity, which is because we implement our models with ## Full Gpu Parallelization. Visualization of Correlation Score We take relation extraction as an example to visualize the ternary score calculated by Eq. 2 between entityrelation-entity triplets. For better understanding, we show examples of selected entity types and relation types. From Fig. 4, we can find that the correlation scores can reflect some prior knowledge. For example, 'PER-SOC' relation exists between two 'PER' entities, 'PART-WHOLE' relation is more likely to exist between entities with the same types. $$\frac{+s i b+t e r}{107.6}$$ Error Correction Analysis and Case Study We provide quantitative error correction analysis in Appendix E. Figure 3 shows examples where our highorder approach revises wrong predictions made based on the initial unary scores (i.e., the firstorder baseline), along with our analyses of how high-order factors achieve the revision. ## 4 Related Work Information Extraction Classical IE models are typically task-specific (Lample et al., 2016b; Yu et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2019a). Recent efforts develop joint methods for multiple IE tasks (Miwa and Sasaki, 2014; Zheng et al., 2017; Nguyen and Nguyen, 2019; Zhang et al., 2019; Wang and Lu, 2020) or general architectures for universal IE (Paolini et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022; Lou et al., 2023). Graph-based joint IE methods formulate multiple IE tasks as a graph prediction task and aim to capture dependencies between different instances or tasks. Lots of previous works leverage encoder sharing or graph convolutional networks (GCNs) on instance dependency graphs to enrich instance representations (Wadden et al., 2019; Fu et al., 2019; Van Nguyen et al., 2021, 2022a,b). This work is more relevant to some recent works that take efforts on type interactions and global inference. Lin et al. (2020) manually designs global features as constraints and leverages beam search to find approximated global optima. Based on the method of Lin et al. (2020), Van Nguyen et al. (2021) further incorporates AMR graphs as external dependencies. The work of Van Nguyen et al. (2022a) is more similar to ours in that they adopt a CRF to model type dependencies, but they learn a transition matrix that only scores binary dependencies. Besides, they employ Noise Contrastive Estimation (NCE) (Mikolov et al., 2013) to perform approximate training and Simulated An-   nealing Search to perform approximate inference. Different from their work, we model both binary and ternary dependencies and leverage MFVI to achieve consistent training and inference. High-order Methods Previous high-order methods most focus on instance interactions in training process to get more expressive representations, such as sharing representations (Sun et al., 2019; Luan et al., 2019b) or using sequence-to-sequence architecture (Ma et al., 2022; Paolini et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2021). There are some high-order inference methods that are related to us on different NLP tasks. On dependency parsing, Wang and Tu (2020) considered three types of second-order parts of semantic dependencies and approximate decoding with mean-field variational inference or loopy belief propagation. Jia et al. (2022) considered interactions between two arguments of the same predicate on semantic role labeling task. However, due to the complexity, they only did high-order inference on edge existence prediction while leaving label prediction in first-order, and they did not involve heterogeneous factors. In another line of research, Wang and Pan (2020, 2021) integrate logic rules and neural network to leverage prior knowledge to help relation extraction and event extraction tasks. But they cannot achieve end-to-end training and inference. ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we propose a novel framework that leverages high-order interactions across different instances and different IE tasks in both training and inference processes. We formulate IE tasks as a unified graph prediction problem, further modeled as a high-order CRF. Our framework consists of an identification module to identify spans as graph nodes and a node/edge labeling module with highorder modeling and inference to jointly label all nodes and edges. ## Limitations The limitation is that we separate node identification and node/edge labeling processes. Because joint node identification and label classification should enumerate all possible spans in a sentence, which is too computationally expensive. Most previous works also separate the two processes. But an obvious disadvantage of such a pipeline scheme is the error propagation problem. We take joint node identification and label classification with ## Acknowledgements This work is supported in part by National Key R&D Program of China (2021ZD0150200) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61976139). Wenjuan Han is supported by the Talent Fund of Beijing Jiaotong University (2023XKRC006). ## References Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805*. Rakesh Dugad and UDAY B Desai. 1996. A tutorial on hidden markov models. Signal Processing and Artificial Neural Networks Laboratory, Dept of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Technical Report No.: SPANN-96.1. G David Forney. 1973. The viterbi algorithm. *Proceedings of the IEEE*, 61(3):268–278. Tsu-Jui Fu, Peng-Hsuan Li, and Wei-Yun Ma. 2019. GraphRel: Modeling text as relational graphs for joint entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1409–1418, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nadia Ghamrawi and Andrew McCallum. 2005. Collective multi-label classification. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 195–200. Zixia Jia, Zhaohui Yan, Haoyi Wu, and Kewei Tu. 2022. Span-based semantic role labeling with argument pruning and second-order inference. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press. John Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando CN Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016a. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01360. Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016b. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 260–270, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2019. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. D. Khuê Lê-Huu and Karteek Alahari. 2021. Regularized frank-wolfe for dense crfs: Generalizing mean field and beyond. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14759*. Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7999–8009, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiao Liu, Heyan Huang, Ge Shi, and Bo Wang. 2022. Dynamic prefix-tuning for generative template-based event extraction. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5216–5228, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Chao Lou, Songlin Yang, and Kewei Tu. 2022. Nested named entity recognition as latent lexicalized constituency parsing. In ACL. Jie Lou, Yaojie Lu, Dai Dai, Wei Jia, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2023. Universal information extraction as unified semantic matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.03282. Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jin Xu, Xianpei Han, Jialong Tang, Annan Li, Le Sun, Meng Liao, and Shaoyi Chen. 2021. Text2Event: Controllable sequence-tostructure generation for end-to-end event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2795–2806, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yaojie Lu, Qing Liu, Dai Dai, Xinyan Xiao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022. Unified structure generation for universal information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5755–5772. Yi Luan, Luheng He, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018. Multi-task identification of entities, relations, and coreference for scientific knowledge graph construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.09602. Yi Luan, Dave Wadden, Luheng He, Amy Shah, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019a. A general framework for information extraction using dynamic span graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03296. Yi Luan, Dave Wadden, Luheng He, Amy Shah, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019b. A general framework for information extraction using dynamic span graphs. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3036–3046, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yubo Ma, Zehao Wang, Yixin Cao, Mukai Li, Meiqi Chen, Kun Wang, and Jing Shao. 2022. Prompt for extraction? PAIE: Prompting argument interaction for event argument extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6759–6774, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. T. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, C. Kai, G. Corrado, and J. Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Makoto Miwa and Yutaka Sasaki. 2014. Modeling joint entity and relation extraction with table representation. In *Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2014, October 25-29, 2014, Doha, Qatar, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 1858–1869. ACL. Trung Minh Nguyen and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2019. One for all: Neural joint modeling of entities and events. In *The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 6851–6858. AAAI Press. Giovanni Paolini, Ben Athiwaratkun, Jason Krone, Jie Ma, Alessandro Achille, Rishita Anubhai, Cícero Nogueira dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Stefano Soatto. 2021. Structured prediction as translation between augmented natural languages. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. Changzhi Sun, Yeyun Gong, Yuanbin Wu, Ming Gong, Daxin Jiang, Man Lan, Shiliang Sun, and Nan Duan. 2019. Joint type inference on entities and relations via graph convolutional networks. In *Proceedings of* the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1361–1370, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Minh Van Nguyen, Viet Dac Lai, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2021. Cross-task instance representation interactions and label dependencies for joint information extraction with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.09330. Minh Van Nguyen, Bonan Min, Franck Dernoncourt, and Thien Nguyen. 2022a. Joint extraction of entities, relations, and events via modeling inter-instance and inter-label dependencies. In *Proceedings of the 2022* Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4363–4374. Minh Van Nguyen, Bonan Min, Franck Dernoncourt, and Thien Nguyen. 2022b. Learning cross-task dependencies for joint extraction of entities, events, event arguments, and relations. In *EMNLP 2022*. David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5784– 5789, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Christopher Walker, Stephanie Strassel, Medero Julie, and Kazuaki Maeda. 2005. ACE 2005 multilingual training corpus. In *Linguistic Data Consortium*. Haoyu Wang, Ming Tan, Mo Yu, Shiyu Chang, Dakuo Wang, Kun Xu, Xiaoxiao Guo, and Saloni Potdar. 2019a. Extracting multiple-relations in one-pass with pre-trained transformers. In *Proceedings of the 57th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1371–1377, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jue Wang and Wei Lu. 2020. Two are better than one: Joint entity and relation extraction with tablesequence encoders. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1706–1721, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wenya Wang and Sinno Jialin Pan. 2020. Integrating deep learning with logic fusion for information extraction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 9225–9232. Wenya Wang and Sinno Jialin Pan. 2021. Variational deep logic network for joint inference of entities and relations. *Computational Linguistics*, pages 1–38. Xinyu Wang, Jingxian Huang, and Kewei Tu. 2019b. Second-order semantic dependency parsing with end-to-end neural networks. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1906.07880. Xinyu Wang and Kewei Tu. 2020. Second-order neural dependency parsing with message passing and endto-end training. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05003*. Yijun Wang, Changzhi Sun, Yuanbin Wu, Hao Zhou, Lei Li, and Junchi Yan. 2021. Unire: A unified label space for entity relation extraction. In *Proceedings* of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 220–231. Eric P Xing, Michael I Jordan, and Stuart Russell. 2012. A generalized mean field algorithm for variational inference in exponential families. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1212.2512. Zhiheng Yan, Chong Zhang, Jinlan Fu, Qi Zhang, and Zhongyu Wei. 2021. A partition filter network for joint entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 711 November, 2021, pages 185–197. Association for Computational Linguistics. Deming Ye, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, and Maosong Sun. 2022. Packed levitated marker for entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4904–4917. Juntao Yu, Bernd Bohnet, and Massimo Poesio. 2020. Named entity recognition as dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6470– 6476, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daojian Zeng, Kang Liu, Siwei Lai, Guangyou Zhou, and Jun Zhao. 2014. Relation classification via convolutional deep neural network. In *Proceedings of* COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 2335–2344, Dublin, Ireland. Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics. Tongtao Zhang, Heng Ji, and Avirup Sil. 2019. Joint entity and event extraction with generative adversarial imitation learning. *Data Intell.*, 1(2):99–120. Zixuan Zhang and Heng Ji. 2021. Abstract meaning representation guided graph encoding and decoding for joint information extraction. In *Proceedings of* the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 39–49. Shuai Zheng, Sadeep Jayasumana, Bernardino RomeraParedes, Vibhav Vineet, Zhizhong Su, Dalong Du, Chang Huang, and Philip HS Torr. 2015. Conditional random fields as recurrent neural networks. In *Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on* computer vision, pages 1529–1537. Suncong Zheng, Feng Wang, Hongyun Bao, Yuexing Hao, Peng Zhou, and Bo Xu. 2017. Joint extraction of entities and relations based on a novel tagging scheme. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,* ACL 2017, Vancouver, Canada, July 30 - August 4, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1227–1236. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zexuan Zhong and Danqi Chen. 2020. A frustratingly easy approach for entity and relation extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12812. ## A Details On Identification Module A multi-layer perceptron (MLP) takes word representations H = [h1*, ...,* hn] as input and outputs an emission score ui for each word. With a learnable transition score matrix A, a labeled sequence y P = (y1*, ..., y*n) can be scored as s(y, H) = n i=1(ui)yi + Ayi−1,yi . Inference We use the Viterbi algorithm (Forney, 1973) to obtain the sequence that has the highest score: yˆ = arg maxy s(y, H). Then we select the spans whose inter-words are labeled as B-X and I-X in the optimal output sequence as predicted node set. Learning We maximize the probability of the target sequence to learn the identification module. $$P(\mathbf{y}^{*}|\mathbf{w})={\frac{\exp(s(\mathbf{y}^{*},H))}{\sum_{\mathbf{y}^{\prime}}\exp(s(\mathbf{y}^{\prime},H))}}={\frac{1}{\mathcal{Z}}}\exp(s(\mathbf{y}^{*},H))$$ where y∗is the target sequence and Z is the partition function. We can use the forward-backward algorithm (Dugad and Desai, 1996) to calculate Z. Of note, we did not consider nested spans in this work, which can easily be adopted to our framework using similar methods as in Yu et al. (2020); Lou et al. (2022) to identify graph nodes if span nesting. ## B Hyper-Parameters For the hidden sizes of unary FNNs and most optimizer parameters, we use the default hyperparameters following (Lin et al., 2020). The hidden sizes of FNNs in high-order scoring are tuned between {150, 300}. The iteration step T of MFVI is tuned between {1, 2, 3}, and it is set to 1 or 2 in different settings. We choose the hyper-parameters according to the performance of the development set after 80 epoch runs. The main hyper-parameters are listed in Table 8. ## C Experimental Results On Ace05-E Given Gold Entities And Triggers Table 9 shows the experimental results on ACE05- E given gold entities and triggers. We can find   Table 8: Summary of hyper-parameters  | Ent Tri-C Arg-I Arg-C | | | | |--------------------------------------|-----------|------|------| | CRFIE baseline | 96.0 93.1 | 70.7 | 68.3 | | CRFIE homo (+sib) | 96.0 93.6 | 72.0 | 69.2 | | CRFIE hete (+ter) | 95.9 94.1 | 71.7 | 69.2 | | CRFIE homo+hete (+sib+ter) 96.0 93.6 | 72.3 | 69.4 | | Table 9: Average F1 on ACE05-E dataset. The gold triggers and entities are given. Ent Tri-I Tri-C Arg-I Arg-C CRFIE baseline 90.8 77.7 74.8 58.5 56.4 CRFIE *homo* **(+sib)** 90.6 77.7 74.5 59.1 57.1 CRFIE *homo* **(+sib+cop)** 90.8 77.7 74.6 58.7 57.1 CRFIE *hete* **(+ter)** 90.7 77.7 74.3 59.2 57.2 CRFIE *homo+hete* **(+sib+ter)** 90.6 77.7 74.3 59.6 57.5 that without the error of the identification module, the performance gap between our baseline and high-order models further increases, and using both sibling factors and ternary factors improves further. ## D Ablation Study We show the experimental results of different factor combinations on Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12. On Table 12, *role-sib* represents sib of role pairs, rel-sib represents sib of relation pairs, and *r+r-sib* represents sib of both role pairs and relation pairs. The *hete (+cop), hete (+gp), hete (+cop+gp)* are in *hete* **case (i)**. ## E Error Correction Analysis We take joint EntR and RelE as an example to show the number of error corrections of our high-order   | Ent | Rel Rel+ | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| | CRFIE baseline | 89.8 69.9 67.5 | | CRFIE homo (+sib) | 90.0 70.8 68.1 | | CRFIE homo (+cop) | 90.1 70.1 68.0 | | CRFIE homo (+gp) | 90.2 70.0 67.7 | | CRFIE homo (+sib+cop) 90.2 70.8 68.2 CRFIE hete (+ter) 90.1 70.4 68.3 | | model compared to our baseline model in terms of relation types. From Fig. 5, we can find that our high-order model corrects the errors of our baseline model in relation types (the numbers are expected to be positive in the diagonal and to be negative otherwise).  CRFIE baseline 90.8 65.3 77.4 74.6 60.0 58.1 CRFIE *homo* **(role-sib)** 90.8 65.1 77.4 74.6 60.3 58.4 CRFIE *homo* **(rel-sib)** 91.0 65.6 77.4 74.8 60.1 58.5 CRFIE *homo* **(r+r-sib)** 90.9 65.4 77.4 74.8 60.1 58.3 CRFIE *hete* **(+cop)** 90.7 65.9 77.4 74.6 60.3 58.2 CRFIE *hete* **(+gp)** 90.7 65.8 77.4 75.1 60.8 59.0 CRFIE *hete* **(+cop+gp)** 90.7 65.1 77.4 74.8 60.3 58.5  + *homo* **case (ii)** 90.9 65.4 77.4 74.8 60.1 58.3 Table 12: Average F1 on ACE05-E+ dataset. All models use BERT-large-cased encoder. ## F Re-Evaluation Of Pl-Marker For the relation extraction task, some corpus have symmetric relations, meaning the ordering of the two entities does not matter (e.g., 'PER-SOC' in ACE2005). A symmetric relation is only annotated in one direction in the annotation data. PL-Marker counts a symmetric relation twice both for prediction number and gold number, but other work only counts once for the prediction and gold numbers. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitation ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We do regular NLP task and use standard NLP datasets ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? abstract, 1 introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Not applicable. Left blank. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Not applicable. Left blank. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 3 Experiments ✗ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? We use pretrained language model as encoder as other work and the number of parameters of other part in our model is in a much smaller scale. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix C ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 3 Experiments ✗ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

xia-etal-2023-training

Training Trajectories of Language Models Across Scales

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.767

Scaling up language models has led to unprecedented performance gains, but little is understood about how the training dynamics change as models get larger. How do language models of different sizes learn during pre-training? Why do larger language models demonstrate more desirable behaviors? In this paper, we analyze the intermediate training checkpoints of differently sized OPT models (Zhang et al., 2022){---}from 125M to 175B parameters{---}on next-token prediction, sequence-level generation and downstream tasks. We find that 1) at a given perplexity and independent of model sizes, a similar subset of training tokens see the most significant reduction in loss, with the rest stagnating or showing double-descent behavior (Nakkiran et al., 2020); 2) early in training, all models learn to reduce the perplexity of grammatical sequences that contain hallucinations, with small models halting at this suboptimal distribution and larger ones eventually learning to assign these sequences lower probabilities; and 3) perplexity is a strong predictor of in-context learning performance on 74 multiple-choice tasks from BIG-Bench, and this holds independent of the model size. Together, these results show that perplexity is more predictive of model behaviors than model size or training computation.

# Training Trajectories Of Language Models Across Scales Mengzhou Xia1, Mikel Artetxe2, Chunting Zhou2**, Xi Victoria Lin**2, Ramakanth Pasunuru2, Danqi Chen1, Luke Zettlemoyer2**, Ves Stoyanov**2 1Princeton University 2Meta AI mengzhou@princeton.edu ## Abstract Scaling up language models has led to unprecedented performance gains, but little is understood about how the training dynamics change as models get larger. How do language models of different sizes learn during pre-training? Why do larger language models demonstrate more desirable behaviors? In this paper, we analyze the intermediate training checkpoints of differently sized OPT models (Zhang et al., 2022)—from 125M to 175B parameters—on next-token prediction, sequence-level generation and downstream tasks. We find that 1) at a given perplexity and independent of model sizes, a similar subset of training tokens see the most significant reduction in loss, with the rest stagnating or showing double-descent behavior (Nakkiran et al., 2020); 2) early in training, all models learn to reduce the perplexity of grammatical sequences that contain hallucinations, with small models halting at this suboptimal distribution and larger ones eventually learning to assign these sequences lower probabilities; and 3) perplexity is a strong predictor of in-context learning performance on 74 multiple-choice tasks from BIG-Bench, and this holds independently of the model size. Together, these results show that perplexity is more predictive of model behaviors than model size or training computation.1 ## 1 Introduction Scaling up language models has been shown to improve language modeling perplexity (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hernandez et al., 2022) as well as zero- or few-shot end task accuracies (Brown et al., 2020; Rae et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). However, relatively little is understood about why or how this happens. How do the training dynamics differ as models get larger? What do language models of different sizes learn during pre-training in terms of both generating texts and solving end tasks? We attempt to make progress to answer these questions by studying the training trajectories of differently-sized OPT models (Zhang et al., 2022) through analyzing their intermediate checkpoints. In contrast to prior work, which studies the trajectories of small models with up to 300M parameters (Liu et al., 2021; Choshen et al., 2022; Blevins et al., 2022) or focuses on the language modeling objective alone (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hernandez et al., 2021, 2022), we are the first to comprehensively study the training trajectories of large-scale autoregressive language models with up to 175B parameters across a wide range of settings. Repeatedly across training and different model scales, we analyze three aspects of model performance: (i) next-token prediction on subsets of tokens (ii) sequence-level generation and (iii) downstream task performance. We use perplexity, which is closely tied to language model evaluation, as the major metric throughout the study. For **next-token prediction** (§3), we study the trajectory by categorizing each token's prediction as stagnated, upward or *downward* according to its perplexity trend as training progresses. We find each category comprising a significant number of tokens: while a significant number of tokens' perplexity stagnate, a subset of tokens with an increasing perplexity in smaller models exhibit a doubledescent trend (Nakkiran et al., 2020) where perplexity increases and then decreases in larger models. These behaviors primarily emerge at a similar validation perplexity across model scales. For **sequence-level generation** (§4), we study the distribution shift at a document level (50-500 tokens) by decoding sequences that small/large models favor more than the other. Human texts present expected scaling patterns in that they are best modeled by larger (or longer trained) models. However, to our surprise, large models are better at modeling  22 10  less human-like texts which contain synthetic noise and factually incorrect prompts. We propose an approach to decoding texts that small models favor more than large models from an interpolated distribution induced by combining signals from both models and find them grammatical but hallucinating.2 All models go through a stage during training where the perplexity for such texts decreases; small models halt at this suboptimal distribution, while larger models escape it by eventually increasing the perplexity of these unnatural texts. We further connect language modeling perplexity to **downstream tasks** (§5). By evaluating more than 70 multiple-choice tasks in BIG-Bench (Srivastava et al., 2022), we find that language modeling perplexity correlates well with few-shot incontext learning performance along the trajectory, regardless of model sizes. The gradual divergence of likelihood between correct and incorrect options leads to improvements in in-context learning. Our work presents a comprehensive study of training trajectories of language models trained with similar procedures, e.g., OPT. We conclude that language models learn the same phenomena in the same order across different model sizes. The overall model perplexity is a composite measure of which language phenomena have been learned. ## 2 Experimental Settings Models. Unless otherwise indicated, all of our experiments use OPT (Zhang et al., 2022), a collection of open-source autoregressive language models. OPT models serve as a good fit for this study due to their controlled pre-training procedures across all model sizes. In particular, all the models share the same tokenization and are trained on the same training data, covering a total of 300B tokens (180B unique). Note that different-sized models differ in batch sizes and total number of steps.3 We collect intermediate checkpoints from the authors and perform evaluations of these checkpoints across six different sizes: 125M, 1.3B, 6.7B, 13B, 30B, and 175B. Validation perplexity. Throughout this paper, we use *Validation Perplexity (Valid PPL)* to refer to the autoregressive language modeling perplexity measured on the entire validation set. We use the original OPT validation set, a held-out subset of the training corpus that covers a wide range of domains, such as books, news, and subtitles. We plot the trajectory of validation perplexity in Figure 1, which follows a similar power-law pattern observed in previous scaling work (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2022). Methodology. We aim to understand how models of different sizes behave throughout training as a function of computing (FLOPs)4and validation perplexity. Throughout the paper, we use different measurements to characterize model behavior and plot them against these two metrics. ## 3 Next-Token Prediction Autoregressive language models are trained to predict the next token given a context. Figure 1 shows that validation perplexity, aggregated over all positions, gradually declines as training progresses. However, it is not clear if all token instances evolve similarly to the aggregated measurement. In this section, we study the trajectory of next-token predictions, dividing them into three categories—stagnated, upward trend, or downward trend—to understand how language models gradually learn new language phenomena. ## 3.1 Methodology   0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 c), PPLm2 (t | c)*, . . . ,* PPLmn(t | c) for checkpoints m1, m2*, . . . , m*n. We use linear regression to estimate the slope of a normalized series to roughly capture its trend. Starting from any intermediate checkpoint after p% of training (assuming that it is the j-th checkpoint) to the end checkpoint mn, ∀i ∈ [*j, n*], we fit the following function to learn the parameters α and β for each series: $$\frac{\text{PPL}_{m_{i}}(t\mid c)}{\text{PPL}_{m_{j}}(t\mid c)}=\alpha+\beta\cdot(i-j).\tag{1}$$ Note that different starting points might result in different trend estimations. We categorize the trends as follows based on β and its significance: Upward trend. If β > 0 and its p-value is < 0.05, we consider that the series follows an upward trend (*forgetting*). Downward trend. If β < −0 and its p-value is < 0.05, we consider that the series follows a downward trend (*still learning*). Stagnated trend. If a series does not follow an upward or downward trend, and the start and end values fall in a restricted interval, that is, 0.95 ≤ PPLmj /PPLAVG ≤ 1.05 and 0.95 ≤ PPLmn /PPLavg ≤ 1.05, where PPLavg = exp( 1 n−j+1 Pi log PPLmi ), we consider the series to be stagnated (*already learned*). We design the criteria to roughly capture the trend of the perplexity series of each next-token prediction. Under these criteria, a stagnated series from an earlier checkpoint would continue to stagnate, and a series that follows an upward or downward trend earlier might turn stagnated afterwards. The criteria do not necessarily cover all the series—wavy series with a large variance do not fall within any category and are eliminated. For the rest of the section, for simplicity, we use *tokens* to refer to context-token pairs. ## 3.2 Analysis Percentage of tokens. We show the percentage of tokens that follow each trend in Figure 2. Overall, the percentage of stagnated tokens increases and the percentage of the other two types of tokens decreases, indicating that more tokens get to be learned and fewer tokens are still learning or, more   0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 ## Surprisingly, Forgetting As Training Progresses. 6 Stagnated tokens. We select stagnated tokens starting from 10% of training for a particular model and analyze the trajectory of these same tokens in other models. As shown in Figure 3 (middle), we observe that stagnated tokens after 10% of training in a small model (1.3B) also stagnate in larger models. However, the stagnated tokens selected by a large model (175B) still show a downward trend in smaller models. This suggests that larger models' stagnated tokens are roughly a superset of smaller models. On manual inspection, stagnated tokens are primarily non-content words such as prepositions, determiners, and punctuations. Upward trend tokens. Similarly, we present the perplexity of upward trend tokens in Figure 4. The leftmost figure shows that such a phenomemon exists for all the models. For tokens that present an upward trend after 10% training of a small model (1.3B), we observe a stepwise double descent (Nakkiran et al., 2020) trend in larger models' trajectories, where the perplexity first increases and then decreases. We are the first to observe this phenomenon during language model training, and it suggests that larger models, with more computation and a larger capacity, first overfit to this subset of tokens and further generalize better for them. For the tokens identified after 20% training of the largest model (175B), the upward trend appears only at the end of training for the 13B and 30B models. We find it hard to characterize these tokens considering their contexts,7 but the synergy across model sizes 6Only around 60% tokens are captured by our criteria and please find more details on other tokens in Appendix B.2. 7More details are in Appendix B.3. strongly suggests that consistent types of learning are triggered at particular computation levels for models across scales. 8 Summary. In conclusion, large models first replicate small models' behavior on the same subset of tokens, and further unlock exclusive phenomena when fueled with more computation. In Appendix B.5, we find that trajectories of differently-sized models largely overlap when plotting against validation perplexity, indicating that they make similar predictions at a similar perplexity.9 ## 4 Sequence-Level Generation In this section, we extend the analysis from tokenlevel predictions to entire sequences, up to 50-500 tokens. Larger language models consistently obtain a better perplexity in modeling human texts such as Wikipedia, with the perplexity decreasing as the model size and training computation increases (Figure 1). Autoregressive language models are probabilistic models of sequences that can generate strings of text. If larger models assign a higher probability to virtually all human-authored texts, what sequences do smaller models favor? We aim to first characterize these sequences and further analyze learning behavior on them to understand how models of different sizes evolve into their final distributions. In what follows, we first show that it is difficult to manually design such sequences, as large models can also favor corrupted or factually incorrect texts (§4.1). We then devise a decoding algorithm to automatically generate sequences fa-8We explore the upward trends with different starting points and model scales in Appendix B.4. 9Please find more discussions in Appendix B.5.  vored by smaller models (§4.2), and conclude with an analysis of such sequences (§4.3). ## 4.1 Manual Design Corrupted datasets. We hypothesize that injecting noise into human texts might reverse the scaling trend (i.e., perplexity on corrupted texts might increase as model size increases). To test this hypothesis, we replace 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% of the subwords in each sequence with random subwords. We evaluate corrupted datasets on the *final* model checkpoints and report the perplexity in Figure 5 (left). Contrary to our hypothesis, downward trends largely retain across all noise levels, even when the entire sequence consists of random tokens (100%). This can be explained by the copy-and-complete interpretation for in-context learning described in Olsson et al. (2022): larger models fare better at making predictions to follow the context distribution than smaller models, even when the context is pure noise.10 Incorrect options of multiple-choice tasks. We next hypothesize that the perplexity of incorrect options for multiple-choice tasks might present an inverse scaling trend, as they are generally factually wrong. We present the perplexity of correct and incorrect options of 74 multiple-choice tasks from the BIG-Bench dataset in Figure 5. 11 However, we find that the perplexity of correct and incorrect options decreases as the size of the model increases.12 In summary, our initial attempt failed—we are not able to manually construct texts that are more probable in smaller models than larger models. ## 4.2 Methodology To continue our search for such texts, we next devise a decoding approach that combines signals from two models and generates texts based on the interpolation of their distributions: $$p_{i}^{\prime}=\lambda_{1}\cdot p_{s}(x_{i}|x_{<i})+\lambda_{2}\cdot p_{l}(x_{i}|x_{<i});\quad(2)$$ where ps and pl are the next-token distributions from the small and large models, respectively, and λ1, λ2 ∈ [−1, 1]. A set of λ1 and λ2 denotes a specific configuration. When λ1 = 0, λ2 = 1, it is simply decoding with the large model; when λ1 = 1, λ2 = −1, the decoding process favors the small model's prediction and suppresses the large model's prediction. This is the configuration that decodes sequences that small models have a lower perplexity on than large models. We further remove tokens that have a negative score, and renormalize the distribution p0i to ensure that the sum of the probabilities of all tokens is 1: $$p(x_{i}|x_{<i})={\frac{1(p_{i}^{\prime}>0)\cdot p_{i}^{\prime}}{\sum1(p_{i}^{\prime}>0)\cdot p_{i}^{\prime}}}.\qquad(3)$$ Generation process. We decode sequences with two models, 125M and 30B, using different configurations of λ1 and λ2. We take the first 5 tokens of a subset of validation documents as prompts and generate 50 tokens conditioned on them.13 We try greedy search and nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) for decoding and evaluate the texts decoded from each configuration as follows: 1) we measure the text perplexity at final checkpoints of different-sized models to understand its scaling trend; 2) we measure the text perplexity at all intermediate checkpoints to understand how the perplexity evolves as training progresses. ## 4.3 Analysis Inverse scaling. As shown in Figure 6 (row 1), we confirm that the perplexity of texts generated with the ps − pt configuration presents an inverse scaling trend—perplexity increases as model size increases (column 1, 5). Other configurations either only show a modest upward trend (ps), or a normal downward trend (pl and pl−ps). Even though models of intermediate sizes (1.3B, 6.7B, 13B) are not involved in decoding, the scaling trend holds systematically across all model sizes. To further verify 13We also generate longer sequences up to 100 and 500 words and the conclusions hold similarly. More discussions can be found in Appendix C.5. 0.04  0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04  0.04 the universality of the phenomenon in other families of language models, we evaluate the generated texts with final GPT Neo checkpoints (Black et al., 2021), which were trained on the Pile dataset (Gao et al., 2020). As shown in Figure 7, the perplexity trend aligns with OPT models. This confirms that the texts generated with our approach are not a result of model or data artifacts, but embody universal properties exhibiting a similar scaling trend in other model families. Perplexity trajectory of generated sequences. In the second row of Figure 6, we present the perplexity trajectory of texts generated with different configurations. We observe that texts generated based on ps − pl and, to a less extent, ps, largely differ from the other configurations: 125M checkpoints present a downward trend, while other checkpoints present an upward trend. This might suggest that differently-sized models optimize in different directions for phenomena specific to these texts. However, taking a closer look, we observe that the 1.3B model also shows a downward trend at the beginning, which turns upward afterwards. This indicates that all models improve the perplexity of these texts at first but, with more training FLOPs, larger models shift away from this specific distribution where the 125M model stalls. In Appendix C.7, we further show that perplexity of the sequences decoded by contrasting the two models (ps−pl and pl−ps) are less aligned with validation perplexity as other configurations. Generated examples. Table 1 presents examples generated with different configurations. We find that the generations from ps −pl are grammatically correct and carry actual meanings both for greedy search and nucleus sampling, but manifest other issues: 1) they entail highly-unlikely semantic usages such as *Fortunately, it wasn't all that great*— an ending word with a negative sentiment should be more prevalent; 2) the nucleus sampling examples, despite being fluent and consistent, hardly ground to real world scenarios. This suggests that small models are highly capable linguistically, and learning at scale primarily focuses on acquiring other types of knowledge.14 ## 5 Downstream Tasks In this section, we examine the trajectory of downstream tasks, evaluated on few-shot in-context learning (ICL). ## 5.1 Task Selection And Evaluation BIG-Bench (Srivastava et al., 2022) is a large collection of tasks for evaluating language models. We evaluate intermediate checkpoints on its subset 14We present more generated examples and have a more detailed discussion on generation quality in Appendix C.3. | Dist. | Greedy Search | Nucleus Sampling | |-------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Fortunately, the day wasn't all ... | Fortunately, the day wasn't all ... | | | ps−pl | that great. The sun was setting and the sun was falling. I went to bed and woke my husband, who was asleep in his bed, to find that I was still asleep in the middle of the night with him. He was still awake when we | that good when the computer said doom and gloom about me. Sure enough, because of our stubborn attempt at terrorizing him via cyberbackup (which relied heavily on computer traffic management (VCMD) to ensure my identity), I was able fix my old | | ps | that bad. I was in the middle of a long day of work and I was in the middle of a long day of work. I was in the middle of a long day of work. I was in the middle of a long day | that bad. Not because the weather wasn't bad, but because of how many people didn't move their car around. For those who did, I wanted to say thanks to everyone else who still had a tire change on. That doesn't change | | ps+pl | bad. I was able to get a few things done, and I was able to get a few things done. I was able to get a few things done, and I was able to get a few things done. I was able to | cold and we didn't have to set up a heated bed so we wouldn't freeze off in the middle of the night. It was a nice fall day and I had just finished wrapping up the color scheme on the wall. I still haven | | pl | bad. I got to spend some time with my family, and I got to see my friends. I got to see my friends, and I got to see my family. I got to see my family, and I got to see my | gloom, glum, and doom. One nice thing was the gift of snow for a few minutes this afternoon. It was fun to watch it pile up on the porch, watch the kids watch it pile up, and then run out and scatter | | pl−ps | bad news. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a landmark study showing that we have 12 years to limit climate catastrophe. And a group of young activists filed a landmark climate lawsuit in federal district court, demanding that the government take | bad for Iowa fans. Tight end C. J. Fiedorowicz decided, for what has to be the millionth time now, to use Twitter as his own personal slogan board, and this time he decided to riff off the famous Bugs Bunny | Table 1: Examples generated with greedy decoding and nucleus sampling under different configurations. The prompt is *Fortunately, the day wasn't all*. of 74 multiple-choice tasks.15 BIG-Bench comes with predefined templates with a unified QA format for in-context learning, which mitigates the extra complexity of prompt design.16 We focus on the 2-shot setting. Following Srivastava et al. (2022), we randomly select two incontext learning examples (excluding the evaluation example itself) for each test instance and pick the candidate for each evaluation example that has the highest probability normalized over its length. We use the average 2-shot accuracy of downstream tasks as a proxy for in-context learning capability. ## 5.2 Trajectory Of Icl Performance ICL vs. valid PPL. From Figure 8 (leftmost), it is evident that the downstream task performance strongly correlates with validation perplexity across all model sizes. The curves of different model sizes significantly overlap, indicating that when a small model and a large model are trained to the same perplexity level, they achieve comparable downstream task performance. ICL vs. other metrics. it is evident that plotting task accuracy against various metrics yields distinct patterns. Notably, when subjected to an equal amount of training FLOPs, the performance of smaller models consistently surpasses that of larger models, with the exception of the 125M model. This observation implies that larger models possess untapped potential for improvement, especially when provided with more training FLOPs or data (Hoffmann et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). Conversely, the remaining two plots indicate that larger models consistently outperform smaller ones when trained with the same number of training tokens and training steps. ## 5.3 Linearity Vs. Breakthroughness Tasks We select 12 tasks that present a linearity scaling pattern and 6 tasks that present a breakthroughness scaling pattern,17 and plot the perplexity of the correct and incorrect options for each group of tasks against validation perplexity in Figure 9. The performance of breakthroughness tasks increases tremendously as the validation perplexity drops below 8. The perplexity gap between the correct and incorrect options also starts to expand at this point for the 30B and 175B models. In contrast, 17Breakthroughness here similar to the emergent dehavior defined in Wei et al. (2022). Details on how we select linearity and breakthroughness tasks are in Appendix D.3.  0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04  0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 the accuracy of linearity tasks gradually increases. The perplexity of correct and incorrect options first decrease as validation perplexity decreases, and it is only at the end of the curve that the perplexity of correct and incorrect options starts to diverge. This suggests that improvements in downstream accuracy are not generally driven by the model learning to assign a lower probability to incorrect candidates, but rather driven by the perplexity divergence of correct and incorrect options. ## 5.4 Breakthroughness Tasks Learn Smoothly On Trajectory In Appendix D.4, we provide a detailed analysis of task accuracy in relation to perplexity and FLOPs for individual linearity and breakthroughness tasks. The corresponding plots can be found in Figure 17 and Figure 18. As expected, these plots exhibit a significantly larger variance, showcasing substantial fluctuations in task performance during the training process. However, we still observe a notable alignment between task accuracy and validation perplexity across different model scales. Notably, the breakthroughness tasks, which demonstrate sudden performance improvements at the final checkpoints, display a smooth and continuous growth trend along the training trajectory. This observation reinforces the findings of a recent study conducted by Schaeffer et al. (2023), where they discovered that modifying downstream task metrics results in gradual changes in performance rather than abrupt and unexpected shifts as model scale increases. These results suggest that when examining task performance at a finer level, either through continuous metrics or continuous model checkpoints, task performance largely exhibits a smooth growth pattern in tandem with validation perplexity. Nevertheless, as suggested by Ganguli et al. (2022), accurately predicting the learning curve of a specific task still remains challenging. ## 6 Related Work Phase change. Olsson et al. (2022) study induction heads to understand the formation of in-context learning ability. The main finding is that there exists a critical phase chage (Power et al., 2022; Nanda and Lieberum, 2022) that forms the incontext learning ability. Our studies are in the same spirit as these work, but we did not discover any phase change for the phenomena we examined; all of them evolve steadily as training progresses. (Inverse) scaling laws. Previous work studies scaling on downstream tasks (Wei et al., 2022; Srivastava et al., 2022), pre-training data (Hernandez et al., 2022), architectures (Tay et al., 2022a), biases (Tal et al., 2022), and other domains, such as vision tasks and neural machine translation (Alabdulmohsin et al., 2022). Our work studies different scaling behaviors over model trajectories. Inverse scaling refers to a scaling behavior where increasing the model size leads to worse performance for a downstream task (Perez and McKenzie). Part of our work intends to understand the distributional shift from small models to large models for language modeling along training trajectories, which overlaps with the theme of inverse scaling. Perplexity vs. downstream performance. Regarding the pre-training/fine-tuning paradigm, Wettig et al. (2022) and Tay et al. (2022a) find that a lower pre-training perplexity does not necessarily translate to better fine-tuning performance. For zero-shot inference, Saunshi et al. (2020) mathematically shows that doing well in language modeling benefits downstream tasks. On the contrary, Shin et al. (2022) claims the opposite relationship for in-context learning performance and perplexity when training language models with different corpora, but they only test four downstream tasks on a few model checkpoints. Our work extensively evaluates multiple domains and tasks on both language modeling and downstream tasks across checkpoints of different scales, which entails less variance. Effective scaling Several prior studies have focused on effectively scaling models by examining limited compute settings (Geiping and Goldstein, 2022), exploring different objectives (Tay et al., 2022b; Artetxe et al., 2022b), and investigating different architecture and training setups (Scao et al., 2022b). This work specifically examines model scales under a unified setting, but the proposed techniques can be applied to other settings as well. ## 7 Conclusion To summarize, our study demonstrates that validation perplexity is a reliable indicator of the behavior of OPT models, regardless of their sizes. Larger models, with increased computational power and capacity, exhibit behavior similar to that of smaller models while also unlocking new phenomena and capabilities as validation perplexity decreases further. However, there are certain exceptional cases where models behave differently, sometimes even in opposite directions, such as in the perplexity of texts generated by contrasting two models. This suggests that the underlying model distributions are not entirely identical at the same perplexity level. The availability of a larger number of opensourced model checkpoints, such as those provided by Biderman et al. (2023), offers opportunities for interpreting language model behaviors through the analysis of training trajectories. The techniques we propose can be extended to analyze language models trained using different resources and methodologies. Additionally, we leave open questions for future research, such as further exploring the phenomenon of double-descent more in-depth. ## Limitations We discuss the limitations of the work as follows: - One major limitation of our work is that we analyze language models pre-trained with the same data, similar training procedures, and the same autoregressive language modeling objective. Our findings may support model families trained in this restricted setting. When comparing models trained with different corpora, such as Neo GPT NEO (Black et al., 2021) and BLOOM (Scao et al., 2022a), different architectures and objectives, such as retrievalbased language models (Khandelwal et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2022; Borgeaud et al., 2021) and sparse models (Fedus et al., 2022; Artetxe et al., 2022a), the relationship between validation perplexity and downstream task performance could be more obscure. - For downstream task evaluation, we only evaluate on multiple-choice tasks, where the evaluation protocol is the most similar to the pretraining objective. Evaluating on generationbased tasks is more messy and hard to scale up, and we will leave it as future work. Another risk is that as we always take aggregated measurements over tasks, it might conceal important patterns of individual tasks. - We do not provide a concrete explanation for the double-descent behavior that consistently occurs during pre-training, nor do we know if it is an artifact of the data, the objective or the optimization process. We consider it an interesting phenomenon and will look more closely into it in future works. ## Acknowledgement We thank Sadhika Malladi for helping out with writing and having insightful discussions on the project with the authors. We thank Tianyu Gao for helping out running experiments on open-text generation in the Appendix. We also thank Stephen Roller, Srini Iyyer, Todor Mihaylov, Xiaochuang Han, and all members of the Princeton NLP group for helpful discussion and valuable feedback. This work was conducted when Mengzhou Xia was interning at Meta Platforms, Inc. ## References Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Behnam Neyshabur, and Xiaohua Zhai. 2022. Revisiting neural scaling laws in language and vision. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)*. Mikel Artetxe, Shruti Bhosale, Naman Goyal, Todor Mihaylov, Myle Ott, Sam Shleifer, Xi Victoria Lin, Jingfei Du, Srinivasan Iyer, Ramakanth Pasunuru, et al. 2022a. Efficient large scale language modeling with mixtures of experts. In *Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Mikel Artetxe, Jingfei Du, Naman Goyal, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Ves Stoyanov. 2022b. On the role of bidirectionality in language model pre-training. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Stella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Anthony, Herbie Bradley, Kyle O'Brien, Eric Hallahan, Mohammad Aflah Khan, Shivanshu Purohit, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Edward Raff, et al. 2023. Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling. In *International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)*. Sid Black, Leo Gao, Phil Wang, Connor Leahy, and Stella Biderman. 2021. GPT-Neo: Large Scale Autoregressive Language Modeling with MeshTensorflow. If you use this software, please cite it using these metadata. Terra Blevins, Hila Gonen, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Analyzing the mono-and cross-lingual pretraining dynamics of multilingual language models. In *Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)*. Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2021. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04426*. Tom B Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)*. Leshem Choshen, Guy Hacohen, Daphna Weinshall, and Omri Abend. 2022. The grammar-learning trajectories of neural language models. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2204.02311. William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2022. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. *The Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR)*. Deep Ganguli, Danny Hernandez, Liane Lovitt, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Nova Dassarma, Dawn Drain, Nelson Elhage, et al. 2022. Predictability and surprise in large generative models. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2020. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027*. Jonas Geiping and Tom Goldstein. 2022. Cramming: Training a language model on a single gpu in one day. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14034*. Danny Hernandez, Tom Brown, Tom Conerly, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Sheer El-Showk, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Tom Henighan, Tristan Hume, et al. 2022. Scaling laws and interpretability of learning from repeated data. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2205.10487. Danny Hernandez, Jared Kaplan, Tom Henighan, and Sam McCandlish. 2021. Scaling laws for transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01293. Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2203.15556. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*. Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361. Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2020. Generalization through memorization: Nearest neighbor language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Kalpesh Krishna, Yapei Chang, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2022. Rankgen: Improving text generation with large ranking models. In *Empirical Methods in* Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Katherine Lee, Daphne Ippolito, Andrew Nystrom, Chiyuan Zhang, Douglas Eck, Chris Callison-Burch, and Nicholas Carlini. 2022. Deduplicating training data makes language models better. In *Association* for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Xiang Lisa Li, Ari Holtzman, Daniel Fried, Percy Liang, Jason Eisner, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Contrastive decoding: Open-ended text generation as optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15097. Zeyu Liu, Yizhong Wang, Jungo Kasai, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Noah A Smith. 2021. Probing across time: What does roberta know and when? In *Findings of Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)*, pages 820–842. Preetum Nakkiran, Gal Kaplun, Yamini Bansal, Tristan Yang, Boaz Barak, and Ilya Sutskever. 2020. Deep double descent: Where bigger models and more data hurt. In *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*. Neel Nanda and Tom Lieberum. 2022. A mechanistic interpretability analysis of grokking. *Alignment Forum*. Catherine Olsson, Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Nicholas Joseph, Nova DasSarma, Tom Henighan, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Scott Johnston, Andy Jones, Jackson Kernion, Liane Lovitt, Kamal Ndousse, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, and Chris Olah. 2022. In-context learning and induction heads. Transformer Circuits Thread. Ethan Perez and Ian McKenzie. Inverse scaling prize: Round 1 winners. Krishna Pillutla, Swabha Swayamdipta, Rowan Zellers, John Thickstun, Sean Welleck, Yejin Choi, and Zaid Harchaoui. 2021. Mauve: Measuring the gap between neural text and human text using divergence frontiers. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)*. Alethea Power, Yuri Burda, Harri Edwards, Igor Babuschkin, and Vedant Misra. 2022. Grokking: Generalization beyond overfitting on small algorithmic datasets. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.02177*. Jack W Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446. Jack W. Rae, Anna Potapenko, Siddhant M. Jayakumar, Chloe Hillier, and Timothy P. Lillicrap. 2020. Compressive transformers for long-range sequence modelling. In *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*. Nikunj Saunshi, Sadhika Malladi, and Sanjeev Arora. 2020. A mathematical exploration of why language models help solve downstream tasks. In *International Conference on Learning Representations* (ICLR). Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilic, Daniel Hesslow, Ro- ´ man Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Gallé, et al. 2022a. Bloom: A 176bparameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100. Teven Le Scao, Thomas Wang, Daniel Hesslow, Lucile Saulnier, Stas Bekman, M Saiful Bari, Stella Bideman, Hady Elsahar, Niklas Muennighoff, Jason Phang, et al. 2022b. What language model to train if you have one million gpu hours? arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15424. Rylan Schaeffer, Brando Miranda, and Sanmi Koyejo. 2023. Are emergent abilities of large language models a mirage? *arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.15004*. Seongjin Shin, Sang-Woo Lee, Hwijeen Ahn, Sungdong Kim, HyoungSeok Kim, Boseop Kim, Kyunghyun Cho, Gichang Lee, Woomyoung Park, Jung-Woo Ha, et al. 2022. On the effect of pretraining corpora on in-context learning by a largescale language model. In *North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (NAACL). Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615. Yixuan Su and Nigel Collier. 2022. Contrastive search is what you need for neural text generation. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2210.14140. Yarden Tal, Inbal Magar, and Roy Schwartz. 2022. Fewer errors, but more stereotypes? the effect of model size on gender bias. In *Proceedings of the* 4th Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing (GeBNLP). Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Samira Abnar, Hyung Won Chung, William Fedus, Jinfeng Rao, Sharan Narang, Vinh Q Tran, Dani Yogatama, and Donald Metzler. 2022a. Scaling laws vs model architectures: How does inductive bias influence scaling? *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2207.10551. Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Jinfeng Rao, William Fedus, Samira Abnar, Hyung Won Chung, Sharan Narang, Dani Yogatama, Ashish Vaswani, and Donald Metzler. 2022b. Scale efficiently: Insights from pretraining and finetuning transformers. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. *Transactions on Machine Learning Research*. Survey Certification. Alexander Wettig, Tianyu Gao, Zexuan Zhong, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Should you mask 15% in masked language modeling? *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2202.08005. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068*. Zexuan Zhong, Tao Lei, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Training language models with memory augmentation. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). ## A Checkpoint Details We present the checkpoint information in Table 2. OPT models of different sizes are trained with different batch sizes and end up training with different number of steps given the same amount of training tokens. We select early-stage checkpoints every 4K steps for evaluation, and enlarge the interval to 10K or 20K for late stage checkpoints. There are a few checkpoints missing/corrupted from the training process, e.g., 125M 180K, and we have to eliminate them our evaluation. All OPT models are trained with 300B tokens, of which 180B tokens are unique. This training procedure means that OPTs are trained with repeated data, though training with non-repeating data consistently lead to better performance in language modeling and downstream tasks (Lee et al., 2022; Hernandez et al., 2022). ## B Next-Token Predictions B.1 Data Used In The Main Paper We use the Gutenberg PG-19 (Rae et al., 2020) subset as the main dataset for analysis in the main paper. This validation subset contains 50 lines of texts, and we take the first 2048 tokens of each line for analysis, resulting in 102350 context-token pairs. We observe similar patterns when evaluated on other validation subsets such as Wikipedia and opensubtitles, and we omit the results for brevity. ## B.2 Trajectory Of Other Tokens We set our criteria to be relatively strict to make sure that the perplexity trajectory of the selected tokens does present the trend (stagnated/upward/downward) we expect. We present the trajectory of the tokens that do not fall into any of the categories in Figure 10. We find that the trend of these tokens are not consistent across models. After 10% of training, the curves of 125M, 1.3B, 6.7B present a slight double-descent trend, and for the rest of the models, the curves present a downward/stagnated trend. After 40% of training, the curves of 125M present a slight double-descent trend towards the end, and the curves of other models present a downward/stagnated trend. This suggests that the rest of the tokens might contain a larger variance in their perplexity trajectories.  ## B.3 Properties Of Stagnated And Upward-Trend Tokens We show an example paragraph in Table 3, where the stagnated tokens are in blue, upward-trend tokens are in red and downward-trend tokens are in green. It's easy to see that stagnated tokens are mostly connecting words, determiners, punctuation and continuation of words. However, we find it hard to characterize the tokens that present an upward-trend in perplexity simply based on token types. We made attempts to further decipher what language properties this subset might entail based on the part-of-speech tags and positions in sequences, and did not observe any obvious patterns when compared to all the tokens in the validation set. One thing we are sure is that the phenomenon of the upward trend in perplexity as well as the double-descent phenomenon on a certain subset of tokens systematically appears across all model sizes. Therefore, this subset of context-token pairs must embody certain intrinsic language properties, which might be beyond our comprehension so far. | # Params | LR | Batch Size | # Steps | # CKpt | CKpt Steps | |--------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|-----------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 125M | 6.0e − 4 | 0.5M | 600K | 36 | 2K, 6K, 10K, 14K, 18K, 22K, 26K, 30K, 34K, 38K, 40K, 60K, 80K, 100K, 120K, 140K, 160K, 200K, 220K, 240K, 260K, 280K, 300K, 320K, 340K, 360K, 380K, 400K, 420K, 440K, 460K, 480K, 500K, 520K, 540K, 560K | | 1.3B | 2.0e − 4 | 1M | 300K | 22 | 2K, 6K, 10K, 14K, 18K, 22K, 26K, 30K, 34K, 38K, 40K, 60K, 80K, 100K, 120K, 140K, 160K, 180K, 200K, 220K, 240K, 260K | | 6.7B | 1.2e − 4 | 2M | 150K | 21 | 2K, 6K, 10K, 14K, 18K, 22K, 26K, 30K, 34K, 38K, 40K, 50K, 60K, 70K, 80K, 90K, 100K, 110K, 120K, 130K, 140K | | 13B | 1.0e − 4 | 4M | 75K | 18 | 2K, 6K, 10K, 14K, 18K, 22K, 26K, 30K, 34K, 38K, 42K, 46K, 50K, 54K, 58K, 62K, 66K, 70K | | 30B | 1.0e − 4 | 4M | 75K | 18 | 2K, 6K, 10K, 14K, 18K, 22K, 26K, 30K, 34K, 38K, 42K, 46K, 50K, 54K, 58K, 62K, 66K, 70K | | 175B | 1.2e − 4 | 2M | 150K | 32 | 4K, 8K, 12K, 16K, 20K, 24K, 36K, 40K, 44K, 48K, 52K, 56K, 60K, 64K, 68K, 72K, 76K, 80K, 84K, 88K, 92K, 96K, 100K, 104K, 108K, 112K, 120K, 124K, 128K, 132K, 136K, 140K | | Table 2: Checkpoint (Ckpt) information for OPT models. | LR denotes learning rate. | Note that we take these | | | | Table 2: Checkpoint (Ckpt) information for OPT models. LR denotes learning rate. Note that we take these checkpoints for practical reasons and the distance between checkponts are not evenly spaced. But it should not affect the analysis. It would be interesting to do an in-depth analysis in understanding why it happens during pre-training, and how it connects to natural language properties. ## B.4 More Explorations On Upward Trends In this section, we explore the subset of tokens that present an upward trend when selected by models of other sizes from the main paper (6.7B, 13B, 30B). We present the perplexity trajectory of these tokens in Figure 11. For the subset of tokens selected after 10% of training of the 6.7B model, the larger models' perplexity also increase but only the largest 175B model presents a double descent behavior where the perplexity declines further. When the tokens are selected after 40% of training of 6.7B, the trends remain similar but the change is mulch more mild. Overall, except the model that is used to select the tokens, the curves of other models present a similar trend, and we will show that these curves overlap with each other almost completely when plotting against validation perplexity in the next subsection. The consistent occurrence of double-descent behavior along the trajectory shows that it's a phenomenon happening universally across the entire autoregressive pre-training process. ## B.5 Results Against Validation Perplexity In the main paper, we mostly plot measurements against FLOPs, in this section, we plot the perplexity trajectory of tokens that present different trends against **validation perplexity** in Figure 12. These figures present the same series of results as Figure 3 and Figure 4, except that the x-axis is validation perplexity. As mentioned in section 2, we use the aggregated perplexity of a number of subsets as the validation perplexity. From Figure 12, we see that given a similar level of validation perplexity, for different subsets of tokens, the trajectories of models across sizes overlap well with each other, suggesting that the predictions for these tokens are similar across model scales at Appropri ate ; pertaining to the subject . \n P ect oral . The bone which forms the main rib or support at the forward edge of a bird 's wing . \n Pers istent . Keeping at it ; determination to proceed . \n Per pend icular . At right angles to a surface . This term is sometimes wrongly applied in referring to an object , particularly to an object which is vertical , meaning up and down . The blade of a square is perpend ie ular to the handle at all times , but the blade is vertical only when it points to the center of the earth . \n P ern icious . Bad ; not having good features or possessing wrong attributes . \n P end ulum . A bar or body suspended at a point and adapted to swing to and fro . \n Per pet ual . For all time ; un ending or unlimited time . \n P hen omen a . Some peculiar happening , or event , or object . \n P itch . In aviation this applies to the angle at which the blades of a prope ller are cut . If a prope ller is turned , and it moves forward ly in the exact path made by the angle , for one complete turn , the distance traveled by the prope ller ax ially indicates the pitch in feet . \n Pl acement . When an object is located at any particular point , so that it is operative the location is called the placement . \n Pl ane . A flat surface for supporting a flying machine in the air . Plane of movement per tains to the imaginary surface described by a moving body ## After 10% Training Of 1.3B Model After 10% Training Of 175B **Model** Appropri ate ; pertaining to the subject . \n P ect oral . The bone which forms the main rib or support at the forward edge of a bird 's wing . \n Pers istent . Keeping at it ; determination to proceed . \n Per pend icular . At right angles to a surface . This term is sometimes wrongly applied in referring to an object , particularly to an object which is vertical , meaning up and down . The blade of a square is perpend ie ular to the handle at all times , but the blade is vertical only when it points to the center of the earth . \n P ern icious . Bad ; not having good features or possessing wrong attributes . \n P end ulum . A bar or body suspended at a point and adapted to swing to and fro . \n Per pet ual . For all time ; un ending or unlimited time . \n P hen omen a . Some peculiar happening , or event , or object . \n P itch . In aviation this applies to the angle at which the blades of a prope ller are cut . If a prope ller is turned , and it moves forward ly in the exact path made by the angle , for one complete turn , the distance traveled by the prope ller ax ially indicates the pitch in feet . \n Pl acement . When an object is located at any particular point , so that it is operative the location is called the placement . \n Pl ane . A flat surface for supporting a flying machine in the air . Plane of movement per tains to the imaginary surface described by a moving body Table 3: An example paragraph to demonstrate tokens that present a stagnating, upward or downward trend after 10% training of 1.3B and 175B models. Tokens that present an upward trend in perplexity are in Red; tokens that present a downward trend are in Green; stagnating tokens are in Blue. Black tokens do not present a clear trend. a fixed level of validation perplexity. The only exception is the upward-trend tokens selected after 10 % training of 1.3B, where evaluating with 1.3B presents a clear upward trend as the validation perplexity increases, while the models larger than 1.3B present a overlapping double descentlike trend. This indicates that the underlying distribution of models at the same level of perplexity are largely similar but could differ in edge cases. These results lays the foundation for downstream task evaluations, which heavily relies on the pretraining objective for evaluation. ## C Sequence-Level Generation C.1 Details Of Corrupted Datasets We corrupt texts from the opensubtitle subset of the validation set by replacing p% tokens (subwords) with randomly sampled tokens in the sequences. We cap the max length of a sequence to be 100, though changing max length values does not affect the conclusion. Although the perplexity on these corrupted sequences is extremely high, especially when the replacement rate is high, it is still much lower than a truely random model (the perplexity of a random model should be |V | where V is the vocabulary), even for the fully corrupted dataset. It reflects that larger language models are better at exploiting random patterns to produce in-  distribution contents than smaller counterparts. We also tried other ways of corruption, such as deleting, inserting, repeating tokens/spans, and all these corruptions result in similar scaling trends. ## C.2 Comparison To Li Et Al. **(2022)** Our decoding approach is similar to the contrastive decoding method (CD) proposed in Li et al. (2022), though initially for completely different purposes. The difference between the two methods is in the subtraction space. The contrastive score in CD is defined by dividing the expert probability over amateur probability, which is equivalent to subtraction in the log probability space. Our approach operates subtraction in the probability space directly, ruling out unlikely options where the small model is much more confident than the large model directly. Due to this different design choice, our approach does not need to add the adaptive plausibility restriction, nor involve any additional hyperparameter. Subtraction in the probability space easily eliminates the false positive cases. We initially propose the approach to decoding sequences that small models favor more than large models to understand the distributional shift across model scales, while contrastive decoding proposed in Li et al. (2022) is a general open-generation approach. Nonetheless, our approach could be an effective and lightweight alternative for open-ended generation without the need to adjust hyperparameters. In Appendix C.4, we show that our approach outperforms nucleus sampling on MAUVE scores. ## C.3 Generation Quality To have a better understanding of the overall quality of the generated sequences, we evaluate these sequences decoded with each configuration in Figure 6 using MAUVE scores (Pillutla et al., 2021). We present the MAUVE scores in Figure 13 . Our generation protocol is slightly different from the standard open-ended generation practices in that we only use 5 tokens as prompts for generation, while usually at least 128 tokens are used (Krishna et al., 2022; Su and Collier, 2022; Li et al., 2022). Using fewer tokens as prompts leads to a higher generation diversity, and the generated distribution could be largely different from the ground-truth sentences. Therefore, we find that the MAUVE scores of our generated sequences are much lower than reported in open-ended generation literature. Comparing the two decoding protocols, subtraction between two distributions (ps −pl and pl −ps) leads to a better generation quality than summing the two (ps + pl) for greedy sampling, but vice versa for nucleus sampling. To verify the effectiveness of the approach, we compare it to nucleus sampling with standard open-generation protocols in Appendix C.4. ## C.4 Open-Ended Generation Evaluation We follow the generation protocol in Krishna et al. (2022) for open-ended generation, where we generate sequences with a maximum length of 128 given contexts that have 256 tokens. We decode sequences based on either pl −ps or pl with greedy 13726  decoding or nucleus sampling (p = 0.9) and evaluate the quality of the generation with MAUVE scores. serve as an effective general decoding method for open-ended generation. We present the results in Table 4. Consistently, our approach to subtracting the probability from a small model from a large model outperforms nucleus sampling with one single model consistently, indicating that our approach has the potential to ## C.5 Generating Longer Sequences We extend the study to generate longer sequences up to 100 and 500 tokens, and we present perplexity trajectories in Figure 14 and Figure 15, respectively. We find that the inverse scaling trend across model 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04  0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 Figure 13: MAUVE scores (the higher, the better) on sequences with a maximum length of 50.  0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 Figure 14: Greedy search and nucleus sampling results with generations of a length of 100. sizes and the opposite perplexity trend between the 125M and 30B also hold for longer sequences. MAUVE scores on generated sequences of different lengths are largely consistent. The longer the decoded sequences are, the worse the overall quality. ## C.6 Examples Of Generated Sequences We present more examples of generated sequences in Table 5 and Table 6. Similar to Table 1, we find that nucleus sampling with pl, pl − ps and greedy search with pl−ps constantly generate high-quality sequences. Greedy decoding ps − pl generates mediocre sequences that are largely grammatical and fluent, but less coherent and sometimes contain hallucinations. ## C.7 Validation Perplexity Vs. Perplexity Of Generated Texts We plot the perpelxity trajectory of generated texts against validation perplexity in Figure 16. The trajectories largely align well across model sizes for ps, ps + pl and pl but diverge in the case of pl − ps and ps − pl. This indicates that the underlying distributions of different-sized models given the same perplexity are similar but not exactly identical. ps pl ps ps + pl pl pl ps 0 50 mauve43.3 52.1 58.9 62.949.3   0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 350m 0.065 0.807 350m-125m 0.795 **0.852** 1.3b 0.164 0.877 1.3b-125m 0.851 **0.890** 1.3b-350m 0.888 0.886 2.7b 0.237 0.832 2.7b-125m 0.815 **0.851** 2.7b-350m 0.846 0.843 greedy nucleus ## D Downstream Tasks D.1 Task Selection And Evaluation Out of comuputational considerations, we only evaluate multiple-choice tasks that have fewer than 1000 evaluation examples. The list of selected tasks is shown in Table 7. We report 2-shot in-context learning performance on the default set of each BIG-Bench dataset. ## D.2 Prompts We use fixed prompt formats from the BIG-Bench datasets. Optimizing the prompts might lead to extra margins in performance. Studying the relationship between prompt formats and downstream task performance along the trajectory is interesting, but we consider it out of the scope of this work. We present examples from four datasets in Table 8. ## D.3 Linearity And Breakthroughness Tasks Srivastava et al. (2022) identify tasks showing a linearity or breakthroughness pattern and (Wei et al., 2022) coin the term *emergent ability* for models showing breakthroughness patterns on certain tasks. Previous works mainly study scaling patterns of downstream tasks with final model checkpoints, and we extend this to training trajectories of models across scales. We largely follow Srivastava et al. (2022) to identify tasks with linearity and breakthroughness patterns - the former depicts the trend where the task performance scales with the model size reliably, and for the latter, the performance remains low until a critical model size. We select 12 tasks that show a linearity pattern and 6 tasks that show a breakthroughness pattern based on the metrics proposed in (Srivastava et al., 2022). For each model size xi and the corresponding performance yi, the metrics are defined as $$L={\frac{I(y)}{\sqrt{{\frac{1}{n}}\sum_{i}z_{i}^{2}}}};B={\frac{I(y)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{Median}(\{z_{i}^{2}\})}}};\quad(4)$$ where I(y) = sign(arg maxi yi − arg maxi yi) ·(maxi yi − mini yi) is a measure to capture the overall improvement of performance when scaling up. We find that these two measures are not sufficient for identifying the scaling trends for linearity and breakthroughness, thus we also manually check the scaling pattern to verify. The linearity and breakthroughness tasks are lists in Table 9. ## D.4 Trajectory Of Each Task We present the scaling curves (on the final model checkpoints) and training trajectories of each linearity and breakthroughness task in Figure 17 and Figure 18. The evaluation of each task presents a large variance across the training steps. Though the tasks might present a breakthroughness pattern on the scaling curves, their trajectory curves show that language models pick up the task gradually.   | Dist. | Greedy Search | Nucleus Sampling | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | A girl (Lisbeth Salander) has ... | A girl (Lisbeth Salander) has ... | | | ps−pl | just discovered a new way to get her hair done!\n\nLisba is a blonde beauty who has been living her dream for quite some time now.\n\nLisba was recently spotted wearing a red and white wig and a black and blue striped suit that she wore in an Instagram video. The blonde beauty is currently living in the UK with her husband, Matt, with the help of their daughter Lizz.\n\nLizz and Matt have been dating for a while but have been dating | left the grandpa home he's lived to preserve for her.\nLisbin and her daughter Dylan Joanna (Arista Welch-Collinson) do everything they can to protect their sister.\nBut unlike ever before their young girl fills it all with grief with every form of loss.\nAs she learns Dylan isn't here anymore and acknowledges he's changed his mind, Daley finds herself falling back on the same old rules again.\nYellen's been teaching the inane Lyle | | ps | a crush on a guy (Lisbeth Salander) and she's not sure what to do about it.\n\nShe's a girl who's been in love with a guy (Lisbeth Salander) for a while, but she's not sure what to do about it.\n\nShe's a girl who's been in love with a guy (Lisbeth Salander) for a while, but she's not sure what to do about it.\n\nShe | just discovered\nthat it's not an actual\nworm! Thanks to the Halloween\nMirror campaign, she was discovered in the\ngoldeneye-buxco-only prologue of the main\ngame, for her interest in science and fantasia.\n\nMalcolm Young: There are four bugs on here.We're working on them, though, because they're incredibly busy and we're both making what are\nexpected\nto | | ps+pl | a crush on a guy (Alexander Skarsgard) and he's a bit of a jerk.\nI think you mean Lisbeth Salander.\n\nI think you mean Lisbeth Salander.\nI think you mean Lisbeth Salander.\nI think you mean Lisbeth Salander.\nI think you mean Lisbeth Salander.\nI think you mean Lisbeth Salander.\nI think you mean Lisbeth Salander.\nI think you | a feeling that there's something more to computer games than what we see in them. Turns out, there is something more to computer games. But it's not "aliens," "moles," or "spies." It's about a virtual world that we can all be part of if we so choose.\n\nWe believe in calling that world Virtual Reality.\n\nThe game is called THE PREMIER. | | pl | a crush on a guy (Alexander Skarsgard) who is | has been attacked at her apartment by three men. They | | a computer hacker.\nThe Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?\nYup.<s> | rape her and beat her. She later finds herself at a center for the mentally disabled. There, she has... See full summary »\nThe beginning of a story. The first nymphomaniac to admit that she has a problem, Helga refuses to seek treatment because she sees it as a surrender to defeat. However, it's... See full summary »\nA young man has just killed a drunken girl in a subway station. | | | pl−ps | sex for the first and last times in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.\nI don't remember that in the book.\nIt's implied. She says something like "I've never done this before" when they're having sex for the first time. And when she's having sex with her boyfriend for the last, she says something along the same lines.</s> | her face ripped open in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. That one still disturbs me. The third movie not as much, but that scene was still disturbing</s> | | Table 5: Generated examples with greedy decoding and nucleus sampling under different configurations. | The | | Table 5: Generated examples with greedy decoding and nucleus sampling under different configurations. The prompt is *A girl (Lisbeth Salander) has*. | Dist. | Greedy Search | Nucleus Sampling | |---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Now in private practice together, ... | Now in private practice together, ... | | | ps−pl | I'm going through the same process. I've never had any issues.\nI've had the same issue too! I'm trying not get into any of the practices because it's so hard. But now I can't do anything because of it :( I'm hoping to do something with my time and money to get some help!\nThat's really sad! Hopefully I can get some help! I hope to get some advice from someone who knows how to help me out, and that they | I can confirm it works pretty perfectly on My"EBM Used by me if I ever need\nGreat news :)</s> | | ps | I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan of the "I'm a big fan | a firm working on management strategies for retailing for software, designing, and engineering complex healthcare facilities, and leading multi-channel providers in addition to providing a variety of consulting services. Experience in all stages of PR is critical to have.\n\nThis 3.3 year-term contract includes a wide range of consultant training, including training for email and email integration, and three-way calls for projects.\n\nAt Microsoft Healthcare, we have a broad selection of technical leadership and support teams for our healthcare | | ps+pl | I have the pleasure of working with a number of clients who have been referred to me by my colleagues. I have been able to help them with their legal issues and I have been able to help them with their personal issues.\n\nI have been able to help them with their legal issues and I have been able to help them with their personal issues.\n\nI have been able to help them with their legal issues and I have been able to help them with their personal issues.\n\nI have | Father Harry Thomas, a faculty member at Canisius College, and Father Christopher Cooney, pastor at Holy Redeemer Church in Lancaster, are a good team. The two have collaborated on two traditional healing classes for children since the spring of 2016. Their latest effort, followed by Father John Clifford, pastor at Christ the King Church in Canisius, has taken the call of mercy to the study level. Beginning September 24, Christ the King Church, Canisius, will host "Pope | | pl | Dr. David and Dr. David are a husband and wife team of chiropractors who specialize in the treatment of back pain, neck pain, headaches, and other musculoskeletal problems. They are dedicated to providing the highest quality of care to their patients in a comfortable, friendly, and professional environment.\n\nDr. David is a graduate of the Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport, Iowa. He has been practicing in the greater San Diego area since 1995. He | Spencer and Field with many years of combined practice are passionate about delivering high quality health care to the people of Texas. "Our mission is to empower you and your family to reach your health and wellness goals through nutritional and lifestyle changes. We take a whole-family approach to care and believe that true health is created from the inside out. If you're ready to feel better, we want to be part of your journey"</s> | | pl−ps | Drs. Michael J. Gazzaniga and David A. Eagleman have written a new book that explores what they believe are some fundamental mysteries of the human mind. In The Brain: The Story of You, they argue that the brain is not just the seat of our thoughts and emotions but also of who we are as people.\n\nIn this excerpt from the introduction, the authors explain why they wrote the book and what they hope readers take away.\nThe Brain: The...</s> | the pair focus their legal expertise on helping immigrant families and individuals resolve a wide range immigration matters, including deportation defense, asylum, naturalization (citizenship), removal defense, consular processing (visas), VAWA petitions (domestic violence) as well as deportation and removal proceedings, appeals and motions before immigration court, administrative motions in immigration court, removal orders and waivers of inadmissability. Both attorneys are admitted to the Maryland State Bar as well as the District of Columbia Court of appeals | Table 6: Generated examples with greedy decoding and nucleus sampling under different configurations. The prompt is *Now in private practice together,*. | anachronisms | analogical_similarity | analytic_entailment | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------| | authorship_verification | causal_judgment | cause_and_effect | | code_line_description | common_morpheme | conceptual_combinations | | crash_blossom | crass_ai | cryobiology_spanish | | dark_humor_detection | date_understanding | disambiguation_qa | | discourse_marker_prediction | emoji_movie | empirical_judgments | | english_russian_proverbs | entailed_polarity | entailed_polarity_hindi | | evaluating_information_essentiality | fantasy_reasoning | figure_of_speech_detection | | hhh_alignment | hinglish_toxicity | human_organs_senses | | identify_math_theorems | identify_odd_metaphor | implicatures | | implicit_relations | intent_recognition | international_phonetic_alphabet_nli | | irony_identification | kannada | key_value_maps | | known_unknowns | logical_args | logical_sequence | | mathematical_induction | metaphor_boolean | metaphor_understanding | | misconceptions | misconceptions_russian | moral_permissibility | | movie_recommendation | nonsense_words_grammar | odd_one_out | | penguins_in_a_table | periodic_elements | persian_idioms | | phrase_relatedness | physical_intuition | physics | | presuppositions_as_nli | riddle_sense | ruin_names | | salient_translation_error_detection | sentence_ambiguity | similarities_abstraction | | simple_arithmetic_json_multiple_choice simple_ethical_questions snarks social_support sports_understanding strange_stories suicide_risk swahili_english_proverbs symbol_interpretation understanding_fables undo_permutation unit_interpretation what_is_the_tao which_wiki_edit | | | Table 7: The list of multiple-choice tasks we use from BIG-Bench. Clicking the name of a task will direct you to the task's GitHub page. ## Date_Understanding Q: Yesterday, Jan 21, 2011, Jane ate 2 pizzas and 5 wings. What is the date tomorrow in MM/DD/YYYY? A: 01/23/2011 Q: It is 4/19/1969 today. What is the date yesterday in MM/DD/YYYY? A: 04/18/1969 Q: Yesterday was April 30, 2021. What is the date today in MM/DD/YYYY? A: Options: 05/01/2021,02/23/2021,03/11/2021,05/09/2021,06/12/2021 nonsense_words_grammar Q: How many things does the following sentence describe? The balforator, heddleilwilder and the sminniging crolostat operate superbly and without interrtulation. A: 3 Q: How is the quijerinnedescribed in the next sentence? The umulophanitc quijerinne eriofrols the dusty grass. A: umulophanitc Q: Which word in the following sentence is a verb? The grilshaws bolheavened whincely. A: Options: The, grilshaws, bolheavened, whincely entailed_polarity Given a fact, answer the following question with a yes or a no. Fact: Ed grew to like Mary. Q: Did Ed like Mary? A: yes Given a fact, answer the following question with a yes or a no. Fact: They did not condescend to go. Q: Did they go? A: no Given a fact, answer the following question with a yes or a no. Fact: The report was admitted to be incorrect. Q: Was the report incorrect? A: Options: yes, no sentence_ambiguity Claim: Delhi is not the only Hindi-speakingstate in India. True or False? True Claim: The population of the second-largest country in the world in 2021 exceeds the population of the third, fourth, and fifth largest countries combined. True or False? True Claim: Pescatarians almost never consume vegetarian food. True or False? Options: True, False Table 8: Examples of prompts and answer options for four BIG-Bench multiple-choice tasks. | Linearity Tasks | | | |--------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------------| | date_understanding | fantasy_reasoning | figure_of_speech_detection | | hhh_alignment | implicit_relations | intent_recognition | | misconceptions | similarities_abstraction | simple_ethical_questions | | strange_stories | undo_permutation | nonsense_words_grammar | | Breakthroughness Tasks | | | | code_line_description | human_organs_senses | phrase_relatedness | | swahili_english_proverbs | what_is_the_tao | implicatures | Table 9: The list of linearity and breakthroughness tasks. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section 8 A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? section abstract and section 1 ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? I used copilot to generate image captions and complete sentences throughout the paper, but all the generated texts have been heavily edited. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 2 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? section 2 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We use internal data from the organization. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? section 2 ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? The data we use consists of a collection of open-sourced language modeling datasets, though the split is used internally, the contents should be largely observed by other researchers. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? section 2 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. section 2 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 3, 4, 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? section 2 and Appendix A The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? section 3, 4, 5 C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Not applicable. Left blank. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. Left blank. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

altinok-2023-diverse

A Diverse Set of Freely Available Linguistic Resources for {T}urkish

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.768

This study presents a diverse set of freely available linguistic resources for Turkish natural language processing, including corpora, pretrained models and education material. Although Turkish is spoken by a sizeable population of over 80 million people, Turkish linguistic resources for natural language processing remain scarce. In this study, we provide corpora to allow practitioners to build their own applications and pretrained models that would assist industry researchers in creating quick prototypes. The provided corpora include named entity recognition datasets of diverse genres, including Wikipedia articles and supplement products customer reviews. In addition, crawling e-commerce and movie reviews websites, we compiled several sentiment analysis datasets of different genres. Our linguistic resources for Turkish also include pretrained spaCy language models. To the best of our knowledge, our models are the first spaCy models trained for the Turkish language. Finally, we provide various types of education material, such as video tutorials and code examples, that can support the interested audience on practicing Turkish NLP. The advantages of our linguistic resources are three-fold: they are freely available, they are first of their kind, and they are easy to use in a broad range of implementations. Along with a thorough description of the resource creation process, we also explain the position of our resources in the Turkish NLP world.

# A Diverse Set Of Freely Available Linguistic Resources For Turkish Duygu Altinok Deepgram duygu.altinok@deepgram.com ## Abstract This study presents a diverse set of freely available linguistic resources for Turkish natural language processing, including corpora, pretrained models and education material. Although Turkish is spoken by a sizeable population of over 80 million people, Turkish linguistic resources for natural language processing remain scarce. In this study, we provide corpora to allow practitioners to build their own applications and pretrained models that would assist industry researchers in creating quick prototypes. The provided corpora include named entity recognition datasets of diverse genres, including Wikipedia articles and supplement products customer reviews. In addition, crawling e-commerce and movie reviews websites, we compiled several sentiment analysis datasets of different genres. Our linguistic resources for Turkish also include pretrained spaCy language models. To the best of our knowledge, our models are the first spaCy models trained for the Turkish language. Finally, we provide various types of education material, such as video tutorials and code examples, that can support the interested audience on practicing Turkish NLP. The advantages of our linguistic resources are threefold: they are freely available, they are first of their kind, and they are easy to use in a broad range of implementations. Along with a thorough description of the resource creation process, we also explain the position of our resources in the Turkish NLP world. ## 1 Introduction In recent years, with the development of transformers, natural language processing has experienced a dramatic breakthrough. Previously, learning architectures offered state-of-art solutions to many NLP tasks, such as sequence tagging and text classification. Accordingly, data-driven approaches have become the dominant technique used to process language data. This has made availability of large and high-quality language data an essential resource for the development of NLP models. Turkish is spoken by over 80 million people, both in Turkey and across Europe, Cyprus, and Asia1. However, despite this abundance of Turkish speakers, the number of available Turkish linguistic resources does not compare to the corresponding amount of resources available for well-studied languages such as English. Turkish is an agglutinative language with complex morphology (Göksel and Kerslake, 2005), and its morphosyntactic characteristics are challenging to handle in NLP applications. Similar challenges arise in creating linguistic resources for Turkish. In this paper, we present a new set of Turkish linguistic resources, including corpora, pretrained spaCy models, and education material. The corpora comprise named entity recognition datasets of diverse genres, including Wikipedia articles and supplement products customer reviews. We also compiled several sentiment analysis datasets of different genres created via crawling e-commerce and movie reviews websites. The key characteristic of our corpora is their availability, as all corpora are easily accessible via their Github repos. With regard to spaCy pretrained models, to the best of our knowledge, our models are the first of their kind. Each spaCy pretrained language model includes a POS tagger, a dependency parser, a lemmatizer, a morphological analyzer, and a named entity recognizer as pipeline components. Although some webbased solutions have previously been provided, our POS taggers and dependency parsers are the first ones implemented in pure Python and are freely accessible. Our resources also include education materials. Specifically, we offer relevant information on the corpora building process, including all necessary details on web scraping, text cleaning, file formatting, and training the spaCy language models. Along with detailed tutorials about using 1According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turk ish_language 13739 pretrained spaCy models in Python, we also provide tutorials on Turkish linguistics, dataset formats and the general dataset compilation process. All in all, this paper presents a comprehensive collection of resources to the Turkish NLP community. ## 2 Background In this section, we review available corpora and pretrained models to better contextualize the contributions of our work. ## 2.1 Related Turkish Corpora In a recent review of all available Turkish language resources, Çöltekin et al. (Çöltekin et al., 2022) reviews the few publicly available NER datasets. Some of these datasets, such as Yeniterzi version (Yeniterzi, 2011) of Tür et al.'s dataset (Tur et al., 2003), can be obtained through email. The aforementioned dataset includes ca. 500K words with 37,189 named entities (16,291 person, 11,715 location, 9,183 organization). Furthermore, the ITU NLP group offers three NER datasets (¸Seker and Eryigit ˘ , 2017) with the following three labels: person, organization, and location. These datasets are available from the group's website2 upon signing a licence agreement; however, the licence forbids any commercial use of the data. Another relevant dataset of 9,358 tweets has recently been presented by Eken and Tantug ( ˘ Eken and Tantug˘, 2015); yet, its availability is unclear. As revealed by the brief review above, currently available Turkish NER datasets are rather scarce, and their common limitations include difficulty of access, lack of commercial usability, small size, and minimal annotation. Furthermore, as concerns sentiment analysis datasets, Çöltekin et al. (Çöltekin et al., 2022) reviews only two publicly available and commercially usable datasets: one containing movie reviews and the other containing product reviews; these two datasets were introduced by Demirta¸s and Pechenizkiy (Demirtas and Pechenizkiy, 2013), respectively. Demirta¸s' movie reviews dataset, which contains 5,331 positive and 5,331 negative sentences, is scraped from a popular Turkish movie review site. Pechenizkiy's reviews dataset is considerably smaller and contains 700 positive and 700 negative reviews scraped from an online retailer website. These datasets are available on the authors' website. A third relevant dataset is called TREMO (Tocoglu and Alpkocak, 2http://tools.nlp.itu.edu.tr/Datasets 2018). Collected using a procedure similar to the one used to compile the ISEAR corpus (Scherer and Wallbott, 1994), TREMO is available only for non-commercial use. In summary, there are few sentiment corpora in the Turkish, and the available ones are small-sized (10K and 1.4K reviews), which is definitely not enough to train any kind of neural network-based architecture. ## 2.2 Turkish Language Processing Pipelines To date, only two NLP pipelines have been implemented - namely, Zemberek (Akın and Akın, 2007) and ITU Turkish NLP Web Service (Eryigit ˘ , 2014). Zemberek is an open-source application written in Java for various NLP tasks such as tokenization, sentence boundary detection, morphological analysis and language identification. The other pipeline is ITU Turkish NLP Web Service which, as suggested by its name, is provided as a web service. This pipeline contains a tokenizer, sentence boundary detector, deasciifier, vowelizer, spelling corrector, Turkish text detector, morphological analyzer and disambiguator, named- entity recognizer, and dependency parser components. However, a limitation of ITU Turkish NLP Web Service is that, despite being a full pipeline, it is not easy to use in code; specifically, one needs to require an API token from ITU NLP group and curl the API with input text. Another limitation of this pipeline is that it is not open-source. As suggested by the brief review above, the situation with Turkish NLP pipelines leaves much room for improvement; for a language spoken by 80 million people, there are only two pipelines - one without syntax components such as POS tagger and dependency parser and the other not easily accessible. This is complicated by the fact that a decent performing POS tagger and a dependency parser for Turkish are hardly available. ## 3 Corpora In this section, we present the corpora part of our set of resources. We start with our named entity and span corpora (Section 3.1), followed by sentiment analysis corpora (Section 3.2) and a small corpus of COVID-19 symptoms (Section 3.3). ## 3.1 Corpora For Named Entity And Span Recognition This subsection introduces two corpora for named entity and span recognition that we compiled from different resources. In what follows, we provide information about the collection process, corpus size, vocabulary size and tagset for each corpus. ## 3.1.1 Turkish Wiki Ner Dataset Our Turkish Wiki NER Dataset is a generalpurpose named entity dataset. In essence, it is a re-annotation of a subset of the TWNERTC dataset (Sahin et al., 2017), which is a collection of automatically categorized and annotated sentences from Turkish and English Wikipedia for named entity recognition and text categorization. While the first version of TWNERTC contains 4 broad labels for person names, locations, organizations, and other sort of entities, its second version contains over 1,000 fine-grained labels. Since TWNERTC is an automatically annotated dataset, its label accuracy is not sufficient to be usable in industrial-level NER models. For that reason, for our Turkish Wiki NER Dataset, we manually annotated a set of 20,000 sentences from TWNERTC. The dataset has a redistribution and modification allowing licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). We annotated our dataset with the following 19 types of entities: cardinal numbers, dates, important events, important places, geographical places, human languages, famous laws' names, locations, money amounts, nationalities or religious or political groups, ordinal numbers, organizations, percentages, person names, product names, quantities, time quantities, person titles, and works of art. Figure 1: An example sentence from the dataset with annotated entities. The visual is created by spaCy's visualizer displaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017). The explanations and examples of labels can be found in the dataset's Github repo.3 Our dataset contains 20,000 annotated sentences, around 357K words, with 70K of these words being unique; a total of 57,749 named-entities are labeled, and 101K words are labeled as entities. Distribution of labels in our corpus is shown in Table 1. The data annotation was performed by our data labeling service provider.4 The dataset was annotated by crowd-sourcing; the labeling work | Tag | Count | |-------------|---------| | CARDINAL | 4,295 | | DATE | 6,923 | | EVENT | 2,392 | | FAC | 944 | | GPE | 10,368 | | LANGUAGE | 822 | | LAW | 80 | | LOC | 1,364 | | MONEY | 100 | | NORP | 4,023 | | ORDINAL | 1,711 | | ORG | 4,583 | | PERCENT | 182 | | PRODUCT | 12,787 | | QUANTITY | 990 | | TIME | 131 | | TITLE | 2,494 | | WORK_OF_ART | 2,951 | Table 1: Distribution of NER labels in the Turkish Wiki NER Dataset. was done by a total of 25 annotators (15 female, 10 male). All annotators were native speakers of Turkish residing in Turkey. The dataset is available in its Github repo with CC BY-SA 4.0 licence. ## 3.1.2 **Vitamins And Supplements Ner Dataset** The Vitamins and Supplements NER Dataset is a multi-purpose NLU dataset containing customer reviews, customer review stars, as well as named entity and span annotations. User reviews were collected from a popular supplement products ecommerce website Vitaminler.com. The dataset is presented in the JSON lines format, with each instance of the dataset containing - product name - product's brand name - average star rating - number of total ratings - a list of customer reviews; each review consisting of a review text, review ID, star rating together with entity and span annotations. Each customer review in the Vitamins and Supplements NER Dataset describes a customer's experience with a supplement product in terms of that product's effectiveness, side effects, taste and smell, as well as comments on supplement usage frequency and dosage, active ingredients, brand, and similar products by other brands. The reviews also include pointers to customers' health history and indications how the supplements helped in resolving customers' health problems. As part of their health history, customers refer to certain health issues such as vitamin deficiencies, hair and skin problems, pain in several body parts (e.g., neck pain, back pain, and joint pain), as well as digestion, weight control and sleep problems. Another aspect of the collected reviews is customer demography, as customers would typically mention who they purchased the product for, including themselves or another family member (e.g., "bought the product for my baby/85-year-old mother/6-year-old daughter"), and such descriptions usually include references to gender and age. Those parts of the reviews provide valuable information about target users of the product and its effectiveness on certain demographic groups. Finally, one more valuable type of information providing meaningful clues about supplement usage habits in the population is related to who initially recommended the product to the customer (e.g., a health professional, a friend or a relative, etc.).  Considering the characteristics of the data, our Vitamins and Supplements NER Dataset lies at the intersection of customer review data and healthcare NLP data. Healthcare NLP datasets are conventionally compiled from a variety of genres such as doctor notes, oncology notes, radiology reports, scientific article abstracts, customer reviews for health products and contain various annotations for diagnosis codes, named entities, spans, and topics5. In view of the variety of information and annotation schemes in the healthcare domain, healthcare NLP obviously requires more than only named entity tags. In response to this need, in the Vitamins and Supplements NER Dataset, we introduced spans, which are "free" sequences of tokens. By "free" here we mean that sequence of tokens could be any sequence of tokens; that is, a sequence did not have to end/start with or contain certain POS tags (e.g., determiner, noun or verb), nor should the sequence have been a subtree in the dependency tree or provide any syntactic structure. Rather, the sequence was "free" to start and end with any token in the text, and what matters was the semantics. Since this approach blurred the concept of span boundary, there arose the question about how the annotators should label the data. In our annotation guideline, we asked the annotators to label the sequences that minimally gave the semantics of the corresponding tag, mostly leaving out "helper" words (e.g., determiners and adverbs). To illustrate our labeling process, consider two sample user review sentences provided below in Figure 3: Figure 3: Two example reviews from the dataset about the same biotin product with entity and span annotations. The first review is a positive one; the customer has thyroid problems and consequent hair loss, for which the product effect is positive. The second review is a negative one; according to this customer, the product caused an acne breakout in several areas of their face including chin, cheeks and forehead. Moreover the product had no effect on overall hair and nail health. The visual is created by displaCy. Here, labeling only a named entity, i.e. "biotin" in this case, would provide information only about active ingredients of the supplement, thus resulting in overlooking the effects and side-effects about this ingredient. A notable amount of information 5A list of popular healthcare NLP datasets can be found at https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/publichealth/hea lthstatistics/rawdata about the supplement lies in the annotated spans EFFECT and SIDE_EFFECT. In the light of these insights from the dataset, we annotated the following 10 types of named entities: disease/symptom names, biomolecule names, the person/people who used the supplement, names of other supplement products, person/people who recommended the supplement to the customer, dosage/amount, supplement's brand name, user demographics, ingredient substances, and other brand names mentioned in the review texts. In addition, we also annotated 4 types of spans: effects, side effects, taste and smell, and health history of the customer. The final dataset contains 2,488 instances, ca. 100K words, including 20K unique words, and around 10K entities. The distribution of named entity and span tags is summarized in Table 2. | Tag | Count | |-------------------|---------| | DISEASE | 1,875 | | BIOMOLECULE | 859 | | USER | 634 | | OTHER_PRODUCT | 543 | | RECOMMENDER | 436 | | DOSAGE | 471 | | BRAND | 275 | | USER_DEMOGRAPHICS | 192 | | INGREDIENT | 175 | | OTHER_BRAND | 121 | | EFFECT | 2,562 | | SIDE_EFFECT | 608 | | TASTE_SMELL | 558 | | HEALTH_COMPLAINTS | 858 | Raw data were collected by crawling Vitaminler.com. In the next step, we provided the raw data and annotation guideline to our data labeling service provider Co-one. The dataset was annotated by crowd-sourcing, and the labeling work was performed by a total of 25 annotators (15 female, 10 male). All annotators were native speakers of Turkish residing in Turkey. We also asked annotators to eliminate potentially offensive reviews and reviews containing person names (including those of the influencers). The dataset is available in its Github repo with CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.6 The significance of our Vitamins and Supplements NER Dataset for the Turkish NLP world is two-fold: first, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first span recognition dataset for Turkish; second, our dataset is the first public health NLP dataset in this language. ## 3.2 Corpora For Sentiment Analysis This subsection introduces three corpora for sentiment analysis - Beyazperde Movie Reviews Dataset (Section 3.2.1), Beyazperde Top 300 Movies Dataset (Section 3.2.2) and Vitamins and Supplements Dataset (Section 3.2.3). In what follows, we provide information about the data collection process, corpus size, and vocabulary size for each corpus. ## 3.2.1 Beyazperde Movie Reviews Dataset The data for this dataset were collected by crawling popular movie reviews website Beyazperde.com. We collected URLs of 4,500 most popular movies of all times. For each movie, we crawled the movie's name, a list of the movie's genres, the description text, as well as the lists of directors, actors, creators, and creators of the movie's music (i.e., composers and singers). The rating field on this website includes the number of total ratings, the number of reviews, average rating, as well as the values of the best and worst ratings on the 0-5 scale. For the reviews part, we collected all audience reviews, including review texts and review ratings. The final dataset is presented in the JSON format where each movie appears as a dictionary with general info, rating, and review information. The final dataset contains 4,500 movies from 2,519 distinct directors. The total number of reviews is about 45K; the dataset comprises over 2.2M tokens, including 280K unique words. The star rating distribution in the review corpus is summarized in Table 3. Star rating Count | Star rating | Count | |---------------|---------| | 3.0 | 4,347 | | 3.5 | 6,495 | | 4.0 | 9,486 | | 4.5 | 3,652 | | 5.0 | 7,594 | 0.5 3,635 1.0 2,325 1.5 1,077 2.0 1,902 2.5 4,767 Table 3: Distribution of star ratings in Beyazperde Movie Reviews Dataset. The dataset is available in its Github repo7 with CC BY-SA 4.0 licence. ## 3.2.2 Beyazperde Top 300 Movies Dataset This dataset was also crawled from the movies website Beyazperde.com; however, this time we collected 300 top-rated movies. The data collection process and format of this dataset are identical to those of the Beyazperde Movie Reviews Dataset, with the only difference being that rating stars in the Beyazperde Top 300 Movies Dataset are highly unbalanced - namely, the numbers of 0-, 1-, 2-, and 3-star reviews are considerably lower than the corresponding numbers of 4- and 5-star ratings. Accordingly, this dataset imposes a great challenge of "finding the least/best of the best" among the best movies. The star rating distribution is shown in Table 4. | Star rating | Count | Star rating | Count | |---------------|---------|---------------|---------| | 0.5 | 1,657 | | | | 1.0 | 535 | | | | 1.5 | 273 | | | | 2.0 | 608 | | | | 2.5 | 2,439 | 3.0 | 2,277 | | 3.5 | 5,550 | | | | 4.0 | 13,248 | | | | 4.5 | 10,077 | | | | 5.0 | 17,351 | | | Table 4: Distribution of star ratings in Beyazperde Top 300 Movies Dataset. The final dataset contains 300 top-rated movies by 218 distinct directors. The total number of reviews included in the dataset is 54K; the dataset contains over 2.4M tokens, including 50K unique tokens. Vocabulary size of this dataset is considerably smaller than that of the Beyazperde Movie Reviews Dataset. The dataset is available in its Github repo8 with CC BY-SA 4.0 licence. To the best of our knowledge, both of our sentiment analysis datasets are the first of their kind, as no movie reviews of comparable size were collected before. For instance, a similar corpus published by YTU Kemik NLP Group9contains reviews of mere 105 movies classified in only 3 classes (negative, positive, and neutral). Considering that modern NLP techniques require large corpora, our movie reviews datasets are sufficiently large and can thus be meaningfully used by the 7https://github.com/turkish-nlp-suite/BeyazPe rde-Movie-Reviews/tree/main/butun-fimler 8https://github.com/turkish-nlp-suite/BeyazPe rde-Movie-Reviews/tree/main/en-iyi-fimler 9http://www.kemik.yildiz.edu.tr/ ## Turkish Nlp Community. 3.2.3 Vitamins And Supplements Dataset The Vitamins and Supplements NER Dataset discussed in Section 3.1.2 is a subset of a larger Vitamins and Supplements Dataset that has named entity and span annotations. The latter dataset was scraped from the supplements and health products e-commerce website Vitaminler.com. The Vitamins and Supplements Dataset includes user reviews and star ratings about supplement products. Each instance of the dataset includes a product name, brand name, average star rating value, number of customer ratings, and a list of customer reviews. A customer review includes a review text and a star rating. The dataset includes 1,052 products of 262 distinct brands with 244K customer reviews. This corpus contains 2.5M tokens, including 150K unique words. During the compilation process, we automatically eliminated potentially offensive reviews and reviews containing person names (including those of influencers). The dataset is available in its Github repo10 with CC BY-SA 4.0 licence. ## 3.3 Other Corpora Finally, we compiled a small corpus about COVID-19 symptoms from the popular collaborative dictionary Ek¸si Sözlük,11 one of the largest (over 400,000 registered users) online communities in Turkey.12 In this community, users share information on various topics ranging from scientific subjects to everyday life issues. The data were crawled from 2 headlines - "COVID-19 Symptoms" and "Day-by-day Corona Symptoms." This dataset, named Corona-mini, is presented in the JSON format in its Github repo.13 Corona-mini includes 180 instances, embracing a total of 25K tokens with 9K unique words. Each instance of the corpus is an user entry on the website. In these entries, contributors describe their experiences with common COVID-19 symptoms, including fever, cough, tiredness, muscle weakness, pain in several body parts, loss of taste and smell, insomnia, and nausea. We mined this dataset with various information extraction techniques to exhibit possible usages of new spaCy Turkish models in 10https://github.com/turkish-nlp-suite/Vitamin s-Supplements-Reviews 11https://www.eksisozluk.com 12https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekŧi_SÃűzlÃk 13https://github.com/turkish-nlp-suite/Coron a-mini-dataset our video tutorial titled "Quick recipes with spaCy Turkish models". The compilation process of this dataset was also demonstrated in our video tutorial named "How to compile NLP Datasets" (see Section 5). ## 4 Pretrained Models In this section, we introduce our spaCy Turkish language models. Overall, spaCy is an industrialstrength open-source NLP library offering state-ofthe-art performance with an order of magnitude exceeding other available NLP libraries (Honnibal and Montani, 2017; Honnibal, Feb 2015). spaCy also comes with a well-structured API, detailed documentation, support for issues, and an immense user community. Moreover, along with being easy to install and deploy, spaCy fits well into the Python machine learning ecosystem. Each spaCy language model is a pipeline of pretrained components (Honnibal, Feb 2019). Trainable components include a statistical lemmatizer, morphologizer (statistical morphological analyzer), NER, POS tagger, and dependency parser. spaCy offers "spaCy projects" for end-to-end training, packaging and sharing custom pipelines (Honnibal, Jul 2020). Accordingly, we trained our models with spaCy projects; the project template and the configuration files of each component along with the corresponding training hyperparameters are available on our Github page.14 We provide the following 3 pretrained models: tr_core_news_trf, tr_core_news_lg and tr_core_news_md. All these models include a vectorizer, lemmatizer, morphologizer, NER, POS tagger, and dependency parser components. The only difference among these models lies in the vectorization: while tr_core_news_lg and tr_core_news_md include static vectors, tr_core_news_trf is a transformer-based pipeline, meaning that word vectors for tokens are calculated and passed to the downstream components by the underlying transformer (Honnibal, Aug 2020). To train tr_core_news_trf,we used the dbmdz Turkish BERT model.15 tr_core_news_lg and tr_core_news_md are packaged with "static" word vectors; here, "static" means that these vectors are not learned parameters of the statistical models, and spaCy itself does not feature any algorithms 14https://github.com/turkish-nlp-suite/turkish -spacy-models 15https://huggingface.co/dbmdz/bert-base-turki sh-cased for learning word vector tables (Honnibal, Aug 2020). In order to be included in the model training, static vectors have to be separately trained and packaged. Accordingly, we trained Floret vectors that support a vast number of subwords in a compact way (Boyd and Warmerdam, Aug 2022). For Turkish morphology, representing subwords is a critical issue. For two packages - namely, tr_core_news_lg and tr_core_news_md - we prepared two Floret vector packages: one medium-sized and the other large-sized, respectively. Training configuration of these two packages can be found in their Github repos16; the packaged vectors can be found in their Huggingface repo.17  All 3 models were trained on the same corpora: Universal Dependencies Turkish BOUN Treebank (Türk et al., 2020) was used to train the morphologizer, lemmatizer, POS tagger, and dependency parser components; the NER component was trained using our Turkish Wiki NER dataset (3.1.1) and PanX (Pan et al., 2017). We trained mediumand large- sized Floret vectors which are 300dimensional. However, vocabulary sizes were different: while medium-sized vectors include 50K keys, large-sized vectors include 200K keys. The Flloret vectors were trained on the MC4 corpus (Raffel et al., 2019). All our spaCy Turkish lan-16https://github.com/turkish-nlp-suite/turkish -spacy-models/tree/main/tr_vectors_web_(lg|md) 17https://huggingface.co/turkish-nlp-suite/tr_ vectors_web_(lg|md) guage pipelines are available for download in our Huggingace repo.18 ## 4.1 Performance And Comparison Performance of the each model on respective testsets is shown in Table 5. Columns specify POS accuracy, morphological analysis accuracy, lemma accuracy, unlabelled attachment score for dependencies, labelled attachment score for dependencies, sentence boundary splitting F1 score, and NER F1 score. spaCy calculates sentence boundaries based on the full dependency parses. In our models, there is no pipeline component for sentence boundary detection, and spaCy library code manipulates the dependency tags during runtime to calculate the sentence boundary. To evaluate statistical quality of our models, we compared their performance with that of pipelines for other languages, including three agglutinative languages (Hungarian (Orosz et al., 2022), Finnish, and Korean) and English (Honnibal, Feb 2019), which has a rather flat morphology. To this end, we used our best performing model, tr_core_news_trf, and compared it with the best performing models of the aforementioned four languages. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 6. As revealed by the results, our pipelines are competent in statistical quality, and the corresponding values appears to be similar to those of the Finnish pipeline. ## 4.2 Comparison With Other Turkish Nlp Pipelines As discussed in Section 2, in previous research, there was only one attempt to compile an opensource, end-to-end Turkish NLP pipeline, Zemberek. In this section, we compare our spaCy Turkish pipelines to Zemberek NLP pipeline from the perspective of completeness. Zemberek pipeline does not contain any parsers for syntax, nor does it provide any pretrained NER models. Since Zemberek NLP paper was published in 2007, and the code was last updated 2 years ago, this package is outdated and does not meet the requirements of present-day NLP software. Accordingly, in this paper, we cannot make an accuracy-wise comparison (for a comparison of pipeline components, see Table 7). Another relevant pipeline is ITU Turkish NLP Web Service which, as suggested by its name, is 18https://huggingface.co/turkish-nlp-suite provided as a web service. Although this pipeline contains both syntactic parsers and morphological analyzers, it is not easy to use in code; one needs to require an API token from the ITU NLP group and curl the API with input text; in addition, this pipeline is not open-source. Due to accessibility issues, a comparison of our spaCy Turkish models with this pipeline has to be omitted. ## 5 Education Material Finally, we prepared a number of video and code tutorials to provide relevant information on the dataset collection process and dataset formats, as well as to demonstrate Python and bash scripting for cleaning and manipulating text, show possible use cases of the spaCy Turkish language models, and provide general information about Turkish linguistics. Our video tutorials, with each tutorial coming as a Youtube playlist consisting of several videos, include the following: - How to compile NLP Datasets - Dataset formats - Quick recipes with spaCy Turkish models - How to train your own spaCy language models - All about Turkish linguistics - Quick FAQ chatbot with semantic search and spaCy All playlists are available on our YouTube channel19. The code tutorials are also available in our Github repo20. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we presented a diverse set of opensource linguistic resources for Turkish language processing. Our resources include corpora, pretrained spaCy language models, and education materials such as code and video tutorials. The importance of our resources for the Turkish NLP community is three-fold. The first important aspect of our resources is their accessibility. To the best of our knowledge, our Vitamins and Supplements NER Dataset is the first healthcare NLP dataset available for Turkish, while our two movie reviews datasets 19https://www.youtube.com/c/NLPwithDuygu 20https://github.com/turkish-nlp-suite | Model | POS acc. | Morph acc. | Lemma acc. | DEP-UAS | DEP-LAS | SENT-F | NER-F | |------------------|------------|--------------|--------------|-----------|-----------|----------|---------| | tr_core_news_md | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.81 | 0.72 | 0.63 | 0.83 | 0.89 | | tr_core_news_lg | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.73 | 0.63 | 0.84 | 0.89 | | tr_core_news_trf | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.87 | 0.79 | 0.71 | 0.87 | 0.91 | Table 5: Performance of spaCy Turkish models. Model POS acc. Morph acc. Lemma acc. DEP-UAS DEP-LAS SENT-F **NER-F** tr_core_news_trf 0.90 0.91 0.87 0.79 0.71 0.87 0.91 hu_core_news_trf 0.97 0.94 0.98 0.91 0.87 0.99 0.91 fi_core_news_lg 0.96 0.92 0.86 0.83 0.79 0.90 0.83 ko_core_news_lg 0.95 NA 0.90 0.84 0.81 1.00 0.85 en_core_web_trf 0.98 NA NA 0.95 0.94 0.91 0.90 Table 6: Comparison of spaCy pipelines for Turkish, Hungarian, Finnish, Korean and English. Table 7: Comparison of spaCy Turkish models with Zemberek NLP pipeline. SBD = sentence boundary detector. are the first large-scale movie review datasets of Turkish. The second aspect of our resources is that they are the first of their kind. For instance, our spaCy Turkish language models - with a tokenizer, sentence boundary detector, vectorizer, lemmatizer, morphologizer, NER, POS tagger, and dependency parser components packaged together - are the first complete NLP pipelines for Turkish. The third important characteristic of our resources is their ease of implementation. While previous approaches have failed to provide any tools that can be easily used to solve practical text processing problems, our spaCy pipelines build on solid foundations of a multilingual and industrial-strength NLP framework. Accordingly, these pipelines are the very first easily accessible, downloadable, and industrialstrength Turkish NLP pipelines for Turkish. ## Limitations Our work reported in this paper has two limitations. First, because of the scarcity of treebanks and NER datasets for Turkish, our pretrained spaCy language models were tested on a limited amount of testsets. Second, we trained our spaCy models on generalpurpose datasets compiled from Wikipedia data and formal written language resources. Accordingly, our models may not be very effective in analyzing social media texts such as Twitter data. ## References | Model | POS tagger | Dep. tagger | Lemmatizer | Morphologizer | SBD | NER | |----------------------|--------------|---------------|--------------|-----------------|-------|-------| | spaCy Turkish models | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | | Zemberek NLP | no | no | yes | yes | yes | no | Ahmet Af¸sın Akın and Mehmet Dündar Akın. 2007. Zemberek, an open source NLP framework for Turkic Languages. Adriane Boyd and Vincent D. Warmerdam. Aug 2022. Floret: lightweight, robust word vectors. https: //explosion.ai/blog/floret-vectors. Erkin Demirtas and Mykola Pechenizkiy. 2013. CrossLingual Polarity Detection with Machine Translation. In *Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Issues of Sentiment Discovery and Opinion* Mining, WISDOM '13, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Beyza Eken and Ahmet Tantug. 2015. ˘ Recognizing Named Entities in Turkish Tweets. *Computer Science & Information Technology*, 5:155–162. Gül¸sen Eryigit. 2014. ˘ ITU Turkish NLP Web Service. In *Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 14th* Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1–4. Association for Computational Linguistics. A. Göksel and C. Kerslake. 2005. *Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar*. Comprehensive grammars. Routledge. Matthew Honnibal. Aug 2020. Embeddings, Transformers and Transfer Learning. https://spacy.io/usa ge/embeddings-transformers. Matthew Honnibal. Feb 2015. Introducing spaCy. ht tps://explosion.ai/blog/introducing-spacy. Matthew Honnibal. Feb 2019. Models & Languages. https://spacy.io/usage/models. Matthew Honnibal. Jul 2020. Projects. https://spac y.io/usage/projects. Matthew Honnibal and Ines Montani. 2017. spaCy 2: Natural language understanding with Bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. To appear. Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Jan Hajic, Christopher D. Manning, Sampo ˇ Pyysalo, Sebastian Schuster, Francis Tyers, and Daniel Zeman. 2020. Universal Dependencies v2: An evergrowing multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4034–4043, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. György Orosz, Zsolt Szántó, Péter Berkecz, Gergo Szabó, and Richárd Farkas. 2022. Huspacy: an industrial-strength hungarian natural language processing toolkit. *CoRR*, abs/2201.01956. Xiaoman Pan, Boliang Zhang, Jonathan May, Joel Nothman, Kevin Knight, and Heng Ji. 2017. Cross-lingual Name Tagging and Linking for 282 Languages. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1946–1958, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer. *CoRR*, abs/1910.10683. H. Bahadir Sahin, Caglar Tirkaz, Eray Yildiz, Mustafa Tolga Eren, and Ozan Sonmez. 2017. Automatically Annotated Turkish Corpus for Named Entity Recognition and Text Categorization using Large-Scale Gazetteers. Klaus R. Scherer and H G Wallbott. 1994. Evidence for universality and cultural variation of differential emotion response patterning. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66 2:310–28. Mansur Alp Tocoglu and Adil Alpkocak. 2018. TREMO: A dataset for emotion analysis in Turkish. Journal of Information Science, 44(6):848–860. Gokhan Tur, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, and Kemal Oflazer. 2003. A statistical information extraction system for Turkish. *Natural Language Engineering*, 9:181–210. Utku Türk, Furkan Atmaca, ¸Saziye Betül Özate¸s, Gözde Berk, Seyyit Talha Bedir, Abdullatif Köksal, Balkız Öztürk Ba¸saran, Tunga Güngör, and Arzucan Özgür. 2020. Resources for Turkish Dependency Parsing: Introducing the BOUN Treebank and the BoAT Annotation Tool. Reyyan Yeniterzi. 2011. Exploiting Morphology in Turkish Named Entity Recognition System. In *Proceedings of the ACL 2011 Student Session*, pages 105–110, Portland, OR, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Çagrı Çöltekin, A. Seza Do ˘ gruöz, and Özlem Çetino ˘ glu. ˘ 2022. Resources for Turkish Natural Language Processing: A critical survey. Gökhan ¸Seker and Gül¸sen Eryigit. 2017. ˘ Extending a CRF-based named entity recognition model for Turkish well formed text and user generated content1. Semantic Web, 8:1–18. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Yes, I included a Limitations section just before the References section. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Not indeed because my paper is about building datasets and pretrained models for Turkish. There's not much of a risk to discuss. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Yes. I included the claims in abstract and introduction. Background work, sections 3 and 4 exhibits the evidence to my claims. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left Blank. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Yes, in sections 2,3,4 and 5. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Yes, in section 3. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Yes, sections 3 and 4. ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Yes, section 3. We eliminated such instances from the dataset. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? yes, section 3. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Yes, section 3 includes all the numbers. ## C ✗ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left blank. C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? No response. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? No response. C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? No response. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? No response. ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Yes. I worked with a commercial company for data annotations and included their name and contact information in Section 3. ✗ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No, full annotation guideline is longer than 5 pages for both of the 2 datasets I constructed. No way would fit into this article. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. NA because I didn't recruit anyone, they're employees of the commercial company i worked with. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. NA because crowdsourcers work for a commercial company, hence this is a commercial work. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. NA here because my data is crawled from internet. Before crawling, we checked robots.txt of each website carefully. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Yes, section 3.

yang-etal-2023-measuring

Measuring Consistency in Text-based Financial Forecasting Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.769

Financial forecasting has been an important and active area of machine learning research, as even the most modest advantages in predictive accuracy can be parlayed into significant financial gains. Recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) bring the opportunity to leverage textual data, such as earnings reports of publicly traded companies, to predict the return rate for an asset. However, when dealing with such a sensitive task, the consistency of models {--} their invariance under meaning-preserving alternations in input {--} is a crucial property for building user trust. Despite this, current methods for financial forecasting do not take consistency into consideration. To address this issue, we propose FinTrust, an evaluation tool that assesses logical consistency in financial text. Using FinTrust, we show that the consistency of state-of-the-art NLP models for financial forecasting is poor. Our analysis of the performance degradation caused by meaning-preserving alternations suggests that current text-based methods are not suitable for robustly predicting market information.

# Measuring Consistency In Text-Based Financial Forecasting Models Linyi Yang1,2∗, Yingpeng Ma1,2∗**, Yue Zhang**1,2† 1Institute of Advanced Technology, Westlake Institute for Advanced Study 2School of Engineering, Westlake University yanglinyi,mayingpeng,yuezhang@westlake.edu.cn ## Abstract Financial forecasting has been an important and active area of machine learning research, as even the most modest advantage in predictive accuracy can be parlayed into significant financial gains. Recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) bring the opportunity to leverage textual data, such as earnings reports of publicly traded companies, to predict the return rate for an asset. However, when dealing with such a sensitive task, the consistency of models - their invariance under meaning-preserving alternations in input - is a crucial property for building user trust. Despite this, current financial forecasting methods do not consider consistency. To address this problem, we propose FinTrust, an evaluation tool that assesses logical consistency in financial text. Using FinTrust, we show that the consistency of state-of-the-art NLP models for financial forecasting is poor. Our analysis of the performance degradation caused by meaning-preserving alternations suggests that current text-based methods are not suitable for robustly predicting market information. All resources are available at https: //github.com/yingpengma/FinTrust. ## 1 Introduction NLP techniques have been used in various financial forecasting tasks, including stock return prediction, volatility forecasting, portfolio management, and more (Ding et al., 2014, 2015; Qin and Yang, 2019; Xing et al., 2020; Du and Tanaka-Ishii, 2020; Yang et al., 2020a; Sawhney et al., 2020). Despite the increased performance of NLP models on financial applications, there has been pushback questioning their trustworthiness, and robustness (Chen et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022). Recently, the causal explanation has been viewed as one of the promising  Figure 1: Examples of four consistency transformations used in FinTrust . directions for measuring the robustness and thus improving the transparency of models (Stolfo et al., 2022; Feder et al., 2022). Among them, consistency has been viewed as a crucial feature, reflecting the systematic ability to generalize in semantically equivalent contexts and receiving increasing attention in tasks such as text classification and entailment (Jin et al., 2020; Jang et al., 2022). Previous text-based financial forecasting methods have mostly considered stock movement prediction based on various sources of data, including financial news (Xu and Cohen, 2018; Zhang et al., 2018), analyst reports (Kogan et al., 2009; Rekabsaz et al., 2017), and earnings conference calls (Qin and Yang, 2019; Keith and Stent, 2019; Li et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021b). While most work evaluates their methods using accuracy and profit gains based on the final outcome in the market (Sawhney et al., 2021b; Yang et al., 2022), consistency evaluation remains largely unexplored. The only exception (Chuang and Yang, 2022) focuses on evaluating the implicit preferences in Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) but not the consistency in predictive models. The lack of evaluation in behavior consistency, an important characteristic of human decisions, hinders the deployment of financial forecasting models in real-world scenarios. The main objective of this work is to explore a wholistic measure for stock movement prediction, integrating consistency as a criterion of trustworthiness. To this end, we define *behavior consistency* 13751 of text-based models in the financial domain. Regarding the intrinsic characteristics of financial text data, we consider four types of logical consistency tests. As shown in Figure 1, these transformations include Negation Consistency, Symmetric Consistency, Additive Consistency, and Transitive Consistency. Taking negation consistency as an example, given an input "the cost of raw materials has been greatly decreased", if the token *"decreased"* is changed to *"increased"*, the model prediction is expected to be flipped accordingly. Based on the above logical transformations, we introduce FinTrust , a new evaluation tool that enables researchers to measure consistency in PLMs and text-based financial forecasting models. Using FinTrust , we design three tasks to investigate the influence of these logical transformations. First, we assess implicit preference in PLMs such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) and FinBERT (Yang et al., 2020b), especially for economic words. Second, we measure the accuracy of stock movement prediction on a real-world earnings call dataset after the meaning-preserving modifications. Finally, we propose a realistic trading simulation to see if simple meaning-preserving modifications can wipe out positive returns. Experiments on several baseline models, including previous best-performing architectures (Ding et al., 2015; Qin and Yang, 2019; Yang et al., 2020a) and the machine learning classifier (Chen et al., 2015) show that all current methods exhibit a significant decline in the performance of stock movement predictions when evaluating on FinTrust compared to their original results. Notably, some models demonstrate a level of accuracy that is even lower than that of a random guess after undergoing logical consistency transformation, and most methods fail to surpass the performance of the simplest Buy-all strategy in the trading simulation. These results suggest that existing text-based financial models have robustness and trustworthiness issues, which can limit their use in practical settings. To our knowledge, FinTrust is the first evaluation tool for probing if the relatively accurate stock movement prediction is based on the right logical behavior. We release our tool and dataset at Github†, which can assist future research in developing trustworthy FinNLP methods. ## 2 Related Work Text-based Financial Forecasting. A line of work has leveraged event-based neural networks based on financial news for predicting the stock movement of S&P 500 companies (Ding et al., 2014, 2015; Xu and Cohen, 2018). By taking advantage of recent advances in NLP, recent work has shown potential in predicting stock price movements using PLMs, BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), and FinBERT (Araci, 2019; Yang et al., 2020b), with rich textual information from social media and earnings conference calls (Liu and Tse, 2013; Xing et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021a). The considerable PLMs mainly include BERT and FinBERT. While BERT is trained on corpora from fairly general domains, FinBERT is trained on financial corpora, including earnings conference calls and analyst reports, under the same architecture as BERT. Although implicit stock market preference is in the masked token predictions task, the implicit preference has been under-explored using a logical behavior test. In addition to building pre-trained models specially trained for financial domains, researchers have recently proposed myriad neural network architectures aimed at more accurate predictions to produce profitable gains including financial risk (volatility) and return predictions. For example, researchers (Qin and Yang, 2019; Yang et al., 2020a; Sawhney et al., 2021a) have considered predicting the volatility of publicly traded companies based on multi-model earnings conference call datasets. Also, Xu and Cohen (2018); Duan et al. (2018); Yang et al. (2018); Feng et al. (2019) leverage different textual data sources for predicting the stock movement based on the daily closing price. Unfortunately, despite the alarm over the reliance of machine learning systems on spurious patterns that have been found in many classical NLP tasks, the topic of text-based financial forecasting lacks a systematical evaluation regarding the robustness analysis from either an adversarial or consistency perspective. To this end, we present the first critical investigation of popular benchmarks by using FinTrust from the consistency perspective. Consistency Measurement. The inductive bias of machine learning systems is greatly affected by the patterns in training data due to the nature of inductive reasoning. While a flurry of research has highlighted this issue (Gururangan et al., 2018; Srivastava et al., 2020; Garg and Ramakrishnan, 2020; Kaushik et al., 2020), recent work Jang et al. (2022)   shows that possible artefacts in data are more influential than the model design when leading to the problem of lacking trustworthiness. Thus, assessing the influence of data artefacts, such as consistency, becomes a crucial problem for trustworthy NLP. Elazar et al. (2021) study the consistency of PLMs (e.g., BERT, ALBERT, and RoBERTa) with regard to their knowledge extraction ability and conclude that the consistency of these models is generally low. Chuang and Yang (2022) aim to raise awareness of potential implicit stock preferences based on the finding that consistent implicit preference of the stock market exists in PLMs at the whole market. In addition to evaluating preferences in PLMs, previous methods also attempt to evaluate the consistency of models in downstream NLP tasks, such as visual question answering (Ribeiro et al., 2018), QA (Jia and Liang, 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2019; Gan and Ng, 2019; Asai and Hajishirzi, 2020), named entity recognition (Jia et al., 2019; Wang and Henao, 2021), and natural language inference (Naik et al., 2018; Hossain et al., 2020; Camburu et al., 2020; Sinha et al., 2021). Besides, Ribeiro et al. (2020) consider using consistency for building the behavioural testing benchmark beyond accuracy. Surprisingly, these discussions have not yet been extended to text-based financial forecasting models, which require strong robustness to assist decision-making in the financial market, with the exception of our work. ## 3 Method We define the pipeline of FinTrust in Figure 2. For text-based financial models, there are two salient components, namely text representations and financial behavior. For the former, using PLMs has become a dominant approach, improving the quality of text representations in many domains. For the latter, various neural models can be built on PLMs. Correspondingly, we have two setups in the consistency evaluation, representation (Setup 1) and behavior (Setup 2), respectively. Setup 1. In the first stage, we assess the implicit preferences in PLMs via masked token predictions. In particular, we first mask a predictable word from the original input extracted from earning conference call transcripts, such as *"the cost of raw materials has been greatly decreased...so the expected* return for the next quarter is [MASK]". Then, we predict the masked token using PLMs and compare the probability of predicting "increased" and "decreased" for contexts from different transcripts. A higher probability of predicting "increased" would indicate that the given PLM hold logical consistency with human predictions. Conversely, it suggests that the prediction of the PLM may be influenced by spurious patterns such as favoritism towards a particular stock. Setup 2. We evaluate text-based financial forecasting models after fine-tuning PLMs on a popularly used earnings conference call dataset (Qin and Yang, 2019). However, the consistency measurement faces significant challenges in defining the relationship between two texts, particularly when the text is a long transcript with complex logical connections, such as earnings conference call transcripts. Incorrectly defining this relationship can render consistency judgments meaningless. In line with prior research (Jang et al., 2022), we develop four logical consistency transformations customized for financial text in this work. By meaning-preserving altering the original text, we ensure generated samples have a logical relationship to the original text, thus ensuring the consistency judgment is meaningful. Below we define our text level consistency transformation first (Sec 3.1), before introducing the financial tasks for behavior study (Sec 3.2) and a wholistic metric (Sec 3.3) to integrate performance and trustworthiness. ## 3.1 Logical Consistency Transformations On Text Data In FinTrust, four logical consistency transformation approaches are defined to evaluate if the model maintains the same logical behavior as humans, representing the consistency in text-based financial forecasting models. Negation consistency refers to the ability of a model to generate converse predictions for texts with opposite meanings, i.e. f(x) = *positive* ⇔ f(¬x) = *negative*, where x is the input transcript, f(x) represents the output of the model, a "positive" outcome means the stock price will increase, and a "negative" outcome means the stock price will decrease. ¬x is a negation consistency transformed test example flipped through predetermined rules based on the bi-grams of the most frequent words and their antonyms. We achieve this by splitting the dataset at the sentence level and flipping the meanings of sentences. Given an input *"the* cost of raw materials has been greatly decreased, with a change of 30% compared with last year", its counterpart can be "the cost of raw materials has been greatly increased, with a change of 30% compared with last year". In the financial market, a significant cost reduction may lead to optimism about the company's future prospects and an increase in stock price. Only when the model can give the correct predictions for both pairs of testing data we consider that the model is consistent with non-contradictory predictions. Otherwise, it is considered to lack negation consistency. Symmetric consistency is the property of a model where the order of the inputs does not affect the output. It is defined as f(Sp1, Sp2) = f(Sp2, Sp1), where S is a sentence in the transcript, Spi represents the part i of the sentence. This can be tested by reordering the segments of each sentence in the transcript and comparing the predictions before and after the reordering. For example, given the sentence *"the cost of raw materials has* been greatly decreased, with a change of 30% compared with last year", if the prediction is reversed after reordering it to "with a change of 30% compared with last year, the cost of raw materials has been greatly decreased", then the model is regarded ## As Lacking Symmetric Consistency. Additive consistency refers to the property of a model to predict the stock movement based on the combination of two inputs, x and y that share the same label. The model is expected to hold the same prediction for x, y, and the concatenation of those inputs x + y. If the model produces different predictions for the above three kinds of inputs, it can be regarded as lacking additive consistency. For example, if a model gives a positive prediction for the sentence "the cost of raw materials has been greatly decreased, with a change of 30% compared with last year", and also gives a positive prediction for the sentence *"we believe that our products can* bring convenience to everyone's life", then it should also make a positive prediction for the combined sentences after the concatenation. Transitive consistency refers to the ability of a model where the perceived sentiment of a company should be reflected in the performance of the top-valued company in the same industry. It can be expressed as f(x) = f(x0), where x0represents transitive consistency transformed text. Specifically, for transcripts of a particular company, the top-valued company in the same industry is identified and its name is denoted as "company_name". Then occurrences of words such as "we" and "our" are replaced with "company_name" and "company_name's" respectively. For example, if the corresponding sector of the company is "Information Technology" and the top-valued company in the S&P 500 is Apple Inc., a sentence such as "*we believe that our products can bring convenience to everyone's life*" will be transformed to "*Apple Inc. believe that Apple Inc.'s products can* bring convenience to everyone's life" after transitive consistency transformation. Again, we calculate the consistency of models by considering the non-contradictory predictions over transitive instances. ## 3.2 Prediction Tasks In Fintrust Consistency Measurement In Plms. To Better assess the implicit preference in PLMs, we extend the previous cloze-style prompts used in assessing stock market preference (Chuang and Yang, 2022) by considering logical changes rather than simply predicting the masked token in the input. This is crucial as if PLMs are biased, the fine-tuned model's predictions based on features learned by PLMs could be further influenced by spurious preference tendencies, which would negatively impact the effect of financial forecasting. Stock Prediction Task. Following previous studies (Ding et al., 2015; Duan et al., 2018; Sawhney et al., 2020), we treat the stock movement prediction as a binary classification problem, where the model predicts whether the daily closing price of a given asset will increase or decrease over the next n days (n=3, 7, 15, 30) based on the content of earnings call transcripts. The output is either "increase" (positive) or "decrease" (negative). Trading Simulation Task. We use the predictions to determine whether to buy or sell a stock after n days. For example, if the model predicts that the stock price would increase from day d to day d+30, we would buy the stock on day d and sell it on day d + 30. Otherwise, we execute a short sell. The previous work Sawhney et al. (2021a) simulates the trade of one hand for each stock, which allows for the potential offset of multiple forecast failures if one stock is more valuable. However, this approach is unfair under specific situations since each prediction and trade are treated equally and thus will lose the balance between trades. Therefore, we invest the same amount of money in each stock and calculate the profit ratio instead of the cumulative profit. This method does not affect the calculation of the Sharpe Ratio and allows us to explore the impact of financial forecasting consistency on performance and profitability. Notably, we do not consider the transaction cost in accordance with previous work (Sawhney et al., 2021a). ## 3.3 Wholistic Evaluation Metrics We introduce the predictive evaluation metrics and the novel consistency evaluation metrics as elaborated below. Predictive Evaluations. For stock prediction, we use three metrics to measure performance: Accuracy, F1 score, and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). These metrics are calculated as follows: $$F1=\frac{2\times precision\times recall}{precision+recall}\tag{1}$$ For a given confusion matrix: $\qquad Accuracy=\dfrac{tp+tn}{tp+tn+fp+fn}\qquad\qquad(2)$ $\qquad MCC=\dfrac{tp\times tn-fp\times fn}{\sqrt{(tp+fp)(tp+fn)(tn+fp)(tn+fn)}}$ (3) We use both Profit Ratio and Sharpe Ratio for the ... trading simulation task as performance indicators. Return R, and investment I is involved in calculating the Profit Ratio. $$ProfitRatio=\frac{R}{I}\tag{4}$$. The Sharpe Ratio measures the performance of an investment by considering the average return Rx, risk-free return Rf , and standard deviation of the investment σ(Rx). $$\begin{array}{l c r}{{S h a r p e R a t i o=\frac{R_{x}-R_{f}}{\sigma(R_{x})}}}&{{}}&{{}}&{{}}&{{(5)}}\\ {{}}&{{}}&{{}}&{{}}&{{}}\end{array}$$ Consistence Evaluations. Based on logical transformations, we propose the consistency evaluation metrics of consistency, aiming to measure textbased financial forecasting models from a consistency perspective as a complementary metric to accuracy. Assuming that C is a set of four logical consistencies. To begin with, we define the consistency score (*Consis*), elaborated as follows: $$C o n s i s={\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{\left|C\right|}C_{i}}{\left|C\right|}}\qquad\qquad(6)$$ where the C set contains Negation consistency ConsisN , Symmetric consistency *Consis*S, Additive consistency *Consis*A, Transitive consistency ConsisT. We give the formal definition of those four metrics, respectively. The consistency of ConsisN is calculated as: $ Consis^{N}=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{|D|}\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{0}&{(f(x_{i})=f(x_{i}^{N}))}\\ {1}&{(f(x_{i})\neq f(x_{i}^{N}))}\end{array}\right.$ (7) ... where D is the original test set, xiis the test sample in the original test set, i.e. xi ∈ D. x N iis the new test sample obtained by negation consistency transformation on xi, and f(x) is the prediction of the model (positive or negative) for the input x. In terms of the symmetric, additive, and transitive transformations, the value equals 0 when f(xi) 6= f(x N i ) while equals 1 when f(xi) = f(x N i ). ## 4 Experiments We first evaluate the explicit preferences in PLMs. Then we assess the ability of text-based models to make consistent predictions on the stock movement and finally test the profitability of these predictions using a trading simulation. ## 4.1 Dataset Earnings Call Data. We use the publicly available Earning Conference Calls dataset by (Qin and Yang, 2019), which includes transcripts of 576 earnings calls from S&P 500 companies listed on the American Stock Exchange, obtained from the Seeking Alpha website. It also includes the metainformation on the company affiliations and publication dates. Financial Market information. We also collect historical price data (closing price) for the traded companies listed in S&P 500 from Yahoo Finance for the period from January 1, 2017, to January 31, 2018. This data was used to calculate the label of stock price movement and profitability. Data Processing. Following (Qin and Yang, 2019; Yang et al., 2020a), we split the dataset into mutually exclusive train/validation/test sets in a 7:1:2 ratio in chronological order to ensure that future information is not used to predict past price movements. We also construct logical consistency datasets based on the original test set using the above-mentioned four logical consistency transformations. The size of our evaluation dataset is four times the size of the original one since we ensure that each sample in the original test set corresponds to four logical consistency test samples. To facilitate future research, we release our dataset and the evaluation toolkit in **FinTrust**. ## 4.2 Models Representation Models. We conduct experiments on popular PLMs, including BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019), and FinBERT (Yang et al., 2020b). The vocabulary of FinBERT is different from the others as it contains domain-specific terms in the financial market, including company names. Predictive Models. Regarding the forecasting models, we evaluate several baselines, including the traditional machine learning and state-of-the-art transformer-based methods, detailed as follows. - **HTML:** Yang et al. (2020a) propose a hierarchical transformer-based framework to address the problem of processing long texts in earnings call data. It utilizes a pre-trained WWM-BERT-Large model to generate sentence representations as inputs for the model. - **MRDM:** Qin and Yang (2019) propose the first method to treat volatility prediction as a PLM Params **Neg Pos Consistency** BERT-base 110M + + 71.33% BERT-base 110M + - 55.87% BERT-base 110M - + 86.79% BERT-large 340M + + 75.67% BERT-large 340M + - 67.60% BERT-large 340M - + 83.74% RoBERTa-base 125M + + 77.79% RoBERTa-base 125M + - 69.17% RoBERTa-base 125M - + 86.40% RoBERTa-large 355M + + **82.70%** RoBERTa-large 355M + - **76.67%** RoBERTa-large 355M - + **88.72%** FinBERT 110M + + 72.40% FinBERT 110M + - 56.27% FinBERT 110M - + 88.53% DistilBERT 66M + + 70.13% DistilBERT 66M + - 57.92% DistilBERT 66M - + 82.33% multi-modal deep regression problem, building benchmark results and introducing the earnings conference call dataset. - **Event:** Ding et al. (2015) adapt Open IE for event-based stock price movement prediction, extracting structured events from large-scale public news without manual efforts. - **XGBoost:** Chen et al. (2015) propose a gradient-boosting decision tree known as the classical machine learning baseline. ## 5 Results And Discussion We report the results of three tasks defined in Section 3.2 and the consistency score calculated by the consistency evaluation metrics in this section. Furthermore, we present extensive ablation studies and discussions to support in-depth analyses of each component in FinTrust. ## 5.1 Predictive Results Consistency Measurement in PLMs. The results of explicit preferences in PLMs are presented in Table 1. In general, we find that all PLMs exhibited relatively low consistency, ranging from 70.13% to 82.7%, which falls significantly short of the level of robustness expected in the financial market. Also, we observe that PLMs typically demonstrated lower consistency when tested on | Metrics | ACC | F1 | MCC | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|---------|-------------------------------|---------------|---------------|-------|-------|-------|--------|--------|-------|-------| | Period | Avg | 3 | 7 | 15 | 30 | Avg | 3 | 7 | 15 | 30 | Avg | 3 | 7 | 15 | 30 | | HTML | 0.546 | 0.442 | 0.531 | 0.566 | 0.646 | 0.671 | 0.571 | 0.619 | 0.713 | 0.780 | 0.078 | 0.052 | 0.056 | 0.032 | 0.175 | | +FinTrust | 0.521↓ | 0.465↑ 0.527↓ 0.529↓ 0.564↓ | 0.647↓ | 0.608↑ 0.629↑ 0.648↓ 0.703↓ | 0.040↓ | 0.019↓ | 0.058↑ | 0.019↓ 0.063↓ | | | | | | | | | MRDM | 0.555 | 0.504 | 0.513 | 0.584 | 0.619 | 0.670 | 0.541 | 0.663 | 0.722 | 0.754 | 0.059 | 0.079 | 0.007 | 0.107 | 0.044 | | +FinTrust | 0.504↓ | 0.465↓ 0.511↓ 0.507↓ 0.535↓ | 0.622↓ | 0.569↑ 0.667↑ 0.578↓ 0.674↓ | 0.017↓ | -0.024↓ 0.038↑ | 0.032↓ 0.023↓ | | | | | | | | | | Event | 0.542 | 0.416 | 0.522 | 0.593 | 0.637 | 0.694 | 0.582 | 0.682 | 0.736 | 0.776 | 0.122 | 0.078 | 0.097 | 0.189 | 0.123 | | +FinTrust | 0.512↓ | 0.447↑ 0.504↓ 0.529↓ 0.569↓ | 0.656↓ | 0.598↑ 0.663↓ 0.658↓ 0.705↓ | 0.006↓ | -0.032↓ -0.023↓ 0.013↓ 0.068↓ | | | | | | | | | | | XGB | 0.515 | 0.434 | 0.487 | 0.584 | 0.558 | 0.561 | 0.448 | 0.500 | 0.641 | 0.653 | 0.018 | -0.093 | -0.027 | 0.147 | 0.043 | | +FinTrust | 0.507↓ | 0.462↑ 0.502↑ 0.531↓ 0.531↓ | 0.545↓ | 0.456↑ 0.518↑ 0.584↓ 0.622↓ | -0.004↓ | -0.076↑ -0.002↑ 0.045↓ 0.014↓ | | | | | | | | | | negative tokens than positive tokens (on average 63.91% - negative vs. 86.09% - positive). This suggests that popular PLMs tend to exhibit stereotypes when predicting negative tokens. From a model-level perspective, our results indicate that FinBERT, which utilizes a domainspecific training corpus during the pre-training phase, can slightly improve consistency compared to BERT-base. Besides, we show that the increase in parameter size brings significant benefits for improving consistency, given that BERT-large and RoBERTa-large both outperform their base-sized versions (75.67% vs. 71.33% - BERT; 82.70% vs.77.79% –RoBERTa). In particular, RoBERTaachieves the highest consistency across three settings, indicating its high robustness. In contrast, DistilBERT achieves the lowest consistency. Stock Movement Prediction. The results of stock movement prediction over text-based financial forecasting models are shown in Table 2. We evaluate multiple baselines by comparing the results of models on the original test set to the results tested on transformed datasets (shown as +FinTrust). It is noteworthy that the accuracy of some predictions is even lower than that of random guess, especially for the short-time prediction (n=3). Furthermore, we demonstrate that the effect of logical consistency transformations on traditional performance indicators varies depending on the time period, but the average performance of all models decreased significantly over three metrics. In particular, models show extraordinary vulnerability when it comes to predicting the long-term stock return (n=15 and 30), as transformations in all settings decrease accuracy when the time period is 15 and 30 days. From the model perspective, regarding the ratio of performance decay, XGBoost is the least impacted, and MRDM is the most affected. This can be because traditional machine learning models, such as XGBoost, have fewer parameters than deep learning models and are therefore less affected by | Strategy | Profit Ratio | Sharpe Ratio | |----------------|----------------|----------------| | HTML | 3.752 | 0.266 | | + FinTrust | 3.359↓ | 0.229↓ | | ∆↓ | -10% | -14% | | Event | 3.720 | 0.263 | | + FinTrust | 3.535↓ | 0.245↓ | | ∆↓ | -5% | -7% | | MRDM | 3.495 | 0.241 | | + FinTrust | 2.384↓ | 0.138↓ | | ∆↓ | -32% | -43% | | XGB | -0.515 | -0.126 | | + FinTrust | 0.296↑ | 0.032↑ | | ∆↑ | 158% | 75% | | Buy-all | 3.681 | 0.259 | | Random | -0.271 | -0.105 | | Short-sell-all | -3.681 | -0.259 | artefacts. Despite this, the accuracy on FinTrust achieved by models is only slightly more accurate than the random guess (e.g., **0.504** on MRDM, 0.507 on XGBoost). The vulnerability of these models, including state-of-the-art methods, hinders the deployment of NLP systems in the real financial market and should be taken more seriously. Trading Simulation. We compare three simple trading strategies (Buy-all, Short-sell-all, and Random) with four baselines. The results are shown in Table 3. It can be seen that HTML and Event have higher yields and can exceed simple trading strategies. However, after conducting consistency transformations, positive returns of these two methods are much reduced, even lower than the simple Buy-all strategy. Methods such as MRDM and XGBoost gain lower returns than Buy-all, with MRDM experiencing the highest drop of about **32%-43%**. Even though the returns of XGBoost improved significantly after the transformations, it still remained much lower than the Buy-all strategy and the other three baselines. Hence, we contend that the increase in XGBoost's returns does not have a strong reference value. We conclude that most methods Period **3 7 15 30**     AVG **0.730 0.739** 0.644 **0.692** Add 0.903 0.947 0.664 0.805 Event Neg 0.106 0.035 0.044 0.018 Sym 0.947 0.982 0.929 0.973 Tra 0.965 0.991 0.938 0.973 AVG 0.699 0.628 **0.688** 0.684 Add 0.894 0.655 0.876 0.743 HTML Neg 0.115 0.212 0.177 0.009 Sym 0.894 0.796 0.841 0.991 Tra 0.894 0.850 0.858 0.991 AVG 0.597 0.706 0.524 0.650 Add 0.664 0.894 0.301 0.735 MRDM Neg 0.248 0.062 0.053 0.053 Sym 0.655 0.894 0.805 0.885 Tra 0.823 0.973 0.938 0.929 AVG 0.566 0.595 0.593 0.653 Add 0.522 0.487 0.496 0.504 XGB Neg 0.071 0.133 0.124 0.354 Sym 1.000 0.973 0.973 0.991 Tra 0.673 0.788 0.779 0.761 ## 5.2 Consistency Score Results. We show the results of the consistency score (defined in Section 3.4) in Table 4. It can be seen that Event has the highest consistency score (*Consis*) and XGBoost has the lowest *Consis*. Regarding the average consistency over four transformations, Event achieves three of the four highest consistency scores. XGBoost tends to make contradictory predictions in terms of the lowest scores in three settings. Additionally, all methods perform poorly on negation consistency, consistent with findings in the PLMs evaluation (Table 1). Correlation Analysis. We examine the correlation between the indicators of consistency and accuracy. Importantly, we find that our consistency score does not align with traditional performance indicators such as accuracy, evidenced by the fact that the most consistent model (Event) is not necessarily the highest in accuracy (HTML). The overall Pearson correlation coefficient between the consistency score and accuracy is only 0.314, indicating a low-level correlation. This suggests that the proposed consistency score can be used as a complementary evaluation metric for accuracy in future research on text-based financial forecasting. ## 5.3 Discussion Human Evaluation. To assess the effectiveness of our consistency transformation method in preserving the original meaning, we conduct a human an-    notation study. Two annotators are employed from the author list and be required to label each sample and its four consistency transformations. Both of them received an advanced degree in computer science. The Inter-Annotator Agreement score is calculated to be 0.98, based on an evaluation of 40 samples and their 160 transformed samples. The average consistency score for human annotators is 0.975, indicating that our method successfully preserves the original meaning in most cases. Ablation Study. We show the ablation results in stock movement prediction of four transformations in Figure 3. We find that evaluations on the FinTrust lead to significant performance decay for most settings compared to the original performance, which illustrates the individual influence of transformations. In particular, we show that models usually underperform when evaluating the *negation transformation*, with the exception of MRDM. It suggests that current models lack the ability to provide non-contradictory predictions. ## 6 Conclusion We proposed FinTrust, an evaluation tool that assesses the trustworthiness of financial forecasting models in addition to their accuracy. Results on FinTrust show that (1) the consistency of state-ofthe-art models falls significantly short of expectations when applied to stock movement prediction; (2) predictions with such a low logical consistency can lead to severe consequences, as evidenced by poor performance in a trading simulation test. Our empirical results highlight the importance of perceiving such concerns when developing and evaluating text-based financial models, and we release our dataset for facilitating future research. Despite this, how to evaluate the consistency of large-scale language models (LLMs) is still an open question ## Limitation While our pipeline is designed to be applicable to any financial text dataset, the evaluation dataset is transformed solely on earnings conference calls. We will expand the scope of experiments to include other financial text sources such as news articles and social media posts. Finally, the current trading simulation does not take transaction costs into account. Going forward it will be necessary to consider more sophisticated trading policies. ## Ethics Statement This paper honors the ACL Code of Ethics. The dataset used in the paper does not contain any private information. All annotators have received enough labor fees corresponding to their amount of annotated instances. The code and data are opensourced under the CC-BY-NC-SA license. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions to help improve the paper. This publication has emanated from research conducted with the financial support of the Pioneer and "Leading Goose" R&D Program of Zhejiang under Grant Number 2022SDXHDX0003, the 72nd round of the Chinese Post-doctoral Science Foundation project 2022M722836, and the financial support from the rxhui.com company. Yue Zhang is the corresponding author. ## References Dogu Araci. 2019. Finbert: Financial sentiment analysis with pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10063. Akari Asai and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Logicguided data augmentation and regularization for consistent question answering. In *Proceedings of the* 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5642–5650. Oana-Maria Camburu, Brendan Shillingford, Pasquale Minervini, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Phil Blunsom. 2020. Make up your mind! adversarial generation of inconsistent natural language explanations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4157–4165. Chung-Chi Chen, Hen-Hsen Huang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2021a. Evaluating the rationales of amateur investors. In *The World Wide Web Conference*. Chung-Chi Chen, Hen-Hsen Huang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2021b. From opinion mining to financial argument mining. *Springer Briefs in Computer Science*, pages 1–95. Chung-Chi Chen, Hiroya Takamura, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2022. Fintech for social good: A research agenda from nlp perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06431. Tianqi Chen, Tong He, Michael Benesty, Vadim Khotilovich, Yuan Tang, Hyunsu Cho, Kailong Chen, et al. 2015. Xgboost: extreme gradient boosting. R package version 0.4-2, 1(4):1–4. Chengyu Chuang and Yi Yang. 2022. Buy tesla, sell ford: Assessing implicit stock market preference in pre-trained language models. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 100–105, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805*. Xiao Ding, Yue Zhang, Ting Liu, and Junwen Duan. 2014. Using structured events to predict stock price movement: An empirical investigation. In *Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1415–1425. Xiao Ding, Yue Zhang, Ting Liu, and Junwen Duan. 2015. Deep learning for event-driven stock prediction. In *Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, page 23272333, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Xin Du and Kumiko Tanaka-Ishii. 2020. Stock embeddings acquired from news articles and price history, and an application to portfolio optimization. In *Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics*, pages 3353–3363. Junwen Duan, Yue Zhang, Xiao Ding, Ching Yun Chang, and Ting Liu. 2018. Learning target-specific representations of financial news documents for cumulative abnormal return prediction. In *Proceedings* of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-18), pages 2823–2833. Yanai Elazar, Nora Kassner, Shauli Ravfogel, Abhilasha Ravichander, Eduard Hovy, Hinrich Schütze, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 9:1012–1031. Amir Feder, Katherine A Keith, Emaad Manzoor, Reid Pryzant, Dhanya Sridhar, Zach Wood-Doughty, Jacob Eisenstein, Justin Grimmer, Roi Reichart, Margaret E Roberts, et al. 2022. Causal inference in natural language processing: Estimation, prediction, interpretation and beyond. *Transactions of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, 10:1138–1158. Fuli Feng, Huimin Chen, Xiangnan He, Ji Ding, Maosong Sun, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2019. Enhancing stock movement prediction with adversarial training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.09936. Wee Chung Gan and Hwee Tou Ng. 2019. Improving the robustness of question answering systems to question paraphrasing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6065–6075. Siddhant Garg and Goutham Ramakrishnan. 2020. Bae: Bert-based adversarial examples for text classification. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6174–6181. Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel R Bowman, and Noah A Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02324*. Md Mosharaf Hossain, Venelin Kovatchev, Pranoy Dutta, Tiffany Kao, Elizabeth Wei, and Eduardo Blanco. 2020. An analysis of natural language inference benchmarks through the lens of negation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9106–9118, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Myeongjun Jang, Deuk Sin Kwon, and Thomas Lukasiewicz. 2022. Becel: Benchmark for consistency evaluation of language models. In *Proceedings* of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3680–3696. Chen Jia, Xiaobo Liang, and Yue Zhang. 2019. Crossdomain NER using cross-domain language modeling. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2464–2474, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In *Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2021–2031. Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is bert really robust? a strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In *Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence*, volume 34, pages 8018–8025. Divyansh Kaushik, Eduard Hovy, and Zachary Lipton. 2020. Learning the difference that makes a difference with counterfactually-augmented data. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Katherine Keith and Amanda Stent. 2019. Modeling financial analysts' decision making via the pragmatics and semantics of earnings calls. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 19, pages 493–503, Florence, Italy. Shimon Kogan, Dimitry Levin, Bryan R. Routledge, Jacob S. Sagi, and Noah A. Smith. 2009. Predicting risk from financial reports with regression. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 272–280. Hao Li, Jie Shao, Kewen Liao, and Mingjian Tang. 2022. Do simpler statistical methods perform better in multivariate long sequence time-series forecasting? In *Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management*, pages 4168–4172. Jiazheng Li, Linyi Yang, Barry Smyth, and Ruihai Dong. 2020. Maec: A multimodal aligned earnings conference call dataset for financial risk prediction. In *Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference* on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 3063–3070. Shouwei Liu and Yiu Kuen Tse. 2013. Estimation of monthly volatility: An empirical comparison of realized volatility, garch and acd-icv methods. Finance Research Letters. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Aakanksha Naik, Abhilasha Ravichander, Norman Sadeh, Carolyn Rose, and Graham Neubig. 2018. Stress test evaluation for natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2340–2353, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yu Qin and Yi Yang. 2019. What you say and how you say it matters: Predicting stock volatility using verbal and vocal cues. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 390–401, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Navid Rekabsaz, Mihai Lupu, Artem Baklanov, Alexander Dür, Linda Andersson, and Allan Hanbury. 2017. Volatility prediction using financial disclosures sentiments with word embedding-based ir models. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1712–1721. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2019. Are red roses red? evaluating consistency of question-answering models. In *Proceedings* of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6174–6184. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2018. Semantically equivalent adversarial rules for debugging nlp models. In *Proceedings* of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 856–865. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of NLP models with CheckList. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902–4912, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108. Ramit Sawhney, Arshiya Aggarwal, and Rajiv Shah. 2021a. An empirical investigation of bias in the multimodal analysis of financial earnings calls. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3751–3757. Ramit Sawhney, Mihir Goyal, Prakhar Goel, Puneet Mathur, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. 2021b. Multimodal multi-speaker merger & acquisition financial modeling: A new task, dataset, and neural baselines. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6751–6762, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ramit Sawhney, Puneet Mathur, Ayush Mangal, Piyush Khanna, Rajiv Ratn Shah, and Roger Zimmermann. 2020. Multimodal multi-task financial risk forecasting. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM '20, page 456465. Association for Computing Machinery. Koustuv Sinha, Prasanna Parthasarathi, Joelle Pineau, and Adina Williams. 2021. UnNatural Language Inference. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7329–7346, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Megha Srivastava, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and Percy Liang. 2020. Robustness to spurious correlations via human annotations. In *International Conference* on Machine Learning, pages 9109–9119. PMLR. Alessandro Stolfo, Zhijing Jin, Kumar Shridhar, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2022. A causal framework to quantify the robustness of mathematical reasoning with language models. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2210.12023. Rui Wang and Ricardo Henao. 2021. Unsupervised paraphrasing consistency training for low resource named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5303–5308, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Frank Xing, Lorenzo Malandri, Yue Zhang, and Erik Cambria. 2020. Financial sentiment analysis: an investigation into common mistakes and silver bullets. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on computational linguistics, pages 978–987. Yumo Xu and Shay B Cohen. 2018. Stock movement prediction from tweets and historical prices. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long* Papers), pages 1970–1979. Linyi Yang, Jiazheng Li, Ruihai Dong, Yue Zhang, and Barry Smyth. 2022. Numhtml: Numeric-oriented hierarchical transformer model for multi-task financial forecasting. In *AAAI*. Linyi Yang, Tin Lok James Ng, Barry Smyth, and Riuhai Dong. 2020a. Html: Hierarchical transformerbased multi-task learning for volatility prediction. In *Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020*, pages 441–451. Linyi Yang, Zheng Zhang, Su Xiong, Lirui Wei, James Ng, Lina Xu, and Ruihai Dong. 2018. Explainable text-driven neural network for stock prediction. In 2018 5th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing and Intelligence Systems (CCIS), pages 441–445. IEEE. Yi Yang, Mark Christopher Siy UY, and Allen Huang. 2020b. Finbert: A pretrained language model for financial communications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08097. Xi Zhang, Yunjia Zhang, Senzhang Wang, Yuntao Yao, Binxing Fang, and S Yu Philip. 2018. Improving stock market prediction via heterogeneous information fusion. *Knowledge-Based Systems*, 143:236–247. ## A Transitive Consistency Example. We show an example to understand better the motivation for using Transitive Consistency when measuring the consistency of FinNLP models. Given *"Nektar Therapeutics gave investors* strong confidence after Earnings Conference Call on March 1, 2017, and its stock price soared 79.43% in the following month.". As a leading company in the same Sector (Health Care), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) was also affected by this and increased by 1.91% over the same period, which confirmed the rationality of selecting transitive consistency as one of the measurement methods. ## B Full Ablation Results We report the ablation study results of four different types of logical transformation based on the fine-tuned forecasting models in Table 5. We use italics to indicate the performance before consistency transformation, use **bold** to express the performance that has been reduced after consistency transformation, and do not deal with other parts that have not decreased, for the convenience of readers. All detailed return changes in trading simulation based on text-based fine-tuned forecasting models are also shown in Table 6. "+FinTrust " means the average impact of the four transformations. ## C Additional Experimental Details The model settings involved in the paper are all aligned with the parameters and training details described in the corresponding article Yang et al. (2020a); Qin and Yang (2019); Ding et al. (2015); Chen et al. (2015). The total computational budget is about 50 GPU hours, using a GeForce RTX 3090. All models use the highest performance among ten repeated experiments using different seeds and ensure reproducibility. | ACC | F1 | MCC | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | 3 | 7 | 15 | 30 | Avg | 3 | 7 | 15 | 30 | Avg | 3 | 7 | 15 | 30 | Avg | | | HTML | 0.442 | 0.531 | 0.566 | 0.646 | 0.546 | 0.571 | 0.619 | 0.713 | 0.780 | 0.671 | 0.052 | 0.056 | 0.032 | 0.175 | 0.078 | | HTML-Add | 0.407 | 0.540 | 0.584 | 0.619 | 0.538 | 0.579 | 0.662 | 0.715 | 0.726 | 0.671 | 0.000 | 0.085 | 0.104 | 0.127 | 0.079 | | HTML-Neg | 0.602 | 0.522 | 0.416 | 0.363 | 0.476 | 0.737 | 0.625 | 0.522 | 0.532 | 0.604 | 0.089 | 0.073 | -0.113 | -0.123 | -0.019 | | HTML-Sym | 0.425 | 0.522 | 0.566 | 0.637 | 0.538 | 0.564 | 0.620 | 0.684 | 0.776 | 0.661 | 0.004 | 0.036 | 0.066 | 0.123 | 0.057 | | HTML-Tra | 0.425 | 0.522 | 0.549 | 0.637 | 0.533 | 0.552 | 0.609 | 0.671 | 0.776 | 0.652 | -0.016 | 0.037 | 0.021 | 0.123 | 0.041 | | HTML-Avg | 0.465 | 0.527 | 0.529 | 0.564 | 0.521 | 0.608 | 0.629 | 0.648 | 0.703 | 0.647 | 0.019 | 0.058 | 0.019 | 0.063 | 0.040 | | MRDM | 0.504 | 0.513 | 0.584 | 0.619 | 0.555 | 0.541 | 0.663 | 0.722 | 0.754 | 0.670 | 0.079 | 0.007 | 0.107 | 0.044 | 0.059 | | MRDM-Add | 0.416 | 0.496 | 0.434 | 0.496 | 0.460 | 0.507 | 0.655 | 0.289 | 0.627 | 0.520 | -0.079 | -0.073 | -0.073 | -0.145 | -0.092 | | MRDM-Neg | 0.619 | 0.513 | 0.434 | 0.381 | 0.487 | 0.746 | 0.667 | 0.600 | 0.539 | 0.638 | 0.153 | 0.161 | -0.018 | 0.013 | 0.077 | | MRDM-Sym | 0.425 | 0.531 | 0.584 | 0.628 | 0.542 | 0.504 | 0.683 | 0.697 | 0.753 | 0.659 | -0.067 | 0.101 | 0.111 | 0.100 | 0.061 | | MRDM-Tra | 0.398 | 0.504 | 0.575 | 0.637 | 0.529 | 0.521 | 0.663 | 0.727 | 0.776 | 0.672 | -0.105 | -0.037 | 0.108 | 0.123 | 0.022 | | MRDM-Avg | 0.465 | 0.511 | 0.507 | 0.535 | 0.504 | 0.569 | 0.667 | 0.578 | 0.674 | 0.622 | -0.024 | 0.038 | 0.032 | 0.023 | 0.017 | | Event | 0.416 | 0.522 | 0.593 | 0.637 | 0.542 | 0.582 | 0.682 | 0.736 | 0.776 | 0.694 | 0.078 | 0.097 | 0.189 | 0.123 | 0.122 | | Event-Add | 0.425 | 0.522 | 0.575 | 0.637 | 0.540 | 0.558 | 0.671 | 0.652 | 0.745 | 0.657 | -0.007 | 0.044 | 0.116 | 0.157 | 0.077 | | Event-Neg | 0.531 | 0.478 | 0.381 | 0.381 | 0.442 | 0.686 | 0.638 | 0.545 | 0.539 | 0.602 | -0.151 | -0.049 | -0.246 | 0.013 | -0.108 | | Event-Sym | 0.416 | 0.504 | 0.593 | 0.628 | 0.535 | 0.571 | 0.671 | 0.726 | 0.767 | 0.684 | 0.003 | -0.092 | 0.138 | 0.051 | 0.025 | | Event-Tra | 0.416 | 0.513 | 0.566 | 0.628 | 0.531 | 0.577 | 0.675 | 0.707 | 0.767 | 0.681 | 0.025 | 0.004 | 0.042 | 0.051 | 0.030 | | Event-Avg | 0.447 | 0.504 | 0.529 | 0.569 | 0.512 | 0.598 | 0.663 | 0.658 | 0.705 | 0.656 | -0.032 | -0.023 | 0.013 | 0.068 | 0.006 | | XGB | 0.434 | 0.487 | 0.584 | 0.558 | 0.515 | 0.448 | 0.500 | 0.641 | 0.653 | 0.561 | -0.093 | -0.027 | 0.147 | 0.043 | 0.018 | | XGB-Add | 0.398 | 0.504 | 0.593 | 0.575 | 0.518 | 0.433 | 0.533 | 0.657 | 0.676 | 0.575 | -0.156 | 0.006 | 0.160 | 0.064 | 0.018 | | XGB-Neg | 0.549 | 0.469 | 0.398 | 0.451 | 0.467 | 0.622 | 0.444 | 0.404 | 0.492 | 0.490 | 0.062 | -0.064 | -0.187 | 0.011 | -0.045 | | XGB-Sym | 0.434 | 0.496 | 0.575 | 0.566 | 0.518 | 0.448 | 0.513 | 0.636 | 0.662 | 0.565 | -0.093 | -0.010 | 0.127 | 0.058 | 0.021 | | XGB-Tra | 0.469 | 0.540 | 0.558 | 0.531 | 0.524 | 0.318 | 0.581 | 0.638 | 0.658 | 0.549 | -0.115 | 0.076 | 0.078 | -0.075 | -0.009 | | XGB-Avg | 0.462 | 0.502 | 0.531 | 0.531 | 0.507 | 0.456 | 0.518 | 0.584 | 0.622 | 0.545 | -0.076 | 0.002 | 0.045 | 0.014 | -0.004 | | Strategy | Profit Ratio | Sharpe Ratio | Transformations | Profit Ratio | Sharpe Ratio | Transformations | Profit Ratio | Sharpe Ratio | |----------------|----------------|----------------|-------------------|----------------|----------------|-------------------|----------------|----------------| | HTML-Original | 3.752 | 0.266 | HTML-ADD | 2.282↓ | 0.125↓ | HTML-NEG | 3.720↓ | 0.263↓ | | HTML+FinTrust | 3.359↓ | 0.229↓ | HTML-SYM | 3.720↓ | 0.263↓ | HTML-TRA | 3.713↓ | 0.263↓ | | Event-Original | 3.720 | 0.263 | Event-ADD | 3.646↓ | 0.256↓ | Event-NEG | 3.347↓ | 0.226↓ | | Event+FinTrust | 3.535↓ | 0.245↓ | Event-SYM | 3.494↓ | 0.241↓ | Event-TRA | 3.652↓ | 0.256↓ | | MRDM-Original | 3.495 | 0.241 | MRDM-ADD | 0.605↓ | -0.026↓ | MRDM-NEG | 3.512↑ | 0.243↑ | | MRDM+FinTrust | 2.384↓ | 0.138↓ | MRDM-SYM | 1.674↓ | 0.070↓ | MRDM-TRA | 3.743↑ | 0.266↑ | | XGB-Original | -0.515 | -0.126 | XGB-ADD | 0.972↑ | 0.006↑ | XGB-NEG | -0.833↓ | -0.067↑ | | XGB+FinTrust | 0.296↑ | -0.032↑ | XGB-SYM | -0.072↑ | -0.087↑ | XGB-TRA | 1.118↑ | 0.020↑ | Table 6: The ablation study of the trading simulation based on text-based fine-tuned forecasting models. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitation Section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethics Statement. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 4. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 4. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

guerreiro-etal-2023-optimal

Optimal Transport for Unsupervised Hallucination Detection in Neural Machine Translation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.770

Neural machine translation (NMT) has become the de-facto standard in real-world machine translation applications. However, NMT models can unpredictably produce severely pathological translations, known as hallucinations, that seriously undermine user trust. It becomes thus crucial to implement effective preventive strategies to guarantee their proper functioning. In this paper, we address the problem of hallucination detection in NMT by following a simple intuition: as hallucinations are detached from the source content, they exhibit encoder-decoder attention patterns that are statistically different from those of good quality translations. We frame this problem with an optimal transport formulation and propose a fully unsupervised, plug-in detector that can be used with any attention-based NMT model. Experimental results show that our detector not only outperforms all previous model-based detectors, but is also competitive with detectors that employ external models trained on millions of samples for related tasks such as quality estimation and cross-lingual sentence similarity.

# Optimal Transport For Unsupervised Hallucination Detection In Neural Machine Translation Nuno M. Guerreiro1,2 Pierre Colombo4 Pablo Piantanida5 **André F. T. Martins**1,2,3 1Instituto de Telecomunicações, Lisbon, Portugal 2Instituto Superior Técnico & LUMLIS (Lisbon ELLIS Unit), University of Lisbon, Portugal 3Unbabel, Lisbon, Portugal 4MICS, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay 5ILLS - CNRS, CentraleSupélec miguelguerreironuno@gmail.com ## Abstract Neural machine translation (NMT) has become the de-facto standard in real-world machine translation applications. However, NMT models can unpredictably produce severely pathological translations, known as hallucinations, that seriously undermine user trust. It becomes thus crucial to implement effective preventive strategies to guarantee their proper functioning. In this paper, we address the problem of hallucination detection in NMT by following a simple intuition: as hallucinations are detached from the source content, they exhibit cross-attention patterns that are statistically different from those of good quality translations. We frame this problem with an optimal transport formulation and propose a fully unsupervised, plug-in detector that can be used with any attention-based NMT model. Experimental results show that our detector not only outperforms all previous model-based detectors, but is also competitive with detectors that employ external models trained on millions of samples for related tasks such as quality estimation and cross-lingual sentence similarity. 1 **Introduction** Neural machine translation (NMT) has achieved tremendous success (Vaswani et al., 2017; Kocmi et al., 2022), becoming the mainstream method in real-world applications and production systems for automatic translation. Although these models are becoming evermore accurate, especially in high-resource settings, they may unpredictably produce *hallucinations*. These are severely pathological translations that are detached from the source sequence content (Lee et al., 2018; Müller et al., 2020; Raunak et al., 2021; Guerreiro et al., 2022). Crucially, these errors have the potential to seriously harm user trust in hard-to-predict ways (Perez et al., 2022), hence the evergrowing need to develop security mechanisms. One appealing strategy to address this issue is to develop effective on-the-fly detection systems. In this work, we focus on leveraging the crossattention mechanism to develop a novel hallucination detector. This mechanism is responsible for selecting and combining the information contained in the source sequence that is relevant to retain during translation. Therefore, as hallucinations are translations whose content is detached from the source sequence, it is no surprise that connections between *anomalous* attention patterns and hallucinations have been drawn before in the literature (Berard et al., 2019; Raunak et al., 2021; Ferrando et al., 2022). These patterns usually exhibit scattered source attention mass across the different tokens in the translation (e.g. most source attention mass is concentrated on a few irrelevant tokens such as punctuation and the end-of-sequence token). Inspired by such observations, previous work has designed *ad-hoc* heuristics to detect hallucinations that specifically target the anomalous maps. While such heuristics can be used to detect hallucinations to a satisfactory extent (Guerreiro et al., 2022), we argue that a more theoretically-founded way of using anomalous attention information for hallucination detection is lacking in the literature. Rather than aiming to find particular patterns, we go back to the main definition of hallucinations and draw the following hypothesis: as hallucinationscontrary to good translations—are not supported by the source content, they may exhibit cross-attention patterns that are statistically different from those found in good quality translations. Based on this hypothesis, we approach the problem of hallucination detection as a problem of anomaly detection with an **optimal transport (OT) formulation** (Kantorovich, 2006; Peyré et al., 2019). Namely, we aim to find translations with source attention mass distributions that are highly distant from those of good translations. Intuitively, the more distant a translation's attention patterns are from those of good translations, the more **anomalous** it is in light of that distribution. 13766 Our key contributions are: - We propose an OT-inspired fully unsupervised hallucination detector that can be plugged into any attention-based NMT model; - We find that the idea that attention maps for hallucinations are anomalous in light of a reference data distribution makes for an effective hallucination detector; - We show that our detector not only outperforms all previous model-based detectors, but is also competitive with external detectors that employ auxiliary models that have been trained on millions of samples.1 ## 2 **Background** 2.1 **Cross-Attention In Nmt Models** A NMT model M defines a probability distribution pθ(y|x) over an output space of hypotheses Y conditioned on a source sequence x contained in an input space X . In this work, we focus on models parameterized by an encoder-decoder transformer model (Vaswani et al., 2017) with a set of learned weights θ. In particular, we will look closely at the cross-attention mechanism, a core component of NMT models that has been extensively analysed in the literature (Bahdanau et al., 2014; Raganato and Tiedemann, 2018; Kobayashi et al., 2020; Ferrando and Costa-jussà, 2021). This mechanism is responsible for computing, at each generation step, a distribution over all source sentence words that informs the decoder on the relevance of each of those words to the current translation generation step. We follow previous work that has drawn connections between hallucinations and cross-attention (Berard et al., 2019; Raunak et al., 2021), and focus specifically on the last layer of the decoder module. Concretely, for a source sequence of arbitrary length n and a target sequence of arbitrary length m, we will designate as Ω ∈ [0, 1]m×nthe matrix of attention weights that is obtained by averaging across all the cross-attention heads of the last layer of the decoder module. Further, given the model M we will designate πM(x) := 1m [Ω(x)]⊤1 ∈ △n as the source (attention) mass distribution computed by M when x is presented as input, where △n = {p ∈ R n| p ≥ 0, 1⊤p = 1} is the (n − 1)- dimensional probability simplex. 1Our code and data to replicate our experiments are available in https://github.com/deep-spin/ ot-hallucination-detection. ## 2.2 **Optimal Transport Problem And** Wasserstein Distance The first-order Wasserstein distance between two arbitrary probability distributions µ ∈ △n and ν ∈ △m is defined as $$W(\mathbf{\mu},\mathbf{\nu})=\inf_{\mathbf{\gamma}\in\Pi(\mathbf{\mu},\mathbf{\nu})}\mathbb{E}_{(u,v)\sim\mathbf{\gamma}}\,\left[c(u,v)\right],\tag{1}$$ where c : [n] × [m] → R + 0 is a cost function,2and Π(µ, ν) = {γ ∈ △n×m : γ1 = µ; γ⊤1 = ν} 3is the set of all joint probability distributions whose marginals are µ, ν. The Wasserstein distance arises from the method of optimal transport (OT) (Kantorovich, 2006; Peyré et al., 2019): OT measures distances between distributions in a way that depends on the geometry of the sample space. Intuitively, this distance indicates how much probability mass must be transferred from µ to ν in order to transform µ into ν while minimizing the transportation cost defined by c. A notable example is the Wasserstein-1 distance, W1, also known as Earth Mover's Distance (EMD), obtained for c(*u, v*) = ∥u−v∥1. The name follows from the simple intuition: if the distributions are interpreted as "two piles of mass" that can be moved around, the EMD represents the minimum amount of "work" required to transform one pile into the other, where the work is defined as the amount of mass moved multiplied by the distance it is moved. Although OT has been explored for robustness (Paty and Cuturi, 2019; Staerman et al., 2021) and out-of-distribution detection (Wang et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2021; Cheng et al., 2022) in computer vision, the use of OT for anomaly detection in NLP applications remains largely overlooked. ## 2.3 **The Problem Of Hallucinations In Nmt** Hallucinations are translations that lie at the extreme end of NMT pathologies (Raunak et al., 2021). Despite being a well-known issue, research on the phenomenon is hindered by the fact that these translations are rare, especially in highresource settings. As a result, data with hallucinations is scarce. To overcome this obstacle, many previous studies have focused on amplified settings where hallucinations are more likely to occur or are easier to detect. These include settings where (i) perturbations are induced either in the source 2We denote the set of indices {1*, . . . , n*} by [n]. 3We extend the simplex notation for matrices representing joint distributions, △n×m = {P ∈ R n×m : P ≥ 0, 1 ⊤P 1 = 1}. 13767 sentence or in the target prefix (Lee et al., 2018; Müller and Sennrich, 2021; Voita et al., 2021; Ferrando et al., 2022); (ii) the training data is corrupted with noise (Raunak et al., 2021); (iii) the model is tested under domain shift (Wang and Sennrich, 2020; Müller et al., 2020); (iv) the detectors are validated on artificial hallucinations (Zhou et al., 2021). Nevertheless, these works have provided important insights towards better understanding of the phenomenon. For instance, it has been found that samples memorized by an NMT model are likely to generate hallucinations when perturbed (Raunak et al., 2021), and hallucinations are related to lower source contributions and over-reliance on the target prefix (Voita et al., 2021; Ferrando et al., 2022). In this work, we depart from artificial settings, and focus on studying hallucinations that are *naturally* produced by the NMT model. To that end, we follow the taxonomy introduced in Raunak et al. (2021) and later extended and studied in Guerreiro et al. (2022). Under this taxonomy, hallucinations are translations that contain content that is detached from the source sentence. To disentangle the different types of hallucinations, they can be categorized as: *largely fluent detached hallucinations* or oscillatory hallucinations. The former are translations that bear *little or no relation at all* to the source content and may be further split according to the severity of the detachment (e.g. strong or full detachment) while the latter are inadequate translations that contain erroneous repetitions of words and phrases. We illustrate in Appendix A the categories described above through examples of hallucinated outputs. ## 3 **On-The-Fly Detection Of Hallucinations** On-the-fly hallucination detectors are systems that can detect hallucinations without access to reference translations. These detectors are particularly relevant as they can be deployed in online applications where references are not readily available.4 ## 3.1 **Categorization Of Hallucination Detectors** Previous work on on-the-fly detection of hallucinations in NMT has primarily focused on two categories of detectors: *external* detectors and *modelbased* detectors. External detectors employ auxiliary models trained for related tasks such as quality estimation (QE) and cross-lingual embedding similarity. On the other hand, model-based detectors only require access to the NMT model that generates the translations, and work by leveraging relevant internal features such as model confidence and cross-attention. These detectors are attractive due to their flexibility and low memory footprint, as they can very easily be plugged in on a vast range of NMT models without the need for additional training data or computing infrastructure. Moreover, Guerreiro et al. (2022) show that model-based detectors can be predictive of hallucinations, outperforming QE models and even performing on par with state-of-the-art reference-based metrics. ## 3.2 **Problem Statement** We will focus specifically on model-based detectors that require obtaining internal features from a model M. Building a hallucination detector generally consists of finding a scoring function sM : X → R and a threshold τ ∈ R to build a binary rule gM : *X → {*0, 1}. For a given test sample x ∈ X , gM(x) = 1{sM(x) > τ}. (2) If sM is an anomaly score, gM(x) = 0 implies that the model M generates a 'normal' translation for the source sequence x, and gM(x) = 1 implies that M generates a 'hallucination' instead.5 $$\iota(\mathbf{x})=\mathbb{1}\{s\lambda(\mathbf{x})>\tau\}$$ ## 4 **Unsupervised Hallucination Detection** With Optimal Transport Anomalous cross-attention maps have been connected to the hallucinatory mode in several works (Lee et al., 2018; Berard et al., 2019; Raunak et al., 2021). Our method builds on this idea and uses the Wasserstein distance to estimate the cost of transforming a translation source mass distribution into a reference distribution. Intuitively, the higher the cost of such transformation, the more distant—and hence the more anomalous— the attention of the translation is with respect to that of the reference translation. ## 4.1 Wass-To-Unif**: A Data Independent** Scenario In this scenario, we only rely on the generated translation and its source mass distribution to decide whether the translation is a hallucination or not. Concretely, for a given test sample x ∈ X : 5From now on, we will omit the subscript M from all model-based scoring functions to ease notation effort.  1. We first obtain the source mass attention distribution πM(x) ∈ △|x|; 2. We then compute an anomaly score, swtu(x), by measuring the Wasserstein distance between πM(x) and a reference distribution u: $$s_{\mathrm{{wu}}}(x)=W(\pi_{\mathcal{M}}(x),u).$$ Choice of reference translation. A natural choice for u is the uniform distribution, u = 1 n· 1, where 1 is a vector of ones of size n. In the context of our problem, a uniform source mass distribution means that all source tokens are equally attended. Choice of cost function. We consider the 0/1 cost function, c(*i, j*) = 1[i ̸= j], as it guarantees that the cost of transporting a unit mass from any token i to any token j ̸= i is constant. For this distance function, the problem in Equation 1 has the following closed-form solution (Villani, 2009): $$W(\pi_{\mathcal{M}}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{u})={}^{1/2}\|\pi_{\mathcal{M}}(\mathbf{x})-\mathbf{u}\|_{1}.$$ This is a well-known result in optimal transport: the Wasserstein distance under the 0/1 cost function is equivalent to the total variation distance between the two distributions. On this metric space, the Wasserstein distance depends solely on the probability mass that is transported to transform πM(x) to u. Importantly, *this formulation ignores the* starting locations and destinations of that probability mass as the cost of transporting a unit mass from any token i to any token j ̸= i is constant. Interpretation of Wass-to-Unif. Attention maps for which the source attention mass is highly concentrated on a very sparse set of tokens (regardless of their location in the source sentence) can be very predictive of hallucinations (Berard et al., 2019; Guerreiro et al., 2022). Thus, the bigger the distance between the source mass distribution of a test sample and the uniform distribution, the more peaked the former is, and hence the closer it is to such predictive patterns. ## 4.2 Wass-To-Data**: A Data-Driven Scenario** In this scenario, instead of using a single reference distribution, we use a set of reference source mass distributions, Rx, obtained with the same model. By doing so, we can evaluate how anomalous a given translation is compared to a model data-driven distribution, rather than relying on an arbitrary choice of reference distribution. First, we use a held-out dataset Dheld that contains samples for which the model M generates good quality translations according to an automatic evaluation metric (in this work, we use COMET (Rei et al., 2020)). We use this dataset to construct (offline) a set of held-out source attention distributions Rheld = {πM(x) ∈ △|x|: x ∈ Dheld}. Then, for a given test sample x ∈ X , we apply the procedure illustrated in Figure 1: 1. We generate a translation yˆ = (y1*, . . . , y*m) and obtain the source mass attention distribution πM(x) ∈ △|x|; 2. We apply a length filter to construct the sample reference set Rx, by restricting Rx to contain source mass distributions of Rheld correspondent to translations of size [(1−δ)m,(1 +δ)m] for a predefined δ ∈]0, 1[; 6 3. We compute pairwise Wasserstein-1 distances between πM(x) and each element ri of Rx: $$\mathcal{W}_{\mathbf{x}}=\left(W_{1}(\pi_{\mathcal{M}}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{r}_{1}),\ldots,\right.$$ $$\left.W_{1}(\pi_{\mathcal{M}}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{r}_{|\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{x}}|})\right).$$ 4. We obtain the anomaly score swtd(x) by averaging the bottom-k distances in Wx: $$s_{\mathrm{{wtd}}}(\mathbf{x})={\frac{1}{k}}\,\sum_{s_{i}\in{\mathcal{S}}}s_{i},$$ e set containing the $\,k\,$ sm. where S is the set containing the k smallest elements of Wx. Interpretation of Wass-to-Data. Hallucinations, unlike good translations, are not fully supported by the source content. Wass-to-Data evaluates how anomalous a translation is by comparing the source attention mass distribution of that translation to those of good translations. The higher the Wassto-Data score, the more anomalous the source attention mass distribution of that translation is in comparison to those of good translations, and the more likely it is to be an hallucination. Relation to Wass-to-Unif. The Wasserstein-1 distance (see Section 2.2) between two distributions is equivalent to the ℓ1-norm of the difference between their *cumulative distribution functions* (Peyré and Cuturi, 2018). Note that this is different from the result in Equation 4, as the Wasserstein distance under c(*i, j*) = 1[i ̸= j] as the cost function is proportional to the norm of the difference between their *probability mass functions*. Thus, Wass-to-Unif will be more sensitive to the overall structure of the distributions (e.g. sharp probability peaks around some points), whereas Wass-to-Data will be more sensitive to the specific values of the points in the two distributions. ## 4.3 Wass-Combo**: The Best Of Both Worlds** With this scoring function, we aim at combining Wass-to-Unif and Wass-to-Data into a single detector. To do so, we propose using a two-stage process that exploits the computational benefits 6For efficiency reasons, we set the maximum cardinality of Rx to |R|max. If length-filtering yields a set with more than |R|max examples, we randomly sample |R|max examples from that set to construct Rx. of Wass-to-Unif over Wass-to-Data. 7 Put simply, (i) we start by assessing whether a test sample is deemed a hallucination according to Wass-to-Unif, and if not (ii) we compute the Wass-to-Data score. Formally, $$s_{\tt w c}(\mathbf{x})=1\left[s_{\tt w t u}(\mathbf{x})>\tau_{\tt w t u}\right]\times\tilde{s}_{\tt w t u}(\mathbf{x})\tag{7}$$ $$+\ 1\left[s_{\tt w t u}(\mathbf{x})\leq\tau_{\tt w t u}\right]\times s_{\tt w t d}(\mathbf{x})$$ $$({\mathfrak{H}})$$ $$(6)$$ for a predefined scalar threshold τwtu. To set that threshold, we compute Wwtu = {swtu(x) : x ∈ Dheld} and set τwtu = PK, i.e τwtu is the Kth percentile of Wwtu with K ∈ ]98, 100[ (in line with hallucinatory rates reported in (Müller et al., 2020; Wang and Sennrich, 2020; Raunak et al., 2022)).8 ## 5 **Experimental Setup** 5.1 **Model And Data** We follow the setup in Guerreiro et al. (2022). In that work, the authors released a dataset of 3415 translations for WMT18 DE-EN news translation data (Bojar et al., 2018) with annotations on critical errors and hallucinations. Our analysis in the main text focuses on this dataset as it is the only available dataset that contains human annotations on hallucinations produced naturally by an NMT model (we provide full details about the dataset and the model in Appendix A). Nevertheless, in order to access the broader validity of our methods for other low and mid-resource language pairs and models, we follow a similar setup to that of Tang et al. (2022) in which quality assessments are converted to hallucination annotations. For those experiments, we use the RO-EN (mid-resource) and NE-EN (low-resource) translations from the MLQEPE dataset (Fomicheva et al., 2022). In Appendix J, we present full details on the setup and report the results of these experiments. Importantly, our empirical observations are similar to those of the main text. For all our experiments, we obtain all modelbased information required to build the detectors using the same models that generated the translations in consideration.  ## 5.2 **Baseline Detectors** 5.2.1 **Model-Based Detectors** We compare our methods to the two best performing model-based methods in Guerreiro et al. (2022).9 Attn-ign-SRC. This method consists of computing the proportion of source words with a total incoming attention mass lower than a threshold λ: $$s_{\rm ais}(\mathbf{x})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}1\left[(\mathbf{\Omega}^{\top}(\mathbf{x})\mathbf{1})_{j}<\lambda\right].\tag{8}$$ This method was initially proposed in Berard et al. (2019). We follow their work and use λ = 0.2. Seq-Logprob. We compute the length-normalised sequence log-probability of the translation: $$s_{\mathsf{s l p}}(\mathbf{x})={\frac{1}{m}}\sum_{k=1}^{m}\log p_{\theta}(y_{k}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<k},\mathbf{x}).$$ ## 5.2.2 **External Detectors** We provide a comparison to detectors that exploit state-of-the-art models in related tasks, as it helps monitor the development of model-based detectors. CometKiwi. We compute sentence-level quality scores with CometKiwi (Rei et al., 2022), the winning reference-free model of the WMT22 QE shared task (Zerva et al., 2022). It has more than 565M parameters and it was trained on more than 1M human quality annotations. Importantly, this training data includes human annotations for several low-quality translations and hallucinations. LaBSE. We leverage LaBSE (Feng et al., 2020) to compute cross-lingual sentence representations for the source sequence and translation. We use the cosine similarity of these representations as the detection score. The model is based on the BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) architecture and was 9We compare with ALTI+ (Ferrando et al., 2022), a method thas was leveraged for hallucination detection concurrently to our work in Dale et al. (2022), in Appendix H. trained on more than 20 billion sentences. LaBSE makes for a good baseline, as it was optimized in a self-supervised way with a translate matching objective that is very much aligned with the task of hallucination detection: during training, LaBSE is given a source sequence and a set of translations including the true translation and multiple negative alternatives, and the model is optimized to specifically discriminate the true translation from the other negative alternatives by assigning a higher similarity score to the former. ## 5.3 **Evaluation Metrics** We report the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) and the False Positive Rate at 90% True Positive Rate (FPR@90TPR) to evaluate the performance of different detectors. ## 5.4 **Implementation Details** We use WMT18 DE-EN data samples from the heldout set used in Guerreiro et al. (2022), and construct Dheld to contain the 250k samples with highest COMET score. To obtain Wass-to-Data scores, we set δ = 0.1, |R|max = 1000 and k = 4. To obtain Wass-to-Combo scores, we set τwtu = P99.9. We perform extensive ablations on the construction of Rheld and on all other hyperparameters in Appendix G. We also report the computational runtime of our methods in Appendix D. ## 6 **Results** 6.1 **Performance On On-The-Fly Detection** We start by analyzing the performance of our proposed detectors on a real world on-the-fly detection scenario. In this scenario, the detector must be able to flag hallucinations regardless of their specific type as those are unknown at the time of detection. Wass-Combo **is the best model-based detector.** Table 1 shows that Wass-Combo outperforms most | DETECTOR | AUROC ↑ | FPR@90TPR ↓ | |------------------------------------------|------------|---------------| | External Detectors CometKiwi | 86.96 | 53.61 | | LaBSE | 91.72 | 26.91 | | Model-based Detectors Attn-ign-SRC 79.36 | 72.83 | | | Seq-Logprob | 83.40 | 59.02 | | OURS Wass-to-Unif | 80.37 | 72.22 | | Wass-to-Data | 84.20 0.15 | 48.15 0.54 | | Wass-Combo | 87.17 0.07 | 47.56 1.30 | other methods both in terms of AUROC and FPR. When compared to the previous best-performing model-based method (Seq-Logprob), Wass-Combo obtains boosts of approximately 4 and 10 points in AUROC and FPR, respectively. These performance boosts are further evidence that model-based features can be leveraged, in an unsupervised manner, to build effective detectors. Nevertheless, the high values of FPR suggest that there is still a significant performance margin to reduce in future research. The notion of data proximity is helpful to detect hallucinations. Table 1 shows that Wass-to-Data outperforms the previous best-performing modelbased method (Seq-Logprob) in both AUROC and FPR (by more than 10%). This supports the idea that cross-attention patterns for hallucinations are anomalous with respect to those of good modelgenerated translations, and that our method can effectively measure this level of anomalousness. On the other hand, compared to Wass-to-Uni, Wass-toData shows a significant improvement of 30 FPR points. This highlights the effectiveness of leveraging the data-driven distribution of good translations instead of the ad-hoc uniform distribution. Nevertheless, Table 1 and Figure 2 show that combining both methods brings further performance improvements. This suggests that these methods may specialize in different types of hallucinations, and that combining them allows for detecting a broader range of anomalies. We will analyze this further in Section 6.2. Our model-based method achieves comparable performance to external models. Table 1 shows that Wass-Combo outperforms CometKiwi, with significant improvements on FPR. However, there still exists a gap to LaBSE, the best overall detector.  This performance gap indicates that more powerful detectors can be built, paving the way for future work in model-based hallucination detection. Nevertheless, while relying on external models seems appealing, deploying and serving them in practice usually comes with additional infrastructure costs, while our detector relies on information that can be obtained when generating the translation. Translation quality assessments are less predictive than similarity of cross-lingual sentence representations. Table 1 shows that LaBSE outperforms the state-of-the-art quality estimation system CometKiwi, with vast improvements in terms of FPR. This shows that for hallucination detection, quality assessments obtained with a QE model are less predictive than the similarity between crosslingual sentence representations. This may be explained through their training objectives (see Section 5.2.2): while CometKiwi employs a more general regression objective in which the model is trained to match human quality assessments, LaBSE is trained with a translate matching training objective that is very closely related to the task of hallucination detection. ## 6.2 **Do Detectors Specialize In Different Types** Of Hallucinations? In this section, we present an analysis on the performance of different detectors for different types of hallucinations (see Section 2.3). We report both a quantitative analysis to understand whether a detector can distinguish a specific hallucination type from other translations (Table 2), and a qualitative analysis on a fixed-threshold scenario10 (Figure 3). 10We set the threshold by finding the 99th percentile of Wass-Combo scores obtained for 100k samples from the clean WMT18 DE-EN held-out set (see Section 5.4). | DETECTOR | Fully | Oscillatory | Strongly | | |-------------------------------------------|------------|---------------|-------------|----------| | Detached | Detached | | | | | External Detectors CometKiwi | 87.75 | 93.04 | 81.78 | | | LaBSE | 98.91 | 84.62 | 89.72 | | | Model-based Detectors Attn-ign-SRC 95.76 | 59.53 | 77.42 | | | | Seq-Logprob | 95.64 | 71.10 | 80.15 | | | OURS Wass-to-Unif | 96.35 | 69.75 | 72.19 | | | Wass-to-Data | 88.24 0.29 | 87.80 0.10 | 77.60 0.18 | | | Wass-Combo | 96.57 0.10 | 85.74 0.10 | 78.89 0.15 | | | (a) AUROC - the higher the better. | DETECTOR | Fully | Oscillatory | Strongly | | Detached | Detached | | | | | External Detectors CometKiwi | 33.70 | 23.80 | 42.98 | | | LaBSE | 0.52 | 50.26 | 28.88 | | | Model-based Detectors Attn-ign-SRC 8.51 | 81.24 | 76.68 | | | | Seq-Logprob | 4.62 | 72.99 | 65.39 | | | OURS Wass-to-Unif | 3.27 | 78.78 | 88.32 | | | Wass-to-Data | 36.60 1.92 | 40.04 1.57 | 63.96 2.04 | | | Wass-Combo | 3.56 0.00 | 41.38 1.59 | 64.55 1.93 | | | (b) FPR@90TPR (%) - the lower the better. | | | | | This analysis is particularly relevant to better understand how different detectors specialize in different types of hallucinations. In Appendix J, we show that the trends presented in this section hold for other mid- and low-resource language pairs. Fully detached hallucinations. Detecting fully detached hallucinations is remarkably easy for most detectors. Interestingly, Wass-to-Unif significantly outperforms Wass-to-Data on this type of hallucination. This highlights how combining both methods can be helpful. In fact, WassCombo performs similarly to Wass-to-Unif, and can very easily separate most fully detached hallucinations from other translations on a fixed-threshold scenario (Figure 3). Note that the performance of Wass-to-Unif for fully detached hallucinations closely mirrors that of Attn-ign-SRC. This is not surprising, since both methods, at their core, try to capture similar patterns: translations for which the source attention mass distribution is highly concentrated on a small set of source tokens. Strongly detached hallucinations. These are the hardest hallucinations to detect with our methods. Nevertheless, Wass-Combo performs competitively with the previous best-performing modelbased method for this type of hallucinations (SeqLogprob). We hypothesize that the difficulty in detecting these hallucinations may be due to the varying level of detachment from the source sequence. Indeed, Figure 3 shows that Wass-Combo scores span from a cluster of strongly detached hallucinations with scores similar to other data samples to those similar to the scores of most fully detached hallucinations. Oscillatory hallucinations. Wass-to-Data and Wass-Combo significantly outperform all previous model-based detectors on detecting oscillatory hallucinations. This is relevance in the context of model-based detectors, as previous detectors notably struggle with detecting these hallucinations. Moreover, Wass-Combo also manages to outperform LaBSE with significant improvements in FPR. This hints that the repetition of words or phrases may not be enough to create sentence-level representations that are highly dissimilar from the non-oscillatory source sequence. In contrast, we find that CometKiwi appropriately penalizes oscillatory hallucinations, which aligns with observations made in Guerreiro et al. (2022). Additionally, Figure 3 shows that the scores for oscillatory hallucinations are scattered along a broad range. After close evaluation, we observed that this is highly related to the severity of the oscillation: almost all non-detected hallucinations are not severe oscillations (see Appendix I). 7 **Conclusions** We propose a novel plug-in model-based detector for hallucinations in NMT. Unlike previous attempts to build an attention-based detector, we do not rely on *ad-hoc* heuristics to detect hallucinations, and instead pose hallucination detection as an optimal transport problem: our detector aims to find translations whose source attention mass distribution is highly distant from those of good quality translations. Our empirical analysis shows that our detector outperforms all previous model-based detectors. Importantly, in contrast to these prior approaches, it is suitable for identifying oscillatory hallucinations, thus addressing an important gap in the field. We also show that our detector is competitive with external detectors that use state-of-the-art quality estimation or cross-lingual similarity models. Notably, this performance is achieved without the need for large models, or any data with quality annotations or parallel training data. Finally, thanks to its flexibility, our detector can be easily deployed in real-world scenarios, making it a valuable tool for practical applications. ## Limitations We highlight two main limitations of our work. Firstly, instead of focusing on more recent NMT models that use large pretrained language models as their backbone, our experiments were based on transformer base models. That is because we used the NMT models that produced the translations in the datasets we analyze, i.e, the models that actually hallucinate for the source sequences in the dataset. Nevertheless, research on hallucinations for larger NMT models makes for an exciting line of future work and would be valuable to assess the broad validity of our claims. Secondly, although our method does not require any training data or human annotations, it relies on access to a pre-existing database of source mass distributions. This can be easily obtained offline by running the model on monolingual data to obtain the distributions. Nevertheless, these datastores need not be costly in terms of memory. In fact, in Appendix J, we validate our detectors for datastores that contain less than 100k distributions. ## Acknowledgments This work is partially supported by the European Research Council (ERC StG DeepSPIN 758969), by EU's Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Actions (UTTER, contract 101070631), by the P2020 program MAIA (LISBOA-01-0247- FEDER-045909), by the Portuguese Recovery and Resilience Plan through project C64500888200000055 (NextGenAI, Center for Responsible AI), and by the FCT through contract UIDB/50008/2020. This work was also granted access to the HPC resources of IDRIS under the allocation 2021- AP010611665 as well as under the project 2021- 101838 made by GENCI. ## References Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. *CoRR*, abs/1409.0473. Alexandre Berard, Ioan Calapodescu, and Claude Roux. 2019. Naver labs Europe's systems for the WMT19 machine translation robustness task. In *Proceedings* of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1), pages 526– 532, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ondˇrej Bojar, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Philipp Koehn, and Christof Monz. 2018. Findings of the 2018 conference on machine translation (WMT18). In *Proceedings of the* Third Conference on Machine Translation: Shared Task Papers, pages 272–303, Belgium, Brussels. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaoyu Cheng, Maoxing Wen, Cong Gao, and Yueming Wang. 2022. Hyperspectral anomaly detection based on wasserstein distance and spatial filtering. *Remote* Sensing, 14(12):2730. David Dale, Elena Voita, Loïc Barrault, and Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2022. Detecting and mitigating hallucinations in machine translation: Model internal workings alone do well, sentence similarity even better. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fangxiaoyu Feng, Yinfei Yang, Daniel Cer, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Wei Wang. 2020. Language-agnostic bert sentence embedding. Javier Ferrando and Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2021. Attention weights in transformer NMT fail aligning words between sequences but largely explain model predictions. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 434–443, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Javier Ferrando, Gerard I. Gállego, Belen Alastruey, Carlos Escolano, and Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2022. Towards opening the black box of neural machine translation: Source and target interpretations of the transformer. Marina Fomicheva, Shuo Sun, Erick Fonseca, Chrysoula Zerva, Frédéric Blain, Vishrav Chaudhary, Francisco Guzmán, Nina Lopatina, Lucia Specia, and André F. T. Martins. 2022. MLQE-PE: A multilingual quality estimation and post-editing dataset. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4963–4974, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Nuno M. Guerreiro, Elena Voita, and André F. T. Martins. 2022. Looking for a needle in a haystack: A comprehensive study of hallucinations in neural machine translation. Leonid V Kantorovich. 2006. On the translocation of masses. *Journal of mathematical sciences*, 133(4):1381–1382. Goro Kobayashi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Sho Yokoi, and Kentaro Inui. 2020. Attention is not only a weight: Analyzing transformers with vector norms. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7057–7075, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom Kocmi, Rachel Bawden, Ondřej Bojar, Anton Dvorkovich, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Thamme Gowda, Yvette Graham, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Rebecca Knowles, Philipp Koehn, Christof Monz, Makoto Morishita, Masaaki Nagata, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Michal Novák, Martin Popel, Maja Popović, and Mariya Shmatova. 2022. Findings of the 2022 conference on machine translation (wmt22). In *Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation*, pages 1–45, Abu Dhabi. Association for Computational Linguistics. Philipp Koehn. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit X: Papers, pages 79–86, Phuket, Thailand. Philipp Koehn, Francisco Guzmán, Vishrav Chaudhary, and Juan Pino. 2019. Findings of the WMT 2019 shared task on parallel corpus filtering for low-resource conditions. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 3: Shared Task Papers, Day 2), pages 54–72, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Katherine Lee, Orhan Firat, Ashish Agarwal, Clara Fannjiang, and David Sussillo. 2018. Hallucinations in neural machine translation. Mathias Müller, Annette Rios, and Rico Sennrich. 2020. Domain robustness in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (Volume 1: Research Track), pages 151–164, Virtual. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. Mathias Müller and Rico Sennrich. 2021. Understanding the properties of minimum Bayes risk decoding in neural machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 259–272, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. fairseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations)*, pages 48–53, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. François-Pierre Paty and Marco Cuturi. 2019. Subspace robust wasserstein distances. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 5072–5081. PMLR. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 12:2825–2830. Ethan Perez, Saffron Huang, Francis Song, Trevor Cai, Roman Ring, John Aslanides, Amelia Glaese, Nat McAleese, and Geoffrey Irving. 2022. Red teaming language models with language models. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2202.03286. Gabriel Peyré, Marco Cuturi, et al. 2019. Computational optimal transport: With applications to data science. Foundations and Trends® *in Machine Learning*, 11(5-6):355–607. Gabriel Peyré and Marco Cuturi. 2018. Computational optimal transport. Maja Popovic. 2016. ´ chrF deconstructed: beta parameters and n-gram weights. In *Proceedings of the* First Conference on Machine Translation: Volume 2, Shared Task Papers, pages 499–504, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alessandro Raganato and Jörg Tiedemann. 2018. An analysis of encoder representations in transformerbased machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 287–297, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vikas Raunak, Arul Menezes, and Marcin JunczysDowmunt. 2021. The curious case of hallucinations in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1172–1183, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vikas Raunak, Matt Post, and Arul Menezes. 2022. Salted: A framework for salient long-tail translation error detection. Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2685–2702, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ricardo Rei, Marcos Treviso, Nuno M. Guerreiro, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C. Farinha, Christine Maroti, José G. C. de Souza, Taisiya Glushkova, Duarte M. Alves, Alon Lavie, Luisa Coheur, and André F. T. Martins. 2022. Cometkiwi: Ist-unbabel 2022 submission for the quality estimation shared task. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lucia Specia, Frédéric Blain, Marina Fomicheva, Chrysoula Zerva, Zhenhao Li, Vishrav Chaudhary, and André F. T. Martins. 2021. Findings of the WMT 2021 shared task on quality estimation. In *Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation*, pages 684–725, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Guillaume Staerman, Pierre Laforgue, Pavlo Mozharovskyi, and Florence d'Alché Buc. 2021. When ot meets mom: Robust estimation of wasserstein distance. In *International Conference on* Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 136–144. PMLR. Joël Tang, Marina Fomicheva, and Lucia Specia. 2022. Reducing hallucinations in neural machine translation with feature attribution. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Cédric Villani. 2009. *Optimal transport: old and new*, volume 338. Springer. Elena Voita, Rico Sennrich, and Ivan Titov. 2021. Analyzing the source and target contributions to predictions in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1126–1140, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chaojun Wang and Rico Sennrich. 2020. On exposure bias, hallucination and domain shift in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3544–3552, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinan Wang, Wenbo Sun, Jionghua Jin, Zhenyu Kong, Xiaowei Yue, et al. 2021. Wood: Wassersteinbased out-of-distribution detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.06384. Yongzhe Yan, Stefan Duffner, Priyanka Phutane, Anthony Berthelier, Christophe Blanc, Christophe Garcia, and Thierry Chateau. 2021. 2d wasserstein loss for robust facial landmark detection. *Pattern Recognition*, 116:107945. Chrysoula Zerva, Frédéric Blain, Ricardo Rei, Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn, José G. C. de Souza, Steffen Eger, Diptesh Kanojia, Duarte Alves, Constantin Orasan, Marina Fomicheva, André F. T. Martins, and ˇ Lucia Specia. 2022. Findings of the WMT 2022 shared task on quality estimation. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation, pages 69–99, Abu Dhabi. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chunting Zhou, Graham Neubig, Jiatao Gu, Mona Diab, Francisco Guzmán, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2021. Detecting hallucinated content in conditional neural sequence generation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021*, pages 1393–1404, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A **Model And Data Details** NMT Model. The NMT model used in Guerreiro et al. (2022) to create the hallucination dataset is a Transformer base model (Vaswani et al., 2017) (hidden size of 512, feedforward size of 2048, 6 encoder and 6 decoder layers, 8 attention heads). The model has approximately 77M parameters. It was trained with the fairseq toolkit (Ott et al., 2019) on WMT18 DE-EN data (excluding Paracrawl): the authors randomly choose 2/3 of the dataset for training and use the remaining 1/3 as a held-out set for analysis. We use that same held-out set in this work. Dataset Stats. The dataset used in this paper was introduced in Guerreiro et al. (2022). It consists of 3415 translations from WMT18 DE-EN data with structured annotations on different types of hallucinations and pathologies. Overall, the dataset contains 118 translations annotated as fully detached hallucinations, 90 as strongly detached hallucinations, and 86 as oscillatory hallucinations.11 The other translations are either incorrect (1073) or correct (2048). Details on annotation, a high-level overview and other statistics can be found in the original paper. We show examples of hallucinations for each category in Table 3. 12 ## B **Details On External Detectors** COMET. We use models available in the official repository13: wmt22-cometkiwi-da for CometKiwi and wmt20-comet-da for COMET. LaBSE. We use the version available in sentence-transformers (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019).14 ## C **Performance Of Reference-Free** Comet-Based Models Guerreiro et al. (2022) used the COMET-QE version wmt20-comet-qe-da, whereas we are using the latest iteration wmt22-cometkiwi-da (CometKiwi). CometKiwi was trained on human annotations from the MLQE-PE dataset (Fomicheva et al., 2022), which contains a high percentage of hallucinations for some language pairs (Specia et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2022). We show the performance of both these versions in Table 4. CometKiwi significantly outperforms the previous iteration of COMET-QE. This hints that training quality estimation models with more negative examples can improve their ability to adequately penalize hallucinations. ## D **Computational Runtime Of Our** Detectors Our detectors do not require access to a GPU machine. All our experiments have been ran on a machine with 2 physical Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6348 @ 2.60GHz CPUs (total of 112 threads). Obtaining Wass-to-Unif scores for all the 3415 translations from the Guerreiro et al. (2022) dataset takes less than half a second, while Wass-to-Data scores are obtained in little over 4 minutes. ## E **Evaluation Metrics** We use scikit-learn (Pedregosa et al., 2011) implementations of our evaluation metrics.15 ## F **Tracing-Back Performance Boosts To** The Construction Of The Reference Set Rx In Section 6.1 in the main text, we showed that evaluating how distant a given translation is compared to a data-driven reference distribution–rather than to an *ad-hoc* reference distribution– led to increased performance. Therefore, we will now analyze the construction of the reference set Rx to obtain Wass-to-Data scores (step 2 in Figure 1). We conduct experiments to investigate the importance of the two main operations in this process: defining and length-filtering the distributions in Rheld. Construction of R**held**. To construct Rheld, we first need to obtain the source attention mass distributions for each sample in Dheld. If Dheld is a parallel corpus, we can force-decode the reference translations to construct Rheld. As shown in Table 5, this construction produces results similar to using good-quality model-generated translations. Moreover, we also evaluate the scenario where Rheld is constructed with translations of any quality. Table 5 shows that although filtering for quality 15https://scikit-learn.org | Category | Source Sentence | Reference Translation | Hallucination The term "Pearl Index" refers to the term "Pearl Index" (or "Pearl Index") used to refer to the term "Pearl Index" (or "Pearl Index"). | |-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Als Maß hierfür wird meist der sogenannte Pearl | As a measure of this, the so-called Pearl Index | | | | Oscillatory | Index benutzt (so benannt nach einem Statistiker, | is usually used (so named after a statistician | | | der diese Berechnungsformel einführte). | who introduced this calculation formula). | Independence and Democracy Group (includes 10 UKIP MEPs and one independent MEP from Ireland) | | | Strongly Detached | Fraktion der Grünen / Freie Europäische Allianz | The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance | | | Fully | Die Zimmer beziehen, die Fenster mit Aussicht | Head up to the rooms, open up the windows | | | Detached | öffnen, tief durchatmen, staunen. | and savour the view, breathe deeply, marvel. | The staff were very friendly and helpful. | Table 3: Examples of hallucination types. Hallucinated content is shown shaded. | MODEL VERSION | AUROC ↑ | FPR@90TPR ↓ | |--------------------|-----------|---------------| | wmt20-comet-qe-da | 70.15 | 57.24 | | wmt22-cometkiwi-da | 86.96 | 53.61 | Table 4: Performance of COMET-QE (wmt20-comet-qe-da) and CometKiwi (wmt22-cometkiwi-da) on the on-the-fly detection scenario. Table 5: Ablations on Wass-to-Data by changing the construction of Rheld. We present the mean and standard deviation (in subscript) across five random seeds. improves performance, the gains are not substantial. This connects to findings by Guerreiro et al. (2022): hallucinations exhibit different properties from other translations, including other incorrect translations. We offer further evidence that properties of hallucinations—in this case, the source attention mass distributions—are not only different to those of good-quality translations but also to most other model-generated translations. | ABLATION | AUROC ↑ | FPR@90TPR ↓ | |---------------------------------------------|------------|---------------| | Model-Generated Translations Any 83.27 0.39 | 50.08 1.65 | | | Quality-filtered | 84.20 0.15 | 48.15 0.54 | | Reference Translations Any 83.95 0.16 | 50.26 0.60 | | Length-filtering the distributions in R**held**. The results in Table 6 show that length-filtering boosts performance significantly. This is expected: our translation-based length-filtering penalizes translations whose length is anomalous for their respective source sequences. This is particularly useful for detecting oscillatory hallucinations. ## G **Ablations** We perform ablations on Wass-to-Data and WassCombo for all relevant hyperparameters: the length- ABLATION AUROC ↑ FPR@90TPR ↓ Random Sampling 80.65 0.15 57.06 2.04 Length Filtering 84.20 0.15 **48.15** 0.54 Table 6: Ablations on Wass-to-Data by changing the length-filtering window to construct Rx. We present the mean and standard deviation (in subscript) across five random seeds. filtering parameter δ, the maximum cardinality of R, |R|max, the value of k to compute the Wass-to-Data scores (step 4 in Figure 1), and the threshold on Wass-to-Unif scores to compute WassCombo scores. The results are shown in Table 7 to Table 10, respectively. We also report in Table 11 the performance of Wass-to-Data with a 0/1 cost function instead of the ℓ1 distance function. On length-filtering. The results in Table 7 show that, generally, the bigger the length window, the worse the performance. This is expected: if the test translation is very different in length to those obtained for the source sequences in Rx, the more penalized it may be for the length mismatch instead of source attention distribution pattern anomalies. | ABLATION | AUROC ↑ | FPR@90TPR ↓ | |---------------------------------------------|------------|---------------| | Random Sampling | 80.65 0.15 | 57.06 2.04 | | Length Filtering (δ > 0) δ = 0.1 84.20 0.15 | 48.15 0.54 | | | δ = 0.2 | 84.37 0.17 | 47.12 1.04 | | δ = 0.3 | 83.93 0.18 | 48.45 2.32 | | δ = 0.4 | 83.06 0.16 | 50.12 1.29 | | δ = 0.5 | 82.78 0.34 | 50.89 0.71 | On the choice of |R|max. Table 8 shows that increasing |R|max leads to better performance, with reasonable gains obtained until |R|max = 2000. 13778 | ABLATION | AUROC ↑ | FPR@90TPR ↓ | |---------------|------------|---------------| | |R|max = 100 | 82.99 0.19 | 50.86 0.95 | | |R|max = 500 | 83.93 0.08 | 48.07 1.37 | | |R|max = 1000 | 84.20 0.15 | 48.15 0.54 | | |R|max = 2000 | 84.40 0.14 | 49.23 1.08 | | |R|max = 5000 | 84.43 0.13 | 48.05 0.59 | While this increase in performance may be desirable, it comes at the cost of higher runtime. | ABLATION | AUROC ↑ | FPR@90TPR ↓ | |------------------------|------------|---------------| | Minimum | 84.00 0.33 | 52.03 1.28 | | Bottom-k (k > 1) k = 2 | 84.25 0.23 | 50.07 0.70 | | k = 4 | 84.20 0.15 | 48.15 0.54 | | k = 8 | 83.99 0.08 | 48.38 1.10 | | k = 16 | 83.64 0.04 | 48.05 1.10 | | k = 32 | 83.23 0.07 | 47.34 0.94 | On the choice of k. The results in Table 9 show that the higher the value of k, the worse the performance. However, we do not recommend using the minimum distance (k = 1) as it can be unstable. On the choice of threshold on Wass-to-Unif scores. Table 10 show that, generally, a higher threshold τ leads to a better performance of WassCombo. Wass-to-Unif scores are generally very high for fully detached hallucinations, a type of hallucinations that Wass-to-Data struggles more to detect. Thus, when combined in Wass-Combo, we obtain significant boosts in overall performance. However, if the threshold on Wass-to-Unif scores is set too low, Wass-to-Combo will correspond to Wass-to-Unif more frequently which may not be desirable as Wass-to-Data outperforms it for all other types of hallucinations. If set too high, fewer fully detached hallucinations may pass that threshold and may then be misidentified with Wassto-Data scores. On the choice of Wass-to-Data **cost function.** Table 11 shows that using the ℓ1 cost function instead of using the 0/1 cost function to compute Wass-to-Data scores leads to significant improve- Table 10: Ablation on Wass-Combo by obtaining the score swc for different scalar thresholds τ = PK (K-th percentile of Wwtu). We present the mean and standard deviation (in subscript) across five random seeds. | ABLATION | AUROC ↑ | FPR@90TPR ↓ | |------------|------------|---------------| | τ = P99 | 85.79 0.08 | 51.09 0.97 | | τ = P99.5 | 86.34 0.07 | 49.64 1.71 | | τ = P99.9 | 87.17 0.07 | 47.56 1.30 | | τ = P99.99 | 84.69 0.15 | 48.15 0.54 | COST FUNCTION AUROC ↑ FPR@90TPR ↓ ℓ1 (Wasserstein-1) 84.20 0.15 48.15 0.54 0/1 cost 81.78 0.20 51.72 1.17 Table 11: Ablation on Wass-to-Data by changing the cost function in the computation of the Wasserstein Distances in Equation 5. ments. This suggests that when comparing the source mass attention distribution of a test translation to other such distributions obtained for other translations (instead of the ad-hoc uniform distribution used for Wass-to-Unif scores), the information from the location of the source attention mass is helpful to obtain better scores. On the formulation of Wass-Combo. To combine the information from Wass-to-Unif and Wassto-Data, we could also perform a convex combination of the two scores: $$s_{\tt w c}({\mathbf{x}})=\lambda s_{\tt w t d}({\mathbf{x}})+(1-\lambda){\hat{s}}_{\tt w t u}({\mathbf{x}})\qquad(1)$$ for a predefined scalar parameter λ. In Table 12, we show that this method is consistently subpar to our two-pass approach. In fact, this linear interpolation is not able to bring additional gains in performance for any of the tested parameters λ when compared to Wass-to-Data. ## H **Analysis Against Alti+** Concurrently to our work, Dale et al. (2022) leveraged ALTI+ (Ferrando et al., 2022), a method that evaluates the global relative contributions of both source and target prefixes to model predictions, for detection of hallucinations. As hallucinations are translations detached from the source sequence, ALTI+ is able to detect them by identifying sentences with minimal source contribution. In Table 13, we show that ALTI+ slightly outperforms Wass-Combo for fully detached hallucinations, but lags considerably behind on what comes to de-  ABLATION AUROC ↑ FPR@90TPR ↓ Our Wass-Combo 87.17 0.07 47.56 1.30 Wass-to-Unif (λ = 0) 80.37 72.22 λ = 0.2 81.57 0.00 69.02 0.19 λ = 0.4 82.28 0.01 68.69 0.13 λ = 0.6 82.77 0.02 66.15 1.09 λ = 0.8 83.48 0.05 63.01 0.44 Wass-to-Data (λ = 1) 84.20 0.15 48.15 0.54 | METHOD | AUROC ↑ | FPR@90TPR ↓ | |-------------------------|------------|---------------| | All ALTI+ | 84.27 | 66.30 | | Wass-Combo | 87.17 0.07 | 47.56 1.30 | | Fully detached ALTI+ | 98.21 | 2.15 | | Wass-Combo | 96.57 0.10 | 3.56 0.00 | | Oscillatory ALTI+ | 71.39 | 76.72 | | Wass-Combo | 85.74 0.10 | 41.38 1.59 | | Strongly Detached ALTI+ | 73.77 | 89.41 | | Wass-Combo | 78.89 0.15 | 64.55 1.93 | tecting strongly detached and oscillatory hallucinations. ## I **Error Analysis Of** Wass-Combo We show a qualitative analysis on the same fixedthreshold scenario described in Section 6.2 in Figure 4. Differently to Figure 3, we provide examples of translations that have not been detected by WassCombo for the chosen threshold. Our detector is not able to detect fully detached hallucinations that come in the form of exact copies of the source sentence. For these pathological translations, the attention map is mostly diagonal and is thus not anomalous. Although these are severe errors, we argue that, in a real-world application, such translations can be easily detected with string matching heuristics. We also find that our detector Wass-Combo struggles with oscillatory hallucinations that come in the form of mild repetitions of 1-grams or 2grams (see example in Figure 4). To test this hypothesis, we implemented the binary heuristic top n-gram count (Raunak et al., 2021; Guerreiro et al., 2022) to verify whether a translation is a severe oscillation: given the entire Dheld, a translation is flagged as an oscillatory hallucination if (i) it is in the set of 1% lowest-quality translations according to CometKiwi and (ii) the count of the top repeated 4-gram in the translation is greater than the count of the top repeated source 4-gram by at least 2. Indeed, more than 90% of the oscillatory hallucinations not detected by Wass-Combo in Figure 4 were not flagged by this heuristic. We provide 8 examples randomly sampled from the set of oscillatory hallucinations not detected with Wass-Combo | OSCILLATORY HALLUCINATIONS NOT DETECTED WITH WASS-COMBO | | |-----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | SOURCE | Überall flexibel einsetzbar und unübersehbar in Design und Formgebung. | | TRANSLATION | Everywhere flexible and unmistakable in design and design. | | SOURCE | Um kahlen Stellen, wenn sie ohne Rüstung pg. | | TRANSLATION | To dig dig digits if they have no armor pg. | | SOURCE | Damit wird, wie die Wirtschaftswissenschaftler sagen, der Nennwert vorgezogen. | | TRANSLATION | This, as economists say, puts the par value before the par value. | | SOURCE | Besonders beim Reinigen des Verflüssigers kommt Ihnen dies zugute. | | TRANSLATION | Especially when cleaning the liquefied liquefied liquefied. | | SOURCE | Müssen die Verkehrsmittel aus- oder abgewählt werden ? | | TRANSLATION | Do you need to opt-out or opt-out of transport? | | SOURCE | Schnell drüberlesen - "Ja" auswählen und weiter gehts. | | TRANSLATION | Simply press the "Yes" button and press the "Yes." | | SOURCE | Auf den jeweiligen Dorfplätzen finden sich Alt und Jung zum Schwätzchen und zum Feiern zusammen. | | TRANSLATION | Old and young people will find themselves together in the village's respective squares for fun and fun. | | SOURCE | Zur Absicherung der E-Mail-Kommunikation auf Basis von PGP- als auch X.509-Schlüsseln hat die Schaeffler Gruppe eine Zertifizierungsinfrastruktur (Public Key Infrastructure PKI) aufgebaut. | | TRANSLATION | The Schaeffler Group has set up a Public Key Infrastructure PKI (Public Key Infrastructure PKI) to secure e-mail communication based on PGP and X.509 keys. | Table 14: Examples of oscillatory hallucinations randomly sampled from the set of oscillatory hallucinations not detected with Wass-Combo. Most hallucinations come in the form of mild repetitions of 1-grams or 2-grams. in Table 14. Close manual evaluation of these hallucinations further backs the hypothesis above. ## J **Experiments On The Mlqe-Pe Dataset** In order to establish the broader validity of our model-based detectors, we present an analysis on their performance for other NMT models and on mid and low-resource language pairs. Overall, the detectors exhibit similar trends to those discussed in the main text (Section 6). ## J.1 **Model And Data** The dataset from (Guerreiro et al., 2022) analysed in the main text is the only available dataset that contains human annotations of hallucinated translations. Thus, in this analysis we will have to make use of other human annotations to infer annotations for hallucinations. For that end, we follow a similar setup to that of (Tang et al., 2022) and use the MLQE-PE dataset (Fomicheva et al., 2022)— that has been reported to contain low-quality translations and hallucinations for NE-EN and RO-EN (Specia et al., 2021)— to test the performance of our detectors on these language pairs. The NE-EN and RO-EN MLQE-PE datasets contain 7000 translations and their respective human quality assessments (from 1 to 100). Each translation is scored by three different annotators. As hallucinations lie at the extreme end of NMT pathologies (Raunak et al., 2021), we consider a translation to be a hallucination if at least two annotators (majority) gave it a quality score of 1.16 This process leads to 30 hallucinations for NE-EN and 237 hallucinations for RO-EN. Although the number of hallucinations for NE-EN is relatively small, we decide to also report experiments on this language pair because the type of hallucinations found for NE-EN is very different to those found for RO-EN: almost all NE-EN hallucinations are oscillatory, whereas almost all RO-EN are fully detached. To obtain all model-based information required to build the detectors, we use the same Transformer models that generated the translations in the datasets in consideration. All details can be found in Fomicheva et al. (2022) and the official project repository17. Moreover, to build our heldout databases of source mass distributions, we used readily available Europarl data (Koehn, 2005) for RO-EN (∼100k samples), and filtered Nepali Wikipedia monolingual data18 used in (Koehn et al., | DETECTOR | RO-EN | NE-EN | | | |------------------------------------|-------------|------------|-------------|------------| | AUROC ↑ | FPR@90TPR ↓ | AUROC ↑ | FPR@90TPR ↓ | | | External Detectors CometKiwi † | 99.62 | 0.49 | 97.64 | 4.03 | | LaBSE | 99.72 | 0.49 | 92.34 | 20.03 | | Model-based Detectors Attn-ign-SRC | 99.16 | 0.93 | 28.66 | 100.0 | | Seq-Logprob | 91.97 | 16.42 | 26.38 | 99.94 | | OURS Wass-to-Unif | 99.30 | 0.46 | 81.49 | 64.23 | | Wass-to-Data | 96.54 0.07 | 10.36 0.30 | 90.18 0.13 | 48.52 2.64 | | Wass-Combo | 98.75 0.06 | 0.46 0.00 | 90.16 0.13 | 48.52 2.64 | 2019) for NE-EN (∼80k samples). ## J.2 **Results** The trends in Section 6.1 **hold for other language** pairs. The results in Table 15 establish the broader validity of our detectors for other NMT models and, importantly, for mid and low-resource language pairs. Similarly to the analysis in 6.1, we find that our detectors (i) exhibit better performance than other model-based detectors with significant gains on the low-resource NE-EN language pair; and (ii) can be competitive with external detectors that leverage large models. The trends in Section 6.2 **hold for other language** pairs. In Section A, we remark that almost all NE-EN hallucinations are oscillatory, whereas almost all RO-EN hallucinations are fully detached. With that in mind, the results in Table 15 establish the validity of the claims in the main-text (Section 6.2) on these language pairs: (i) detecting fully detached hallucinations is remarkably easy for most detectors, and Wass-to-Unif outperforms Wass-to-Data on this type of hallucinations (see results for RO-EN); and (ii) our detectors significantly outperform all previous model-based detectors on detecting oscillatory hallucinations (see results for NE-EN), which further confirms the notion that some detectors specialize on different types of hallucinations (e.g Attn-ign-SRC is particularly fit for detecting fully detached hallucinations, but it does not work for oscillatory hallucinations). ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations Section A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Introduction is Section 1 ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? ChatGPT; DeepL; Grammarly; Assistance purely with the language of the paper. Used throughout the paper. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 5 And Appendix ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 5 and Appendix ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? 1 and Appendix B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 5 and Appendix ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 5 and Appendix ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 5, 6, Appendix ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 6 and Appendix ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

liu-etal-2023-rankcse

{R}ank{CSE}: Unsupervised Sentence Representations Learning via Learning to Rank

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.771

Unsupervised sentence representation learning is one of the fundamental problems in natural language processing with various downstream applications. Recently, contrastive learning has been widely adopted which derives high-quality sentence representations by pulling similar semantics closer and pushing dissimilar ones away. However, these methods fail to capture the fine-grained ranking information among the sentences, where each sentence is only treated as either positive or negative. In many real-world scenarios, one needs to distinguish and rank the sentences based on their similarities to a query sentence, e.g., very relevant, moderate relevant, less relevant, irrelevant, etc. In this paper, we propose a novel approach, RankCSE, for unsupervised sentence representation learning, which incorporates ranking consistency and ranking distillation with contrastive learning into a unified framework. In particular, we learn semantically discriminative sentence representations by simultaneously ensuring ranking consistency between two representations with different dropout masks, and distilling listwise ranking knowledge from the teacher. An extensive set of experiments are conducted on both semantic textual similarity (STS) and transfer (TR) tasks. Experimental results demonstrate the superior performance of our approach over several state-of-the-art baselines.

## Rankcse : Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning Via Learning To Rank Jiduan Liu1,2∗, Jiahao Liu3, Qifan Wang4, Jingang Wang3**, Wei Wu**3 Yunsen Xian3, Dongyan Zhao1,2,5,6†, Kai Chen7, Rui Yan8,9† 1Wangxuan Institute of Computer Technology, Peking University 2Center for Data Science, AAIS, Peking University; 3Meituan; 4Meta AI 5National Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence 6BIGAI, Beijing, China; 7School of Economics, Peking University 8Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China 9Engineering Research Center of Next-Generation Intelligent Search and Recommendation, Ministry of Education {liujiduan,chen.kai,zhaody}@pku.edu.cn, ruiyan@ruc.edu.cn, wqfcr@fb.com {liujiahao12,wangjingang02,xianyunsen}@meituan.com, wuwei19850318@gmail.com ## Abstract Unsupervised sentence representation learning is one of the fundamental problems in natural language processing with various downstream applications. Recently, contrastive learning has been widely adopted which derives highquality sentence representations by pulling similar semantics closer and pushing dissimilar ones away. However, these methods fail to capture the fine-grained ranking information among the sentences, where each sentence is only treated as either positive or negative. In many real-world scenarios, one needs to distinguish and rank the sentences based on their similarities to a query sentence, e.g., very relevant, moderate relevant, less relevant, irrelevant, etc. In this paper, we propose a novel approach, RankCSE, for unsupervised sentence representation learning, which incorporates ranking consistency and ranking distillation with contrastive learning into a unified framework. In particular, we learn semantically discriminative sentence representations by simultaneously ensuring ranking consistency between two representations with different dropout masks, and distilling listwise ranking knowledge from the teacher. An extensive set of experiments are conducted on both semantic textual similarity (STS) and transfer (TR) tasks. Experimental results demonstrate the superior performance of our approach over several state-of-the-art baselines. ## 1 Introduction Sentence representation learning refers to the task of encoding sentences into fixed-dimensional em- ∗ Work done during internship at Meituan. † Corresponding authors: Dongyan Zhao (zhaody@pku.edu.cn) and Rui Yan (ruiyan@ruc.edu.cn). | Target Sentences | Label | SimCSE | RankCSE | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|-----------| | - A woman is breaking eggs | 4.80 (1) | 0.93 (2) | 0.97 (1) | | - A man is cracking eggs | 3.60 (2) | 0.94 (1) | 0.91 (2) | | - A woman is talking to a man | 1.60 (3) | 0.45 (5) | 0.65 (3) | | - A man and a woman are speaking | 1.40 (4) | 0.47 (3) | 0.61 (4) | | - A man is talking to a boy | 1.00 (5) | 0.46 (4) | 0.56 (5) | | Query Sentence: A woman is cracking eggs - Broccoli are being cut by a woman 4.80 (1) | 0.82 (2) | 0.95 (1) | | | - A woman is slicing vegetables | 4.20 (2) | 0.83 (1) | 0.91 (2) | | - A woman is cutting some plants | 3.50 (3) | 0.74 (5) | 0.87 (3) | | - There is no woman cutting broccoli | 3.40 (4) | 0.76 (3) | 0.85 (4) | | - A woman is cutting some flowers | 2.87 (5) | 0.71 (7) | 0.81 (5) | | - A man is slicing tomatoes | 2.60 (6) | 0.75 (4) | 0.79 (6) | | - A man is cutting tomatoes | 2.40 (7) | 0.73 (6) | 0.76 (7) | | Query Sentence: A woman is cutting broccoli | | | | Table 1: Two examples of a query sentence and several target sentences from the STS datasets, with their similarity scores and rankings. The label scores are from human annotations. The SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021) and RankCSE similarity scores are from the model predictions respectively, with the corresponding ranking positions. It can be seen that sentence rankings based on SimCSE are incorrect, while RankCSE generates more effective scores with accurate rankings. beddings. The sentence embeddings can be leveraged in various applications, including information retrieval (Le and Mikolov, 2014), text clustering (Ma et al., 2016) and semantic textual similarity comparison (Agirre et al., 2012). With the recent success of pre-trained language models (PLMs), such as BERT/RoBERTa (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019), a straightforward way to generate sentence representations is to directly use the [CLS] token embedding or the average token embeddings from the last layer of PLMs (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). However, several studies (Ethayarajh, 2019; Li et al., 2020) have found that the native sentence representations derived by PLMs 13785  occupy a narrow cone in the vector space, and thus severely limits their representation capabilities, which is known as the *anisotropy* problem. Supervised methods like SBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) usually generate better sentence representations, but require fine-tuning on a large amount of labeled data. Recent unsupervised models (Carlsson et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Giorgi et al., 2021) adopt contrastive learning framework without any labels, which pulls similar semantics closer and pushes dissimilar ones away. These methods usually design different augmentation algorithms for generating positive examples, such as back-translation (Zhang et al., 2021), dropout (Gao et al., 2021) and token shuffling or cutoff (Yan et al., 2021). In-batch negatives are further combined with the positives. Despite achieving promising results, they treat positives/negatives equally without capturing the fine-grained semantic ranking information, resulting in less effective sentence representations which fail to distinguish between very similar and less similar sentences. For example, Table 1 shows two examples of a query sentence and several target sentences from semantic textual similarity datasets. It is clear that the similarity scores produced by the contrastive learning method SimCSE are not optimized, where the sentence rankings are not preserved in the learned representations. On the other hand, our RankCSE generates effective sentence representations with consistent rankings to the ground-truth labels. Figure 1 further shows the advantage of RankCSE in terms of two ranking metrics. The fine-grained ranking information is crucial in various real-world applications including search and recommendation. The ability to differentiate between subtle distinctions in sentence meaning can help these systems provide more relevant and accurate results, leading to a better user experience. Therefore, it is an important problem to learn ranking preserving sentence representations from unsupervised data. To obtain semantically discriminative sentence representations, we propose a novel approach, RankCSE, which incorporates ranking consistency and ranking distillation with contrastive learning into a unified framework. Specifically, our model ensures ranking consistency between two representations with different dropout masks and minimizes the Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence as the learning objective. In the meanwhile, our model also distills listwise ranking knowledge from the teacher model to the learned sentence representations. In our work, we explore two listwise ranking methods, ListNet (Cao et al., 2007) and ListMLE (Xia et al., 2008), and utilize the pre-trained SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021) models with coarse-grained semantic ranking information as the teachers to provide pseudo ranking labels. Our RankCSE is able to generalize fine-grained ranking information from the weak ranking knowledge learned by SimCSE. We conduct an extensive set of experiments on semantic textual similarity (STS) and transfer (TR) tasks. Experimental results show that RankCSE outperforms the existing state-of-the-art baselines. ## 2 Related Work Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning Early works typically augment the idea of word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013) to learn sentence representations, including Skip-Thought (Kiros et al., 2015), FastSent (Hill et al., 2016) and QuickThought (Logeswaran and Lee, 2018). With the great success of PLMs, various attempts focus on generating sentence representations by leveraging the embedding of [CLS] token or applying mean pooling on the last layer of BERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). However, Ethayarajh (2019) identifies the *anisotropy* problem in language representations, which means the native learned embeddings from PLMs occupy a narrow cone in the vector space. BERT-flow (Li et al., 2020) and BERTwhitening (Su et al., 2021) propose to resolve the anisotropy problem through post-processing. Recently, contrastive learning has been adopted to learn sentence representations by designing dif-  ferent augmentation methods (Zhang et al., 2020; Carlsson et al., 2021; Giorgi et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2021). A typical example SimCSE uses dropout as a data augmentation strategy and is also the foundation of many following works. ArcCSE (Zhang et al., 2022) enhances the pairwise discriminative power and models the entailment relation among triplet sentences. DCLR (Zhou et al., 2022) alleviates the influence of improper negatives. DiffCSE (Chuang et al., 2022) introduces equivariant contrastive learning to SimCSE. PCL (Wu et al., 2022a) proposes contrastive representation learning with diverse augmentation strategies for an inherent anti-bias ability. InfoCSE (Wu et al., 2022b) learns sentence representations with the ability to reconstruct the original sentence fragments. Generative learning techniques (Wang et al., 2021; Wu and Zhao, 2022) have also been proposed to enhance the linguistic interpretability of sentence representations. Although achieving promising results, these methods fail to capture the fine-grained ranking knowledge among the sentences. Learning to Rank Given a query example, learning to rank aims to rank a list of examples according to their similarities with the query. Learning to rank methods can be divided into three categories: pointwise (Li et al., 2007), pairwise (Burges et al., 2005, 2006) and listwise (Cao et al., 2007; Xia et al., 2008; Volkovs and Zemel, 2009; Pobrotyn and Bialobrzeski, 2021). Pointwise methods optimize the similarity between the query and each example, while pairwise approaches learn to correctly model the preference between two examples. Listwise methods directly evaluate the ranking of a list of examples based on the ground truth. In our framework, we leverage listwise ranking objectives for learning effective sentence representations, which have shown better performance compared to pointwise and pairwise methods. ## 3 Preliminary We provide some conceptual explanations and definitions in learning to rank. Top One Probability Given the scores of all objects S = {si} n i=1, the top one probability of an object is the probability of its being ranked at top-1: sei =e si/τ Pn j=1 e sj/τ where τ is a temperature hyperparameter, usually utilized to smooth the distribution. We simply denote the formulation for calculating the top one distribution based on the scores S as: Sfτ = σ(S/τ ). Permutation Probability Let π = {π(i)} n i=1 denote a permutation of the object indexes, which represents that the π(i)-th sample is ranked i-th. The probability of a specific permutation π is given as: $P(\pi|S,\tau)=\prod_{i=1}^n\frac{e^{s\pi(i)/\tau}}{\sum_{j=i}^n e^{s\pi(j)/\tau}}$. ## /Τ /Τ . 4 Methodology 4.1 Problem Formulation Our goal is to learn sentence representations such that semantic similar sentences stay close while dissimilar ones should be far away in an unsupervised manner. Specifically, We aim to find an optimal function f that maps a sentence s ∈ ps to a ddimensional vector f(s) ∈ pe ⊆ Rd, where ps and pe denote the distributions of sentences and sentence representations, respectively. Supposing s1 and s2 are more semantic similar than s1 and s3 (s1, s2, s3 ∈ ps), a good mapping function f should satisfy that the distance between f(s1) and f(s2) is smaller than that between f(s1) and f(s3), i.e., d(f(s1), f(s2)) < d(f(s1), f(s3)), where d is the distance metric such as Euclidean distance and cosine distance. In this way, the similarities among the sentences are preserved in the learned sentence representations. The general idea of RankCSE is to learn semantically discriminative sentence representations by capturing the ranking information among the sentences. As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of three components: (1) contrastive learning objective (Section 4.2); (2) ranking consistency loss which ensures ranking consistency between two representations with different dropout masks (Section 4.3); (3) ranking distillation loss which distills listwise ranking knowledge from the teacher (Section 4.4). ## 4.2 Contrastive Learning Contrastive learning aims to learn effective representations by pulling similar semantics closer and pushing away dissimilar ones. SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021) creates positive examples by applying different dropout masks and takes a cross-entropy object with in-batch negatives (Chen et al., 2017). More specifically, for any sentence xiin a min-batch, we send it to the encoder f(·) twice and obtain two representations with different dropout masks f(xi), f(xi)′. SimCSE use the InfoNCE loss (van den Oord et al., 2018) as the training objective: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{infoNCE}}=-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\log\frac{e^{\phi(f(x_{i}),f(x_{i})^{\prime})/\tau_{1}}}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}e^{\phi(f(x_{i}),f(x_{j})^{\prime})/\tau_{1}}},\tag{1}$$ where $N$ is the batch size, $\tau_{1}$ is a temperature hyper-parameter and $\phi(f(x_{i}),f(x_{j})^{\prime})=\frac{f(x_{i})\top f(x_{j})^{\prime}}{\|f(x_{i})\|\cdot\|f(x_{j})^{\prime}\|}$ ∥f(xi)∥·∥f(xj )′∥ is the cosine similarity used in this work. Essentially, the contrastive learning objective is equivalent to maximizing the top one probability of the positive sample. Although contrastive learning is effective in separating positive sentences with negative ones, it ignores the continuity modeling of the similarity. In other words, it is not effective in distinguishing highly similar sentences with moderate similar ones. To address this issue, we propose to directly model the ranking information among the sentences, which could enhance the discrimination of semantic similarity in the learned sentence representations. ## 4.3 Ranking Consistency The main drawback of contrastive learning is that the distinction between the in-batch negatives is not modeled, resulting in less effective sentence representations in capturing the fine-grained sentence similarity. Therefore, instead of treating the negatives equivalently, we propose to explicitly model the ranking information within the sentences by ensuring the ranking consistency between the two similarity sets (circled by the solid and dashed curves respectively in the right part of Figure 2). Concretely, by taking a close look at the contrastive modeling in Section 4.2, there are two sets of sentence representations, f(xi) and f(xi)′, derived from different dropout masks. For each sentence xi, two lists of similarities with other sentences can be naturally obtained from the two representations, i.e., S(xi) = {ϕ(f(xi), f(xj )′)} N j=1 and S(xi)′ = {ϕ(f(xi)′, f(xj ))} N j=1. We then enforce the ranking consistency between these two similarity lists in our modeling. Intuitively, all corresponding elements in S(xi) and S(xi)′should have the same ranking positions. Given two similarity lists S(xi) and S(xi)′, we can obtain their top one probability distributions Seτ1 (xi) = σ(S(xi)/τ1), Seτ1 (xi)′ = σ(S(xi)′/τ1). The ranking consistency can be ensured by minimizing the Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence between the two top one probability distributions: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{consistency}}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\text{JS}(\text{P}_{i}||\text{Q}_{i})$$ $$=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(\text{KL}(\text{P}_{i}||\frac{\text{P}_{i}+\text{Q}_{i}}{2})+\text{KL}(\text{Q}_{i}||\frac{\text{P}_{i}+\text{Q}_{i}}{2}))\tag{2}$$ $$=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(P_{i}\log(\frac{2P_{i}}{P_{i}+Q_{i}})+Q_{i}\log(\frac{2Q_{i}}{P_{i}+Q_{i}})),$$ where Pi and Qi represents Seτ1 (xi) and Seτ1 (xi)′ respectively. The reason we choose JS divergence instead of Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence is that the two distributions are symmetric rather than one side being the ground truth. ## 4.4 Ranking Distillation Contrastive learning based methods like SimCSE learn effective sentence representations with coarsegrained semantic ranking information (shown in Appendix F and G), which have demonstrated their effectiveness in various downstream tasks. Orthogonal to ranking consistency, we further introduce ranking distillation by distilling the ranking knowledge from pre-trained teacher models into our learned sentence representations, to generalize effective ranking information from the weak ranking knowledge learned in the teachers. More specifically, for each sentence in a min-batch, we obtain the similarity score list from the teacher model, which is then served as pseudo ranking labels in the ranking distillation. The intuitive idea is to transfer the ranking knowledge from the teacher to the student as guidance for learning ranking preserved sentence representations. In the ranking distillation, ListNet (Cao et al., 2007) and ListMLE (Xia et al., 2008) methods are utilized. Formally they are defined as: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{rank}}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\text{rank}(\text{S}(\text{x}_{i}),\text{S}^{\text{T}}(\text{x}_{i})),\tag{3}$$ where $S(x_{i})$ and $S^{T}(x_{i})$ are the similarity score lists obtained from the student and the teacher, respectively, rank(·, ·) is the listwise method. ListNet The original ListNet minimizes the cross entropy between the permutation probability distribution and the ground truth as the training objective. However, the computations will be intractable when the number of examples n is large, since the number of permutations is n!. To reduce the computation complexity, the top one probability distribution is usually adopted as a substitute: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{ListNet}}=-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sigma(S^{T}(x_{i})/\tau_{3})\cdot\log(\sigma(S(x_{i})/\tau_{2})),\tag{4}$$ where $\tau_{2}$ and $\tau_{3}$ are temperature hyperparameters. ListMLE Different from ListNet, ListMLE aims to maximize the likelihood of the ground truth permutation π T i which represents the sorted indexes of the similarity scores calculated by the teacher model. The objective of ListMLE is defined as: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{ListMLE}}=-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\log P(\pi_{i}^{T}|S(x_{i}),\tau_{2}).\tag{5}$$ be transferred and preserved. In our experiments, we utilize the weighted average similarity scores of two teachers as pseudo ranking labels: S T(xi) = αST 1 (xi) + (1 − α)S T 2 (xi) where α is a hyperparameter to balance the weight of the teachers. The contrastive learning loss LinfoNCE pushes apart the representations of different sentences to maximize the representation space, while the ranking consistency loss Lconsistency and the ranking distillation loss Lrank pull similar negatives closer, thus capturing fine-grained semantic ranking information. Combining the above three loss functions, we can obtain the overall objective: $$\mathcal{L}_{\rm final}=\mathcal{L}_{\rm infoNCE}+\beta\mathcal{L}_{\rm consistency}+\gamma\mathcal{L}_{\rm rank},\tag{6}$$ where β and γ are hyperparameters to balance different losses. ## 5 Experiment 5.1 Setup We evaluate our approach on two sentence related tasks, Semantic Textual Similarity (STS) and Transfer (TR). The SentEval toolkit (Conneau and Kiela, 2018) is used in our experiments. For STS tasks, we evaluate on seven datasets: STS12-16 (Agirre et al., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016), STS Benchmark (Cer et al., 2017) and SICK-Relatedness (Marelli et al., 2014). These datasets contain pairs of sentences with similarity score labels from 0 to 5. Following SimCSE, we directly compute the cosine similarity between the sentence representations which means all the STS experiments are fully unsupervised, and report the Spearman's correlation. For TR tasks, we evaluate on seven datasets with the default configurations from SentEval: MR (Pang and Lee, 2005), CR (Hu and Liu, 2004), SUBJ (Pang and Lee, 2004), MPQA (Wiebe et al., 2005), SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), TREC (Voorhees and Tice, 2000) and MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005). We use a logistic regression classifier trained on top of the frozen sentence representations, and report the classification accuracy. For fair comparison, we use the same 106randomly sampled sentences from English Wikipedia provided by SimCSE. Following previous works, we start from pre-trained checkpoints of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), and utilize the embedding corresponding to [CLS] token as the representation of the input sentence. First we train SimCSE models including four variants: SimCSE-BERTbase, SimCSE- PLMs Methods **STS12 STS13 STS14 STS15 STS16 STS-B SICK-R avg.** Non-BERT GloVe(avg.) 55.14 70.66 59.73 68.25 63.66 58.02 53.76 61.32 USE 64.49 67.80 64.61 76.83 73.18 74.92 76.69 71.22 first-last avg. 39.70 59.38 49.67 66.03 66.19 53.87 62.06 56.70 +flow 58.40 67.10 60.85 75.16 71.22 68.66 64.47 66.55 +whitening 57.83 66.90 60.90 75.08 71.31 68.24 63.73 66.28 +IS 56.77 69.24 61.21 75.23 70.16 69.21 64.25 66.58 +ConSERT 64.64 78.49 69.07 79.72 75.95 73.97 67.31 72.74 +SimCSE 68.40 82.41 74.38 80.91 78.56 76.85 72.23 76.25 +DCLR 70.81 83.73 75.11 82.56 78.44 78.31 71.59 77.22 +ArcCSE 72.08 84.27 76.25 82.32 79.54 79.92 72.39 78.11 +DiffCSE 72.28 84.43 76.47 83.90 80.54 80.59 71.23 78.49 +PaSeR 70.21 83.88 73.06 83.87 77.60 79.19 65.31 76.16 +PCL 72.84 83.81 76.52 83.06 79.32 80.01 73.38 78.42 +RankCSElistNet 74.38 85.97 77.51 84.46 **81.31** 81.46 **75.26** 80.05 +RankCSElistMLE **75.66 86.27 77.81 84.74** 81.10 **81.80** 75.13 **80.36** | BERTbase BERTlarge RoBERTabase RoBERTalarge | |-----------------------------------------------| +SimCSE 70.88 84.16 76.43 84.50 79.76 79.26 73.88 78.41 +DCLR 71.87 84.83 77.37 84.70 79.81 79.55 74.19 78.90 +ArcCSE 73.17 86.19 77.90 84.97 79.43 80.45 73.50 79.37 +PCL 74.87 86.11 78.29 **85.65** 80.52 **81.62** 73.94 80.14 +RankCSElistNet 74.75 86.46 78.52 85.41 80.62 81.40 **76.12** 80.47 +RankCSElistMLE **75.48 86.50 78.60** 85.45 **81.09** 81.58 75.53 **80.60** +SimCSE 70.16 81.77 73.24 81.36 80.65 80.22 68.56 76.57 +DCLR 70.01 83.08 75.09 83.66 81.06 81.86 70.33 77.87 +DiffCSE 70.05 83.43 75.49 82.81 82.12 82.38 71.19 78.21 +PCL 71.13 82.38 75.40 83.07 81.98 81.63 69.72 77.90 +RankCSElistNet 72.91 85.72 76.94 84.52 **82.59 83.46 71.94** 79.73 +RankCSElistMLE **73.20 85.95 77.17 84.82** 82.58 83.08 71.88 **79.81** +SimCSE 72.86 83.99 75.62 84.77 81.80 81.98 71.26 78.90 +DCLR 73.09 84.57 76.13 85.15 81.99 82.35 71.80 79.30 +PCL **74.08** 84.36 76.42 85.49 81.76 82.79 71.51 79.49 +RankCSElistNet 73.47 85.77 **78.07 85.65** 82.51 84.12 **73.73 80.47** +RankCSElistMLE 73.20 **85.83** 78.00 85.63 **82.67 84.19** 73.64 80.45 BERTlarge, SimCSE-RoBERTabase and SimCSERoBERTalarge. We utilize the first two as a multiteacher for RankCSE-BERTbase and RankCSEBERTlarge, while the last two for RankCSERoBERTabase and RankCSE-RoBERTalarge. We evaluate our model every 125 training steps on the dev set of STS-B and keep the best checkpoint for the evaluation on test sets of all STS and TR tasks. More training details can be found in Appendix A. We compare RankCSE with several unsupervised sentence representation learning methods, including average GloVe embeddings (Pennington et al., 2014), USE (Cer et al., 2018) and Skipthought (Kiros et al., 2015), average BERT embeddings from the last layer, post-processing methods such as BERT-flow (Li et al., 2020) and BERTwhitening (Su et al., 2021), and contrastive learning methods such as IS-BERT (Zhang et al., 2020) and ConSERT (Yan et al., 2021). We also include recent strong unsupervised sentence representation baselines, including SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021), DCLR (Zhou et al., 2022), ArcCSE (Zhang et al., 2022), DiffCSE (Chuang et al., 2022), PaSER (Wu and Zhao, 2022) and PCL (Wu et al., 2022a). Since RankCSE and the teacher model SimCSE are using the same unsupervised training data, the comparison between RankCSE and baselines is fair. ## 5.2 Main Results Results on STS Tasks As shown in Table 2, it is clear that RankCSE significantly outperforms the previous methods on all PLMs, which demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach. For example, compared with SimCSE, RankCSE has brought noticeable improvements: 4.11% on BERTbase, 2.19% on BERTlarge, 3.24% on RoBERTabase and 1.57% on RoBERTalarge. RankCSE-BERTbase even outperforms SimCSE-BERTlarge by nearly 2%. Compared with the previous state-of-theart methods, RankCSE still achieves consistent improvements, which validates that RankCSE is able to obtain more semantically discriminative | BERTbase BERTlarge RoBERTabase RoBERTalarge | |-----------------------------------------------| PLMs Methods **MR CR SUBJ MPQA SST TREC MRPC avg.** Non-BERT GloVe(avg.) 77.25 78.30 91.17 87.85 80.18 83.00 72.87 81.52 Skip-thought 76.50 80.10 93.60 87.10 82.00 92.20 73.00 83.50 last avg. 78.66 86.25 94.37 88.66 84.40 **92.80** 69.54 84.94 +IS 81.09 87.18 94.96 88.75 85.96 88.64 74.24 85.83 +SimCSE 81.18 86.46 94.45 88.88 85.50 89.80 74.43 85.81 +ArcCSE 79.91 85.25 **99.58** 89.21 84.90 89.20 74.78 86.12 +DiffCSE†81.76 86.20 94.76 89.21 86.00 87.60 75.54 85.87 +PCL 80.11 85.25 94.22 89.15 85.12 87.40 76.12 85.34 +RankCSElistNet **83.21** 88.08 95.25 **90.00 88.58** 90.00 76.17 **87.33** +RankCSElistMLE 83.07 **88.27** 95.06 89.90 87.70 89.40 **76.23** 87.09 +SimCSE **85.36** 89.38 95.39 89.63 90.44 91.80 76.41 88.34 +ArcCSE 84.34 88.82 **99.58** 89.79 90.50 92.00 74.78 88.54 +PCL 82.47 87.87 95.04 89.59 87.75 93.00 76.00 87.39 +RankCSElistNet 85.11 **89.56** 95.39 **90.30 90.77 93.20 77.16 88.78** +RankCSElistMLE 84.63 89.51 95.50 90.08 90.61 **93.20** 76.99 88.65 +SimCSE 81.04 87.74 93.28 86.94 86.60 84.60 73.68 84.84 +DiffCSE†82.42 88.34 93.51 87.28 87.70 86.60 76.35 86.03 +PCL 81.83 87.55 92.92 87.21 87.26 85.20 76.46 85.49 +RankCSElistNet **83.53 89.22 94.07 88.97 89.95** 89.20 **76.52 87.35** +RankCSElistMLE 83.32 88.61 94.03 88.88 89.07 **90.80** 76.46 87.31 RoBERTalarge +SimCSE 82.74 87.87 93.66 88.22 88.58 92.00 69.68 86.11 +PCL 84.47 89.06 94.60 89.26 89.02 **94.20** 74.96 87.94 +RankCSElistNet 84.47 **89.51 94.65** 89.87 89.46 93.00 **75.88 88.12** +RankCSElistMLE **84.61** 89.27 94.47 **89.99 89.73** 92.60 74.43 87.87 Table 4: Ablation studies of different loss functions based on BERTbase. Other PLMs yield similar patterns to BERTbase. representations by incorporating ranking consistency and ranking distillation. We also observe that the performances of RankCSElistNet and RankCSElistMLE are very consistent across all datasets, which demonstrates the effectiveness of both listwise ranking methods. Results on TR Tasks It can be seen in Table 3 that RankCSE achieves the best performance among all the compared baselines on all PLMs. | Models | STS(avg.) | TR(avg.) | Teacher | RankCSE | |-----------------------------|-------------|------------|-----------|-----------| | ListNet | ListMLE | | | | | SimCSEbase | 77.48 | 77.75 | | | | DiffCSEbase | 78.87 | 79.06 | | | | SimCSElarge | 79.66 | 79.81 | | | | SimCSEbase+DiffCSEbase | 79.10 | 79.28 | | | | SimCSEbase+SimCSElarge | 80.05 | 80.36 | | | | DiffCSEbase+SimCSElarge | 80.20 | 80.47 | | | | SimCSE | 76.25 | 85.81 | | | | RankCSElistNet | 80.05 | 87.33 | | | | w/o Lconsistency | 79.56 | 86.80 | | | | w/o LinfoNCE | 79.72 | 86.91 | | | | w/o Lconsistency,LinfoNCE | 79.41 | 86.76 | | | | RankCSElistMLE | 80.36 | 87.09 | | | | w/o Lconsistency | 79.88 | 86.65 | | | | w/o LinfoNCE | 79.95 | 86.73 | | | | w/o Lconsistency,LinfoNCE | 79.73 | 86.24 | | | | RankCSE w/o Lrank | 76.93 | 85.97 | | | | RankCSE w/o LinfoNCE, Lrank | 73.74 | 85.56 | Table 5: Comparisons of different teachers based on BERT. Results of RankCSE are average STS performance using BERTbase. | | Note that for DiffCSE, we obtain the results from the publicly available code and checkpoints, because DiffCSE uses different dev sets to find the best hyperparameters for TR tasks than other baselines. More detailed explanation and comprehensive comparison are provided in Appendix B. Another observation is that the performance of the RankCSElistNet is slightly better than that of the RankCSElistMLE. Our hypothesis is that the inaccurate pseudo ranking labels introduce more errors in the calculation of the permutation probability than the top one probability. Nevertheless, both listwise methods achieve better results than the baselines, which is consistent with the results in Table 2.   | PLMs | RankCSElistNet | RankCSElistMLE | SimCSE | | | | |--------------|------------------|------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------| | STS(avg.) | TR(avg.) | STS(avg.) | TR(avg.) | STS(avg.) | TR(avg.) | | | BERTbase | 80.00±0.13 | 87.28±0.19 | 80.39±0.04 | 87.05±0.06 | 75.52±0.70 | 85.44±0.47 | | BERTlarge | 80.41±0.10 | 88.74±0.14 | 80.59±0.05 | 88.63±0.06 | 77.79±0.64 | 88.10±0.36 | | RoBERTabase | 79.67±0.09 | 87.46±0.13 | 79.78±0.05 | 87.30±0.07 | 76.45±0.56 | 84.74±0.38 | | RoBERTalarge | 80.46±0.11 | 87.97±0.14 | 80.34±0.08 | 87.82±0.08 | 78.53±0.49 | 86.29±0.33 | ## 5.3 Analysis And Discussion Ablation Study To investigate the impact of different losses in our approach, we conduct a set of ablation studies by removing LinfoNCE, Lconsistency and Lrank from Eq.(6). The average results on STS and TR tasks are reported in Table 4. There are several observations from the results. First, when Lrank is removed, the performance significantly drops in both STS and TR tasks, which indicates the effectiveness of Lrank in our modeling. Second, it is also clear that without LinfoNCE or Lconsistency, the model performance also decreases, especially on TR tasks. Thirdly, it is worth mentioning that RankCSE with only Lrank can also outperform the teachers on STS tasks. The reason is that RankCSE is able to preserve ranking knowledge from multiple teachers, and generalize fine-grained ranking information from multiple coarse-grained representations. Fourthly, since Lconsistency does not explicitly distinguish the positives from negatives, RankCSE with only Lconsistency will preserve inaccurate rankings leading to significant performance drop. Finally, RankCSE with all components achieves the best performance on both STS and TR tasks. Comparisons of Different Teachers We conduct experiments to explore the impact of different teachers on the performance of RankCSE. As shown in Table 5, RankCSE outperforms the teacher model which indicates that incorporating ranking consistency and ranking distillation leads to more semantically discriminative sentence representations. Comparing the performance of RankCSE using different teachers, we observe that better teacher leads to better RankCSE, which is consistent with our expectation since accurate ranking labels yield more effective ranking knowledge transfer. Another observation is that the performance of RankCSE with a multi-teacher is better than that with a single teacher, which verifies that RankCSE is able to preserve listwise ranking knowledge from more than one teacher. It is also interesting to see that using DiffCSE-BERTbase and SimCSE-BERTlarge as multi-teacher leads to even higher performance than the results in Table 2. We plan to conduct more investigation along this direction to explore the upper bound of improvements. Effect of Hyperparameters To study the effect of temperature hyperparameters, we conduct experiments by setting different τ2 and τ3. As shown in Figure 3a, we find that large discrepancy between τ2 and τ3 leads to significant drop in the performance of RankCSEListNet. The best temperature setting for RankCSEListNet is τ2 : τ3 = 2 : 1. The performance of RankCSEListMLE has similar trends based on different PLMs, as shown in Figure 3b. For both RankCSEListNet and RankCSEListMLE, the temperature should be set moderate. Robustness of RankCSE We conduct 5 runs of model training with the hyperparameter settings which can be referred to Appendix A with different random seeds, and then calculate the mean and standard deviation values. The results provided in Table 6 demonstrate both the superior performance and the robustness of our model. It can also be seen that RankCSElistMLE achieves similar performance but more stable results compared with RankCSElistNet. Alignment and Uniformity Following previous works (Wang and Isola, 2020), we use alignment and uniformity to measure the quality of representation space. Alignment measures the distance between similar instances, while uniformity measures how well the representations are uniformly distributed (detailed in Appendix H). For both measures, the smaller value indicates the better result. We plot the distribution of ℓalign-ℓuniform for different models using BERTbase which are measured on the STS-B dev set. As shown in Figure 4, RankCSE effectively improves both alignment and uniformity compared with average BERT embeddings, while SimCSE and DiffCSE only improve uniformity and alignment respectively. Since RankCSE pulls similar negatives closer during incorporating ranking consistency and ranking distillation, RankCSE has smaller alignment and bigger uniformity than SimCSE. We consider that RankCSE achieves a better trade-off than SimCSE. When compared with DiffCSE, RankCSE has smaller uniformity whereas similar alignment. We can also observe that RankCSE outperforms PCL on both metrics. ## 6 Conclusion In this work, we propose RankCSE, an unsupervised approach to learn more semantically discriminative sentence representations. The core idea of RankCSE is incorporating ranking consistency and ranking distillation with contrastive learning into a unified framework. When simultaneously ensuring ranking consistency and distilling listwise ranking knowledge from the teacher, RankCSE can learn how to make fine-grained distinctions in semantics, leading to more semantically discriminative sentence representations. Experimental results on STS and TR tasks demonstrate that RankCSE outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods. We also conduct thorough ablation study and analysis to demonstrate the effectiveness of each component and justify the inner workings of our approach. We leave what is the upper bound of improvements of the teacher for future work. ## Limitations In this section, we discuss the limitations of our work as follows. First, despite achieving promising results, our model needs to calculate pseudo ranking labels of the teacher which requires additional training time per epoch than the teacher. The training efficiency of RankCSE and SimCSE can be seen in Appendix D. Second, we directly use SimCSEbase and SimCSElarge as a multi-teacher in our implementation and experiments. However, how to choose the best combination of the teacher models is worth further exploration. It could help researchers to better understand the upper bound of improvements. We plan to investigate more along this direction in the future. ## Acknowledgements This work is supported by Ministry of Science and Technology Key R&D Program (2030 Artificial Intelligence) (No. 2020AAA0106600) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC Grant No. 62122089). We sincerely thank all reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which are crucial for improving our work. We would also like to acknowledge Angela Li for her contributions in creating the figures used in this work. ## References Hervé Abdi. 2007. The kendall rank correlation coefficient. *Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics*, 2:508–510. Eneko Agirre, Carmen Banea, Claire Cardie, Daniel M. Cer, Mona T. Diab, Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre, Weiwei Guo, Iñigo Lopez-Gazpio, Montse Maritxalar, Rada Mihalcea, German Rigau, Larraitz Uria, and Janyce Wiebe. 2015. Semeval-2015 task 2: Semantic textual similarity, english, spanish and pilot on interpretability. In *Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, SemEval@NAACLHLT 2015, Denver, Colorado, USA, June 4-5, 2015*, pages 252–263. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Eneko Agirre, Carmen Banea, Claire Cardie, Daniel M. Cer, Mona T. Diab, Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre, Weiwei Guo, Rada Mihalcea, German Rigau, and Janyce Wiebe. 2014. Semeval-2014 task 10: Multilingual semantic textual similarity. In *Proceedings of the* 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, SemEval@COLING 2014, Dublin, Ireland, August 23-24, 2014, pages 81–91. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Eneko Agirre, Carmen Banea, Daniel M. Cer, Mona T. Diab, Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre, Rada Mihalcea, German Rigau, and Janyce Wiebe. 2016. Semeval-2016 task 1: Semantic textual similarity, monolingual and cross-lingual evaluation. In *Proceedings of the* 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, SemEval@NAACL-HLT 2016, San Diego, CA, USA, June 16-17, 2016, pages 497–511. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Eneko Agirre, Daniel M. Cer, Mona T. Diab, and Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre. 2012. Semeval-2012 task 6: A pilot on semantic textual similarity. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, SemEval@NAACL-HLT 2012, Montréal, Canada, June 7-8, 2012, pages 385–393. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Eneko Agirre, Daniel M. Cer, Mona T. Diab, Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre, and Weiwei Guo. 2013. *sem 2013 shared task: Semantic textual similarity. In *Proceedings of the Second Joint Conference on Lexical and* Computational Semantics, *SEM 2013, June 13-14, 2013, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pages 32–43. Association for Computational Linguistics. Christopher J. C. Burges, Robert Ragno, and Quoc Viet Le. 2006. Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19, Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, December 4-7, 2006, pages 193–200. MIT Press. Christopher J. C. Burges, Tal Shaked, Erin Renshaw, Ari Lazier, Matt Deeds, Nicole Hamilton, and Gregory N. Hullender. 2005. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In Machine Learning, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference (ICML 2005), Bonn, Germany, August 7-11, 2005, volume 119 of ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pages 89–96. ACM. Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In Machine Learning, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference (ICML 2007), Corvallis, Oregon, USA, June 20-24, 2007, volume 227 of *ACM International Conference Proceeding Series*, pages 129–136. ACM. Fredrik Carlsson, Amaru Cuba Gyllensten, Evangelia Gogoulou, Erik Ylipää Hellqvist, and Magnus Sahlgren. 2021. Semantic re-tuning with contrastive tension. In *9th International Conference on Learning* Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St. John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, Brian Strope, and Ray Kurzweil. 2018. Universal sentence encoder for english. In *Proceedings of the* 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2018: System Demonstrations, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 169–174. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel M. Cer, Mona T. Diab, Eneko Agirre, Iñigo Lopez-Gazpio, and Lucia Specia. 2017. Semeval2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity multilingual and crosslingual focused evaluation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, SemEval@ACL 2017, Vancouver, Canada, August 3-4, 2017, pages 1–14. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ting Chen, Yizhou Sun, Yue Shi, and Liangjie Hong. 2017. On sampling strategies for neural networkbased collaborative filtering. In *Proceedings of the* 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Halifax, NS, Canada, August 13 - 17, 2017, pages 767–776. ACM. Yung-Sung Chuang, Rumen Dangovski, Hongyin Luo, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Marin Soljacic, ShangWen Li, Scott Yih, Yoon Kim, and James R. Glass. 2022. Diffcse: Difference-based contrastive learning for sentence embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 2022* Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 4207–4218. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexis Conneau and Douwe Kiela. 2018. Senteval: An evaluation toolkit for universal sentence representations. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2018, Miyazaki, Japan, May 7-12, 2018. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In *Proceedings of the Third International Workshop* on Paraphrasing, IWP@IJCNLP 2005, Jeju Island, Korea, October 2005, 2005. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Kawin Ethayarajh. 2019. How contextual are contextualized word representations? comparing the geometry of bert, elmo, and GPT-2 embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 55–65. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Simcse: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 6894– 6910. Association for Computational Linguistics. John M. Giorgi, Osvald Nitski, Bo Wang, and Gary D. Bader. 2021. Declutr: Deep contrastive learning for unsupervised textual representations. In *Proceedings* of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 879–895. Association for Computational Linguistics. Felix Hill, Kyunghyun Cho, and Anna Korhonen. 2016. Learning distributed representations of sentences from unlabelled data. In NAACL HLT 2016, The 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Diego California, USA, June 12-17, 2016, pages 1367–1377. The Association for Computational Linguistics. Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 22-25, 2004, pages 168–177. ACM. Kalervo Järvelin and Jaana Kekäläinen. 2002. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 20(4):422–446. Taeuk Kim, Kang Min Yoo, and Sang-goo Lee. 2021. Self-guided contrastive learning for BERT sentence representations. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2528–2540. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Richard S. Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Skip-thought vectors. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28:* Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, December 7-12, 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 3294–3302. Quoc V. Le and Tomás Mikolov. 2014. Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In Proceedings of the 31th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2014, Beijing, China, 21-26 June 2014, volume 32 of *JMLR Workshop and Conference* Proceedings, pages 1188–1196. JMLR.org. Bohan Li, Hao Zhou, Junxian He, Mingxuan Wang, Yiming Yang, and Lei Li. 2020. On the sentence embeddings from pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 9119– 9130. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ping Li, Christopher J. C. Burges, and Qiang Wu. 2007. Mcrank: Learning to rank using multiple classification and gradient boosting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 20, Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, December 3-6, 2007, pages 897– 904. Curran Associates, Inc. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. *CoRR*, abs/1907.11692. Lajanugen Logeswaran and Honglak Lee. 2018. An efficient framework for learning sentence representations. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. Shutian Ma, Chengzhi Zhang, and Daqing He. 2016. Document representation methods for clustering bilingual documents. In Creating Knowledge, Enhancing Lives through Information & Technology - Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science and Technology, ASIST 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 14-18, 2016, volume 53 of *Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol.*, pages 1–10. Wiley. Marco Marelli, Stefano Menini, Marco Baroni, Luisa Bentivogli, Raffaella Bernardi, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2014. A SICK cure for the evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2014, Reykjavik, Iceland, May 26-31, 2014, pages 216–223. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Tomás Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Gregory S. Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26: 27th Annual Conference on Neural* Information Processing Systems 2013. Proceedings of a meeting held December 5-8, 2013, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, pages 3111–3119. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, June 14-18, 2009, volume 382 of *ACM International Conference Proceeding Series*, pages 1089–1096. ACM. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In *Proceedings of* the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 21-26 July, 2004, Barcelona, Spain, pages 271–278. ACL. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In ACL 2005, 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, 25-30 June 2005, University of Michigan, USA, pages 115–124. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2014, October 25-29, 2014, Doha, Qatar, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 1532–1543. ACL. Przemyslaw Pobrotyn and Radoslaw Bialobrzeski. 2021. Neuralndcg: Direct optimisation of a ranking metric via differentiable relaxation of sorting. *CoRR*, abs/2102.07831. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and* the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 3980–3990. Association for Computational Linguistics. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In *Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2013, 18-21 October 2013, Grand Hyatt Seattle, Seattle, Washington, USA, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 1631–1642. ACL. Jianlin Su, Jiarun Cao, Weijie Liu, and Yangyiwen Ou. 2021. Whitening sentence representations for better semantics and faster retrieval. *CoRR*, abs/2103.15316. Aäron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. 2018. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. *CoRR*, abs/1807.03748. Maksims Volkovs and Richard S. Zemel. 2009. Boltzrank: learning to maximize expected ranking gain. In *Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2009,* Ellen M. Voorhees and Dawn M. Tice. 2000. Building a question answering test collection. In *SIGIR 2000:* Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, July 24-28, 2000, Athens, Greece, pages 200–207. ACM. Kexin Wang, Nils Reimers, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. TSDAE: using transformer-based sequential denoising auto-encoderfor unsupervised sentence embedding learning. In *Findings of the Association for* Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 671–688. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tongzhou Wang and Phillip Isola. 2020. Understanding contrastive representation learning through alignment and uniformity on the hypersphere. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning* Research, pages 9929–9939. PMLR. Janyce Wiebe, Theresa Wilson, and Claire Cardie. 2005. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. *Lang. Resour. Evaluation*, 39(2-3):165– 210. Bohong Wu and Hai Zhao. 2022. Sentence representation learning with generative objective rather than contrastive objective. In *Proceedings of the 2022* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 3356– 3368. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qiyu Wu, Chongyang Tao, Tao Shen, Can Xu, Xiubo Geng, and Daxin Jiang. 2022a. PCL: peer-contrastive learning with diverse augmentations for unsupervised sentence embeddings. *CoRR*, abs/2201.12093. Xing Wu, Chaochen Gao, Zijia Lin, Jizhong Han, Zhongyuan Wang, and Songlin Hu. 2022b. Infocse: Information-aggregated contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. *CoRR*, abs/2210.06432. Fen Xia, Tie-Yan Liu, Jue Wang, Wensheng Zhang, and Hang Li. 2008. Listwise approach to learning to rank: theory and algorithm. In *Machine Learning,* Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference (ICML 2008), Helsinki, Finland, June 5-9, 2008, volume 307 of *ACM International Conference* Proceeding Series, pages 1192–1199. ACM. Yuanmeng Yan, Rumei Li, Sirui Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Wei Wu, and Weiran Xu. 2021. Consert: A contrastive framework for self-supervised sentence representation transfer. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 5065–5075. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yan Zhang, Ruidan He, Zuozhu Liu, Lidong Bing, and Haizhou Li. 2021. Bootstrapped unsupervised sentence representation learning. In *Proceedings of the* 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 5168–5180. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yan Zhang, Ruidan He, Zuozhu Liu, Kwan Hui Lim, and Lidong Bing. 2020. An unsupervised sentence embedding method by mutual information maximization. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1601–1610. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuhao Zhang, Hongji Zhu, Yongliang Wang, Nan Xu, Xiaobo Li, and Binqiang Zhao. 2022. A contrastive framework for learning sentence representations from pairwise and triple-wise perspective in angular space. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 4892–4903. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kun Zhou, Beichen Zhang, Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Debiased contrastive learning of unsupervised sentence representations. In *Proceedings of the 60th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6120–6130. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Training Details We implement all experiments with the deep learning framework PyTorch on a single NVIDIA Tesla A100 GPU (40GB memory). We carry out grid-search of learning rate ∈ {2e-5, 3e-5} and temperatures τ2, τ3 ∈ {0.0125, 0.025, 0.05}, while setting batch size to 128, temperature τ1 to 0.05, α to 1/3, β to 1, γ to 1 and the rate of linear scheduling warm-up to 0.05 for all the experiments. We train our models for 4 epochs, and evaluate the model every 125 steps on the dev set of STS-B and keep the best checkpoint for the final evaluation on test sets of all STS and TR tasks. The hyperparameter settings we adopt are shown in Table 9. Following SimCSE, we utilize the embedding corresponding to [CLS] token as the representation of the input sentence. We utilize SimCSE-BERTbase and SimCSE-BERTlarge as a multi-teacher for RankCSE-BERTbase and RankCSE-BERTlarge, while SimCSERoBERTabase and SimCSE-RoBERTalarge as a multi-teacher for RankCSE-RoBERTabase and RankCSE-RoBERTalarge. ## B Diffcse Settings For Transfer Tasks DiffCSE uses different dev sets to find the best hyperparameters for the two tasks (STS-B dev set for STS tasks, dev sets of 7 TR tasks for TR tasks), while other methods only use the STS-B dev set for both tasks, which is not fair. Therefore we obtain the results in Table 3 from its publicly available code and checkpoints for STS tasks2instead of directly importing the results from its original paper. For a more comprehensive comparison with DiffCSE on TR tasks, we also use dev sets of 7 TR tasks to find the best hyperparameters and checkpoints. As shown in Table 10, RankCSE still outperforms DiffCSE in this setting. ## C Data Statistics The complete listings of train/dev/test stats of STS and TR datasets can be found in Table 7 and 8, respectively. Note that for STS tasks, we only use test sets for the final evaluation and dev set of STSB to find best hyperparameters and checkpoints. The train sets of all STS datasets are not used in our experiments. For TR tasks, we follow the default settings of SentEval toolkit (Conneau and Kiela, 2018) to use 10-fold evaluation for all TR datasets 2https://github.com/voidism/DiffCSE | Dataset | Train | Dev | Test | |-----------|---------|-------|--------| | STS12 | - | - | 3108 | | STS13 | - | - | 1500 | | STS14 | - | - | 3750 | | STS15 | - | - | 3000 | | STS16 | - | - | 1186 | | STS-B | 5749 | 1500 | 1379 | | SICK-R | 4500 | 500 | 4927 | STS12 - - 3108 STS13 - - 1500 STS14 - - 3750 STS15 - - 3000 STS16 - - 1186 STS-B 5749 1500 1379 SICK-R 4500 500 4927 Table 7: A listing of train/dev/test stats of STS datasets. Dataset Train Dev Test  MR 10662 - - CR 3775 - - SUBJ 10000 - - MPQA 10606 - - SST 67349 872 1821 TREC 5452 - 500 MRPC 4076 - 1725 Table 8: A listing of train/dev/test stats of TR datasets. ## D Training Efficiency We compare the training efficiency of SimCSE and RankCSE , which are tested on a single NVIDIA Tesla A100 GPU (40GB memory). We set batch size to 128 for both SimCSE and RankCSE, and training epoch to their original settings (1 for SimCSE, 4 for RankCSE). RankCSE utilizes SimCSEbase and SimCSElarge as a multi-teacher to provide pseudo ranking labels. As shown in Table 11, RankCSEbase and RankCSElarge can be trained within 2 hours and 3.7 hours respectively. Since RankCSE needs to calculate pseudo ranking labels of the teacher, it requires additional training time per epoch than SimCSE. ## E Cosine Similarity Distribution We demonstrate the distribution of cosine similarities for sentence pairs of STS-B dev set in Figure 5. We can observe that cosine similarity distributions from all models are consistent with human ratings. However, the cosine similarities of RankCSE are slightly higher than that of SimCSE under the same human rating, as RankCSE pulls similar negatives closer during incorporating ranking consistency and ranking distillation, and shows lower variance. Compared with DiffCSE, RankCSE shows a more scattered distribution. This observation further validates that RankCSE can achieve a better alignmentuniformity balance. | RankCSE-BERT | RankCSE-RoBERTa | | | | | | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|-------|-------| | base | large | base | large | | | | | | | | listNet | listMLE | listNet | listMLE | listNet | listMLE | listNet | listMLE | | | | Batch size | 128 | 128 | 128 | 128 | 128 | 128 | 128 | 128 | | | Learning rate | 3e-5 | 2e-5 | 3e-5 | 2e-5 | 2e-5 | 3e-5 | 3e-5 | 3e-5 | | | τ1 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | | | τ2 | 0.025 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.025 | 0.025 | | | τ3 | 0.0125 | - | 0.025 | - | 0.025 | - | 0.0125 | - | | | Table 9: The hyperparameter values for RankCSE training. | | | | | | | | | | | PLMs | Methods | MR | CR | SUBJ | MPQA | SST | TREC | MRPC | avg. | | +DiffCSE | 82.69 | 87.23 | 95.23 | 89.28 | 86.60 | 90.40 | 76.58 | 86.86 | | | BERTbase | +RankCSElistNet | 83.64 | 88.32 | 95.26 | 89.99 | 89.02 | 90.80 | 77.10 | 87.73 | | +RankCSElistMLE | 83.05 | 88.03 | 95.13 | 90.00 | 88.41 | 90.60 | 76.81 | 87.43 | | | +DiffCSE | 82.82 | 88.61 | 94.32 | 87.71 | 88.63 | 90.40 | 76.81 | 87.04 | | | RoBERTabase | +RankCSElistNet | 83.84 | 88.93 | 94.21 | 89.17 | 90.23 | 91.60 | 77.28 | 87.89 | | +RankCSElistMLE | 83.38 | 89.04 | 94.17 | 89.23 | 89.51 | 91.40 | 76.58 | 87.62 | |  | SimCSE | RankCSE | | | | |----------------|-----------|-------|--------|--------| | base | large | base | large | | | Batch size | 128 | 128 | 128 | 128 | | Epoch | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | | Time | 20min | 45min | 120min | 220min | | Time per epoch | 20min | 45min | 30min | 55min | ## F Case Study We present another two examples of a query sentence and several target sentences from the STS datasets, with their similarity scores and rankings in Table 12. It is obvious that the similarity scores produced by RankCSE are more effective than SimCSE, with consistent rankings to the ground-truth labels. It further demonstrates that SimCSE only captures coarse-grained semantic ranking information via contrastive learning, while RankCSE can capture fine-grained semantic ranking information. For example, SimCSE can distinguish between similar and dissimilar sentences, however, it can not distinguish between very similar and less similar sentences as RankCSE. ## G Ranking Tasks We build the ranking task based on each STS dataset to verify that RankCSE can capture finegrained semantic ranking information. For one sentence xi, if there are more than three sentence pairs (xi, x j i ) containing xi with similarity score label y j i in the dataset, we view {xi, x j i , y j i} k j=1(k > 3) as a sample of the ranking task, as shown in Table 12. We adopt KCC (Kendall's correlation coefficient (Abdi, 2007)) and NDCG (normalized discounted cumulative gain (Järvelin and Kekäläinen, 2002)) as evaluation metrics for ranking tasks, and demonstrate the results in Table 13. RankCSE outperforms SimCSE and DiffCSE on both KCC and NDCG, which validates that RankCSE can capture fine-grained semantic ranking information by incorporating ranking consistency and ranking distillation. Another observation is that SimCSE and DiffCSE also achieve moderate results, which shows they can distinguish coarse-grained semantic differences via contrastive learning. ## H Alignment And Uniformity Wang and Isola (2020) use two properties related to contrastive learning, alignment and uniformity, to measure the quality of representation space. Alignment calculates expected distance between normalized representations of positive pairs ppos: $$\ell_{\rm align}\triangleq\mathbb{E}\|f(x)-f(x^{+})\|^{2},\tag{7}$$ while uniformity measures how well the normalized representations are uniformly distributed: $$\ell_{\mathrm{uniform}}\triangleq\log\quad\operatorname*{\mathbb{E}}_{x,y}{\overset{i.i.d.}{\sim}}p_{\mathrm{data}}$$ 2, (8) where pdata denotes the distribution of sentence pairs. Smaller alignment means positive instances have been pulled closer, while smaller uniformity means random instances scatter on the hypersphere. These two measures are smaller the better, and well aligned with the object of contrastive learning.  | Target Sentences | Label | SimCSE | RankCSE | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|-----------| | - a and c are on the same closed path with the battery | 3.60 (1) | 0.81 (1) | 0.90 (1) | | - bulb a and bulb c affect each other. | 2.80 (2) | 0.58 (3) | 0.75 (2) | | - the are on the same wire | 1.60 (3) | 0.60 (2) | 0.68 (3) | | - because breaking one bulb then affects the ability of the others to light up. | 1.20 (4) | 0.37 (5) | 0.59 (4) | | - if one bulb is removed , the others stop working | 0.60 (5) | 0.38 (4) | 0.54 (5) | | Query Sentence: a and c are in the same closed path - because by measuring voltage, you find the gap where there's a difference | 3.80 (1) | 0.86 (1) | 0.90 (1) | | in electrical states. - it allows you to measure electrical states between terminals | 3.20 (2) | 0.64 (3) | 0.84 (2) | | - it checks the electrical state between two terminals. | 2.60 (3) | 0.65 (2) | 0.78 (3) | | - find where there are different electrical states | 2.60 (3) | 0.55 (5) | 0.78 (3) | | - you can see where the gap is | 2.20 (5) | 0.62 (4) | 0.69 (5) | | Query Sentence: measuring voltage indicates the place where the electrical state changes due to a gap. | | | | Table 12: Two examples of a query sentence and several target sentences from the STS datasets, with their similarity scores and rankings. The label scores are from human annotations. The SimCSE and RankCSE similarity scores are from the model predictions respectively, with the corresponding ranking positions. It can be seen that sentence rankings based on SimCSE are incorrect, while RankCSE generates more effective scores with accurate rankings. Metrics Methods **STS12 STS13 STS14 STS15 STS16 STS-B SICK-R avg.** KCC +SimCSE 36.08 36.60 44.14 49.02 54.66 58.44 54.65 47.66 +DiffCSE 38.59 41.89 42.37 51.19 **58.90** 59.21 53.42 49.37 +RankCSE **42.79 46.26 44.53 52.00** 57.21 **63.64 57.40 51.98** NDCG +SimCSE 97.80 89.33 92.71 96.93 94.28 96.49 98.44 95.14 +DiffCSE **98.35** 90.22 93.05 96.91 94.79 97.05 98.34 95.53 +RankCSE 98.20 **92.27 93.46 97.21 95.24 97.45 98.67 96.07** Table 13: Sentence representations performance on ranking tasks (KCC and NDCG) using BERTbase. The results of SimCSE and DiffCSE are obtained from their publicly available codes and checkpoints. We mark the best (bold) and second-best (underlined) results. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Sections 1 and 6 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 5 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We were unable to find the license for the dataset we used. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 5 ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? The datasets we use are the commonly-used benchmarks. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 5 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix D ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Appendix E ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 5 and Appendix E The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 5 and Appendix A ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 5 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

ge-etal-2023-entailment

Entailment as Robust Self-Learner

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.772

Entailment has been recognized as an important metric for evaluating natural language understanding (NLU) models, and recent studies have found that entailment pretraining benefits weakly supervised fine-tuning. In this work, we design a prompting strategy that formulates a number of different NLU tasks as contextual entailment. This approach improves the zero-shot adaptation of pretrained entailment models. Secondly, we notice that self-training entailment-based models with unlabeled data can significantly improve the adaptation performance on downstream tasks. To achieve more stable improvement, we propose the Simple Pseudo-Label Editing (SimPLE) algorithm for better pseudo-labeling quality in self-training. We also found that both pretrained entailment-based models and the self-trained models are robust against adversarial evaluation data. Experiments on binary and multi-class classification tasks show that SimPLE leads to more robust self-training results, indicating that the self-trained entailment models are more efficient and trustworthy than large language models on language understanding tasks.

# Entailment As Robust Self-Learner Jiaxin Ge1∗and **Hongyin Luo**2∗and **Yoon Kim**2and **James Glass**2 1 Peking University, Beijing, China 2 MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, Cambridge MA, US aomaru@stu.pku.edu.cn, {hyluo, yoonkim, glass}@mit.edu ## Abstract Entailment has been recognized as an important metric for evaluating natural language understanding (NLU) models, and recent studies have found that entailment pretraining benefits weakly supervised fine-tuning. In this work, we design a prompting strategy that formulates a number of different NLU tasks as contextual entailment. This approach improves the zero-shot adaptation of pretrained entailment models. Secondly, we notice that self-training entailment-based models with unlabeled data can significantly improve the adaptation performance on downstream tasks. To achieve more stable improvement, we propose the Simple Pseudo-Label Editing (SimPLE) algorithm for better pseudo-labeling quality in self-training. We also found that both pretrained entailmentbased models and the self-trained models are robust against adversarial evaluation data. Experiments on binary and multi-class classification tasks show that SimPLE leads to more robust self-training results, indicating that the self-trained entailment models are more efficient and trustworthy than large language models on language understanding tasks. ## 1 Introduction Although achieving state-of-the-art performance in different natural language understanding (NLU) tasks (Devlin et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2020; He et al., 2020; Joshi et al., 2020), large-scale pretrained language models still highly depend on human-annotated, taskspecific training corpora for fine-tuning because the self-supervised pretraining objective does not incorporate explicit task-related knowledge. As a result, state-of-the-art language models are still challenged by the lack of adequate fine-tuning data and difficult evaluation examples crafted by adver- ∗ Equal contribution. Correspondence to Hongyin Luo at hyluo@mit.edu. Code and processed data are available at https://github.com/luohongyin/EntST. sarial attacks or model-in-loop adversarial data annotations (Wang et al., 2021a; Bartolo et al., 2020; Zang et al., 2019; Garg and Ramakrishnan, 2020; Li et al., 2020). On the other hand, entailment is recognized as a minimal requirement for NLU (Condoravdi et al., 2003). Recent studies have found that entailment learning improves sentence representation (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019a; Gao et al., 2021). However, these models still need fine-tuning with human-annotated training data to handle downstream NLU tasks. The authors of Wang et al. (2021b) found that entailment-based models are also few-shot learners that outperform recent efforts on few-shot NLU. For example, LM-BFF (Gao et al., 2020) proves that entailment learning can significantly improve the data efficiency and adaptation ability of language models. In this work, we further explore the zero-shot and unsupervised adaptation abilities of entailmentbased models without any human-labeled training corpora on downstream tasks. We first study the zero-shot and unsupervised adaptation abilities of the entailment-based language models. Inspired by recent progress on prompt tuning, we formulate different NLU tasks as contextual entailment (Routley and Meyer, 1973) by constructing task-specific suppositions. The language models are trained to predict the truth value of the constructed suppositions. In zero-shot adaptation experiments, we find this approach significantly outperforms naively concatenating different inputs and labels, proving that the supposition construction method mitigates the distribution gap among different NLU tasks. We further explore the potential of the unsupervised adaptation ability of entailment-based models. We use the pretrained entailment models to predict the pseudo-labels of unlabeled, task-specific language data. We find that the entailment-based models can be improved with self-training (Blum and Mitchell, 1998) with the automatically annotated 13803 pseudo-labels (He et al., 2019). While the selftraining strategy has been proven effective on different tasks and modalities (Zou et al., 2019; Zoph et al., 2020; Meng et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020b), a major challenge for self-training is the unstable performance caused by the noisy pseudo-labels. A number of solutions have been proposed to mitigate this issue. The most popular methods are training data selection (Li and Zhou, 2005; Lang et al., 2022) and pseudo-label editing (Shin et al., 2020; Mandal et al., 2020). Recent work also found that simple Dropout (Srivastava et al., 2014) approaches improve contrastive learning (Gao et al., 2021) and speech recognition (Khurana et al., 2021; Dawalatabad et al., 2022). To combine the benefits of data selection and label editing methods, we propose SimPLE, a simple pseudo-label editting algorithm with simple text augmentation, uncertainty-based data filtering, and majority-based pseudo-labeling. Experiments with different backbone models on binary, multi-class, regular, and adversarial NLU tasks show that our approach makes the following contributions, - Supposition-based task formulation improves the zero-shot adaptation and robustness against adversarial evaluation data of entailment models across different NLU tasks. - SimPLE improves the pseudo-labeling accuracy on confident and uncertain training samples, leading to significant improvement over all self-training and pretrained baselines. - Self-trained, 350M-parameter entailment models without human-generated labels outperform supervised language models with 137B parameters, proving the data and computation efficiency of entailment self-training. ## 2 Related Work Language modeling. Task-agnostic, large-scale language models can solve a number of natural language understanding (NLU) tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Raffel et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2022a,b). On the other hand, pretraining with annotated training corpora of different natural language tasks also benefits the generalize ability and zero-shot adaptation performance (Sanh et al., 2021). Recent studies have found that textual entailment (Bowman et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2018) is a powerful pretraining task. Entailment models are applied for sentence representation learning (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019b; Gao et al., 2021), relation extraction (Obamuyide and Vlachos, 2018; Yin et al., 2019), and fact-checking (Thorne and Vlachos, 2018). The authors of Wang et al. (2021b) showed that entailment models can benefit the fewshot learning performance of pretrained language models on NLU tasks. Robustness in Self-training. While most selftraining studies are under the computer vision context (Zoph et al., 2020; Zou et al., 2019), efforts also exist for self-training the latest neural language models, including back translation (He et al., 2019), text augmentation (Xie et al., 2020a; Chen et al., 2020), question-answer synthesis (Bartolo et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2022), and co-training (Lang et al., 2022). However, self-training methods suffer from noisy pseudo-labels. In computer vision, a straightforward solution is obtaining confident pseudo-labels by augmenting input images (Shin et al., 2020; Mandal et al., 2020; Sohn et al., 2020), including shifting, rotating, or adding noise to pixels. However, data augmentation is not as straightforward for natural language if no additional model is used. Instead, some model-level methods can be applied. Zou et al. (2019) proposed regularizing over pseudo-label confidence to avoid overfitting to simple cases, Gao et al. (2021); Khurana et al. (2021) applied dropout to improve the quality of training corpora. Li and Zhou (2005); Lang et al. (2022) applied a graph-based confidence estimation method for removing training samples with uncertain pseudo labels. Difference with previous work. Without any additional language model for text augmentation, we propose a model-level, augmented pseudo-labeling method that improves self-training performance for entailment models. Our method avoids dropping training data and performs more stably than dropout-based methods. Different from previous work on weakly-supervised language understanding with entailment models (Wang et al., 2021b), we do not use any human-generated labels. Our models contain 1/500 trainable parameters compared to the models used in Lang et al. (2022); Sanh et al. (2021). ## 3 Entailment Self-Training Pretraining. Recent studies have found that entailment-based language models can efficiently adapt to different natural language understanding (NLU) tasks with a limited number of humanlabeled training samples (Wang et al., 2021b; Luo and Glass, 2023). In this work, we find that entailment models can be self-improved without any human-generated labels by constructing suppositions (prompts) that describe the given tasks. Most NLU tasks can be formulated as predicting the truth value of the constructed suppositions that wrap inputs and label descriptions, as shown in Table 1. | Task | Inputs | Supposition | |--------|----------|-----------------------------------------| | MNLI | {p, h} | h is entailed by p. | | RTE | {p, h} | h is entailed by p. | | QNLI | {t, q} | The answer to q is entailed by t. | | QQP | {q1, q2} | q1's answer is entailed by q2's answer. | | SST2 | {x} | The movie is good is entailed by x. | By training the entailment model using the MNLI corpus given with the constructed suppositions, the model can be directly adapted to other tasks with relatively high accuracy. We will show that without entailment pretraining, similar performance can only be achieved by 400 times bigger language models. The entailment-based models can be further fine-tuned on unlabeled texts via self-training. We apply different adaptation strategies for binary and multi-class classification tasks. Binary classification. Supposition-based entailment models predict True, Neutral, and False scores for each supposition, corresponding to entail, neutral, and contradictory labels of the MNLI corpus. For binary classification, we ignore the neutral score and calculate only True and False probabilities, and the True/False predicted can be linked to corresponding labels according to the supposition. For example, the SST2 supposition in Table 1 being true means that {x} is a positive movie review. The predicted True/False values are used as pseudo-labels for self-training, Multi-class classification. In binary classification, the model is presented with a single supposition and asked to decide whether it's true or not. In multi-class classification, the model is presented with a context sentence and multiple labels and is asked to choose the correct label. To predict the correct answer from multiple options, we propose an entailment score ranking method. First, for each sentence to be classified, we construct a supposition for each label. For example, in an emotion classification task, given the sentence S, we construct the following suppositions: "I am happy is entailed by S", "I am sad is entailed by S", and "I am shocked is entailed by S". We calculate the entailment probability of each supposition with the entailment model and predict the label associated with the most entailed supposition. We propose a max-confidence tuning method for self-training. We select the class with the highest entailment score and then record its predicted pseudo-label for further self-training, and ignore other classes. The model does not need to classify each class correctly but merely learns to predict the truth value of its most confident supposition. ## 4 Simple Pseudo-Label Editing We propose the simple pseudo-label editing (SimPLE) method, a three-step pipeline for generating robust pseudo labels, including augmented pseudolabeling with dropout, uncertain data filtering, and majority-based relabeling. We introduce the details of each step in this section. ## 4.1 **Simple Augmentation For Pseudo-Labeling** Because of languages' discrete and sequential nature, changing a token in a sentence might completely invert its meaning. As a result, unlike straightforward and effective image augmentation processes like FixMatch (Sohn et al., 2020), additional augmentation models are usually needed for text augmentation. Recent studies have found that instead of data-level augmentation, the Dropout mechanism leads to decent embedding-level augmentation. Gao et al. (2021) applied dropout for contrastive sentence representation learning, and Khurana et al. (2021) selected confident pseudolabels by measuring the consistency of a model with the same input data and random dropouts. As the first step of generating augmented pseudo labels, we run N independent evaluations with random dropout (dropout rate = 0.1) for each input training sample xi and obtain a set of N noisy pseudo-labels. $$Y_{i}=\{y_{j}=M_{j}^{*}(x_{i})\mid j\in[0,N)\}$$ where j stands for the j-th independent evaluation with a dropout model M∗. Meanwhile, we store a set of sequence representations Ei = {e0, e1*, . . . , e*N−1} of xi collected in each feedforward process. After finishing this step, we collect a set of data, pseudo-label, and embeddings. $$C=\{(x_{i},y_{i}^{j},e_{i}^{j})\mid i\in[0,M),j\in[0,N)\}\quad(2)$$ 13805  where M stands for the number of unlabeled training samples, each associated with N pseudo-labels and corresponding hidden states. In total, the augmented method outputs M ∗ N label-embedding pairs for further processing. ## 4.2 Uncertainty Estimation Following Li and Zhou (2005) and Lang et al. (2022), we estimate the confidence of all pseudolabels using the SETRED algorithm. The motivation of this algorithm is that training samples with similar embeddings are likely to have the same pseudo-labels. On the other hand, if a training sample is located near samples with different pseudolabels in the embedding space, its own pseudolabel is likely to be uncertain. Using the output data-embedding-label set shown in Equation 2, we can calculate the nearest neighbors of each training sample and estimate the labeling consistency. To estimate the uncertainty of yu, the pseudolabel of training sample xu, we calculate the Euclidean distances between xu and all other M∗N − 1 samples using the calculated text embeddings. We construct a set of the top k nearest neighbors of xu, namely N(u). With the nearest neighbor set, an uncertain score of (xu, yu) can be calculated as follows, Ju =X v∈N(u) I(yu ̸= yj ) / (1 + ∥eu − ev∥2) (3) where I is a binary indicator function, whose value is 1 when yu ̸= yv and 0 otherwise. ∥eu − ev∥2 stands for the Euclidean distance between the embeddings of xu and xv. As a result, Ju would have a higher value when more near neighbors are associated with different pseudo-labels. To estimate the uncertainty of yu, we compare Ju with a null hypothesis where all pseudo-labels in C except yu are randomly shuffled. After the shuffling, the entire data-label mapping set becomes uncertain. The expectation and variance of Ju after shuffling is 2 $\mathbb{E}_v[J_u]=(1-\hat{P}_{yu})\sum\limits_{v\in N(u)}1/(1+\|e_u-e_v\|_2)$ $\sigma(J_u)^2=\hat{P}_{yu}(1-\hat{P}_{yu})\sum\limits_{v\in N(u)}1/(1+\|e_u-e_v\|_2)^2$ The uncertainty can be estimated by verifying the ... The uncertainty can be estimated by verifying the significance of the difference between Ju and the null hypothesis. An uncertainty score can be calculated as $$s(u)={\frac{J_{u}-\mathbb{E}_{v}[J_{u}]}{\sigma(J_{u})}}\qquad\qquad(4)$$ the above example, $\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n^{n+1}}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n^{n+1}}$. With this method, we calculate uncertainty scores for all M ∗ N training samples in C for further processing. ## 4.3 Filtering And Relabeling After finishing estimating the uncertainty of each training sample, we sort all training samples in C by their uncertainty scores and remove the 20% most uncertain training samples. The remaining samples are used for relabeling based on majority voting. For example, a training sample xi has N pseudo-labels [y i0 , yi1 , . . . , yiN−1 ] after the augmented labeling step, and n labels are removed based on the uncertainty scores. The final pseudo-label of xiis decided by the voting result of the N − n remaining labels. If all generated pseudo-labels of a training sample are removed or there is a tie in the voting, we re-run the labeling process without dropout to get the final pseudo-label. Following this approach, we keep all training samples and, meanwhile, obtain a more robust pseudo-label set. ## 5 Experiments Benchmarks. We conduct experiments on popular natural language understanding tasks in the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) benchmark, including RTE (Dagan et al., 2005), QNLI (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), QQP, SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), and CoLA (Warstadt et al., 2019). We also assess the robustness of the proposed method against adversarial evaluation sets in the AdvGLUE corpus (Wang et al., 2021a), including Adv-QNLI, Adv-QQP, Adv-RTE, and Adv-SST2. The data in AdvGLUE is created by adding word-level and sentence-level perturbations to the GLUE data, as well as humancrafted examples. For Multi-Classification, we use Copa (Alex Wang, 2019) (which consists of questions paired with two answer choices), Emotion Classification (Elvis Saravia, 2018), Amazon Review (Phillip Keung, 2020) and Ag-News (Xiang Zhang, 2015). More details are shown in Appendix A. Hyper-parameters. We train 350M RoBERTa (Devlin et al., 2018) and DeBERTa (He et al., 2020) models for the language understanding tasks, without using larger language models like GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) or T0 (Sanh et al., 2021) that are used for generating pseudo-labels in (Lang et al., 2022). We also use the same hyperparameters across all tasks, attempting to avoid the problems mentioned in Perez et al. (2021). In the entailment pretraining on the MNLI dataset (Williams et al., 2018), we optimize both RoBERTa and DeBERTa models with the AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2018). For all tasks and both models, we set ε = 10−6. In the entailment pretraining, we set the weight decay weight to 10−5, and the learning rate for both models is 3e6. During the self-training step, the learning rate of both models on all binary classification tasks is 4e-6 and is 1e-6 on multi-classification tasks, and the weight decay is constantly 10−2. We run the entailment pretraining for 2 epochs and the selftraining for 6 epochs. In confidence-based labeling, we drop 1/8 data with the lowest confidence. Self-training details. For each binary classification task, we randomly select N = 2000 unlabeled data examples. For each multi-classification task, we randomly select N = 50 unlabeled data examples. To estimate the uncertainty of the pseudolabels in SETRED and SimPLE algorithms, we use the hidden states of the 4th layer from the top of both RoBERTa and DeBERTa language models as the supposition embeddings and measure the uncertainty with 9 neighbors. In SimPLE, we run 7 inferences for each training sample with different dropouts. We train and evaluate the models for each task with 10 independent runs on 2 V100 32G GPUs. Each experiment takes less than an hour. Assessment. We evaluate the performance of our algorithm by comparing the average classification accuracy against baseline methods and the robustness. We describe the term *Robustness* as follows: in multiple independent experiments, a robust method should achieve high maximum, minimum, and average accuracy against with different backbone model and training data, on different natural language understanding tasks. ## 5.1 Glue And Advglue Tasks The experiment results are shown in Table 2. We compare the adaptation performance of entailmentbased language models and the improvement of different self-training approaches. Compare with supervised baselines. We compare our entailment self-training methods with few-shot fine-tuning baselines. The few-shot baselines, including PET (Schick and Schütze, 2021), LM-BFF (Gao et al., 2020), P-tuning (Liu et al., 2021), PPT (Gu et al., 2021), and UPT (Wang et al., 2022), are based on 350M BERT or RoBERTa backbones. Our pretrained DeBERTa entailment model outperforms the best few-shot baseline (LM-BFF) by 4.5%, and the RoBERTa entailment model outperforms LM-BFF by 1.5%. With self-training, our SimPLE method further improves the model's performance by a large margin. The RoBERTa performance is boosted by nearly 5% and the average performance of DeBERTa is over 86%, outperforming the best few-shot supervised baselines by 6.9%. On the other hand, we compare our model with fully supervised RoBERTa/DeBERTa models and | Method | GLUE | Method | AdvGLUE | | | | | | | | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------|-----------|------|------|---------------|------|------|------|------|------| | QNLI | QQP | RTE | SST2 | Avg. | QNLI | QQP | RTE | SST2 | Avg. | | | | Few-shot (left) and fully-supervised (right) medium LMs (350M) with human-generated labels | | | | | | | | | | | | | PET | 61.3 | 67.6 | 65.7 | 91.8 | 71.6 | R3F | 47.5 | 40.6 | 50.1 | 38.5 | 44.2 | | LM-BFF | 69.2 | 69.8 | 83.9 | 90.3 | 78.3 | CTT | 49.6 | 40.7 | 46.2 | 39.2 | 43.9 | | P-tuning | 58.8 | 67.6 | 70.8 | 92.6 | 72.5 | MT | 47.5 | 41.5 | 52.5 | 51.3 | 48.2 | | PPT | 68.8 | 67.2 | 67.9 | 92.3 | 74.1 | BERT | 39.8 | 37.9 | 40.5 | 33.0 | 37.8 | | UPT | 70.1 | 72.1 | 68.9 | 92.9 | 76.0 | RoBERTa | 52.5 | 45.4 | 62.8 | 58.5 | 54.8 | | EFL | 68.0 | 67.3 | 85.8 | 90.8 | 78.0 | DeBERTa | 57.9 | 60.4 | 79.0 | 57.8 | 63.8 | | Few-shot large LMs (137B) with human-generated labels | | | | | | | | | | | | | LaMDA | 55.7 | 58.9 | 70.8 | 92.3 | 69.4 | \ | - | - | - | - | - | | FLAN | 63.3 | 75.9 | 84.5 | 94.6 | 79.6 | \ | - | - | - | - | - | | Zero-shot adaptation of entailment classifiers based on medium LMs (350M) | | | | | | | | | | | | | DeBERTa-Cat | 71.6 | 70.5 | 74.0 | 84.6 | 75.2 | \ | 60.8 | 47.4 | 50.6 | 56.1 | 53.7 | | RoBERTa-Sup | 71.5 | 78.6 | 81.2 | 87.7 | 79.8 | \ | 62.1 | 52.6 | 61.7 | 59.9 | 59.1 | | DeBERTa-Sup | 77.3 | 79.9 | 84.5 | 90.1 | 82.9 | \ | 61.5 | 64.1 | 66.7 | 42.6 | 58.7 | | Self-trained RoBERTa-large (350M) without human-generated labels | | | | | | | | | | | | | Baseline-ST | 74.1 | 80.1 | 81.5 | 88.3 | 81.0 | Baseline-ST | 64.9 | 60.6 | 60.9 | 56.6 | 60.8 | | Dropout | 78.5 | 80.5 | 80.9 | 88.8 | 82.2 | Dropout | 69.2 | 57.8 | 61.9 | 57.3 | 61.6 | | SETRED | 80.5 | 80.5 | 80.8 | 88.3 | 82.5 | SETRED | 68.0 | 56.5 | 62.6 | 58.9 | 61.5 | | SimPLE (ours) | 83.1 | 80.7 | 83.1 | 91.6 | 84.6 | SimPLE (ours) | 69.6 | 54.4 | 62.3 | 58.8 | 61.3 | | Self-trained DEBERTa-large (350M) without human-generated labels | | | | | | | | | | | | | Baseline-ST | 79.0 | 80.2 | 83.4 | 92.1 | 83.7 | Baseline-ST | 65.8 | 70.4 | 68.4 | 50.9 | 63.9 | | Dropout | 81.1 | 80.5 | 84.1 | 91.8 | 84.4 | Dropout | 70.1 | 63.3 | 70.9 | 49.9 | 63.6 | | SETRED | 83.4 | 80.5 | 83.9 | 92.0 | 84.9 | SETRED | 69.8 | 69.5 | 69.9 | 50.9 | 65.0 | | SimPLE (ours) | 85.2 | 81.0 | 85.5 | 92.8 | 86.1 | SimPLE (ours) | 70.1 | 68.1 | 73.8 | 51.6 | 65.9 | robust training methods, including R3F (Aghajanyan et al., 2020), child tuning (CT) (Xu et al., 2021), and match tuning (MT) (Tong et al., 2022) models, on the AdvGLUE benchmark. We found that the fully-supervised DeBERTa model is the best baseline on the AdvGLUE benchmark. However, our RoBERTa entailment model outperforms all robust training baselines with the same pretrained backbone by over 10%. With SimPLE selftraining, the DeBERTa entailment model achieves the best performance on AdvGLUE, outperforming the fully-supervised DeBERTa model by 2.1% as well as all other baselines. We found that our pretrained entailment models outperform EFL, the few-shot fine-tuned entailment model based on RoBERTa-large proposed by Wang et al. (2021b). The self-trained models further outperform EFL with larger margins. This indicates the strong adaptation ability introduced by the supposition-based NLU strategy. Compare with large language models. We found that both zero-shot pretrained and semi-supervised self-trained entailment models outperform the fewshot large language models on QNLI, QQP, and RTE tasks, and achieve significantly higher average accuracy on GLUE. This suggests that our method is computation-efficient - the models use 1/400 parameters, without human-generated task-specific labels, but achieve better performance than expensive large-scale language models on NLU tasks. Compare with self-training baselines. By averaging 10 independent evaluations across GLUE and AdvGLUE benchmarks and backbone models, we found that Dropout and SETRED improve baseline self-training performance on a similar level. On average, SETRED outperforms Dropout by 0.5% on 4 experiment settings. On the GLUE benchmark, the SimPLE method improves the model's performance by 1.5 to 2% on average. The highest improvement boost is on the QNLI tasks, where the SimPLE self-training method outperforms the baseline self-training by 9% and 6% on RoBERTa and DeBERTa respectively. Although the average improvement is not very high, we will show that SimPLE is significantly more robust. The results show that augmenting the pseudo-labels without removing uncertain training samples benefits selftraining, which aligns with our hypothesis. In general, the experiments on binary classification NLU tasks proved the data and computation efficiency of entailment self-training over different strong baseline models. Furthermore, the SimPLE  algorithm we propose in this work achieves the best average performance, significantly outperforms all baselines on some of the tasks, and meanwhile preserves the robustness of entailment models against adversarial benchmarks. ## 5.2 Multi-Class Nlu Tasks The experiment results on Copa, Emotion, Amazon Review, and Ag News are shown in Table 3. In multi-classification tasks, we present the comparative results of the pretrained entailmentbased language models and the 4 self-training approaches compared in the previous section with binary NLU tasks, including standard self-training, dropout-based re-labeling, SETRED, and SimPLE. The effect of dropout-based augmentation. By merely using dropout, the augmented self-training outperforms the standard normal self-training baseline which keeps all the pseudo-labels in general. This further validates the previous finding that by adding dropout, the models adopt noises that benefit the inference, generate augmented pseudo-labels and mitigate the overfitting problem. The effect of SETRED. By merely using SETRED, the self-training does not see a consistent improvement in performance and even falls behind the pretrained and standard self-trained models that preserve all pseudo labels in some tasks (like AmazonReview). This fact suggests that removing uncertain pseudo-labels can lead the model to overfit confident training samples, thus hurting the selffine-tuning performance. The effect of SimPLE. Table 3 shows that the SimpLE algorithm constantly outperforms all pretrained and self-trained baselines on both backbone models across all multi-class benchmarks, which aligns with the result on the binary NLU tasks. This fact further validates our hypothesis that augmenting the pseudo-labels of uncertain training samples can improve the performance of self-training. Compare with Large Language Models. We notice that our self-trained methods can outperform several large language models. On Emotion and AG News tasks, the pretrained entailment model without self-training can achieve a significant improvement over the GPT-3-175b model, which is 500 times large than the entailment model. This indicates that the entailment-based model is a more efficient and trustworthy option for many natural language understanding tasks. ## 6 Analysis Robustness. Besides the mean accuracy of all experiments, we also visualize the results of all independent evaluations of different self-training strategies in Figure 2. We found that SimPLE constantly outperforms other self-training baselines on the regular GLUE benchmark by comparing | Copa | EM | AR | News | Avg | | |-----------------------|-------|-------|--------|-------|-------| | DEBERTa-large (350M) | | | | | | | Pretrain | 77.0 | 51.93 | 37.01 | 73.40 | 59.84 | | BaseST | 78.75 | 51.24 | 38.80 | 73.10 | 60.47 | | Dropout | 78.25 | 53.69 | 38.19 | 73.16 | 60.82 | | SETRED | 78.0 | 52.42 | 37.61 | 73.33 | 60.34 | | SimPLE | 79.75 | 54.58 | 39.05 | 73.57 | 61.74 | | RoBERTa-large (350M) | | | | | | | Pretrain | 76.0 | 49.21 | 33.31 | 63.18 | 55.43 | | BaseST | 76.67 | 50.94 | 37.38 | 64.64 | 57.41 | | Dropout | 78.67 | 50.99 | 42.87 | 61.05 | 58.40 | | SETRED | 78.0 | 50.53 | 27.16 | 63.24 | 54.73 | | SimPLE | 79.0 | 51.79 | 44.06 | 65.60 | 60.11 | | Large Language Models | | | | | | | Zero-shot | 70.0♢ | 42.7‡ | - | 43.9‡ | - | | Few-shot | 77.0† | - | - | 61.0‡ | - | | Class Num | 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | - | mean, maximum, and minimum accuracy. Although DeBERTa performs similarly under different self-training strategies on QQP in terms of average accuracy, there exists a significant gap between the minimal performance of baseline and SimPLE. This indicates that SimPLE is more robust and safer compared with the regular self-training algorithm. The only exception is the DeBERTa model on SST2 - the mean performance of SimPLE is better, but it has a lower minimal performance than the baseline self-training method. Most models overfit to the training corpora and achieve high accuracy on regular evaluation sets, but perform poorly on adversarial benchmarks (Wang et al., 2021a). As a result, fully supervised models achieve less than 60% accuracy on AdvGLUE. We also investigate if SimPLE hurts the model's robustness against adversarial evaluation data. We found that, except RoBERTa on AdvQQP, other settings show that the entailment-based models are still robust after SimPLE self-training. As we compared in Table 2, all these results significantly outperform fully-supervised baselines. Pseudo-labeling Accuracy. We show the pseudolabeling accuracy of RoBERTa and DeBERTabased entailment models with different strategies in Figure 3 with 10 independent experiments. The results indicate that the DeBERTa models predict more accurate pseudo-labels in general. On the   other hand, the pseudo-label sets produced by SimPLE with both models are significantly less noisy than the standard and dropout-based labeling methods without removing any uncertain data samples. SETRED achieves the highest labeling accuracy because it drops uncertain samples. The comparison suggests that SimPLE achieves the highest performance because it achieves high pseudo-labeling accuracy on uncertain training samples. Case study. We visualize the hidden states, pseudolabels, and confidence of the training samples in the QNLI tasks calculated by the pretrained DeBERTa entailment model with the SimPLE algorithm in Figure 4. The embedding space is calculated with tSNE (Van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008) using 252 training samples with 252*7=1764 embeddings. Half of them are plotted in the figure. Each training sample is evaluated with 7 different dropouts, and the uncertainty is estimated with 9 neighbors. In Figure 4, different embeddings of the same training sample are labeled with the same color, while the uncertain cases are marked in black. + and - stand for the truth value of the suppositions. As shown in the figure, most uncertain cases appear around the uncertain circle. We also highlight two training samples with uncertain representations. This phenomenon indicates that the SimPLE algorithm can drop most embeddings of a data sample and edit the voting results of the dropout-based pseudo-labeling method, improving the pseudo-labeling accuracy from 76.5% to 79.2% in this experiment. We also show that the original pseudo-label set is unbalanced, with 67.1% of all predicted labels being "False". Although we do not provide any prior knowledge about the label distribution of the task (unknown without human annotation), the SimPLE method mitigates the bias through the uncertain candidate removal process. Figure 4 shows that most uncertain pseudo-labels estimated by SimPLE are "False", thus the remaining pseudo-labels are more balanced. ## 7 Conclusion We show that entailment-based language models can be adapted to different NLU tasks without supervision and achieve robust performance against noisy pseudo-labels and adversarial texts. We design a supposition-based prompting strategy to improve the zero-shot adaptation performance of entailment-based models. To improve the stability of self-training, we propose the SimPLE algorithm for augmented pseudo-labeling. Experiments on binary, multi-class, regular, and adversarial NLU tasks show that the SimPLE self-training strategy significantly outperforms a number of strong baselines, including 400 and 500 times larger language models on both zero-shot and weakly supervised settings, proving the effectivenss of entailment selftraining for efficient and trustworthy natural language understanding systems. ## Limitations Our method utilized pretrained entailed models and adapted them to other domains under zeroshot and self-training settings. There are two limitations that we would like to improve in future work. Firstly, we use human-designed suppositions for each task, which is less automatic than a direct, zero-shot adaptation of the models. Secondly, the self-training on some multi-class classification tasks is not as high as on binary NLU tasks, indicating the challenge of applying entailment models to multi-choice tasks. We would like to overcome this in the next step. ## Ethics Statement We propose a method that can significantly reduce the financial and environmental cost of language model learning. By reducing the need for data collection and human labeling, our method can effectively protect user and data privacy by avoiding leaking any information while building the training corpora. We found that a medium-sized language model can achieve similar performance as the stateof-the-art large-scale language models, suggesting that we can cost less financially and environmentally during model training and evaluation for comparable performance. However, since we reduced the need for human-labeling efforts, the deployment of the system might decrease the number of data annotation jobs. ## References Armen Aghajanyan, Akshat Shrivastava, Anchit Gupta, Naman Goyal, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Sonal Gupta. 2020. Better fine-tuning by reducing representational collapse. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Nikita Nangia Amanpreet Singh Julian Michael Felix Hill-Omer Levy Samuel R. Bowman Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. *arxiv preprint: arXiv:1905.00537*. Max Bartolo, Alastair Roberts, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2020. Beat the ai: Investigating adversarial human annotation for reading comprehension. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:662–678. Max Bartolo, Tristan Thrush, Robin Jia, Sebastian Riedel, Pontus Stenetorp, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. Improving question answering model robustness with synthetic adversarial data generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8830–8848, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Avrim Blum and Tom Mitchell. 1998. Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. In *Proceedings of the eleventh annual conference on Computational learning theory*, pages 92–100. Samuel R Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.05326. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901. Jiaao Chen, Zichao Yang, and Diyi Yang. 2020. MixText: Linguistically-informed interpolation of hidden space for semi-supervised text classification. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2147– 2157, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V Le, and Christopher D Manning. 2020. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10555. Cleo Condoravdi, Dick Crouch, Valeria De Paiva, Reinhard Stolle, and Daniel Bobrow. 2003. Entailment, intensionality and text understanding. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 2003 workshop on Text meaning, pages 38–45. Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In *Machine learning challenges workshop*, pages 177–190. Springer. Nauman Dawalatabad, Sameer Khurana, Antoine Laurent, and James Glass. 2022. On unsupervised uncertainty-driven speech pseudo-label filtering and model calibration. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07795*. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805*. Yen-Hao Huang Junlin Wu Yi-Shin Chen Elvis Saravia, Hsien-Chi Toby Liu. 2018. Carer: Contextualized affect representations for emotion recognition. EMNLP 2018. Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2020. Making pre-trained language models better -shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15723. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Simcse: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08821*. Siddhant Garg and Goutham Ramakrishnan. 2020. Bae: Bert-based adversarial examples for text classification. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.01970*. Yuxian Gu, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2021. Ppt: Pre-trained prompt tuning for -shot learning. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04332*. Junxian He, Jiatao Gu, Jiajun Shen, and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. 2019. Revisiting self-training for neural sequence generation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1909.13788. Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2020. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2006.03654. Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Spanbert: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 8:64–77. Sameer Khurana, Niko Moritz, Takaaki Hori, and Jonathan Le Roux. 2021. Unsupervised domain adaptation for speech recognition via uncertainty driven self-training. In *ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal* Processing (ICASSP), pages 6553–6557. IEEE. Hunter Lang, Monica Agrawal, Yoon Kim, and David Sontag. 2022. Co-training improves prompt-based learning for large language models. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2202.00828. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461. Linyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue, and Xipeng Qiu. 2020. Bert-attack: Adversarial attack against bert using bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09984. Ming Li and Zhi-Hua Zhou. 2005. Setred: Self-training with editing. In *Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining*, pages 611–621. Springer. Xiao Liu, Yanan Zheng, Zhengxiao Du, Ming Ding, Yujie Qian, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021. Gpt understands, too. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.10385*. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2018. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Hongyin Luo and James Glass. 2023. Logic against bias: Textual entailment mitigates stereotypical sentence reasoning. In *Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association* for Computational Linguistics, pages 1243–1254, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hongyin Luo, Shang-Wen Li, Mingye Gao, Seunghak Yu, and James Glass. 2022. Cooperative self-training of machine reading comprehension. In *Proceedings* of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 244–257, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Devraj Mandal, Shrisha Bharadwaj, and Soma Biswas. 2020. A novel self-supervised re-labeling approach for training with noisy labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 1381–1390. Yu Meng, Yunyi Zhang, Jiaxin Huang, Chenyan Xiong, Heng Ji, Chao Zhang, and Jiawei Han. 2020. Text classification using label names only: A language model self-training approach. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9006–9017. Abiola Obamuyide and Andreas Vlachos. 2018. Zeroshot relation classification as textual entailment. EMNLP 2018, page 72. Ethan Perez, Douwe Kiela, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2021. True few-shot learning with language models. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 34:11054–11070. György Szarvas Noah A. Smith Phillip Keung, Yichao Lu. 2020. The multilingual amazon reviews corpus. *arxiv preprint: arXiv:2010.02573*. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1606.05250. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019a. Sentencebert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bertnetworks. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084*. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019b. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982–3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Richard Routley and Robertk Meyer. 1973. The semantics of entailment. In *Studies in Logic and the* Foundations of Mathematics, volume 68, pages 199– 243. Elsevier. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. 2021. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Exploiting cloze-questions for -shot text classification and natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the 16th* Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 255–269. Inkyu Shin, Sanghyun Woo, Fei Pan, and In So Kweon. 2020. Two-phase pseudo label densification for selftraining based domain adaptation. In *European conference on computer vision*, pages 532–548. Springer. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In *Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing*, pages 1631–1642. Kihyuk Sohn, David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Zizhao Zhang, Han Zhang, Colin A Raffel, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Alexey Kurakin, and Chun-Liang Li. 2020. Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:596–608. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. *The journal of machine learning* research, 15(1):1929–1958. James Thorne and Andreas Vlachos. 2018. Automated fact checking: Task formulations, methods and future directions. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07687*. Shoujie Tong, Qingxiu Dong, Damai Dai, Tianyu Liu, Baobao Chang, Zhifang Sui, et al. 2022. Robust fine-tuning via perturbation and interpolation from in-batch instances. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00633*. Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11). Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07461. Boxin Wang, Chejian Xu, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, Jianfeng Gao, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, and Bo Li. 2021a. Adversarial glue: A multitask benchmark for robustness evaluation of language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02840*. Jianing Wang, Chengyu Wang, Fuli Luo, Chuanqi Tan, Minghui Qiu, Fei Yang, Qiuhui Shi, Songfang Huang, and Ming Gao. 2022. Towards unified prompt tuning for -shot text classification. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2205.05313. Sinong Wang, Han Fang, Madian Khabsa, Hanzi Mao, and Hao Ma. 2021b. Entailment as few-shot learner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.14690. Xinyi Wang, Wanrong Zhu, and William Yang Wang. 2023. Large language models are implicitly topic models: Explaining and finding good demonstrations for in-context learning. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2301.11916. Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625–641. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903*. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American* Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112–1122. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yann LeCun Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. *arxiv preprint: arXiv:1509.01626*. Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard Hovy, Thang Luong, and Quoc Le. 2020a. Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6256–6268. Qizhe Xie, Minh-Thang Luong, Eduard Hovy, and Quoc V Le. 2020b. Self-training with noisy student improves imagenet classification. In *Proceedings of* the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10687–10698. Runxin Xu, Fuli Luo, Zhiyuan Zhang, Chuanqi Tan, Baobao Chang, Songfang Huang, and Fei Huang. 2021. Raise a child in large language model: Towards effective and generalizable fine-tuning. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 9514– 9528. Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 32. Wenpeng Yin, Jamaal Hay, and Dan Roth. 2019. Benchmarking zero-shot text classification: Datasets, evaluation and entailment approach. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3914–3923, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuan Zang, Fanchao Qi, Chenghao Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Meng Zhang, Qun Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2019. Word-level textual adversarial attacking as combinatorial optimization. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1910.12196. Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 12697–12706. PMLR. Barret Zoph, Golnaz Ghiasi, Tsung-Yi Lin, Yin Cui, Hanxiao Liu, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, and Quoc Le. 2020. Rethinking pre-training and self-training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:3833– 3845. Yang Zou, Zhiding Yu, Xiaofeng Liu, BVK Kumar, and Jinsong Wang. 2019. Confidence regularized self-training. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 5982–5991. ## A Data Details GLUE/AdvGLUE In this work, we evaluate our method with the GLUE1and AdvGLUE2 benchmarks. We pretrain our models on MNLI, and evaluate on all other AdvGLUE tasks, AdvQNLI, AdvQQP, AdvRTE, and AdvSST2. we also evaluate the models on the regular versions of these tasks in GLUE. The statistics of the GLUE and AdvGLUE benchmarks are shown in Table 4. Multi-Classification In multi-class classification tasks, we evaluate our method with SuperGlue Copa(Alex Wang, 2019), Emotion Classification(Elvis Saravia, 2018), and Amazon Review(Phillip Keung, 2020). The statistics of these corpora are shown in Table 5. 1https://gluebenchmark.com/ 2https://adversarialglue.github.io/ Corpus |Train| |Test| |Adv-Test| MNLI 393k 20k 1.8k QNLI 105k 5.4k 0.9k QQP 364k 391k 0.4k RTE 2.5k 3k 0.3k SST2 67k 1.8k 1.4k Table 4: Statistics of the corpora used in this work Copa 400 100 2 Emotion 16k 2k 6 AR 200k 5k 5 News 120k 7.6k 4 Corpus |Train| |Test| |Class Num| Table 5: Statistics of the corpora used in multi-class classification ## Reproducibility Data. We introduce the tasks and corpora we used for training and evaluation in Section 5 and Appendix A. Method. We introduce the difference between our method and previous work in Section 2, the details of our method in Section 3 and 4. Hyper-parameter. We describe the key hyperparameters of self-training in Section 5. Experiments. We describe the experiment results, and number of independent runs in Section 5, and Section 6 to prove the statistical significance. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? The section after conclusion ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? The section after the Limitation sectioon ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstraction & section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4 to 6, used Huggingface transformers and PyTorch packages. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Yes, section 5 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? The packages are widely used for public research. ✗ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? The packages are widely used for public research. ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? The evaluation corpora are widely used for public research. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? The packages are widely used for public research. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5 And 6 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 5 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 5 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 and 6 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Sectioon 5 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

wang-etal-2023-recode

{R}e{C}ode: Robustness Evaluation of Code Generation Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.773

Code generation models have achieved impressive performance. However, they tend to be brittle as slight edits to a prompt could lead to very different generations; these robustness properties, critical for user experience when deployed in real-life applications, are not well understood. Most existing works on robustness in text or code tasks have focused on classification, while robustness in generation tasks is an uncharted area and to date there is no comprehensive benchmark for robustness in code generation. In this paper, we propose ReCode, a comprehensive robustness evaluation benchmark for code generation models. We customize over 30 transformations specifically for code on docstrings, function and variable names, code syntax, and code format. They are carefully designed to be natural in real-life coding practice, preserve the original semantic meaning, and thus provide multifaceted assessments of a model{'}s robustness performance. With human annotators, we verified that over 90{\%} of the perturbed prompts do not alter the semantic meaning of the original prompt. In addition, we define robustness metrics for code generation models considering the worst-case behavior under each type of perturbation, taking advantage of the fact that executing the generated code can serve as objective evaluation. We demonstrate ReCode on SOTA models using HumanEval, MBPP, as well as function completion tasks derived from them. Interesting observations include: better robustness for CodeGen over InCoder and GPT-J; models are most sensitive to syntax perturbations; more challenging robustness evaluation on MBPP over HumanEval.

# Recode**: Robustness Evaluation Of Code Generation Models** Shiqi Wang1,∗,‡ Zheng Li2,∗,† Haifeng Qian1 Chenghao Yang3,† **Zijian Wang**1 Mingyue Shang1 Varun Kumar1 Samson Tan4 Baishakhi Ray1 **Parminder Bhatia**1 Ramesh Nallapati1 Murali Krishna Ramanathan1 Dan Roth1 **Bing Xiang**1 1AWS AI Labs 2Cornell University 3University of Chicago 4AWS AI Research & Education {wshiqi,qianhf,zijwan,bxiang}@amazon.com zl634@cornell.edu ## Abstract Code generation models have achieved impressive performance. However, they tend to be brittle as slight edits to a prompt could lead to very different generations; these robustness properties, critical for user experience when deployed in real-life applications, are not well understood. Most existing works on robustness in text or code tasks have focused on classification, while robustness in generation tasks is an uncharted area and to date there is no comprehensive benchmark for robustness in code generation. In this paper, we propose ReCode, a comprehensive robustness evaluation benchmark for code generation models. We customize over 30 transformations specifically for code on docstrings, function and variable names, code syntax, and code format. They are carefully designed to be natural in real-life coding practice, preserve the original semantic meaning, and thus provide multifaceted assessments of a model's robustness performance. With human annotators, we verified that over 90% of the perturbed prompts do not alter the semantic meaning of the original prompt. In addition, we define robustness metrics for code generation models considering the worst-case behavior under each type of perturbation, taking advantage of the fact that executing the generated code can serve as objective evaluation. We demonstrate ReCode on SOTA models using HumanEval, MBPP, as well as function completion tasks derived from them. Interesting observations include: better robustness for CodeGen over InCoder and GPT-J; models are most sensitive to syntax perturbations; more challenging robustness evaluation on MBPP over HumanEval. ## 1 Introduction Code generation has emerged as an important AI application. Multiple models (Nijkamp et al., 2022; Fried et al., 2022; Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021) have been proposed and achieved impressive performance on generating code using a natural-language description, on completing partial lines and functions, and even on solving complex coding-contest problems. They can offer real-life help to software engineers and enhance their productivity, and multiple commercial offerings exist today for AIpowered code generation (Chen et al., 2021). However, one important aspect, robustness of the code generation models, is commonly overlooked. Anecdotally, people know that these models are sensitive to perturbations over prompts: sometimes just an extra space in a line or a slight change to a function name would lead to completely different generations, with potentially negative impacts to usability. In Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, we show two failure cases on InCoder-6B (Fried et al., 2022) and CodeGen-16B-mono (Nijkamp et al., 2022) where they perform correctly on regular prompts but fail on our perturbed ones after docstring paraphrasing and function camel case renaming in our ReCode benchmark. The perturbed prompts are natural and retain the original meaning, indicating weakness of these models if deployed in real-life applications. There exists no comprehensive and quantitative robustness benchmark for code generation models. Li et al. (2022) includes a brief study on robustness but it has limited perturbation types and is in a setting with massive numbers of samples, unrealistic in practice. Other existing works on robustness in text or code tasks have focused on classification and are not directly applicable to code generation (Zhang et al., 2020; Jha and Reddy, 2022). In this paper, we present **ReCode**, a Robustness Evaluation framework for **Code**, aiming to provide comprehensive assessment for robustness of code generation models. ReCode includes only transformations that (1) appear naturally in practice and (2) preserve the semantic meaning of the original inputs. We carefully collect and customize a com13818      prehensive list of natural transformations on docstrings, function and variable names, code syntax, and code format, providing multifaceted assessments of a model's robustness performance. We verify the quality of the perturbed data using both human evaluation and objective similarity scores. We take advantage of the fact that executing the generated code can serve as objective evaluation and define three robustness evaluation metrics that aggregate a model's correctness across randomized transformations and transformation types. These metrics quantify a model's accuracy on perturbed prompts, its relative accuracy drop from original prompts, as well as its general instability. We summarize our contributions below: - We present the first robustness evaluation benchmark ReCode for code generation tasks. Our evaluation framework is general and can be easily extended to any code generation datasets and models. - We collect and customize over 30 natural transformations from the aspects of docstrings, function and variable names, code syntax, and code format. Human evaluation shows that most of the perturbed prompts do not alter the semantic meaning and that their level of naturalness is close to the originals. Quantitative 1 Code and datasets released at https://github.com/ amazon-science/recode . similarity metrics confirm the same. - We propose robustness evaluation metrics for code-generation tasks: Robust Pass s @k, Robust Drops @k, and Robust Relative 3 @k. - We demonstrate the ReCode benchmark on HumanEval and MBPP datasets and present extensive empirical robustness comparisons on state-of-the-art models including CodeGen, InCoder, and GPT-J across different sizes. We find that 1) diverse pretraining corpus and larger model size can help improve the model worst-case robustness, but models may learn to generalize in a non-robust way; 2) code generation models are most sensitive to syntax perturbations; 3) due to diversity, MBPP poses greater changes than HumanEval. ## Related Work Robustness for NLP. Recent research have identified the severe robustness problem in Large Language Models (LLMs) using adversarial examples. For example, LLMs can be easily fooled by synonym replacement (Jin et al., 2020; Zang et al., 2020). To better illustrate the severity of adversarial robustness problems for NLP models, existing works (Nie et al., 2020 ; Gardner et al., 2020 ; Kiela et al., 2021 ; Wang et al., 2021a ) build robustness benchmarks, which encourage people to further build robust and trustworthy models. Zhang ## 2 et al. (2020) presents a comprehensive overview of works in this field. Most existing works in this field focus on **classification tasks** rather than **generation tasks**. The main challenge for benchmarking robustness over generation tasks is that the evaluation of text generation is highly subjective and is usually hard to quantify. However, code generation provides a special opportunity because we can do objective and quantitative evaluation on generated codes, and code generation models use similar model architecture as NLP models. Robustness for code. There are a series of previous work on different aspects of robustness problems for code. Specifically, Bielik and Vechev (2020) studies the adversarial robustness problem for type inference in programming languages. Yang et al. (2022) focuses on improving the naturalness of adversarial examples in code vulnerability prediction, clone detection and authorship attribution. Zhou et al. (2022) focuses on the adversarial robustness problems of source code comment generation and (Jha and Reddy, 2022) focuses on code translation, repair and summarization. These papers mainly focus on proposing attack and defense methods for different tasks in code domain, but there is no previous work on a comprehensive robustness benchmark for code generation domain. Code generation. Code generation, also known as program synthesis, is a task of generating code based on natural language statements or code from context. Researchers have adapted transformerbased large language models to the code generation field. Various architectures have been explored: For example, CodeBERT (Feng et al., 2020), PLBART (Ahmad et al., 2021), CodeGPT (Lu et al., 2021) explore BERT, BART and GPT architectures for language models pretrained on code corpus. There are also works that propose to incorporate code structures for models to better understand the semantic information, including GraphCodeBERT (Guo et al., 2021) and CodeT5 (Wang et al., 2021b). Most recently, models with much larger size (i.e., billion-scale parameter numbers) are shown to significantly improve the performance on code generation benchmarks. Codex-12B (Chen et al., 2021) and CodeGen-16B (Nijkamp et al., 2022) are two representative very large pretrained code generation models and have established new state of the arts. However, few works have systematically explored robustness in code generation. ## 3 Methodology In this section, we introduce the transformations to perturb prompts on both text (docstring) and code. We then propose new robust evaluation metrics. ## 3.1 Problem Formulation We consider the end-to-end model-based code generation task. The input prompt can include natural language statements that describe the functionality, signature of the function to generate, helper functions, and possibly a half-written function. The goal is left-to-right generation that creates or completes the function. This setting is agnostic to model architectures and is applicable to encoderdecoder or decoder-only models. We perturb the input prompt with transformations. We focus on natural transformations that preserve the semantic meaning of the original prompt and that are likely to appear in practice, e.g., frequent typos in docstrings, tab to four spaces, function name style changes, and many more. We do not consider adversarial attacks that require model feedbacks in this paper because it is non-trivial to control the naturalness of adversarial attacks and they often require higher computational cost. Instead, we randomly generate perturbed prompts based on the restrictions for each type of perturbations and propose new metrics to evaluate model robustness based on these prompts. We leave adversarial attacks for future work. ## 3.2 Natural Transformations On Docstrings Docstring describes the target function to generate. Since docstrings can vary greatly when written by different users, robustness against changes in docstrings is critical for usability in applications. For docstrings, we use the NLAugmenter (Dhole et al., 2021) library which is designed for data augmentation and robustness evaluation on text.2 We carefully select ten transformations, including character-level, wordlevel and sentence-level ones, that are likely to preserve semantic similarity. The selected perturbations include CharCaseChange, where random characters are replaced with their upper cases, SynonymSubstitution, where random words are substituted with their WordNet synonyms (Miller, 1992), BackTranslation, where sentences are translated to a different language (e.g., German by default) then back to English for paraphrasing the 2https://github.com/GEM-benchmark/NL-Augmenter | Perturbations | MBPP Docstrings | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Nominal | Write a function to find all words which are at least 4 characters long in a string by using regex. | | BackTranslation | Write a function to find all words in a string at least 4 characters long using regex. | | ButterFingers | Wrihe a function to find all words which are ar leasv 4 characters long in a string by using regex. | | ChangeCharCase | WriTe a fUnctiOn to find All woRds whicH are at leAst 4 ChaRacterS LonG in a string by uSIng reGex. | | EnglishInflectionalVariation | Writes a functions to found all word which was at least 4 character long in a string by use regex. | | SwapCharacters | rWite a function to find all words which are at elast 4 chraacters long in a string by suing regex. | | SynonymInsertion | Write a function to find discover all words which are at least 4 characters long in a string by using regex. | | SynonymSubstitution | Write a function to find all words which equal at least 4 character long in a chain by using regex. | | TenseTransformationPast | Write a function to find all words which was at least 4 characters long in a string by using regex. | | TenseTransformationFuture | Write a function to find all words which will be at least 4 characters long in a string by using regex. | | Whitespace | Write a function to find all words w hichare at least 4 characters long in a string by using regex. | | Table 1: Illustrations for docstring perturbations on a MBPP sample. | | whole sentence (Li and Specia, 2019; Sugiyama and Yoshinaga, 2019), and more. To perform perturbations, we extract docstring sentences from the input prompt and then put the perturbed version back to the prompt. See Appendix A for details. We observe that directly applying NLAugmenter to docstrings without constraints can potentially lead to low quality due to keywords in the programming languages. For example, "Create a list a[][]" could be perturbed by "Create a list **[a][]**" by character case swap, which is not natural. Therefore, to guarantee naturalness of perturbations, we use tree-sitter to parse the whole code snippet (the prompt & the canonical solution) to extract any existing function names, variable names ("a"), and type names ("list"). We then exclude them from being perturbed by the transformations. In Tab. 1, we list all ten transformations that are customized from NL-Augmenter and are included in our robustness benchmark along with sample illustrations. ## 3.3 Natural Transformations On Function Names Perturbing function names also results in performance drops for code generation models. We summarize our perturbations in Tab. 2. Some perturbations switch function names between naming conventions. For example, the perturbation called CamelCase transform function names between camel-case (e.g., "findCharLong") and snake-case ("find_char_long"). Other perturbations apply character-level or word-level natural text transformations on component words in a function name, including ChangeCharCase, InflectionalVariation, and SynonymSubstition as discussed in Sect. 3.2. ## 3.4 Natural Transformations On Code Syntax Code generation models are often used on function completion task where the prompt includes a partial (a) Baseline Partial Code     Figure 3: An original prompt with partial code (a) and its perturbed versions (b, c). | Perturbations on Function Names | MBPP | |--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| | Nominal | find_char_long | | CamelCase | findCharLong | | ButterFingers | finf_char_long | | SwapCharacters | find_cahr_long | | ChangeCharCase | finD_chaR_long | | InflectionalVariation | found_chars_long | | SynonymSubstition | discover_char_long | | Table 2: Illustrations for function name perturbations | | implementation of the target function and the goal is to complete it. In such scenarios, the partial code in prompt is work in progress and can be subject to frequent editing, and ideally a model should be robust with respect to perturbations in the partial code. For this evaluation, we derive new customized datasets from HumanEval and MBPP by adding half3 of the canonical solutions to the prompts (Fig. 3a). Then we perturb such partial code inside prompts. Details and examples for each perturbations can be found in Appendix A. Transformations on partial code must be syntactically correct and must not alter semantic meaning. The next section will address code format, and let us first focus on code refactoring: these are syntactic changes that are semantically invariant. We adopt three transformations from NatGen (Chakraborty et al., 2022): (1) Deadcode Insertion where dummy loops (0 iterations) or if conditions are randomly inserted; (2) Operand Swap where we randomly swap one operation (e.g., a<b to b>a); (3) For-While Switch where we randomly transform one for-loop structure in code to equivalent while-loop structure and vice versa. Additionally, we implement three different schemes of variable renaming. We select the most frequent variable in the partial code and replace it using: (1) using CodeBERT (Feng et al., 2020) predictions with highest aggregated scores according to the context around all its appearance, a method inspired by (Jha and Reddy, 2022; Li et al., 2020), (2) using NatGen style renaming as "VAR_0", and (3) random name generation with half alphabetic and half numeric characters. The first strategy tends to provide more natural variable names, yet names from the other two strategies are also plausible. ## 3.5 **Natural Transformations On Code Format** A natural way to perturb partial code is by code format transformations as they preserve the original semantic meaning. We implement following code format transformations in ReCode. Newline Insertion: We consider three methods of new line insertions: (1) empty lines at randomly selected positions, (2) an empty line inserted between docstring and partial code, and (3) an empty line inserted after partial code. Tab-Indent: We randomly replace any space indent with tab or replace tab with 4 spaces for indent-sensitive languages like Python. Line Split: We select the longest line of code and split it into two lines in the middle. 3add first ⌊k/2⌋ lines given a k-line canonical solution. Docstrings to Comments: We convert docstrings to comments (e.g., """ docstring """ to \# docstring for Python). ## 3.6 Evaluation Metrics Many proposed transformations are randomized operations. Hence, we need to measure model robustness over multiple samples to reduce variance. Specifically, for each transformation and each prompt, we create s randomly perturbed prompts. The model under evaluation generates outputs for each of them. We measure the worst-case performance across each group of s perturbed prompts: the model is considered robust on a prompt if and only if it generates a correct solution for all s perturbed prompts, where correctness is measured by executing associated unit tests. Based on such worst-case measurements, we propose three new metrics for robustness evaluation. Robust Passs@k (RPs**@k):** Pass@k is a widely used metric for measuring the performance of code generation tasks (Chen et al., 2021). We extend its definition to Robust Passs@k (RPs@k) with s random perturbations. For an original prompt x and for each transformation, let the perturbed prompts be x1, · · · , xs. We sample n generations by the model for each prompt, and in total there are n · s generations fi(xj ), where 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ j ≤ s. Instead of regular pass@k, we first consider the worst-case correctness across fi(x1)*, ..., f*i(xs) for 1 ≤ i ≤ n: Let ci,s(x) = 1 if fi(x1)*, ..., f*i(xs) are all correct and P ci,s(x) = 0 otherwise. Let rcs(x) = n i=1 ci,s(x). Following definition of pass@k, we define the RPs@k metric as Eq. (1). $$\text{RP}_{s}\text{@}k:=\mathbb{E}_{x}\left[1-\frac{\binom{n-rc_{s}(x)}{k}}{\binom{n}{k}}\right]\tag{1}$$ $\mathbf{D}\mathbf{D}\otimes\mathbf{I}$ Robust Drops@k (RDs**@k):** RPs@k directly measure worst-case robustness in absolute values. It provides a worst-case estimation for models under certain perturbation. But in some applications, users may care more about **relative performance** change to compare worst-case performance and average-case performance. We propose Robust Drops@k defined in Eq. (2) as another important robustness metric to quantify relative changes. $$\text{RD}_{s}@k:=\frac{\text{Pass}@k-\text{Robust Pass}_{s}@k}{\text{Pass}@k}\tag{2}$$ Robust Relatives@k (RRs**@k):** Lastly, there are cases where models generate incorrect code on original prompts yet predict correctly on perturbed ones. This can (arguably) be considered as nonrobust behavior that we should include when reporting model robustness. Let's first consider the case of greedy decoding with n = k = 1. Let RC[−] s denote the number of correct-to-incorrect changes under the worst-case measurement as discussed. Symmetrically, let RC[+] s denote the number of incorrect-to-correct changes under best-case measurement: if the prediction with the original prompt is incorrect yet is correct for any of the s perturbed prompts. We define the Robust Relatives@1 metric as the fraction of changes in both directions out of the size of the dataset (N): $$\mathrm{RR}_{s}@1:={\frac{R C_{s}^{[+]}+R C_{s}^{[-]}}{N}}$$ N(3) This definition can be generalized to sampling. Let rc [−] s (x) and rc [+] s (x) be similarly defined as RC[−] s and RC[+] s except that they are the number of changes within n samples for a prompt x instead of counting across the dataset. We define $$\mathrm{RR}_{s}@k:=\mathbb{E}_{x}\left[2-{\frac{\binom{n-r c_{s}^{[-]}(x)}{k}}{\binom{n}{k}}}-{\frac{\binom{n-r c_{s}^{[+]}(x)}{k}}{\binom{n}{k}}}\right]\tag{4}$$ $$(3)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ Eq. (4) falls back to Eq. (3) when n = k = 1. Discussion. RPs@k, RDs@k and RRs@k focus on different robustness requirements in practice. High RPs@k does not necessarily mean low RDs@k or RRs@k, because the model may learn to utilize spurious correlation in the datasets to demonstrate better Pass@k or RP@k, which is not robust. We advocate to report all of them to provide a comprehensive estimation of model robustness. ## 4 Evaluation Evaluation setup. In this work, we use execution-based code generation benchmarks HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021) and MBPP (Austin et al., 2021) to demonstrate our ReCode robustness evaluation framework. We perform a comprehensive study of robustness evaluation on popular public models including CodeGen (Nijkamp et al., 2022), InCoder (Fried et al., 2022), and GPTJ (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021) to show the robustness comparisons across different model architectures and sizes. The perturbations and metrics implemented in ReCode are general and applicable to any code generation datasets and models. ## 4.1 Code Generation Robustness Evaluation Tab. 3 and Tab. 4 show the general perturbation performances on all the models in terms of the four general perturbation categories including transformations on docstrings, function names, code syntax, and code format. The nominal baselines for docstrings and function name perturbations are the pass@k on nonperturbed datasets. For perturbations on code syntax and format, the nominal baseline is the pass@k on nonperturbed customized datasets with partial code (see Sect. 3.4). We use greedy sampling for all the models to eliminate randomness effect and enable fair comparisons as the default setting. We consider s = 5, i.e., we generate five different datasets with different random seeds for each type of perturbations and evaluate worst-case robustness performance according to the robustness evaluation metric defined in Sect. 3.6. To evaluate and compare model robustness in a unified fashion, we aggregate the worst performance across different perturbations under each category. Taking the docstring perturbation category as an example, we say the model is robust only when the model predicts correctly on all the s perturbed datasets for each transformation listed in Tab. 1. We present detailed numbers for each perturbation type in Appendix D, Tab. 11-18. In Appendix B, we showcase and analyze failure cases on CodeGen16B-mono under three top perturbations, causing significant performance drops. (1) **Diverse pretraining corpus helps with both** generalization and worst-case robustness. Comparing all code generation models with the same size 6B, CodeGen models have much better nominal performance, and have better robustness on RP5@1, a very strict worst-case robustness metric. That is possibly because CodeGen models are pretrained over a more diverse corpus than InCoder and GPT-J and thus have more capacity to deal with unseen instances and perturbations. However, CodeGen models have worse performance on RD5@1 and RR5@1, two robustness metrics relative to nominal performance, indicating that CodeGen models cannot generalize in a robust way (e.g., may learn to use spurious features in data). 4 (2) **Larger model size brings improvement in** | HumanEval | Metric | CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen | InCoder | InCoder | GPT-J | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------| | 2B mono | 2B multi | 6B mono | 6B multi | 16B mono | 16B multi | 1B | 6B | 6B | | | | Nominal↑ | 0.232 | 0.140 | 0.262 | 0.195 | 0.305 | 0.195 | 0.104 | 0.152 | 0.122 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.122 | 0.049 | 0.104 | 0.073 | 0.128 | 0.098 | 0.024 | 0.067 | 0.037 | | | Docstring | RD5@1(%)↓ | 47.37 | 65.28 | 60.47 | 62.50 | 58.00 | 50.00 | 76.47 | 56.00 | 70.00 | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 20.73 | 14.63 | 27.44 | 18.90 | 35.37 | 18.90 | 14.63 | 15.85 | 10.98 | | | Nominal↑ | 0.232 | 0.140 | 0.262 | 0.195 | 0.305 | 0.195 | 0.104 | 0.152 | 0.122 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.140 | 0.061 | 0.146 | 0.116 | 0.213 | 0.116 | 0.055 | 0.098 | 0.073 | | | Function | RD5@1(%)↓ | 39.47 | 56.52 | 44.19 | 40.63 | 30.00 | 40.63 | 47.06 | 36.00 | 40.00 | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 14.02 | 10.37 | 18.90 | 12.20 | 19.51 | 9.146 | 8.537 | 9.756 | 6.098 | | | Nominal↑ | 0.402 | 0.293 | 0.518 | 0.366 | 0.549 | 0.390 | 0.189 | 0.323 | 0.250 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.110 | 0.067 | 0.152 | 0.110 | 0.159 | 0.091 | 0.043 | 0.079 | 0.079 | | | Syntax | RD5@1(%)↓ | 72.73 | 77.08 | 70.59 | 70.00 | 71.11 | 76.56 | 77.42 | 75.47 | 68.29 | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 41.46 | 32.93 | 44.51 | 36.59 | 46.95 | 39.02 | 21.34 | 34.76 | 30.49 | | | Nominal↑ | 0.402 | 0.293 | 0.518 | 0.366 | 0.549 | 0.390 | 0.189 | 0.323 | 0.250 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.268 | 0.207 | 0.274 | 0.195 | 0.354 | 0.232 | 0.091 | 0.171 | 0.104 | | | Format | RD5@1(%)↓ | 33.33 | 29.17 | 47.06 | 46.67 | 35.56 | 40.63 | 51.61 | 47.17 | 58.54 | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 23.17 | 16.46 | 32.93 | 23.78 | 25.00 | 22.56 | 14.63 | 23.78 | 21.95 | | | Table 3: ReCode benchmark robustness evaluation on popular code generation models for HumanEval. MBPP Metric CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen InCoder InCoder GPT-J 2B mono 2B multi 6B mono 6B multi 16B mono 16B multi 1B 6B 6B Nominal↑ 0.317 0.191 0.361 0.221 0.407 0.241 0.128 0.199 0.133 RP5@1↑ 0.137 0.050 0.147 0.042 0.163 0.045 0.011 0.031 0.013 Docstring RD5@1(%)↓ 56.96 73.66 59.38 80.93 59.85 81.28 91.20 84.54 90.00 RR5@1(%)↓ 36.86 34.39 41.89 36.76 46.72 44.66 25.57 35.32 30.08 Nominal↑ 0.317 0.191 0.361 0.221 0.407 0.241 0.128 0.199 0.133 RP5@1↑ 0.221 0.101 0.252 0.110 0.279 0.139 0.047 0.087 0.043 Function RD5@1(%)↓ 30.42 47.31 30.40 50.23 31.31 42.55 63.20 56.19 67.69 RR5@1(%)↓ 19.51 20.43 24.13 22.79 24.95 23.51 16.22 20.02 17.56 Nominal↑ 0.450 0.285 0.535 0.331 0.571 0.379 0.219 0.292 0.176 RP5@1↑ 0.027 0.008 0.027 0.008 0.038 0.017 0.008 0.006 0.004 Syntax RD5@1(%)↓ 94.06 97.12 95.01 97.52 93.34 95.39 96.24 97.89 97.66 RR5@1(%)↓ 59.03 45.07 64.17 47.74 67.04 54.21 35.42 45.79 30.60 Nominal↑ 0.450 0.285 0.535 0.331 0.571 0.379 0.219 0.292 0.176 RP5@1↑ 0.333 0.146 0.289 0.166 0.403 0.214 0.091 0.130 0.080 Format RD5@1(%)↓ 26.03 48.92 46.07 49.69 29.32 43.63 58.22 55.28 54.39 RR5@1(%)↓ 19.82 25.15 31.11 27.00 25.26 26.59 19.61 28.54 18.28 Table 4: ReCode benchmark robustness evaluation on popular code generation models for MBPP. | | | | | | | | | | | worst-case robustness, but may risk overfitting. In general, we observe higher RP5@1 for larger models within the same model family (e.g., improved from 0.174 to 0.217 for CodeGen-mono 2B to 16B on average across all perturbations), indicating larger model helps improve worst-case robustness. Similarly, we observe that larger models usually have larger RR5@1 (e.g., increased from 27.90% to 35.91% for CodeGen-mono 2B to 16B on average), indicating that larger models may risk overfitting as the relative performance drops under perturbations are significant. (3) **Code generation models are most sensitive** to syntax perturbation. Among all perturbation types and across MBPP and HumanEval, we observe that syntax perturbations often result in the most performance drops. That reveals a significant limitation of syntax understanding ability of the state-of-the-art code generation models. (4) **Datasets having more variances in code** style poses more challenges on model robustness. In Tab. 5, we can see that models show better robustness on HumanEval over MBPP on average. MBPP has more variances in code style (e.g., indent with 1 space), closer to natural code distribution hence more challenging for model robustness. | Category | Metric | HumanEval | MBPP | |------------|------------|-------------|--------| | RP5@1↑ | 0.078 | 0.071 | | | Docstring | RD5@1(%) ↓ | 60.67 | 75.31 | | RR5@1(%) ↓ | 19.72 | 36.92 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.113 | 0.142 | | | Function | RD5@1(%) ↓ | 41.61 | 46.59 | | RR5@1(%) ↓ | 12.06 | 21.01 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.100 | 0.025 | | | Syntax | RD5@1(%) ↓ | 72.58 | 93.40 | | RR5@1(%) ↓ | 33.88 | 47.86 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.211 | 0.206 | | | Format | RD5@1(%) ↓ | 43.30 | 45.73 | | RR5@1(%) ↓ | 22.70 | 24.60 | | Format RP5@1↑ **0.211** 0.206 RD5@1(%) ↓ **43.30** 45.73 RR5@1(%) ↓ **22.70** 24.60 Table 5: Average robustness numbers across all models. MBPP is more challenging for robustness evaluation.  Figure 4: Robust Drops@1 and Robust Relatives@1 under different s. Larger s indicates stronger perturbations evaluated and larger performance drops.  ## 4.2 Ablation Study Robustness with s **perturbed datasets.** As described in Sect. 3.6, our robustness metrics consider worst-case performance across s perturbed datasets for each perturbation. Larger s leads to stronger perturbations evaluated, larger performance drops, and more extensive coverage to practical failures. The performance drops will start converging when large enough s evaluated. We can clearly see such trends in Fig. 4 where we evaluate CodeGen-16Bmono RDs@1 and RRs@1 under greedy sampling with s = 1*, ...,* 10. Perturbation categories like docstring and syntax that involve larger searching space and more randomness tend to benefit more with larger s (see Appendix A for details). As a trade-off, evaluation cost linearly increase with s. Thus, we recommend s = 5 as a good balance between cost and evaluation strength. We summarize the ablation study in terms of larger sampling n in Appendix D.3 which can also benefit our proposed robustness estimation with additional sampling cost. Stable RD@k and increasing RR@k under different k. Pass@k allows the model to have k trials and model performance is often reported with different k. With the sampling setting of n = 100, we plot the RD1@k and RR1@k in Fig. 5. Interestingly, we observe that RD@k stays stable across different k while RR@k increases with k. This is because larger k leads to higher nominal pass@k and RP@k but their relative ratio stays similar leading to stable RD. On the other hand, larger k involves more samples potentially changing results on perturbed datasets causing larger RR. Similar  Table 6: Human evaluation for practical naturalness and semantic similarity by 5 annotators. Either 0, 0.5, or 1 is assigned to each data point indicating quality level. | HumanEval | MBPP | | | | |-----------------------------|--------|------|------|------| | Syntax Format Syntax Format | | | | | | CodeBLEU (syntax) ↑ | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.96 | | CodeBLEU (dataflow) ↑ | 0.94 | 1.00 | 0.92 | 1.00 | CodeBLEU (syntax) ↑ 0.95 0.98 0.93 0.96 CodeBLEU (dataflow) ↑ 0.94 1.00 0.92 1.00 Table 7: Average CodeBLEU syntax and format scores between non-perturbed codes and perturbed ones with our syntax and format transformations. trends on CodeGen-2B and 6B in Appendix D.2 further confirm the observations. ## 4.3 Perturbation Sample Quality Human evaluation. To verify the naturalness of the perturbations in ReCode, we randomly sample and shuffle 100 and 50 perturbed and nonperturbed MBPP and HumanEval data points and create a shuffle mix of 300 samples. Each sample is shown to 5 human annotators who are familiar with Python and who are asked to rate naturalness out of 0: not natural, 0.5: possible to appear in practice but rare, and 1: natural. The scores for naturalness drop 14% on average for our perturbed data where drops mainly come from typos by Butterfingers, CharCaseChanges, SwapCharacter, etc. In addition, we randomly sample 100 and 50 pairs perturbed and non-perturbed MBPP and HumanEval data points. Each pair is shown to 5 human annotators who are asked to rate semantics out of 0: totally changed, 0.5: slightly changed, and 1: exactly preserved. We summarize the main results in Tab. 6, and we present statistic details and setup in Appendix C.1. Notably, the majority vote (at least three out of five) is 1 for 90% of data points. We further provide automatic evaluation below to support the quality of our perturbed datasets, but human evaluation is in general more reliable. Docstring/function names similarity. We measure the sentence cosine similarity between perturbed and non-perturbed docstrings and function names. We obtain the embeddings by sentence transformers using model all-mpnet-base-v25(Song et al., 2020). Note that we split each function name into words to get 5Model embedding quality in https://www.sbert.net sentence embeddings. On average, we have 0.93 and 0.81 for docstring and function name perturbations, showing that they well preserve the semantics. Scores for some function name perturbations are sensitive to typos due to the lack of sentence context (e.g., 0.21 for interperse and intErpErse). Appendix C.2 summarizes detailed numbers for each perturbation. Code syntax/format similarity. In Tab. 7, we also measure the code similarity using CodeBLEU scores (Lu et al., 2021) for perturbed and nonperturbed data involving code syntax/format transformations. Here we consider the CodeBLEU score with syntax and dataflow separately as the evaluation metrics. On average, we have score 0.96 and 0.97 for CodeBLEU syntax and dataflow, showing good quality of perturbed datasets. Note that a few perturbations should expect low CodeBLEU scores: doc2comments transforms docstrings into comments causing changes of syntax; Deadcode insertion and for-while switch involve new if-conditions, loops, and new variables causing changes of code syntax and dataflow. Please refer to Appendix C.3 for details. ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we propose ReCode, a comprehensive robustness evaluation benchmark for code generation models. We collect and customize over 30 natural transformations under categories of docstrings, function names, code syntax, and code format perturbations. These transformations are carefully selected and designed to be natural in practice and preserve the semantic meaning after perturbations. We further propose general worst-case robustness metrics to give a unified overview of the model robustness performance. We empirically demonstrate our ReCode benchmark on popular models including CodeGen, InCoder, and GPT-J using HumanEval and MBPP datasets and function completion tasks derived from them. With human evaluation, over 90% of our perturbed data are confirmed to preserve the original semantic meaning; sentence similarity and CodeBLEU scores additionally support the quality of perturbations in ReCode. ## Limitations ReCode benchmark has several limitations: (1) It contains perturbed datasets based on HumanEval and MBPP which focuses on Python function completion use cases. Therefore, we only perform evaluation on Python language and not be able to capture robustness in a wide variety of code completion use cases. However, our transformations are generalizable and could be easily extended to other languages and also other coderelated datasets (Athiwaratkun et al., 2023). We encourage researchers to apply and extend ReCode benchmark to additional languages and other coderelated tasks; (2) ReCode benchmark is designed for robustness evaluation and cannot mitigate the lack of robustness. Given that our benchmark can be used to generate comprehensive collection of perturbed data, we believe that it can be used for training data augmentation to enhance model robustness. We will consider corresponding robust training strategy design and evaluation in the future work. ## Ethics Statement Our ReCode robustness benchmark aims to provide a comprehensive robustness evaluation framework for any code-generation models, which we believe is critical towards building robust and user-friendly language models for code. With the new robustness evaluation metrics, users can rely on ReCode and assess model predictions with more confidence. The model trainers, on the other hand, will be aware of the potential vulnerabilities that might cause mispredictions in practice and mitigate them before deployments. Therefore, we believe our ReCode benchmark is beneficial in terms of broader impact. ## References Wasi Ahmad, Saikat Chakraborty, Baishakhi Ray, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2021. Unified pre-training for program understanding and generation. In *Proceedings* of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2655–2668, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ben Athiwaratkun, Sanjay Krishna Gouda, Zijian Wang, Xiaopeng Li, Yuchen Tian, Ming Tan, Wasi Uddin Ahmad, Shiqi Wang, Qing Sun, Mingyue Shang, Sujan Kumar Gonugondla, Hantian Ding, Varun Kumar, Nathan Fulton, Arash Farahani, Siddhartha Jain, Robert Giaquinto, Haifeng Qian, Murali Krishna Ramanathan, Ramesh Nallapati, Baishakhi Ray, Parminder Bhatia, Sudipta Sengupta, Dan Roth, and Bing Xiang. 2023. Multi-lingual evaluation of code generation models. In The 11th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell I. Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie J. Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc V. Le, and Charles Sutton. 2021. Program synthesis with large language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2108.07732. Pavol Bielik and Martin T. Vechev. 2020. Adversarial robustness for code. In *Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML* 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 896–907. PMLR. Saikat Chakraborty, Toufique Ahmed, Yangruibo Ding, Premkumar Devanbu, and Baishakhi Ray. 2022. Natgen: Generative pre-training by" naturalizing" source code. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2206.07585. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2107.03374. Kaustubh D Dhole, Varun Gangal, Sebastian Gehrmann, Aadesh Gupta, Zhenhao Li, Saad Mahamood, Abinaya Mahendiran, Simon Mille, Ashish Srivastava, Samson Tan, et al. 2021. Nl-augmenter: A framework for task-sensitive natural language augmentation. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2112.02721. Zhangyin Feng, Daya Guo, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Xiaocheng Feng, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Bing Qin, Ting Liu, Daxin Jiang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. CodeBERT: A pre-trained model for programming and natural languages. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1536–1547, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel Fried, Armen Aghajanyan, Jessy Lin, Sida Wang, Eric Wallace, Freda Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Wen-tau Yih, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Incoder: A generative model for code infilling and synthesis. ArXiv preprint, abs/2204.05999. Matt Gardner, Yoav Artzi, Victoria Basmov, Jonathan Berant, Ben Bogin, Sihao Chen, Pradeep Dasigi, Dheeru Dua, Yanai Elazar, Ananth Gottumukkala, Nitish Gupta, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Gabriel Ilharco, Daniel Khashabi, Kevin Lin, Jiangming Liu, Nelson F. Liu, Phoebe Mulcaire, Qiang Ning, Sameer Singh, Noah A. Smith, Sanjay Subramanian, Reut Tsarfaty, Eric Wallace, Ally Zhang, and Ben Zhou. 2020. Evaluating models' local decision boundaries via contrast sets. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1307–1323, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daya Guo, Shuo Ren, Shuai Lu, Zhangyin Feng, Duyu Tang, Shujie Liu, Long Zhou, Nan Duan, Alexey Svyatkovskiy, Shengyu Fu, Michele Tufano, Shao Kun Deng, Colin B. Clement, Dawn Drain, Neel Sundaresan, Jian Yin, Daxin Jiang, and Ming Zhou. 2021. Graphcodebert: Pre-training code representations with data flow. In *9th International Conference on* Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. Kilem L Gwet. 2014. *Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of* agreement among raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC. Akshita Jha and Chandan K Reddy. 2022. Codeattack: Code-based adversarial attacks for pre-trained programming language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2206.00052. Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is BERT really robust? A strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8018–8025. AAAI Press. Douwe Kiela, Max Bartolo, Yixin Nie, Divyansh Kaushik, Atticus Geiger, Zhengxuan Wu, Bertie Vidgen, Grusha Prasad, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, Zhiyi Ma, Tristan Thrush, Sebastian Riedel, Zeerak Waseem, Pontus Stenetorp, Robin Jia, Mohit Bansal, Christopher Potts, and Adina Williams. 2021. Dynabench: Rethinking benchmarking in NLP. In North American Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), pages 4110–4124. Linyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue, and Xipeng Qiu. 2020. BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial attack against BERT using BERT. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6193–6202, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yujia Li, David Choi, Junyoung Chung, Nate Kushman, Julian Schrittwieser, Rémi Leblond, Tom Eccles, James Keeling, Felix Gimeno, Agustin Dal Lago, Thomas Hubert, Peter Choy, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Igor Babuschkin, Xinyun Chen, PoSen Huang, Johannes Welbl, Sven Gowal, Alexey Cherepanov, James Molloy, Daniel Mankowitz, Esme Sutherland Robson, Pushmeet Kohli, Nando de Freitas, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Oriol Vinyals. 2022. Competition-level code generation with alphacode. ArXiv preprint, abs/2203.07814. Zhenhao Li and Lucia Specia. 2019. Improving neural machine translation robustness via data augmentation: Beyond back-translation. In *Proceedings of the* 5th Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2019), pages 328–336, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, et al. 2022. Holistic evaluation of language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2211.09110. Shuai Lu, Daya Guo, Shuo Ren, Junjie Huang, Alexey Svyatkovskiy, Ambrosio Blanco, Colin Clement, Dawn Drain, Daxin Jiang, Duyu Tang, et al. 2021. Codexglue: A machine learning benchmark dataset for code understanding and generation. In Thirtyfifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 1). Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. *Computational* Linguistics, 19(2):313–330. Simon Mille, Kaustubh Dhole, Saad Mahamood, Laura Perez-Beltrachini, Varun Gangal, Mihir Kale, Emiel van Miltenburg, and Sebastian Gehrmann. 2021. Automatic construction of evaluation suites for natural language generation datasets. In *Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems* Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 1). George A. Miller. 1992. WordNet: A lexical database for English. In *Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Harriman, New York,* February 23-26, 1992. Yixin Nie, Adina Williams, Emily Dinan, Mohit Bansal, J. Weston, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Adversarial nli: A new benchmark for natural language understanding. In *Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)*. Erik Nijkamp, Bo Pang, Hiroaki Hayashi, Lifu Tu, Huan Wang, Yingbo Zhou, Silvio Savarese, and Caiming Xiong. 2022. A conversational paradigm for program synthesis. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2203.13474. Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and TieYan Liu. 2020. Mpnet: Masked and permuted pretraining for language understanding. In *Advances* in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2206.04615. Amane Sugiyama and Naoki Yoshinaga. 2019. Data augmentation using back-translation for contextaware neural machine translation. In *Proceedings of* the Fourth Workshop on Discourse in Machine Translation (DiscoMT 2019), pages 35–44, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/ mesh-transformer-jax. Boxin Wang, Chejian Xu, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, Jianfeng Gao, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, and Bo Li. 2021a. Adversarial glue: A multitask benchmark for robustness evaluation of language models. In *Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2)*. Yue Wang, Weishi Wang, Shafiq Joty, and Steven C.H. Hoi. 2021b. CodeT5: Identifier-aware unified pretrained encoder-decoder models for code understanding and generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8696–8708, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhou Yang, Jieke Shi, Junda He, and David Lo. 2022. Natural attack for pre-trained models of code. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/2201.08698. Yuan Zang, Fanchao Qi, Chenghao Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Meng Zhang, Qun Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Word-level textual adversarial attacking as combinatorial optimization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6066–6080, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wei Emma Zhang, Quan Z Sheng, Ahoud Alhazmi, and Chenliang Li. 2020. Adversarial attacks on deeplearning models in natural language processing: A survey. *TIST*, 11(3):1–41. Yu Zhou, Xiaoqing Zhang, Juanjuan Shen, Tingting Han, Taolue Chen, and Harald Gall. 2022. Adversarial robustness of deep code comment generation. *ACM Transactions on Software Engineering* and Methodology (TOSEM), 31(4):1–30. ## A **Transformation Details And Qualitative** Examples In this section, we give detailed descriptions and settings for each type of perturbations that are included in our ReCode benchmark with qualitative examples for illustrations. ## A.1 Natural Transformations On Docstrings For natural transformations on docstrings, we aim to perturb the docstrings to their variances that preserve the semantics and also appear natural in practice. Specifically, we will first extract and perturb the docstrings with the following natural transformations in each prompt, and then attach their perturbed versions to the prompt. To preserve semantics for the code generation task prompts, we extract a blacklist of program keywords using treesitter as discussed in Sect. 3.2 that are excluded from perturbations. We extend most transformations from NL-Augmenter (Dhole et al., 2021), a standard library designed for data augmentation and robustness evaluation on text. We list some qualitative examples in Tab. 1. BackTranslation. BackTranslation paraphrases the docstrings by translating them to another language (in this case, German) and then back to English. It is a common method for data augmentation in generating sentence variances with the same semantics (Li and Specia, 2019; Sugiyama and Yoshinaga, 2019). Overall, it can reliably generate high quality perturbed docstrings. We use the default implementation in NL-Augmenter (Dhole et al., 2021). BackTranslation contains no randomness in transformations. ButterFingers. ButterFingers transformation randomly selects characters of the docstrings and perturbs each of them to a random subset of similar characters, it is from (Dhole et al., 2021) and is also used in (Mille et al., 2021). Since this transformation tends to introduce character-level typos, we set randomness for perturbing each character to be low as 0.05 for naturalness consideration. ChangeCharCase. ChangeCharCase transformation randomly changes the selected characters to upper case in the docstrings. We use the default probability 0.35 where majority annotators vote 0.5 for naturalness in the setting of Sect. 4.3. EnglishInflectionalVariation. This transformation randomly selects words in the docstring and change them to a random inflection variance. This can be from plural to singular (or vice versa) for nouns and tense changes for verbs. To maintain naturalness, the perturbation is constrained to be the same Part of Speech (POS) tag in the Penn Treebank (Marcus et al., 1993). SwapCharacters. This transformation randomly selects pairs of adjacent characters in the docstring and swap them. This represents a common type of typos by humans. To ensure naturalness, we set the probability as 0.05 for making the swap. SynonymInsertion. This transformation randomly select words in the docstrings and inserts their synonyms in WordNet (Miller, 1992). Punctuations and stopwords are excluded. We set the probability to be 0.35 considering low success rate after keywords filtering. SynonymSubstitution. This transformation randomly selects words in the docstring and replaces each one with a synonym from WordNet (Miller, 1992). Similar to SynonymInsertion, we set the probability as 0.35 to balance naturalness and perturbation success rates. TenseTransformationPast. This is a deterministic transformation that converts sentences in the docstring to past tense. TenseTransformationFuture. This is a deterministic transformation that converts sentences in the docstring to future tense. Whitespace. This transformation inserts or deletes a single white space at randomly selected locations in the docstring. This represents a common type of typos by humans. Folowing NL-Augmenter, we use probability 0.1 for adding whitespaces and 0.05 for removing whitespaces. ## A.2 Natural Transformations On Function Names These transformations modify the name of the target function to generate. Any references to the function name in the prompt, e.g., in docstring, are also modified to maintain consistency. Qualitative examples can be found in Tab. 2. CamelCase. A function name is often composed of multiple words. If the original function name concatenates the words in camel-case style, this transformation changes it to snake-case, and vice versa. This transformation is deterministic. ButterFingers. ButterFingers transformation randomly selects characters of the docstrings and perturbs each of them to a random subset of similar characters, it is from (Dhole et al., 2021) and is also used in (Mille et al., 2021). Since this transformation tends to introduce character-level typos, we set randomness for perturbing each character to be low as 0.05 for naturalness consideration. SwapCharacters. This transformation randomly selects pairs of adjacent characters in the function name and swap each pair. This represents a common type of typos by humans. To control naturalness, we set the probability to be 0.05, same setting as the docstring perturbations. ChangeCharCase. ChangeCharCase transformation randomly changes the selected characters to upper case in the docstrings. We use the default probability 0.35 where majority annotators vote 0.5 for naturalness in the setting of Sect. 4.3. InflectionalVariation. This transformation randomly selects words in the function name and applies a random inflection on them. This can be from plural to singular (or vice versa) for nouns and tense change for verbs. To control naturalness, the perturbation is constrained to be the same Part of Speech (POS) tag in the Penn Treebank (Marcus et al., 1993). SynonymSubstitution. This transformation randomly selects words in the docstring and replaces each one with a synonym from WordNet (Miller, 1992). Similar to SynonymInsertion, we set the probability as 0.35 to balance naturalness and perturbation success rates. ## A.3 **Natural Transformations On Code Syntax** These transformations modify the code content in the prompt. We derived function completion tasks with half the code from the canonical solutions such that the following code transformations and robustness evaluation can be performed. To guarantee fair comparisons to the nominal baseline, we make sure that we have the same block of code before and after code perturbations. In the following part we show qualitative examples on the same MBPP sample baseline ( Fig. 6).  DeadCodeInserter. This transformation inserts  a block of useless code at a random location. The added block can be a loop of zero iteration or an if condition that is always false. The code content inside the dummy loop or if condition is randomly selected from the adjacent code statements with limited tree-sitter node sizes. For-While Switch. This transformation randomly selects a for-loop or while-loop in the prompt and transforms it to its equivalent counterpart. OperandSwap. This transformation randomly selects a binary logical operation, swaps the two operands, and modifies the operator if necessary to maintain semantic equivalence. VarRenamerCB. This transformation selects the most frequently referenced variable name in the partial code and replaces it throughout the prompt with a new name obtained by CodeBERT (Feng   Figure 8: An example of the For-While Switch perturbation.   Figure 9: An example of the OperandSwap perturbation. et al., 2020). Specifically, we replace all occurrence of the variable name with a mask token, and then run CodeBERT inference to obtain candidate names at each location, where each candidate name comes with a probability score. We pick the candidate name with the highest aggregated score across locations. This transformation is inspired by (Jha and Reddy, 2022 ; Li et al., 2020 ). dddy Write a python function to remove  first and last occurrence of a given character from the string. >>> remove_Occ("hello","l") "heo" >>> remove_Occ("abcda","a") "bcd" >> remove_Occ("PHP","P") "H" for i in range(len(lines)): if lines[i] == ch: lines = lines[0:i] + lines[i + 1 :] Figure 10: An example of the VarRenamerCB perturbation. VarRenamerNaive. This transformation selects the most frequently referenced variable name in the partial code and replaces it with "VAR_0". This is the original implementation in the NatGen package. This transformation is deterministic.   Figure 11: An example of the VarRenamerNaive pertur-  bation. VarRenamerRN. This transformation selects the most frequently referenced variable name in the partial code and replaces it with a random string with half alphabetic and half numeric characters. df remove_0cc(z5, ch):   $\downarrow$ . given character from the string. >> remove_Occ("hello","1") "heo" * [16] A. A. K. >>> remove_0cc("abcda","a") "bcd"  Figure 12: An example of the VarRenamerRN perturbation. ## Natural Transformations On Code Format A.4 Tab-Indent. This transformation replaces any space indents with tabs or replaces tabs with 4 spaces for indent-sensitive languages like Python. This transformation is deterministic. Line Split. This transformation splits the longest line in the partial code into two lines. This transformation is deterministic. Doc2Comments. This transformation changes the style of the documentation in the prompt. For Python, it converts docstring (e.g., """ docstring "") to commented lines (e.g., \# docstring ) and vice versa. For Java, it converts comments in the  Figure 13: An example of the Tab-Indent perturbation.  Write a python function to remove fiiiisstttt tttteennnnggggr given character from the string. >> remove_Occ("hello","1")  Figure 14: An example of the Line Split perturbation. format of /* docstring */ to // docstring and vice versa. This transformation is deterministic. def remove_Occ(s, ch): e Write a python function to remove first and last occurrence of a given character from the string. \# >>> remove_Occ("hello","l") \# "heo" \# >>> remove_Occ("abcda","a") \# "bcd" \# >>> remove_Occ("PHP","P") 4 "H" for i in range(len(s)): if (s[i] == ch) s = s[0 : i] + s[i + 1:] break Figure 15: An example of the Doc2Comments perturbation. NewlineRandom. This transformation inserts empty lines at randomly selected positions. NewlineAfterCode. This transformation inserts an empty line at the end of the prompt. This transformation is deterministic. NewlineAfterDoc. This transformation inserts an empty line between the docstring and the partial code. This transformation is deterministic.  Figure 16: An example of the NewlineRandom perturbation.  Write a python function to remove first and last occurrence of a given character from the string. >> remove_Occ("hello","l") "heo"   Figure 17: An example of the NewlineAfterCode perturbation. df remove_Occ(s, ch): Write a python function to remove fiiiisstttt tttteennnnggg given character from the string. >>> remove_Occ("hello","1") "heo"  Figure 18: An example of the NewlineAfterDoc perturbation. ## Failure Case Study Under B Perturbations In this section, we showcase and analyze some failure cases on CodeGen-16B-mono and perturbed HumanEval datasets under three top perturbations that will cause significant performance drops. DeadCode insertion is one of the most effective perturbations. It can commonly mislead the model predictions with the inserted dead code, especially when the completions are required right after the inserted dead code. Fig. 19 shows an failure example where CodeGen-mono-16B only predicts a newline after inserted meaningless for loop, which might be mislead by the inserted return statement. def change_base(x: int, base: int): "Change numerical base of input number x to base. return string representation after the conversion. base numbers are less than 10. >> change_base(8, 3) '22' >> change_base(8, 2) '1000' >> change_base(7, 2) '111' == "" ret = "" ret = str(x % base) + ret = "" x = // base (a) Correct completion without perturbation. change_base(x: int, base: int): "Change numerical base of input number x to base. return string representation after the conversion. base numbers are less than 10. >> change_base(8, 3) after the conversion. base numbers are less than 10. >> change_base(8, 3) '22' >> change_base(8, 2) '1000' >> change_base(7, 2) '111' == ret = "" while x > 0: for i_3 in range(0): Insert return ret New conplo  (b) Wrong completion perturbed by deadcode insertion . Figure 19: HumanEval showcase 1 illustrating failure case under deadcode insertion . Fig. 20 shows a failure example of CodeGen16B-mono on a prompt where an empty newline is inserted right before completion. Such simple perturbation causes wrong predictions for the following if-else conditions. It is especially effective when the required completion code is complicated. ButterFingers perturbation on docstring causes large performance drops as well. Fig. 21 shows another falure example on CodeGen-16B-mono. The typos introduced in the perturbation might cause the model to misunderstand the targeted docstrings, leading to wrong model completions. df sum_squares(lst): This function will take a list of integers. For all entries in the list, the function ss is a multiple of 3 and will cube the integer entry if its index is a multiple of 4 and nnnt a multiple of 3. The function will not change the entries in the list whose indexes are not a multiple of 3 or 4. The function ssssseeeer Examples: For lst = [1,2,3] the output should be 6 For lst = [] the output should be 0 For lst = [-1,-5,2,-1,-5] the output should be -126 result =[] for i in range(len(lst)): if i %3 == 0; result.append(lst[i1]**2) f 1 %4 == 0 and i %3 != 0: result.append(lst[i1]**3) e: result.append(lst[i1]) sum(result) correct completion without perturbation. else : return sum( result ) (a) Correct completion without perturbation. dddy This function will take a list of integers. For all entries in the list, the function sssssseeeeeettt tttteeeetttt ttteeeetttt ttteeeetttt ttteeee is a multiple of 3 and will cube the integer entry if its index is a multiple of 4 and not a multiple of 3. The function will not change the entries in the list whose indexes are not a multiple of 3 or 4. The function ssssshhhhooolly tttteeeeeettttt ttteeeeettttteeeettttteeeettttteeeettttteeeettttteeeettttteeeettttteeeet Examples: For lst = [1,2,3] the output should be 6 For lst = [] the output should be 0 For lst = [-1,-5,2,-1,-5] the output should be -126 result =[] for i in range(len(lst)): ``` 1 if i3 == 0: ``` result.append(lst(i1)**2) ``` [new line] ``` 1 if i4 == 0 and i3 != 0: ``` result.append(lst(i1)**3) ``` ``` return sum(result) ``` (b) Wrong completion perturbed by NewlineAfterCode insertion.``` Figure 20: HumanEval showcase 2 illustrating failure ``` , $\theta$ should ... case under NewlineAfterCode insertion. ## C Perturbation Sample Quality C.1 Details For Human Evaluation The annotators are all recruited from software engineers online who have good experience in Python via strict coding interview. To guarantee the reliability of the human evaluation results, we first conducted annotation trials with our annotators. We gave them clear definitions for each level of naturalness and semantic similarity. **def truncate_number(number: float) -> float:** """ Given a positive floating point number, it can be decomposed into and integer part (largest integer smaller than given number) and decimals (leftover part always smaller than 1). Return the decimal part of the number. -> > truncate_number(3.5) 0.5 """ **return number - int(number)** Original completion (a) Correct completion without perturbation.    (b) Wrong completion perturbed by ButterFingers. Figure 21: HumanEval showcase 3 illustrating failure case under ButterFingers perturbations on docstrings. We measure the inter-annotator agreement rate Fless Kappa in Tab. 8. The overall average Fleiss Kappa for the annotations is 0.52, 0.36 for semantic and naturalness measurements on perturbed samples. The confidence interval (95%) with bootstrap sampling (10K samples) is [0.515, 0.528] and [0.358, 0.364], indicating that our annotation reaches "moderate agreement" and thus our annotations are reliable (Gwet, 2014). The scores from annotators are not perfectly consistent especially for naturalness since people have different preferences for code. | Fleiss Kappa | HumanEval | MBPP | |---------------------------|-------------|--------| | Naturalness (Nominal) ↑ | 0.362 | 0.301 | | Naturalness (Perturbed) ↑ | 0.435 | 0.326 | | Semantics Similarity ↑ | 0.658 | 0.461 | Table 8: Fleiss Kappa of human evaluation. ## C.2 Sentence Transformers For Docstring/Function Names Similarity In this subsection, we give experimental details for measuring the sentence similarity of perturbed and unperturbed data points using sentence transformers. To measure the similarity scores for the docstring perturbations, we first extract docstrings from each pair of perturbed and unperturbed data points, and we use sentence transformer all-mpnet-base-v2 (Song et al., 2020) to predict an embedding vector for each docstring. Then cosine similarity is calculated and reported for each pair of perturbed and unperturbed datapoints. Same process cannot be directly applied to function name perturbations since function names are concatenations of words instead of common sentences, barely seen by the sentence transformer training data. In order get more accurate sentence embeddings for function names, we first split each name into words (e.g., has_close_elements to has close elements) and then calculate the corresponding cosine similarities. In Table 9, we present the detailed results for each type of perturbations for sentence similarity. On average, we can have 0.93 and 0.92 similarity scores for docstring perturbations and 0.80 and 0.81 for function name perturbations on the HumanEval and MBPP datasets. The overall high similarity numbers provide support that our perturbations have good quality in naturalness and semantic preservation from the unperturbed inputs. Some function name perturbations including ButterFinger, SynonymSubstitution, and CharCaseChange have relatively low sentence similarity. This is mainly because the function names only include keywords without complete sentence context and thus minor changes to each words could potentially cause large change in measured cosine similarity. For instance, character case changes on function name intersperse to intErspErse which lacks of context only has 0.21 similarity. On the other hand, the function names with more context has much higher scores, e.g., 1.0 similarity score for has_close_elements and has_ClosE_Elements. ## C.3 Codebleu Scores For Code Similarity Here we present the experimental details for the CodeBLEU syntax and dataflow scores to quantitatively measure the quality of our code syntax and format transformations. The measurement is straightforward. The unperturbed baseline is each data point from our customized partial code datasets derived from HumanEval and MBPP. The perturbed one is the same data point transformed by each type of our perturbations. The CodeBLEU syntax and dataflow scores are then directly measured using the CodeXGLUE (Lu et al., 2021) implementation.6 6https://github.com/microsoft/CodeXGLUE | Categories | Perturbations | HumanEval | MBPP | |------------------------------|-----------------|-------------|--------| | BackTranslation | 0.91 | 0.95 | | | ButterFingers | 0.87 | 0.89 | | | ChangeCharCase | 1.00 | 1.00 | | | EnglishInflectionalVariation | 0.96 | 0.93 | | | SwapCharacters | 0.90 | 0.87 | | | SynonymInsertion | 0.91 | 0.88 | | | SynonymSubstitution | 0.88 | 0.84 | | | TenseTransformationPast | 0.98 | 1.00 | | | TenseTransformationFuture | 0.97 | 0.97 | | | Whitespace | 0.90 | 0.86 | | | Docstring | CamelCase | 1.00 | 1.00 | | ButterFingers | 0.57 | 0.57 | | | SwapCharacters | 0.75 | 0.75 | | | ChangeCharCase | 0.86 | 0.96 | | | InflectionalVariation | 0.94 | 0.93 | | | SynonymSubstition | 0.68 | 0.64 | | | Function | | | | In Table 10, we present the detailed CodeBLEU results for each type of perturbations. The average numbers are summarized in Table 7. Overall, 77% and 89% of our transformations have over 0.9 CodeBLEU syntax and dataflow scores, showing good quality in preserving semantics from the unperturbed code. However, CodeBLEU syntax and dataflow are not perfect in quantitatively measuring naturalness and semantic preservation for the perturbations and thus some perturbations have expected relatively low scores: Doc2Comments transforms docstrings into comments causing changes of syntax; Deadcode insertion and for-while switch involve new if-conditions, loops, and new variables causing changes of code syntax and dataflow. ## D Additional Results D.1 Fine-Grained Robustness Evaluation We present the robustness evaluation for each type of perturbations from Table 11 to 18, . The evaluation setting is the same as Table 3 and 4 where we evaluate various sizes of CodeGen (Nijkamp et al., 2022), InCoder (Fried et al., 2022), and GPTJ (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021) with greedy sampling. For each type of perturbations, we randomly generate s = 5 different perturbed datasets derived from HumanEval and MBPP. For perturbations without randomness, only one single version of perturbed dataset is evaluated. The list of indeterministic perturbations can be found in Appendix A. ## D.2 Additional Results For Different K As discussed in Sect. 4.2, we observe that Robust Drop stays stable across different k while Robust Relative increases linearly with k. We present additional results on CodeGen-2B-mono, CodeGen-6Bmono along with CodeGen-16B-mono in Fig. 22. We evaluate each model with large n (n = 100) using top-p sampling strategy with probability 0.95 and temperature 0.2. ## D.3 Additional Results For Large Sampling N Larger sampling n is commonly used for preventing model generation variances and providing accurate estimations. The evaluation cost increases linearly to n. Here we show that larger n can also benefit our proposed three robustness metrics but not causing significant differences. In specific, we measure Robust Pass1@1, Robust Drop1@1, and Robust Relative1@1 on CodeGen-16B-mono and HumanEval dataset. The model is run with n = 100 using top-p sampling strategy with probability 0.95 and temperature 0.2. We present detailed results in Tab. 19. | HumanEval | MBPP | | | | | |------------------|---------------|----------|------------|----------|----------| | Categories | Perturbations | CodeBLEU | CodeBLEU | CodeBLEU | CodeBLEU | | (syntax) | (dataflow) | (syntax) | (dataflow) | | | | DeadCodeInserter | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.72 | 0.67 | | | For-While Switch | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.84 | 0.86 | | | OperandSwap | 0.91 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 1.00 | | | VarRenamerCB | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.99 | | | VarRenamerNaive | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.99 | | | VarRenamerRN | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.99 | | | Syntax | Tab-Indent | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | | Line Split | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | | | Doc2Comments | 0.84 | 1.00 | 0.76 | 1.00 | | | NewlineRandom | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | | | NewlineAfterCode | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | | | NewlineAfterDoc | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | | | Format | | | | | | | HumanEval | Metric CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen InCoder InCoder GPT-J | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 2B mono | 2B multi | 6B mono | 6B multi 16B mono 16B multi | 1B | 6B | 6B | | | | | | Nominal | RP5@1↑ | 0.232 | 0.140 | 0.262 | 0.195 | 0.305 | 0.195 | 0.104 | 0.152 | 0.122 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.213 | 0.116 | 0.238 | 0.159 | 0.244 | 0.152 | 0.098 | 0.134 | 0.098 | | | BackTranslation RD5@1(%)↓ | 7.89 | 17.39 | 9.30 | 18.75 | 20.00 | 21.88 | 5.88 | 12.00 | 20.00 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 4.27 | 6.10 | 8.54 | 6.10 | 10.98 | 5.49 | 3.05 | 3.05 | 3.66 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.165 | 0.098 | 0.171 | 0.122 | 0.189 | 0.116 | 0.067 | 0.098 | 0.067 | | | ButterFingers RD5@1(%)↓ | 28.95 | 30.43 | 34.88 | 37.50 | 38.00 | 40.62 | 35.29 | 36.00 | 45.00 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 10.37 | 7.32 | 15.85 | 10.37 | 20.12 | 12.20 | 7.32 | 9.15 | 6.71 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.152 | 0.079 | 0.152 | 0.104 | 0.177 | 0.122 | 0.037 | 0.098 | 0.049 | | | ChangeCharCase RD5@1(%)↓ | 34.21 | 43.48 | 41.86 | 46.88 | 42.00 | 37.50 | 64.71 | 36.00 | 60.00 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 12.80 | 10.98 | 15.85 | 9.76 | 17.68 | 9.15 | 10.37 | 7.32 | 7.93 | | | EnglishInflectional | RP5@1↑ | 0.207 | 0.134 | 0.226 | 0.171 | 0.268 | 0.177 | 0.091 | 0.146 | 0.104 | | RD5@1(%)↓ | 10.53 | 4.35 | 13.95 | 12.50 | 12.00 | 9.38 | 11.76 | 4.00 | 15.00 | | | Variation RR5@1(%)↓ | 3.66 | 3.05 | 8.54 | 6.10 | 7.93 | 4.27 | 1.22 | 1.83 | 3.05 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.159 | 0.098 | 0.183 | 0.128 | 0.207 | 0.134 | 0.085 | 0.104 | 0.067 | | | SwapCharacters RD5@1(%)↓ | 31.58 | 30.43 | 30.23 | 34.38 | 32.00 | 31.25 | 17.65 | 32.00 | 45.00 | | | Perturbation RR5@1(%)↓ | 12.20 | 7.32 | 12.80 | 8.54 | 17.07 | 10.37 | 4.88 | 10.37 | 6.10 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.183 | 0.104 | 0.159 | 0.128 | 0.226 | 0.128 | 0.067 | 0.104 | 0.079 | | | Synonym Insertion RD5@1(%)↓ | 21.05 | 26.09 | 39.53 | 34.38 | 26.00 | 34.38 | 35.29 | 32.00 | 35.00 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 7.32 | 4.88 | 14.63 | 8.54 | 15.85 | 9.15 | 6.10 | 9.15 | 5.49 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.146 | 0.091 | 0.159 | 0.104 | 0.201 | 0.140 | 0.073 | 0.079 | 0.061 | | | Synonym RD5@1(%)↓ | 36.84 | 34.78 | 39.53 | 46.88 | 34.00 | 28.12 | 29.41 | 48.00 | 50.00 | | | Substitution RR5@1(%)↓ | 10.37 | 6.71 | 17.07 | 10.98 | 15.24 | 7.93 | 4.88 | 9.76 | 6.71 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.250 | 0.146 | 0.238 | 0.189 | 0.305 | 0.171 | 0.110 | 0.134 | 0.110 | | | TenseTransformation RD5@1(%)↓ | -7.89 | -4.35 | 9.30 | 3.13 | 0.00 | 12.50 | -5.88 | 12.00 | 10.00 | | | Past | RR5@1(%)↓ | 3.05 | 1.83 | 6.10 | 5.49 | 7.32 | 2.44 | 1.83 | 1.83 | 1.22 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.238 | 0.122 | 0.250 | 0.183 | 0.311 | 0.171 | 0.085 | 0.146 | 0.110 | | | TenseTransformation RD5@1(%)↓ | -2.63 | 13.04 | 4.65 | 6.25 | -2.00 | 12.50 | 17.65 | 4.00 | 10.00 | | | Future RR5@1(%)↓ | 4.27 | 4.27 | 4.88 | 4.88 | 6.71 | 3.66 | 1.83 | 1.83 | 1.22 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.146 | 0.085 | 0.146 | 0.122 | 0.177 | 0.122 | 0.073 | 0.091 | 0.049 | | | Whitespace RD5@1(%)↓ | 36.84 | 39.13 | 44.19 | 37.50 | 42.00 | 37.50 | 29.41 | 40.00 | 60.00 | | | Perturbation RR5@1(%)↓ | 14.02 | 9.76 | 15.85 | 9.76 | 22.56 | 10.37 | 6.10 | 10.98 | 7.32 | | Table 11: Robustness evaluation for each type of docstring perturbations on HumanEval. | MBPP | Metric CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen InCoder InCoder GPT-J | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 2B mono | 2B multi | 6B mono | 6B multi 16B mono 16B multi | 1B | 6B | 6B | | | | | | Nominal | RP5@1↑ | 0.317 | 0.191 | 0.361 | 0.221 | 0.407 | 0.241 | 0.128 | 0.199 | 0.133 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.304 | 0.186 | 0.360 | 0.222 | 0.387 | 0.230 | 0.119 | 0.177 | 0.128 | | | BackTranslation RD5@1(%)↓ | 4.21 | 2.69 | 0.28 | -0.47 | 4.80 | 4.68 | 7.20 | 11.34 | 3.85 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 6.26 | 6.06 | 7.91 | 6.06 | 6.26 | 7.08 | 4.00 | 5.95 | 5.44 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.210 | 0.092 | 0.240 | 0.100 | 0.280 | 0.126 | 0.044 | 0.082 | 0.057 | | | ButterFingers RD5@1(%)↓ | 33.66 | 51.61 | 33.52 | 54.88 | 31.06 | 47.66 | 65.60 | 58.76 | 56.92 | | | Perturbation RR5@1(%)↓ | 20.43 | 21.66 | 23.72 | 22.07 | 25.26 | 23.31 | 14.48 | 20.12 | 16.32 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.187 | 0.087 | 0.220 | 0.105 | 0.266 | 0.124 | 0.053 | 0.074 | 0.055 | | | ChangeCharCase RD5@1(%)↓ | 41.10 | 54.30 | 39.20 | 52.56 | 34.60 | 48.51 | 58.40 | 62.89 | 58.46 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 22.07 | 20.74 | 27.21 | 20.84 | 26.28 | 25.87 | 13.24 | 21.46 | 17.45 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.306 | 0.161 | 0.334 | 0.198 | 0.399 | 0.214 | 0.103 | 0.179 | 0.113 | | | EnglishInflectional RD5@1(%)↓ | 3.56 | 15.59 | 7.67 | 10.23 | 1.77 | 11.49 | 20.00 | 10.31 | 15.38 | | | Variation RR5@1(%)↓ | 8.93 | 10.78 | 11.40 | 9.65 | 10.68 | 12.53 | 7.08 | 9.45 | 6.78 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.232 | 0.115 | 0.266 | 0.123 | 0.304 | 0.149 | 0.059 | 0.108 | 0.063 | | | SwapCharacters RD5@1(%)↓ | 26.86 | 39.78 | 26.42 | 44.19 | 25.25 | 38.30 | 54.40 | 45.88 | 53.08 | | | Perturbation RR5@1(%)↓ | 16.53 | 15.81 | 19.61 | 18.99 | 20.84 | 20.43 | 12.42 | 14.99 | 15.30 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.238 | 0.111 | 0.263 | 0.103 | 0.290 | 0.121 | 0.052 | 0.101 | 0.055 | | | Synonym RD5@1(%)↓ | 24.92 | 41.94 | 27.27 | 53.49 | 28.79 | 49.79 | 59.20 | 49.48 | 58.46 | | | Insertion RR5@1(%)↓ | 16.63 | 18.99 | 21.25 | 20.53 | 24.44 | 24.85 | 13.14 | 17.56 | 14.99 | | | Synonym | RP5@1↑ | 0.193 | 0.099 | 0.213 | 0.079 | 0.233 | 0.092 | 0.027 | 0.064 | 0.031 | | RD5@1(%)↓ | 39.16 | 48.39 | 41.19 | 64.19 | 42.68 | 61.70 | 79.20 | 68.04 | 76.92 | | | Substitution RR5@1(%)↓ | 22.79 | 18.17 | 27.31 | 23.61 | 30.18 | 26.90 | 16.22 | 22.38 | 17.45 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.318 | 0.190 | 0.362 | 0.214 | 0.402 | 0.238 | 0.120 | 0.197 | 0.141 | | | TenseTransformation RD5@1(%)↓ | -0.32 | 0.54 | -0.28 | 3.26 | 1.01 | 1.28 | 6.40 | 1.03 | -5.38 | | | Past | RR5@1(%)↓ | 2.16 | 2.36 | 4.00 | 3.18 | 3.29 | 2.16 | 1.64 | 2.26 | 1.54 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.314 | 0.197 | 0.369 | 0.218 | 0.400 | 0.242 | 0.122 | 0.185 | 0.125 | | | TenseTransformation RD5@1(%)↓ | 0.97 | -3.23 | -1.99 | 1.40 | 1.52 | -0.43 | 4.80 | 7.22 | 6.15 | | | Future RR5@1(%)↓ | 3.18 | 3.29 | 5.65 | 4.21 | 4.52 | 4.00 | 2.46 | 3.49 | 2.26 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.214 | 0.107 | 0.252 | 0.106 | 0.287 | 0.134 | 0.057 | 0.094 | 0.054 | | | Whitespace RD5@1(%)↓ | 32.69 | 44.09 | 30.40 | 52.09 | 29.29 | 44.26 | 55.20 | 52.58 | 59.23 | | | Perturbation RR5@1(%)↓ | 20.64 | 17.66 | 21.56 | 20.64 | 25.46 | 23.31 | 12.42 | 17.86 | 16.02 | | Table 12: Robustness evaluation for each type of docstring perturbations on MBPP. | HumanEval | Metric CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen InCoder InCoder GPT-J | | | | | | | | |--------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 2B mono | 2B multi | 6B mono | 6B multi 16B mono 16B multi | 1B | 6B | 6B | | | | | | Nominal | RP5@1↑ | 0.232 | 0.140 | 0.262 | 0.195 | 0.305 | 0.195 | 0.104 | 0.152 | 0.122 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.238 | 0.140 | 0.256 | 0.201 | 0.293 | 0.165 | 0.098 | 0.152 | 0.116 | | | CamelCase RD5@1(%)↓ | -2.63 | 0.00 | 2.33 | -3.13 | 4.00 | 15.62 | 5.88 | 0.00 | 5.00 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 1.83 | 1.22 | 3.05 | 3.05 | 3.66 | 3.05 | 3.05 | 1.22 | 0.61 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.195 | 0.104 | 0.232 | 0.177 | 0.274 | 0.159 | 0.098 | 0.140 | 0.091 | | | ButterFinger RD5@1(%)↓ | 15.79 | 26.09 | 11.63 | 9.38 | 10.00 | 18.75 | 5.88 | 8.00 | 25.00 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 4.88 | 4.88 | 9.76 | 4.88 | 9.15 | 3.66 | 3.05 | 2.44 | 3.05 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.226 | 0.116 | 0.226 | 0.177 | 0.299 | 0.183 | 0.073 | 0.146 | 0.116 | | | SwapChar RD5@1(%)↓ | 2.63 | 17.39 | 13.95 | 9.38 | 2.00 | 6.25 | 29.41 | 4.00 | 5.00 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 3.05 | 3.05 | 4.88 | 4.27 | 4.88 | 2.44 | 3.05 | 2.44 | 0.61 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.207 | 0.122 | 0.213 | 0.140 | 0.256 | 0.146 | 0.098 | 0.152 | 0.091 | | | RD5@1(%)↓ | 10.53 | 13.04 | 18.60 | 28.12 | 16.00 | 25.00 | 5.88 | 0.00 | 25.00 | | | ChangeCharCase RR5@1(%)↓ | 7.32 | 5.49 | 10.37 | 7.93 | 10.98 | 4.88 | 4.27 | 7.32 | 5.49 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.232 | 0.134 | 0.262 | 0.195 | 0.305 | 0.201 | 0.110 | 0.128 | 0.110 | | | Inflectional RD5@1(%)↓ | 0.00 | 4.35 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | -3.13 | -5.88 | 16.00 | 10.00 | | | Variation RR5@1(%)↓ | 3.66 | 3.05 | 4.27 | 3.66 | 2.44 | 0.61 | 1.83 | 2.44 | 1.22 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.195 | 0.098 | 0.232 | 0.159 | 0.305 | 0.159 | 0.085 | 0.128 | 0.098 | | | Synonym RD5@1(%)↓ | 15.79 | 30.43 | 11.63 | 18.75 | 0.00 | 18.75 | 17.65 | 16.00 | 20.00 | | | Substitution RR5@1(%)↓ | 7.32 | 6.71 | 7.93 | 6.10 | 7.32 | 3.66 | 3.05 | 4.88 | 2.44 | | Table 13: Robustness evaluation for each type of function name perturbations on HumanEval. | MBPP | Metric CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen InCoder InCoder GPT-J | | | | | | | | |--------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 2B mono | 2B multi | 6B mono | 6B multi 16B mono 16B multi | 1B | 6B | 6B | | | | | | Nominal | RP5@1↑ | 0.317 | 0.191 | 0.361 | 0.221 | 0.407 | 0.241 | 0.128 | 0.199 | 0.133 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.316 | 0.196 | 0.367 | 0.219 | 0.408 | 0.245 | 0.116 | 0.194 | 0.134 | | | CamelCase RD5@1(%)↓ | 0.32 | -2.69 | -1.42 | 0.93 | -0.25 | -1.70 | 9.60 | 2.58 | -0.77 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 5.44 | 5.44 | 7.29 | 5.34 | 7.08 | 4.52 | 5.75 | 5.03 | 3.18 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.312 | 0.185 | 0.370 | 0.203 | 0.412 | 0.231 | 0.110 | 0.175 | 0.117 | | | ButterFinger RD5@1(%)↓ | 1.62 | 3.23 | -2.27 | 7.91 | -1.26 | 4.26 | 14.40 | 12.37 | 12.31 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 7.19 | 8.62 | 9.65 | 10.99 | 8.73 | 9.86 | 6.67 | 8.11 | 6.98 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.309 | 0.189 | 0.342 | 0.202 | 0.399 | 0.237 | 0.116 | 0.171 | 0.113 | | | SwapChar RD5@1(%)↓ | 2.59 | 1.08 | 5.40 | 8.37 | 1.77 | 1.70 | 9.60 | 13.92 | 15.38 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 4.41 | 4.52 | 7.29 | 6.88 | 6.06 | 4.52 | 3.18 | 5.24 | 4.21 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.295 | 0.179 | 0.346 | 0.192 | 0.400 | 0.244 | 0.093 | 0.171 | 0.111 | | | ChangeCharCase RD5@1(%)↓ | 7.12 | 6.45 | 4.26 | 13.02 | 1.52 | -1.28 | 27.20 | 13.92 | 16.92 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 9.55 | 10.88 | 11.91 | 12.22 | 12.73 | 9.75 | 8.32 | 10.57 | 9.45 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.318 | 0.187 | 0.343 | 0.202 | 0.402 | 0.243 | 0.128 | 0.188 | 0.125 | | | Inflectional RD5@1(%)↓ | -0.32 | 2.15 | 5.11 | 8.37 | 1.01 | -0.85 | 0.00 | 5.67 | 6.15 | | | Variation RR5@1(%)↓ | 3.08 | 4.31 | 6.88 | 5.75 | 5.95 | 4.31 | 2.46 | 2.98 | 3.49 | | | Synonym | RP5@1↑ | 0.316 | 0.186 | 0.346 | 0.197 | 0.384 | 0.243 | 0.105 | 0.164 | 0.117 | | RD5@1(%)↓ | 0.32 | 2.69 | 4.26 | 10.70 | 5.56 | -0.85 | 18.40 | 17.53 | 12.31 | | | Substitution RR5@1(%)↓ | 6.88 | 7.49 | 10.88 | 10.47 | 9.96 | 9.86 | 7.70 | 8.52 | 6.88 | | Table 14: Robustness evaluation for each type of function name perturbations on MBPP. | HumanEval | Metric CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen InCoder InCoder GPT-J | | | | | | | | |----------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 2B mono | 2B multi | 6B mono | 6B multi 16B mono 16B multi | 1B | 6B | 6B | | | | | | Nominal | RP5@1↑ | 0.402 | 0.293 | 0.518 | 0.366 | 0.549 | 0.390 | 0.189 | 0.323 | 0.250 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.116 | 0.079 | 0.152 | 0.110 | 0.159 | 0.091 | 0.055 | 0.079 | 0.079 | | | DeadCodeInserter RD5@1(%)↓ | 71.21 | 72.92 | 70.59 | 70.00 | 71.11 | 76.56 | 70.97 | 75.47 | 68.29 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 37.80 | 30.49 | 41.46 | 32.93 | 45.12 | 37.20 | 17.07 | 30.49 | 27.44 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.384 | 0.226 | 0.500 | 0.305 | 0.537 | 0.384 | 0.159 | 0.280 | 0.213 | | | ForWhile RD5@1(%)↓ | 4.55 | 22.92 | 3.53 | 16.67 | 2.22 | 1.56 | 16.13 | 13.21 | 14.63 | | | TransformerFirst | RR5@1(%)↓ | 5.49 | 6.71 | 9.15 | 8.54 | 6.10 | 5.49 | 5.49 | 6.71 | 9.76 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.402 | 0.274 | 0.500 | 0.348 | 0.512 | 0.354 | 0.171 | 0.311 | 0.220 | | | OperandSwap RD5@1(%)↓ | 0.00 | 6.25 | 3.53 | 5.00 | 6.67 | 9.38 | 9.68 | 3.77 | 12.20 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 6.71 | 4.27 | 6.71 | 6.10 | 5.49 | 6.71 | 6.10 | 7.93 | 7.32 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.415 | 0.268 | 0.476 | 0.329 | 0.518 | 0.354 | 0.146 | 0.287 | 0.238 | | | VarRenamerCB RD5@1(%)↓ | -3.03 | 8.33 | 8.24 | 10.00 | 5.56 | 9.38 | 22.58 | 11.32 | 4.88 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 4.88 | 6.10 | 6.71 | 8.54 | 5.49 | 7.32 | 7.93 | 8.54 | 4.88 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.396 | 0.244 | 0.482 | 0.348 | 0.494 | 0.341 | 0.177 | 0.280 | 0.220 | | | RD5@1(%)↓ | 1.52 | 16.67 | 7.06 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 12.50 | 6.45 | 13.21 | 12.20 | | | VarRenamerNaive RR5@1(%)↓ | 4.27 | 9.76 | 7.32 | 9.15 | 6.71 | 8.54 | 9.76 | 10.37 | 5.49 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.366 | 0.207 | 0.421 | 0.280 | 0.470 | 0.280 | 0.085 | 0.152 | 0.177 | | | VarRenamerRN RD5@1(%)↓ | 9.09 | 29.17 | 18.82 | 23.33 | 14.44 | 28.12 | 54.84 | 52.83 | 29.27 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 12.20 | 14.63 | 14.02 | 12.80 | 11.59 | 17.07 | 16.46 | 24.39 | 12.20 | | Table 15: Robustness evaluation for each type of code syntax perturbations on HumanEval. | MBPP | Metric CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen InCoder InCoder | GPT-J | | | | | | | |----------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------|---------|-------|-------|-------|--------------|-------|-------| | 2B mono | 2B multi | 6B mono | 6B multi 16B mono 16B multi | 1B | 6B | 6B | | | | | | Nominal | RP5@1↑ | 0.450 | 0.285 | 0.535 | 0.331 | 0.571 | 0.379 | 0.219 | 0.292 | 0.176 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.043 | 0.020 | 0.044 | 0.024 | 0.055 | 0.025 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.009 | | | DeadCodeInserter RD5@1(%)↓ | 90.41 | 93.17 | 91.75 | 92.86 | 90.29 | 93.50 | 92.96 | 94.72 | 94.74 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 52.05 | 37.99 | 57.39 | 39.12 | 60.57 | 44.87 | 29.26 | 37.78 | 24.95 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.432 | 0.259 | 0.497 | 0.303 | 0.532 | 0.346 | 0.182 | 0.245 | 0.149 | | | ForWhile | | | | | | | | | | | | TransformerFirst RD5@1(%)↓ | 3.88 | 9.35 | 7.10 | 8.39 | 6.83 | 8.67 | 16.90 | 15.85 | 15.20 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 13.66 | 12.94 | 11.60 | 13.45 | 11.70 | 13.35 | 12.73 | 16.53 | 9.24 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.450 | 0.275 | 0.506 | 0.321 | 0.544 | 0.379 | 0.225 | 0.276 | 0.211 | | | OperandSwap RD5@1(%)↓ | 0.00 | 3.60 | 5.37 | 2.80 | 4.68 | 0.00 | -2.82 | 5.28 -20.47 | | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 13.24 | 11.81 | 10.57 | 13.45 | 11.81 | 12.32 | 12.32 | 15.50 | 11.91 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.428 | 0.263 | 0.475 | 0.307 | 0.511 | 0.359 | 0.194 | 0.247 | 0.207 | | | VarRenamerCB RD5@1(%)↓ | 4.79 | 7.91 | 11.13 | 7.14 | 10.43 | 5.15 | 11.27 | 15.14 -18.13 | | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 15.30 | 13.96 | 15.20 | 15.50 | 14.17 | 14.07 | 13.14 | 16.12 | 12.83 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.417 | 0.240 | 0.461 | 0.286 | 0.513 | 0.338 | 0.171 | 0.226 | 0.172 | | | VarRenamerNaive RD5@1(%)↓ | 7.31 | 15.83 | 13.82 | 13.35 | 10.07 | 10.84 | 21.60 | 22.54 | 1.75 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 16.63 | 15.61 | 17.04 | 17.97 | 14.78 | 16.43 | 14.17 | 18.07 | 13.24 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.355 | 0.191 | 0.405 | 0.205 | 0.426 | 0.259 | 0.114 | 0.168 | 0.114 | | | VarRenamerRN RD5@1(%)↓ | 21.00 | 33.09 | 24.38 | 37.89 | 25.36 | 31.71 | 47.89 | 42.25 | 35.09 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 22.90 | 22.90 | 23.82 | 26.59 | 24.95 | 26.28 | 23.82 | 25.87 | 19.40 | | Table 16: Robustness evaluation for each type of code syntax perturbations on MBPP. | HumanEval | Metric CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen InCoder InCoder GPT-J | | | | | | | | |---------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 2B mono | 2B multi | 6B mono | 6B multi 16B mono 16B multi | 1B | 6B | 6B | | | | | | Nominal | RP5@1↑ | 0.402 | 0.293 | 0.518 | 0.366 | 0.549 | 0.390 | 0.189 | 0.323 | 0.250 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.415 | 0.305 | 0.518 | 0.354 | 0.561 | 0.396 | 0.146 | 0.299 | 0.244 | | | Tab-Indent RD5@1(%)↓ | -3.03 | -4.17 | 0.00 | 3.33 | -2.22 | -1.56 | 22.58 | 7.55 | 2.44 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 3.66 | 4.88 | 8.54 | 4.88 | 3.66 | 4.27 | 7.93 | 9.76 | 7.93 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.384 | 0.274 | 0.500 | 0.378 | 0.524 | 0.390 | 0.171 | 0.305 | 0.244 | | | Line Split RD5@1(%)↓ | 4.55 | 6.25 | 3.53 | -3.33 | 4.44 | 0.00 | 9.68 | 5.66 | 2.44 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 3.05 | 4.27 | 4.27 | 4.88 | 3.66 | 2.44 | 3.05 | 6.71 | 4.27 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.335 | 0.287 | 0.433 | 0.293 | 0.457 | 0.335 | 0.146 | 0.293 | 0.195 | | | Doc2Comments RD5@1(%)↓ | 16.67 | 2.08 | 16.47 | 20.00 | 16.67 | 14.06 | 22.58 | 9.43 | 21.95 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 11.59 | 5.49 | 14.63 | 8.54 | 12.80 | 7.93 | 4.27 | 5.49 | 10.37 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.360 | 0.220 | 0.390 | 0.250 | 0.457 | 0.299 | 0.152 | 0.232 | 0.171 | | | NewlineRandom RD5@1(%)↓ | 10.61 | 25.00 | 24.71 | 31.67 | 16.67 | 23.44 | 19.35 | 28.30 | 31.71 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 12.20 | 10.98 | 17.68 | 15.85 | 11.59 | 13.41 | 7.32 | 15.85 | 12.20 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.409 | 0.262 | 0.494 | 0.311 | 0.537 | 0.335 | 0.165 | 0.287 | 0.183 | | | RD5@1(%)↓ | -1.52 | 10.42 | 4.71 | 15.00 | 2.22 | 14.06 | 12.90 | 11.32 | 26.83 | | | NewlineAfterCode | RR5@1(%)↓ | 6.71 | 7.93 | 8.54 | 9.15 | 3.66 | 7.93 | 4.88 | 8.54 | 9.15 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.396 | 0.274 | 0.518 | 0.348 | 0.549 | 0.384 | 0.183 | 0.311 | 0.244 | | | NewlineAfterDoc RD5@1(%)↓ | 1.52 | 6.25 | 0.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 | 1.56 | 3.23 | 3.77 | 2.44 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 4.27 | 4.27 | 6.10 | 4.27 | 1.22 | 1.83 | 0.61 | 3.66 | 4.27 | | Table 17: Robustness evaluation for each type of code format perturbations on HumanEval. | MBPP | Metric CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen CodeGen | CodeGen | CodeGen InCoder InCoder GPT-J | | | | | | | | |----------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------|-------| | 2B mono | 2B multi | 6B mono | 6B multi 16B mono 16B multi | 1B | 6B | 6B | | | | | | Nominal | RP5@1↑ | 0.450 | 0.285 | 0.535 | 0.331 | 0.571 | 0.379 | 0.219 | 0.292 | 0.176 | | RP5@1↑ | 0.452 | 0.302 | 0.530 | 0.339 | 0.566 | 0.385 | 0.208 | 0.325 | 0.176 | | | Tab-Indent RD5@1(%)↓ | -0.46 | -5.76 | 0.96 | -2.48 | 0.90 | -1.63 | 4.69 | -11.62 | 0.00 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 6.37 | 6.98 | 5.85 | 8.01 | 6.88 | 6.78 | 9.24 | 12.22 | 7.60 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.445 | 0.275 | 0.524 | 0.326 | 0.556 | 0.378 | 0.187 | 0.283 | 0.163 | | | Line Split RD5@1(%)↓ | 1.14 | 3.60 | 2.11 | 1.24 | 2.52 | 0.27 | 14.55 | 2.82 | 7.02 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 4.41 | 6.37 | 4.41 | 6.16 | 5.54 | 6.26 | 6.06 | 6.78 | 3.90 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.435 | 0.269 | 0.476 | 0.299 | 0.529 | 0.342 | 0.169 | 0.264 | 0.172 | | | Doc2Comments RD5@1(%)↓ | 3.20 | 5.76 | 10.94 | 9.63 | 7.37 | 9.76 | 22.54 | 9.51 | 1.75 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 6.16 | 8.62 | 8.32 | 9.14 | 8.93 | 11.29 | 7.19 | 8.32 | 6.47 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.375 | 0.181 | 0.335 | 0.198 | 0.470 | 0.262 | 0.123 | 0.159 | 0.104 | | | NewlineRandom RD5@1(%)↓ | 16.67 | 36.69 | 37.43 | 40.06 | 17.63 | 30.89 | 43.66 | 45.42 | 40.94 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 12.94 | 16.32 | 23.72 | 19.40 | 15.81 | 17.56 | 12.73 | 16.63 | 10.37 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.406 | 0.238 | 0.379 | 0.240 | 0.525 | 0.291 | 0.165 | 0.207 | 0.150 | | | NewlineAfterCode RD5@1(%)↓ | 9.82 | 16.55 | 29.17 | 27.33 | 8.09 | 23.31 | 24.41 | 28.87 | 14.62 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 9.14 | 10.27 | 19.51 | 13.55 | 10.99 | 14.17 | 9.03 | 12.73 | 7.91 | | | RP5@1↑ | 0.449 | 0.274 | 0.518 | 0.305 | 0.570 | 0.378 | 0.180 | 0.242 | 0.153 | | | NewlineAfterDoc RD5@1(%)↓ | 0.23 | 3.96 | 3.07 | 7.76 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 17.84 | 16.90 | 12.87 | | | RR5@1(%)↓ | 2.36 | 4.41 | 4.11 | 7.08 | 4.62 | 4.41 | 4.72 | 6.57 | 4.31 | |    | Category | Metric | n = 1 n = 10 n = 100 | | |---------------------|----------|------------------------|-------| | Nominal↑ | 0.287 | 0.308 | 0.306 | | RP1@1↑ | 0.128 | 0.140 | 0.143 | | Docstring RD1@1(%)↓ | 55.32 | 54.46 | 53.34 | | RR1@1(%)↓ | 15.85 | 16.77 | 16.55 | | Nominal↑ | 0.287 | 0.308 | 0.306 | | RP1@1↑ | 0.183 | 0.180 | 0.183 | | Function RD1@1(%)↓ | 36.17 | 41.39 | 40.37 | | RR1@1(%)↓ | 10.37 | 12.99 | 13.24 | | Nominal↑ | 0.561 | 0.542 | 0.544 | | RP1@1↑ | 0.220 | 0.234 | 0.244 | | Syntax RD1@1(%)↓ | 60.87 | 56.81 | 55.19 | | RR1@1(%)↓ | 34.15 | 31.04 | 30.39 | | Nominal↑ | 0.561 | 0.542 | 0.544 | | RP1@1↑ | 0.341 | 0.352 | 0.357 | | Format RD1@1(%)↓ | 39.13 | 34.98 | 34.36 | | RR1@1(%)↓ | 21.95 | 19.70 | 19.36 | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Left blank. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Left blank. A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Left blank. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank. ## C **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left blank. C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Left blank. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank. C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank. D **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank.

frenda-etal-2023-epic

{EPIC}: Multi-Perspective Annotation of a Corpus of Irony

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.774

We present EPIC (English Perspectivist Irony Corpus), the first annotated corpus for irony analysis based on the principles of data perspectivism. The corpus contains short conversations from social media in five regional varieties of English, and it is annotated by contributors from five countries corresponding to those varieties. We analyse the resource along the perspectives induced by the diversity of the annotators, in terms of origin, age, and gender, and the relationship between these dimensions, irony, and the topics of conversation. We validate EPIC by creating perspective-aware models that encode the perspectives of annotators grouped according to their demographic characteristics. Firstly, the performance of perspectivist models confirms that different annotators induce very different models. Secondly, in the classification of ironic and non-ironic texts, perspectivist models prove to be generally more confident than the non-perspectivist ones. Furthermore, comparing the performance on a perspective-based test set with those achieved on a gold standard test set, we can observe how perspectivist models tend to detect more precisely the positive class, showing their ability to capture the different perceptions of irony. Thanks to these models, we are moreover able to show interesting insights about the variation in the perception of irony by the different groups of annotators, such as among different generations and nationalities.

## Epic: Multi-Perspective Annotation Of A Corpus Of Irony Simona Frenda⋆⊙, Alessandro Pedrani⋄, Valerio Basile⋆**, Soda Marem Lo**⋆, Alessandra Teresa Cignarella⋆⊙, Raffaella Panizzon⋄**, Cristina Marco**⋄, Bianca Scarlini⋄, Viviana Patti⋆, Cristina Bosco⋆**, Davide Bernardi**⋄ ⋆ Computer Science Department, University of Turin, Turin, Italy ⊙ aequa-tech, Turin, Italy ⋄ Alexa AI, Amazon, Amazon Development Centre Italy, Turin, Italy {simona.frenda | valerio.basile | sodamarem.lo | alessandrateresa.cignarella | viviana.patti cristina.bosco}@unito.it {pedrana | panizzor | marcocri | scarlini | dvdbe}@amazon.it ## Abstract We present EPIC (English Perspectivist Irony Corpus), the first annotated corpus for irony analysis based on the principles of data perspectivism. The corpus contains short conversations from social media in five regional varieties of English, and it is annotated by contributors from five countries corresponding to those varieties. We analyse the resource along the perspectives induced by the diversity of the annotators, in terms of origin, age, and gender, and the relationship between these dimensions, irony, and the topics of conversation. We validate EPIC by creating perspective-aware models that encode the perspectives of annotators grouped according to their demographic characteristics. Firstly, the performance of perspectivist models confirms that different annotators induce very different models. Secondly, in the classification of ironic and non-ironic texts, perspectivist models prove to be generally more confident than the non-perspectivist ones. Furthermore, comparing the performance on a perspective-based test set with those achieved on a gold standard test set, we can observe how perspectivist models tend to detect more precisely the positive class, showing their ability to capture the different perceptions of irony. Thanks to these models, we are moreover able to show interesting insights about the variation in the perception of irony by the different groups of annotators, such as among different generations and nationalities. ## 1 Introduction A recent trend in Natural Language Processing (NLP) postulates that the disagreement among annotators in a language resource is a valuable source of knowledge, rather than noise that ought to be minimized or discarded (Plank, 2022; Basile et al., 2021b). Going one step further, the *perspectivist* approach aims at leveraging the disagreement in annotated data in order to model different points of view on the same phenomenon (Basile et al., 2021a). Applied to the study of natural language, this approach is particularly effective when the focus phenomena belong to semantic and pragmatic areas (Abercrombie et al., 2022) such as undesirable language detection, or irony and sarcasm. Although related, the interpretation of irony involves linguistic patterns, such as the reference to an opposite or secondary meaning, and pragmatic features (Karoui et al., 2017) which could make it possible to recognize the phenomenon for people with different social backgrounds. This differs from the perception of abusive language, proved to be highly affected by different subjectivities (Akhtar et al., 2019). Thus, a fundamental peculiarity of irony is that it tends to be both strongly dependent on the cultural background of the recipients (Joshi et al., 2018; Ortega-Bueno et al., 2019), and, thanks to certain linguistic patterns, it may be understandable regardless of their country of origin. In this paper, we present EPIC (English Perspectivist Irony Corpus), a corpus of short social media conversations annotated by taking into account the perspective of the annotators. In our view, and according to the perspectivist view, multi-faceted annotation represents an instrument to explore how demographic aspects may influence annotators' opinions, rather than a source of risk of bias. We created EPIC by collecting English messages and their direct replies from public online platforms, and annotated them by crowdsourcing. Crucially, the texts are written in five varieties of English from different countries (Ireland, the United Kingdom, the United States, India and Australia). The annotators, from the same five countries and with different demographic characteristics, expressed their opinion on their perception of irony in texts from all varieties. We believe that a non-aggregated corpus of irony analysis is a useful resource to train perspectiveaware models for irony detection, similarly to the 13844 approach of Akhtar et al. (2020) for hate speech modelling. In this direction, we validate the quality of this resource by creating various perspectiveaware models for irony detection encoding the perspective of annotators grouped according to their demographic characteristics. These models prove to be more confident in the recognition of irony in comparison with a non-perspectivist model, showing also an interesting increase of the precision in the detection of ironic messages when the various perspectives are represented in the test set. Moreover, the usefulness of EPIC as perspectivist resource is confirmed by the variation in the perception of irony captured through the created perspectivist models. To sum up, the contributions of this paper are the following: i) a non-aggregated resource for English irony1; ii) an analysis of analogies and differences in the annotation on the basis of demographic information about annotators, and correlations between these dimensions and ironic topics; iii) experiments with supervised learning that validate both the quality of the resource and the need for multiple perspectives explicitly encoded in the corpus. ## 2 Related Work Recent improvements in state-of-the-art language models have shown that the quality of the annotated data required for training automated systems is significantly more important than the amount of data itself (Swayamdipta et al., 2020). For this reason, in NLP, it becomes particularly important to devote special attention to benchmark datasets created within shared tasks and freely available to the research community, as their quality is assessed and improved through multiple uses by researchers. Within the last ~10 years, the amount of irony-annotated resources and the organization of shared tasks regarding figurative language processing (among which, irony and sarcasm) for an increasing amount of different languages has considerably grown. The most resourced language for irony detection is English (Filatova, 2012; Reyes et al., 2012; Van Hee et al., 2016, 2018), but benchmarks have been proposed for other languages, including Spanish (Ortega-Bueno et al., 2019), Italian (Barbieri et al., 2016; Cignarella et al., 2018), Dutch (Van Hee et al., 2016; Maladry et al., 2022), Chinese (Xiang et al., 2020), and Arabic (Alhaidari et al., 2022). Until 2016, the NLP community has mostly investigated irony as a "general way for describing different kinds of humorous content", (Reyes et al., 2012), as one of the most specific cases of figurative language (Ghosh et al., 2015), or as a "polarity reverser" (Barbieri et al., 2016). Starting from 2017, more specific interest in the phenomenon was deepened, so the community began to study its relationship with sarcasm, hate speech (Van Hee et al., 2018; Cignarella et al., 2018; Frenda et al., 2022), also in different geographical variants of the same language (i.e., Castilian, Mexican, and Cuban variety of Spanish in Ortega-Bueno et al., 2019), and its importance in spreading of stereotypes as well as in author profiling tasks (OrtegaBueno et al., 2022). As for works on irony that take a perspective approach, we think that the literature on this is not very extensive nowadays; ours is one of the few attempts in this direction. Indeed, after more than a decade of investigation on this subject, it clearly emerged how irony is a highly subjective phenomenon in natural language, for which humans show divergent understanding and interpretation. As with other subjective phenomena, there is therefore an urgent need for the release of datasets with annotator-level labels and socio-demographic information about the annotators (Prabhakaran et al., 2021). A disaggregated dataset about humour in English (Simpson et al., 2019) has been released on the occasion of SemEval 2021 - *Task 12 on Learning with Disagreement* (Uma et al., 2021). However, the currently available lists of disaggregated datasets show that no such kind of dataset exists for irony analysis.2,3 This paper addresses this issue, since the availability of disaggregated data is a precondition to the study of divergent perspectives on the perception of natural language phenomena (Basile et al., 2021a). ## 3 Corpus The corpus we are releasing is called EPIC and is made of 3, 000 short social media text pairs (Post-*Reply*) collected from Twitter (1, 500) and Reddit (1, 500). Each pair has been annotated by multiple annotators that were asked to provide a binary label (either Irony or *not-Irony*) for the *Reply* text given the context provided by *Post*. In the following sections, we describe in detail how we collected the corpus (3.1) and conducted the annotation (3.2). ## 3.1 Data Collection The original data was sourced from two popular social media platforms, namely Reddit4and Twitter5. The goal was to collect an equal amount of short conversations from social media across the two sources and across five English-speaking countries. To this aim, we collected data from the following subreddits on Reddit, making an assumption about the main origin of their content: r/AskReddit (United States), r/CasualUK (United Kingdom), r/britishproblems (United Kingdom), r/australia (Australia), and r/ireland (Ireland). Furthermore, we collected data from the r/india subreddit, to capture English written by users in India. We downloaded Reddit comments from the archive available in the Pushshift repository6selecting the dates between January 2020 and June 2021. We filtered all the comments in the interested subreddits, and saved the (Post-*Reply*) pairs where the *Post* is either a first-level or a second-level comment. Following the collection, we further processed the data by removing all pairs where at least one between Post and *Reply* is a deleted or removed comment, and performing a language identification step with the *LangID* Python library7, retaining only the instances where both *Post* and *Reply* are identified as English. The data collection from Twitter is designed to yield a result that is as similar as possible to the Reddit section of the dataset. We use the geolocation service provided by the Twitter API to distinguish between English varieties, checking that the country of the (Post, *Reply*) pairs corresponds to the target one. We query the Twitter Stream API for tweets in English from each of the five considered countries and retrieve "conversation starting" tweets, i.e., tweets that are neither replies nor quotes. In a second step, we collect the (Post, *Reply*) pairs where the *Post* (tweet) is either the conversation starter or a direct reply to it. After the data collection from Reddit and Twit-4https://reddit.com/ 5https://twitter.com/ 6https://redditsearch.io/ 7https://github.com/saffsd/langid.py ter, we sampled 600 (Post, *Reply*) pairs (300 from Twitter and 300 from Reddit) for each language variety, for a total of 3, 000 instances. Along with the texts, we collected as metadata the subreddit (for the Reddit data), the original post and reply IDs, and the geolocation information (for the Twitter data). ## 3.2 Annotation The annotation was conducted through crowdsourcing using a custom-built annotation interface and the service provided by the platform Prolific8. The annotation interface is designed to draw instances from a relational database, selecting a random instance which i) has not been already annotated by the current user, and ii) does not show more than a predetermined number of annotations. Each instance to annotate is composed of a *Post* and a Reply, which are shown on screen in a way that emulates message chats. When presented with an instance, the user is simply asked to select whether the *Reply* is ironic or not9, by clicking on one of two buttons - see Figure 1 for a screenshot of the interface seen by the annotators. The custom software is integrated with the API provided by Prolific, exchanging only an anonymized user ID, and redirecting the user to the payment page once the task is complete.  For the annotation of EPIC, we decided to hire a total of 76 annotators, 16 from the United Kingdom, and 15 from each of the remaining interested countries10. Each instance is annotated by five different annotators, and each annotator completed 200 annotations. We selected the annotators so that they are native speakers of English, and have a task completion rate on other Prolific tasks of 99%, as a filter for quality. We asked the crowdsourcing platform to 8https://prolific.co 9The instructions for the annotation process are shown in Appendix A(1). 10The platform rejected one annotator from the UK based on a time limit. However, since their annotation was completed, we included it in the dataset (and paid the annotator). provide balanced sets of annotators with respect to their gender, but left the other filters open, in order to capture wider demographics. We did however force a balance across the country of residence of the annotators.11 This choice concerns the design of the resource, and it is fundamental for the aim of considering multiple perspectives on the perception of irony. Annotators had to annotate instances from all five varieties of English, not just the one they speak as native speakers, and we designed the software to balance the countries of the annotators when assigning new instances to them. To further guarantee the reliability of the annotations, we included attention-check questions. Together with the task completion rate, they have been used to ensure the quality of the corpus while keeping the data disaggregated, coherently with the *perspectivist* approach. For each new question, the annotators have a 1% probability of receiving an attention check instead of an actual instance of the dataset to annotate. The attention-check questions have the form "please reply [yes/no] to this question". We chose a threshold of 50% correct answers in order to consider the annotator valid. Among the 76 annotators, just two of them failed the test, resulting in a total of 74 annotators. ## 4 Statistical Analysis EPIC contains 3, 000 unique annotated instances (Post, *Reply*) collected and annotated as described in sections 3.1 and 3.2. In this section, we provide high-level statistics about annotators and annotations and explore annotations at a deeper level. Similarly to Prabhakaran et al. (2021), we prove that aggregation by majority voting would introduce representational biases of individual and group viewpoints. In addition, we show how annotators' perceptions differ depending on the topic for which irony is being labelled. Annotators' Summary Statistics We recorded basic demographic information for the pool of 74 retained annotators. In particular, we observed: Gender (39 Males, 35 Females), *Age Group* (38 Gen-Y, 22 Gen-X, 11 Gen-Z and 3 Baby Boomer, 1 Null12), *Nationality* (15 United Kingdom, 15 India, 11For contributors from India we used 'nationality' instead of 'residence' since no annotators residing in India were available on Prolific. 12One of the annotators did not share this information. This annotator was included in the statistical analyses, except for the one related to 'age'. 15 Ireland, 15 Australia, 14 United States), *Ethnicity* (47 White, 18 Asian, 3 Black, 6 Other or Null), *Student Status* (46 No, 13 Yes, 15 Null) and Employment Status (24 Full-Time, 11 Part-Time, 11 Unemployed, 4 Not in paid work, 24 Other or Null). We recognize how 74 is not a huge number for annotators. However, it is sufficient to observe statistically significant differences among groups (see section 4). In addition, perspectives considered later (in section 5) are modelled along axes that are orthogonal to each other, leading to small but sizeable enough subgroups. For instance, 'gender' and 'nationality' (almost perfectly balanced), together with 'age' (unbalanced, but with only the boomer class being underrepresented). Annotations Summary Statistics Overall, we recorded 14, 172 annotations. Each instance has on average 4.72 annotations, with the median being 5. The first remarkable fact is the disagreement among annotators. More than 66% (2, 010) of the instances have at least one annotator disagreeing with the others, and 30% of texts with more than four annotations (868 our of 2, 784) have at least two annotators voting both *Irony* and two voting not-Irony. Calculating the majority label for each instance as the label that half or more annotators who annotated that instance agreed on, results in 649 instances being labelled as *Irony*, 2, 118 as not-Irony (233 remaining are ties). Majority vote introduces Bias Prabhakaran et al. (2021), showed that the majority vote underrepresents or ignores the perspectives of a sizeable number of annotators, at least on datasets for 3 tasks on which they focused: Hate-speech, Sentiment and Emotions recognition. We proved that their findings hold true for irony on EPIC. To this end, we compute Cohen's κ agreement score for each annotator by comparing the list of labels provided by the individual, with the list of majorityvote labels on the subset of instances for which the annotator provided a label. Figure 2 represents the histogram and Kernel Density Estimation of annotators' Cohen's κ agreement score with majority votes. While a certain level of disagreement is expected, and can be attributed to noise (e.g. annotators' errors), the overall assumption of a majority vote aggregation is that it captures the perspective of the *average annotator* within a pool. However, we observed that such a majority voting scheme will not uniformly represent all groups  in the pool. Violin plots in Figure 3 show an estimate of the distribution of the Cohen's κ score with majority votes for annotators across different classes: Gender, Age Group, Nationality, *Ethnicity*, Student Status and *Employment Status*. These plots suggest that there is a remarkable qualitative difference in how the groups are represented by the majority votes. For instance, even though *Males* and Females almost have the same average agreement (0.466 vs 0.478), there is an evident difference in variance, with *Females*' scores being more concentrated. We also observed that the perspective of annotators self-identifying as *Asians* (average 0.414) is way less represented by the majority voting than the perspective of annotators self-identifying as White (average 0.493). A Welch's t-test Welch (1947) suggests a significant difference between the two groups (p-values are 0.026). Similarly, annotators whose nationality is *India* (average 0.413) are way less represented by majority labels than annotators from *Ireland* (average 0.500), even though in this case the statistical test report a p-value on the boundary of the conventional 0.05 threshold (precisely 0.062) suggesting a slightly higher chance of type I error in considering the two groups as different. Agreement depends on the Topic In order to verify if agreement, and therefore irony perception, also depends on the topic of the corpus being annotated, we classified instances into topics. Since our primary goal here is interpretability, we adopted a simpler but solid approach to topic modelling. First, we selected the first level of the taxonomy of topics of media news as defined by the International Press Telecommunications Council13. This resulted in a pool of 18 topics: *arts, emergency, economy, education, environment, health, human interest, justice,* labour, lifestyle, politics, religion, science, society, sport, technology, war, weather. Then, we followed the approach described by Yin et al. (2019) and used a pre-trained Natural Language Inference model as a zero-shot sequence classifier to classify our instances into the above list of topics. In particular, we used facebook/bart-large-mnli, that is the fine-tuned version of bart-large Lewis et al. (2019) trained on the MultiNLI dataset Williams et al. (2018). This is publicly available in the *Hugging Face*14 repository. We then associated to each text the top three topics proposed by the model with a score > 0.5 15. Figure 4 shows the resulting distribution of topics, where human interest, environment, and lifestyle are the more frequent ones. For each instance i, we considered the set of annotators A providing a label for i and computed a measure of agreement a between them on instance i as: $$a_{i}=1-{\frac{\chi_{i}^{2}}{|A|}}$$ where χ 2 i is the value of the χ 2statistics to test if labels assigned are from a uniform distribution. This is inspired by Akhtar et al. (2019). Note how ai will be 1 if annotators are in perfect disagreement (50% annotated *Irony* and 50% annotated *notIrony*) while will be 0 if annotators are in perfect agreement (all of them annotated *Irony* or all of them annotated *not-Irony*). We do not use Cohen's κ agreement score to measure agreement, since this is a property of each annotator. Rather, we compute the agreement of multiple annotators on the same instance (and topic). Therefore, we proceed by computing the average polarization by topic — the result is shown in Figure 5. Some topics such as *labour* (p = 0.614), *science* (p = 0.600), *lifestyle* (p = 0.575), *emergency* and (p = 0.572) *politics* (p = 0.571) exhibit a remarkably higher polarization than others, such *health* (p = 0.478) and *arts* (p = 0.459). These results show the need to release perspectivist datasets.    ## 5 Perspective-Aware Modelling Results In this section, we describe computational experiments to detect irony using the EPIC dataset. As described above, this dataset has been annotated by different annotators coming from five Englishspeaking countries and with different demographic characteristics. Using the available information, we designed several classifiers that take into account the subjectivity of various groups of annotators divided according to their demographic characteristics. Indeed, the EPIC dataset offers the opportunity to explore perspectivist approaches for irony detection, exploiting the information available about annotators. In these experiments, we want to understand the importance of a perspectivist approach for irony detection compared to a standard nonperspectivist approach, whose training and testing are based on a gold standard dataset. In particular, we want to answer the following questions: (1) What is the difference, especially in terms of confidence, between perspectivist and non-perspectivist models? (2) Along which dimension can we observe the highest variation in the perception of irony? The first step was the creation of specific datasets to train and test the perspective-aware models, grouping the annotated texts on the basis of age, gender, and provenance of annotators as shown in Table 1. To get a pair text-label in our datasets, we applied the majority voting strategy to each slice and discarded the instances for which we cannot compute a majority vote with the available annotations. A gold standard dataset (called here GoldSet) was also produced to create a non-perspectivist model. In this dataset, the pair text-label was designed employing a majority voting among all the decisions collected by annotators regardless of their characteristics. | Dataset | # Instances | Annotators | |----------------------------------------|---------------|------------------------------------| | GoldSet | 2,767 | All the annotators, only instances with 5 or more annotations with fully aggregated labels. | | FemSet | 1,952 | Self-identified as female. | | MaleSet | 2,023 | Self-identified as male. | | BoomersSet | 441 | Older than 58. | | GenXSet | 1,757 | Older than 42 and younger than 57. | | GenYSet | 1,964 | Older than 26 and younger than 41. | | GenZSet | 1,124 | Younger than 25. | | UKSet | 1,365 | With English nationality. | | IndiaSet | 1,175 | With Indian nationality. | | IrSet | 1,296 | With Irish nationality. | | USSet | 1,352 | With American nationality. | | AuSet | 1,377 | With Australian nationality. | | Table 1: Datasets extracted from EPIC. | | | Our experiments consist of a fine-tuning of the pre-trained BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) for English language on each of these datasets to create different perspective-based models to detect irony in English tweets and posts from Reddit. For the training phase of each model (perspectivist and not), we selected a training and validation set16 corresponding to the 80% of the dataset. For the testing phase, we selected a GOLD TEST SET from the GoldSet of 553 instances corresponding to 20% of the entire GoldSet and a PERSPECTIVE-BASED TEST SET from each subjective set of data (the 20% of each dataset). According to this, all the perspectivebased datasets in Table 1 have been created excluding the instances of the GOLD TEST SET. The training, validation, and test set have been balanced on the basis of the source: Twitter and Reddit. The 16The validation set was employed to stop the fine-tuning of the model in the frame of an early-stopping strategy. employed language model, the description of the input, the hyperparameters' values and the functions used in these experiments are presented in the Appendix A(3). This experimental setting includes the application of early-stopping strategy to avoid the overfitting in the training phase of the models. To answer the first question, we compare the performance of perspective-aware models on both the PERSPECTIVE-BASED TEST SET and GOLD TEST SET. The performance on the latter are further compared with the model obtained fine-tuning BERT on the training set of GoldSet (the non-perspectivist model). For the evaluation, we report the *F1-score* measure, but we focus, especially, on the average (avg) and standard deviation (std) of the confidence scores of all the predictions in order to gauge the degree of certainty/uncertainty of the models on both test sets. In Table 2, we also reported the percentage of variation of model confidence in terms of ∆. The confidence score of each prediction is computed using the formula proposed by Taha et al. based on the normalized difference between the *logits* obtained for each class (ironic and notironic). The logits have been rescaled by applying the softmax function. Looking at Table 2, firstly, we can notice that Male-persp model performs better on the GOLD TEST SET, even if: the distribution of annotations on the basis of genre (between male and female annotators) has been required to be balanced in Prolific platform (see Section 3.2); the amount of annotated data in FemSet and MaleSet is similar (see Table 1); and even if the IAA among female annotators show to be more consistent than male annotators (see Figure 3). Along with Male-persp model, also the GenY-persp reports a F1-score greater than 0.60. These two perspectives seem | GOLD | PERSPECTIVE-BASED | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|----------|------------|---------------|-------|-------|--------|-------| | model | TEST SET | TEST SET | | | | | | | | F1-score | Confidence | F1-score | Confidence | ∆% Confidence | | | | | | std | avg | std | avg | std | avg | | | | | non-perspectivist | 0.681 | 0.301 | 0.509 | - | - | - | - | - | | Fem-persp | 0.590 | 0.239 | 0.621 | 0.538 | 0.234 | 0.644 | -2.09↓ | 3.70↑ | | Male-persp | 0.620 | 0.274 | 0.582 | 0.613 | 0.267 | 0.585 | -2.55↓ | 0.52↑ | | Boomers-persp | 0.539 | 0.290 | 0.502 | 0.484 | 0.303 | 0.532 | 4.48 | 5.98↑ | | GenX-persp | 0.516 | 0.269 | 0.603 | 0.483 | 0.261 | 0.612 | -2.97↓ | 1.49↑ | | GenY-persp | 0.611 | 0.265 | 0.255 | 0.574 | 0.259 | 0.245 | -2.26↓ | -3.92 | | GenZ-persp | 0.574 | 0.234 | 0.367 | 0.601 | 0.240 | 0.352 | 2.56 | -4.09 | | Au-persp | 0.497 | 0.173 | 0.748 | 0.435 | 0.165 | 0.746 | -4.62↓ | -0.27 | | US-persp | 0.516 | 0.259 | 0.580 | 0.461 | 0.262 | 0.583 | 1.16 | 0.52↑ | | Ir-persp | 0.535 | 0.273 | 0.319 | 0.521 | 0.293 | 0.340 | 7.33 | 6.58↑ | | In-persp | 0.466 | 0.232 | 0.666 | 0.432 | 0.210 | 0.708 | -9.48↓ | 6.31↑ | | UK-persp | 0.507 | 0.255 | 0.612 | 0.533 | 0.251 | 0.630 | -1.57↓ | 2.94↑ | | Table 2: Classification performance and confidence of perspective-aware models vs. non-perspectivist model. | | | | | | | | |  to be present more than others in the GOLD TEST SET. However, it is interesting to notice that none of the perspectivist models perform better than the non-perspectivist model on the GOLD TEST SET because the *gold* labels are not representative of each specific perspective. Another interesting point is the high variability on the GOLD TEST SET of the performance of the models built taking into account decisions of annotators with different traits. That means that different annotators induce very different models. Secondly, two important trends are visible in the GOLD TEST SET column: the standard deviation and the average of confidence scores appear, respectively, lowering (↓) and increasing (↑) in the performance of perspective-aware models respect to the performance of the non-perspectivist model. That means perspective-aware models tend to take a decision with less uncertainty than standard nonperspectivist models. A similar result was expected observing the percentage of ∆ between the avg and std of confidence scores, where we can show that perspective-aware models are inclined to be respectively more confident and consistent when they are tested on a test set representative of their perspective. To examine in depth this result, we look also at the performance on positive class (*ironic texts*) of perspective-aware models, reporting in Figure 6 the *precision* scores of ironic class obtained on the PERSPECTIVE-BASED TEST SET (blue bars) and on the GOLD TEST SET (red bars). In this figure, the blue bars tend to be higher than the red ones in the majority of the cases, suggesting that the different perceptions of irony can be well recognized by perspective-aware models. We observe an increase in ∆ in a range from 3% with the Fem-persp model to 72% with the UK-persp model. To answer the second question, we compared the different and similar predictions obtained from perspective-aware models of the same category (gender, age, and country). In the previous sections, we looked at the difference in IAA among different groups of the same demographic category. Now, we focus especially on the variation of their perception of irony captured by perspective-aware models. To this purpose, we computed the accuracy measure among the predictions obtained with the various perspectivist models on the GOLD TEST SET.  perspectives on 'age' (right).  Looking at Tables 3 and 4 reporting the variation among perspectives on the demographic categories, we can observe some differences of perception of irony (in a range from 3% to 29%), especially on 'gender' and 'age'. For instance, contiguous generations seem to perceive irony in different way (i.e., boomers vs. genX, genX vs. genY, genY vs. genZ), although boomers vs. genY results in the highest variation. Interestingly, looking at the countries, the highest variation, even if less strong than for 'age', is reported between the predictions of the models trained on annotators' decisions coming ## From United Kingdom And Ireland. All these findings prove the necessity to take into account the different perspectives of people to create more confident and representative models, even in a difficult task such as the recognition of irony. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we presented EPIC, a corpus of short social media conversations from five English varieties (Australian, British, Indian, Irish, American) collected from Twitter and Reddit and annotated with a binary label, Irony or *not-Irony*, by speakers from the five countries. We performed statistical analyses resulting in two key takeaways. The first is that aggregating the dataset with a majority voting scheme would introduce biases, thus hiding the perspective of some groups of annotators (e.g., those identifying as Asian). This confirms the hypothesis that the perception of Irony is dependent on the cultural background of the recipient. The second is that polarization among annotators depends on the topic. This means that though it is true that cultural background influences the perception of ironic content, there exist topics (such as Arts and Health) on which the influence is less evident than on others (such as Labour, Lifestyle or Politics). Moreover, we performed predictive experiments creating perspective-aware models for irony detection, that show how different annotators induce very different models, and how these perspectivist models, trained on subsets of the annotation coming from identifiable perspectives, are more confident at prediction time. Finally, looking at the detection of irony, we believe that the best approach is based on assembling perspective-aware models plus perspective-based explanations. This is beyond the scope of the current work, which wants to present a solid basis on which to build such models. We plan to continue our research in two main directions. Firstly, we intend to expand the dataset beyond English (i.e., Spanish, German, French, Italian, Arabic, and others) in order to create the first multilingual perspectivist dataset for irony detection. Secondly, we will employ EPIC as the basis for more advanced perspective-aware models and as a perspectivist benchmark for irony detection. ## Limitations While this work represents the first effort towards a perspectivist language resource for irony detection, it has to be noticed that the resource is monolingual (English). Moreover, while we tried to maintain a fair balance in terms of demographic profile of the annotators, we limited the resource to five varieties of English tied to five countries, while leaving out other potential locations (e.g., New Zealand or Nigeria) or even more nuanced distinctions among language varieties. About the self-identified gender dimension, we are aware of the wider spectrum of genders. However, this information is provided by the annotators only in a binary form. Another potential limitation is that, in the spirit of constructing a perspectivist corpus, we fully trusted the contributors. While the chosen crowdsourcing platform (Prolific) is known for a high quality standard obtained e.g. by vetting its contributors, and we added a layer of checks through attention test questions, random noise in the annotation may still be present and undetected. While this paper mainly presents a new language resource, we also included the results of several analyses and validation experiments. In this direction, a number of dimensions are still unexplored, along which the data could be analysed. For instance, the genre difference between the sources of the data (Reddit and Twitter) and the distribution of different varieties of English were not yet explored. ## Ethics Statement The research presented in this paper relies on the labour of numerous contributors who annotated the dataset. We recruited and rewarded our contributors through Prolific, a crowdsourcing platform we selected specifically for its attention to fair and ethic treatment of crowdworkers. The contributors were paid on average an hourly wage of 12.66 GBP (about 14.95 USD). Additionally, fixed bonus payments were provided for contributors who abandoned the task but still provided valuable feedback. The data perspectivist approach in general, and this work in particular, aims at "giving voice to the few who hold a minority view" (Basile et al., 2021a). Applied to the creation of a language resource, this principle leads to resources (and therefore models) where bias is a controlled factor rather than undesirable criticality. ## Acknowledgements The work of S. Frenda and V. Basile, C. Bosco, A.T. Cignarella and V. Patti was partially funded by the *Multilingual Perspective-Aware NLU* project in partnership with Amazon Alexa. The work of A.T. Cignarella, V. Patti, and C. Bosco was partially funded by the International project STERHEOTYPES - Studying European Racial Hoaxes and sterEOTYPES, funded by the Compagnia di San Paolo and VolksWagen Stiftung under the 'Challenges for Europe' Call for Projects (CUP: B99C20000640007). This research was funded through a donation from Amazon. ## References Gavin Abercrombie, Valerio Basile, Sara Tonelli, Verena Rieser, and Alexandra Uma, editors. 2022. *Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Perspectivist Approaches to NLP @LREC2022*. European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France. Sohail Akhtar, Valerio Basile, and Viviana Patti. 2019. A new measure of polarization in the annotation of hate speech. In *AI*IA 2019 - Advances in Artificial* Intelligence, pages 588–603, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Sohail Akhtar, Valerio Basile, and Viviana Patti. 2020. Modeling annotator perspective and polarized opinions to improve hate speech detection. *Proceedings* of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, 8(1):151–154. Linah Alhaidari, Khaled Alyoubi, and Fahd Alotaibi. 2022. Detecting irony in arabic microblogs using deep convolutional neural networks. *International* Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 13(1). Francesco Barbieri, Valerio Basile, Danilo Croce, Malvina Nissim, Nicole Novielli, and Viviana Patti. 2016. Overview of the Evalita 2016 SENTIment POLarity Classification Task. In *Proceedings of 3rd Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiCit 2016) & 5th Evaluation Campaign of Natural* Language Processing and Speech Tools for Italian. CEUR-WS.org. Valerio Basile, Federico Cabitza, Andrea Campagner, and Michael Fell. 2021a. Toward a perspectivist turn in ground truthing for predictive computing. *CoRR*, abs/2109.04270. Valerio Basile, Michael Fell, Tommaso Fornaciari, Dirk Hovy, Silviu Paun, Barbara Plank, Massimo Poesio, and Alexandra Uma. 2021b. We need to consider disagreement in evaluation. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Benchmarking: Past, Present and Future, pages 15–21, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alessandra Teresa Cignarella, Simona Frenda, Valerio Basile, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti, and Paolo Rosso. 2018. Overview of the EVALITA 2018 Task on Irony Detection in Italian Tweets (IronITA). In Proceedings of the 6th Evaluation Campaign of Natural Language Processing and Speech Tools for Italian (EVALITA 2018). CEUR-WS.org. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Elena Filatova. 2012. Irony and Sarcasm: Corpus Generation and Analysis Using Crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012), pages 392–398. European Language Resources Association. Simona Frenda, Alessandra Teresa Cignarella, Valerio Basile, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti, and Paolo Rosso. 2022. The unbearable hurtfulness of sarcasm. Expert Systems with Applications, 193:116398. Aniruddha Ghosh, Guofu Li, Tony Veale, Paolo Rosso, Ekaterina Shutova, John Barnden, and Antonio Reyes. 2015. Semeval-2015 Task 11: Sentiment Analysis of Figurative Language in Twitter. In *Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015)*. ACL. Aditya Joshi, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, and Mark J Carman. 2018. *Investigations in computational sarcasm*. Springer Singapore. Jihen Karoui, Farah Benamara, Véronique Moriceau, Viviana Patti, Cristina Bosco, and Nathalie AussenacGilles. 2017. Exploring the impact of pragmatic phenomena on irony detection in tweets: A multilingual corpus study. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 262–272, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. BART: denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. *CoRR*, abs/1910.13461. Aaron Maladry, Els Lefever, Cynthia Van Hee, and Veronique Hoste. 2022. Irony Detection for Dutch: a Venture into the Implicit. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment & Social Media Analysis, pages 172–181. Reynier Ortega-Bueno, Berta Chulvi, Francisco Rangel, Paolo Rosso, and Elisabetta Fersini. 2022. Profiling irony and stereotype spreaders on twitter (irostereo). In *CLEF 2022 Working Notes*, volume 3180. CEURWS. Reynier Ortega-Bueno, Francisco Rangel, D Hernández Farıas, Paolo Rosso, Manuel Montes-y Gómez, and José E Medina Pagola. 2019. Overview of the task on irony detection in spanish variants. In Proceedings of the Iberian languages evaluation forum (IberLEF 2019), co-located with 34th conference of the Spanish Society for natural language processing (SEPLN 2019). CEUR-WS. org, volume 2421, pages 229–256. Barbara Plank. 2022. The 'problem' of human label variation: On ground truth in data, modeling and evaluation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, and Mark Diaz. 2021. On releasing annotator-level labels and information in datasets. In *Proceedings of* the Joint 15th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW) and 3rd Designing Meaning Representations (DMR) Workshop, pages 133–138, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Antonio Reyes, Paolo Rosso, and Davide Buscaldi. 2012. From Humor Recognition to Irony Detection: The Figurative Language of Social Media. *Data &* Knowledge Engineering, 74:1–12. Edwin Simpson, Erik-Lân Do Dinh, Tristan Miller, and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Predicting humorousness and metaphor novelty with Gaussian process preference learning. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 5716–5728, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Swabha Swayamdipta, Roy Schwartz, Nicholas Lourie, Yizhong Wang, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Dataset cartography: Mapping and diagnosing datasets with training dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9275–9293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Abdel Aziz Taha, Leonhard Hennig, and Petr Knoth. 2022. Confidence estimation of classification based on the distribution of the neural network output layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07745. Alexandra Uma, Tommaso Fornaciari, Anca Dumitrache, Tristan Miller, Jon Chamberlain, Barbara Plank, Edwin Simpson, and Massimo Poesio. 2021. SemEval-2021 task 12: Learning with disagreements. In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2021), pages 338– 347, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Cynthia Van Hee, Els Lefever, and Véronique Hoste. 2016. Exploring the realization of irony in Twitter data. In *Proceedings of the Tenth International* Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), pages 1794–1799. European Language Resources Association. Cynthia Van Hee, Els Lefever, and Véronique Hoste. 2018. SemEval-2018 Task 3: Irony Detection in English Tweets. In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2018), pages 39–50. ACL. Bernard Lewis Welch. 1947. The generalization of 'student's' probem when several different population variances are involved. *Biometrika*, 34(1-2):28–35. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American* Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112–1122. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rong Xiang, Xuefeng Gao, Yunfei Long, Anran Li, Emmanuele Chersoni, Qin Lu, and Chu-Ren Huang. 2020. Ciron: a New Benchmark Dataset for Chinese Irony Detection. In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2020). ELRA. Wenpeng Yin, Jamaal Hay, and Dan Roth. 2019. Benchmarking zero-shot text classification: Datasets, evaluation and entailment approach. In *Proceedings of* the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3914–3923, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Appendix 1. Instructions For The Annotation Process Figure 7 shows the instructions as seen by the annotators in Prolific before they choose to undertake the task. ## 2. Examples Of Topic Classification Table 5 reports some example of the topic classification described in Section 4. ## 3. Language Model Parameters Table 6 shows the values of the hyperparameters used in the experiments presented in Section 5. Figure 7: Instructions for the annotators in Prolific. | Post Text | Reply Text | Topic 1 | Topic 2 | Topic 3 | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------|-----------|----------------| | The NFL is rigged. I mean, there's too much money on the line per game for there not to be someone wanting to fix it. [..] Super Bowls are blowouts or close games based on the highest payers' time slots in the game. [...] | All valid points. | sports | N/A | N/A | | Probably BoTW and Minecraft | Yup | technology | N/A | N/A | | The Jews control Israel. | I mean, you're not wrong, but... | religion | politcs | N/A | | Travellers have been lobbying for a national health strategy, mental health strategy for over a decade our State and its organs failed us. Now look where we are our children dying by suicide at a shocking rate. | those poor children, it's time for | health | emergency | human interest | | some intervention | | | | | Table 5: A sample with 4 examples of (Post, *Reply*) instances in the dataset and their classification with our topic extraction approach. Though not perfect, the resulting classification is satisfactory and being highly interpretable is adequate for our needs. | parameter | value | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|----| | model | the uncased version of BERT (https://huggingface.co/bert-base-uncased) for Sequence Classification, predicting 2 labels (ironic and not-ironic) for each text. | | | | input | the pair Post-Reply, reproducing the input of the annotation phase as shown in Figure 1 and giving contextual information to the system. | | | | max sequence length | 100 | | | | learning rate | [6e-5, 5e-5] | | | | batch size | 16 | | | | maximum | number | of | 10 | | epochs optimizer | AdamW | | | | scheduler | the cosine scheduler without warmup (https://huggingface.co/transformers/main_cla sses/optimizer_schedules.html) to define dynamic learning rates during the training phase. | | | | early stopping | a custom early stopping function to avoid the overtraining of the neural network, looking at the values of the loss obtained on the validation set with a patience of 3 epochs. | | | | seed | a constant seed to make the results reproducible. | | | | loss | the default loss function defined for Sequence Classification by transformers library. | | | | Table 6: Language model, parameters' values and functions used for the fine-tuning process. | | | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section titled "Limitations" after Section 6 (Conclusion). ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We do not foresee any potential risks involved in the use of the resource. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 1 (Introduction). ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** We created a language resource described in Section 3 (Corpus). We used pretrained language models in Sections 4 and 5. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 and 5. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 1 (Introduction) ✗ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? We made a standard use of scientific artifacts employed in this paper, in accordance with their terms of use. ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Our resource contains not-anonymized social media data collected from public forums. However, we will follow the General Data Privacy Regulation as indicated in Section 1. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Sections 3 and 4. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Sections 3, 4 and 5. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Sections 4 And 5. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? We reported the hyperparameters used in the experiments in the Appendix A(3). We only ran fine-tuning experiments with negligible computational costs (a few hours on a single GPU). ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 5. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Sections 4, 5 and Appendix A(3). ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Section 3.2 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Section 3 and Appendix A(1). ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 3. ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section 3 and Appendix A(1). ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Following the European regulations we do not consider necessary the approval by an ethics review board at the time of the submission. We received the approval of IP and Legal review board. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Section 3 and 4.

gao-etal-2023-dialogue

Dialogue Summarization with Static-Dynamic Structure Fusion Graph

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.775

Dialogue, the most fundamental and specially privileged arena of language, gains increasing ubiquity across the Web in recent years. Quickly going through the long dialogue context and capturing salient information scattered over the whole dialogue session benefit users in many real-world Web applications such as email thread summarization and meeting minutes draft. Dialogue summarization is a challenging task in that dialogue has dynamic interaction nature and presumably inconsistent information flow among various speakers. Many researchers address this task by modeling dialogue with pre-computed static graph structure using external linguistic toolkits. However, such methods heavily depend on the reliability of external tools and the static graph construction is disjoint with the graph representation learning phase, which makes the graph can{'}t be dynamically adapted for the downstream summarization task. In this paper, we propose a Static-Dynamic graph-based Dialogue Summarization model (SDDS), which fuses prior knowledge from human expertise and adaptively learns the graph structure in an end-to-end learning fashion. To verify the effectiveness of SDDS, we conduct experiments on three benchmark datasets (SAMSum, MediaSum, and DialogSum) and the results verify the superiority of SDDS.

## Dialogue Summarization With Static-Dynamic Structure Fusion Graph Shen Gao1∗, Xin Cheng2∗, Mingzhe Li3**, Xiuying Chen**4, Jinpeng Li2, Dongyan Zhao2,5,6†**, Rui Yan** 7,8† 1School of Computer Science and Technology, Shandong University 2 Wangxuan Institute of Computer Technology, Peking University 3Ant Group 4 Computational Bioscience Research Center, KAUST 5 National Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence 6BIGAI, Beijing, China 7 Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China 8 Engineering Research Center of Next-Generation Intelligent Search and Recommendation, Ministry of Education {shengao,zhaody}@pku.edu.cn, chengxin1998@stu.pku.edu.cn, ruiyan@ruc.edu.cn ## Abstract Dialogue summarization, one of the most challenging and intriguing text summarization tasks, has attracted increasing attention in recent years. Since dialogue possesses dynamic interaction nature and presumably inconsistent information flow scattered across multiple utterances by different interlocutors, many researchers address this task by modeling dialogue with pre-computed static graph structure using external linguistic toolkits. However, such methods heavily depend on the reliability of external tools and the static graph construction is disjoint with the graph representation learning phase, which could not make the graph dynamically adapt to the downstream summarization task. In this paper, we propose a Static-Dynamic graph-based Dialogue Summarization model (SDDS)*, which fuses prior knowledge from human expertise and implicit knowledge from a PLM, and adaptively adjusts the graph weight, and learns the graph structure in an end-to-end learning fashion from the supervision of summarization task. To verify the effectiveness of SDDS, we conduct extensive experiments on three benchmark datasets (SAMSum, MediaSum, and DialogSum) and observe significant improvement over strong baselines. ## 1 Introduction Dialogue summarization, aiming at distilling the salient information from a dialogue context into a concise summary, is one of the most challenging and intriguing tasks in text summarization (Gurevych and Strube, 2004; Feng et al., 2021a; Cheng et al., 2023a). It can help people quickly capture the highlights of a semi-structured and multi-participant dialogue without reviewing the complex dialogue context (Feng et al., 2022) *The first two authors contributed equally. †Corresponding Author. *Code available at https://github.com/Hannibal046/ SDDS  and has many real-world applications (Liu et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2021). Since dialogue is the most fundamental and specially privileged arena of language (Jurafsky and Martin, 2000), it possesses dynamic interaction nature and presumably inconsistent information flow scattered across multiple utterances by different interlocutors (Li et al., 2022). So the plain document summarization methods (Gehrmann et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020a) could not adapt well in this setting. As shown in Figure 1, the plain text summarization method takes dialogue as a long sequence without modeling its structure thus can not generate a proper summary. To address this problem, the existing dialogue summarization methods mainly focus on modeling dialogue with pre-computed static graph structure using external linguistic toolkits such as discourse parsing (Chen and Yang, 2021; Feng et al., 2021a), dialogue topic modeling (Chen and Yang, 2020; Zhao et al., 2020), dialogue state tracking (Zhao et al., 2021b) and dialogue acts modeling (Goo and Chen, 2018; Chen and Yang, 2021). Although static graph structure captures inconsistent information flow of dialogue to some extent and achieves 13858 sufficient improvements across various datasets, we argue that there exist two fundamental drawbacks: (1) such methods heavily depend on the reliability of external linguistic tools which may not deliver the accurate output and cause error propagation. For example, the commonly used discourse parser in dialogue summarization (Chen and Yang, 2021; Feng et al., 2021a) is a trained model from Shi and Huang (2019), which is optimized for a dialogue summarization-agnostic online game dialogue dataset. This distribution shift may greatly hurt the generalization ability of the parser (Qian and Yu, 2019). (2) the static graph construction is disjoint with the graph representation learning phase and such a fixed graph could not dynamically adapt to the downstream summarization task. In this paper, we propose the Static-Dynamic graph-based Dialogue Summarization model (SDDS) which contains two graph modules: (1) Static Graph Module and (2) Dynamic Graph Module. For the static graph module, we consider four dialogue structures. Except for the commonly used (1) discourse parsing and (2) keywords cooccurrence relationship, we propose two novel structure modeling methods: (3) speaker relationship and (4) utterance position modeling. Complementary to these four static graphs that encode human prior into the model, we propose a dynamic graph module that is constructed from a pre-trained language model (PLM). The language model pre-trained on the massive corpora captures oceans of knowledge without human annotation (Warstadt et al., 2019) and shows strong capability in modeling the various textual relationships (Lyu et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021a). Thus, we propose to use the deep semantic representation for utterances obtained from the PLM to learn the various utterance and speaker relationships. By fusing prior knowledge from human expertise and implicit knowledge from a PLM with a fine-grained 1 × 1 convolution, SDDS could adaptively adjust the graph weight and learn the graph structure in an end-to-end learning fashion from the supervision of summarization task. Figure 1 shows the overall architecture of the SDDS model. First, we employ a pre-trained language model to encode all the utterances into vector representations. Next, we construct four static graphs and propose an early fusion method to combine these static graphs. Then, a dynamic graph module is used to learn the semantic relationships using utterance vector representations. Finally, we propose a fusion mechanism to combine the static and dynamic graphs into a unified representation and employ a pre-trained language model to generate the summary by incorporating the updated utterance representation of the combined graph. To verify SDDS, we conduct extensive experiments on three benchmark datasets. Experimental results demonstrate that the SDDS achieves substantial improvement over strong baselines. We also carefully examine each key component and gives a detailed analysis of SDDS for future research. To sum up, our key contributions are: - We are the first to take a deep look into the limitation of the current static graph-based methods. - We propose a novel framework called SDDS which fuses prior knowledge from human expertise and implicit knowledge from a PLM, adaptively adjusts the graph weight, and learns the graph structure in an end-to-end learning fashion from the supervision of summarization task. - Comprehensive experiments conducted on three benchmark datasets show SDDS achieves significant improvement over strong baselines. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Dialogue Summarization Recent research works in dialogue summarization can be classified into two categories. Since this research task is a newly proposed task, the first category of works focuses on exploring new datasets. AMI (Carletta and et al., 2005) and ICSI (Janin and et al., 2003) corpus are meeting summarization datasets which contain 57 and 137 data samples respectively. To train the neural-based summarization model, researchers also propose several largescale datasets. SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019) is a large-scale chit-chat summarization dataset with 14,732 training samples, and most of the samples are two-party dialog with a 2.2 average speaker. MediaSum (Zhu et al., 2021) is a multi-party dialogue summarization dataset collected from news interviews with 463K data samples and 6.5 average speakers. The second category of research works proposes to incorporate manifold information to help the dialogue summarization. Feng et al. (2021a) and Chen and Yang (2020) propose using a discourse parsing tool or heuristic structure extraction method to help the model capture the dialogue structures. These methods leverage the graph model to capture the dialogue structure and they focus on the algorithm of passing messages between utterance nodes in their methods. Feng et al. (2021b) propose to extract the keyword, topic, and redundancy utterances by using DialoGPT and incorporate this manifold information in the summary generation process. Feng et al. (2020) propose using large-scale commonsense knowledge to facilitate dialogue understanding and summary generation. Geng et al. (2022b) propose three speaker-aware supervised contrastive learning tasks to recognize the unique format of the speaker-utterance pair. Ravaut et al. (2022) fuse several summary candidates to produce a novel abstractive second-stage summary. Li et al. (2022) propose a novel curriculum-based prompt learning method with self-training to tackle the insufficient training data problem. Li et al. (2023) propose to learn disentangled representation via domain adaptation for dialogue summarization tasks. ## 2.2 Graph Neural Network Graph is widely used in many structure data modeling tasks: recommendation (Liu et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2018; Fan et al., 2019a), social network modeling (Wu et al., 2019a; Fan et al., 2019b; Yang et al., 2020), and knowledge-graph based tasks (Jiang and Han, 2020; Wu et al., 2019b). In the document summarization task, many existing works (Tan et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2020) employ the graph model to capture the document structures and incorporate this structure into abstractive or extractive summarization. Wei (2012) proposes a heterogeneous graph consisting of topic, word and sentence nodes and uses the markov chain model for the iterative update. Tan et al. (2017) HSG (Wang et al., 2020) employs a heterogeneous graph network to model the words and sentences with in single and multi-documents and then extracts sentences from document. In the dialogue summarization field, using a graph network to modeling the dialogue structure is also a common practice. However, most of the existing works (Feng et al., 2020, 2021a) use the pre-computed graph to capture the dialogue structure and focus on the algorithm of passing messages between utterance nodes in their methods. ## 3 Problem Formulation Given a dialogue context D = {u1, · · · , uLd} with Ld utterances and each utterance ui = {wi,1, · · · , wi,Liu} contains L iu words. We use the sito denote the speaker of i-th utterance and |S| to denote the number of speakers. Our goal is to generate the summary Yˆ = {yˆ1, *· · ·* , yˆLy } which has Ly words. And we use the difference between generated summary Yˆ and the ground truth Y as the training objective. ## 4 Sdds Model In this section, we introduce the Static-Dynamic graph based Dialogue Summarization model (SDDS). An overview is shown in Figure 2. ## 4.1 Utterance Encoder We employ the pre-trained BART (Lewis et al., 2020) to encode each utterance independently: $$\{\mathbf{h}_{i,0},\mathbf{h}_{i,1},\cdots,\mathbf{h}_{i,L_{u}^{i}}\}=\text{Enc}([\text{CLS}],w_{i,1},\cdots,w_{i,L_{u}^{i}}),\tag{1}$$ where Enc(·) is the encoder module in BART which outputs the vector representation hi,j of j-th input word wi,j in i-th utterance. To obtain a vector representation of each utterance, we extract the hidden state hi,0 of the input special token [CLS] as the vector representation ui = hi,0 of i-th utterance. And U = {u1*, . . . ,* uLd} are the representations for all utterances. ## 4.2 Static Graph Construction In this section, we first propose 4 heuristic dialogue structure modeling methods to build the relationships between utterances using a graph network. 1. Discourse Parsing Graph. Since dialogue discourse relations can explicitly show the information flow and interaction between utterance (Feng et al., 2021a), we employ a discourse parsing toolkit (Shi and Huang, 2019) to build dependency-based dialogue structure which allows relations between non-adjacent utterances which is applicable for multi-party conversions. There are 16 discourse relations in total: comment, clarification-question, elaboration, acknowledgment, continuation, explanation, conditional, question-answer, alternation, question-elaboration, result, background, narration, correction, parallel, and contrast. After obtaining the discourse parsing result, we use an embedding matrix to project these discreate relations into vector representation: $${\mathcal G}_{d}^{s}(i,j)={\mathcal E}_{d}\left(\mathrm{DiscoParse}(u_{i},u_{j})\right),\quad\quad(2)$$ where Ed ∈ R 16,1 denotes the embedding matrix.  2. Keywords Co-occurrence Graph. It is intuitive that when two utterances contain the same keyword, they may focus on the same topic and they are semantically correlated. We employ the function KeyCo-occ to denote the function that calculates the number of common keywords in two utterances.Then we use an embedding matrix to project the integer number of keyword co-occurrence to a vector: $${\mathcal G}_{k}^{s}(i,j)={\mathcal E}_{k}\left(\mathrm{KeyCo-occ}(u_{i},u_{j})\right),$$ where Ek ∈ R Nk,1 denotes the embedding matrix, and Nk and D denotes the maximum number of co-occurrence keyword and the hidden size respectively. In this paper, we only use the noun and entity words as the keyword. 3. Speaker Relation Graph. Since it is essential to understand the fine-grained interaction between speakers in dialogue context, in this paper, we propose a simple yet effective speaker relationship modeling method. We use a sliding window around each utterance, and count the frequency of occurrence for each speaker in this sliding window, and the obtain a speaker interaction frequency matrix Gˆs s ∈ N|S|,|S|. Intuitively, if an element in Gˆs s achieves the relatively high value in both row-wise and column-wise, that means the speakers of the row and column have a strong relationship compared to other speakers. For example, in Figure 4, we can find that speaker C usually talks after A, which indicates the strong relationship between two speakers. Thus, to normalize the frequency of interaction between speakers, we first apply the row-wise softmax on the interaction frequency matrix Gˆs s and then apply column-wise softmax on Gˆs s independently. Next, we apply the element-wise product and result in the final speaker relation matrix G˜s s ∈ R|S|,|S|: $$\tilde{\mathcal{G}}_{s}^{s}=\mathrm{softmax}_{r}(\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{s}^{s})\times\mathrm{softmax}_{c}(\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{s}^{s}),$$ $$(4)$$ $$({\mathfrak{I}})$$ s), (4) where softmaxr and softmaxc denotes the row-wise and column-wise softmax function respectively. For example, when speaker C usually talks after A, which indicates the strong relationship between two speakers, and we can find that the value between speaker A and C achieves the highest value in the G˜s s . Finally, we fill the utterance-level speaker relation adjacent matrix G s s ∈ R Ld,Ld using the value in G˜s s : $${\mathcal G}_{s}^{s}(i,j)={\tilde{\mathcal G}}_{s}^{s}(s_{i},s_{j}),$$ s(si, sj ), (5) where G˜s s(si, sj ) ∈ R denotes the value in si-th row and sj column. More details can be found in the Appendix § A.1. 4. Utterance Position Graph. To capture the position information of utterances, we use the relative distance between utterances as the edge feature of utterance position graph G s p . Similarly, we also employ an embedding matrix to map the discrete distance into vector space: $${\mathcal G}_{p}^{s}(i,j)={\mathcal E}_{p}\left(j-i\right),$$ $$(6)$$ p(*i, j*) = Ep (j − i), (6) where G s p is the adjacent matrix of utterance position graph and the value denotes the relative distance. And Ep ∈ R Ld,1is the embedding matrix. ## 4.3 Static-Dynamic Graph Module 4.3.1 Static Graph Fusion After obtaining adjacent matrixes for static graphs, to conduct cross-graph fusion and interaction, we can see these adjacent matrixes as different channels and use a simple but efficient 1 × 1 convolutional layer to integrate these adjacent matrixes into a fused relationship representation between utterances: $${\mathcal G}^{s}=\mathrm{Conv}\left({\mathcal G}_{p}^{s}\oplus{\mathcal G}_{s}^{s}\oplus{\mathcal G}_{k}^{s}\oplus{\mathcal G}_{d}^{s}\right),\qquad(7)$$ where ⊕ denotes the concatenation operator of matrixes and G s ∈ R Ld,Ld is the fused relationship representation. ## 4.3.2 Dynamic Graph Module To capture the semantic relationship between utterances based on their deep vector representation, inspired by the Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017), we propose a dynamic graph module that does not use any pre-computed or heuristic method to build the connections between nodes. We first project the utterance vector representations U = {u1*, . . . ,* uLd} into two different vector spaces, and calculate the relationship as A ∈ R Ld,Ld : $$Q={\bf U}W_{Q},K={\bf U}W_{K},A=\frac{QK^{\top}}{\sqrt{d_{K}}},\quad(8)$$ We $W_{Q},W_{K}$ are all trainable parameters. Next, the relation matrix A can be seen as the adjacent matrix for the utterance graph, and this graph is built dynamically via the multi-head attention mechanism. Since this graph is built by the attention module with trainable parameters, it can capture the task-specific relationship between utterances that may not be covered by the heuristic static graph. ## 4.3.3 Fusion Module To integrate the static and dynamic graph, we propose a fusion method to combine the relation matrix A of dynamic graph and the adjacent matrix G s of the static graph into a unified graph G u. Similar with the static graph fusion method, we also employ a 1×1 convolutional layer to combine the two matrixes A and G sas two channel: $${\mathcal{G}}^{u}=\mathrm{Conv}\left(A\oplus{\mathcal{G}}^{s}\right).$$ We obtain unified adjacent matrix G u ∈ R Ld,Ld . To unify the static and dynamic graph structures into a final utterance representation, we employ a self-attention layer as shown in Figure 2. We first project the utterance representation into multiple vector spaces using multi-head attention which is same with Equation 8, and then apply the weighted sum operation using the unified graph G uas the attention score: $$\begin{array}{r}{\{\mathbf{g_{1}},\ldots,\mathbf{g_{L_{d}}}\}={\mathrm{softmax}}({\mathcal{G}}^{u})V,}\\ {V=\mathbf{U}W_{V}}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}{(10)}\\ {(11)}\end{array}$$ u)V, (10) where giis the graph representation of the i-th utterance. ## 4.4 Summary Generator Finally, to incorporate the graph representation which captures the dialogue structure information in the generation process of the summary, we use dual cross attention (Cheng et al., 2022) mechanism by proposing a graph attention layer on the top of original self attention layer. We first apply the self-attention on the masked output summary embeddings, and then use the output p sto crossattend to the token-level dialogue hidden states {h1,1, *· · ·* , hLd,Liu} produced by the utterance encoder (introducued in Equation 1): $$\mathbf{p}^{q}=\text{MHAtt}(\mathbf{p}^{s},\{\mathbf{h}_{1,1},\cdots,\mathbf{h}_{L_{d},L_{u}^{i}}\}),\tag{12}$$ where MHAtt is the standard multi-head attention layer and this procedure is the same as the original BART decoder. After the cross-attention layer, we apply a multi-head graph attention layer which aggregate useful knowledge from the updated graph nodes according to the state of each decoding step: $${\bf p}^{g}={\bf M}{\bf H}{\bf A}{\bf t}({\bf p}^{q},\{{\bf g_{1}},\cdots,{\bf g_{L^{d}}}\}).\tag{13}$$ Finally, we apply a fully connected feed-forward network on p gto predict the distribution over the vocabulary of the generated summary. And we use the cross-entropy loss between generated summary and ground truth summary as the training objective to optimize all the parameters of SDDS. We use the parameters in the pre-trained language model BART to initialize the corresponding parameters in our Transformer based text encoder (Equation 1) and summary generator. $$(9)$$ ## 5 Experimental Setup 5.1 Dataset And Evaluation We verify the effectiveness of SDDS on three benchmark datasets: SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019), MediaSum-NPR (Zhu et al., 2021) and DialogSum (Chen et al., 2021b). For evaluation metrics, following standard practice in summarization (Zhang et al., 2020a; Cheng et al., 2023b), we adopt ROUGE (R1/2/L) (Lin, 2004), BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020b), BARTScore (Yuan et al., 2021) and MoverScore (Zhao et al., 2019). More implementation details, dataset statistics, and evaluation metrics can be found in Appendix A.2. ## 5.2 Compared Methods To verify the effectiveness of SDDS, we compare with the following baselines: **S2SA** is the Sequence-to-Sequence framework equipped with the attention and copy mechanism (See et al., 2017). **Transformer** (Vaswani et al., 2017) is a self-attention-based text generation framework. BART (Lewis et al., 2020) and **UniLM** (Bao and et al., 2020) are large-scale pre-trained language models. **MV-BART** (Chen and Yang, 2020) is a BART-based method that incorporates topic and stage information to capture the structure of the dialogue context. **FROST** (Narayan et al., 2021) prompts target summaries with entity chains—ordered sequences of entities mentioned in the summary. **CODS** (Wu et al., 2021) propose a granularity controlled dialogue summarization method. **GPT-Anno** (Feng et al., 2021b) uses the DialoGPT (Zhang and et al., 2020) as an unsupervised dialogue annotator for keyword and topic information. **CONDIGSUM** (Liu et al., 2021a) proposes two topic-aware contrastive learning objectives to implicitly model the topic change and handle information scattering. **SSAnet** (Zhao et al., 2021a) proposes a heterogeneous semantic slot graph to enhance the slot features for more correct summarization. **Coref-Attn** (Liu et al., 2021b) proposes to explicitly incorporate coreference information. SCL (Geng et al., 2022a) proposes speakeraware supervised contrastive learning for better factual consistency. **HITL** (Chen et al., 2022) incorporates human feedback into the training of summarization model. **SummaFusion** (Ravaut et al., 2022) fuses several summary candidates to produce a second-stage summary. ## 6 Experimental Result 6.1 Overall Performance Automatic Evaluation We compare our model with the baselines listed in Table 1. Our model | Method | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | |--------------|--------|--------|--------| | SAMSum | | | | | FROST | 51.86 | 27.67 | 47.52 | | SSAnet | 51.28 | 27.15 | 49.37 | | CODS | 52.65 | 27.84 | 50.79 | | MV-BART | 53.42 | 27.98 | 49.97 | | GPT-Anno | 53.70 | 28.79 | 55.30∗ | | CONDIGSUM | 54.30 | 29.30 | 45.20 | | Coref-Attn | 53.93 | 28.58 | 50.39 | | SCL | 54.22 | 29.87 | 51.35 | | HITL | 53.76 | 28.04 | 50.56 | | SummaFusion | 52.76 | 28.24 | 43.98 | | BART | 52.96 | 28.62 | 54.38 | | SDDS | 54.97† | 30.01† | 56.27† | | DialogSum | | | | | Longest-3 | 24.15 | 6.25 | 22.73 | | TextRank | 21.19 | 6.49 | 23.91 | | Transformer | 35.91 | 8.74 | 33.50 | | UniLM | 47.04 | 21.13 | 45.04 | | GPT-Anno | 47.12 | 20.88 | 44.56 | | BART | 47.28 | 21.18 | 44.83 | | SDDS | 48.02† | 21.68† | 45.88† | | MediaSum-NPR | | | | | Longest-3 | 28.39 | 11.21 | 19.90 | | S2SA | 35.86 | 16.01 | 24.46 | | UniLM | 41.42 | 20.73 | 30.65 | | GPT-Anno | 41.98 | 21.42 | 31.56 | | BART | 43.55 | 21.99 | 32.03 | | SDDS | 43.91† | 22.53† | 32.28† | performs significantly better than other dialogue summarization models including the state-of-theart model GPT-Anno with improvements of 1.88%, 2.05%, and 0.98% in terms of R-1, R-2, and R-L on the benchmark dataset SAMSum with p < 0.05. We also find that SDDS can achieve consistently better performance than the strong baselines on other two datasets. This demonstrates that the static-dynamic graph model can fuse the human prior knowledge of dialogue structure and learn the semantic relationship dynamically, which helps the summarization model understand the dialogue context better. Although the baseline methods use the heuristic graph construction method (*e.g.,* using discourse parsing result) or use the pre-trained language model GPT-2 to explore the deep semantic | Method | BERTScore | BARTScore | MoverScore | |----------|-------------|-------------|--------------| | BART | 91.67 | -1.48 | 62.27 | | MV-BART | 90.85 | -1.86 | 62.50 | | GPT-Anno | 90.79 | -2.19 | 62.47 | | SDDS | 92.04 | -1.37 | 62.98 | information, their performance is still worse than SDDS which combines the human prior knowledge of dialogue structure and the deep semantic relationship using the static-dynamic graph. Different from the other datasets, MediaSum-NPR has more speakers (avg. 4.0 speakers) and the dialogue structure is more complex. From Table 1, we can find that SDDS achieves better performance. This demonstrates SDDS can be directly generalized to the multi-speaker scenario. We also conduct more fine-grained analysis on SDDS measured by token-level F-measure. As Figure 3 shows, SDDS surpasses baselines in almost all word frequencies and performs especially well for low-frequency words, which shows the great generalization and robustness of SDDS. Since ROUGE can only evaluate token level syntactical similarity, we also measure the semantic similarity of generated summary and ground truth on SAMSum by BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020b), BARTScore (Yuan et al., 2021) and MoverScore (Zhao et al., 2019). Results on Table 2 show that these model-based scores are consistent with the ROUGE and human evaluation (detailed below), and verify the superiority of SDDS. Human Evaluation For the human evaluation, we asked three graduate students with professional English proficiency to rate the generated summary according to its *fluency* and *factual coherence* on SAMSum dataset. The rating score ranges from 1 to 3, with 3 being the best. **BART** achieves 2.55 and 2.31 in terms of fluency and coherence, **GPTAnno** achieves 2.54 and 2.35 and **SDDS** achieves 2.73 and 2.57. The kappa statistics are 0.53 and 0.46 for fluency and coherence, and that indicates moderate agreement between annotators. We also conduct the paired student t-test between SDDS and GPT-Anno and obtain p < 0.05 for both metrics. From this experiment, we find that SDDS outperforms the baselines in both metrics, which demonstrates the SDDS can generate fluent summaries with correct facts. A concrete example is shown in Table 6.  Efficiency Evaluation Since the construction of static graphs is non-parametric and can be precomputed, the additional training and inference latency is negligible. The training time for BART is 2.15 hours and SDDS is 2.89 hours. The inference speed for BART is 6.87 samples/second and that for SDDS is 6.55. All experiments are conducted on the same computing platform. ## 6.2 Ablation Study | Method | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | |-----------------|-------|-------|-------| | SDDS-SDGraph | 53.46 | 28.65 | 54.78 | | SDDS-Static | 53.68 | 28.69 | 55.09 | | SDDS-Dyna | 53.53 | 28.44 | 54.85 | | SDDS w/o Graph | 52.91 | 28.36 | 54.36 | | SDDS Simp. Sta. | 53.87 | 29.20 | 55.51 | | SDDS | 54.97 | 30.01 | 56.27 | To prove the effectiveness of each module, we conduct ablation studies that gradually remove each key module in SDDS, and form 5 baseline methods: (1) **SDDS-SDGraph** use relational graph convolutional networks (Schlichtkrull and et al, 2018) to capture high-level hidden features considering different types of edge, and replace the StaticDynamic Graph (SDG) module proposed in our method; (2) **SDDS-Dyna** only uses the static graph and removes the static-dynamic graph fusion module; (3) **SDDS-Static** only uses the dynamic graph and removes the static-dynamic graph fusion module; (4) **SDDS w/o Graph** does not use any graph model or dialogue structure information, and the decoder directly attends to the utterance representation U (calculated in Equation 1) instead of attending to graph node representations {g1, *· · ·* , gLd } as in SDDS; (5) **SDDS Simp. Sta.** verifies the effectiveness of using our proposed 1 × 1 convolu13864 tional layer (shown in Equation 7) to fuse the static graphs, which simply concatenates the adjacent matrixes as G s. The results are shown in Table 3. All ablation models perform worse than SDDS in terms of R-1/2/L, which demonstrates the preeminence of SDDS. From the table, we can find that the graph module contributes the most, which demonstrates the necessity of incorporating structural information into the dialogue summarization task. Although the SDDS-SDGraph uses the expressive RGCN to incorporate the dialogue structure information, it is still 2.34% and 1.94% worse than the SDDS in terms of R-1 and R-L scores. Since SDDS Simp. Sta. cannot conduct cross-graph information fusion, it is 1.56% worse than the SDDS in terms of R-1. | Method | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | |------------------|-------|-------|-------| | w/o Discourse | 54.34 | 29.59 | 55.84 | | w/o Keywords | 54.47 | 29.49 | 55.76 | | w/o Speak. Rela. | 54.12 | 29.09 | 55.47 | | w/o Utter. Posi. | 54.08 | 29.27 | 55.59 | | SDDS | 54.97 | 30.01 | 56.27 | Table 4: Importance of different static graphs. Table 5: Different positional encoding methods. | Method | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | |--------------|-------|-------|-------| | w/ Posi. Emb | 54.33 | 29.13 | 55.70 | | w/ Sin. Emb | 54.28 | 29.47 | 55.69 | | SDDS | 54.97 | 30.01 | 56.27 | ## 6.3 On The Different Static Graphs To evaluate the contribution of each type of static graph, we ablate each static graph, and the results are shown in Table 4. We can find that the utterance position information contributes most to the final performance which demonstrates utterance position can help the model to understand the structure when summarizing the dialogue. Although the discourse parsing graph is an intuitive way to model the dialogue structures and has been widely used in previous dialogue summarization methods (Chen and Yang, 2021; Feng et al., 2021a), it only contributes 0.68% R-1 score compared to the SDDS which is lower than the speaker relation and utterance position. Compare with the model SDDS-Static which only uses the dynamic graph module, we can find that the models in Table 4 are all better than SDDS-Static. This phenomenon demonstrates the effectiveness of using pre-computed graph structures since it brings human prior knowledge into the dialogue model and future advances in dialogues structure modeling would further benefit SDDS. ## 6.4 On The Positional Encoding In the previous section, we can find that the utterance positional static graph contributes most to the final performance in Table 4. In this section, we also compare our positional encoding methods with two commonly used variants: (1) **w/ Posi. Emb**: uses a trainable matrix as the positional embedding of each utterance (Gehring et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2020) (2) **w/ Sin. Emb**: uses the static sinusoidal function to form a positional encoding vector (Vaswani et al., 2017). From Table 5, we can find that these two methods perform worse than our proposed SDDS. This phenomenon verifies the effectiveness of fusing the positional information into utterance relationships in the static graph. | #4 Thomas: Yes for sure #5 Matt: For sure. Who you're going with? #6 Thomas: by myself for now. #7 Matt: I might ask a few more people if they're coming :) #8 Thomas: Maria was interested I think. But I am not sure. i will ask BART Matt got his ticket for Dawid Podsiadlo's concert. Thomas is going with Maria. GPT-Anno Matt got a ticket for Dawid Podsiadlo. He will see Thomas and Maria there. SDDS Matt and Thomas are going to Dawid Podsiadlo. Reference Matt got a ticket for Dawid Podsiadlo's concert. Thomas is going, too. | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|  ## 7 Conclusion In this paper, we first investigate the limitation of the current static graph-based dialogue summarization methods and propose a Static-Dynamic graphbased Dialogue Summarization method (SDDS). It contains two modules, a static graph module and a dynamic graph module. The former injects human prior into the summarization model and the latter encodes the implicit knowledge from a pretrained language model. By fusing these two kinds of graphs with a fine-grained 1×1 convolution, SDDS could adaptively adjust the graph weight and learn the graph structure in an end-to-end learning fashion from the supervision of the summarization task. To validate the effectiveness of SDDS, we conduct extensive experiments on three public dialogue summarization datasets (SAMSum, MediaSum, and DialogSum) and observe significant improvement over strong baselines. We also carefully examine each key component and gives a detailed analysis of SDDS for future research. ## Limitations We discuss the limitations of SDDS as follows: (1) Although we propose a general framework for dialogue summarization by incorporating both static and dynamic graphs, we only adopt four static graphs to model the dialogue structure. Since dialogue structure modeling is still an active research direction, we believe future advances would further benefit our framework. (2) Despite the strong performance achieved by SDDS across three dialogue summarization datasets, we use a pre-trained language model as the backbone of our proposed method, as a consequence, we can not go beyond the limitation of the maximum sequence length of the PLM for the dialog summarization scenario like meeting summarization so it remains a future challenge for dialog summarization in the extremely long format. ## Ethical Consideration The dialogue data would inevitably contain private information about the interlocutors. We take careful consideration of this problem: (1) all data in our experiments are publicly available and anonymized by the original dataset provider. The license for SAMSum dataset is *CC BY-NC-ND 4.0* and for DialogSum *MIT License*. For MediaSum, it adheres to only-for-research-purpose guideline from the National Public Radio; (2) we do not use online user data to train our model and we would use an additional rule-based system to double-check whether our model output contains harmful and prejudicial discrimination when we use it for production. ## Acknowlegement This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC Grant No. T2293773 & No. 62122089 & No. 61876196), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2020AAA0106600), Beijing Outstanding Young Scientist Program (NO. BJJWZYJH012019100020098), and Intelligent Social Governance Platform, Major Innovation & Planning Interdisciplinary Platform for the "Double-First Class" Initiative, Renmin University of China. Rui Yan is also supported by Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI). ## References Hangbo Bao and et al. 2020. Unilmv2: Pseudo-masked language models for unified language model pretraining. In *ICML*. J. Carletta and et al. 2005. The ami meeting corpus: A pre-announcement. In *MLMI*. Bingkun Chen, Shaobing Dai, Shenghua Zheng, Lei Liao, and Yang Li. 2021a. Dsbert: Unsupervised dialogue structure learning with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.04933. Jiaao Chen, Mohan Dodda, and Diyi Yang. 2022. Human-in-the-loop abstractive dialogue summarization. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09750*. Jiaao Chen and Diyi Yang. 2020. Multi-view sequenceto-sequence models with conversational structure for abstractive dialogue summarization. In *EMNLP*. Jiaao Chen and Diyi Yang. 2021. Structure-aware abstractive conversation summarization via discourse and action graphs. In *NAACL*. Xiuying Chen, Shen Gao, Chongyang Tao, Yan Song, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2018. Iterative document representation learning towards summarization with polishing. In *EMNLP*. Yulong Chen, Yang Liu, Liang Chen, and Yue Zhang. 2021b. DialogSum: A real-life scenario dialogue summarization dataset. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021. Xin Cheng, Shen Gao, Lemao Liu, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2022. Neural machine translation with contrastive translation memories. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3591–3601, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xin Cheng, Shen Gao, Yuchi Zhang, Yongliang Wang, Xiuying Chen, Mingzhe Li, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2023a. Towards personalized review summarization by modeling historical reviews from customer and product separately. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2301.11682. Xin Cheng, Di Luo, Xiuying Chen, Lemao Liu, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2023b. Lift yourself up: Retrieval-augmented text generation with self memory. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02437*. Shaohua Fan, Junxiong Zhu, Xiaotian Han, Chuan Shi, Linmei Hu, Biyu Ma, and Yongliang Li. 2019a. Metapath-guided heterogeneous graph neural network for intent recommendation. In KDD. Iryna Gurevych and Michael Strube. 2004. Semantic similarity applied to spoken dialogue summarization. In *COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 764–770. Wenqi Fan, Yao Ma, Qing Li, Yuan He, Eric Zhao, Jiliang Tang, and Dawei Yin. 2019b. Graph neural networks for social recommendation. In WWW. Adam L. Janin and et al. 2003. The icsi meeting corpus. ICASSP '03. Xiachong Feng, Xiaocheng Feng, and Bing Qin. 2022. A survey on dialogue summarization: Recent advances and new frontiers. In *Proceedings of the* Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 5453–5460. ijcai.org. Zhuoren Jiang, Yue Yin, Liangcai Gao, Yao Lu, and Xiaozhong Liu. 2018. Cross-language citation recommendation via hierarchical representation learning on heterogeneous graph. In *SIGIR*. Daniel Jurafsky and James H Martin. 2000. Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Philipp Koehn. 2004. Statistical significance tests for machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 388–395. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In ACL. Zhichao Geng, Ming Zhong, Zhangyue Yin, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuan-Jing Huang. 2022a. Improving abstractive dialogue summarization with speaker-aware supervised contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6540–6546. Zhichao Geng, Ming Zhong, Zhangyue Yin, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022b. Improving abstractive dialogue summarization with speaker-aware supervised contrastive learning. In *Proceedings of* the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6540–6546, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. *Text Summarization* Branches Out. Chunyi Liu, Peng Wang, Jiang Xu, Zang Li, and Jieping Ye. 2019. Automatic dialogue summary generation for customer service. In KDD. Junpeng Liu, Yanyan Zou, Hainan Zhang, Hongshen Chen, Zhuoye Ding, Caixia Yuan, and Xiaojie Wang. 2021a. Topic-aware contrastive learning for abstractive dialogue summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 1229–1243, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bogdan Gliwa, Iwona Mochol, Maciej Biesek, and Aleksander Wawer. 2019. Samsum corpus: A humanannotated dialogue dataset for abstractive summarization. In *EMNLP*. Chih-Wen Goo and Yun-Nung Chen. 2018. Abstractive dialogue summarization with sentence-gated modeling optimized by dialogue acts. In 2018 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 735– 742. IEEE. Siwei Liu, Iadh Ounis, Craig Macdonald, and Zaiqiao Meng. 2020. A heterogeneous graph neural model for cold-start recommendation. In *SIGIR*. Pin Jiang and Yahong Han. 2020. Reasoning with heterogeneous graph alignment for video question answering. In *AAAI*. Xiachong Feng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, Xinwei Geng, and Ting Liu. 2021a. Dialogue discourseaware graph convolutional networks for abstractive meeting summarization. In *IJCAI*. Xiachong Feng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2020. Incorporating commonsense knowledge into abstractive dialogue summarization via heterogeneous graph networks. In *Arxiv*. Xiachong Feng, Xiaocheng Feng, Libo Qin, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2021b. Language model as an annotator: Exploring dialogpt for dialogue summarization. In ACL. Jonas Gehring, Michael Auli, David Grangier, Denis Yarats, and Yann N. Dauphin. 2017. Convolutional sequence to sequence learning. In *ICML*. Changqun Li, Linlin Wang, Xin Lin, Gerard de Melo, and He Liang. 2022. Curriculum prompt learning with self-training for abstractive dialogue summarization. In Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sebastian Gehrmann, Yuntian Deng, and Alexander M. Rush. 2018. Bottom-up abstractive summarization. Jinpeng Li, Yingce Xia, Xin Cheng, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2023. Learning disentangled representation via domain adaptation for dialogue summarization. In *Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023*, pages 1693–1702. Zhengyuan Liu, Ke Shi, and Nancy Chen. 2021b. Coreference-aware dialogue summarization. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 509–519, Singapore and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *ICLR*. Boer Lyu, Lu Chen, Su Zhu, and Kai Yu. 2021. Let: Linguistic knowledge enhanced graph transformer for chinese short text matching. In *AAAI*. Shashi Narayan, Yao Zhao, Joshua Maynez, Gonçalo Simões, Vitaly Nikolaev, and Ryan McDonald. 2021. Planning with learned entity prompts for abstractive summarization. *Transactions of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, 9:1475–1492. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, pages 8024–8035. Curran Associates, Inc. Kun Qian and Zhou Yu. 2019. Domain adaptive dialog generation via meta learning. In *Proceedings of* the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2639–2649. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mathieu Ravaut, Shafiq Joty, and Nancy F Chen. 2022. Towards summary candidates fusion. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2210.08779. Michael Schlichtkrull and et al. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In European semantic web conference, pages 593–607. Springer. Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointergenerator networks. In ACL. Zhouxing Shi and Minlie Huang. 2019. A deep sequential model for discourse parsing on multi-party dialogues. In *AAAI*. Amanda Stent, Matthew Marge, and Mohit Singhai. 2005. Evaluating evaluation methods for generation in the presence of variation. In *CICLing*. Jiwei Tan, Xiaojun Wan, and Jianguo Xiao. 2017. Abstractive document summarization with a graphbased attentional neural model. In ACL. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *NIPS*. Danqing Wang, Pengfei Liu, Yining Zheng, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2020. Heterogeneous graph neural networks for extractive document summarization. In ACL. Alex Warstadt, Yu Cao, Ioana Grosu, Wei Peng, Hagen Blix, Yining Nie, Anna Alsop, Shikha Bordia, Haokun Liu, Alicia Parrish, Sheng-Fu Wang, Jason Phang, Anhad Mohananey, Phu Mon Htut, Paloma Jeretic, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Investigating BERT's knowledge of language: Five analysis methods with NPIs. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference* on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2877–2887, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yang Wei. 2012. Document summarization method based on heterogeneous graph. In 2012 9th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, pages 1285–1289. IEEE. Chien-Sheng Wu, Linqing Liu, Wenhao Liu, Pontus Stenetorp, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Controllable abstractive dialogue summarization with sketch supervision. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021*, pages 5108–5122, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yongji Wu, Defu Lian, Shuowei Jin, and Enhong Chen. 2019a. Graph convolutional networks on user mobility heterogeneous graphs for social relationship inference. In *IJCAI*. Yuting Wu, Xiao Liu, Yansong Feng, Zheng Wang, Rui Yan, and Dongyan Zhao. 2019b. Relation-aware entity alignment for heterogeneous knowledge graphs. In *IJCAI*. Xiaoyu Yang, Yuefei Lyu, Tian Tian, Yifei Liu, Yudong Liu, and Xi Zhang. 2020. Rumor detection on social media with graph structured adversarial learning. In IJCAI. Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. Bartscore: Evaluating generated text as text generation. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing* Systems, volume 34, pages 27263–27277. Curran Associates, Inc. Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. PEGASUS: pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of *Proceedings of Machine* Learning Research, pages 11328–11339. PMLR. Shiyue Zhang, Asli Celikyilmaz, Jianfeng Gao, and Mohit Bansal. 2021. Emailsum: Abstractive email thread summarization. In *Proceedings of the 59th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 6895–6909. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020b. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. In *International* Conference on Learning Representations. Yizhe Zhang and et al. 2020. DIALOGPT : Large-scale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics:* System Demonstrations. Lulu Zhao, Weiran Xu, and Jun Guo. 2020. Improving abstractive dialogue summarization with graph structures and topic words. In *Proceedings of the 28th* International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 437–449. Lulu Zhao, Weihao Zeng, Weiran Xu, and Jun Guo. 2021a. Give the truth: Incorporate semantic slot into abstractive dialogue summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 2435–2446, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lulu Zhao, Fujia Zheng, Keqing He, Weihao Zeng, Yuejie Lei, Huixing Jiang, Wei Wu, Weiran Xu, Jun Guo, and Fanyu Meng. 2021b. Todsum: Task-oriented dialogue summarization with state tracking. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2110.12680. Wei Zhao, Maxime Peyrard, Fei Liu, Yang Gao, Christian M. Meyer, and Steffen Eger. 2019. MoverScore: Text generation evaluating with contextualized embeddings and earth mover distance. In *Proceedings* of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 563–578, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chenguang Zhu, Yang Liu, Jie Mei, and Michael Zeng. 2021. Mediasum: A large-scale media interview dataset for dialogue summarization. In *NAACL*. ## A Appendix A.1 Speaker Relation Graph We use a sliding window around each utterance, and count the frequency of occurrence for each speaker in this sliding window. Figure 4 gives an example to illustrate this method, and we obtain a speaker interaction frequency matrix Gˆs s ∈ N|S|,|S|. Algorithm 1 illustrates this method, and we obtain a speaker interaction frequency matrix Gˆs s ∈ N|S|,|S|. ## A.2 Implementation Details We implement our experiments using Pytorch (Paszke et al., 2019) on an NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPU. The batch size is set to 16, and we use the gradient accumulation to simulate a large batch size. We pad or cut input utterances to contain exactly 200 words, and the maximum decoding length is set to 100. We initialize BART in our model with BART*Large* † which has 16 attention heads, 1024 hidden size and 12 Transformer layers for encoder and decoder respectively. In our graph transformer, we use 4 self-attention layers with 1024 hidden size and 8 attention head. We use AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) as our optimizing algorithm and employ beam search with size 5 to generate more fluency summary. ## A.3 Dataset Statistics We list some key statistics of these datasets in Table 7. From this table, we can find that the MediaSum-NPR dataset has more speakers, training samples, and longer dialogue context than the other datasets. Note that, in DialogSum, there are three reference summaries for each data sample, and we use multiple references in the evaluation. | SAMSum | MediaSum-NPR | DialogSum | | |---------------------------|----------------|-------------|--------| | # of training samples | 14,732 | 47,370 | 12,460 | | # of test samples | 819 | 1,060 | 500 | | # of validation samples | 818 | 990 | 500 | | Avg. turns of dialogue | 9.9 | 24.2 | 9.49 | | Avg. speakers of dialogue | 2.2 | 4.0 | 2.01 | | Avg. words of summary | 20.3 | 14.4 | 22.87 | Table 7: Dataset Statistics for three benchmark datasets: SAMSum, MediaSum-NPR and DialogSum. ## A.4 Evaluation Metrics For evaluation metrics, following existing dialogue summarization papers (Feng et al., 2021b), we †https://huggingface.co/facebook/bart-large adopt ROUGE score (Lin, 2004), which is widely applied for summarization evaluation (Chen et al., 2018). The ROUGE metrics compare generated summary with the reference summary by computing overlapping lexical units, including ROUGE-1 (unigram), ROUGE-2 (bi-gram), and ROUGE-L (longest common subsequence). Following existing dialogue summarization papers (Feng et al., 2021b), we use py-rouge‡as the implementation of ROUGE score. Since only using automatic evaluation metrics can be misleading (Stent et al., 2005), we also use the embedding based evaluation method and conduct the human evaluation. We employ the BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020b), BARTScore (Yuan et al., 2021) and MoverScore (Zhao et al., 2019) as the embedding based evaluation. For human evaluation, three welleducated annotators are invited to judge 200 randomly sampled summaries. The statistical significance of two runs is tested using a two-tailed paired t-test and is denoted using ▲(or ▼) for strong significance for α = 0.01. Algorithm 1 Algorithm of speaker relation construction. Input: Dialog Context with Ld utterances Output: Speaker relation G s s ∈ R Ld,Ld 1: Let Gˆs s ∈ N|S|,|S| = 0. 2: α(uj ) = speaker index of uj 3: **for each** uiin D 4: **for each** uj in sliding window of ui 5: Gˆs s(α(ui), α(uj )) = Gˆs s(α(ui), α(uj )) + 1 6: G˜s s = softmaxr(Gˆs s) × softmaxc(Gˆs s) 7: **for each** i in {1, . . . , Ld} 8: **for each** j in {1, . . . , Ld} 9: G s s(*i, j*) = Gˆs s(α(ui), α(uj )) 10: **return** G s s(*i, j*)  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? the last section A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? the first two sections ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** In Section 6 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? in section 5 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? in the ethical consideration section ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? in section 5 and appendix B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. in the appendix ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** In Section 6 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? in appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? in section 5 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? in section 6 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? in appendix D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** section 6 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? section 6 ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? section 6 D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

lim-lauw-2023-large

Large-Scale Correlation Analysis of Automated Metrics for Topic Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.776

Automated coherence metrics constitute an important and popular way to evaluate topic models. Previous works present a mixed picture of their presumed correlation with human judgement. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale correlation analysis of coherence metrics. We propose a novel sampling approach to mine topics for the purpose of metric evaluation, and conduct the analysis via three large corpora showing that certain automated coherence metrics are correlated. Moreover, we extend the analysis to measure topical differences between corpora. Lastly, we examine the reliability of human judgement by conducting an extensive user study, which is designed as an amalgamation of different proxy tasks to derive a finer insight into the human decision-making processes. Our findings reveal some correlation between automated coherence metrics and human judgement, especially for generic corpora.

# Large-Scale Correlation Analysis Of Automated Metrics For Topic Models Jia Peng Lim Singapore Management University jiapeng.lim.2021@smu.edu.sg ## Abstract Automated coherence metrics constitute an important and popular way to evaluate topic models. Previous works present a mixed picture of their presumed correlation with human judgement. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale correlation analysis of coherence metrics. We propose a novel sampling approach to mine topics for the purpose of metric evaluation, and conduct the analysis via three large corpora showing that certain automated coherence metrics are correlated. Moreover, we extend the analysis to measure topical differences between corpora. Lastly, we examine the reliability of human judgement by conducting an extensive user study, which is designed as an amalgamation of different proxy tasks to derive a finer insight into the human decision-making processes. Our findings reveal some correlation between automated coherence metrics and human judgement, especially for generic corpora. ## 1 Introduction Topic modelling is an important tool in the analysis and exploration of text corpora in terms of their salient topics (Blei et al., 2003). To evaluate the effectiveness of topic models, the preponderance of topic modeling literature rely on automated coherence metrics. A key benefit is convenience, allowing researchers to sidestep expensive and timeconsuming user studies. The basis for this reliance is the assumption that the coherence metrics correlate with human judgement (Mimno et al., 2011; Lau et al., 2014; Röder et al., 2015). The presumed correlation with human judgement should not be taken for granted. There are recent works that challenge the assumption. Doogan and Buntine (2021) highlight the inconsistencies of automated coherence metrics via correlation analysis within each metric. In Hoyle et al. (2021), they claimed some disagreement between human judgement and automated coherence metrics. ## Hady W. Lauw Singapore Management University hadywlauw@smu.edu.sg We postulate that the reasons behind such a mixed picture could be the differences in the topic samples as well as the underlying corpora from which the statistics were derived, resulting in localised "biases" that affect the conclusions reached by respective studies. Given their importance, we seek to conduct an extended analysis of automated coherence metrics on a larger scale than anything previously attempted. This study includes orders of magnitudes greater than the number of topics typically analysed, covering three large corpora, employing a comprehensive user study with extensive labels, across most of the widely used metrics. There is a strong motivation for quantity. Given a vocabulary, a combinatorially large number of possible topics exist. If each topic is a vector of its scores on different metrics, the resulting curse of dimensionality (Bellman and Kalaba, 1959) necessitates a larger sample size. We argue that evaluating thousands of topics might not be sufficient, and a larger sample size is required to approximate a diverse distribution, where sampled topics is representative of the corpus and the metrics. We surmise that the previous practice of using topic models to generate topics could introduce a bias in the analysis. Firstly, topic models vary in performance, Hoyle et al. (2021) compiled a lengthy list. There is also emerging debate on the performance between traditional and neural topic models (Doogan and Buntine, 2021). Additionally, some neural models might be inconsistent, producing different topic sets in independent runs (Hoyle et al., 2022). Conversely, topic model might be too stable and generate similar topics (Xing and Paul, 2018). To objectively evaluate whether the coherence metrics are usable, we propose to generate candidate topics independently of topic models. In this paper, our contributions are three-fold. First, we begin by analysing the inter-*metric* correlations (see Section 4). We propose a novel approach to sample "topics" for the purpose of 13874 evaluating automated coherence metrics (see Section 4.1). Compared to prior works, we sample these topics free from topic model bias, and in a meaningful diverse manner. Evaluated on three large corpora, we reaffirm that certain selected metrics do not contradict each other, and highlight the underestimated effects of ϵ (see Section 4.2). Second, we extend our analysis to investigate inter-*corpora* correlations (see Section 5). We examine the understated differences of corpora statistics on the metrics by comparing the correlations across corpora. While such correlations do exist to some degree, the metrics are still dependent on each corpus. Thus, any expectation that these metrics would correlate uniformly with human judgement on all possible corpora may be misplaced. Finally, pivotal to any interpretability research, we design and conduct a user study, which is the keystone of our work (see Section 6). Compared to prior work, its design is more complex as we seek to benchmark human judgement at a finer granularity across different random user study groups (see Section 6.1). We analyse the user study results via a few novel proxy measures, revealing that human judgement is nuanced and varies between individuals, metric correlation to human judgement is corpus-dependant, with the average participant being attuned to the generic corpora (see Section 6.2). Our implementation and releasable resources can be found here1, and we hope that it will enable convenient coherence evaluation of topic models and to further advance interpretability research. ## 2 Related Work Topic models. There are many approaches for topic modelling Blei et al. (2003), from non-neural based Zhao et al. (2017b); Hoffman et al. (2010), to many other neural-based methods, via autoencoders (Kingma and Welling, 2014) such as Miao et al. (2016); Srivastava and Sutton (2017); Dieng et al. (2020); Zhang and Lauw (2020); Bianchi et al. (2021), via graph neural networks (Yang et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2021; Zhang and Lauw, 2022), and hierarchical methods (Meng et al., 2020). A common factor is the use of automated coherence metrics to benchmark against baselines. We select several popular metrics for evaluation as listed in Section 3. Topic models are applied in downstream tasks (Lau et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019, 2020). User studies in metric evaluation. Mimno et al. 1https://github.com/PreferredAI/topic-metrics (2011) utilize expert annotators to independently label 148 topics, using another 10 expert annotators to evaluate the same topics via intruder word detection tasks. Röder et al. (2015) benchmark topics against different permutations of metrics with the largest evaluation set containing 900 topics with human ratings aggregated from prior works (Aletras and Stevenson, 2013; Lau et al., 2014; Rosner et al., 2014). In Hoyle et al. (2021), a minimum of 15 crowdworkers were employed in simple rating and word intrusion tasks evaluating 40 topic-modelgenerated (Griffiths and Steyvers, 2004; Burkhardt and Kramer, 2019; Dieng et al., 2020) and 16 synthetic random topics. In Doogan and Buntine (2021), their largest user study required 4 subject matter experts creating 3,120 labels across 390 topics generated via topic models (Blei et al., 2003; Zhao et al., 2017a). In comparison, our study has both large quantities of topics and study participants, annotating 800 unbiased topics split between 40 study participants with at least an undergraduate level of education, generating 180K word-pair labels2. Our automated experiments deal with hundreds of thousands of unique topics. Human involvement. There are many interesting research that examine linguistic problems via the human lens. Card et al. (2020) investigates the number of annotators required to achieve significant statistical power. Plank (2022) examines the variation in human labels. Ethayarajh and Jurafsky (2022) questions the authenticity of annotators. Clark et al. (2021) tests the human ability to learn how to differentiate between machine-generated and human-generated texts. Human-in-the-loop systems or processes, such as Li et al. (2022), are also being actively explored. ## 3 Preliminaries In this section, we define the automated coherence metrics that we will be using, and describe the corpora we use to obtain the word probabilities. ## 3.1 Coherence Metrics We follow the definition styles of Röder et al. (2015), where direct confirmation measure m is a function of a word-pair statistic. Direct coherence metrics is defined as a mean aggregation of m between word-pairs (Equation 1), where t is a topic which is a k-sized set of words. For our evaluations, 2Each question has 45 possible combinations of wordpairs, each label is binary, denoting coherence relations. we set k = 10. Within t, the words are arranged based on P(w|t) in descending order. Since our approach does not produce P(w|t), we can locally optimize the word positions within a topic to obtain the best possible score for position-sensitive metrics CUMass and CP (See Appendix B). We use subscript s to denote alphabetical order and subscript o to denote optimized positions. Let p = |t|·|t−1| 2, which represents the number of word-pairs in a topic. $$C(t,m)={\frac{1}{p}}\sum_{w_{i}\in t}\sum_{\stackrel{w_{j}\in t}{i>j}}m(w_{i},w_{j})\qquad{\mathrm{(1)}}$$ CNPMI (Equation 2) is the mean aggregation of mnlr, defined as Normalised Pointwise Mutual Information (NPMI) (Bouma, 2009) value, between word-pair statistics in a topic. We exclude CUCI as it uses Point-wise Mutual Information (Church and Hanks, 1990; Lau et al., 2014), which is correlated to NPMI. $$C_{\mathrm{NPMI}}(t)={\frac{1}{p}}\sum_{w_{i}\in t}\sum_{\begin{array}{l}{w_{j}\in t}\\ {i>j}\end{array}}m_{n l r}(w_{i},w_{j})\quad\quad(2)$$ $$m_{n l r}(w_{i},w_{j})={\frac{\log{\frac{P(w_{i},w_{j})+\epsilon}{P(w_{i})\cdot P(w_{j})}}}{-\log(P(w_{i},w_{j})+\epsilon)}}$$ $$(3)$$ CUMass is the mean ordinal aggregation of mlc (Mimno et al., 2011), which measures the log conditional probability between ordered word-pair in a topic: $$C_{\text{UMass}}(t)=\frac{1}{p}\sum_{\substack{w_i\in t}}\sum_{\substack{w_j\in t\\ i>j}}m_{lc}(w_i,w_j)$$ $$m_{lc}(w_i,w_j)=\log\frac{P(w_i,w_j)+\epsilon}{P(w_j)}$$ is the same, click because the proof was not. $$\quad(5)$$ CP is the mean ordinal aggregation of mf , Fitelson's coherence (Fitelson, 2003), interpreted as the degree to which wi supports wj , between ordered word-pairs in a topic: $$C_{P}(t)={\frac{1}{p}}\sum_{w_{i}\in t}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}{{w_{j}\in t}}\\ {{i>j}}\end{array}}m_{f}(w_{i},w_{j})$$ $$m_{f}(w_{i},w_{j})={\frac{P(w_{i}|w_{j})-P(w_{i}|\neg w_{j})}{P(w_{i}|w_{j})+P(w_{i}|\neg w_{j})}}$$ (7) $13876\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}$. $$(6)$$ CV (Equation 8) is the final metric that we are using. CV is considered as an indirect coherence metric, as it uses word-group relations as opposed to word-pairs relations like aforementioned direct coherence metrics. Intuitively, it measures the mean cosine similarity (Equation 9) between each word's feature vector and the topic's feature vector represented as the sum of all of its words' feature vectors (Equation 10). $$C_{V}(t,\gamma)=\frac{\sum_{w_{i}\in t}s_{cos}(v(w_{i},t,\gamma),\bar{v}(t,\gamma))}{|t|}\tag{8}$$ $$s_{cos}(\vec{v_{i}},\vec{v_{j}})=\frac{\sum\vec{v_{i}}\cdot\vec{v_{j}}}{||\vec{v_{i}}||_{2}\cdot||\vec{v_{j}}||_{2}}\tag{9}$$ $$\bar{v}(t,\gamma)=\sum_{w_{j}\in t}v(w_{j},t,\gamma)\tag{10}$$ $$v(w,t,\gamma)=\{m_{nlr}(w,w_{j})^{\gamma}\;\forall w_{j}\in t\}\tag{11}$$ For indirect confirmation measure m˜ , instead of directly using word-word probabilities, it uses m to create a vector of features v (Aletras and Stevenson, 2013) that represent a word w from the topic t it belongs to, distorted by hyper-parameter γ (Equation 11). We will evaluate γ at 1 and 23. ## 3.2 Corpora | Corpus | #Docs. | Mean Doc. Size | Vocab. Size | |----------|----------|------------------|---------------| | ArXiv | 2.09M | 75 | 26K | | Pubmed | 1.07M | 1500 | 39K | | Wiki | 5.51M | 217 | 40K | $$\quad(4)$$ Table 1: Numerical descriptions of the corpora used. Lemmatized variants are similar with the exception of ArXiv-lemma where its vocabulary size is 22K. We use word co-occurrences statistics obtained from three large corpora: ArXiv. We use ArXiv abstracts dataset4 where we consider each abstract as a document. These abstracts mainly comprise of research work related to non-medical science disciplines. Pubmed. We use PubMed Central (PMC) Open Access Subset5that contains journal articles and pre-prints related to medical research and information. We consider each article body as a document and we remove citations within it. 3Prior to version 0.1.4 (released Sep 21, 2022), Palmetto's (Röder et al., 2015) γ was set to 2. 4Kaggle - Cornell-University/ArXiv 5ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/tools/openftlist Wiki. We use the English-Wikipedia dump6 of August'22 processed using Attardi (2015). We consider the content of the article as a document. To check for correctness, we also use the popular benchmark Palmetto (Röder et al., 2015), which uses a subset of Wikipedia'11. For each corpus, we apply processing steps suggested in Hoyle et al. (2021), retaining up to 40K frequently occurring words. Moreover, we generate a lemmatized (denoted with the suffix -lemma) and unlemmatized variant (original) for further analysis. More information on common vocabulary between corpora can be found in Table 14, Appendix C. ## 4 Examining Inter-Metric Correlations Intuitively, if two different metrics are to correlate with human judgement, we would expect the scores of these metrics to correlate. However, it is claimed in Doogan and Buntine (2021) that these metrics do not correlate well. For reasons described in Section 1, we propose a new non-topic modelling approach to sample topics to evaluate these metrics. ## 4.1 Approach: Balanced Sampling There are few tested methods to generate topics: from topic models (Aletras and Stevenson, 2013; Lau et al., 2014), beam search optimized on coherence (Rosner et al., 2014), random sampling of words (Hoyle et al., 2021). Considering only optimized topics, or completely random topics (mostly bad), would generate a skewed distribution. In contrast, we seek to mine topics that emulates a balanced distribution for a meaningful comparison. We also desire uniqueness among topics, which avoids repetition and is representative of the corpus. Figure 1 illustrates an overview of our approach. Mining topics of k words can be framed as the classical k-clique listing problem (Chiba and Nishizeki, 1985; Danisch et al., 2018). To generate meaningful topics, we can map the corpus-level information as a graph, treating each word from its vocabulary set V as a vertex. Each word will share an edge with every other word. We choose mnlr to determine the value of the edges between two vertices as its normalised range is intuitive allowing us to easily identify the range of values for sub-graph generation. In contrast, using mlc and mf increases sampling's complexity as they are order-dependant resulting in bi-directional edges in its sub-graph. Sampling using any m, not only 6dumps.wikimedia.org | Corpus | neg | pos | mid | random | ext | Total | |----------|--------|--------|--------|----------|---------|---------| | ArXiv | 66,007 | 2,120 | 14,436 | 10,000 | 49,777 | 142,340 | | Pubmed | 10,450 | 3,310 | 8,218 | 10,000 | 61,035 | 93,013 | | Wiki | 56,903 | 21,698 | 35,195 | 10,000 | 136,036 | 259,832 |  Table 2: Average quantity of topics mined by our balanced sampling approach by segments per corpus from the 5 independent sampling runs. Quantities of lemmatized variants are similar with the exception of ext segment, where it has half the numbers. mnlr, might introduce bias, which our approach seeks to mitigate. The initial graph will be a complete graph of |V | vertices. A topic of k words would be a ksized sub-graph. Combinatorially, there are |V | choose k number of possible unique topics. It is practically infeasible and unnecessary to list all kcliques. For a more tractable approach, we modify the routine from Yuan et al. (2022) (pseudo-code in Appendix A) to include: Sub-graphs of varying quality. This routine seeks to generate smaller graphs from the original complete graph to cover the spectrum of topic quality. We eliminate edges conditionally via their value, and the remaining edges and connected vertices constitute the new sub-graph. We generate three different kinds of sub-graphs, pos where edgevalues are above a given lower-bound, mid where edge-values are between threshold values, and neg where edges are below an upper-bound7. Topic extraction. Inspired by Perozzi et al. (2014), instead of iterating through all the neighbouring nodes or searching for the next best node, we randomly select a neighbour, that has an edge with all explored nodes, to explore. We extract the explored k-path as our sampled topic. Topic uniqueness. To attain a variety of topics, we remove all edges in a mined clique, making it impossible to sample a similar topic from the same sub-graph. Figure 2 illustrates this feature. Balance distribution of topics. For a given corpus, we further introduce common topics sampled from a different corpora, which differ in its word distribution. We refer to this segment of external topics as ext. Lastly, *random* is a segment, comprising of groups of random words, included to represent topics that might not have been covered via the other segments. Table 2 shows the result from this mining approach. The total would thus be more balanced, comprising topics of varying scores along the spectrum. 7Hyper-parameters listed in Table 9, Appendix A   | ϵ | C V | C | | | | |-----------------------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|----------|----------| | γ=1 | V | CNPMI | CP,o | CUMass,o | | | γ=2 | | | | | | | V | - | 0.09 | 0.69 | 0.64 | 0.11 | | V | 0.09 | - | -0.59 | -0.63 | -0.72 | | CNPMI | 0.69 | -0.59 | - | 0.91 | 0.58 | | CP,o | 0.64 | -0.63 | 0.91 | - | 0.71 | | CUMass,o | 0.11 | -0.72 | 0.58 | 0.71 | - | | (a) Correlation scores with ϵ = 1e−12 γ=1 γ=2 | | | | | | | ̸ϵ | C V | C V | CNPMI | CP,o | CUMass,o | | V | - | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.81 | 0.45 | | V | 0.87 | - | 0.94 | 0.66 | 0.28 | | CNPMI | 0.95 | 0.94 | - | 0.73 | 0.31 | | CP,o | 0.81 | 0.66 | 0.73 | - | 0.65 | | CUMass,o | 0.45 | 0.28 | 0.31 | 0.65 | - | | (b) Correlation scores with ϵ = 0 | | | | | | We evaluate the correlation (Pearson's r 8) between different automated metrics measured on Wiki (see Table 3), Pubmed, and ArXiv (see Table 10, Appendix C). We expect a high positive correlation score between metrics if they are both purportedly measuring for coherence. Our first inter-metric analysis (see Table 3a), with metrics calculated at ϵ = 1e−12, shows the poor correlation of CV metrics against other metrics. Theoretically, CV relies on mnlr as its features, and given an unrelated topic, where word-pair scored on mnlr with ϵ = 1e−12 produces similar mnlr vectors which scores highly on CV . This phenomenon of high cosine similarity between the equally negative mnlr vectors, results in contradicting scores between CV and other metrics. Hence, for our second inter-metric analysis (see Table 3b) we evaluate the metrics at ϵ = 0, denoted with subscript̸ϵ. For the resulting undefined calculations, we default to 0. Intuitively, the purpose of setting ϵ = 1e−12 is to prevent and to penalise word-pairs that produces undefined calculation. In contrast, ϵ = 0 treats these word-pairs neutrally. Comparing the new results in Table 3b to the previous results in Table 3a, we note that correlation scores between CV metric and other automated coherence metrics improved greatly, suggesting alleviation of the contradicting factor. Additionally, we note that for CP and CUMass, ϵ is essential. We then examine these metrics with their better ϵ mode (see Table 4a), and most metrics (except CUMass) have a decent correlation with other metrics, implying that they do not contradict each other. There could be a concern that the neg and *random* sampled sections would have an outsized influence in the previous analysis. In this ablation, we restrict the same analysis to only topics where CNPMI > 0. Comparing to the previous results (see Table 4a), we derive a similar interpretation from this constrained results (see Table 4b), suggesting that our balanced sampling approach is effective as the behaviour of the full set of data is similar to its smaller subset. | γ=1 | γ=2 | | | | | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|---------|-------|------|----------|------| | C V,̸e | C V,̸e | CNPMI,̸e | CNPMI | CP,o | CUMass,o | | | C V,̸e | - | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.74 | 0.81 | 0.33 | | γ=1 | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | 0.87 | - | 0.94 | 0.56 | 0.66 | 0.24 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.95 | 0.94 | - | 0.63 | 0.73 | 0.25 | | CNPMI | 0.74 | 0.56 | 0.63 | - | 0.91 | 0.58 | | CP,o | 0.81 | 0.66 | 0.73 | 0.91 | - | 0.71 | | CUMass,o | 0.33 | 0.24 | 0.25 | 0.58 | 0.71 | - | | (a) Correlation scores of metrics measured on Wiki. Combined results of Table 3 on selected metrics. C V,̸e C γ=1 V,̸e CNPMI,̸e CNPMI CP,o CUMass,o γ=2 V,̸e - 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.99 -0.14 γ=1 C V,̸e 0.92 - 0.95 0.94 0.90 -0.02 γ=2 C CNPMI,̸e 0.98 0.95 - 0.98 0.98 -0.14 CNPMI 0.95 0.94 0.98 - 0.95 -0.09 CP,o 0.99 0.90 0.98 0.95 - -0.20 CUMass,o -0.14 -0.02 -0.14 -0.09 -0.20 - (b) Correlation scores of metrics on subsection of data used in | | | | | | | corpus-pairs |T| C  γ=1 V,̸e C γ=2 V,̸e CNPMI,̸e CNPMI CP,o CUMass,o ArXiv/Pubmed 267K 0.55 0.55 0.63 0.77 0.66 0.63 ArXiv/Wiki 338K 0.58 0.55 0.60 0.73 0.63 0.49 Pubmed/Wiki 341K 0.67 0.65 0.62 0.74 0.75 0.70 Table 5: Pearson's r between exact automated coherence metric measured on different corpus-pairs (independent samples aggregated totalling |T| topics). See Table 13, Appendix C for complete results. ## 5 Examining Inter-Corpus Correlations A natural extension after inter-metrics comparison, is to compare metrics measured on different corpora. It is a common expectation that research works would employ multiple corpora, with the differences between corpora quantified superficially (such as in Section 3.2). We propose an alternative approach to quantify the differences, at a topical level, using common topics measured using automated coherence metrics. If the corpora are thematically similar, we would expect a high correlation. Analysis. Using the common topics from the paired corpora, we conduct a correlation analysis on the scores measured on each corpus per metric. Table 5 shows decent correlations between each corpus. However, even as they are positive, these correlations do not imply identical statistics in various corpora. Assuming that human judgement is constant for a given topic, we posit that variance in scores measured on different corpora could result in a lower correlation due to the missing themes | Corpus | |T¯| | C γ=1 | γ=2 | | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------|-------|------|----------|------|------| | V,̸e | C V,̸e | CNPMI,̸e | CNPMI | CP,o | CUMass,o | | | | ArXiv | 80K | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.92 | | Pubmed | 27K | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.94 | | Wiki | 143K | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.95 | | (a) Comparison of scores from selected topics measured on both lemmatized and unlemmatized corpus. Corpus |T¯| C γ=1 γ=2 V,̸e C V,̸e CNPMI,̸e CNPMI CP,o CUMass,o ArXiv 111K 0.97 0.98 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 Pubmed 60K 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.92 0.95 0.97 Wiki 150K 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 (b) Selected topics compared to its lemmatized variants, scores from both variants are measured on unlemmatized corpus. Corpus |T¯| C γ=1 γ=2 V,̸e C V,̸e CNPMI,̸e CNPMI CP,o CUMass,o ArXiv 126K 0.94 0.95 0.92 0.84 0.85 0.88 Pubmed 68K 0.93 0.95 0.91 0.82 0.83 0.82 Wiki 245K 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.92 0.93 0.92 (c) Selected topics, measured on the unlemmatized corpus, are | | | | | | | | Urb $0.63\newline0.75$  within the shared vocabulary space in either corpus. We conduct a control analysis on pairs of similar corpus differing in lemmatization, originating from the same documents, in Table 6a. These corpora would be thematically similar whilst being superficially different. Our previous analysis in Table 5, comparing to the control analysis in Table 6a, shows lower correlation scores suggesting some topical difference between the various corpora. This difference highlights the metrics' strong dependency on the corpus used, with a subset of common topics disagreeing on the scores, revealing that these metrics are not a one-size-fits-all solution for coherence evaluation. Ablations. While we know how lemmatization affects topic modelling (Schofield and Mimno, 2016), its effect on evaluation is unclear. We carried out two additional ablations simulating lemmatizing topics post-training. For the first ablation, we shortlist topics that contain at least one unlemmatized word, where if lemmatized, the lemmatized word can be found in the same unlemmatized corpus. We compare the correlation of the original and lemmatized topic, with their scores measured on the same unlemmatized corpus. Their scores have a strong correlation (see Table 6b), suggesting that the difference between lemmatized topics and unlemmatized topics is small. For the second ablation, the shortlisting process is similar, however, with lemmatized topics measured on the lemmatized corpus. Our results (see Table 6c) show a strong correlation across the various metrics and imply that post-processing topics for evaluation is a viable option. ## User Study 6 Previous works measure human judgement through simple evaluation tasks such as rating the coherence of a topic on a few-point ordinal scale (Mimno et al., 2011 ; Aletras and Stevenson, 2013 ), identifying the intruder word that introduced into the topic (Chang et al., 2009), or both (Lau et al., 2014; Hoyle et al., 2021 ). For word intrusion, the detection of outliers signals the cohesiveness of the topic, which is similar to rating topics on an ordinal scale. However for both tasks, qualitative gaps might exist. In word intrusion, study participants are restricted to just one outlier per topic, assuming perfect coding, it results in exponential drop in scoring, i.e. 100% detection for a perfect topic, 50% for a topic with a clear outlier, and so forth. For topic ratings, topics of differing qualities might get the same score, i.e. a perfect topic and a topic with a clear outlier might both get the same scores. Additionally, while the decisions between human annotators might be equivalent, it is not evident if their thought processes are similar. The key reason for this line of inquiry stems from the observation that everyone is different in some aspects, such as knowledge, culture, and experiences. Assuming our understanding of words is influenced by our prior beliefs, what and how we perceive similarity and coherence might differ from person to person. For these reasons, we decide to design a user study that combines both word intrusion and topic rating tasks but measured at a finer granularity such that we can quantify the decision-making process. Users are tasked to cluster word-groups which indicate coherent and outlier word-groups. We then examine the relationships between automated coherence metrics and different proxy tasks derived from the user study. ## User Study Design 6.1 For our study S , we recruit 8 user study groups U, S = {U1,...,U3}, 5 study participants per group. Majority of the participants recruited have | bike blue bus car green purple red train tram | | | |-------------------------------------------------|----|----| | o | o | | | o | o | | | bus | CO | o | | o | o | | | o | o | | | green | o | o | | prpie | o | o | | train | CO | o | | o | o | | | O | o | | o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Not Relat O o o o o o o o o o at least a graduate degree or are undergraduates. For each study group, we prepared 8 unique question sets Q = { T 1 , . . , T 3 } , each containing 100 10-word topics, T i = { t 1 , i , . . . , t 100, i } and t = { w 0 , j, i, . . . , w 10 , j,i } . For each participant u ∈ U i, we present each t j,i ∈ T i individually sorted alphabetically. We ask participants to cluster words in t j,i that they deem similar to form coherent word groups g , where their response R u,j,i to t j,i is a set of unique q . We constrain each word to only belong to one coherent word group to limit the task complexity. Additionally, a word considered to be unrelated may form its group of one. We use Likert matrix 9 as the response format (see Figure 3 ), mandating a response for each word w k,j,i E t j,i . Actual instructions are shown in Appendix E. Topic selection. We construct an initial pool of 1000 topics. To achieve comparability between corpus, we randomly sample 400 common topics from Wiki, ArXiv, and Pubmed. To represent nonscientific topics, we randomly sample 200 topics from Wiki that do not appear in ArXiv/Pubmed. For ArXiv/Pubmed exclusive topics, we randomly sample 200 topics each, with these topics also appearing in Wiki. We sample in a 7:1:1:1 ratio of pos/mid/neg/random segments of the corpus, seeking to emulate a uniform score distribution. To account for word familiarity, we select lemmatized topics with words found in 20K most frequently used words 10 . For each user study, we randomly o sampled 100 topics from the pool without replacement. For topics not found in ArXiv or Pubmed, we exclude them during evaluation of those corpus. Proxy Tasks. Representing coherence as wordclusters allows us to derive a deeper insight into what we perceive as human judgement. From our user study task, we further decompose this study into a few proxy tasks, where we measure the correlation (Spearman's ρ 11) of its results to automated coherent metrics. We propose three topic-level human coherence measures. Using density of human agreement, we define P1 as the mean agreement of Ui on all possible word-pairs on any topic tj,i: $$P_{1}(t_{j,i})={\frac{\sum_{u\in U_{i}}\sum_{g\in R_{u}}|g|(|g|-1)}{|U_{i}|{\frac{|t_{j,i}|(|t_{j,i}|-1)}{2}}}}\quad{\mathrm{(12)}}$$ If tj,i has perfect agreement on coherence, we expect P1(tj,i) to have a value of 1, and for incoherence, a value of 0. Subsequently, we consider the largest selected word group within tj,i, and define P2 as the mean of this measure amongst Ui: $$P_{2}(t_{j,i})={\frac{1}{|U_{i}|}}\sum_{u\in U_{i}}\operatorname*{max}(\{|g||g\in R_{u}\})$$ A value of 1 will suggest that each word in tj,i have no relations to each other and a value of |tj,i| suggest perfect agreement on coherence. Lastly, we define P3 as the mean number of annotated word groups amongst Ui: $$P_{3}(t_{j,i})={\frac{1}{|U_{i}|}}\sum_{u\in U_{i}}|R_{u}|$$ |Ru| (14) The interpretation of P3 is the inverse of P2. While these group-wise measures might seem similar, they measure different nuances of humanannotated data. P1 evaluates the sizes of multiword groups, weighted towards larger groups. P2 only accounts for the largest word group, which ignores the properties of the other remaining group. P3 ignores group sizes to a certain extent and includes single-word "outlier" groups. We evaluate these measures' correlation against various C(tj,i). ## 6.2 User Study Results We find that the three different proxy tasks produce similar results12, shown in Table 7a, 7b, and 7c re-11We use Spearman's ρ instead of Pearson's r, as we generally obtain a better r (than ρ shown) through distortion of scores. To ensure parity, we use ρ instead. 12We note that these results include outlier U3, whose negative results differ radically from other groups. Individual | ArXiv | Pubmed | Wiki | | |----------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | γ=1 | | | | | C V,̸e | 0.319 ± 0.152 | 0.516 ± 0.067 | 0.651 ± 0.099 | | C V,̸e | 0.356 ± 0.146 | 0.510 ± 0.095 | 0.652 ± 0.119 | | γ=2 | | | | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.366 ± 0.136 | 0.521 ± 0.064 | 0.664 ± 0.094 | | CNPMI | 0.304 ± 0.169 | 0.428 ± 0.111 | 0.624 ± 0.087 | | CP,o | 0.266 ± 0.178 | 0.459 ± 0.093 | 0.634 ± 0.091 | | CUMass,o | 0.243 ± 0.176 | 0.183 ± 0.161 | 0.329 ± 0.066 | | (a) Proxy Task I: Density of agreement among study participants. Full Breakdown in Table 16, Appendix C. ArXiv Pubmed Wiki C V,̸e 0.316 ± 0.159 0.511 ± 0.053 0.643 ± 0.110 γ=1 γ=2 C V,̸e 0.355 ± 0.153 0.507 ± 0.080 0.648 ± 0.130 CNPMI,̸e 0.369 ± 0.135 0.517 ± 0.049 0.654 ± 0.104 CNPMI 0.303 ± 0.175 0.421 ± 0.094 0.615 ± 0.090 CP,o 0.260 ± 0.182 0.454 ± 0.081 0.624 ± 0.103 CUMass,o 0.232 ± 0.182 0.170 ± 0.152 0.320 ± 0.060 (b) Proxy Task II: Mean of maximum coherent group between study participants. Full Breakdown in Table 17, Appendix C. ArXiv Pubmed Wiki V,̸e -0.382 ± 0.164 -0.547 ± 0.109 -0.645 ± 0.085 γ=1 C C V,̸e -0.415 ± 0.168 -0.541 ± 0.135 -0.648 ± 0.100 γ=2 CNPMI,̸e -0.434 ± 0.171 -0.549 ± 0.118 -0.660 ± 0.084 CNPMI -0.342 ± 0.195 -0.453 ± 0.118 -0.627 ± 0.085 CP,o -0.320 ± 0.200 -0.484 ± 0.107 -0.631 ± 0.082 CUMass,o -0.277 ± 0.172 -0.202 ± 0.126 -0.354 ± 0.053 (c) Proxy Task III: Mean of coherent group counts between | | | | $$(13)$$ $$(14)$$ Table 7: Average Spearman's ρ between automated coherence metrics and respective proxy measure. The values shown are the mean correlation scores from the 8 study groups with error bars. The lemmatized version of corpus are ommitted as its values are similar to the original. CUMass,s and CP,s ommited as they are almost identical to their o variant. spectively, indicating correlations between human judgement and some automated coherence metrics. Since most of our study participants have some science-related background, we are surprised by ArXiv's lower correlation scores relative to Wiki in each proxy task. These results imply that our perception of coherence might be biased towards the word distribution of a generic corpus such as Wiki. Lastly, in each proxy task, the higher variances in ArXiv's and Pubmed's correlation scores compared to Wiki's might imply increased subjectivity. Inter-rater reliability (IRR). There are many factors that wil affect the variation for IRR (Belur et al., 2021). For our user study, we attempted to mitigate some of these factors. In terms of fram-results detailed in Appendix C. ing and education, study participants were given a short introductory primer as well as some example questions prior to starting the tasks (Appendix E). To mitigate fatigue effect, we allowed the study participants a week to work on the task, pausing and continuing at their own pace. We were not concerned about learning effect, as our presented topics spans across a plethora of themes and the correctness of the task is subjective to their own personal preference. As our objective is to poll for their beliefs, with many possible valid answers, there is not a need to review and enforce consistency between study participants. We use Krippendorf's α (Krippendorff, 2011) , defining pair-wise rater similarity as Jaccard distance measuring common answers between raters. We treat each wk,j,i ∈ tj,i as a multi-classification question, comprising of other words (in tj,i) and "not related" as categories, producing boolean vector representations. The mean α¯ is 0.366 with a standard deviation of 0.04, lowest α at 0.325 and highest α at 0.464 (see Table 15, Appendix C). A completely random study response will have an α of 0.12, being significantly less than the study's α¯, giving us some confidence about the reliability of the responses. Overall, considering that there are many possible combinations for each topic response, the α reported suggests some degree of similarity between different responses. | ArXiv | Pubmed | Wiki | | |----------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | CP,s | 0.115 ± 0.062 | 0.139 ± 0.043 | 0.285 ± 0.091 | | CP,o | 0.201 ± 0.066 | 0.269 ± 0.036 | 0.447 ± 0.072 | | CUMass,s | 0.119 ± 0.057 | 0.072 ± 0.039 | 0.128 ± 0.043 | | CUMass,o | 0.185 ± 0.068 | 0.101 ± 0.037 | 0.209 ± 0.037 | Table 8: Average Spearman's ρ between automated coherence metrics pair-wise proxy measure, similar in evaluation and interpretation to Table 7. This table shows the difference in correlation results between sorted (s) and optimal (o) position-dependent metrics. Full Breakdown in Table 19, Appendix C. User study ablations. We examine if positioning affects position-dependent automated coherence metrics via human pair-wise agreement proxy task P4. We detail our optimizing approach in Appendix B. We define P4 as the percentage of agreement between any word-pairs wa and wb from tj,i from Ti evaluated by its corresponding Ui: $$P_{4}(w_{a},w_{b})=\frac{1}{|U_{i}|}\sum_{u\in U_{i}}\sum_{g\in R_{u}}w_{a}\in g\wedge w_{b}\in g\tag{15}$$ We measure the correlation of P4(wa, wb) in a group to its pair-wise automated coherence metric score via m(wa, wb) from different orderings. Our results in Table 8 show some non-significant differences in correlation on the pair-wise level. However, that difference disappears when we evaluate the topics as a group, with the sorted and optimized variant achieving similar correlations (see Table 7). Furthermore, this difference of coherence at the pair-wise and group-wise levels, suggests that the presence of other words in the topic has an influence on the human perception of word-pair coherence. Finally, we replicate most experiments with the corpus statistics from Palmetto (Röder et al., 2015), which produced similar correlation results to Wiki. ## 7 Conclusion Our large-scale analysis reaffirms that these automated coherence metrics are still meaningful. We are confident in using these metrics measured on generic corpus such as Wiki, and specialised corpora, Arxiv and Pubmed, for nicher tasks. Our user study empirically supports this conclusion, as our participants' collective response correlates well to metrics measured on Wiki, albeit weaker but meaningful correlation on the specialized corpora. This work shows that popular automated coherence metrics, CNPMI , CV , and CP , are alive and well, and works regardless of lemmatization. Furthermore, we stress that the selection of the reference corpus is just as important as the selection of the metric, with Wiki being the best reference corpus that correlates with human perception of coherence. Moving forward, when evaluating for coherence aligned towards human interpretability, we recommend future topic models to be evaluated against Wiki-variants. We also recommend calculating CV with ϵ = 0, to avoid the confusion from its contradiction of other metrics at ϵ = 1e−12. ## Acknowledgments This research/project is supported by the National Research Foundation, Singapore under its AI Singapore Programme (AISG Award No: AISG2-RP2021-020). Hady W. Lauw gratefully acknowledges the support by the Lee Kong Chian Fellowship awarded by Singapore Management University. We extend our gratitude to our user study participants for their efforts, as well as, our reviewers for their kind feedback. ## Limitations User Study. Most, if not all, of the participants are pursuing or have obtained at least a university degree/bachelor's. While we attempted to recruit widely, majority of our participants' education background is science-related, with strong leanings towards technology. Furthermore, we assume that our participants are proficient in English from their education level and the fact that they are based in a city that uses English as the common language. It is possible that there are some unknown common bias such as culture or knowledge that might affect the results. The tie-breaking constrain in our study, where study participants are required to assign one word to its most coherent group, might affect the correlation scores for the user study. Corpora. The selected corpora are constructed from documents that are formal in prose, with the purpose of being informative and instructional. We do not know if the user study results are applicable to a corpus with documents that are informal in prose, such as that of a conversational nature. However, one can always evaluate topics on a large external generic corpus to determine coherence relative to human judgement. ## Ethics Statement User Study. Prior to carrying out our user study, the survey methodology was reviewed and approved by our Institutional Review Board for ethical compliance. While unlikely, we examined each question for its appropriateness. To ensure participants' anonymity, the responses are anonymized and aggregated, and it is extremely unlikely that a participant can be identified via their response. In terms of fair compensation, we paid S$15 for each complete response of 100 questions, assuming an hour's worth of work, it is higher than our institution's prevailing rate for undergraduate student work. To ensure their well-being, study participants are allowed up to a week to complete the tasks, at their own preferred pace and place. Corpora. We select corpora that have open licensing agreements that allows for non-profit academic use, and the permissions allowing us to transform and re-distribute the processed corpora as word-pair counts. ## References Nikolaos Aletras and Mark Stevenson. 2013. Evaluating topic coherence using distributional semantics. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2013) - Long Papers, pages 13–22, Potsdam, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Giusepppe Attardi. 2015. Wikiextractor. https:// github.com/attardi/wikiextractor. Amotz Bar-Noy, Reuven Bar-Yehuda, Ari Freund, Joseph (Seffi) Naor, and Baruch Schieber. 2001. A unified approach to approximating resource allocation and scheduling. *J. ACM*, 48(5):1069–1090. Richard Bellman and Robert Kalaba. 1959. A mathematical theory of adaptive control processes. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 45(8):1288–1290. Jyoti Belur, Lisa Tompson, Amy Thornton, and Miranda Simon. 2021. Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: Exploring variation in coder decision-making. *Sociological Methods & Research*, 50(2):837–865. Federico Bianchi, Silvia Terragni, Dirk Hovy, Debora Nozza, and Elisabetta Fersini. 2021. Cross-lingual contextualized topic models with zero-shot learning. In *Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1676–1683, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. David M. Blei, Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. *J. Mach. Learn.* Res., 3:993–1022. Gerlof Bouma. 2009. Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. Proceedings of the Biennial GSCL Conference 2009. Sophie Burkhardt and Stefan Kramer. 2019. Decoupling sparsity and smoothness in the dirichlet variational autoencoder topic model. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 20(131):1–27. Dallas Card, Peter Henderson, Urvashi Khandelwal, Robin Jia, Kyle Mahowald, and Dan Jurafsky. 2020. With little power comes great responsibility. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9263–9274, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonathan Chang, Sean Gerrish, Chong Wang, Jordan Boyd-graber, and David Blei. 2009. Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 22. Curran Associates, Inc. Norishige Chiba and Takao Nishizeki. 1985. Arboricity and subgraph listing algorithms. *SIAM J. Comput.*, 14:210–223. Kenneth Ward Church and Patrick Hanks. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. *Computational Linguistics*, 16(1):22–29. Elizabeth Clark, Tal August, Sofia Serrano, Nikita Haduong, Suchin Gururangan, and Noah A. Smith. 2021. All that's 'human' is not gold: Evaluating human evaluation of generated text. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7282–7296, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maximilien Danisch, Oana Balalau, and Mauro Sozio. 2018. Listing k-cliques in sparse real-world graphs*. In *Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference*, WWW '18, page 589–598, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. Adji B. Dieng, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, and David M. Blei. 2020. Topic modeling in embedding spaces. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 8:439–453. Caitlin Doogan and Wray Buntine. 2021. Topic model or topic twaddle? re-evaluating semantic interpretability measures. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3824–3848, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kawin Ethayarajh and Dan Jurafsky. 2022. The authenticity gap in human evaluation. In *Proceedings of* the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, page 6056–6070, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Branden Fitelson. 2003. A probabilistic theory of coherence. *Analysis*, 63(3):194–199. Thomas Griffiths and Mark Steyvers. 2004. Finding scientific topics. *Proceedings of the National Academy* of Sciences of the United States of America, 101 Suppl 1:5228–35. Matthew Hoffman, Francis Bach, and David Blei. 2010. Online learning for latent dirichlet allocation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 23. Alexander Hoyle, Pranav Goel, Denis Peskov, Andrew Hian-Cheong, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Philip Resnik. 2021. Is automated topic model evaluation broken?: The incoherence of coherence. In Neural Information Processing Systems. Alexander Hoyle, Pranav Goel, Rupak Sarkar, and Philip Resnik. 2022. Are neural topic models broken? In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022*, page 5321–5344, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling. 2014. AutoEncoding Variational Bayes. In *2nd International* Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014, Banff, AB, Canada, April 14-16, 2014, Conference Track Proceedings. K. Krippendorff. 2011. Computing krippendorff's alpha-reliability. Jey Han Lau, Timothy Baldwin, and Trevor Cohn. 2017. Topically driven neural language model. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for* Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 355–365, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jey Han Lau, David Newman, and Timothy Baldwin. 2014. Machine reading tea leaves: Automatically evaluating topic coherence and topic model quality. In *Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics, pages 530–539, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics. Raymond Li, Wen Xiao, Linzi Xing, Lanjun Wang, Gabriel Murray, and Giuseppe Carenini. 2022. Human guided exploitation of interpretable attention patterns in summarization and topic segmentation. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 10189–10204, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yu Meng, Yunyi Zhang, Jiaxin Huang, Yu Zhang, Chao Zhang, and Jiawei Han. 2020. Hierarchical topic mining via joint spherical tree and text embedding. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD '20, page 1908–1917, New York, NY, USA. Yishu Miao, Lei Yu, and Phil Blunsom. 2016. Neural variational inference for text processing. In *Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on* Machine Learning, volume 48 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 1727–1736, New York, New York, USA. David Mimno, Hanna Wallach, Edmund Talley, Miriam Leenders, and Andrew McCallum. 2011. Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 262–272, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bryan Perozzi, Rami Al-Rfou, and Steven Skiena. 2014. Deepwalk: Online learning of social representations. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '14, pages 701–710, New York, NY, USA. ACM. Barbara Plank. 2022. The 'problem' of human label variation: On ground truth in data, modeling and evaluation. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, page 10671–10682, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Frank Rosner, Alexander Hinneburg, Michael Röder, Martin Nettling, and Andreas Both. 2014. Evaluating topic coherence measures. Michael Röder, Andreas Both, and Alexander Hinneburg. 2015. Exploring the space of topic coherence measures. In *WSDM*, pages 399–408. Alexandra Schofield and David Mimno. 2016. Comparing apples to apple: The effects of stemmers on topic models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:287–300. Dazhong Shen, Chuan Qin, Chao Wang, Zheng Dong, Hengshu Zhu, and Hui Xiong. 2021. Topic modeling revisited: A document graph-based neural network perspective. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 - 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NeurIPS 2021, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 14681–14693. Neural information processing systems foundation. Akash Srivastava and Charles Sutton. 2017. Autoencoding variational inference for topic models. In *ICLR* (Poster). Wenlin Wang, Zhe Gan, Hongteng Xu, Ruiyi Zhang, Guoyin Wang, Dinghan Shen, Changyou Chen, and Lawrence Carin. 2019. Topic-guided variational auto-encoder for text generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 166–177, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhengjue Wang, Zhibin Duan, Hao Zhang, Chaojie Wang, Long Tian, Bo Chen, and Mingyuan Zhou. 2020. Friendly topic assistant for transformer based abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 485–497, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Linzi Xing and Michael Paul. 2018. Diagnosing and improving topic models by analyzing posterior variability. *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial* Intelligence, 32(1). Liang Yang, Fan Wu, Junhua Gu, Chuan Wang, Xiaochun Cao, Di Jin, and Yuanfang Guo. 2020. Graph attention topic modeling network. In *Proceedings* of The Web Conference 2020, WWW '20, page 144–154, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Zhirong Yuan, You Peng, Peng Cheng, Li Han, Xuemin Lin, Lei Chen, and Wenjie Zhang. 2022. Efficient k − clique listing with set intersection speedup. In 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 1955–1968. Ce Zhang and Hady W Lauw. 2020. Topic modeling on document networks with adjacent-encoder. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 6737–6745. Delvin Ce Zhang and Hady W Lauw. 2022. Variational graph author topic modeling. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 2429–2438. He Zhao, Lan Du, Wray Buntine, and Gang Liu. 2017a. Metalda: A topic model that efficiently incorporates meta information. In *2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)*, pages 635–644. Renbo Zhao, Vincent Tan, and Huan Xu. 2017b. Online Nonnegative Matrix Factorization with General Divergences. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 54 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 37–45. ## A Algorithm Pseudocode | ArXiv | Pubmed | Wiki | | |---------|-----------------|-----------|---------------| | pos (>) | 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 | | | | mid | (−0.05, 0.15) | (0, 0.15) | (−0.05, 0.15) | | neg (<) | −0.2, −0.4 | −0.2 | −0.1, −0.4 | Table 9: Hyper-parameter threshold for different subgraphs. Multiple thresholds are indicative of multiple runs. *random* and ext are not hyper-parameter dependant. When possible, hyper-parameters were chosen to produce to control sub-graph density. Pre-processing steps to reduce complexity, Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2, remain unchanged from Yuan et al. (2022). These steps can be skipped when the graph is large and dense, such as during neg sub-graphs generation. Our modification in Algorithm 3 and Algorithm 4 introduces randomness via permutations and early stopping, when a k-clique is found in Algorithm 3 and a desired number of k-cliques found in Algorithm 4. The subgraph reduction is implemented in Algorithm 3. Algorithm 1 PRE-CORE(G, k) Prune vertices with less than k edges from G Input: A graph G and a positive integer k Q ← ∅, F ← ∅ for u ∈ G do if du < k − 1 **then** Q.push(u) F ← F ∪ {u} end if end for while Q ̸= ∅ do u ← Q.pop() for node v ∈ neighbours Nu do dv ← dv − 1 if dv < k − 1 ∧ v /∈ F **then** F ← F ∪ {v} Q.push(v) end if end for end while Algorithm 2 PRE-LIST(G,k) Find exact k-cliques and remove them from G for each connected components C ∈ G do mc ← |E(C)|, nc ← |V (C)| if mc = (nc − 1)nc **then** remove C from G output k-cliques C end if end for A set of connected components refers to a set of nodes where each node shares an edge with all Algorithm 3 SDegreeList(k, R, C, G⃗ ) for u ∈ Permutate(C) do if |C| ≤ l − 2 **then** continue end if if k < 2 **then** return ∅ end if Cˆ ← N + u ∩ C if k = 2 ∧ |Cˆ| > 0 **then** O ← R ∪ {u} remove (ui, uj ) from G⃗ ∀ui, uj ∈ O return O end if if |Cˆ| > l − 2 **then** return SDegreeList(k − 1, R, Cˆ, G⃗ ) end if end for other nodes in the set. Finding next connected components Cˆ, requires a set intersection operation between all possible neighbours of randomly selected node u, denoted N + u , and current connected components C. ## Algorithm 4 Main(G, K, Target) G ← PRE-CORE(*G, k*) G ← PRE-LIST(*G, k*) Generate DAG G⃗ O ← ∅ for u ∈ Permutate(G⃗ ) do r ← SDegreeList(k − 1, {u}, N + u, G⃗ ) if |r| == k **then** O = O ∪ {r} end if if target == |O| **then** return O end if end for The main algorithm gets invoked once per subgraph, we can generate multiple sub-graphs by selecting a set of words that neighbours a randomly chosen word. We then truncate the edges that do not fulfill the edge-conditions. ## B Optimizing Position-Based Scoring Given a set of k words as a topic, our goal is to optimize the position-based score. We can reduce this problem to a weighted activity selection problem, which is equivalent to finding a max-weight independent set in an interval graph and can be solved in polynomial time (Bar-Noy et al., 2001). Consider a word w at the j th position, index starting from 0, we can visualize the ordering as having j incoming edges, indicating precedence of other words, and k − j + 1 outgoing edges, indicating w precedence to other ensuing words. An activity will be defined by its start-time (position) and its preceding and ensuing activities. Each activity has an equal interval and the weight of the activity is determined by the difference of outgoing and incoming edges to all other words scored via m. We can transform the activities into an interval graph, with |C l j*| · |*C l l−j+1| combinatorial number of possible instances for each word per time slot in the schedule. Our transformation will result in an interval graph of k disjoint graphs. While the number of activities might seem to be combinatorially explosive, selecting the first activity at T = 0, only involves k activities, and upon selection prunes multiple branches, resulting in k − j choices at T = j. Hence, we are only required to select the best activity within each disjoint graph conditioned on availability (word not selected before). ## C Supplementary Tables This section lists tables with quantitative supplementary information. Table 10 details the results for ArXiv and Pubmed corpus for inter-metric correlation analysis in Section 4.2. Table 11 provides additional information on the similarity between control and treated topics for the lemmatization effect ablation in Section 5. Table 12 provides a detailed breakdown of subgraph segments that is shortlisted for the lemmatization effect ablation in Section 5. Table 13 details the full complete results for intercorpus correlation analysis, its partial table can be found in Table 5, Section 5. Table 14 has additional quantitative information regarding the quantity of common topics in corpuspairs used in the inter-corpus experiments of Section 5. Table 15 has the individual Krippendorf's α for each user study group U for the user study in Section 6. Tables 16, 17, 18, and 19 has the individual correlation scores of each user study group U to the various coherence metrics for Proxy Task I, II, III, and pair-wise ablation respectively. Its averages are tabled in Tables 7a, 7b, 7c, and 8 in Section 6. | ϵ | C V | C | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------| | γ=1 | V | CNPMI | CP,o | CUMass,o | | | γ=2 | | | | | | | V | - | 0.90 | -0.87 | -0.72 | -0.42 | | γ=1 | | | | | | | C C V | 0.90 | - | -0.93 | -0.81 | -0.52 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | CNPMI | -0.87 | -0.93 | - | 0.91 | 0.60 | | CP,o | -0.72 | -0.81 | 0.91 | - | 0.83 | | CUMass,o | -0.42 | -0.52 | 0.60 | 0.83 | - | | (a) Correlation scores measured on ArXiv with ϵ = 1e-12 ̸ϵ C V C γ=1 V CNPMI CP,o CUMass,o γ=2 C V - 0.84 0.85 0.75 0.06 γ=1 V 0.84 - 0.90 0.51 0.08 γ=2 C CNPMI 0.85 0.90 - 0.47 0.07 CP,o 0.75 0.51 0.47 - -0.10 CUMass,o 0.06 0.08 0.07 -0.10 - (b) Correlation scores measured on ArXiv with ϵ = 0 γ=1 γ=2 ϵ C V C V CNPMI CP,o CUMass,o C V - 0.21 0.60 0.40 -0.16 γ=1 γ=2 C V 0.21 - -0.56 -0.66 -0.81 CNPMI 0.60 -0.56 - 0.85 0.54 CP,o 0.40 -0.66 0.85 - 0.81 CUMass,o -0.16 -0.81 0.54 0.81 - (c) Correlation scores measured on Pubmed with ϵ = 1e-12 ̸ϵ C V C γ=1 V CNPMI CP,o CUMass,o γ=2 γ=1 C V - 0.78 0.94 0.67 0.02 C V 0.78 - 0.85 0.54 0.02 γ=2 CNPMI 0.94 0.85 - 0.56 -0.02 CP,o 0.67 0.54 0.56 - -0.13 CUMass,o 0.02 0.02 -0.02 -0.13 - | | | | | |  | anti | pos | middle | random | ext | Total | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------|----------|-------|---------|---------| | ArXiv | 63,648 | 1,262 | 12,055 | 9,169 | 25,546 | 111,680 | | Pubmed | 7,675 | 2,161 | 6,839 | 9,616 | 33,776 | 60,067 | | Wiki | 52,867 | 15,074 | 27,638 | 8,811 | 45,194 | 149,584 | | (a) Accompanying details for experiment results in Table 6b. anti pos middle random ext Total | | | | | | | | ArXiv | 58,274 | 1,449 | 13,559 | 7,833 | 44,446 | 125,561 | | Pubmed | 9,857 | 2,396 | 119 | 2,025 | 53,751 | 68,148 | | Wiki | 52,435 | 16,965 | 33,788 | 8,967 | 132,840 | 244,995 | Table 12: Quantity of segmentation of sampled topics for respective lemmatization effect ablation experiments (see Section 5). corpus-pairs |T| C γ=1 V,̸e C γ=2 V,̸e CNPMI,̸e CNPMI CP,o CUMass,o ArXiv/Pubmed 267K 0.55 0.55 0.63 0.77 0.66 0.63 ArXiv/Wiki 338K 0.58 0.55 0.60 0.73 0.63 0.49 ArXiv/Palmetto 114K 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.50 0.44 0.44 Pubmed/Wiki 341K 0.67 0.65 0.62 0.74 0.75 0.70 Pubmed/Palmetto 130K 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.69 0.69 0.55 Wiki/Palmetto 447K 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.84 Wiki-l/ArXiv-l 114K 0.54 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.47 0.70 Pubmed-l/ArXiv-l 101K 0.59 0.57 0.70 0.76 0.59 0.78 Pubmed-l/Wiki-l 125K 0.70 0.68 0.71 0.78 0.74 0.78 Pubmed-l/Palmetto 125K 0.70 0.67 0.69 0.77 0.74 0.59 ArXiv-l/Palmetto 114K 0.54 0.55 0.58 0.58 0.49 0.49 Wiki-l/Palmetto 447K 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.91 Table 13: Pearson's r (independent samples were aggregated) between exact automated coherence metric measured on different corpus-pairs (independent samples were aggregated). Suffix -l. short form for -lemma. Table 14: Quantity of common vocabularies between corpus. Suffix -l. short form for -lemma. Palmetto was re-constructed using 20K most frequent words excluding stop words. Table 15: Detailed Krippendorf's α for each user study. | corpus | ArXiv | ArXiv-l. | Pubmed | Pubmed-l. | Wiki | Wiki-l. | Palmetto | |----------|---------|------------|----------|-------------|--------|-----------|------------| | Total | 26,620 | 22,184 | 38,829 | 39,997 | 40003 | 40,009 | 16,567 | | ArXiv | - | 19,637 | 13,138 | 10,527 | 12,955 | 10,230 | 6,827 | | ArXiv-l | 19,637 | - | 9,636 | 11,015 | 9,563 | 10,504 | 7,130 | | Pubmed | 13,138 | 9,636 | - | 23,328 | 15,459 | 12,565 | 8,006 | | Pubmed-l | 10,527 | 11,015 | 23,328 | - | 12,637 | 14,112 | 8,932 | | Wiki | 12,955 | 9,563 | 15,459 | 12,637 | - | 31,047 | 13,136 | | Wiki-l | 10,230 | 10,504 | 12,565 | 14,112 | 31,047 | - | 14,392 | | Palmetto | 6,827 | 7,130 | 8,006 | 8,932 | 13,136 | 14,392 | - | | Groups | U1 | U2 | U3 | U4 | U5 | U6 | U7 | U8 | Mean (S.D) | |-----------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|--------------| | Kripp's α | 0.463 | 0.391 | 0.323 | 0.376 | 0.325 | 0.366 | 0.333 | 0.347 | 0.366 (0.04) | | Groups | U1 | U2 | U3 | U4 | U5 | U6 | U7 | U8 | Mean (S.D) | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|---------------| | ArXiv γ=1 C V,̸e | 0.464 | 0.448 | -0.021 | 0.330 | 0.399 | 0.437 | 0.218 | 0.281 | 0.319 ± 0.152 | | C V,̸e | 0.503 | 0.469 | 0.030 | 0.281 | 0.459 | 0.462 | 0.344 | 0.300 | 0.356 ± 0.146 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.475 | 0.426 | 0.073 | 0.392 | 0.516 | 0.470 | 0.304 | 0.270 | 0.366 ± 0.136 | | CNPMI | 0.368 | 0.490 | -0.110 | 0.309 | 0.386 | 0.394 | 0.251 | 0.348 | 0.304 ± 0.169 | | CP,o | 0.372 | 0.455 | -0.157 | 0.285 | 0.355 | 0.383 | 0.208 | 0.231 | 0.266 ± 0.178 | | CUMass,o | 0.348 | 0.476 | -0.162 | 0.256 | 0.309 | 0.261 | 0.152 | 0.305 | 0.243 ± 0.176 | | Pubmed γ=1 C V,̸e | 0.609 | 0.560 | 0.372 | 0.550 | 0.462 | 0.511 | 0.526 | 0.535 | 0.516 ± 0.067 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | 0.662 | 0.622 | 0.356 | 0.465 | 0.415 | 0.543 | 0.492 | 0.521 | 0.510 ± 0.095 | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.574 | 0.605 | 0.396 | 0.534 | 0.453 | 0.498 | 0.548 | 0.560 | 0.521 ± 0.064 | | CNPMI | 0.479 | 0.447 | 0.165 | 0.531 | 0.442 | 0.368 | 0.453 | 0.537 | 0.428 ± 0.111 | | CP,o | 0.519 | 0.511 | 0.231 | 0.531 | 0.482 | 0.409 | 0.502 | 0.488 | 0.459 ± 0.093 | | CUMass,o | 0.252 | 0.177 | -0.115 | 0.327 | 0.280 | 0.043 | 0.087 | 0.417 | 0.183 ± 0.161 | | Wiki γ=1 C V,̸e | 0.692 | 0.715 | 0.413 | 0.758 | 0.607 | 0.670 | 0.692 | 0.664 | 0.651 ± 0.099 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | 0.719 | 0.739 | 0.348 | 0.727 | 0.631 | 0.673 | 0.702 | 0.678 | 0.652 ± 0.119 | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.737 | 0.718 | 0.445 | 0.760 | 0.608 | 0.670 | 0.706 | 0.664 | 0.664 ± 0.094 | | CNPMI | 0.718 | 0.679 | 0.451 | 0.734 | 0.556 | 0.582 | 0.641 | 0.630 | 0.624 ± 0.087 | | CP,o | 0.658 | 0.695 | 0.422 | 0.737 | 0.585 | 0.671 | 0.684 | 0.621 | 0.634 ± 0.091 | | CUMass,o | 0.405 | 0.322 | 0.226 | 0.427 | 0.381 | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.326 | 0.329 ± 0.066 | | Palmetto γ=1 C V,̸e | 0.696 | 0.690 | 0.401 | 0.740 | 0.614 | 0.715 | 0.696 | 0.668 | 0.653 ± 0.101 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | 0.726 | 0.705 | 0.363 | 0.739 | 0.646 | 0.726 | 0.706 | 0.685 | 0.662 ± 0.116 | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.721 | 0.694 | 0.439 | 0.734 | 0.613 | 0.722 | 0.719 | 0.654 | 0.662 ± 0.093 | | CNPMI | 0.647 | 0.610 | 0.464 | 0.697 | 0.562 | 0.666 | 0.699 | 0.638 | 0.623 ± 0.073 | | CP,o | 0.635 | 0.628 | 0.404 | 0.703 | 0.573 | 0.690 | 0.663 | 0.656 | 0.619 ± 0.089 | | CUMass,o | 0.409 | 0.205 | 0.210 | 0.324 | 0.290 | 0.201 | 0.200 | 0.317 | 0.269 ± 0.073 | | Table 16: Detailed breakdown of Proxy Task I, values are Spearman's ρ of density of agreement and coherence | | | | | | | | | | Table 16: Detailed breakdown of Proxy Task I, values are Spearman's ρ of density of agreement and coherence scores. CUMass,s and CP,s ommited as they are almost identical to their o variant. | Groups | U1 | U2 | U3 | U4 | U5 | U6 | U7 | U8 | Mean (S.D) | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|---------------| | ArXiv γ=1 C V,̸e | 0.497 | 0.418 | -0.028 | 0.308 | 0.383 | 0.463 | 0.200 | 0.289 | 0.316 ± 0.159 | | C V,̸e | 0.534 | 0.438 | 0.027 | 0.263 | 0.448 | 0.497 | 0.332 | 0.305 | 0.355 ± 0.153 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.524 | 0.383 | 0.094 | 0.372 | 0.488 | 0.509 | 0.298 | 0.283 | 0.369 ± 0.135 | | CNPMI | 0.400 | 0.465 | -0.130 | 0.282 | 0.361 | 0.425 | 0.266 | 0.353 | 0.303 ± 0.175 | | CP,o | 0.401 | 0.420 | -0.175 | 0.260 | 0.315 | 0.415 | 0.209 | 0.235 | 0.260 ± 0.182 | | CUMass,o | 0.352 | 0.469 | -0.189 | 0.215 | 0.284 | 0.278 | 0.150 | 0.298 | 0.232 ± 0.182 | | Pubmed γ=1 C V,̸e | 0.607 | 0.530 | 0.408 | 0.529 | 0.470 | 0.520 | 0.510 | 0.514 | 0.511 ± 0.053 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | 0.663 | 0.574 | 0.399 | 0.444 | 0.431 | 0.538 | 0.486 | 0.520 | 0.507 ± 0.080 | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.579 | 0.572 | 0.432 | 0.505 | 0.456 | 0.516 | 0.534 | 0.546 | 0.517 ± 0.049 | | CNPMI | 0.468 | 0.446 | 0.190 | 0.482 | 0.453 | 0.374 | 0.454 | 0.498 | 0.421 ± 0.094 | | CP,o | 0.518 | 0.504 | 0.256 | 0.502 | 0.492 | 0.409 | 0.492 | 0.456 | 0.454 ± 0.081 | | CUMass,o | 0.234 | 0.196 | -0.130 | 0.280 | 0.290 | 0.028 | 0.096 | 0.367 | 0.170 ± 0.152 | | Wiki γ=1 C V,̸e | 0.682 | 0.701 | 0.367 | 0.754 | 0.624 | 0.683 | 0.678 | 0.657 | 0.643 ± 0.110 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | 0.715 | 0.726 | 0.310 | 0.724 | 0.652 | 0.695 | 0.690 | 0.675 | 0.648 ± 0.130 | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.729 | 0.706 | 0.397 | 0.749 | 0.625 | 0.682 | 0.689 | 0.658 | 0.654 ± 0.104 | | CNPMI | 0.708 | 0.672 | 0.413 | 0.712 | 0.568 | 0.594 | 0.635 | 0.616 | 0.615 ± 0.090 | | CP,o | 0.645 | 0.679 | 0.373 | 0.733 | 0.598 | 0.677 | 0.670 | 0.613 | 0.624 ± 0.103 | | CUMass,o | 0.397 | 0.311 | 0.210 | 0.398 | 0.365 | 0.278 | 0.288 | 0.311 | 0.320 ± 0.060 | | Palmetto γ=1 C V,̸e | 0.680 | 0.679 | 0.364 | 0.736 | 0.629 | 0.722 | 0.690 | 0.661 | 0.645 ± 0.111 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | 0.716 | 0.692 | 0.328 | 0.735 | 0.663 | 0.742 | 0.700 | 0.680 | 0.657 ± 0.127 | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.706 | 0.685 | 0.397 | 0.728 | 0.630 | 0.725 | 0.712 | 0.651 | 0.654 ± 0.103 | | CNPMI | 0.630 | 0.605 | 0.428 | 0.688 | 0.577 | 0.662 | 0.707 | 0.633 | 0.616 ± 0.081 | | CP,o | 0.617 | 0.618 | 0.373 | 0.695 | 0.591 | 0.691 | 0.662 | 0.649 | 0.612 ± 0.096 | | CUMass,o | 0.392 | 0.206 | 0.218 | 0.283 | 0.289 | 0.194 | 0.245 | 0.310 | 0.267 ± 0.061 | | Table 17: Detailed breakdown of Proxy Task II, values are Spearman's ρ of mean of maximum group counts and | | | | | | | | | | Table 17: Detailed breakdown of Proxy Task II, values are Spearman's ρ of mean of maximum group counts and coherence scores. CUMass,s and CP,s ommited as they are almost identical to their o variant. | Groups | U1 | U2 | U3 | U4 | U5 | U6 | U7 | U8 | Mean (S.D) | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------------| | ArXiv C V,̸e | -0.533 | -0.529 | 0.007 | -0.350 | -0.485 | -0.447 | -0.336 | -0.384 | -0.382 ± 0.164 | | γ=1 V,̸e | -0.563 | -0.577 | -0.026 | -0.319 | -0.520 | -0.470 | -0.454 | -0.391 | -0.415 ± 0.168 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | C CNPMI,̸e | -0.562 | -0.584 | -0.019 | -0.428 | -0.556 | -0.499 | -0.433 | -0.388 | -0.434 ± 0.171 | | CNPMI | -0.429 | -0.546 | 0.144 | -0.330 | -0.457 | -0.376 | -0.340 | -0.405 | -0.342 ± 0.195 | | CP,o | -0.448 | -0.536 | 0.169 | -0.290 | -0.446 | -0.364 | -0.325 | -0.320 | -0.320 ± 0.200 | | CUMass,o | -0.387 | -0.442 | 0.129 | -0.299 | -0.419 | -0.229 | -0.214 | -0.352 | -0.277 ± 0.172 | | Pubmed C V,̸e | -0.608 | -0.649 | -0.298 | -0.636 | -0.459 | -0.589 | -0.579 | -0.556 | -0.547 ± 0.109 | | γ=1 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | -0.652 | -0.720 | -0.248 | -0.549 | -0.430 | -0.586 | -0.576 | -0.565 | -0.541 ± 0.135 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | CNPMI,̸e | -0.594 | -0.705 | -0.280 | -0.609 | -0.474 | -0.577 | -0.591 | -0.563 | -0.549 ± 0.118 | | CNPMI | -0.506 | -0.457 | -0.179 | -0.590 | -0.416 | -0.434 | -0.480 | -0.560 | -0.453 ± 0.118 | | CP,o | -0.519 | -0.562 | -0.225 | -0.589 | -0.438 | -0.492 | -0.548 | -0.499 | -0.484 ± 0.107 | | CUMass,o | -0.277 | -0.155 | 0.004 | -0.327 | -0.234 | -0.105 | -0.114 | -0.408 | -0.202 ± 0.126 | | Wiki C V,̸e | -0.713 | -0.655 | -0.473 | -0.756 | -0.561 | -0.691 | -0.680 | -0.632 | -0.645 ± 0.085 | | γ=1 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | -0.751 | -0.679 | -0.410 | -0.722 | -0.602 | -0.686 | -0.697 | -0.641 | -0.648 ± 0.100 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | CNPMI,̸e | -0.759 | -0.661 | -0.496 | -0.755 | -0.572 | -0.699 | -0.693 | -0.646 | -0.660 ± 0.084 | | CNPMI | -0.727 | -0.623 | -0.496 | -0.764 | -0.523 | -0.627 | -0.645 | -0.608 | -0.627 ± 0.085 | | CP,o | -0.684 | -0.636 | -0.483 | -0.742 | -0.538 | -0.697 | -0.675 | -0.596 | -0.631 ± 0.082 | | CUMass,o | -0.387 | -0.358 | -0.276 | -0.455 | -0.371 | -0.342 | -0.285 | -0.357 | -0.354 ± 0.053 | | Palmetto C V,̸e | -0.698 | -0.641 | -0.454 | -0.745 | -0.572 | -0.739 | -0.667 | -0.637 | -0.644 ± 0.089 | | γ=1 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | -0.734 | -0.648 | -0.420 | -0.736 | -0.600 | -0.745 | -0.681 | -0.644 | -0.651 ± 0.100 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | CNPMI,̸e | -0.733 | -0.649 | -0.489 | -0.737 | -0.582 | -0.755 | -0.684 | -0.638 | -0.658 ± 0.084 | | CNPMI | -0.647 | -0.579 | -0.497 | -0.719 | -0.550 | -0.720 | -0.647 | -0.625 | -0.623 ± 0.073 | | CP,o | -0.635 | -0.587 | -0.447 | -0.718 | -0.537 | -0.714 | -0.632 | -0.625 | -0.612 ± 0.084 | | CUMass,o | -0.387 | -0.242 | -0.214 | -0.365 | -0.296 | -0.267 | -0.176 | -0.340 | -0.286 ± 0.070 | | Table 18: Detailed breakdown of Proxy Task III, values are Spearman's ρ of mean of group counts and coherence | | | | | | | | | | | Groups | U1 | U2 | U3 | U4 | U5 | U6 | U7 | U8 | Mean (S.D) | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|---------------| | ArXiv C V,̸e | 0.262 | 0.232 | 0.051 | 0.170 | 0.211 | 0.219 | 0.072 | 0.183 | 0.175 ± 0.071 | | γ=1 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | 0.287 | 0.224 | 0.038 | 0.166 | 0.203 | 0.219 | 0.079 | 0.208 | 0.178 ± 0.076 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.257 | 0.215 | 0 .104 | 0.176 | 0.254 | 0.221 | 0.105 | 0.188 | 0.190 ± 0.056 | | CNPMI | 0.272 | 0.231 | 0.110 | 0.209 | 0.262 | 0.225 | 0.123 | 0.259 | 0.211 ± 0.058 | | CP,s | 0.299 | 0.238 | 0.079 | 0.193 | 0.230 | 0.242 | 0.120 | 0.202 | 0.201 ± 0.066 | | CP,o | 0.218 | 0.152 | -0.019 | 0.101 | 0.124 | 0.125 | 0.091 | 0.126 | 0.115 ± 0.062 | | CUMass,s | 0.280 | 0.213 | 0.061 | 0.140 | 0.228 | 0.228 | 0.111 | 0.220 | 0.185 ± 0.068 | | CUMass,o | 0.193 | 0.146 | -0.007 | 0.118 | 0.133 | 0.155 | 0.076 | 0.137 | 0.119 ± 0.057 | | Pubmed γ=1 C V,̸e | 0.328 | 0.321 | 0.221 | 0.335 | 0.269 | 0.256 | 0.280 | 0.340 | 0.294 ± 0.041 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | 0.314 | 0.281 | 0.213 | 0.295 | 0.272 | 0.235 | 0.261 | 0.331 | 0.275 ± 0.037 | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.240 | 0.259 | 0.205 | 0.269 | 0.242 | 0.184 | 0.229 | 0.291 | 0.240 ± 0.032 | | CNPMI | 0.274 | 0.261 | 0.188 | 0.305 | 0.257 | 0.201 | 0.225 | 0.305 | 0.252 ± 0.041 | | CP,s | 0.294 | 0.286 | 0.206 | 0.306 | 0.261 | 0.225 | 0.256 | 0.316 | 0.269 ± 0.036 | | CP,o | 0.183 | 0.160 | 0.063 | 0.140 | 0.109 | 0.112 | 0.134 | 0.210 | 0.139 ± 0.043 | | CUMass,s | 0.114 | 0.086 | 0.087 | 0.132 | 0.116 | 0.061 | 0.044 | 0.167 | 0.101 ± 0.037 | | CUMass,o | 0.078 | 0.090 | 0.009 | 0.111 | 0.098 | 0.056 | 0.016 | 0.121 | 0.072 ± 0.039 | | Wiki γ=1 C V,̸e | 0.560 | 0.527 | 0.300 | 0.547 | 0.406 | 0.494 | 0.422 | 0.485 | 0.468 ± 0.082 | | C V,̸e | 0.543 | 0.518 | 0.299 | 0.527 | 0.399 | 0.484 | 0.405 | 0.470 | 0.455 ± 0.077 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.524 | 0.495 | 0.295 | 0.510 | 0.397 | 0.433 | 0.405 | 0.440 | 0.437 ± 0.070 | | CNPMI | 0.518 | 0.498 | 0.297 | 0.507 | 0.396 | 0.429 | 0.395 | 0.454 | 0.437 ± 0.069 | | CP,s | 0.526 | 0.503 | 0.299 | 0.517 | 0.393 | 0.469 | 0.410 | 0.460 | 0.447 ± 0.072 | | CP,o | 0.384 | 0.338 | 0.094 | 0.379 | 0.218 | 0.336 | 0.265 | 0.269 | 0.285 ± 0.091 | | CUMass,s | 0.243 | 0.257 | 0.159 | 0.217 | 0.199 | 0.202 | 0.149 | 0.243 | 0.209 ± 0.037 | | CUMass,o | 0.165 | 0.163 | 0.058 | 0.173 | 0.103 | 0.126 | 0.070 | 0.163 | 0.128 ± 0.043 | | Palmetto C V,̸e | 0.553 | 0.503 | 0.292 | 0.542 | 0.398 | 0.516 | 0.428 | 0.496 | 0.466 ± 0.083 | | γ=1 | | | | | | | | | | | C V,̸e | 0.538 | 0.491 | 0.299 | 0.515 | 0.398 | 0.509 | 0.418 | 0.486 | 0.457 ± 0.075 | | γ=2 | | | | | | | | | | | CNPMI,̸e | 0.524 | 0.479 | 0.294 | 0.508 | 0.394 | 0.472 | 0.424 | 0.454 | 0.444 ± 0.069 | | CNPMI | 0.526 | 0.479 | 0.295 | 0.514 | 0.391 | 0.472 | 0.416 | 0.468 | 0.445 ± 0.071 | | CP,s | 0.516 | 0.466 | 0.291 | 0.504 | 0.378 | 0.484 | 0.406 | 0.479 | 0.441 ± 0.072 | | CP,o | 0.411 | 0.325 | 0.104 | 0.354 | 0.209 | 0.342 | 0.261 | 0.325 | 0.291 ± 0.091 | | CUMass,s | 0.217 | 0.203 | 0.136 | 0.172 | 0.166 | 0.181 | 0.146 | 0.209 | 0.179 ± 0.028 | | CUMass,o | 0.155 | 0.145 | 0.070 | 0.145 | 0.103 | 0.110 | 0.080 | 0.153 | 0.120 ± 0.032 | | Table 19: Detailed breakdown of Pair-wise Proxy Task. Values are Spearman's ρ. | | | | | | | | | | ## D Topic Examples (User Study) This Set Of 100 Topics Belongs To T1, And Were Shown To U1: 1. ethic humanities intellectual interdisciplinary journal philosophical scientific social society sociology 2. automate behavior check computation correct fluid limitation numerical processing specify 3. behavioral differ differentiation extent furthermore interaction neural overlap similarity trait 4. accountant archdiocese citizenship compile cultivate enlarge ferry grab interim wield 5. care educate educational engage life pandemic participation preparedness social support 6. advent anatomy enhance harmless interfere mortality psychiatrist swallow terminate urine 7. agent buy buyer maximize profit risk sell seller social utility 8. benchmark effectiveness experiment extensive indoor outdoor performance real-world synthetic validate 9. bandwidth beam conversion generation laser photon pulse pump purity silicon 10. anxiety child depression distress illness mental parent parenting social stress 11. account activity audit employment fund provision public purpose resource security 12. acidity alcoholic biochemical compete fuse insulin pathological short-term smell spontaneous 13. access communication device hardware infrastructure management resource secure technology wireless 14. bladder blood cardiac cavity congenital gastrointestinal intestinal obstruction procedure surgical 15. assess assessment company industry maturity methodology organization quality research software 16. building conditional embryonic glacial hair multiplicity overly programming questionnaire renewable 17. adoption encryption insurance job minimal native nowadays predictor resilience visit 18. continued doubling feedback growing guideline hypothetical induction pad readiness worth 19. automated detect detection measurement observation optical radar real-time sensor spacecraft 20. advent bald deficiency household liquid museum parasite physique qualify rude 21. control evaluation framework implement level monitor optimal regulation response specific 22. dose gland hormone inflammation inject muscle secretion serum stimulate toxin 23. creative family handy lie mold rank residual semantic transmission weaken 24. broad hair irregular length longitudinal mature somewhat spore tooth yellow 25. appropriate behavioral combination condition define evaluate prescribe specify substance weight 26. astronomical binary celestial galactic gravitational orbital radiation stellar telescope velocity 27. cheese dish egg fruit layer leaf meat oven rice tray 28. appropriate authority case document guideline investigation legal necessary regulation submit 29. acid biological chromosome cluster determine interact observe similarity structure visualize 30. affect concern cost development environmental provision quality relate reproductive resource 31. care health licensed medical nurse provider qualified skilled specialty technician 32. binary decomposition infinite molecule parameter possible radiation ratio sphere unstable 33. attacker contract ensure identity malicious protect protection provider trust user 34. container functionality handle item lock normal optional slot thread type 35. acquire appraisal author baby device plentiful poor sandwich schizophrenia tailor 36. cancer cause genetic immune likely malignant occur patient syndrome viral 37. concern government information legal political public regard society technology topic 38. bubble gas interstellar medium outflow shock supersonic turbulence turbulent wind 39. cool heat load plate roof rotate stack tray underneath wrap 40. attempt collapse crush escape knock push save ultimate unable unconscious 41. automate benefit health human infrastructure life online public quality user 42. academic career degree graduate medicine nursing program science student university 43. amp award consultant deliver new radio scientist staff technology visual 44. abolish administer annex autonomy dominion mandate sovereign statute territorial treaty 45. duct ear genital insert lip muscle nerve nipple tissue vagina 46. align architecture benign command embryonic legal population strange superficial team 47. historical news perspective reader recommendation researcher science summarize summary try 48. barrel bolt flame knife metal needle rod rope thread wire 49. barbecue cuisine dish grill lamb meal pork potato spicy stew 50. adverse benefit decrease efficacy long-term prevent short-term stress surgery sustain 51. aftermath avalanche blast collapse damage earthquake explosion landslide massive tsunami 52. application component design different handle process quality technique typical use 53. aim automation community document effort expert goal language machine vision 54. bring challenge engineering functionality practical protection safety threat usage vulnerability 55. abdominal anemia condition disorder liver lung pain suffer syndrome ulcer 56. book brother child early finally fine originally piano queen sir 57. attacker choose client cost decision game maximize objective selfish strategy 58. accept associate book early inscription middle parish queen seven valuable 59. build business company engineering intelligence methodology practitioner predictive student tool 60. atmospheric barrier conventional electron interference internal layer noise radiation thermal 61. act allow ban discrimination government legislation permit prevent refusal removal 62. chassis conventional diesel driver fit gear manual maximum speed vehicle 63. accelerator advance advanced facility offer optic physics promise science versatile 64. abdominal abnormality blood cardiovascular diagnostic gastrointestinal pain respiratory surgery tissue 65. argument civilization critique emphasize idea knowledge linguistic phenomenon religious understanding 66. behavioral institutional intervention nurse occupational practitioner prevention provider rehabilitation specialist 67. apt bother bounce catalog excuse portrayal respectable royalty smoke strive 68. drug fever lung paralysis polio prevent recover recovery suffer victim 69. apologize honest quote remark respond sad smile surprised tell truth 70. adversary broadcast internet node protocol route send service traffic transmission 71. expert health participant peer people preference public receive share topic 72. design enable equipment output package provide quality tool validate verification 73. atom decomposition determine energy fluid mechanism observe phase ratio substrate 74. contain core critical date distinct effectively hard mercury method true 75. billion corporate equity finance financial invest investor portfolio retail telecom 76. liver lung medication metabolism reduce renal respiratory secretion toxic urine 77. amphitheater bog combustion construction install lowering parachute populous successive youthful 78. automate detection electronic equipment measurement optical retrieval scan signal spacecraft 79. bread fry meat menu onion pie pizza potato specialty vegetable 80. broad irregular measure slight specimen spherical spore texture tip typical 81. acknowledge astronomy baseline chapter climate economics explosion movement prize thing 82. definition french industrial micro percentage post purity spot superior supplement 83. advance communication computing development device industry platform promising sensor thing 84. clean drink flush fresh kitchen pipe recycle supply wash waste 85. algorithm bit detect fast feedback hardware implementation minimize mode slow 86. characteristic characterize chemical condition diagnostic essential organism plasma precise understanding 87. adverse brain complication induce muscle pain pregnancy sleep spontaneous surgical 88. aesthetic criticism interpretation introduction lecture philosophy psychology study theoretical thesis 89. algorithm arithmetic binary cpu logic manipulate output processing processor programmer 90. application autonomous capability computing delivery modern networking resource smart software 91. final finish goal injury preseason raider regular score season squad 92. application capability desktop enable encryption hardware networking software technology wireless 93. asleep bed morning notice sleep sneak wake walk watch worry 94. advance analysis clinical develop high-quality method objective patient provide tool 95. care health healthy nurse quarantine sanitary sanitation surgeon vaccination veterinary 96. affordable availability development device hardware internet mobile need platform software 97. application automate component display install integrate menu monitor server window 98. aspect auditory behaviour emotional interaction learner psychology relate researcher understand 99. advantage allow collaboration collaborative construction facilitate open opportunity platform sharing 100. advantage analog camera card compatible converter modular processor storage use ## E User Study Instructions E.1 Primer On Task Evaluating the relations between words from a computational lens serves to further the research and understanding of artificial intelligence linguistic research. A group of words can be considered coherent if they share a similar theme. For example, the group "apples banana coconut durian" can be considered coherent as most people would identify "fruit", "food" or "tree" as the common theme or link. However, some group of words might be more ambiguous and the common theme might not be as straightforward. For example, "trees ore corn hydrogen" might be considered incoherent to some, while others might identify the common theme as "resources". Ultimately, it is up to one's personal preferences and experiences to decide on whether a group of words are coherent. ## E.2 Task Instructions You will be presented with 10 English words. These words belongs to the 20,000 most frequently used words, so it is unlikely that you will encounter strange words. If you do encounter words that you have never seen before, you are free to use a dictionary or search engine (e.g. Google). You will then be asked to assign each word to groups, where each group contains words that you think are coherent when grouped together. Given an example: alcohol athlete breakfast drink eat habit intake meal obesity sleep Some might divide the words into two groups identifying Group 1 is "alcoholic"-themed and Group 2 is "healthy"-themed. | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Not Related | |-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------------| | alcohol | O | | | | | athlete | O | | | | | breakfast | O | | | | | drink | O | | | | | eat | O | | | | | habit | O | | | | | intake | O | | | | | meal | O | | | | | obesity | O | | | | | sleep | O | | | | In another example given: atom calcium component material reduction temperature titanium typical weight yield Some might group most of the words as "chemistry"-themed. | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Not Related | |-------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------------| | atom | O | | | | | calcium | O | | | | | component | O | | | | | material | O | | | | | reduction | O | | | | | temperature | O | | | | | titanium | O | | | | | typical | O | | | | | weight | O | | | | | yield | O | | | | If you believe that certain word(s) do not belong in any group, select the "Not Related" option in the last column. There can be multiple words that are not related to each other. For example: animal bed carrot fungible great osmosis paradise star telcommunication water | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Not Related | |------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------------| | animal | O | | | | | bed | O | | | | | carrot | O | | | | | fungible | O | | | | | great | O | | | | | osmosis | O | | | | | paradise | O | | | | | star | O | | | | | telcommunication | O | | | | | water | O | | | | We want to emphasise that there are no right or wrong answers for the tasks, we wish to capture your beliefs on what you think is "correct". We understand that at times, you might encounter words that belong to multiple groups, however to simplify the tasks, we ask that you be the tiebreaker and assign it to the word-group with the strongest similarity. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract, 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 3, 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3 - cited 4 - ours ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Ethics ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Ethics ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Ethics ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 3, Limitations, Ethics ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 3, 4, 5, 6, Appendix C, D ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 4, 5, 6 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix A The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 3, Appendix C ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4,5,6 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 3 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** 6 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix E, Institute Review Board application withheld for anonymity ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Ethics ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Ethics ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Ethics ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Ethics

joshi-etal-2023-u

{U}-{CREAT}: Unsupervised Case Retrieval using Events extr{A}c{T}ion

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.777

The task of Prior Case Retrieval (PCR) in the legal domain is about automatically citing relevant (based on facts and precedence) prior legal cases in a given query case. To further promote research in PCR, in this paper, we propose a new large benchmark (in English) for the PCR task: IL-PCR (Indian Legal Prior Case Retrieval) corpus. Given the complex nature of case relevance and the long size of legal documents, BM25 remains a strong baseline for ranking the cited prior documents. In this work, we explore the role of events in legal case retrieval and propose an unsupervised retrieval method-based pipeline U-CREAT (Unsupervised Case Retrieval using Events Extraction). We find that the proposed unsupervised retrieval method significantly increases performance compared to BM25 and makes retrieval faster by a considerable margin, making it applicable to real-time case retrieval systems. Our proposed system is generic, we show that it generalizes across two different legal systems (Indian and Canadian), and it shows state-of-the-art performance on the benchmarks for both the legal systems (IL-PCR and COLIEE corpora).

# U-Creat: Unsupervised Case Retrieval Using Events Extraction Abhinav Joshi∗ Akshat Sharma∗ Sai Kiran Tanikella∗ **Ashutosh Modi** Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur (IIT Kanpur) {ajoshi, akshatsh, tskiran, ashutoshm}@cse.iitk.ac.in ## Abstract The task of Prior Case Retrieval (PCR) in the legal domain is about automatically citing relevant (based on facts and precedence) prior legal cases in a given query case. To further promote research in PCR, in this paper, we propose a new large benchmark (in English) for the PCR task: IL-PCR (Indian Legal Prior Case Retrieval) corpus. Given the complex nature of case relevance and the long size of legal documents, BM25 remains a strong baseline for ranking the cited prior documents. In this work, we explore the role of events in legal case retrieval and propose an unsupervised retrieval method-based pipeline U-CREAT (Unsupervised Case Retrieval using Events Extraction). We find that the proposed unsupervised retrieval method significantly increases performance compared to BM25 and makes retrieval faster by a considerable margin, making it applicable to real-time case retrieval systems. Our proposed system is generic, we show that it generalizes across two different legal systems (Indian and Canadian), and it shows state-ofthe-art performance on the benchmarks for both the legal systems (IL-PCR and COLIEE corpora). ## 1 Introduction Traditionally, in the legal domain, for a given legal case (query document) at hand, lawyers and judges have relied on their expertise and experience to cite relevant past precedents (cited documents). Moreover, even when legal professionals have made limited use of technology, it has been mainly restricted to Boolean queries and keywords. However, as cases increase, it becomes difficult for even experienced legal professionals to cite older precedents. NLP-based technologies can aid legal professionals in this regard. The task of *Prior Case Retrieval* (PCR) has been formulated to address this problem (Rabelo et al., 2022). More concretely, the task of ∗Equal Contributions  Figure 1: Dependency parse of the sentence (along with extracted event) from the **IL-PCR** corpus: "These statements were forwarded to the Police".  Prior Case Retrieval involves retrieving all the previous legal documents that should be cited in the current legal document based on factual and precedent relevance. PCR can be particularly important in populous countries like India, where the number of cases has been growing exponentially, for example, there are 41 million pending cases in India (National Judicial Data Grid, 2021). Technologybased solutions such as PCR can make the process streamlined and efficient, expediting case disposal. PCR is different from standard document retrieval tasks. It is primarily due to the nature of legal documents themselves. Legal documents, in general, are quite long (tens to hundreds of pages), which makes each document in both the query and candidate pool long. Legal documents are unstructured and sometimes noisy (for example, in many common law countries like India, legal documents 13899 are manually typed and prone to grammatical and spelling mistakes). Moreover, in a common-law system, where the judges can overrule an existing precedence, there is some degree of subjectivity involved, making the task of document processing and retrieval challenging. In this paper, we propose a new large PCR corpus for the Indian legal setting referred to as Indian Legal Prior Case Retrieval (**IL-PCR**) corpus. Further, we propose an unsupervised approach for the task of prior case retrieval based on events structure in the document. Events are defined in terms of predicate and its corresponding arguments (see Figure 1) obtained via a syntactic dependency parser. The proposed event-based representation technique performs better than the existing state-of-the-art approaches both in terms of retrieval efficiency as well as inference time. We conjecture that events obtained via a dependency parser play an essential role in providing a short summary of long judgment documents, hence reducing the noise (taskdependent non-relevant information) by a considerable margin (also shown in Fig. 2). The focus of this paper is an unsupervised and fast approach for retrieving relevant legal documents, in contrast to resource and compute-intensive supervised approaches. In the legal domain, supervised algorithms often require hand-crafted engineering/tuning with considerable experimentation to enable deployment in a real-time scenario, making them harder to adapt to an industrial setting. Although not a fair comparison, our proposed method shows an improvement of 5.27 F1 score over a recent state-of-the-art supervised method (Abolghasemi et al., 2022) for the existing PCR benchmark dataset of COLIEE'21 (§5.2). In a nutshell, we make the following contributions: - Considering the lack of available benchmarks for the Indian legal setting, we create a new benchmark for Prior Case Retrieval focused on the Indian legal system (**IL-PCR**) and provide a detailed analysis of the created benchmark. Due to the large size of the corpus, the created benchmark could serve as a helpful resource for building information retrieval systems for legal documents (§3). We release the corpus and model code for the purpose of research usage via GitHub: https: //github.com/Exploration-Lab/IL-PCR. - We propose a new framework for legal document retrieval: U-CREAT (Unsupervised Case Retrieval using Events Extraction), based on the events extracted from documents. We propose different event-based models for the PCR task. We show that these perform better than existing state-of-the-art methods both in terms of retrieval efficiency as well as inference time (§5). - Further, we show that the proposed eventbased framework and models generalize well across different legal systems (Indian and Canadian systems) without any law/demography-specific tuning of models. ## 2 Related Work Automating processes and tasks in the legal domain has been an active area of research in the NLP and IR community in the past few years. For example, several tasks/research problems and solutions have been proposed, e.g., Catchphrase Extraction (Galgani et al., 2012), Crime Classification (Wang et al., 2018, 2019), Summarization (Tran et al., 2019), Rhetorical Role prediction (Malik et al., 2022; Kalamkar et al., 2022) and Judgment Prediction (Zhong et al., 2020; Malik et al., 2021; Chalkidis et al., 2019; Aletras et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2019; Long et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2019; Kapoor et al., 2022). Some earlier works (Al-Kofahi et al., 2001; Jackson et al., 2003) in Prior Case Retrieval have used feature-based machine learning models such as SVM. Since the past few years, the Competition on Legal Information Extraction and Entailment (COLIEE) has been organized annually (Rabelo et al., 2022). COLIEE has spurred research in PCR. Researchers participating at COLIEE have shown that BM-25 based method is a strong baseline. Most of the participating systems in COLIEE have used models based on BM-25 combined with other techniques like TF-IDF, language models, transformers, and XG-Boost (e.g., (Rosa et al., 2021; Rabelo et al., 2022; Askari et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021; Shao et al., 2020; Bithel and Malagi, 2021)). Citation network-based approaches (Kumar et al., 2011; Minocha et al., 2015; Bhattacharya et al., 2020; Mandal et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2013) are not meaningfully applicable to PCR as the legal citation networks are quite sparse. Abolghasemi et al. (2022) proposed BERT-based Query-by-Document Retrieval method with Multi-Task Optimization. We also experimented with transformer-based methods for retrieving prior cases as described in §5.1. In the NLP community, researchers have used event-based information for many different Natural Language Understanding (NLU), and commonsense reasoning tasks (Chen et al.; Chambers and Jurafsky, 2008, 2009; Modi and Titov, 2014; Modi, 2016; Modi et al., 2017). For example, Glavaš and Šnajder (2014) extracted events from a document and used the event-centric graph representation for information retrieval and multi-document summarization tasks, where they define an event as a tuple of predicate (action) and corresponding arguments (participants/actors). In the legal-NLP domain, event-based representations have not been explored much, as also pointed out in the survey by Feng et al. (2022). In this work, we employ event-based representation for PCR. ## 3 Il-Pcr **Corpus And Pcr Task** To spur research in the area of PCR, we propose the creation of a new corpus for the task of PCR: Indian Legal Prior Case Retrieval (**IL-PCR**) corpus. IL-PCR corpus is a corpus of Indian legal documents in English containing 7070 legal documents. ## 3.1 Il-Pcr **Corpus Creation** The corpus is created by scraping legal judgment documents (in the public domain) from the website IndianKanoon (https://indiankanoon. org/). We started by scraping documents corresponding to the top 100 most cited Supreme Court of India (SCI) cases (these are termed the zero-hop set). To gather more cases, we scraped documents cited within the zero-hop cases to obtain the onehop cases. Scraping in this manner ensured a sufficient number of cited cases for each document. In practice, gathering cases till the second hop was sufficient for a corpus of desirable size. The desirable size is decided by comparing it relatively to the size of the existing PCR benchmarks like COLIEE. Any empty/non-existent cases were removed. Zero and one-hop cases were merged into a large query pool, which was further split into the train (70%), validation (10%), and test (20%) queries. To facilitate generalization among developed models, we did not put any temporal constraints on the scraped documents (as also justified in (Malik et al., 2021)); the cases range from 1950 to 2020. We followed a similar corpus creation methodology as done by the COLIEE benchmark. Pre-Processing: All documents are normalized for | Dataset | COLIEE'21 IL-PCR | | |-------------------------------|--------------------|---------| | # Documents | 4415 | 7070 | | Avg. Document Size | 5813.66 | 8093.19 | | # query Documents | 900 | 1182 | | Vocab Size | 80577 | 113340 | | Total Citation Links | 4211 | 8008 | | Avg. Citation Links per query | 4.678 | 6.775 | | Language | English | English | | Legal System | Canadian | Indian | names and organization names using a NER model (Honnibal Matthew and Van Landeghem Sofie, 2020) and a manually compiled gazetteer. This step helps to create more generic event representations. As done in the case of other PCR corpora such as COLIEE (Rabelo et al., 2022), the text segment associated with each citation (these are in the form of hyperlinks in scraped documents) is replaced with a citation marker <CITATION>. The text segments corresponding to statutes (acts and laws) are not replaced since our focus is prior case retrieval and not statute retrieval (Kim et al., 2019). We also experimented with another version of the corpus where the entire sentence containing the citation is removed (details in §5.3). Comparison with Existing Corpora: We compare existing PCR corpus from COLEE'21 and IL-PCR in Table 1. **IL-PCR** is almost 1.6 times COLIEE 2021 and average length of document in IL-PCR is almost 1.4 times. **IL-PCR** has a much larger vocabulary and more citations per document. Both COLIEE 2021 and **IL-PCR** are primarily in English but address different legal systems, namely, Canadian and Indian legal systems respectively. ## 3.2 Pcr Task Definition Given a legal document as a query Qi and a pool of N legal documents as candidates {C1, C2*., . . . ,* CN }, the Prior Case Retrieval task is to retrieve the legal documents from the candidate pool which are relevant (and hence cited) in the given query document. As also pointed out by the legal expert, relevance in the legal domain is mainly about similar factual situations and previous legal precedents. ## 4 Event Based Representations A story or an incident is best described in terms of a sequence of events (Chambers and Jurafsky, 2008, 2009; Chen et al.). If we consider a case judgment document to be a narrative about how things (e.g., situations in the form of facts) developed, then it is best to represent a legal document in terms of events. We define an event as a tuple containing predicate (describing the main action, typically it is verb/verb-compound) and its main arguments (describing main actors/participants, typically these correspond to subject, object, indirect object, and prepositional object) as shown in Fig. 1. ## 4.1 Event Extraction To extract events, legal documents are first preprocessed to remove noise (unwanted characters and symbols) using regex-based patterns. For example, initials (not picked by NER) in the names (e.g., initials A.R. in the name A. R. Lakshman) are removed. Similarly, characters other than letters and citation markers are removed. Honorifics like Dr., Mr., Mrs., etc. are removed as these were wrongly picked up as the end of the sentence during sentence splitting and during event extraction. Other short forms like no., nos., addl., etc., are replaced by corresponding full words. Subsequently, a dependency parser is used to extract events from texts. A dependency parser represents a sentence in the form of a directed graph G ∶ (*V, E*), where V are vertices representing words and E are the directed edges that capture the grammatical (syntactic) relationship between words (Kübler et al., 2009). Sentences in the document are parsed with the dependency parser (we use spaCy: (Honnibal Matthew and Van Landeghem Sofie, 2020)) to extract the list of verbs. These verbs form the root of the dependency graph. As observed, mostly the sentences in legal documents are in active voice. The left children of each verb are examined to find the subjects with syntactic dependency relationships like nsubj, nsubjpass, and csubj. The right children of a verb are considered for relationships like dobj, pobj, and dative to indicate the object's presence. Further, the lefts and rights are examined for conjunctions and compounds to get all the possible subjects and (indirect) objects. Each of the words in the extracted event is lemmatized to make the event more generic. Further, incomplete events and empty events (generated due to incorrect sentence splitting) are discarded. Both query and candidate documents are processed with the dependency parser to get the events. After removing noisy events, we did not observe any significant mistakes in the extracted events. Manual examination of the verb-argument tuples showed plausible events. Events play an important role in establishing the relationship between a case and a cited (precedent) case. If a case has a precedent, then most likely, both are related based on the nature of the facts, evidence, and judgment. The events in a prior case form a basis for the arguments and judgments in such similar cases. Based on the experimental results, we conjecture that events further help to summarize documents in terms of main actions (e.g., related to facts) and hence help to filter out noise. ## 5 Experiments, Results And Analysis Datasets: We experimented with the COLIEE-21 and **IL-PCR** corpora. Since the two corpora are different, it enables checking the generalization capabilities of models. Evaluation Metric: We use a micro-averaged F1 score as the evaluation metric (as done in COLIEE211). In practice, models predict a relevance score for each candidate for a given query. Top-Kranked candidates are considered for prediction (i.e., whether a candidate is cited or not). As done in previous work (Rabelo et al., 2022), we select K based on the best performance on the validation set and report the F1 on the test set using the same K value (metric definition is provided in App. A). ## 5.1 Baselines, Proposed Models And Results For the baseline models, we selected the prominent approaches used for the PCR task. Considering the findings reported in COLIEE-21, BM25 marks a strong baseline (Rosa et al., 2021; Rabelo et al., 2022) for document retrieval tasks in the legal domain. Moreover, most of the re-ranking-based supervised methods (Askari et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021; Bithel and Malagi, 2021; Shao et al., 2020; Abolghasemi et al., 2022) also use BM25 as a pre-filtering step for document retrieval. Broadly, we consider three types of unsupervised retrieval models as baselines, 1) Word-based (Count-based), which are lexical models using words directly; 2) Transformer-based models, which capture the semantics using distributed representations of words; and 3) Sentence Transformer based models, which capture semantics at the sentence level. We provide experimental results for all the baseline models on COLIEE'21 and **IL-PCR** datasets in Table 2. We describe baseline models next. 1Section 3.1 in https://sites.ualberta.ca/~rabelo/ COLIEE2021/  Figure 3: U-CREAT pipeline based on events extraction, for the PCR task. Word-Based (Count-Based): We use a standard implementation of BM25 (Sklearn's (Pedregosa et al., 2011) TfidfVectorizer module) to compute scores for each query-candidate pair. We experiment with two widely used versions of BM25, unigram, and bigram. The bigram variant of BM25 improves the retrieval performance (Table 2) by a considerable margin, from 14.72% to 22.14% in COLIEE'21 and 13.85% to 28.59% in **IL-PCR**. However, the large runtime overhead of the bigram setting makes it ineffective for a real-time retrieval system and hence is usually not the preferred choice. Transformer-Based: We use two widely used transformer models for generating word embedding: pre-trained BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019). We also experiment with a fine-tuned version. We fine-tune the model on the train split of the respective datasets (**IL-PCR** and COLIEE'21) using standard masked language modeling (MLM) objective (details in App. B). In addition, we also experiment with Indian legal domain-specific language models: InCaseLawBERT and InLegalBERT (Paul et al., 2022). We use transformer models in two settings, one using the entire document and the other using the top 512 tokens. Due to limitations on the input size of transformer models, to learn the representation of the entire document, we divide the document into multiple segments (each of 10 sentences) with a stride of 5 sentences (to ensure overlap). Subsequently, an interaction matrix (having relevance score) between query and candidate segments is created using cosine similarity between respective representations and this is followed by an aggregation step (avg. or max) to come up with a score. In the other setting, we consider only the top 512 tokens as input to the transformer and discard the remaining information. Our experiments highlight that fine-tuning these models slightly improves the performance in the case of transformers with top 512 tokens and slightly worsens the performance in the case of full document transformers. (Table 2). We observe that InCaseLawBERT and InLegalBERT perform quite poorly, possibly due to noise in legal documents. Sentence Transformer-Based (SBERT): We also experiment with sentence embeddings-based methods that capture the similarity at the sentence level. We experiment with two popularly used sentence embedding methods2: SBERT-BERT and SBERTDistilRoBERTA (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). To finetune the transformers in an unsupervised fashion, we follow SimCSE's (Gao et al., 2021) strategy (details in App. B and App. C). For all the methods, we use cosine similarity between all query-candidate sentence pairs to generate an interaction matrix and consider the max of the matrix to be the relevance score for the pair. In general, compared to full document and vanilla transformers SBERT based approaches have better performance (Table 2). Event Based Models: The general pipeline for event-based models is shown in Fig. 3. We refer to this pipeline as U-CREAT (Unsupervised Case Retrieval using Event extrAcTion). We first extract event representations from the query and candidate documents, and these are used to calculate an interaction matrix between each query-candidate pair. The interaction matrix captures similarities between events (relevance scores); subsequently, a retrieval model is used to rank the candidates. The methods proposed below differ in the document representation, interaction matrix, and retrieval model. Atomic Events: In this variant, an event (predicate and arguments tuple) is considered as an atomic unit (like a word), and a document is represented only by these atomic events. An approach to generating the relevance scores can be using Jaccard similarity (IOU: Intersection Over Union) over the 2For model implementation, we used the SBERT library (https://www.sbert.net/examples/unsupervised_ learning/SimCSE/README.html). We used the hyperparameters corresponding to the best-performing model on the leaderboard for the sentence similarity task. obtained set of events. For a given query candidate pair (Qi, Cj), we extract the events corresponding to each document, E(Qi) = {e (Qi) 1*, . . . , e* (Qi) n }, and E(Cj ) = {e (Cj ) 1*, . . . , e* (Cj ) m } which is used to compute the Jaccard similarity, i.e., Relevance Score = ∣E(Qi)∩E (Cj)∣ ∣E(Qi)∪E (Cj)∣ . As shown in Table 2, this trivial strategy of computing Jaccard similarity over the set of events improves performance on both datasets compared to BM25. Though the gain is less in COLIEE'21 (increase by ∼ 8 F1 score ), in **IL-PCR**, the improvement is significant (increase by ∼ 20 F1 score). We speculate that given the legal document's diverse and lengthy nature, events help filter out the noise and improve performance significantly. Another way of getting the relevance score would be to take all the extracted events E(Qi)and E(Cj )and perform a BM25 over atomic events instead of words; this setting helps to capture the relation between various events present in both the docs. We experiment with multiple settings of BM25. The results highlight that the BM25's unigram setting performs similarly to the Jaccard similarity with a drop in performance when increased to bigram, trigram, the reason being the lower frequency of bigram/trigram events present in the document pairs. Non-atomic Events: For this setting, we consider the words (predicates and arguments) that are present in the extracted events E(Qi)and E(Cj ) separately. This setting removes the event as an atomic unit, and it considers words of each event as an independent unit, i.e., a document is represented only by individual words in the extracted events. We run various variants for BM25 to generate relevance scores. We found that the trigram version of BM25 (the best model for non-atomic events) has a similar performance to the best model for atomic events (BM25). Events filtered Docs: As the primary role of events is to capture the relevance between the query and the candidate doc, for this variant, we select the complete sentences corresponding to the overlapping events ∣E(Qi) ∩ E(Cj )∣. For example, if a common event eQi pemanates from sentences St and Sv in the query and candidate document, respectively, we consider the sentence St from the query and Sv from the candidate. Selecting sentences for each overlapping event results in sentences selected for every doc. We refer to this updated version of the doc as the events filtered doc and use this new version for classical retrieval methods like BM25. We observe that this setting further improves the retrieval scores by 2.62 in **IL-PCR** and 3.19 in COLIEE'21, compared to the best non-atomic eventbased methods. Overall, this setting outperforms all the other methods for both datasets and shows a performance boost of 25.3 F1 score in **IL-PCR** and 12.6 F1 score in COLIEE'21 compared to the standard BM-25 baseline. Event Embeddings: We also tried models based on event embeddings obtained by composing embeddings of predicates and arguments, e.g., via transformer models or deep NNs (Modi, 2016; Modi and Titov, 2014); however, these approaches gave a worse performance than vanilla transformer based approaches. Moreover, these approaches have an extra overhead of training (and learning) event embeddings. Rhetorical Roles Filtered Docs: In the legal domain, Rhetorical Roles (RR) (Malik et al., 2022; Kalamkar et al., 2022) have been introduced to segment a document into semantically coherent textual units corresponding to 7 main rhetorical roles: Facts, Arguments, Statues, Ruling, Precedents, Ratio, and Judgment. For more details, please refer to Malik et al. (2022). The main idea is to label each sentence in the legal document with one of the rhetorical roles. For RR, we used the pretrained transformer-based model utilizing multitask learning provided by Malik et al. (2022) to predict sentence-level labels for legal documents in COLIEE21 and **IL-PCR**. We used some specific RR labels (that capture relevance as per legal experts) to filter out sentences from a query (RRs used: facts, argument, ratio) and candidates (RRs used: facts, argument, ratio, and judgment). Using all RRs labels gave a worse performance, possibly due to the introduced noise. The filtered query and candidate documents are then used for BM-25based baselines. Table 2 shows that a pre-filtering step done using a pre-trained RR model is a strong retrieval method and provides a significant performance boost (increase of 24.97 in COLIEE'21 and 37.72 in the case of **IL-PCR** ). However, the eventsbased filtering methods remain the outperforming model (27.32 increase in COLIEE'21 and 39.15 boost in F1 score in **IL-PCR**). However, in the case of RR, inference time in the case of quad-gram and penta-gram increases drastically, making them impractical (§5.3). RR-based models have lesser improvement on COLIEE'21 as the pre-trained | Model | COLIEE'21 | IL-PCR | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|------------------|------------------| | Word Level (Count Based) | BM25 | 14.72 (Baseline) | 13.85 (Baseline) | | BM25 (Bigram) | 22.14 (↑ 7.42) | 28.59 (↑ 14.74) | | | BERT | 5.10 (↓ 9.62) | 9.24 (↓ 4.61) | | | BERT (finetuned) | 4.58 (↓ 10.14) | 7.91 (↓ 5.94) | | | DistilBERT | 10.04 (↓ 4.68) | 16.61 (↑ 2.76) | | | DistilBERT (finetuned) | 4.73 (↓ 9.99) | 7.86 (↓ 5.99) | | | InCaseLawBERT | 1.71 (↓ 13.01) | 3.62 (↓ 10.23) | | | InLegalBERT | 2.79 (↓ 11.93) | 7.57 (↓ 6.28) | | | Segmented-Doc Transformer (full document) | BERT | 0.53 (↓ 14.19) | 0.56 (↓ 13.29) | | BERT (finetuned) | 0.46 (↓ 14.26) | 0.88 (↓ 12.97) | | | DistilBERT | 0.54 (↓ 14.18) | 0.50 (↓ 13.35) | | | DistilBERT (finetuned) | 0.34 (↓ 14.38) | 0.75 (↓ 13.1) | | | InCaseLawBERT | 0.78 (↓ 13.94) | 0.75 (↓ 13.1) | | | InLegalBERT | 0.50 (↓ 14.22) | 0.71 (↓ 13.14) | | | Transformer | | | | | (top 512 tokens) | BERT | 6.79 (↓ 7.93) | 5.94 (↓ 7.91) | | DistilRoBERTa | 3.63 (↓ 11.09) | 3.91 (↓ 9.94) | | | BERT (finetuned) | 7.68 (↓ 7.04) | 6.01 (↓ 7.84) | | | DistilRoBERTa (finetuned) | 1.26 (↓ 13.46) | 2.14 (↓ 11.17) | | | Sentence | | | | | Transformer (SBERT) | Jaccard similarity | 23.08 (↑ 8.36) | 34.17 (↑ 20.32) | | BM25 | 23.45 (↑ 8.73) | 36.77 (↑ 22.92) | | | Atomic Events | BM25 (Bigram) | 22.42 (↑ 7.70) | 31.81 (↑ 17.96) | | BM25 (Trigram) | 21.12 (↑ 6.40) | 27.61 (↑ 13.76) | | | BM25 | 14.19 (↑ 0.53) | 11.99 (↓ 1.86) | | | BM25 (Bigram) | 23.59 (↑ 8.87) | 32.27 (↑ 18.42) | | | BM25 (Trigram) | 24.13 (↑ 9.41) | 36.53 (↑ 22.68) | | | BM25 (Quad-gram) | 22.69 (↑ 7.97) | 34.76 (↑ 20.91) | | | BM25 (Penta-gram) | 21.81 (↑ 7.09) | 33.54 (↑ 19.69) | | | Non-atomic Events | BM25 | 18.97 (↑ 4.25) | 19.64 (↑ 5.79) | | BM25 (Bigram) | 23.3 (↑ 8.58) | 30.28 (↑ 16.43) | | | BM25 (Trigram) | 27.32 (↑ 12.60) | 37.17 (↑ 23.32) | | | BM25 (Quad-gram) | 26.94 (↑ 12.22) | 39.15 (↑ 25.3) | | | BM25 (Penta-gram) | 25.81 (↑ 11.09) | 38.61 (↑ 24.76) | | | Events Filtered Docs | BM25 | 12.97 (↓ 1.75) | 13.05 (↓ 0.80) | | BM25 (Bigram) | 21.06 (↑ 6.34) | 24.67 (↑ 10.82) | | | BM25 (Trigram) | 24.97 (↑ 10.25) | 34.22 (↑ 20.37) | | | BM25 (Quad-gram) | 24.90 (↑ 10.18) | 36.77 (↑ 22.92) | | | BM25 (Penta-gram) | 23.72 (↑ 9.00) | 37.72 (↑ 23.87) | | | RR Filtered Docs | | | | | Table 2: The table shows the performance comparison (F1 scores in %, with top K retrieved documents selected | | | | Table 2: The table shows the performance comparison (F1 scores in %, with top K retrieved documents selected using validation set) of the proposed method with the baseline unsupervised methods on the COLIEE-21 (Rabelo et al., 2022) and proposed **IL-PCR** benchmark. The numbers in the bracket highlight the performance difference compared to the BM25 (Baseline, Table's first row). ↑ shows the increase, and ↓ shows the drop in performance. | Method | Brief Description | Unsupervised | F1 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------|-------| | JNLP (Nguyen et al., 2021) | Top-100,Paragraph,BM25,BERT,Union Score | ✓ | 0.19 | | TR (Rabelo et al., 2022) | Top-1000 TF-IDF, Xgboost | ✓ | 0.46 | | DSSIR (Althammer et al., 2021) | vanilla BERT | ✗ | 2.79 | | DSSIR (Althammer et al., 2021) | paragraph level BM25, lawDPR | ✗ | 2.72 | | SIAT (Rabelo et al., 2022) | Top-50 BM25, BERT-Legal | ✓ | 3.00 | | DSSIR (Althammer et al., 2021) | BM25 | ✓ | 4.11 | | TLIR (Ma et al., 2021) | LMIR, BERT-PLI on paragraphs | ✗ | 4.56 | | NM (Rosa et al., 2021) | Vanilla BM25-Segments | ✓ | 9.37 | | TLIR (Ma et al., 2021) | Language Model for IR and paragraph filtering | ✓ | 19.17 | | MTFT-BERT (Abolghasemi et al., 2022) Multi-task optimization over BM25optimized | ✗ | 22.05 | | | U-CREAT | BM25 (Tri-gram) over Events Filtered Docs | ✓ | 27.32 | Table 3: The table shows the performance comparison of the proposed method with the existing methods on the COLIEE-21 (Rabelo et al., 2022) dataset. The F1 scores (in %) represent the numbers reported in respective methods. The table highlights a significant performance boost with respect to the current state-of-the-art MTFTBERT (supervised method trained on COLIEE-21 corpus).  ## 5.2 Comparison With Existing Methods For a fair comparison with the existing methods, we compare the proposed event-based approaches with the state-of-the-art methods for the COLIEE'21 benchmark. A recent supervised retrieval approach by Abolghasemi et al. (2022) uses a multitasking framework to improve upon the optimized BM25 retrieval scores. To the best of our knowledge, this approach is the current state-of-the-art method for the COLIEE-21 document retrieval task. Table 3 shows the F1 scores obtained by multiple methods, as given in (Rabelo et al., 2022). The proposed event-based methods outperform the existing approaches by a significant margin highlighting the effectiveness of events in legal document retrieval. A noteworthy point here is that the event-based techniques are completely unsupervised, making them more applicable to current systems without corpusspecific training. Moreover, these approaches generalize well over legal documents in different legal systems, as shown using two different legal system datasets. ## 5.3 Analysis Variation with K: To provide a detailed insight into the performance of various methods, we also show the F1 score at different K values (top retrieved documents) on **IL-PCR**. Figure 4 (left side) highlights the improvements in the F1 curves obtained by event methods compared to the popularly used BM25 baselines. The performance peaks for K = 3 to 7, this is similar to what has been observed on the COLIEE dataset (Rabelo et al., 2022). We show the variation of Precision and Recall scores with the value of K in Figure 5. As can be observed (and is expected based on the evaluation metric definition) for each of the models, precision falls and recall improves with increasing K values, resulting in the hump shape in Fig. 4. The Precision, Recall, and F1 scores corresponding to best K are tabulated in Appendix Table 5. Inference Time: An important property of a retrieval algorithm often not stressed by existing methods is inference time. For a retrieval system to be adaptable to industrial solutions, it is not only the retrieval efficiency but also the inference time required by the system. We compare inference times of various methods to provide a more transparent insight. We use the queries in the entire test split (237 query documents) of the **IL-PCR** corpus to calculate inference time. We benchmark the relevance score generation time for all the queries on a single core of an Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4210R CPU @ 2.40GHz processor. We compute the event extraction time along with the relevance score generation time for the proposed event-based methods. Figure 4 (right side) shows the inference vs. performance comparison for the prominent methods (also see exact numbers in App. Table 4). The inference time for the different models varies greatly, the Jaccard Similarity over Events (IOU) stands out with the fastest time of 2 minutes, while the Word BM25 (bigram) model has the longest inference time of 55 minutes. The Events BM25 (trigram) model has a much faster inference time of 15.2 minutes, which is approximately 50% faster than the Word BM25 (unigram) model. The Event Filtered Docs BM25 (quadgram) model also has a relatively fast inference time of 24.42 minutes, which is about 10% faster than the Word BM25 (unigram) model. Overall, the proposed Event Filtered Docs BM25 (quadgram) has a relatively fast inference time of 24.42 minutes com-  pared to the other models and represents a significant improvement in performance. This time is about 10% faster than the Word BM25 (unigram) model and significantly faster than the Word BM25 (bigram) model, which has the longest inference time of 55 minutes. In the F1 score, the Event Filtered Docs BM25 (quadgram) model also outperforms the Jaccard Similarity over Events (IOU) model, which has the quickest time at 2 minutes, and the Events BM25 (trigram) model, which has a time of 15.2 minutes. The proposed model stands out as a strong performer in terms of inference time and F1, providing a significant improvement in performance compared to the other models. In terms of inference time, the retrieval method based on Jaccard similarity shows a significant performance boost along with a significant improvement in the F1 score. Overall, the increase in document size results in a longer inference time in BM25-based methods. Moreover, going from unigram to bigram also results in a considerable increase in inference time, making the word-based BM25 bigram ineffective for real-time retrieval systems. The inference time results for event-based methods highlight the effectiveness both in terms of inference time and retrieval efficiency. A noteworthy trend in the current deep learningbased supervised methods in legal document retrieval is the use of BM25 as a pre-filtering step (Askari et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021; Bithel and Malagi, 2021; Shao et al., 2020; Abolghasemi et al., 2022). The scores obtained from a wordbased BM25 provide a strong pre-filtering, enabling the re-ranking-based algorithm to improve the scores over the top-K% retrieved documents. This re-ranking setting for inference on a deployable system would require BM25 inference time and deep model inference time to generate the retrieval scores. In contrast, the proposed event-based approaches lead to a much faster inference time and improved retrieval performance. It would facilitate the current research on supervised retrieval methods as well. Other Observations: We also experimented with another version of the corpus where we removed the sentences containing the citation to prevent the model from exploiting any neighboring information. The results are shown in the Appendix Table 6, there is a slight drop in performance; however the overall trends (as in Table 2) remain the same. ## 5.4 Discussion An important point to note is that the PCR task has inherent limitations; the relevant cases are considered based on official citations as ground truth. However, there might be cases that were not mentioned by the judge (document writer) due to subjectivity involved in the common-law system; finding correct annotation for relevance is always a challenge for a domain like legal, where the number of documents is enormous. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we proposed a new large dataset (**IL-PCR**) for Prior Case Retrieval and the UCREAT pipeline for performing event-based retrieval for legal documents. We ran a battery of experiments with different types of models to show that event-based methods have better performance and much better inference times (and hence amenable to production settings) compared to existing unsupervised approaches and some of the supervised approaches (e.g., ∼ 5.27 F1 score improvement on COLIEE) on two completely different datasets. In the future, we plan to combine event-based methods with supervised techniques such as contrastive learning to develop more efficient models. ## Limitations In this paper, we propose a simple model for prior case retrieval. As shown in experiments and results, the models could improve and score better. There is a big room for improvement. All the previously proposed approaches for PCR have calculated relevance as some form of lexical/semantic similarity between a case and its citations. However, cited case relevance may sometimes differ from lexical/semantic similarity. Modeling the document in terms of events only partially addresses this. Consequently, what is required is the inclusion of more legal information. We made an attempt towards that via experiments using Rhetorical Roles. Similarly, one could use the information coming via statutes and laws since similar cases are likely to invoke similar statutes. Another approach is learning representations using contrastive models that score relevant cases higher than non-relevant ones. In the future, we plan to investigate these approaches to improve the task of PCR. This paper considers a simple structure for an event as a tuple of predicates and arguments. However, more sophisticated formulations are possible, as outlined in the survey/tutorial by Chen et al.. Moreover, we are taking events in isolation and ignoring the sequential nature of events that help to form narratives. In the future, we would like to develop a model that captures a more sophisticated structure and sequential nature of events in the case. Though we covered an extensive set of experiments for the proposed event-based matching technique, many more combinations can be experimented with to understand the role of events in legal documents. This unique finding of events missing from the legal literature would facilitate exploring new directions in the legal domain. In this paper, we evaluated only two datasets as we could not find any publicly available PCR datasets. However, in the future, if we can find more PCR datasets, we would like to evaluate them to see if the trends generalize over other legal corpora. ## Ethical Concerns This paper proposes a system for retrieving (recommending) relevant documents. The system is not involved in any decision-making process. The motivation for proposing the system is to augment legal experts rather than replace them. Moreover, for training the system, we used publicly available legal documents. We took steps to normalize documents concerning named entities to prevent a model from developing any known biases. To the best of our knowledge, we addressed any biases that the model might learn from the data. ## References Amin Abolghasemi, Suzan Verberne, and Leif Azzopardi. 2022. Improving BERT-Based Query-byDocument Retrieval with Multi-Task Optimization. In *Advances in Information Retrieval: 44th European* Conference on IR Research, (ECIR). Khalid Al-Kofahi, Alex Tyrrell, Arun Vachher, and Peter Jackson. 2001. A Machine Learning Approach to Prior Case Retrieval. In *Proceedings of the Eighth* International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL). Nikolaos Aletras, Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, Daniel Preotiuc-Pietro, and Vasileios Lampos. 2016. Predicting Judicial Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing Perspective. *PeerJ Computer Science*. Sophia Althammer, Arian Askari, Suzan Verberne, and Allan Hanbury. 2021. DoSSIER@COLIEE 2021: Leveraging Dense Retrieval and Summarizationbased Re-ranking for Case Law Retrieval. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2108.03937. AA Askari, SV Verberne, O Alonso, S Marchesin, M Najork, and G Silvello. 2021. Combining Lexical and Neural Retrieval with Longformer-Based Summarization for Effective Case Law retrieva. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design of Experimental Search & Information REtrieval Systems (DESIRES). Paheli Bhattacharya, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Arindam Pal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2020. Methods for Computing Legal Document Similarity: A Comparative Study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12307. Shivangi Bithel and Sumitra S Malagi. 2021. Unsupervised Identification of Relevant Prior Cases. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2107.08973. Ilias Chalkidis, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Nikolaos Aletras. 2019. Neural Legal Judgment Prediction in English. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics(ACL). Nathanael Chambers and Dan Jurafsky. 2008. Unsupervised Learning of Narrative Event Chains. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-08:HLT). Nathanael Chambers and Dan Jurafsky. 2009. Unsupervised Learning of Narrative Schemas and Their Participants. In *Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (ACL). Huajie Chen, Deng Cai, Wei Dai, Zehui Dai, and Yadong Ding. 2019. Charge-Based Prison Term Prediction with Deep Gating Network. In *Proceedings* of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Muhao Chen, Hongming Zhang, Qiang Ning, Manling Li, Heng Ji, Kathleen McKeown, and Dan Roth. Event-Centric Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: Tutorial Abstracts (ACL-IJCNLP). Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT). Yi Feng, Chuanyi Li, and Vincent Ng. 2022. Legal Judgment Prediction: A Survey of the State of the Art. In *Proceedings of the Thirty-First International* Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). Filippo Galgani, Paul Compton, and Achim G. Hoffmann. 2012. Towards Automatic Generation of Catchphrases for Legal Case Reports. In Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing - 13th International Conference, (CICLing). Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Simcse: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Goran Glavaš and Jan Šnajder. 2014. Event Graphs for Information Retrieval and Multi-Document Summarization. *Expert Systems with Applications, Elsevier*. Montani Ines Honnibal Matthew and Boyd Adriane Van Landeghem Sofie. 2020. spaCy: Industrial-Strength Natural Language Processing in Python. Peter Jackson, Khalid Al-Kofahi, Alex Tyrrell, and Arun Vachher. 2003. Information Extraction from Case Law and Retrieval of Prior Cases. *Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier*. Prathamesh Kalamkar, Aman Tiwari, Astha Agarwal, Saurabh Karn, Smita Gupta, Vivek Raghavan, and Ashutosh Modi. 2022. Corpus for Automatic Structuring of Legal Documents. In Proceedings of the 13th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference -Association for Computational Linguistics (ACLLREC). Arnav Kapoor, Mudit Dhawan, Anmol Goel, Arjun T H, Akshala Bhatnagar, Vibhu Agrawal, Amul Agrawal, Arnab Bhattacharya, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, and Ashutosh Modi. 2022. HLDC: Hindi Legal Documents Corpus. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Mi-Young Kim, Juliano Rabelo, and Randy Goebel. 2019. Statute Law Information Retrieval and Entailment. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL). Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1412.6980. Sandra Kübler, Ryan McDonald, and Joakim Nivre. 2009. Dependency parsing. *Synthesis Lectures on* Human Language Technologies (SLHLT), Springer. Sushanta Kumar, P. Krishna Reddy, V. Balakista Reddy, and Aditya Singh. 2011. Similarity Analysis of Legal Judgments. In *COMPUTE '11: Proceedings of the* 4th Annual Association for Computing Machinery. Sushanta Kumar, P. Krishna Reddy, V. Balakista Reddy, and Malti Suri. 2013. Finding Similar Legal Judgements under Common Law System. In Databases in Networked Information Systems (DNIS),Springer. Shangbang Long, Cunchao Tu, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2019. Automatic Judgment Prediction via Legal Reading Comprehension. In *Chinese Computational Linguistics - 18th China National Conference, (CCL) Springer*. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*. Yixiao Ma, Yunqiu Shao, Bulou Liu, Yiqun Liu, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2021. Retrieving Legal Cases from a Large-scale Candidate Corpus. In *Proceedings of the Eighth International Competition on* Legal Information Extraction/Entailment (COLIEE). Vijit Malik, Rishabh Sanjay, Shouvik Kumar Guha, Angshuman Hazarika, Shubham Nigam, Arnab Bhattacharya, and Ashutosh Modi. 2022. Semantic Segmentation of Legal Documents via Rhetorical Roles. In *Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop (NLLP) EMNLP*. Vijit Malik, Rishabh Sanjay, Shubham Kumar Nigam, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Shouvik Kumar Guha, Arnab Bhattacharya, and Ashutosh Modi. 2021. ILDC for CJPE: Indian Legal Documents Corpus for Court Judgment Prediction and Explanation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (ACL-IJCNLP). Arpan Mandal, Raktim Chaki, Sarbajit Saha, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Arindam Pal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2017. Measuring Similarity among Legal Court Case Documents. In *Compute '17: Proceedings of the* 10th Annual ACM India Compute Conference. Akshay Minocha, Navjyoti Singh, and Arjit Srivastava. 2015. Finding Relevant Indian Judgments Using Dispersion of Citation Network. In *Proceedings of* the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. Ashutosh Modi. 2016. Event Embeddings for Semantic Script Modeling. In *Proceedings of the 20th* SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL). Ashutosh Modi and Ivan Titov. 2014. Inducing Neural Models of Script Knowledge. In *Proceedings of the* 18th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL). Ashutosh Modi, Ivan Titov, Vera Demberg, Asad Sayeed, and Manfred Pinkal. 2017. Modeling semantic expectation: Using script knowledge for referent prediction. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL)*. National Judicial Data Grid. 2021. National judicial data grid statistics. https://www.njdg.ecourts. gov.in/njdgnew/index.php. Ha-Thanh Nguyen, Phuong Minh Nguyen, Thi-HaiYen Vuong, Quan Minh Bui, Chau Minh Nguyen, Binh Tran Dang, Vu Tran, Minh Le Nguyen, and Ken Satoh. 2021. JNLP Team: Deep Learning Approaches for Legal Processing Tasks in COLIEE 2021. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13405*. Shounak Paul, Arpan Mandal, Pawan Goyal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2022. Pre-training Transformers on Indian Legal Text. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06049*. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. *Journal of Machine Learning Research* (JMLR). Juliano Rabelo, Randy Goebel, Mi-Young Kim, Yoshinobu Kano, Masaharu Yoshioka, and Ken Satoh. 2022. Overview and Discussion of the Competition on Legal Information Extraction/Entailment (COLIEE) 2021. *The Review of Socionetwork Strategies*. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERTNetworks. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Guilherme Moraes Rosa, Ruan Chaves Rodrigues, Roberto Lotufo, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. Yes, BM25 is a strong baseline for legal case retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.05686. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108. Yunqiu Shao, Jiaxin Mao, Yiqun Liu, Weizhi Ma, Ken Satoh, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2020. BERTPLI: Modeling Paragraph-Level Interactions for Legal Case Retrieval. In *Proceedings of the TwentyEighth International Joint Conference on Artificial* Intelligence (IJCAI). Vu Tran, Minh Le Nguyen, and Ken Satoh. 2019. Building Legal Case Retrieval Systems with Lexical Matching and Summarization Using A Pre-Trained Phrase Scoring Model. In *Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL)*. Pengfei Wang, Yu Fan, Shuzi Niu, Ze Yang, Yongfeng Zhang, and Jiafeng Guo. 2019. Hierarchical Matching Network for Crime Classification. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, (SIGIR). Pengfei Wang, Ze Yang, Shuzi Niu, Yongfeng Zhang, Lei Zhang, and ShaoZhang Niu. 2018. Modeling Dynamic Pairwise Attention for Crime Classification over Legal Articles. In The 41st International ACM Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) . Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations (EMNLP). Nuo Xu, Pinghui Wang, Long Chen, Li Pan, Xiaoyan Wang, and Junzhou Zhao. 2020. Distinguish Confusing Law Articles for Legal Judgment Prediction. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) . Wenmian Yang, Weijia Jia, Xiaojie Zhou, and Yutao Luo. 2019. Legal Judgment Prediction via MultiPerspective Bi-Feedback Network. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). Haoxi Zhong, Yuzhong Wang, Cunchao Tu, Tianyang Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Iteratively Questioning and Answering for Interpretable Legal Judgment Prediction. In *The Thirty-Fourth* AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (IAAI), The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI). ## Appendix A Evaluation Metric Definition Precision = (\# correctly retrieved cases ∀ queries) (\# retrieved cases ∀ queries) , Recall = (\# correctly retrieved cases ∀ queries) (\# relevant cases ∀ queries) , F1 = (2 x Precision x Recall) (Precision + Recall) ## B Hyper-Parameters Transformer-Based Models: We train the standard BERT and DistilBERT models using PyTorch and HuggingFace library-based (Wolf et al., 2020) implementations for 6 epochs with a batch size of 32 and AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) optimizer with a learning rate of 1 × 10−5. Sentence Transformer-Based Models: We use a batch size of 512 and fine-tune the models for 20 epochs with Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) of learning rate 5 × 10−5 ## C Sbert Fine Tuning Strategy SBERT is finetuned using SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021) based checkpoints present in SBERT package (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019), due to the unavailability of annotated similar sentence pairs present for the datasets, SimCSE is trained in unsupervised manner by predicting the input sentence itself using dropout for noisy representation of the sentence. ## D Precision And Recall Scores Table 5 shows the Precision, Recall and F1 scores for various models in given in the main paper. Table 6 shows the Precision, Recall and F1 scores for various models on the version of **IL-PCR** without citation sentences. ## E Inference Time Of Models Table 4 shows the inference time for algorithms shown in Fig 4. | Algorithm | Inference Time (mins) | |-----------------------------|-------------------------| | Word BM25 (unigram) | 27.14 | | Word BM25 (bigram) | 55.00 | | Events BM25 (trigram) | 15.20 | | Jaccard sim. over events | 2.00 | | RR filtered BM25 (penta) | 55.27 | | Events filtered BM25 (quad) | 24.42 | Table 4: Inference Times for various models.. | Model | K | Precision | Recall | F1 | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|-------------|----------|-------|-------| | Word Level | BM25 | 5 | 17.11 | 11.64 | 13.85 | | BM25 (Bigram) | 7 | 29.30 | 27.91 | 28.59 | | | BERT | 6 | 10.28 | 8.40 | 9.24 | | | BERT (finetuned) | 6 | 8.79 | 7.18 | 7.90 | | | DistilBERT | 7 | 17.02 | 16.21 | 16.61 | | | DistilBERT (finetuned) | 5 | 9.70 | 6.60 | 7.86 | | | InCaseLawBERT | 11 | 3.02 | 4.52 | 3.62 | | | InLegalBERT | 12 | 6.10 | 9.96 | 7.56 | | | Segmented-Doc Transformer (full document) | BERT | 20 | 0.38 | 1.04 | 0.56 | | BERT (finetuned) | 15 | 0.65 | 1.33 | 0.87 | | | DistilBERT | 20 | 0.34 | 0.93 | 0.50 | | | DistilBERT (finetuned) | 20 | 0.51 | 1.39 | 0.75 | | | InCaseLawBERT | 20 | 0.51 | 1.39 | 0.75 | | | InLegalBERT | 19 | 0.49 | 1.27 | 0.71 | | | Transformer | | | | | | | (top 512 tokens) | BERT | 5 | 7.35 | 4.98 | 5.94 | | DistilRoBERTa | 4 | 5.56 | 3.01 | 3.91 | | | BERT (finetuned) | 5 | 7.44 | 5.04 | 6.01 | | | DistilRoBERTa (finetuned) | 7 | 2.20 | 2.08 | 2.14 | | | Sentence | | | | | | | Transformer (SBERT) | Jaccard Similarity | 7 | 35.12 | 33.28 | 34.17 | | BM25 | 7 | 37.69 | 35.90 | 36.77 | | | BM25 (Bigram) | 6 | 35.39 | 28.89 | 31.81 | | | BM25 (Trigram) | 6 | 30.71 | 25.07 | 27.61 | | | Atomic Events | BM25 | 6 | 13.33 | 10.89 | 11.99 | | BM25 (Bigram) | 7 | 33.07 | 31.50 | 32.27 | | | BM25 (Trigram) | 6 | 40.64 | 33.18 | 36.53 | | | BM25 (Quad-gram) | 7 | 35.62 | 33.93 | 34.76 | | | BM25 (Penta-gram) | 6 | 37.30 | 30.46 | 33.54 | | | Non-atomic Events | BM25 | 5 | 24.26 | 16.50 | 19.64 | | BM25 (Bigram) | 6 | 33.69 | 27.50 | 30.28 | | | BM25 (Trigram) | 6 | 41.35 | 33.76 | 37.17 | | | BM25 (Quad-gram) | 7 | 40.12 | 38.22 | 39.15 | | | BM25 (Penta-gram) | 7 | 39.57 | 37.70 | 38.61 | | | Events Filtered Docs | BM25 | 7 | 13.37 | 12.74 | 13.05 | | BM25 (Bigram) | 7 | 25.29 | 24.09 | 24.67 | | | BM25 (Trigram) | 7 | 35.08 | 33.41 | 34.22 | | | BM25 (Quad-gram) | 7 | 37.69 | 35.90 | 36.77 | | | BM25 (Penta-gram) | 7 | 38.66 | 36.83 | 37.72 | | | RR Filtered Docs Table 5: The table shows the K values, Precision, Recall and F1 scores for each model. | | | | | | | Model | IL-PCR | IL-PCR¬sent | | |-------------------------------------------|--------------------|---------------|-------| | (without citation sents.) | | | | | Word Level | BM25 | 13.85 | 13.23 | | BM25 (Bigram) | 28.59 | 27.52 | | | BERT | 9.24 | 9.58 | | | BERT (finetuned) | 7.90 | 8.41 | | | DistilBERT | 16.61 | 17.58 | | | DistilBERT (finetuned) | 7.86 | 8.21 | | | InCaseLawBERT | 3.62 | 3.25 | | | InLegalBERT | 7.56 | 7.96 | | | Segmented-Doc Transformer (full document) | BERT | 0.56 | 0.36 | | BERT (finetuned) | 0.87 | 0.67 | | | DistilBERT | 0.50 | 0.52 | | | DistilBERT (finetuned) | 0.75 | 0.68 | | | InCaseLawBERT | 0.75 | 0.68 | | | InLegalBERT | 0.71 | 0.68 | | | Transformer | | | | | (top 512 tokens) | BERT | 5.94 | 4.73 | | DistilRoBERTa | 3.91 | 2.94 | | | BERT (finetuned) | 6.01 | 5.01 | | | DistilRoBERTa (finetuned) | 2.14 | 1.01 | | | Sentence | | | | | Transformer (SBERT) | Jaccard Similarity | 34.17 | 32.38 | | BM25 | 36.77 | 35.26 | | | BM25 (Bigram) | 31.81 | 30.96 | | | BM25 (Trigram) | 27.61 | 26.59 | | | Atomic Events | BM25 | 11.99 | 11.99 | | BM25 (Bigram) | 32.27 | 31.91 | | | BM25 (Trigram) | 36.53 | 36.02 | | | BM25 (Quad-gram) | 34.76 | 33.75 | | | BM25 (Penta-gram) | 33.54 | 32.38 | | | Non-atomic Events | BM25 | 19.64 | 19.78 | | BM25 (Bigram) | 30.28 | 30.35 | | | BM25 (Trigram) | 37.17 | 36.40 | | | BM25 (Quad-gram) | 39.15 | 38.32 | | | BM25 (Penta-gram) | 38.61 | 37.66 | | | Events Filtered Docs | BM25 | 13.05 | 13.65 | | BM25 (Bigram) | 24.67 | 24.80 | | | BM25 (Trigram) | 34.22 | 33.15 | | | BM25 (Quad-gram) | 36.77 | 36.77 | | | BM25 (Penta-gram) | 37.72 | 36.93 | | | RR Filtered Docs | | | | Table 6: The table shows the performance comparison (F1 scores in %) of the proposed method with the baseline unsupervised methods on the COLIEE-21 (Rabelo et al., 2022), the **IL-PCR** benchmark and the dataset with sentences having the citation removed: IL-PCR¬**sent**) ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Yes, After the conclusion section: Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Yes, in the Ethics Section ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Yes, Abstract and Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Yes Section 3, 4, And 5 B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Yes, Section 4 And 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Yes, Section 4, 5 and Appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Yes, Section 4, 5 and Appendix ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Yes, Section 4 and 5 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Yes, Section 4, 5 and Appendix D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

joshi-etal-2023-arganalysis35k

{A}rg{A}nalysis35{K} : A large-scale dataset for Argument Quality Analysis

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.778

Argument Quality Detection is an emerging field in NLP which has seen significant recent development. However, existing datasets in this field suffer from a lack of quality, quantity and diversity of topics and arguments, specifically the presence of vague arguments that are not persuasive in nature. In this paper, we leverage a combined experience of 10+ years of Parliamentary Debating to create a dataset that covers significantly more topics and has a wide range of sources to capture more diversity of opinion. With 34,890 high-quality argument-analysis pairs (a term we introduce in this paper), this is also the largest dataset of its kind to our knowledge. In addition to this contribution, we introduce an innovative argument scoring system based on instance-level annotator reliability and propose a quantitative model of scoring the relevance of arguments to a range of topics.

# Arganalysis35K : A Large-Scale Dataset For Argument Quality Analysis Omkar Jayant Joshi* Priya Nitin Pitre* Yashodhara Haribhakta COEP Technological University (Formerly College of Engineering, Pune) Pune, Maharashtra, India {joshioj16, pitrepn18, ybl}.comp@coep.ac.in ## Abstract Argument Quality Detection is an emerging field in NLP which has seen significant recent development. However, existing datasets in this field suffer from a lack of quality, quantity and diversity of topics and arguments, specifically the presence of vague arguments that are not persuasive in nature. In this paper, we leverage a combined experience of 10+ years of Parliamentary Debating to create a dataset that covers significantly more topics and has a wide range of sources to capture more diversity of opinion. With 34,890 high-quality argument-analysis pairs (a term we introduce in this paper), this is also the largest dataset of its kind to our knowledge. In addition to this contribution, we introduce an innovative argument scoring system based on instance-level annotator reliability and propose a quantitative model of scoring the relevance of arguments to a range of topics. ## 1 Introduction Parliamentary Debate is an extemporaneous form of debating. One of the major intersections of Natural Language Processing and Debating was IBM Project Debater (Slonim et al., 2021), an end-toend system that mines arguments in a text (Ein-Dor et al., 2019; Toledo-Ronen et al., 2018), determines argument quality (Toledo et al., 2019), and through a combination of modules can debate against a human being. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new dataset 1that adds a new dimension to the field of argument quality detection in the context of parliamentary debating, eventually enabling the creation of a system that can beat a human debater in a Parliamentary debate. The dimension that we introduce here is a detailed explanation of why the argument made is true, applicable or impactful, henceforth referred to as "analysis". Analysis is defined as logical links provided to defend a statement, an example of which can be seen in Table 2. This can be compared against just arguments, as implemented by (Slonim et al., 2021) seen in Table 1. The concept of analysis as logically linked statements is an important improvement to the claim-premise concept that is specifically applicable to Parliamentary Debating and that is what we wish to formalize through this paper. We believe that "analysis" is not defined in NLP and needs to be introduced to the community for the following reasons: - Reason 1: It's neither a claim nor a premise: while we can say that "arguments" as we use it is equivalent to a claim used in argumentation, the same cannot be said for "analysis". In the context of parliamentary debating, analysis can be a combination of one claim and multiple premises, just a premise, multiple claims and multiple premises, and so on. Premise would be a part of "analysis" but may not be all of it. An example of this is given below: Argument (claim) : Education is the basis of everything a person achieves. - Analysis: Educated people are 80% more likely to be in the top 10% of the richest people in the world. (Analysis as a premise) - Analysis: Rich people send their kids to private schools and better colleges. This leads to them getting better jobs and being rich. (Analysis as a claim and one premise) - Analysis: If you get a good primary education, you are more likely to get into an Ivy League. If you get into an Ivy league, you are more likely to get a higher paying job. With this job, you have a higher chance of sending your kids to private schools, who then go on to achieve the same things. You and your family are then likely to be the top 10% of the richest people in the world. (Analysis as multiple claims and premises) These logical links need to be seen as one "analysis" instead of multiple claims and subclaims because each subsequent link needs to be seen in the context of the links that come before to build the overall reason for defending the argument. (good primary education → ivy league → high paying job → generational wealth). Here, each individual sub-claim does not defend the overall argument, but rather the collection of links in order that performs that function. - Reason 2: Premises, as presented in Govier (1985), are statements regarded as true or rationally acceptable, necessarily implying objectivity in those statements. While we agree that analysis includes premises, since it is a debate, analysis will necessarily also include subjective interpretations. Exact definition of what analysis includes is described in Bazari et al. (2015) . We think it is unwise to confuse these two terms, hence in the spirit of introducing a debate specific dataset, we have introduced a debate specific term.  | We should ban cosmetic surgery for minors We should end racial profiling | |---| Argument relevance is an important indicator of persuasiveness according to Paglieri and Castelfranchi (2014). In a parliamentary debating context, the same argument can be applied to a variety of topics and can be differently persuasive for each topic. Arguments like "accountability is important" can be used in debates about governments, churches, corporations, schools, etc. Similarly, arguments that deal with the premise of free speech being important can be used to defend free speech for members of the LGBTQ community, as well as to defend people's right to protest against a corporation. The quantification of relevance of the argument to the topic under discussion is defined as the relevance model which attempts to capture this complexity. Application of Instance-based annotator reliability to argumentation is another important contribution described in this paper. Some annotators might know a lot more about art than about the criminal justice system, hence might judge certain arguments as more or less persuasive using their knowledge; secondly, because of the element of bias that comes in when ranking arguments. Annotators might be biased about a certain argument on race, for example, because of the strong sentiments they feel towards them in their daily life, but they may not be biased when judging an argument on art. We propose a system that enables us to keep the scores of these annotators instead of dropping them, like previous systems have, and show how this leads to a better overall dataset with a more uniform distribution of scores. The dataset is crucial to designing systems that can interact efficiently with humans. Arguments generated with this system can analyze arguments better, and create effective rebuttals using high scoring arguments of the other side. The dataset can also be used to judge a debate by assigning scores to arguments as per their level. Any interactive system, such as IBMs Project Debater needs this dataset as a preliminary base to analyze and win debates with a human. In summary, our major contributions detailed in this paper are: (1) Argument-analysis pairs collected from a variety of sources on a variety of topics; (2) Introduction of a relevance model that enables the use of multiple arguments in different contexts; (3) Introduction of an instance based annotator scoring system that reduces bias and makes argument scores more accurate. ## 2 Related Works There have been several datasets in the field of argument quality using empirical methods that focus on finding arguments and evidence. Roush and Balaji (2020) collects policy arguments and evidence from National Speech and Debate association, while Hua and Wang (2017) categorises | Argument | Analysis | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------| | African | American | | groups | should | | fight for economic reparations from the government. | Reparations are required because African Americans were asked to pay equal taxes while being treated unequally with laws such as Jim Crow laws, 3 5 citizen rule, etc. | | Racial | appearance | | changes should be banned because it leads to discrimination. | Anti discrimination legislation is prefaced on the fact that all races should be treated equally because race is something you cannot change, this is undermined when the government allows changing of race. | arguments into different types like study, factual, opinion, and finds supporting statements for the same. Our work differs from these in several ways: first, the type of evidence used in these papers are either expert citations ("Dr. x recommends y"), results of studies ("According to the 2016 study.."), or opinions of laymen ("In my childhood.."). These are all different from the analysis that we propose, which follows a logical path to reach a conclusion, as seen in Parliamentary Debates ("Cryptocurrency is volatile because companies don't hold it with the intention to make long term profit, which results in no stabilising force being created in the market"). Secondly, these studies aim to find supporting statements, however no quantitative scoring metric has been assigned to the supporting analysis, a problem we solve by giving quantitative scores to both arguments and analysis. Other methods like the ones proposed by Persing and Ng (2017) and Habernal and Gurevych (2016a) learn the reasons that an argument is persuasive or non persuasive to improve upon them, and provide theoretical reasoning but no quantitative score. Toledo et al. (2019) and Gretz et al. (2020a) have created IBMRank and IBMRank30K, which contains arguments labelled for quality. Our work is different from theirs in several ways: first, we provide analysis points to arguments which helps us get higher quality arguments from annotators as they are asked to defend their argument without just stating it, and it gives insight into why an argument is persuasive (whether it is persuasive by itself or if the following analysis makes it persuasive) by providing two separate scores. Secondly, these datasets are composed of arguments for random topics that do not cover the diversity of the topics encountered in debating, which is a problem we aim to solve by using 100+ topics covering every genre as stated in multiple sources. Lastly, this dataset is larger in volume than both of these works, consisting of 35K argument-analysis pairs. The methods used to collect data vary for several datasets, some using policy debate arguments from the NSDA (Roush and Balaji, 2020), crowdsourcing (IBMs Speech by Crowd), Reddit (Tan et al., 2016). The common factor with all these methods is that they rely on arguments generated either by non-debaters or by crowdsourcing it entirely without knowing the quality of annotators, hence creating a lack of high-quality arguments and variety of arguments. Lastly, a major contribution in this work is the proposal of a relevance model. Wachsmuth et al. (2017a) suggested a model that decomposes quality to 15 dimensions to determine the qualities that make an argument persuasive. They discover that relevance is an important factor that determines argument quality. Gretz et al. (2020a) uses this as the basis to discover that Global Relevance (how related an argument is to the topic) has the highest difference between low and high scoring arguments, hence proving that it is the most important factor that determined how persuasive annotators found it. We use this theory as the basis to create a relevance model that judges this quantitatively. Wachsmuth et al. (2017b) finds relevance using the number of other arguments that use it as a premise. Our method is different from this as it does not depend on other arguments and can be used independently on every argument. ## 3 Dataset Creation This section deals with the process followed for the creation of the dataset for argument quality analysis. We have broadly split this into three parts: Argument Collection, Argument Annotation and Argument Scoring. ## 3.1 Procedure For Argument Collection Argument Collection for ArgAnalysis35K was primarily done through two ways. 1. A majority of argument-analysis pairs (∼60%) were collected through contribution by a set of active debaters of varying levels of expertise. These people were recruited at debating tournaments, through active debate circuits, debating facebook groups and contacts of past/current debaters. - Experts: Won 5+ tournaments at a global or regional level or have 3+ years of active debating experience. Experts contributed around 22% of our argumentanalysis pairs. - Intermediate: Won 2+ tournaments at a global or regional level or have 1-3 years of active debating experience. Intermediates contributed around 22% of our argument-analysis pairs. - Novice: Not won a tournament or < 1 year of debating experience. Novice debaters contributed around 15% of our argument-analysis pairs. 2. ∼ 40% of argument-analysis pairs were extracted from speeches given in the outrounds of tournaments. We took an automatically generated transcript of the speech and manually heard the debates to correct minute errors. We then wrote down the argument analysis statements verbatim as the speakers said it. The tournaments considered were regional majors (EUDC, UADC, etc.) or global majors (Worlds University Debating Championships2). We also restricted the extraction to speeches given in the elimination stage (outrounds) of the tournaments, which is a good way to ensure a high quality of argumentanalysis pairs. Only speeches from tournaments within the last 10 years were considered to maintain relevant arguments. While collecting arguments from contributors, we used the following procedure. Each contributor was presented with a single motion at a time and asked to contribute one argument for and one argument against the motion. It was explained that an argument is a statement in defence of or against the 2https://www.worlddebating.org/ motion presented. Then, the contributor was asked to come up with analysis statements defending the arguments. An analysis statement was explained to be a reason why we find the specific argument persuasive. We also set a character limit of 20-210 for each argument and 35-400 for each analysis point. This limit was set taking into consideration that an argument is expected to be a mere statement that is short and impactful, and analysis is expected to have more content as it defends the argument. All argument contributions were on a non-compensated volunteer basis and the workload for each volunteer was kept to a maximum of 20 minutes. ## 3.2 Argument Annotation Collection 200 individuals were involved in the annotation process for the dataset. The annotators chosen had participated in at least one debate at a school or college level. The experience level was set in order to better deal with the additional complexity of annotating argument-analysis pairs, since this concept is part of the fundamental training that is required to participate in a debate. They came from debating circuits all around the world to ensure that diversity (in arguments, thoughts, etc) is being expressed in the dataset. Considering the relatively high experience level of the annotators, each argument was annotated by three annotators. 3Each annotator was asked two questions per argument-analysis pair. 1. Is the argument something you would recommend a friend use as-is in a speech supporting/opposing a topic, regardless of personal opinion? 2. Would you recommend a friend use the analysis to defend the argument as it is? The questions are designed in a way that detaches the annotator and their opinions from the content. We also found this element of detachment to be standard NLP practice in papers that asked subjective questions of this nature (Gretz et al., 2020a).The annotations were collected in six sessions over a period of four months. Each annotator was asked to annotate 100 arguments per session. Each session took approximately 120 mins. This meant that on average, each annotator spent more than a minute analysing an argument analysis pair, 3They were paid in compensation as well as arranged training sessions, personal debate coaching, competitions, etc as applicable in specific instances. a time which is sufficient to gain a representative understanding of how the annotator viewed the argument-analysis pair. In order to gauge whether an annotator was paying attention to the task, there was a hidden test question asking the annotator to leave the response field blank if they had read the question. Annotators that failed the hidden question twice were removed from the annotation process. Surprisingly for an endeavour of this size, only three annotators had to be removed for this reason (1.5% of the total pool). ## 3.3 Annotator Reliability Score And Tests Annotator-Rel score is required for the calculation of the Weighted Average scoring function proposed by Gretz et al. (2020a). It is obtained by averaging all pair-wise κ for a given annotator, with other annotators that share at least 50 common responses to the same questions. Annotators who do not share at least 50 common responses with other annotators, do not receive a value for this score. The task-average κ is an important metric in this case to judge the overall quality of the annotation process. It is basically the average of all the pairwise-κ for all annotators. In comparison to Gretz et al. (2020a)'s reported value of 0.83, we find that our task-average κ value is 0.89. We hypothesise that this high value is due to the lower number of annotators involved and the comparatively higher and consistent experience level of the annotators. All annotation was done on a non-compensated volunteer basis. ## 4 Scoring Functions Scoring an argument-analysis pair is an inherently subjective task. In order to make it as objective as possible, we have reduced the annotator involvement to two binary questions. However in order to make our dataset usable and interfaceable with others in the field (Gretz et al., 2020a; Habernal and Gurevych, 2016b), we need to convert these annotations to a quality score. In order to do this, we have used the two methods used in the creation of IBM-30k as well as a third, recently proposed method (Li et al., 2019) that models annotator reliability on a per instance basis. ## 4.1 Mace-P To determine how dependable annotators are, we use MACE-P. Since we have asked two questions, one related to argument and one to analysis, correspondingly, we have two scores generated per argument-analysis pair. We denote these scores as MACE-PArg and MACE-PAnalysis. By combining the annotators' opinions, the technique predicts the ground truth and enables the identification of reliable annotators. Each annotator's reliability score is estimated by MACE, which is subsequently used to weigh this annotator's conclusions. In order to learn from redundant annotations, MACE does not necessary require that all annotators provide answers on all data, but it does require at least that a sizable pool of annotators annotate a portion of the same data. In our method, each argument is annotated by multiple individuals, thus making it a good use case for the application of MACE. ## 4.2 Weighted Average As mentioned previously, we utilize the annotator reliability we have calculated in order to compute Weighted Average scores for the two questions. As before, we get two scores per argument-analysis pair - WAarg and WAanalysis ## 4.3 Instance-Based Annotator Reliability We have applied a third scoring function to our dataset considering the following assumptions: - Since we are selecting our annotators with a baseline level of expertise in the field of debating and have ruled out unattentive people, the remaining annotators are unlikely to be incompetent. - Annotators are human and have human biases. They are likely to be biased, prejudiced and unreliable in specific instances Considering these assumptions, we decided to apply the scoring function proposed by Li et al. (2019) as it seemed to be an ideal use case for their approach of modelling instance based annotator reliability. This method is basically a modified version of MACE and uses Expectation Maximisation training and FNN classifiers to generate per instance annotator reliabilities and use those to predict the true value of an annotation. The reliability estimator is an FNN with 2 hidden layers. It is pretrained on a gold standard dataset, which we created by sampling 500 collected argument-analysis pairs and getting them annotated by a set of 10 experts. These are people who have core adjudicated in multiple tournaments, won awards and have been invited to judge tournaments around the world. They were compensated appropriately for their respective contributions. Out of the 500 pairs, we observe 100% agreement between experts on 260 pairs. The Instance-Based-model outputs two scores per pair - IAarg and IAanalysis, which are the predicted true values of each argument and analysis considering the reliability of every annotator for every argument and analysis. ## 4.4 Aggregation Of Scores Since we are scoring arguments and analysis separately, we have come up with two scores per scoring function discussed so far. Arguments and analysis are linked intrinsically in the context of debate. A good argument defended badly is non-persuasive, as is a bad argument defended well. In order to model this behaviour, we propose that to get the overall score of an argument analysis pair, we multiply the two scores together to get an overall score as shown in equation 1. Scorepair = *Score*arg ∗ *Score*analysis (1) ## 5 Scoring Function Comparison Here, we have compared the three scoring functions described by performing two experiments. In all experiments, delta indicates the difference between the scores under consideration. Additional details about these experiments can be found in the appendix. ## 5.1 Disagreement In Choosing The Better Argument-Analysis Pair Here, we paired up argument-analysis pairs where we see a difference in scoring between MACE-P, WA and IA scoring functions. Annotators were asked to pick the argument-analysis pair that they would prefer to recommend to someone regardless of personal bias to use as-is. We then look at the agreement between the different annotators on each of the pairs. For those pairs differing in WA and IA, annotators preferred IA in 68% of the pairs. Similarly, for those pairs differing in IA and MACE-P, annotators preferred IA in 64% of the pairs. ## 5.2 Reproducibility Test Ideally, a scoring function should be consistent across the dataset. This means that if we were to sample the dataset and follow the same procedure of creating and scoring argument analysis pairs, we should end up with similar scores for the arguments. In order to perform this experiment, we Scoring Function Delta **Filtered** Pairs Precision WApair < 0.25 11% 0.67 WApair 0.25-0.5 10% 0.72 WApair 0.5-0.75 8% 0.95 WApair 0.75+ 4% 1.00 MACE-Ppair < 0.25 11% 0.59 MACE-Ppair 0.25-0.5 10% 0.71 MACE-Ppair 0.5-0.75 8% 0.83 MACE-Ppair 0.75+ 4% 0.90 IApair < 0.25 11% 0.69 IApair 0.25-0.5 10% 0.73 IApair 0.5-0.75 8% 0.84 IApair 0.75+ 4% 0.91 Table 4: Reproducibility Test Results randomly sample 500 argument-analysis pairs from our dataset and send them to a different set of annotators following the same procedure. We then calculate the Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient between the scores calculated using the new annotations and the scores calculated originally. We find that there is a strong correlation for all three scoring functions in terms of the argument scores, but that correlation gets slightly weaker when it comes to analysis scores. This can be explained due to the slightly more subjective nature of the analysis. In terms of the scoring functions, we find that there is a slightly higher correlation for weighted average as opposed to the other two methods, which is an observation that agrees with the previous experiment's findings. These results | Scoring Function | Correlation Coefficient | |--------------------|------| | WAargument | 0.74 | | WAanalysis | 0.62 | | MACE-Pargument | 0.69 | | MACE-Panalysis | 0.60 | | IAargument | 0.70 | | IAanalysis | 0.59 | ## 6 Relevance Model In this section, we describe the relevance model that quantifies the applicability of each argumentanalysis pair to a topic. The underlying assumption is that each argument-analysis pair has a degree of applicability to at least one and likely more topics. This assumption is made on the basis of the personal experience that we have gathered while debating and discussions with experts in the field, where we often find that arguments repeat across multiple topics and motions. (Gretz et al., 2020b) conducted a qualitative evaluation of the correlation between relevance or applicability of an argument and a topic and how that is one of the factors by which we can understand why a particular argument is good. We believe that the approach can be extended in a quantitative manner by application of topic modeling and topic analysis. ## 6.1 Creation Of The Relevance Model In order to build our relevance model, we utilize the following algorithm. 1. We generate a list of 24 topics (Table 9) considering inputs from our experts, analysis of trends in debating and classification of motions that we had presented to our annotators in order to generate our arguments. 2. In order to get more nuance on these topics, we asked 50 annotators to come up with a list of 5 keywords (also referred to as subtopics) per topic resulting in 250 keywords per topic. We observed that this process generated keywords that provided holistic coverage of the topics. Moreover, the repetition we noticed with the keywords showed us that asking annotators to come up with any more keywords would not have been productive. The annotators chosen for this task were the ones scoring the highest in the previous tasks we set. 3. The keywords were then aggregated for similarity and reduced to the simplest representation 4and the keywords with the most agreement between annotators (> 60% of annotators having included the keyword) were collected. 4For the topic "Economics", the keywords "money", "rupee", "currency" all got reduced to money. 4. The list of keywords was then sent to the experts who were asked to classify them into two bins: one bin containing keywords that they perceived to be highly relevant to the topic and one bin containing keywords that they perceived to be not as relevant. The weight of the keyword was taken to be the percentage of experts placing the keyword in the high relevance bin. 5. The probability of each argument-analysis pair belonging to the topics was then calculated. This was achieved by applying W2V and BERT to generate a list of scores per argument-analysis pair and subtopic, which indicates the probability of the pair belonging to that topic. 6. These scores are then combined via the following formula to generate the overall relevance score of a particular argument-analysis pair to the main topic. $$\mathbf{\Pi}(2)$$ $$\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_{p e r c e n t a g e}*P r o b_{B E R T}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_{p e r c e n t a g e}}$$ ## 6.2 Preliminary Analysis Of The Model We observe a small degree of overlap (approximately 15% of keywords having more than one non zero relevance score) in the keyword generation process, i.e. the same keyword being generated for different topics. We take this as evidence that there is a significant overlap of themes when it comes to debate. In this case they were assigned different weights for the different topics depending on the percentage of experts that placed the word in the high relevance bin for that particular topic. This created a set of 84 unique keywords with different weights for the 24 topics. ## 6.3 Validation Of Relevance Model In order to validate the relevance model we propose a simple experiment. The hypothesis is that as the delta of relevance scores increases, it will be easier for annotators to identify which of the pair of arguments is more relevant to the given topic. 1. To make the comparisons fairer, we randomly select a topic for which the relevance scores will be considered. 2. We place argument-analysis pairs into four bins based on the delta of their relevance scores to the selected topic.  3. We then randomly sample 150 pairs and send them for pairwise annotations to a set of 50 people (highest scoring annotators and experts). Each annotator was asked to pick the more relevant argument for the given topic and the percentage of annotators picking the higher ranked argument was noted as the precision. 4. If sufficient agreement (> 80%) between annotators was not achieved, the pair was dropped. This procedure was followed for two more randomly sampled topics to ensure coverage of the dataset and the agreements with the relevance scores are recorded in Table 5. We found that all three topics showed similar trends in terms of agreeing with the annotator scoring. Annotator scoring also showed a high correlation with our relevance model for high deltas. This validates the relevance model as it satisfies the basic requirement of a quantitative score: bigger differences are more easily recognized. ## 7 Experimental Results 7.1 Experiments We use several methods to learn the task of ranking the quality of arguments. We evaluate the following methods, some accepted standard baselines, some taken from Gretz et al. (2020a) and some other neural models. - Arg Length: We evaluate the effect the length of an argument has on the scores of the argument to see if there is a correlation between the two, or if the annotators are biased to score longer arguments higher. - Bi-LSTM GloVe: We implemented the model proposed by Levy et al. on a dropout of 0.10 and an LSTM layer of size 128. 300 dimensional GloVe embeddings were used for input features.  - BERT-FTtopic: Gretz et al. (2020a) has finetuned BERT to concatenate a topic parameter and replace the final softmax layer with a sigmoid function. This has achieved the best results for their dataset, hence for the purpose of comparison with a standard, we have tested our dataset through the same. For the purpose of evaluating our methods on the ArgAnalysis35K dataset, we split the dataset into 70-20-10, 70% for training, 10% for tuning hyper parameters (to be used as a dev set), and 20% for testing. To keep the experiments consistent for comparing results with Gretz et al. (2020a), the same model parameters have been used: models have been trained for 5 epochs over the training data, with a batch size of 32 and a learning rate of 2e-5. Pearson and Spearman correlations are reported on the entire set. ## 7.2 Results And Discussion The results are presented in Table 6. We find that argument length is not an indicator for quality. However, we notice an interesting trend when looking at analysis length with comparison to the IA score they receive (Figure 1). Analysis scores reach a peak score from 210-270 characters, following which they drop, giving a slight resemblance to a normal curve. This proves that less characters are insufficient to express a point in a persuasive manner, but having more characters than necessary is also not considered persuasive, as the analysis becomes repetitive and less impactful. In order to compare the other scores effectively against existing datasets that do not have an analysis component, we aggregate the two scores per scoring function into one as described in section 4. BERT-FTtopic provides a significant improvement over the other methods. | Model | WApair | MACEPpair | IApair | | | | |-----------------|----------|------|----------|------|------|------| | r | ρ | r | ρ | r | ρ | | | Arg-Length | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.17 | | Analysis-Length | 0.32 | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.33 | | Bi-LSTM GLoVe | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.42 | | BERT FT TOPIC | 0.52 | 0.53 | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.54 | 0.55 | ## 8 Conclusion And Future Works 7.3 Comparing Quality Of Arganalysis35K Arguments To Ibm-Rank30 Since WA has been used as a scoring function for ArgAnalysis35K as well as IBM-Rank30K, we are able to compare the scores of both datasets to compare argument quality. Out of the 5000 arguments ranked 1 in IBM-Rank30, we randomly sampled 200. We then use our relevance model to find the topic in our dataset they are closest related to. The specified argument was only taken if it had a relevance score above 0.8 (that is, the argument strongly belongs to that category). From ArgAnalysis35K, we then randomly selected an argument-analysis pair from the same topic that had been scored 1. This pair of arguments were then sent to 500 random debaters where they were asked which argument they found more persuasive. We then look at the agreement between the different annotators on each of the pairs, similar to the experiment performed to compare the different scoring functions. We found that annotators preferred a ArgAnalysis35K argument 71% of the time, hence showing that the arguments in ArgAnalysis35K are more relevant in the context of parliamentary debating, and that an argument is more persuasive when followed by analysis. ## 7.4 **Comparing The Relative Effect Of Argument** And Analysis For The Overall Score One of the major purposes of asking annotators to answer two questions and reporting two separate scores of argument and analysis is to answer the question of what makes an argument persuasive: the argument itself or the explanation and analysis given for it. In order to test this, we plot a histogram of arguments and analysis separately against the distribution of the score (additional graphs attached in appendix). We find that analysis points have more scores above 0.7 than arguments alone, hence proving that logical links and explanations are critical to increase the persuasiveness of an argument. In this work, we create ArgAnalysis35K and validate it using a variety of methods. This system can be integrated with existing models to create a system that is able to debate more efficiently, be more persuasive, and as a result win more debates. ## 9 Limitations The collection and verification of this work has required help from over 250 annotators. This makes the dataset difficult to replicate, as is the case with many dataset papers. We have selected annotators carefully, considering relevant experience and using techniques to determine annotator quality to minimise the subjective variance. We have tried to cover the arguments involved in debating by talking to experts and people from debate circuits across the world, with different experiences and expertise. However, due to the nature of this activity, it is possible that there are arguments and experiences have not been covered in the dataset. These could be experiences of marginalized communities, underrepresented debate circuits, etc. Moreover, some debate motions used are relevant to the time period in which the motion was the most prominent (for example, motions about Trump and his actions, certain policy decisions, wars and their outcomes, etc). Our dataset does not account for the changes that might have taken place pertinent to that issue after the generation of arguments. ## 10 Broader Impacts And Ethical Considerations We have attempted to ensure that the broader impact of this work is positive to the best of our ability. We have validated our list using data from multiple tournaments, experts, Core adjudicators to ensure that the maximum possible amount of diversity is incorporated. We have included a large number of high quality arguments, unlike other similar projects, to increase the possibility of creating a system capable of winning against a human, a chance that is otherwise missing with other datasets. The number of annotators used to create and validate the dataset and its functions is small (200 at most), we find that this is on par with similar projects. We have compensated all annotators as applicable. Lastly, even though arguments were taken from WUDC speeches by watching and recording them, they were anonymized by removing names, paraphasing the argument and making it otherwise unrecognizable to point out where an argument came from (even for an expert debater). ## References Shafiq Bazari, Jonathan Leader Maynard, Engin Frazer Arıkan, Brett Madeline Schultz, Sebastian Templeton, Danique van Koppenhagen, Michael Baer, Sam Block, Doug Cochrane, Lucinda David, Harish Natarajan, Sharmila Parmanand, Shengwu Li, Andrew Tuffin, Joe Roussos, Filip Dobranic, Dessislava ´ Kirova, and Omer Nevo. 2015. The worlds university debating championship: Debating and judging manual. Liat Ein-Dor, Eyal Shnarch, Lena Dankin, Alon Halfon, Benjamin Sznajder, Ariel Gera, Carlos Alzate, Martin Gleize, Leshem Choshen, Yufang Hou, Yonatan Bilu, Ranit Aharonov, and Noam Slonim. 2019. Corpus wide argument mining - a working solution. Trudy Govier. 1985. *A Practical Study of Argument*. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth Pub. Co. Shai Gretz, Roni Friedman, Edo Cohen-Karlik, Assaf Toledo, Dan Lahav, Ranit Aharonov, and Noam Slonim. 2020a. A large-scale dataset for argument quality ranking: Construction and analysis. In *AAAI*. Shai Gretz, Roni Friedman, Edo Cohen-Karlik, Assaf Toledo, Dan Lahav, Ranit Aharonov, and Noam Slonim. 2020b. A large-scale dataset for argument quality ranking: Construction and analysis. *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, 34(05):7805–7813. Ivan Habernal and Iryna Gurevych. 2016a. What makes a convincing argument? empirical analysis and detecting attributes of convincingness in web argumentation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1214–1223, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ivan Habernal and Iryna Gurevych. 2016b. Which argument is more convincing? analyzing and predicting convincingness of web arguments using bidirectional LSTM. In *Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1589–1599, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinyu Hua and Lu Wang. 2017. Understanding and detecting supporting arguments of diverse types. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 203–208, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maolin Li, Arvid Fahlström Myrman, Tingting Mu, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2019. Modelling instance-level annotator reliability for natural language labelling tasks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2873–2883, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fabio Paglieri and Cristiano Castelfranchi. 2014. Trust, relevance, and arguments. *Argument Computation*, 5. Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. 2017. Why can't you convince me? modeling weaknesses in unpersuasive arguments. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17, pages 4082–4088. Allen Roush and Arvind Balaji. 2020. DebateSum: A large-scale argument mining and summarization dataset. In *Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Argument Mining*, pages 1–7, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Noam Slonim, Yonatan Bilu, Carlos Alzate, Roy Bar-Haim, Ben Bogin, Francesca Bonin, Leshem Choshen, Edo Cohen-Karlik, Lena Dankin, Lilach Edelstein, Liat Ein-Dor, Roni Friedman-Melamed, Assaf Gavron, Ariel Gera, Martin Gleize, Shai Gretz, Dan Gutfreund, Alon Halfon, Daniel Hershcovich, Ron Hoory, Yufang Hou, Shay Hummel, Michal Jacovi, Charles Jochim, Yoav Kantor, Yoav Katz, David Konopnicki, Zvi Kons, Lili Kotlerman, Dalia Krieger, Dan Lahav, Tamar Lavee, Ran Levy, Naftali Liberman, Yosi Mass, Amir Menczel, Shachar Mirkin, Guy Moshkowich, Shila Ofek-Koifman, Matan Orbach, Ella Rabinovich, Ruty Rinott, Slava Shechtman, Dafna Sheinwald, Eyal Shnarch, Ilya Shnayderman, Aya Soffer, Artem Spector, Benjamin Sznajder, Assaf Toledo, Orith Toledo-Ronen, Elad Venezian, and Ranit Aharonov. 2021. An autonomous debating system. *Nature*, 591(7850):379–384. Chenhao Tan, Vlad Niculae, Cristian DanescuNiculescu-Mizil, and Lillian Lee. 2016. Winning arguments: Interaction dynamics and persuasion strategies in good-faith online discussions. In *Proceedings* of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '16, page 613–624, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. Assaf Toledo, Shai Gretz, Edo Cohen-Karlik, Roni Friedman, Elad Venezian, Dan Lahav, Michal Jacovi, Ranit Aharonov, and Noam Slonim. 2019. Automatic argument quality assessment - new datasets and methods. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference* on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5625–5635, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Orith Toledo-Ronen, Roy Bar-Haim, Alon Halfon, Charles Jochim, Amir Menczel, Ranit Aharonov, and Noam Slonim. 2018. Learning sentiment composition from sentiment lexicons. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2230–2241, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Henning Wachsmuth, Martin Potthast, Khalid AlKhatib, Yamen Ajjour, Jana Puschmann, Jiani Qu, Jonas Dorsch, Viorel Morari, Janek Bevendorff, and Benno Stein. 2017a. Building an argument search engine for the web. In *Proceedings of the 4th Workshop* on Argument Mining, pages 49–59, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Henning Wachsmuth, Benno Stein, and Yamen Ajjour. 2017b. "PageRank" for argument relevance. In *Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European* Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 1117–1127, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Appendix A.1 Additional Details: Disagreement In Choosing The Better Pair (5.1) The argument-analysis pairs chosen in this experiment belonged to the same stance on the same topic, in order to avoid annotator bias. This generated a dataset of 737 pairs. The dataset was then split between a set of individuals comprising the highest scoring annotators and experts (around 50 individuals). Each argument was seen by 5 individual annotators and this annotation was done in a single session. IBM-30k used a threshold of 70% agreement between annotators to pick out the final set of pairs in their experiment. Since we used a high threshold to select annotators for this task, we set a correspondingly higher threshold of 80% agreement between all annotators to drop the pairs. This results in a similar percentage of pairs being dropped ( 28%) and we are left with a total of 530 pairs. Out of them, 368 are differently ranked for MACE-P and WA, 250 are differently ranked for WA and IA, and 90 are differently ranked for MACE-P and IA. A reason for this disparity might be the relatively similar methodologies followed by MACE and IA. ## A.2 Additional Details: Reproducibility Test (5.2) In this experiment, we did not combine the argument and analysis scores to generate a single score for the pair, as we wanted to gauge the effect of re-scoring the dataset on each of the individual components of our scores and scoring functions. ## A.3 Additional Experiment: Pairwise Annotation Agreement Another simple experiment that helps us determine the quality of the scoring functions is testing the agreement with pairwise gold-standard annotations. We place argument-analysis pairs in four bins as per the delta between the scores. The deltas used for the bins were as seen in Table 3. From each of these bins, we created a random sample of 150 arguments and sent them for pairwise annotations just as in the last experiment. The same process was followed for all three scoring functions. We find that MACE-P and IA tend to show similar precision for higher deltas but for lower bins, more annotators tend to agree with IA. This may be because of the additional nuance captured as a result of modelling annotator reliability on a perinstance basis. The assumption here is that pairs with a higher delta should show a higher agreement with annotations as it should be easier for annotators to identify the better argument-analysis pair in case of a huge difference in quality. In order to test the agreement with this assumption, we tabulate the results of precision against delta for the three scoring functions. We drop the pairs that do not show sufficient agreement between annotators, a threshold that we set at 80% due to the reasons mentioned above. The results we record for the comparison between MACE-P and WA agree with the ones reported by Gretz et al. (2020a). We find that considering the pairs with delta more than 0.25, that precision tends to be better for WA than either of IA or MACE-P. ## A.4 Additional Details: Scoring Functions Overall, we believe that all three of the scoring functions have unique value when it comes to highlighting different aspects of the dataset. Overall we observe a higher proportion of extreme values for both Weighted Average and MACE-P functions. This might be because of the context lost by dropping all annotator scores below a certain threshold making the resulting annotations more homogeneous. IA on the other hand, tends to provide a much smoother curve as we attempt to preserve as much contribution from each annotator as possible, thus leading to a more representative annotation set. Furthermore, Weighted Average tends to generate a continuous scoring scale while MACE-P tends to cluster argument-analysis pairs around either of the two extremes, but we observe that IA offers a middle ground approach to get as close to the true value of an argument as possible, while still maintaining a smooth, continuous scoring curve. However, in order to make our dataset interfaceable with others in the field and to not lose out on the value generated by the other two scoring functions, we report all six scores in the final dataset. Source Number of Arguments | MACEArg | MACEAnalysis | WAArg | | | | | | |-----------|----------------|---------|------------|-------|------------|------|------| | Average | Average | Average | WAAnalysis | IAArg | IAAnalysis | | | | Average | Average | Average | | | | | | | 13995 | 0.76 | 0.93 | 0.75 | 0.91 | 0.77 | 0.93 | | | Expert | De | | | | | | | | bater | 7852 | 0.81 | 0.95 | 0.78 | 0.92 | 0.80 | 0.94 | | 7796 | 0.69 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 0.86 | 0.70 | 0.88 | | | Novice | De | | | | | | | | bater | 5247 | 0.56 | 0.66 | 0.53 | 0.63 | 0.55 | 0.65 | | Total | 34890 | 0.73 | 0.88 | 0.71 | 0.86 | 0.73 | 0.89 | | Argument | Analysis | IAArg | IAAnalysis | Score | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|---------|----------------------|---------|-----| | Monopolies can justify spending money on R&D which smaller companies cannot do, and hence it is okay to keep a monopoly like Facebook running in the modern day. | Monopolies | do | not | | | | have | competition | | | | | | and hence they are not worried about other companies taking over, which is why they can justify the risk of spending money on R&D which might or might not work. | 1 | 1 | WUDC Speech | | | | Big | companies | are | Since | markets | are | | bad. | a | zero | sum | game, | | | billionaires and big companies are not benevolent; they have stepped on others and exploited workers, customers to get there. | 0.12 | 0.93 | Intermediate Debater | | | | Prioritizing | being | | | | | | a | monopoly | over | | | | | short | term | profit | | | | | leads to an Increased power disparity between companies and consumers. | Customers are a vulnerable target. | 0.81 | 0.22 | Novice | De | | bater | | | | | | | Table 8: An example of argument-analysis pairs from different sources with IA scores | | | | | | | Topic | Keywords | |-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------| | Authoritarian Regimes | Russia, Dictatorship, China | | Politics | Elections, Democracy, Vote | | Diplomacy | International Relations, Negotiations, Foreign Policy | | Economics | Cryptocurrency, Recession, Fiscal deficit | | Philosophy | Nihlism, Rationalism, Stoicism | | Morality and Ethics | Consent, Principles, Parenting | | Criminal Justice | Punishment, Rehab, Juries | | Social Justice | Discrimination, Racism, Philanthropy | | Collective Action | Feminism, LGBTQ, Racism | | Education | Syllabus, Teachers, Privilege | | Art and Culture | Heritage, History, Commercialization | | Business | Taxes, Facebook, Banks | | Developing Nations | Post-colonialism, Pollution, Overpopulation | | Environment | Climate Change, Pollution, Philanthropy | | Family and Relationships | Parenting, Marriage, Toxic | | Media | Social Media, Polarization, Depression | | Religion | Atheism, Separation of powers, Divinity | | Science and Technology | AI, Patents, Medicines | | War and Terrorism | Drones, Decapitation, Death penalty | | Sports | Children, Cult of personality, Leagues | | Human Experience | Pessimism, Optimism, Death | | Policy | Government, Whistleblowers, Immigration | | International Organizations | UN, NATO, WTO | | Diseases and Medicine | Pandemic, Therapy, Big pharma | Table 9: A list of topics and selected sample keywords. The keyword "Pollution" can be seen to be repeated between  the topics "Developing Nations" and "Environment", demonstrating evidence for the 15% repetition observed between keywords. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations Section (9) ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Broader Impacts Section (10) ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Introduction (Page 1-2) ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Models, scoring functions that were taken from others (IBM,BERT) cited in their respective sections. Dataset used for comparison (Gretz, 2020 cited everywhere it is used) ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Models, scoring functions that were taken from others (IBM,BERT) cited in their respective sections. Dataset used for comparison (Gretz, 2020 cited everywhere it is used) ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Everything used is readily available under MIT Open Source License. The created dataset will also be provided to authors when affiliation, intended usage and requirements are emailed to us at arganalysis35k@gmail.com. Mentioned in footnotes as well. We will make this process easier going forward. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Referred to datasets on their respective sites, codes and datasets have the same purpose as they are used here. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Not applicable, no sensitive information present, privacy concerns discussed in broader impacts ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Topics, domains, language discussed in introduction. Additionally, diversity addressed in broader impacts ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Topics, domains, language discussed in introduction. Dataset statistics discussed throughout the paper (tables, graphs) and in appendix. Additionally, diversity addressed in broader impacts The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Biglove Lstm, Bert (Section 7) ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Hyperparameters explained for BiGlove LSTM, BERT, etc. No computatitonally heavy models. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 7, Experiments ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Results are descriptive in the results section, limitations discussed in broader impacts C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. Not applicable to our usecase ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Throughout The Paper (Dataset Created) ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? All questions mentioned in dataset creation and scoring functions ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Yes, discussed in all footnotes in dataset creation and scoring functions D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Not applicable to our case, no sensitive data collected, participants were told about the study and how their answers would be used and that they would be anonymous. Discussed in ethical impacts. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Not applicable to our use case ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Dicussed diversity in introduction and broader implications

gao-etal-2023-reference

Reference Matters: Benchmarking Factual Error Correction for Dialogue Summarization with Fine-grained Evaluation Framework

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.779

Factuality is important to dialogue summarization. Factual error correction (FEC) of model-generated summaries is one way to improve factuality. Current FEC evaluation that relies on factuality metrics is not reliable and detailed enough. To address this problem, we are the first to manually annotate a FEC dataset for dialogue summarization containing 4000 items and propose FERRANTI, a fine-grained evaluation framework based on reference correction that automatically evaluates the performance of FEC models on different error categories. Using this evaluation framework, we conduct sufficient experiments with FEC approaches under a variety of settings and find the best training modes and significant differences in the performance of the existing approaches on different factual error categories.

# Reference Matters: Benchmarking Factual Error Correction For Dialogue Summarization With Fine-Grained Evaluation Framework Mingqi Gao1,2,3, Xiaojun Wan1,2,3, Jia Su4, Zhefeng Wang4**, Baoxing Huai**4 1Wangxuan Institute of Computer Technology, Peking University 2Center for Data Science, Peking University 3The MOE Key Laboratory of Computational Linguistics, Peking University 4Huawei Cloud {gaomingqi,wanxiaojun}@pku.edu.cn {sujia3,wangzhefeng,huaibaoxing}@huawei.com ## Abstract Factuality is important to dialogue summarization. Factual error correction (FEC) of modelgenerated summaries is one way to improve factuality. Current FEC evaluation that relies on factuality metrics is not reliable and detailed enough. To address this problem, we are the first to manually annotate a FEC dataset for dialogue summarization containing 4000 items and propose FERRANTI, a fine-grained evaluation framework based on reference correction that automatically evaluates the performance of FEC models on different error categories. Using this evaluation framework, we conduct sufficient experiments with FEC approaches under a variety of settings and find the best training modes and significant differences in the performance of the existing approaches on different factual error categories. 1 ## 1 Introduction Factuality (also known as factual consistency, faithfulness) is a crucial dimension in evaluating summary quality. The summaries generated by current summarization models, and even some reference summaries, still have much room for improvement in factuality (Maynez et al., 2020; Fabbri et al., 2021b; Pagnoni et al., 2021). Dialogue summarization, a recently popular subfield of text summarization, has more challenging factual issues involved (Wang et al., 2022; Gao and Wan, 2022). The prior approaches to enhance the factuality of summaries can be broadly classified into two categories: one is to introduce factuality-related objectives in training or inference process to make the summarization models more faithful, which is a direct generation of factually better summaries (Falke et al., 2019; Liu and Chen, 2021; Wan and Bansal, 2022; Tang et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021); the other is to design a factual error correction 1Code and data will be available at https://github.com/ kite99520/DialSummFactCorr (FEC) model independent of the summarization models, which takes the source document and the summary to be corrected as input and outputs a corrected summary (Cao et al., 2020; Dong et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021a; Fabbri et al., 2022b; Balachandran et al., 2022). There are a number of studies on news summarization that can fall into both categories. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no work on factual error correction for dialogue summarization. Considering the importance of factual issues in dialogue summarization, we would like to try to correct factual errors in dialogue summaries. However, after carefully examining and considering the motivations and practices of previous FEC studies, we argue that there are flaws in the way FEC models are evaluated, which may have diverted the FEC for summarization from its original purpose. Previous studies evaluate the effectiveness of FEC models mainly by judging whether the scores of factuality metrics (e.g. FactCC (Kryscinski et al., 2020)) of the corrected summaries increase compared to the original summaries. First, this evaluation mechanism is so vague that it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of factual error correction accurately: we neither know which parts of the original summary have factual errors nor whether the corrected summary addresses them as expected. Second, this evaluation mechanism also blurs the line between FEC for summarization and the direct generation of factually better summaries: the factual error correction model can ignore the content of the original summary and directly generate a different but more factually correct summary. We argue that it is necessary to introduce manually annotated reference correction to address the above issues. Factual error correction for summarization has its basic requirement: to correct factual errors in the original summary by as few substitution, insertion, and deletion operations as possible to obtain a fluent and non-redundant summary. This can be reflected in the manual annotation. The introduction of reference correction, on the one hand, provides more valuable data for the training of FEC models compared to pseudo data; on the other hand, and more importantly, it creates the condition for a more comprehensive and accurate evaluation of the performance of FEC models. We construct an evaluation framework that can assess the performance of FEC models on different factual error categories based on manually annotated references. Using this framework, we are able to comprehensively evaluate and analyze the performance of various FEC methods on dialogue summarization. Our work has the following three main contributions: 1) We collect the outputs of four common models on two dialogue summarization datasets and are the first to correct the factual errors in them manually. The dataset containing 4000 data items will be released to facilitate further research. 2) We propose FERRANTI, a fine-grained evaluation framework based on reference correction that provides a comprehensive assessment of the performance of FEC models on different categories of factual errors. 3) Based on the above dataset and evaluation framework, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation and analysis of the performance of multiple FEC methods for dialogue summarization under different settings to illustrate the role of manually annotated data and the weaknesses of current models. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Dialogue Summarization Models As datasets such as SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019) were proposed, many models designed for dialogue summarization sprang up. Many of them build on generic pre-trained generative models such as BART (Lewis et al., 2020), incorporating dialogue structure information such as multiple views (Chen and Yang, 2020), summary sketch (Wu et al., 2021), argument mining (Fabbri et al., 2021a), personal named entity (Liu and Chen, 2021), and discourse relations (Chen and Yang, 2021). The summaries generated by these systems contain factual errors. They are what the FEC model needs to correct. ## 2.2 Fec For Summarization Cao et al. (2020) and Dong et al. (2020) can be considered as the first work on FEC for text summarization. Cao et al. (2020) apply data augmentation methods to transform the reference summary, obtain pseudo data to fine-tune the pre-trained model, and generate the corrected summary directly. In contrast, Dong et al. (2020) use a more conservative strategy: masking the entities in summary and training a QA model to select span as the answer from the source document. Balachandran et al. (2022) follow the idea of Cao et al. (2020) and generate harder pseudo data through infilling language models. A similar approach based on data augmentation is Zhu et al. (2021), which makes use of the knowledge graph extracted from the source document. Chen et al. (2021a) replace named entities and numbers in the summary to generate candidates, from which the best one is selected as the corrected summary. In addition, Fabbri et al. (2022b) train the model using sentence-compressed data and remove hallucinated entities from the summary. We will test some of these methods on real annotated data of dialogue summarization. ## 2.3 Factuality Evaluation For Summarization There are two main types of metrics widely used to evaluate the factuality of summaries. A class of metrics based on natural language inference, which formulate factuality as the result or confidence of binary classification, such as FactCC (Kryscinski et al., 2020), DAE (Goyal and Durrett, 2020; Goyal and Durrett, 2021), and SUMMAC (Laban et al., 2022). The other class is QA-based metrics, which usually contain a module for question generation and a module for question answering, with different implementation details, such as FEQA (Durmus et al., 2020), SummaQA (Scialom et al., 2019), QuestEval (Scialom et al., 2021), and QAFactEval (Fabbri et al., 2022a). Besides, BARTScore (Yuan et al., 2021) is also used to assess factuality. Many of them are used to evaluate the effectiveness of FEC models for summarization. ## 2.4 Evaluation For Post-Editing And Correction Evidence-based factual error correction is to correct the factual errors in a claim with evidence texts from trustworthy knowledge bases (Thorne and Vlachos, 2021; Shah et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2022). Reference-based evaluation metrics SARI (Xu et al., 2016) and ROUGE correlate highly with human judgments on evidence-based FEC (Thorne and Vlachos, 2021). Automatic post-editing (APE) of machine translation and grammar error correction (GEC) also mainly use reference-based metrics (Chollampatt et al., 2020). For APE, they are BLEU, TER (Snover et al., 2006), and CHRF (Popovic´, 2015). For GEC, they are M2(Dahlmeier and Ng, 2012) and ERRANT (Bryant et al., 2017). From the above, it is clear that these post-editing or correction tasks use reference-based evaluation metrics if manual annotation data are available. ## 3 Data Annotation 3.1 Source Data Selection We select SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019) and DialogSum (Chen et al., 2021b), the two most widely used datasets in the field of short dialogue summarization, and collect summaries generated by four systems, BART (Lewis et al., 2020), UniLM (Dong et al., 2019), MV-BART (Chen and Yang, 2020) and CODS (Wu et al., 2021), on their test sets. The outputs of each system on the SAMSum test set are obtained from DialSummEval (Gao and Wan, 2022). For DialogSum, the outputs of BART and UniLM are provided by the authors of the dataset, and we retrain MV-BART and CODS on DialogSum with default settings to obtain their outputs. We randomly sample 500 dialogues from each of the test sets of SAMSum and DialogSum, and the corresponding summaries of the above four systems, for a total of 2×500×4 = 4000 dialoguesummary pairs, as the raw data to be annotated. ## 3.2 Annotation Process We recruited college students as annotators. Annotators are required to be able to read and understand English daily conversations and articles fluently and have good English writing skills. We designed the annotation interface by tagtog 2to allow annotators to easily annotate multiple types of data. One dialogue and four system summaries are shown to the annotator at the same time. For each summary, the annotators will determine whether it is factually correct first. If there are factual errors in the summary, they will drag the mouse to mark the words and phrases which are factually inconsistent with the dialogue and then assign an error category by clicking the word and phrases they select. A summary may contain more 2https://www.tagtog.com/ than one error. Finally, if the summary contains any factual errors, they will write a corrected summary. Otherwise, the corrected summary will be the same as the original. A detailed annotation guide was given to annotators to help them be familiar with the annotation interface and the definition of the task. Here we follow the taxonomy of factual errors proposed by Pagnoni et al. (2021). There are eight kinds of factual errors: (1) Entity Error (**EntE**); (2) Predicate Error (**PredE**); (3) Circumstance Error (**CircE**); (4) Coreference Error (**CorefE**); (5) Discourse Link Error (**LinkE**); (6) Out of Article Error (**OutE**); (7) Grammatical Error (**GramE**); (8) Others (**OthE**). Please see examples in Appendix A. When correcting factual errors, the annotators needed to follow the three principles: (1) Correct factual errors with as few modifications as possible. (2) Making substitutions for words and phrases is preferred. When substitution is difficult, deletion can be performed. (3) The corrected summary should be grammatically correct, coherent, and nonredundant as possible. We divided the original data into 10 batches, each containing 100 dialogues (100 × 4 = 400 items). In order to ensure annotation quality, those who wished to participate in the annotation were required to complete the annotation of all the summaries corresponding to the 10 dialogues (10×4 = 40 items) first. After completing this small part, we evaluated the annotation results, pointed out any inappropriate annotations, and told them our suggestions. After confirming that the annotation task was correctly understood, the participants were allowed to continue annotation. In subsequent annotation, we sampled the results to check. Throughout the process, we kept in touch with the annotators via email and instant messaging software. ## 3.3 Data Analysis It is necessary to illustrate the difference between the manually annotated corrected summaries and the reference summaries in the dialogue summarization dataset. We focus on their relationship to the summaries to be corrected. Since the summaries that do not contain factual errors do not need to be corrected, i.e., the corrected summaries are the same as the original summaries, we only count data for samples where the original summaries contain factual errors. For these samples, it can be seen from Figure 1 that the corrected summaries   ## Bart Unilm Mv-Bart Cods Total Samsum 0.43 / 0.85 0.39 / 0.82 0.45 / 0.85 0.46 / 0.84 0.43 / 0.84 Dialogsum 0.62 / 0.73 0.54 / 0.68 0.56 / 0.76 0.61 / 0.72 0.58 / 0.72 Table 1: BLEU score comparison (origin vs. reference / origin vs. corrected). Only items with factual errors in the original summary are counted. | SAMSum | 26.00 | 51.20 | 37.00 | 44.40 | 39.65 | |-----------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | DialogSum | 31.20 | 44.80 | 58.00 | 40.60 | 43.65 | Table 2: Percentage of summaries with factual errors. are closer in length to the original summaries compared to the reference summaries. This is more obvious on DialogSum. As shown in Table 1, the corrected summaries are closer to the original summaries in terms of n-gram overlap compared to the reference summaries. This result is in line with our annotation principles. For the percentage of factual inconsistencies and error categories, as shown in Table 2, around 40% of generated summaries contain factual errors. This ratio is similar to the annotation results of Wang et al. (2022). Figure 2 shows that, **EntE** and **PredE** are the two most dominant types of errors. It is important to note that the percentage of **GramE** (difficult to understand due to grammatical errors) is less. This is in line with the findings of Gao and Wan (2022): the current dialogue summarization systems based on pre-trained models generate summaries that are already good in terms of fluency.  | **COS** | | **T** | |:------------------|:----|:----|:----| | $0.46\,/\,0.84$ | $0.45$ | | $0.61\,/\,0.72$ | $0.58$ | $\blacksquare$ ## 4 Test For Factuality Metrics We perform a simple test of the reliability of factuality metrics using the above dataset. In general, the factuality metric F takes the source document S and the summary H as inputs and outputs a score F(*S, H*). A reliable factual indicator needs to satisfy the condition that for summaries with factual errors, the factual score of the corrected summary C is greater than that of the original summary O, i.e., F(S, C) > F(*S, O*). We select four commonly used factuality metrics: FactCC (Kryscinski et al., 2020), DAE (Goyal and Durrett, 2020; Goyal and Durrett, 2021), QuestEval (Scialom et al., 2021), and BARTScore (Yuan et al., 2021). Table 3 illustrates that it is unreliable to evaluate the factuality of the original and corrected summaries using these metrics. The factuality scores of the corrected summaries are not significantly better than those of the original summaries under these metrics, either in mean or pairwise comparisons. ## 5 Reference-Based Evaluation Framework We find that it is difficult for manual annotation to determine the boundaries of erroneous spans accurately sometimes, which hinders the fine-grained evaluation of FEC models by error categories. Considering these error categories have clear linguistic characteristics, it is more feasible to use a rulebased approach to automatically align and determine error categories when reference correction is already available. We propose FERRANTI, a Factual ERRor ANnotation ToolkIt designed for FEC. Noting the great practice of ERRANT (Bryant et al., 2017), our implementation builds on it. As shown in Figure 3, it mainly consists of three steps: alignment, classification, and comparison. | SAMSum (N=793) | DialogSum (N=873) | | | | | | | | | | | |------------------|---------------------|--------|------|------|--------|-----------|--------|--------|------|------|------| | origin | correct | < | = | > | origin | correct | < | = | > | | | | FactCC | 0.136 | 0.139 | 0.04 | 0.93 | 0.03 | FactCC | 0.286 | 0.276 | 0.04 | 0.91 | 0.05 | | DAE | 0.076 | 0.077 | 0.02 | 0.97 | 0.02 | DAE | 0.199 | 0.207 | 0.04 | 0.93 | 0.03 | | QuestEval | 0.392 | 0.380 | 0.30 | 0.23 | 0.47 | QuestEval | 0.486 | 0.486 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 0.34 | | BARTScore | -3.084 | -3.123 | 0.25 | 0.53 | 0.22 | BARTScore | -2.826 | -2.810 | 0.21 | 0.57 | 0.22 |  ## 5.1 Taxonomy Of Factual Errors To automatically classify factual errors for FEC, we propose a new taxonomy of factual errors. Compared to existing classifications of factual errors, such as Pagnoni et al. (2021), Tang et al. (2022) and Wang et al. (2022), our taxonomy differs in three main ways: (1) we point out that there are two classifications of factual errors of different perspectives, content-based and form-based; (2) we hierarchize the content-based classification of factual errors; (3) our error classification is implemented by explicit linguistic rules rather than manual annotation. The content-based categories are shown in Table 5. In this classification, the category to which an edit belongs needs to draw on the POS of the words in the sentence as well as on the dependencies. Compared to the classification we used in the annotation, we subdivide **EntE** and **PredE**, add NumE, and do not use **OutE** and **GramE** that have unclear POS and dependency features. By this, we cover special categories such as negation errors (**NegE**) that received attention in summarization factuality without losing generality. The form-based categories are shown in Table 4. They are called form-based because, in factual error correction, it is basically only necessary to align the original summary and the corrected summary by whether the words are the same to determine whether an edit is an addition, deletion, or modification. Devaraj et al. (2022) adopt a similar way when analyzing the factuality of text simplification. It is necessary to point out that the form-based and content-based classifications are not mutually exclusive. They can be combined, such as R:Pred:Neg in Figure 3. ## 5.2 Alignment In this step, the corrected summaries are aligned with the original ones and the edits are extracted automatically. We follow ERRANT by using an alignment algorithm that considers linguistic features as a cost function (Felice et al., 2016). However, unlike ERRANT, we merge all adjacent edits considering that a small number of factually corrected edits are longer. Before alignment, the summary is pre-processed with Spacy3for tokenization, POS tagging, etc. Form-based error categories are automatically assigned to each edit after alignment. ## 5.3 Classification After edits are extracted, they are assigned contentbased categories based on the linguistic features of the original span and the corrected span (mainly 3version 2.3.0, https://spacy.io/ | Code | Meaning | Description | Examples | |--------|-------------|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | M | Missing | Missing information that needs to be added. | with Ms. → with Ms. Blair | | R | Replacement | Wrong information that needs to be modified. | reminds → teaches | | U | Unnecessary | Redundant information that needs to be deleted. | Derek and Phil → Derek | | Code | Description | Example | |------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------| | Ent:ObjE | Object errors in entity errors, mainly nouns. | Laura → Paul | | Ent:AttrE | Attribute errors in entity errors, mainly adjectives. | proud → happy | | Pred:ModE | Modality errors in predicate errors, mainly modal verbs that express possibilities. | is → may be | | Pred:TensE | Tense errors in predicate errors. | is → was | | Pred:NegE | Negation errors in predicate errors. | will → won't | | Pred:VerbE | General predicate errors that do not fall into the above categories. | lent → gave | | CircE | Circumstance errors, mainly adverbs, prepositional phrases, etc. | after → during | | CorefE | Coreference errors, mainly pronouns. | her → Ann | | LinkE | Link errors, conjunctions | but → because | | NumE | Errors in numbers | 15 → 30 | | OthE | Other errors that are not all of the above types of errors. | , so she → . She | Table 4: Form-based categories of factual errors. Table 5: Content-based categories of factual errors. The examples in the table are all replacements, but deletions and additions are also possible. POS and lemma). The detailed rules are not listed here. ## 5.4 Comparison In this step, hypothesis edits and reference edits are compared and scores are computed in different categories for form-based and content-based categories. Edits that appear in both hypothesis and reference are true positive (TP). For TP, we use the category of edits in reference as the final category. Edits that appear only in the hypothesis or reference are false positive (FP) or false negative (FN). Further, we can obtain precision, recall, and F-values. We report F0.5 out of a penalty for over-correction. ## 6 Experiments 6.1 Fec Approaches We select a few representative FEC approaches. Among them, we are most interested in such methods: generating corrected summaries directly based on data augmentation because of their flexibility. Rule-based transformation Cao et al. (2020) use a set of rules that swap the entities, numbers, dates, and pronouns of the reference summaries to construct the summaries to be corrected for training. We call this approach **rule**. Infilling-based transformation Balachandran et al. (2022) mask and predict the subjects, relations, and objects of sentences in the source documents to train an infilling model. The reference summaries are then masked in the same way, and the trained infilling model is used to fill the masked reference summaries to construct the summaries to be corrected. For the infilling model, we experiment with two different setups: (1) using the trained infilling model from the original study, denoted as **infill**. (2) retraining the infilling model , denoted as **infill-r**. Please see Appendix C for the details of retraining. In addition to the method of generating a corrected summary directly, we also select other approaches, which aim at correcting extrinsic hallucinations: CCGS Chen et al. (2021a) replace named entities and numbers in reference summary with the compatible semantic type of content from the source document to generate candidates to train a factual classifier based on BART. At the time of inference, the candidates for the summary to be corrected are generated in a similar way, the trained classifier is used to re-rank the candidates, and the best one is selected as the corrected summary. FactPegasus Wan and Bansal (2022) propose a component for correcting factual errors without training data: based on manually written rules and | SAMSum | | | | | | | |-------------------------------|--------|-------|-------------|------|-------------|-----------| | BART as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.08 | 2.02 | | | R | 4.26 | 7.58 | 15.00 | 2.34 | 1.44 | | | U | 7.04 | 6.07 | 13.66 | 3.89 | 4.66 | | | Total | 4.15 | 5.63 | 13.01 | 2.54 | 2.33 | | | PEGASUS as pre-trained models | | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.41 | 1.59 | | | R | 12.15 | 1.58 | 13.72 | 2.58 | 4.68 | | | U | 7.46 | 4.05 | 7.04 | 1.17 | 4.25 | | | Total | 9.48 | 2.15 | 10.82 | 1.99 | 4.18 | | | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.88 | | | R | 10.54 | 0.00 | 16.18 | 3.52 | 4.66 | | | U | 7.94 | 18.99 | 24.10 | 6.26 | 7.99 | | | Total | 8.89 | 4.72 | 15.69 | 3.74 | 4.57 | DialogSum | | BART as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | M | 5.49 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.75 | 2.32 | | | R | 3.48 | 1.72 | 1.74 | 1.58 | 1.34 | | | U | 12.05 | 4.32 | 4.57 | 3.02 | 2.43 | | | Total | 4.24 | 2.43 | 2.31 | 1.76 | 1.66 | | | PEGASUS as pre-trained models | | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | M | 14.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.78 | | | R | 9.32 | 5.75 | 4.44 | 2.10 | 2.19 | | | U | 13.33 | 3.70 | 0.00 | 2.84 | 1.41 | | | Total | 10.25 | 4.58 | 3.50 | 1.98 | 1.87 | | | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | M | 13.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.45 | 3.26 | | | R | 7.33 | 1.35 | 8.29 | 2.46 | 4.26 | | | U | 7.46 | 16.95 | 18.18 | 3.36 | 4.18 | | | Total | 7.89 | 2.98 | 8.33 | 2.50 | 4.12 | | the Spacy library, and it removes or replaces entities and related content in the summary that do not appear in the source document. ## 6.2 Training Modes For different data augmentation approaches (**rule**, infill, and **infill-r**), we conduct experiments with different training modes to explore some factors of interest. To compare the role played by pseudo data (generated by data augmentation) and real data (manually annotated) in training, we designed the following training modes: (1) Training with pseudo data only (**Pseudo**). (2) Training with real data only (**Real**). (3) Training with pseudo data first, then with real data (**Pseudo + Real**). In order to compare the difference between the reference correction and the reference summary of the summarization dataset, we also design the following training modes: (4) Replace the reference correction in the real data with the reference summary for training (**RefS**). (5) Training with pseudo data first, then proceed to (4) (**Pseduo + RefS**). ## 6.3 Datasets And Settings We split our annotated dataset (which we call the real data) into a training set, a validation set, and a test set. Specifically, for the 500 dialogues of SAMSum, we split them according as 300/100/100. Each dialogue has the corresponding four modelgenerated original summaries and corrected summaries. The total size is 1200/400/400. For the 500 dialogue of DialogSum, the split is the same as SAMSum. We train and test models separately on the two parts (datasets). Please see Appendix D for model settings and training details. ## 6.4 Evaluation We use the evaluation framework presented in Section 5, FERRANTI to automatically evaluate FEC approaches on the test set. For comparison, we also adopt factuality metrics mentioned in Section 4. ## 7 Results And Analysis 7.1 Performance Across Training Modes Here we show the results on the category of formbased errors. Content-based results are shown in Table 22 and Table 23 in Appendix E. Reference summary vs. Reference correction Table 6 illustrates that in most cases where FERRANTI is used as the evaluation framework, training FEC models using the reference summary as the final correction target (RefS, **Pseudo+RefS**) does not yield good results. Tables 19 and 21 in Appendix E illustrate that both modes present many FPs on various error types, i.e., false edits. This is to be expected since we have shown in Section 3 that there is a large difference between the reference correction and the reference summary. Interestingly, if evaluated using factuality metrics, we find that training with the reference summary gives the best results in most cases (the results are shown in Table 17 in Appendix E). This suggests   Pre-trained Models BART BERT RoBERTa Pre-trained Models BART BERT RoBERTa M 0.00 0.00 0.00 M 0.00 0.00 0.00 Table 8: Performance (FERRANTI: form-based categories) of CCGS on SAMSum and DialogSum.  Table 9: Performance (FERRANTI: form-based categories) of FactPegasus on SAMSum and DialogSum. that it is essential to introduce reference correction in FEC evaluation. Otherwise, FEC for summarization may lose its meaning, since the seemingly best results can be obtained by using reference summaries unrelated to the original summaries as training targets. Real data vs. Pseudo data Table 6 shows that training with pseudo data first and then with real data (**Pseudo+Real**) or training with only pseudo data (**Pseduo**) are the two best training modes. The former is better on SAMSum and the latter is better on DialogSum. Here we cannot say that real data is less effective because there is a huge difference in the size between real and pseudo data: real training data is only 1200 items on each dataset; while the generated pseudo data are 40451 and 35174 items on SAMSum and DialogSum, respectively. This on the one hand corroborates the effectiveness of the FEC approach based on data augmentation in the past, and on the other hand, implies that the combination of real and pseudo data is promising. Regarding the performance on the form-based error categories: On both datasets, most of the edits are in the **Replacement** category (see Table 19 and Table 21 in Appendix E). Table 6 illustrates that using the reference correction as the final training goal (Real, **Pseudo+Real**) performs poorly on the Missing category. This indicates that it is difficult for models to learn addition operations in manual correction. In addition, we also try to mix SAMSum and DialogSum as a corpus for constructing pseudo data. Table 36 in Appendix E illustrates that in some cases, the mixed construction has better results than the separate construction. For comparison, we still construct the pseudo data separately in the subsequent experiments. ## 7.2 Performance Across Fec Approaches Here we mainly show the results of data augmentation approaches on the category of content-based errors. Form-based results are shown in Table 31 in Appendix E. Training modes are set to **Pseudo** and **Pseudo+Real**. Ent:ObjE and **Pred:VerbE** are the two main error types (see Tables 27 and 30 in Appendix E), which coincide with our annotation results in Section 3. An important finding is that Tables 7 (and Table 28 in Appendix E) show that these methods based on data augmentation for generating corrected summaries directly show error-correcting power only for a few categories: **Ent:ObjE**, Pred:VerbE, CorefE, **NumE**, and **OthE**. We argue that this cannot be attributed only to the chance brought by the small percentage of some error categories. The strategy of data augmentation is an important factor. Because we notice the fact that the rule-based data augmentation approach performs swapping on numbers, and it has a relatively great performance on **NumE** on SAMSum, even though the percentage of **NumE** is small. The infilling-based data augmentation method is generally inferior to the rule-based data augmentation method. Its performance also changes insignificantly after retraining. The particular structural information in the conversation summaries has to be further exploited. The infilling-based method sometimes performs better on **Pred:VerbE**. This may be due to the fact that it masks and predicts the relations in the reference summary when constructing pseudo data, with verb phrases in the relations. In addition, both CCGS and Factpegasus perform poorly. Table 8 illustrates that CCGS can only correct errors in the form of substitution. Table 9 illustrates that Factpegasus can only correct errors by deletion. This is consistent with their algorithms. Table 32 and Table 33 in Appendix E illustrate that they can almost correct only one type of errors, **Ent:ObjE**. However, the above findings would not have been available if we had used only factuality metrics (see Table 24, Table 25, Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix E). This illustrates the superiority of FERRANTI. ## 8 Conclusion Our work establishes a new benchmark for modelagnostic factual error correction for dialogue summarization. Unlike previous studies, we manually correct factual errors in summaries. We point out the shortcomings of factuality metrics in FEC evaluation: They are not reliable enough and cannot provide more detailed information. For better evaluation, we propose FERRANTI, a reference-based evaluation framework and conduct thorough experiments on the performance of multiple FEC approaches under various settings. We have the following important findings: 1) Training FEC models with reference summaries from dialogue summarization datasets yields the best results of unreliable factuality metrics. There is an urgent need to change the evaluation methods for FEC models. 2) Introducing human-corrected summaries during the training of FEC models for dialogue summarization can improve their performance. Combining human-annotated data with synthetic data is a promising direction. 3) Current FEC models struggle to correct factual errors by addition and cannot address attribute errors, modality errors, link errors, etc. For future work, it is feasible to apply FERRANTI to FEC for other summarization tasks. ## Limitations Due to limited resources, the size of our annotated dataset is not large, with only 4000 items. In addition, we use an annotation paradigm where direct writing is the main focus with error labeling as a supplement. This is good for the coherence of the corrected summary and gives larger freedom to the annotator. In this case, it may be better to increase the number of reference corrections per sample. The datasets we select, SAMSum and DialogSum, are both short daily chat summarization datasets. For other domains or long dialogue summarization, our conclusion may not apply. About FERRANTI, it can be continuously improved since we automatically classify and label factual errors for the first time. It also relies on the lexical and syntactic nature of English. ## Ethics Statement We recruit annotators through the campus BBS. They are completely free to decide whether to participate and can quit in the middle. They are paid $15 per hour, more than the local minimum wage. No participants' personal information or payment information will be released. Some of the information is temporarily stored on the server and will be deleted at the end of the study. The application of datasets, models, and tools in our study is consistent with their intended use and license. We hope the artifacts we release are to be used for academic research (non-commercial licence: CC BY-NC 4.0). ## Acknowledgements This work was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2021YFF0901502), National Science Foundation of China (No. 62161160339), State Key Laboratory of Media Convergence Production Technology and Systems and Key Laboratory of Science, Technology and Standard in Press Industry (Key Laboratory of Intelligent Press Media Technology). We appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Xiaojun Wan is the corresponding author. ## References Vidhisha Balachandran, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, William Cohen, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2022. Correcting diverse factual errors in abstractive summarization via postediting and language model infilling. Computing Research Repository, arXiv:2210.12378. Christopher Bryant, Mariano Felice, and Ted Briscoe. 2017. Automatic annotation and evaluation of error types for grammatical error correction. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for* Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 793–805, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meng Cao, Yue Dong, Jiapeng Wu, and Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. 2020. Factual error correction for abstractive summarization models. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6251–6258, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiaao Chen and Diyi Yang. 2020. Multi-view sequenceto-sequence models with conversational structure for abstractive dialogue summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4106– 4118, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiaao Chen and Diyi Yang. 2021. Structure-aware abstractive conversation summarization via discourse and action graphs. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 1380–1391, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiangjie Chen, Rui Xu, Wenyuan Zeng, Changzhi Sun, Lei Li, and Yanghua Xiao. 2022. Converge to the truth: Factual error correction via iterative constrained editing. *Computing Research Repository*, arXiv:2211.12130. Sihao Chen, Fan Zhang, Kazoo Sone, and Dan Roth. 2021a. Improving faithfulness in abstractive summarization with contrast candidate generation and selection. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5935–5941, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yulong Chen, Yang Liu, Liang Chen, and Yue Zhang. 2021b. DialogSum: A real-life scenario dialogue summarization dataset. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 5062–5074, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shamil Chollampatt, Raymond Hendy Susanto, Liling Tan, and Ewa Szymanska. 2020. Can automatic postediting improve NMT? In *Proceedings of the 2020* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2736–2746, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel Dahlmeier and Hwee Tou Ng. 2012. Better evaluation for grammatical error correction. In *Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 568–572, Montréal, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashwin Devaraj, William Sheffield, Byron Wallace, and Junyi Jessy Li. 2022. Evaluating factuality in text simplification. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7331–7345, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Li Dong, Nan Yang, Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2019. Unified language model pre-training for natural language understanding and generation. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. Yue Dong, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. Multifact correction in abstractive text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9320–9331, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Esin Durmus, He He, and Mona Diab. 2020. FEQA: A question answering evaluation framework for faithfulness assessment in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5055– 5070, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexander Fabbri, Faiaz Rahman, Imad Rizvi, Borui Wang, Haoran Li, Yashar Mehdad, and Dragomir Radev. 2021a. ConvoSumm: Conversation summarization benchmark and improved abstractive summarization with argument mining. In *Proceedings* of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6866–6880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexander Fabbri, Chien-Sheng Wu, Wenhao Liu, and Caiming Xiong. 2022a. QAFactEval: Improved QAbased factual consistency evaluation for summarization. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the* North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2587–2601, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexander R. Fabbri, Prafulla Kumar Choubey, Jesse Vig, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Caiming Xiong. 2022b. Improving factual consistency in summarization with compression-based post-editing. *Computing Research Repository*, abs/2211.06196. Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Krysci ´ nski, Bryan Mc- ´ Cann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2021b. SummEval: Re-evaluating summarization evaluation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:391–409. Tobias Falke, Leonardo F. R. Ribeiro, Prasetya Ajie Utama, Ido Dagan, and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Ranking generated summaries by correctness: An interesting but challenging application for natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 2214–2220, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mariano Felice, Christopher Bryant, and Ted Briscoe. 2016. Automatic extraction of learner errors in ESL sentences using linguistically enhanced alignments. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 825–835, Osaka, Japan. The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee. Mingqi Gao and Xiaojun Wan. 2022. DialSummEval: Revisiting summarization evaluation for dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5693–5709, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bogdan Gliwa, Iwona Mochol, Maciej Biesek, and Aleksander Wawer. 2019. SAMSum corpus: A humanannotated dialogue dataset for abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization, pages 70–79, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tanya Goyal and Greg Durrett. 2020. Evaluating factuality in generation with dependency-level entailment. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 3592–3603, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tanya Goyal and Greg Durrett. 2021. Annotating and modeling fine-grained factuality in summarization. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1449–1462, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wojciech Kryscinski, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2020. Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9332–9346, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul N. Bennett, and Marti A. Hearst. 2022. SummaC: Re-visiting NLIbased models for inconsistency detection in summarization. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 10:163–177. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 7871–7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. *Computing Research Repository*, arXiv:1907.11692. Zhengyuan Liu and Nancy Chen. 2021. Controllable neural dialogue summarization with personal named entity planning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 92–106, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhengyuan Liu, Ke Shi, and Nancy Chen. 2021. Coreference-aware dialogue summarization. In *Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special* Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 509–519, Singapore and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. 2020. On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1906–1919, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Artidoro Pagnoni, Vidhisha Balachandran, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2021. Understanding factuality in abstractive summarization with FRANK: A benchmark for factuality metrics. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 4812–4829, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maja Popovic. 2015. ´ chrF: character n-gram F-score for automatic MT evaluation. In *Proceedings of the* Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 392–395, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2022. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(1). Thomas Scialom, Paul-Alexis Dray, Sylvain Lamprier, Benjamin Piwowarski, Jacopo Staiano, Alex Wang, and Patrick Gallinari. 2021. QuestEval: Summarization asks for fact-based evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6594–6604, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Scialom, Sylvain Lamprier, Benjamin Piwowarski, and Jacopo Staiano. 2019. Answers unite! unsupervised metrics for reinforced summarization models. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3246–3256, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Darsh Shah, Tal Schuster, and Regina Barzilay. 2020. Automatic fact-guided sentence modification. *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, 34(05):8791–8798. Matthew Snover, Bonnie Dorr, Richard Shwartz, Linnea Micciulla, and John Makhoul. 2006. A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. Xiangru Tang, Arjun Nair, Borui Wang, Bingyao Wang, Jai Desai, Aaron Wade, Haoran Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yashar Mehdad, and Dragomir Radev. 2022. CONFIT: Toward faithful dialogue summarization with linguistically-informed contrastive fine-tuning. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5657–5668, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. James Thorne and Andreas Vlachos. 2021. Evidencebased factual error correction. In *Proceedings of the* 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3298–3309, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. David Wan and Mohit Bansal. 2022. FactPEGASUS: Factuality-aware pre-training and fine-tuning for abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 2022* Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1010–1028, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bin Wang, Chen Zhang, Yan Zhang, Yiming Chen, and Haizhou Li. 2022. Analyzing and evaluating faithfulness in dialogue summarization. *Computing Research Repository*, arXiv:2210.11777. Chien-Sheng Wu, Linqing Liu, Wenhao Liu, Pontus Stenetorp, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Controllable abstractive dialogue summarization with sketch supervision. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021*, pages 5108–5122, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wei Xu, Courtney Napoles, Ellie Pavlick, Quanze Chen, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2016. Optimizing statistical machine translation for text simplification. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:401–415. Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. Bartscore: Evaluating generated text as text generation. *Computing Research Repository*, arXiv:2106.11520. Version 2. Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter Liu. 2020. Pegasus: Pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 11328–11339. PMLR. Chenguang Zhu, William Hinthorn, Ruochen Xu, Qingkai Zeng, Michael Zeng, Xuedong Huang, and Meng Jiang. 2021. Enhancing factual consistency of abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 718–733, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Details Of Annotation The annotators were told that the collected data would be used for academic study. In total, 10 people participated in the annotation. Two people read the annotation guidelines and then abandoned further annotation. One person annotated the small part used for testing and then gave up on further annotation. The other seven qualified participants who continued to annotate are from Asia. Three of them are female and four of them are male. One annotated three batches, another annotated two batches, and the others annotated one batch each. The screenshot of the annotation interface is shown in Figure 4 in Appendix E. Considering the space for corrected summaries is relatively narrow, we provide an excel file for annotators to help them write the corrected summaries (shown in Figure 5 in Appendix E). They can copy what they write in the excel file and paste it into the interface. They decide whether to use the excel file according to their needs. We use what they submit in the interface as the final result. We provide the same definition of error categories for annotators as Pagnoni et al. (2021), but with different examples because the original examples are news summaries. They are shown in Table 10, Table 13, Table 14, Table 11, Table 15, Table 12, and Table 16 in Appendix A.  Table 10: An example of Entity Error.  Table 11: An example of Coreference Error. | Out of Article Error (OutE) Dialogue | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Dave: Hey, is Nicky still at your place? Her phone is off Sam: She just left Dave: Thanks! Original Summary Nicky just left her phone at Dave's place . Corrected Summary Nicky just left Dave's place . | Table 12: An example of Out of Article Error. ## B Details Of The Use Of Factuality Metrics For **FactCC**4and DAE 5, We follow the way Pagnoni et al. (2021) used it. The summary is 4https://github.com/salesforce/factCC 5https://github.com/tagoyal/ factuality-datasets split into sentences by NLTK 6. Each sentence is classified as CORRECT or INCORRECT. The factual score of a summary is represented as the ratio of factually correct sentences. For **QuestEval** 7, we use the reference-less mode. For **BARTScore** 8, we use the s → h mode and the checkpoint trained by the authors on Parabank2. ## C Details Of Retraining Infilling Models We retrain the infilling model on summaries generated by MV-BART (Chen and Yang, 2020). The original approach uses the source document to train the infilling model and then makes predictions on the reference summary, which is to enhance the diversity of the pseudo data. However, we find that most of the subjects and objects extracted from the source dialogues are first- and second-person pronouns, such as "I" and "you", which are too different from the summaries from the third-person perspective. In order to adapt this approach to dialogue summarization, instead of using source documents, we use summaries generated by a model as training data for the infilling model. ## D Model Settings And Training Details Many FEC methods involve the construction of pseudo data. When it comes to data augmentation based on reference summaries and source documents, we use the training and validation sets from the summarization datasets SAMSum and DialogSum rather than our annotated data. For different data augmentation approaches (rule, **infill**, and **infill-r**), we uniformly concatenate the summary to be corrected and the source document as input, and fine-tune some pre-trained models with the corrected summary as output for the above approaches. We conduct separate experiments using BART 9, PEGASUS 10 (Zhang et al., 2020) , T5 11 (Raffel et al., 2022). For all training modes, we fine-tune the pre-trained language models for 20 epochs with a batch size of 32, and use the loss on the validation set as the criterion for 6version 3.7, https://www.nltk.org/ 7https://github.com/ThomasScialom/QuestEval 8https://github.com/neulab/BARTScore 9using checkpoint from https://huggingface.co/ facebook/bart-large 10using checkpoint from https://huggingface.co/ sshleifer/distill-pegasus-cnn-16-4 11using checkpoint from https://huggingface.co/ t5-base ## Predicate Error (Prede) Dialogue Will: hey babe, what do you want for dinner tonight? Emma: gah, don't even worry about it tonight Will: what do you mean? everything ok? Emma: not really, but it's ok, don't worry about cooking though, I'm not hungry Will: Well what time will you be home? Emma: soon, hopefully Will: you sure? Maybe you want me to pick you up? Emma: no no it's alright. I'll be home soon, i'll tell you when I get home. Will: Alright, love you. Emma: love you too. Original Summary Emma doesn't want to cook dinner tonight. She will tell Will when she gets home. Corrected Summary Emma is not hungry tonight. She will tell Will when she gets home. Table 13: An example of Predicate Error. Circumstance Error (CircE) Dialogue Lenny: Babe, can you help me with something? Bob: Sure, what's up? Lenny: Which one should I pick? Bob: Send me photos Lenny: <file_photo> Lenny: <file_photo> Lenny: <file_photo> Bob: I like the first ones best Lenny: But I already have purple trousers. Does it make sense to have two pairs? Bob: I have four black pairs :D :D Lenny: yeah, but shouldn't I pick a different color? Bob: what matters is what you'll give you the most outfit options Lenny: So I guess I'll buy the first or the third pair then Bob: Pick the best quality then Lenny: ur right, thx | Bob: no prob :) Original Summary Lenny will buy the first or the third pair of purple trousers for Bob. Corrected Summary Lenny will buy the first or the third pair of purple trousers. Table 14: An example of Circumstance Error. Discourse Link Error (LinkE) Dialogue The first vaccine for Ebola was approved by the FDA in 2019 in the US, five years after the initial outbreak in 2014. To produce the vaccine, scientists had to sequence the DNA of Ebola, then identify possible vaccines, and finally show successful clinical trials. Scientists say a vaccine for COVID-19 is unlikely to be ready this year, although clinical trials have already started. Original Summary To produce the vaccine, scientists have to show successful human trials, then sequence the DNA of the virus. Corrected Summary To produce the vaccine, scientists have to show successful human trials, after sequence the DNA of the virus. Table 15: An example of Discourse Link Error. This example is taken from Pagnoni et al. (2021), and we add a corrected summary. Grammatical Error (GramE) Dialogue Everett: Ralph asked me if i could give him your phone number, is that cool? Amy: who's ralph? Everett: my friend, i introduced him to you at the pub last week, tall, brown hair, weird laugh... Amy: oh i remember him now, is he a psycho? Everett: no Amy: ok, he can have my number Original Summary Everett will give him him phone number . Corrected Summary Everett will give Ralph Amy's phone number . Table 16: An example of Grammatical Error. saving the best checkpoint. The learning rate is set to 3e-5. Hyperparameters for training the infilling models are kept at their default values. When constructing pseudo data, **rule** generates 40451 and 35174 items on the training sets of SAMSum and DialogSum, and 2259 and 1369 items on the validation set of SAMSum and DialogSum. both **infill** and **infill-r** generate more pseudo data than **rule**. We randomly sample the pseudo data generated from **infill** and **infill-r** to ensure that the number of pseudo-data is the same as **rule**. For CCGS, we re-train the classifier according to the original approach. To reflect its effectiveness more comprehensively, in addition to BART, BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) are also used as pre-trained models for the classifier. Hyperparameters are kept at their default values. For FactPegasus, we use three Spacy models (Version 2.2.4) to pre-process the text separately: en_core_web_sm, en_core_web_md, en_core_web_lg. We use GeForce GTX 1080 Ti with 12GB memory for training and inference. Each single training session is less than 12 hours. ## E Additional Figures And Tables     | SAMSum | | | | | | |----------------------------------|---------|-----------------|-------------|---------|-------------| | BART as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | FactCC | 0.2399 | 0.2365 | 0.2408 | 0.2220 | 0.2798 | | DAE | 0.1776 | 0.1748 | 0.1783 | 0.1763 | 0.1687 | | QuestEval | 0.4803 | 0.4760 | 0.4798 | 0.4863 | 0.4722 | | BARTScore -2.5505 | -2.6273 | -2.5510 -2.3863 | -2.4609 | | | | PEGASUS as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | FactCC | 0.2349 | 0.2340 | 0.2373 | 0.2358 | 0.2342 | | DAE | 0.1837 | 0.1725 | 0.1796 | 0.1812 | 0.1392 | | QuestEval | 0.4794 | 0.4748 | 0.4790 | 0.4836 | 0.4758 | | BARTScore -2.5618 | -2.5502 | -2.5385 -2.4945 | -2.4963 | | | | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | FactCC | 0.2380 | 0.2374 | 0.2395 | 0.2447 | 0.2513 | | DAE | 0.1800 | 0.1777 | 0.1812 | 0.1952 | 0.1999 | | QuestEval | 0.4819 | 0.4777 | 0.4824 | 0.4814 | 0.4851 | | BARTScore -2.5373 | -2.5528 | -2.5350 | -2.4418 | -2.4274 | DialogSum | | BART as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | FactCC | 0.1381 | 0.1298 | 0.1410 | 0.2396 | 0.2238 | | DAE | 0.0754 | 0.0958 | 0.0883 | 0.1094 | 0.1050 | | QuestEval | 0.3757 | 0.3775 | 0.3764 | 0.3687 | 0.3647 | | BARTScore -2.7102 | -2.7467 | -2.7283 -2.2739 | -2.4208 | | | | PEGASUS as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | FactCC | 0.1366 | 0.1287 | 0.1348 | 0.1787 | 0.2142 | | DAE | 0.0890 | 0.0912 | 0.0967 | 0.1029 | 0.0854 | | QuestEval | 0.3758 | 0.3774 | 0.3782 | 0.3756 | 0.3563 | | BARTScore -2.5409 | -2.6986 | -2.6993 -2.2585 | -2.4360 | | | | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | Type | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | FactCC | 0.1479 | 0.1289 | 0.1322 | 0.1708 | 0.1736 | | DAE | 0.0877 | 0.0921 | 0.0933 | 0.1079 | 0.1033 | | QuestEval | 0.3759 | 0.3774 | 0.3780 | 0.3759 | 0.3723 | | BARTScore -2.5735 | -2.7000 | -2.6973 -2.2300 | -2.2905 | | | | BART as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|-------|-------------|-------|-------------|------|-------|-------|------|-------|------|-------|------|------|-------|------| | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.74 | 9.30 | 2.08 | 1.77 | 4.65 | 2.02 | | R | 6.38 | 1.83 | 4.26 | 16.00 | 2.44 | 7.58 | 26.47 | 5.49 | 15.00 | 2.03 | 6.10 | 2.34 | 1.25 | 3.66 | 1.44 | | U | 2.50 | 1.82 | 7.04 | 6.25 | 5.45 | 6.07 | 15.62 | 9.09 | 13.66 | 3.40 | 9.09 | 3.89 | 3.98 | 14.55 | 4.66 | | Total | 7.27 | 1.53 | 4.15 | 7.78 | 2.67 | 5.63 | 20.29 | 5.34 | 13.01 | 2.18 | 7.25 | 2.54 | 2.02 | 6.11 | 2.33 | | PEGASUS as pre-trained models | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.28 | 2.33 | 1.41 | 1.47 | 2.33 | 1.59 | | R | 22.58 | 4.27 | 12.15 | 2.63 | 0.61 | 1.58 | 21.95 | 5.49 | 13.72 | 2.31 | 4.88 | 2.58 | 4.20 | 8.54 | 4.68 | | U | 33.33 | 1.82 | 7.46 | 4.17 | 3.64 | 4.05 | 25.00 | 1.82 | 7.04 | 1.00 | 3.64 | 1.17 | 3.65 | 12.73 | 4.25 | | Total | 20.00 | 3.05 | 9.48 | 2.75 | 1.15 | 2.15 | 20.00 | 3.82 | 10.82 | 1.76 | 4.20 | 1.99 | 3.71 | 8.40 | 4.18 | | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.76 | 2.33 | 0.88 | | R | 16.67 | 4.27 | 10.54 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 25.00 | 6.71 | 16.18 | 3.23 | 5.49 | 3.52 | 4.07 | 10.98 | 4.66 | | U | 50.00 | 1.82 | 7.94 | 50.00 | 5.45 | 18.99 | 57.14 | 7.27 | 24.10 | 5.42 | 16.36 | 6.26 | 7.09 | 16.36 | 7.99 | | Total | 17.02 | 3.05 | 8.89 | 21.43 | 1.15 | 4.72 | 27.78 | 5.73 | 15.69 | 3.36 | 6.87 | 3.74 | 4.00 | 10.69 | 4.57 | | BART as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|------|-------------|------|-------------|-----|-----|----|----|-----|----|-----|-----|----|-----|-----| | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | | M | 0 | 4 | 43 | 0 | 17 | 43 | 0 | 3 | 43 | 4 | 226 | 39 | 2 | 111 | 41 | | R | 3 | 44 | 161 | 4 | 21 | 160 | 9 | 25 | 155 | 10 | 483 | 154 | 6 | 474 | 158 | | U | 1 | 3 | 54 | 3 | 45 | 52 | 5 | 27 | 50 | 5 | 142 | 50 | 8 | 193 | 47 | | Total | 4 | 51 | 258 | 7 | 83 | 255 | 14 | 55 | 248 | 19 | 851 | 243 | 16 | 778 | 246 | | PEGASUS as pre-trained models | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | | M | 0 | 6 | 43 | 0 | 23 | 43 | 0 | 5 | 43 | 1 | 77 | 42 | 1 | 67 | 42 | | R | 7 | 24 | 157 | 1 | 37 | 163 | 9 | 32 | 155 | 8 | 339 | 156 | 14 | 319 | 150 | | U | 1 | 2 | 54 | 2 | 46 | 53 | 1 | 3 | 54 | 2 | 198 | 53 | 7 | 185 | 48 | | Total | 8 | 32 | 254 | 3 | 106 | 259 | 10 | 40 | 252 | 11 | 614 | 251 | 22 | 571 | 240 | | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | | M | 0 | 3 | 43 | 0 | 2 | 43 | 0 | 3 | 43 | 0 | 91 | 43 | 1 | 130 | 42 | | R | 7 | 35 | 157 | 0 | 6 | 164 | 11 | 33 | 153 | 9 | 270 | 155 | 18 | 424 | 146 | | U | 1 | 1 | 54 | 3 | 3 | 52 | 4 | 3 | 51 | 9 | 157 | 46 | 9 | 118 | 46 | | Total | 8 | 39 | 254 | 3 | 11 | 259 | 15 | 39 | 247 | 18 | 518 | 244 | 28 | 672 | 234 | | BART as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|-------|-------------|-------|-------------|------|-------|-------|------|-------|------|-------|------|------|-------|------| | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | | M | 11.11 | 1.82 | 5.49 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.66 | 1.82 | 0.75 | 2.13 | 3.64 | 2.32 | | R | 4.32 | 1.96 | 3.48 | 3.57 | 0.56 | 1.72 | 3.70 | 0.56 | 1.74 | 1.43 | 2.79 | 1.58 | 1.20 | 2.51 | 1.34 | | U | 20.00 | 4.65 | 12.05 | 3.95 | 6.98 | 4.32 | 4.55 | 4.65 | 4.57 | 2.52 | 13.95 | 3.02 | 2.03 | 11.63 | 2.43 | | Total | 5.52 | 2.19 | 4.24 | 3.50 | 1.10 | 2.43 | 3.92 | 0.88 | 2.31 | 1.56 | 3.73 | 1.76 | 1.47 | 3.51 | 1.66 | | PEGASUS as pre-trained models | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | | M | 66.67 | 3.64 | 14.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.68 | 1.82 | 0.78 | | R | 18.97 | 3.07 | 9.32 | 14.63 | 1.68 | 5.75 | 17.32 | 1.12 | 4.44 | 1.88 | 3.91 | 2.10 | 1.95 | 4.47 | 2.19 | | U | 25.00 | 4.65 | 13.33 | 4.35 | 2.33 | 3.70 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.37 | 13.95 | 2.84 | 1.18 | 6.98 | 1.41 | | Total | 21.74 | 3.29 | 10.25 | 9.09 | 1.54 | 4.58 | 13.79 | 0.88 | 3.50 | 1.74 | 4.39 | 1.98 | 1.64 | 4.39 | 1.87 | | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | P | R | F0.5 | | M | 40.00 | 3.64 | 13.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.26 | 3.64 | 1.45 | 3.17 | 3.64 | 3.26 | | R | 12.35 | 2.79 | 7.33 | 33.33 | 0.28 | 1.35 | 43.75 | 1.96 | 8.29 | 2.21 | 4.47 | 2.46 | 4.27 | 4.19 | 4.26 | | U | 16.67 | 2.33 | 7.46 | 50.00 | 4.65 | 16.95 | 66.67 | 4.65 | 18.18 | 2.80 | 16.28 | 3.36 | 3.67 | 9.30 | 4.18 | | Total | 14.13 | 2.85 | 7.89 | 25.00 | 0.66 | 2.98 | 42.86 | 1.97 | 8.33 | 2.20 | 5.48 | 2.50 | 4.02 | 4.61 | 4.12 | | BART as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|------|-------------|------|-------------|-----|-----|----|----|-----|----|------|-----|----|------|-----| | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | | M | 1 | 8 | 54 | 0 | 11 | 55 | 0 | 4 | 55 | 1 | 151 | 54 | 2 | 92 | 53 | | R | 7 | 155 | 351 | 2 | 54 | 356 | 2 | 52 | 356 | 10 | 691 | 348 | 9 | 741 | 349 | | U | 2 | 8 | 41 | 3 | 73 | 40 | 2 | 42 | 41 | 6 | 232 | 37 | 5 | 241 | 38 | | Total | 10 | 171 | 446 | 5 | 138 | 451 | 4 | 98 | 452 | 17 | 1074 | 439 | 16 | 1074 | 440 | | PEGASUS as pre-trained models | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | | M | 2 | 1 | 53 | 0 | 13 | 55 | 0 | 2 | 55 | 0 | 154 | 55 | 1 | 145 | 54 | | R | 11 | 47 | 347 | 6 | 35 | 352 | 4 | 19 | 354 | 14 | 729 | 344 | 16 | 806 | 342 | | U | 2 | 6 | 41 | 1 | 22 | 42 | 0 | 4 | 43 | 6 | 247 | 37 | 3 | 252 | 40 | | Total | 15 | 54 | 441 | 7 | 70 | 449 | 4 | 25 | 452 | 20 | 1130 | 436 | 20 | 1203 | 436 | | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | | | | | | | | | Type | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | TP | FP | FN | | M | 2 | 3 | 53 | 0 | 5 | 55 | 0 | 2 | 55 | 2 | 157 | 53 | 2 | 61 | 53 | | R | 10 | 71 | 348 | 1 | 2 | 357 | 7 | 9 | 351 | 16 | 709 | 342 | 15 | 336 | 343 | | U | 1 | 5 | 42 | 2 | 2 | 41 | 2 | 1 | 41 | 7 | 243 | 36 | 4 | 105 | 39 | | Total | 13 | 79 | 443 | 3 | 9 | 453 | 9 | 12 | 447 | 25 | 1109 | 431 | 21 | 502 | 435 | Table 21: Performance (FERRANTI: form-based categories, TP, FP, FN) of different training modes on DialogSum. The data augmentation approach is set to **rule**. Table 22: Performance (FERRANTI: content-based categories) of different training modes on SAMSum. The values are all F0.5 scores. The best results under the same pre-trained model are bolded. The data augmentation approach is set to **rule**. | BART as the pre-trained model | PEGASUS as the pre-trained model | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------|--------------------|------------|-------------|------------|--------------------|------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------|------|-------| | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | Ent:ObjE | 2.02 | 9.09 | 10.59 4.79 | 3.29 | 14.71 | 2.40 | 16.83 3.91 | 8.17 | 14.34 | 0.00 | 16.20 | 4.46 | 6.20 | | | | Ent:AttrE | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 5.81 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | Pred:ModE | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | Pred:TensE | - | - | - | 0.00 | 0.00 | - | - | - | 0.00 | 0.00 | - | - | - | 0.00 | 0.00 | | Pred:NegE | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 21.74 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 33.33 | | Pred:VerbE | 4.76 | 3.46 | 12.12 0.50 | 1.10 | 0.00 1.62 | 0.00 | 0.34 | 2.21 | 0.00 14.29 | 13.76 | 2.94 | 1.88 | | | | | CircE | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5.05 | 6.67 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 3.73 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.16 | | | CorefE | 7.04 | 10.64 | 25.32 7.54 | 4.48 | 0.00 | 5.05 | 5.75 6.61 | 6.61 | 7.04 | 0.00 | 24.27 10.70 | 10.97 | | | | | LinkE | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | NumE | 31.25 | 0.00 | 41.67 0.00 | 0.00 | 41.67 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 15.62 | | | | OthE | - | - | - | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | Total | 4.15 | 5.63 | 13.01 2.54 | 2.33 | 9.48 | 2.15 | 10.82 1.99 | 4.18 | 8.89 | 4.72 | 15.69 | 3.74 | 4.57 | | | | BART as the pre-trained model | PEGASUS as the pre-trained model | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------|------|--------------------|-------------|-------------|------|--------------------|-------|-------------|-------|-------------|-------|------|------| | Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS Pseudo | Real | Pseudo+Real | RefS | Pseudo+RefS | | | | | Ent:ObjE | 5.17 2.54 | 3.90 | 3.89 | 4.68 | 15.59 10.99 | 8.16 | 5.60 | 6.05 | 11.79 | 4.88 | 16.33 | 6.51 | 8.32 | | | | Ent:AttrE | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5.05 | 0.00 | | Pred:ModE | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 35.71 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 16.67 | 0.00 | | | | Pred:TensE | - | - | - | 0.00 | - | - | 0.00 | - | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | 0.00 | - | | Pred:NegE | - | - | - | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.00 | - | | Pred:VerbE | 0.00 2.77 | 0.00 | 1.12 | 0.74 | 2.07 | 1.20 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.00 2.15 | 2.15 | 1.09 | 0.80 | | | | CircE | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | CorefE | 12.20 0.00 | 11.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4.27 | 4.27 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 9.90 | | | LinkE | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | NumE | - | 0.00 | - | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.00 | - | | OthE | 45.45 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 26.32 | 45.45 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 12.82 | 45.45 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 11.63 | | | | Total | 4.24 2.43 | 2.31 | 1.76 | 1.66 | 10.25 | 4.58 | 3.50 | 1.98 | 1.87 | 7.89 | 2.98 | 8.33 | 2.50 | 4.12 | | BART as pre-trained models PEGASUS as pre-trained models T5 as pre-trained models      Pseudo Pseudo+Real Pseudo Pseudo+Real **Pseudo Pseudo+Real** rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r rule Infill infill-r rule Infill infill-r **rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r** FactCC 0.2399 0.2370 0.2426 0.2408 **0.2432** 0.2370 0.2349 0.2362 0.2344 0.2373 0.2323 **0.2386** 0.2380 0.2374 **0.2415** 0.2395 0.2411 0.2395 DAE 0.1776 0.1754 0.1757 **0.1783** 0.1779 0.1737 0.1837 0.1766 0.1805 0.1796 **0.1866** 0.1809 0.1800 0.1800 0.1768 0.1812 **0.1829** 0.1812 QuestEval 0.4803 **0.4808** 0.4774 0.4798 0.4785 0.4778 **0.4794** 0.4793 0.4793 0.4790 0.4789 0.4790 0.4819 0.4784 0.4797 **0.4824** 0.4808 0.4796 BARTScore -2.5505 -2.5475 -2.5517 -2.5510 **-2.5462** -2.5581 -2.5618 -2.5581 -2.5644 **-2.5385** -2.5452 -2.5444 -2.5373 -2.5484 -2.5463 **-2.5350** -2.5464 -2.5475 Table 24: Performance (factuality metrics) of different data augmentation approaches on SAMSum. The best results under the same pre-trained model are bolded. BART as pre-trained models PEGASUS as pre-trained models T5 as pre-trained models   Pseudo Pseudo+Real Pseudo Pseudo+Real **Pseudo Pseudo+Real** rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r rule Infill infill-r rule Infill infill-r **rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r** FactCC 0.1381 0.1397 0.1347 **0.1410** 0.1298 0.1327 0.1366 0.1297 0.1305 0.1348 **0.1379** 0.1364 **0.1479** 0.1309 0.1309 0.1322 0.1310 0.1297 DAE 0.0754 0.0838 0.0858 0.0883 0.0954 **0.0996** 0.0890 0.0879 0.0883 **0.0967** 0.0958 0.0946 0.0877 0.0921 0.0921 **0.0933** 0.0896 0.0921 QuestEval 0.3757 **0.3774** 0.3765 0.3764 0.3765 0.3771 0.3758 **0.3795** 0.3783 0.3782 0.3788 0.3786 0.3759 0.3780 0.3774 0.3780 0.3777 **0.3783** BARTScore -2.7102 **-2.6945** -2.7290 -2.7283 -2.7231 -2.7106 **-2.5409** -2.6548 -2.6398 -2.6993 -2.6295 -2.6284 **-2.5735** -2.6996 -2.6982 -2.6973 -2.6974 -2.6948 Table 25: Performance (factuality metrics) of different data augmentation approaches on DialogSum. The best  results under the same pre-trained model are bolded. BART as the pre-trained model PEGASUS as the pre-trained model T5 as the pre-trained model Pseudo Pseudo+Real Pseudo Pseudo+Real **Pseudo Pseudo+Real** rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r rule Infill infill-r rule Infill infill-r **rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r** Ent:ObjEP 2.78 22.22 7.41 15.15 13.79 15.38 24.00 9.09 18.75 26.92 25.00 23.08 20.00 20.00 10.00 25.00 10.00 14.29 R 0.96 3.85 1.92 4.81 3.85 3.85 5.77 1.92 2.88 6.73 3.85 2.88 6.73 0.96 0.96 6.73 0.96 2.56 F0.5 2.02 **11.36** 4.72 10.59 9.09 9.62 14.71 5.21 8.93 **16.83** 11.90 9.62 14.34 4.03 3.47 **16.20** 3.47 7.46 Ent:AttrEP 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pred:ModE P 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pred:TensE P - - 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - - - R - - 100.00 100.00 - - - 100.00 100.00 - 100.00 - - - - - - - F0.5 - - 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - - - Pred:NegEP 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pred:VerbE P 16.67 3.70 3.85 19.05 14.29 16.67 0.00 7.69 5.26 0.00 33.33 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.86 27.27 50.00 R 1.23 1.23 1.23 4.94 2.47 4.94 0.00 1.23 1.23 0.00 2.47 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 3.70 3.70 F0.5 4.76 2.65 2.70 **12.12** 7.30 11.30 0.00 3.76 3.18 0.00 **9.52** 4.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.76 12.00 **14.29** CircEP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CorefEP 12.50 0.00 0.00 40.00 15.38 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.33 11.11 25.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 31.25 9.09 14.29 R 2.560 0.00 0.00 10.26 5.13 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.56 2.56 7.69 2.56 0.00 0.00 12.82 2.56 2.56 F0.5 7.04 0.00 0.00 **25.32** 10.99 7.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.75 6.67 **17.24** 7.04 0.00 0.00 **24.27** 6.02 7.46 LinkEP 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NumEP 33.33 100.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 100.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 R 25.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 31.25 0.00 0.00 **41.67** 0.00 0.00 41.67 0.00 0.00 **50.00** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OthEP - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 F0.5 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotalP 7.27 9.26 4.76 20.29 13.79 15.00 20.00 6.38 8.51 20.00 18.92 19.44 17.02 7.14 3.03 27.78 14.71 20.83 R 1.53 1.91 1.15 5.34 3.05 3.44 3.05 1.15 1.53 3.82 2.67 2.67 3.05 0.38 0.38 5.73 1.91 1.91 F0.5 4.15 5.23 2.92 **13.01** 8.10 8.96 9.48 3.33 4.44 **10.82** 8.54 8.62 8.89 1.57 1.27 **15.69** 6.28 6.98 | BART as the pre-trained model | PEGASUS as the pre-trained model | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------|--------|---------------|--------|----------|------|--------|---------------|--------|----------|------|--------|----------|-----|-----|----|----| | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | rule | infill | infill-r | rule | infill | infill-r rule | infill | infill-r | rule | infill | infill-r rule | infill | infill-r | rule | infill | infill-r | | | | | | TP | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | | | Ent:ObjE | FP | 35 | 14 | 25 | 28 | 25 | 22 | 19 | 20 | 13 | 19 | 12 | 10 | 28 | 4 | 9 | 21 | 9 | 9 | | FN 103 | 100 | 102 | 99 | 100 | 100 | 98 | 102 | 101 | 97 | 100 | 101 | 97 | 103 | 103 | 97 | 103 | 103 | | | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Ent:AttrE | FP | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | FN | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Pred:ModE FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | FN | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | TP | - | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | FP | - | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | 2 | 2 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | Pred:TensE FN | - | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Pred:NegE | FN | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | | TP | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | | FP | 5 | 26 | 25 | 17 | 12 | 20 | 3 | 2 | 18 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 4 | 8 | 3 | | | Pred:VerbE FN | 80 | 80 | 80 | 77 | 79 | 77 | 81 | 80 | 80 | 81 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 81 | 81 | 78 | 78 | 78 | | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | FP | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | | CircE | FN | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 4 | 14 | | TP | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 1 | | | FP | 7 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 10 | 6 | | | CorefE | FN | 38 | 39 | 39 | 35 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 39 | 39 | 38 | 38 | 36 | 38 | 39 | 39 | 34 | 38 | 38 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | LinkE | FN | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | | TP | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | FP | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | | NumE | FN | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | TP | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | FP | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | OthE | FN | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | TP | 4 | 5 | 3 | 14 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 5 | 5 | | | Total | FP | 51 | 49 | 60 | 55 | 50 | 51 | 32 | 44 | 43 | 40 | 30 | 29 | 39 | 13 | 32 | 39 | 29 | 19 | | FN 258 | 257 | 259 | 248 | 254 | 253 | 254 | 259 | 258 | 252 | 255 | 255 | 254 | 261 | 261 | 247 | 257 | 257 | | | BART as the pre-trained model PEGASUS as the pre-trained model T5 as the pre-trained model  Pseudo Pseudo+Real Pseudo Pseudo+Real **Pseudo Pseudo+Real** rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r **rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r** Ent:ObjE 5.17 **5.82** 4.46 3.90 4.23 5.07 **15.59** 4.22 4.37 8.16 14.87 11.67 11.79 2.49 2.39 **16.33** 13.41 11.67 Ent:AttrE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pred:ModE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pred:TensE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 - - - Pred:NegE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pred:VerbE 0.00 **2.71** 2.40 0.00 1.31 1.20 **2.07** 1.89 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.81 2.15 **4.15** 2.07 CircE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CorefE **12.20** 0.00 0.00 11.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LinkE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NumE - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - OthE **45.45** 0.00 9.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 **45.45** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 **45.45** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.24 **4.28** 3.60 2.31 2.63 3.00 **10.25** 2.22 2.40 3.50 6.58 5.24 7.89 0.97 1.80 **8.33** 7.65 5.99 BART as the pre-trained model PEGASUS as the pre-trained model T5 as the pre-trained model Pseudo Pseudo+Real Pseudo Pseudo+Real **Pseudo Pseudo+Real** rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r rule Infill infill-r rule Infill infill-r **rule infill infill-r rule infill infill-r** Ent:ObjEP 5.30 6.48 5.10 5.56 5.26 6.17 20.97 11.76 13.33 21.05 32.00 27.27 14.12 12.50 10.00 42.11 30.43 27.27 R 4.73 4.14 2.96 1.78 2.37 2.96 7.69 1.18 1.18 2.37 4.73 3.55 7.10 0.59 0.59 4.73 4.14 3.55 F0.5 5.17 **5.82** 4.46 3.90 4.23 5.07 **15.59** 4.22 4.37 8.16 14.87 11.67 11.79 2.49 2.39 **16.33** 13.41 11.67 Ent:AttrEP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pred:ModE P 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pred:TensE P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100.00 - - - F0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 - - - Pred:NegEP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pred:VerbE P 0.00 5.71 4.26 0.00 2.63 2.13 33.33 11.11 8.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.33 100.00 66.67 33.33 R 0.00 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.87 0.44 F0.5 0.00 **2.71** 2.40 0.00 1.31 1.20 **2.07** 1.89 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.81 2.15 **4.15** 2.07 CircEP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CorefEP 33.33 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 R 3.45 0.00 0.00 3.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 **12.20** 0.00 0.00 11.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LinkEP 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NumEP - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - R - - - - - - 100.00 100.00 100.00 - 100.00 100.00 - - - - - - F0.5 - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - OthEP 50.00 100.00 7.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 R 33.33 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F0.5 **45.45** 0.00 9.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 **45.45** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 **45.45** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotalP 5.52 6.04 4.88 3.92 4.03 4.41 21.74 5.45 7.14 13.79 21.05 20.69 14.13 6.67 8.00 42.86 27.27 21.88 R 2.19 1.97 1.75 0.88 1.10 1.32 3.29 0.66 0.66 0.88 1.75 1.32 2.85 0.22 0.44 1.97 1.97 1.54 F0.5 4.24 **4.28** 3.60 2.31 2.63 3.00 **10.25** 2.22 2.40 3.50 6.58 5.24 7.89 0.97 1.80 **8.33** 7.65 5.99 Table 29: Performance (FERRANTI: content-based categories) of different data augmentation approaches on DialogSum. The best F0.5 scores under the same pre-trained model are bolded. Table 30: Performance (FERRANTI: content-based categories, TP, FP, FN) of different data augmentation approaches on DialogSum. | BART as the pre-trained model | PEGASUS as the pre-trained model | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------|--------|---------------|--------|----------|------|--------|---------------|--------|----------|------|--------|----------|-----|-----|-----|----| | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | rule | infill | infill-r | rule | infill | infill-r rule | infill | infill-r | rule | infill | infill-r rule | infill | infill-r | rule | infill | infill-r | | | | | | TP | 8 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 6 | | | FP | 143 | 101 | 93 | 51 | 72 | 76 | 49 | 15 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 16 | 73 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 16 | 16 | | | Ent:ObjE | FN 161 | 162 | 164 | 166 | 165 | 164 | 156 | 167 | 167 | 165 | 161 | 163 | 157 | 168 | 168 | 161 | 162 | 163 | | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | FP | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | | | Ent:AttrE | FN | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | FP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Pred:ModE FN | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | | | TP | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | | | FP | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | | | Pred:TensE FN | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | | | TP | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | FP | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | Pred:NegE | FN | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | TP | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | | | FP | 16 | 33 | 45 | 29 | 37 | 46 | 2 | 8 | 11 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 2 | | | Pred:VerbE FN 229 | 227 | 227 | 229 | 228 | 228 | 228 | 228 | 228 | 229 | 229 | 229 | 229 | 229 | 228 | 228 | 227 | 228 | | | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | CircE | FP | 7 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | | FN | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | | | TP | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | CorefE | FP | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | | FN | 28 | 29 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | LinkE | FP | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | FN | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | | | TP | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | NumE | FP | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | 20 | 7 | 0 | 6 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | FN | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | TP | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | FP | 1 | 0 | 12 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | | | OthE | FN | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | TP | 10 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 7 | | | FP | 171 | 140 | 156 | 98 | 119 | 130 | 54 | 52 | 39 | 25 | 30 | 23 | 79 | 14 | 23 | 12 | 24 | 25 | | | Total | FN 446 | 447 | 448 | 452 | 451 | 450 | 441 | 453 | 453 | 452 | 448 | 450 | 443 | 455 | 454 | 447 | 447 | 449 | | | SAMSum | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------|-------|--------|---------|-------|-----------| | BART as the pre-trained model Pseudo Pseudo+Real | | | | | | | | | rule | infill | inill-r | rule | infill | inill-r | | | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | R | 4.26 | 4.63 | 1.36 | 15.00 | 9.62 | 8.12 | | | U | 7.04 | 11.49 | 13.33 | 13.66 | 7.41 | 13.25 | | | Total | 4.15 | 5.23 | 2.92 | 13.01 | 8.10 | 8.96 | | | PEGASUS as the pre-trained model Pseudo Pseudo+Real rule infill inill-r rule infill inill-r | | | | | | | | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7.46 | 0.00 | | | R | 12.15 | 1.76 | 1.89 | 13.72 | 5.68 | 9.06 | | | U | 7.46 | 11.49 | 15.79 | 7.04 | 18.99 | 13.33 | | | Total | 9.48 | 3.33 | 4.44 | 10.82 | 8.54 | 8.62 | | | T5 as the pre-trained model Pseudo Pseudo+Real | | | | | | | | | rule | infill | inill-r | rule | infill | inill-r | | | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | R | 10.54 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 16.18 | 1.87 | 2.16 | | | U | 7.94 | 7.94 | 7.04 | 24.10 | 24.10 | 26.67 | | | Total | 8.89 | 1.57 | 1.27 | 15.69 | 6.28 | 6.98 | DialogSum | | BART as the pre-trained model Pseudo Pseudo+Real | | | | | | | | | rule | infill | inill-r | rule | infill | inill-r | | | | M | 5.49 | 0.00 | 10.10 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5.26 | | | R | 3.48 | 3.60 | 2.36 | 1.74 | 2.15 | 2.11 | | | U | 12.05 | 9.68 | 5.99 | 4.57 | 5.85 | 5.13 | | | Total | 4.24 | 4.28 | 3.60 | 2.31 | 2.63 | 3.00 | | | PEGASUS as the pre-trained model Pseudo Pseudo+Real rule infill inill-r rule infill inill-r | | | | | | | | | M | 14.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | R | 9.32 | 2.20 | 2.20 | 4.44 | 8.89 | 7.04 | | | U | 13.33 | 3.40 | 5.75 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | Total | 10.25 | 2.22 | 2.40 | 3.50 | 6.58 | 5.24 | | | T5 as the pre-trained model Pseudo Pseudo+Real | | | | | | | | | rule | infill | inill-r | rule | infill | inill-r | | | | M | 13.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | R | 7.33 | 1.26 | 2.35 | 8.29 | 7.71 | 5.61 | | | U | 7.46 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 18.18 | 14.93 | 13.33 | | | Total | 7.89 | 0.97 | 1.80 | 8.33 | 7.65 | 5.99 | | | SAMSum | DialogSum | | | | | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|------|---------|--------------------|------|------|---------| | Pre-trained Models | BART | BERT | RoBERTa | Pre-trained Models | BART | BERT | RoBERTa | | TP | 1 | 0 | 1 | TP | 1 | 2 | 2 | | Ent:ObjE | Ent:ObjE | | | | | | | | FP | 20 | 28 | 36 | FP | 25 | 20 | 12 | | FN | 103 | 104 | 103 | FN | 168 | 167 | 167 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Ent:AttrE | Ent:AttrE | | | | | | | | FP | 0 | 2 | 0 | FP | 1 | 2 | 1 | | FN | 6 | 6 | 6 | FN | 7 | 7 | 7 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Pred:ModE | Pred:ModE | | | | | | | | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | FN | 1 | 1 | 1 | FN | 2 | 2 | 2 | | TP | - | - | - | TP | - | - | - | | Pred:TensE | Pred:TensE | | | | | | | | FP | - | - | - | FP | - | - | - | | FN | - | - | - | FN | - | - | - | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | - | - | - | | Pred:NegE | Pred:NegE | | | | | | | | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | FP | - | - | - | | FN | 7 | 7 | 7 | FN | - | - | - | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Pred:VerbE | Pred:VerbE | | | | | | | | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | FP | 1 | 0 | 1 | | FN | 81 | 81 | 81 | FN | 229 | 229 | 229 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | CircE | CircE | | | | | | | | FP | 0 | 0 | 3 | FP | 1 | 1 | 1 | | FN | 14 | 14 | 14 | FN | 5 | 5 | 5 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | CorefE | CorefE | | | | | | | | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | FN | 39 | 39 | 39 | FN | 29 | 29 | 29 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | LinkE | LinkE | | | | | | | | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | FP | 1 | 0 | 0 | | FN | 6 | 6 | 6 | FN | 12 | 12 | 12 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | - | - | - | | NumE | NumE | | | | | | | | FP | 2 | 1 | 4 | FP | - | - | - | | FN | 4 | 4 | 4 | FN | - | - | - | | TP | - | - | - | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | OthE | OthE | | | | | | | | FP | - | - | - | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | FN | - | - | - | FN | 3 | 3 | 3 | | TP | 1 | 0 | 1 | TP | 1 | 2 | 2 | | Total | Total | | | | | | | | FP | 22 | 31 | 43 | FP | 29 | 23 | 15 | | FN | 261 | 262 | 261 | FN | 455 | 454 | 454 | | Table 32: Performance (FERRANTI: content-based categories, TP, FP, FN) of CCGS on SAMSum and DialogSum. | | | | | | | | | SAMSum | DialogSum | | | | | | | |--------------|-------------|-----|-----|--------------|-----|-----|-----| | Spacy Models | sm | md | lg | Spacy Models | sm | md | lg | | TP | 3 | 2 | 5 | TP | 1 | 2 | 1 | | Ent:ObjE | Ent:ObjE | | | | | | | | FP | 164 | 119 | 117 | FP | 156 | 211 | 295 | | FN | 101 | 102 | 99 | FN | 168 | 167 | 168 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Ent:AttrE | Ent:AttrE | | | | | | | | FP | 5 | 4 | 5 | FP | 11 | 15 | 19 | | FN | 6 | 6 | 6 | FN | 7 | 7 | 7 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Pred:ModE | Pred:ModE | | | | | | | | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | FN | 1 | 1 | 1 | FN | 2 | 2 | 2 | | TP | - | - | - | TP | - | - | - | | Pred:TensE | Pred:TensE | | | | | | | | FP | - | - | - | FP | - | - | - | | FN | - | - | - | FN | - | - | - | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | - | - | - | | Pred:NegE | Pred:NegE | | | | | | | | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | FP | - | - | - | | FN | 7 | 7 | 7 | FN | - | - | - | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Pred:VerbE | Pred:VerbE | | | | | | | | FP | 9 | 1 | 4 | FP | 46 | 33 | 34 | | FN | 81 | 81 | 81 | FN | 229 | 229 | 229 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | CircE | CircE | | | | | | | | FP | 10 | 8 | 7 | FP | 6 | 6 | 9 | | FN | 14 | 14 | 14 | FN | 5 | 5 | 5 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | CorefE | CorefE | | | | | | | | FP | 3 | 4 | 3 | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | FN | 39 | 39 | 9 | FN | 29 | 29 | 29 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 1 | 0 | | LinkE | LinkE | | | | | | | | FP | 0 | 0 | 0 | FP | 0 | 10 | 0 | | FN | 6 | 6 | 6 | FN | 12 | 11 | 12 | | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | TP | - | - | - | | NumE | NumE | | | | | | | | FP | 5 | 2 | 2 | FP | - | - | - | | FN | 4 | 4 | 4 | FN | - | - | - | | TP | - | 0 | 0 | TP | 0 | 0 | 0 | | OthE | OthE | | | | | | | | FP | - | 1 | 1 | FP | 3 | 21 | 7 | | FN | - | 0 | 0 | FN | 3 | 3 | 3 | | TP | 3 | 2 | 5 | TP | 1 | 3 | 1 | | Total | Total | | | | | | | | FP | 196 | 136 | 139 | FP | 222 | 296 | 364 | | FN | 259 | 260 | 257 | FN | 455 | 453 | 455 | Table 33: Performance (FERRANTI: content-based categories, TP, FP, FN) of FactPegasus on SAMSum and DialogSum. | SAMSum | DialogSum | | | | | | | |--------------------|-------------|---------|---------|--------------------|---------|---------|---------| | Pre-trained Models | BART | BERT | RoBERTa | Pre-trained Models | BART | BERT | RoBERTa | | FactCC | 0.2325 | 0.2290 | 0.2348 | FactCC | 0.1273 | 0.1281 | 0.1281 | | DAE | 0.1750 | 0.1756 | 0.1733 | DAE | 0.0867 | 0.0892 | 0.0892 | | QuestEval | 0.4793 | 0.4794 | 0.4807 | QuestEval | 0.3793 | 0.3802 | 0.3799 | | BARTScore | -2.7799 | -2.7888 | -2.7879 | BARTScore | -2.9237 | -2.9175 | -2.9111 | Table 34: Performance (factuality metrics) of CCGS on SAMSum and DialogSum. | SAMSum | DialogSum | | | | | | | |--------------|-------------|---------|---------|--------------|---------|---------|---------| | Spacy Models | sm | md | lg | Spacy Models | sm | md | lg | | FactCC | 0.2380 | 0.2273 | 0.2277 | FactCC | 0.2282 | 0.2195 | 0.2278 | | DAE | 0.1550 | 0.1625 | 0.1604 | DAE | 0.1042 | 0.0819 | 0.0865 | | QuestEval | 0.4671 | 0.4689 | 0.4726 | QuestEval | 0.3822 | 0.3846 | 0.3844 | | BARTScore | -2.9895 | -2.9477 | -2.9650 | BARTScore | -3.0689 | -3.1092 | -3.1079 | Table 35: Performance (factuality metrics) of FactPegasus on SAMSum and DialogSum. | SAMSum | DialogSum | | | | | | | | | |----------------------------------|----------------------------------|--------|-------------|-------|--------|-----------|-------|-----------|------| | BART as the pre-trained model | BART as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | | | | | | | | corpus | SAMSum | Mix | SAMSum | Mix | corpus | DialogSum | Mix | DialogSum | Mix | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | M | 5.49 | 5.75 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | R | 4.26 | 14.95 | 15.00 | 11.63 | R | 3.48 | 3.80 | 1.74 | 2.51 | | U | 7.04 | 5.26 | 13.66 | 7.41 | U | 12.05 | 3.50 | 4.57 | 7.69 | | Total | 4.15 | 11.58 | 13.01 | 9.36 | Total | 4.24 | 3.91 | 2.31 | 3.47 | | PEGASUS as the pre-trained model | PEGASUS as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | | | | | | | | corpus | SAMSum | Mix | SAMSum | Mix | corpus | DialogSum | Mix | DialogSum | Mix | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | M | 14.93 | 14.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | R | 12.15 | 14.29 | 13.72 | 18.07 | R | 9.32 | 9.97 | 4.44 | 6.49 | | U | 7.46 | 7.46 | 7.04 | 6.33 | U | 13.33 | 14.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | Total | 9.48 | 11.19 | 10.82 | 13.83 | Total | 10.25 | 10.87 | 3.50 | 5.14 | | T5 as the pre-trained model | T5 as the pre-trained model | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | Pseudo | Pseudo+Real | | | | | | | | corpus | SAMSum | Mix | SAMSum | Mix | corpus | DialogSum | Mix | DialogSum | Mix | | M | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | M | 13.33 | 13.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | R | 10.54 | 14.53 | 16.18 | 15.28 | R | 7.33 | 9.12 | 8.29 | 9.13 | | U | 7.94 | 7.94 | 24.10 | 14.93 | U | 7.46 | 7.46 | 18.18 | 8.47 | | Total | 8.89 | 11.90 | 15.69 | 13.49 | Total | 7.89 | 9.38 | 8.33 | 8.04 | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Yes, in the "Limitations" Section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Yes, in the "Ethics Statement" Section. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Yes, we summarize the main claims and our contributions in the abstract and Section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Yes. We use many scientific artifacts in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6. We provide artifacts in Section 3 and Section 5. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Yes. We cite the creators in the corresponding sections or appendixes. An URL is provided if possible. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Yes, in the "Ethics Statement" Section. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Yes, in the "Ethics Statement" Section. ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Yes, in the "Ethics Statement" Section. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Yes. We provide the relevant information of the dataset in Section 3 and the information of the toolkit in Section 5 and Appendix. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Yes, in Section 6 and Appendix D. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Yes, In Section 4 And Section 6. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Yes, in Appendix D. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Yes, in Section 6, Appendix B and D. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Yes, in Section 7. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Yes, in Section 5, Appendix B and D. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Yes, in Section 3. ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Yes, in Section 3 and Appendix A. ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Yes, in Section 3 and the "Ethics Statement" Section. ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Yes, in Appendix A. ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No. There is no formal ethics committee in our institution, but our plan was discussed internally. Our data collection adheres to the relevant code of ethics. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Yes, in Appendix A.

sclar-etal-2023-minding

Minding Language Models{'} (Lack of) Theory of Mind: A Plug-and-Play Multi-Character Belief Tracker

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.780

Theory of Mind (ToM){---}the ability to reason about the mental states of other people{---}is a key element of our social intelligence. Yet, despite their ever more impressive performance, large-scale neural language models still lack basic theory of mind capabilities out-of-the-box. We posit that simply scaling up models will not imbue them with theory of mind due to the inherently symbolic and implicit nature of the phenomenon, and instead investigate an alternative: can we design a decoding-time algorithm that enhances theory of mind of off-the-shelf neural language models without explicit supervision? We present SymbolicToM, a plug-and-play approach to reason about the belief states of multiple characters in reading comprehension tasks via explicit symbolic representation. More concretely, our approach tracks each entity{'}s beliefs, their estimation of other entities{'} beliefs, and higher-order levels of reasoning, all through graphical representations, allowing for more precise and interpretable reasoning than previous approaches. Empirical results on the well-known ToMi benchmark (Le et al., 2019) demonstrate that SymbolicToM dramatically enhances off-the-shelf neural networks{'} theory of mind in a zero-shot setting while showing robust out-of-distribution performance compared to supervised baselines. Our work also reveals spurious patterns in existing theory of mind benchmarks, emphasizing the importance of out-of-distribution evaluation and methods that do not overfit a particular dataset.

# Minding Language Models' (Lack Of) Theory Of Mind: A Plug-And-Play Multi-Character Belief Tracker Melanie Sclar1 Sachin Kumar2 Peter West1 **Alane Suhr**3 Yejin Choi1,3 **Yulia Tsvetkov**1 1Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington 2Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University 3Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence msclar@cs.washington.edu ## Abstract Theory of Mind (ToM)—the ability to reason about the mental states of other people—is a key element of our social intelligence. Yet, despite their ever more impressive performance, large-scale neural language models still lack basic theory of mind capabilities out-of-the-box. We posit that simply scaling up models will not imbue them with theory of mind due to the inherently *symbolic* and *implicit* nature of the phenomenon, and instead investigate an alternative: can we design a decoding-time algorithm that enhances theory of mind of off-the-shelf neural language models without explicit supervision? We present SYMBOLICTOM, a plug-andplay approach to reason about the belief states of multiple characters in reading comprehension tasks via explicit symbolic representation. More concretely, our approach tracks each entity's beliefs, their estimation of other entities' beliefs, and higher-order levels of reasoning, all through graphical representations, allowing for more precise and interpretable reasoning than previous approaches. Empirical results on the well-known ToMi benchmark (Le et al., 2019) demonstrate that SYMBOLICTOM dramatically enhances off-the-shelf neural networks' theory of mind in a zero-shot setting while showing robust out-of-distribution performance compared to supervised baselines. Our work also reveals spurious patterns in existing theory of mind benchmarks, emphasizing the importance of out-of-distribution evaluation and methods that do not overfit a particular dataset. ## 1 Introduction Reasoning about other people's intentions, desires, thoughts, and beliefs is a cornerstone of human social intelligence. Children naturally develop an understanding of every individual's unique mental state and how it might impact their actions (Frith et al., 2003). Known as *Theory of Mind (ToM)* (Premack and Woodruff, 1978), this ability is crucial for efficient and effective communication.  Figure 1: A simple story requiring theory of mind. Note that Alice's belief of the celery's location differs from reality (i.e. Alice holds a *false belief*). Readers must reason that Alice will look for the celery where she left it, and that Bob will make that same assumption. Questions shown require different depths of mental state modeling. Cognitive and literary studies have extensively argued theory of mind's key role in understanding stories, in order to explain and predict each character's actions (Zunshine, 2006; Carney et al., 2014; Leverage et al., 2010; van Duijn et al., 2015, inter alia). As exemplified in Figure 1, readers need to model Bob's mental state (called *first-order ToM*), as well as Bob's estimation of Alice's mental state (*second-order ToM*) to answer questions. Despite recent progress in language understanding abilities, large language models have been shown to lack theory of mind skills (Sap et al., 2022). Existing efforts to enable them have primarily relied on supervised methods (e.g., Grant et al., 13960 2017; Nematzadeh et al., 2018; Arodi and Cheung, 2021). However, current reading comprehension datasets for theory of mind reasoning are simplistic and lack diversity, leading to brittle downstream models which, as we show, fail in the presence of even slight out-of-distribution perturbations. We introduce SYMBOLICTOM, an inferencetime method that improves large language models' theory of mind capabilities by augmenting them with an explicit symbolic graphical representation of each character's beliefs. Unlike prior efforts, our approach does not require training and instead divides the problem into simpler subtasks, leveraging off-the-shelf models to solve them, and carefully consolidating their results. This makes SYMBOLICTOM significantly more robust than existing models trained specifically for theory of mind behavior. While beliefs about the world state differ among people, most existing work on encoding belief states do not model this behavior relying on singular graphs (Jansen, 2022; Jacqmin et al., 2022). SYMBOLICTOM, instead, utilizes a *set of graphs*, each representing what the character p1 *thinks that* p2 believes that [...] pm *assumes to be the current state of the world*, where m is the maximum reasoning depth as determined by the user. This explicit, recursive mental state representation enables the model to answer questions from the perspective of each character. SYMBOLICTOM's process of selecting and querying a particular character's graph grounds it in cognitive science research arguing theory of mind as an essential mechanism of selective attention (Leslie et al., 2004). Our approach also instills desirable inductive biases, such as object permanence—for example, object locations (represented by edges in the graphs) are assumed to be constant until the method can infer a change. Although existing NLP datasets only test up to second-order reasoning (i.e., m ≤ 2), SYMBOLICTOM is designed to work at any depth. SYMBOLICTOM dramatically improves the performance of large language models in theory of mind reading comprehension tasks. For example, GPT-3-Davinci's (Brown et al., 2020) accuracy on the ToMi benchmark (Le et al., 2019) increases by 38 absolute points using SYMBOLICTOM (yielding 92% accuracy averaging across question types). Furthermore, we extend the ToMi test sets with diverse story structures and sentence paraphrases and demonstrate that our approach is significantly more robust than supervised approaches. ## 2 Motivation And Background Although large-scale language models have recently shown improvements in some classic theory of mind examples, they are still far from reliably showing theory of mind capabilities (Sap et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022; Ullman, 2023; Shapira et al., 2023). While the training data for these models includes human-written stories which require theory of mind reasoning, this information is largely implicit and hence difficult for models to learn. ChatGPT and GPT3-Davinci's incorrect answers to Figure 1's question \#2 are shown below.1 ChatGPT **(gpt-3.5-turbo)**: Based on the information provided, Bob would likely think that Alice will look for the celery in the box when she returns. Since Bob moved the celery from the basket to the box, he would assume that Alice would expect to find it in its new location. GPT3 **(text-davinci-003)**: Bob will likely think that Alice will look for the celery in the box, since that is where he moved it. Natural stories which make theory of mind explicit are scarce, necessitating automatically generated, template-based datasets like ToM-bAbI (Nematzadeh et al., 2018) and ToMi (Le et al., 2019). However, templated narratives cover limited types of interactions, and include only simplistic discourse and sentence structures. On the other hand, relying on human-generated data, e.g., in situated dialogue (Bara et al., 2021), leads to barriers in dataset size due to high annotation costs. Moreover, another source of data—text-based games with multiple characters—also faces limitations; in particular, modeling mental states is required mainly to infer intents (Zhou et al., 2022) and to maintain a consistent style of each character (Qiu et al., 2022). Rather, in this work, we aim to study and evaluate differences in knowledge and beliefs among multiple characters, traditional *cognitive* aspects of theory of mind. To the best of our knowledge, the only available datasets for measuring theory of mind in reading comprehension tasks are ToM-bAbI and ToMi. Because of their templated nature, supervised training on them is prone to overfitting to spurious artifacts in the data. While ToMi was developed to counter this behavior in ToM-bAbI by introducing noise in the form of flexible sentence ordering and distractor sentences and characters, we show it still faces the same pitfalls. 1Queried on May 22, 2023 with top_p=1 and temperature=0. Given the non-deterministic and continuously changing nature of these models, exact examples may not produce the same response we report.  perform recursion over the question Due to theory of mind's inherently implicit nature and limited naturally available data, in this work, we argue against supervision as a way forward and instead call for unsupervised, or inference-time approaches that combine modern neural models and traditional symbolic algorithms. ## 3 Methods 3.1 Symbolicto**M: Algorithm Overview** Our goal is to automatically answer reading comprehension questions given a story involving multiple characters, without requiring any supervised training or fine-tuning on this task. We first introduce key notation, then provide a high-level overview of SYMBOLICTOM (Algorithm 1). Notation We use the term k*-th order theory of* mind to refer to an estimate of what a character p1 thinks that p2 thinks that [...] pk thinks about the world state. We denote this belief by Bp1*,...,p*k . We let k ≤ m, where m is a maximum reasoning depth. This is a user-specified limit, denoting the maximum recursion that the reader is assumed to be capable of performing. For instance, in Figure 1, questions \#1 and \#2 measure 1st- and 2nd-order theory of mind respectively; BBob refers to Bob's beliefs about the current world state, and BBob,Alice represents Bob's estimation of Alice's beliefs about the world state. In this work, Bp1*,...,p*k only represents beliefs about the current world state, without additional modeling of other characters' mental states, such as their opinions. A benefit of this notation is that any belief state can be represented as an m-th order one. We assume that what pk thinks that pk *thinks* is equivalent to what pk *thinks*, and by induction, Bp1...pk ≡ Bp1,...,pk,pk*,...,p*k , where the last pk is repeated m − k times. We adopt this notation going forward, denoting all states as m-th order. As a conceptual note, the set of belief states {Bp1...pk,qk+1...qm | ∀qk+1*, . . . , q*m} represents the mental state from the perspective of p1*, . . . , p*k, using m − k order of theory of mind. Local and Global Context We represent each Bp1*...p*k as a graph (a simplified version is depicted in Figure 1) where each node represents an entity (e.g. a character, object, room, container) and each edge connects two nodes with a stated relationship in the story. We construct the graphs by iterating through a story one sentence at a time, and adding both nodes and edges to the graph (BELIEFTRACKINGSTRUCTURE; described in §3.2 and Algorithm 2). Each edge is also paired with the sentence from the story from which it was constructed. We refer to the set of all belief state graphs as the *local contexts*. We also maintain a global context graph, denoted by G, which contains the true world state. G has an identical structure to Bp1*...p*k . See A.1 for a detailed definition of G. Question Answering After parsing a story and constructing the complete set of belief-tracking structures, we can use these structures to answer questions by querying the appropriate graph and considering it as the real-world state. For example, if the question is "Where will Bob think that Alice will look for the celery?", we retrieve BBob, Alice, but if instead the question were "Where will Bob look for the celery?", we would retrieve BBob. In both cases, we would ask "Where is the celery?" on the retrieved graph. Figure 2 shows an example of the full pipeline. Given a question, we identify the relevant characters p1*, . . . , p*k mentioned in order heuristically, and rephrase the question to ask directly about the world state (PROCESSQUESTION; owing to the questions' templatic nature in our evaluation data, this approach rephrases all questions correctly).2 We then retrieve the corresponding graph; i.e., Bp1*,...,p*k , of which we can simply ask the question "Where is the celery?". To obtain the answer, we first reconstruct a subset S′ of sentences in the original story, consisting of those represented by the retrieved graph (SENTENCESREPRESENTEDBYGRAPH). We then use a large language model L to answer the simplified question zero-shot given S′, using as input the sentences in S′in the same order as they appeared in the original text, and preserving phrasing. We optionally further filter S′ based on the entities mentioned in the question (FILTERBASEDONQUESTION). An ablation study showed this last step can often be skipped (see Appendix C.1). ## Algorithm 1 Symbolictom B ← BELIEFTRACKINGSTRUCTURE(*sentences*) p1,. . ., pk*, question*′←PROCESSQUESTION(*question*) S ′←SENTENCESREPRESENTEDBYGRAPH(Bp1*,...,p*k ) S ′′ ← FILTERBASEDONQUESTION(S ′*, question*) return S ′′*, question*′ ## 3.2 Computing The Belief Graphs Bp1...Pk Assuming each story is told chronologically, SYM-BOLICTOM processes each sentence s sequentially in two stages (Algorithm 2). First, it extracts all actions in s and updates the global context G from an omniscient point of view while identifying the characters (W) who witnessed actions and world state changes described in the sentence. Second, for each witness w ∈ W, it propagates this new information to update w's local contexts; i.e., we only update Bp1*,...,p*m with, for 1 ≤ i ≤ m, each pi ∈ W, and leave the rest unchanged. As an example, when processing the last sentence in Figure 3, we update Bob and Charles's state (BBob and BCharles) and the perception of 2Our explorations show that GPT3 is also capable of rephrasing the questions zero-shot (see §A.3), but we refrained from this solution due to budget concerns.  ## Algorithm 2 Belief Tracking function BELIEFTRACKINGSTRUCTURE(*sentences*) for s ∈ *sentences* do G, W ← GLOBALCONTEXTUPDATE(*G, s*) for all [p1, . . . , pm] ∈ Wm do Bp1*...p*m ←LOCALCONTEXTUPDATE(Bp1...pm*,G,s*) end for end for end function others' respective state (BBob,Charles, BCharles, Bob), but we need not update Alice's state, or Bob and Charles's perception of Alice's mental state, because she did not witness the actions described. ## 3.2.1 Detecting Witnesses, Updating Graphs, And Propagating Knowledge Starting with an empty graph, for each new sentence s, we update the global context G by combining off-the-shelf models in four steps (Algorithm 3; GLOBALCONTEXTUPDATE). **First,** we detect the existing edges E in G that contradict s. This is implemented as detecting Natural Language Inference (NLI) contradictions, considering s as the premise, and every edge in G as a hypothesis. **Second,** we augment G with new edges and nodes, by first deriving a natural language representation r of the state resulting from the actions described in s, and then extract new nodes and edges from r as OpenIE triples (Stanovsky et al., 2018). For example, for "Bob then moves the celery to the box", the resulting state r would be the sentence "The celery is in the box". To obtain r from s, we prompt a language model such as GPT3 (see Appendix A.2 for details). After obtaining r, we use the corresponding triple (e.g., (celery, box, is in)) to add new nodes and edges to G if not already present (e.g., the nodes "celery" and "box", and a directed edge connecting them labeled by "is in"). Importantly, we only add edges that represent positive relations between nodes; i.e., there will not be an edge representing "The celery is not in the box". **Third,** we detect the witnesses W of the actions described in s. Since each character will be a node in G, we identify W as all the characters that are in the same connected component as the newly added edges. **Finally,** we remove all edges E that are no longer valid in G as identified by the NLI contradictions. This step is done last to ensure all witnesses are found before their edges are deleted. Algorithm 3 World State Beliefs Graphs Update function GLOBALCONTEXTUPDATE(G, s) E ← DETECTCONTRADICTINGEDGES(*G, s*) G ← G ∪ TRIPLES(RESULTINGSTATE(s)) W ← FINDWITNESSES(G) G ← G \ E return G, W end function function LOCALCONTEXTUPDATE(C, G, s) E ← DETECTCONTRADICTINGEDGES(*G, s*) C ← C ∪ TRIPLES(RESULTINGSTATE(s)) C ← PROPAGATEKNOWLEDGE(*G, C, s*) C ← C \ E return C end function The local contexts (Bp1*,...,p*k ) are updated similarly (LOCALCONTEXTUPDATE in Algorithm 3), except for an additional step of knowledge propagation. While performing an action, a character may implicitly gain information not described in the text. For example, when entering a room, a character may gain knowledge of the people and visible objects in the room. This knowledge (already present in G, which tracks the omniscient world state) needs to be propagated to each Bp1*,...,p*k with each pi∈W. As G represents the true world state, we simplify the problem: if a character piis in a specific connected component D of G, then it possesses all knowledge encoded in D. To model implicit knowledge gain, we add all edges in D to Bp1*,...,p*k . As D represents the latest global context information, we remove from the local context edges that are in Bp1*,...,p*k but not in D (representing outdated beliefs about the world state). ## 3.3 Notes On Memory Efficiency Memory requirements grow exponentially with m, the maximum order of theory of mind considered. However, m in practice is small, as humans find tasks increasingly challenging as m increases. For example, psychological tests for m = 3 are aimed at teenagers and adults (Valle et al., 2015). All experiments in this work are done with m = 2, the maximum order of theory of mind reasoning that current datasets evaluate. If memory were a concern, one could process the questions first for memory efficiency, and compute only the graphs Bp1*,...,p*k required for target queries. ## 4 Fundamental Issues In Existing Tom Datasets Construction of ToMi As introduced in §2, the sole large-scale theory of mind dataset for reading comprehension tasks is ToMi (Le et al., 2019). Barring its added distractor characters and sentences, ToMi strictly mimics the Sally-Anne test, a widely adopted evaluation for assessing children's social cognitive ability to reason about others' mental states (Wimmer and Perner, 1983; Baron-Cohen et al., 1985). Stories are structured are as follows: characters A and B are in a room, and A moves an object from an opaque container to another; B may or may not leave the room before A moves the object. B will know the object's new location if and only if they were in the room at the time it was moved. Four types of ToM questions are posed: first-order or second-order, probing a character about either a true or a false belief (i.e, belief that matches reality or not). ToMi also includes questions probing about reality (or *zeroth-order* ToM, Sclar et al., 2022) and memory. ToMi has six types of sentences (i.e. six *primitives*) with set phrasing. These include someone (a) entering or (b) exiting a room; the location of (c) an object or (d) a person; (e) someone moving an object; and (f) someone's opinion about an object (distractors). Primitives are combined into stories with a finite list of possible orderings. Despite the limited types of primitives, correctly answering questions requires high-order levels of reasoning. Templated stories are filled with randomly sampled objects, locations, containers, and rooms from a set list. ToMi implicitly assumes that questions about the story do not depend on these decisions, only on the underlying story template. Yet, in a small-scale human study, we find physical com- 1. Oliver entered the front yard. 2. Ethan entered the front yard. 3. Liam entered the kitchen. 4. **objectA** is in the basket. 5. Ethan exited the front yard. 6. Ethan entered the kitchen. 7. Oliver moved **objectA** to the **containerX**. 8. Where does Ethan think **objectA** is? ToMi Gold Label: basket Table 1: Interpretation of ambiguities in ToMi can be affected by commonsense. In the above template, the correct label is that Ethan thinks **objectA** is in the *basket*, as this is where he last saw it. Setting **objectA** to hat and **containerX** to box results in 80% human accuracy. However, setting these to *apple* and *pantry*, accuracy drops to 20%. Physical commonsense suggests the pantry is likely in the kitchen, changing the answer to *pantry*, but regardless of the identity of **objectA** or containerX, the correct label in ToMi is *basket*. monsense leads human answers to change, and disagree with ToMi's labels depending on the noun. Table 1 presents an example where the object and container have a large effect on human responses.3 Resolving Unintentional Ambiguities ToMi's story construction process often leaves object locations ambiguous, which forces humans to (incorrectly) rely on their physical commonsense. For example, the location of the *basket* in line 4 of Table 1 is ambiguous. This ambiguity is at times resolved at a later step in the story (Arodi and Cheung, 2021), but it is not true for all cases, and these resolutions were not expressly intended by ToMi's original design. This complicates the task beyond theory of mind. For example, in Table 1, the reader must conclude from *"Oliver is in front* yard", *"Oliver moved the objectA (...)"*, and *"The* objectA is in basket" that the basket is in the front yard, and hence that Ethan saw it there. This requires 3-hop reasoning, and knowing ahead of time that, in ToMi, characters do not change rooms unless explicitly stated. To solve these unintentional ambiguities and additional 3-hop reasoning requirements, and instead solely measure theory of mind reasoning skills, we automatically add a sentence that disambiguates the location of each container immediately after each primitive (c) or (e) (e.g., adding *"The basket* 3Using Amazon Mechanical Turk, we present 20 humans with the template in Table 1, using either (hat,box) or (apple, pantry). Workers are paid $1 per HIT. is in the front yard" as line 5 in Table 1). Finally, as reported in Arodi and Cheung (2021); Sap et al. (2022), ToMi contains some mislabeled secondorder questions, which we also correct. ## 5 Experiments We experiment with several base LMs, and evaluate each of them both out-of-the-box via zeroshot prompting, and by applying SYMBOLICTOM to ToMi stories to produce answers. We evaluate Macaw-3B (Tafjord and Clark, 2021), GPT3- {Curie,Davinci} (Brown et al., 2020), Flan-T5- {XL,XXL} (Chung et al., 2022), LLaMA-{7B, 13B} (Touvron et al., 2023), GPT3.5 (OpenAI, 2022), and GPT4 (OpenAI, 2023). We use WANLI (Liu et al., 2022) for identifying NLI contradictions, and the AllenNLP library (Gardner et al., 2018) for OpenIE. We additionally refine each subject and object in extracted triples to remove any stopwords that may be accidentally included by OpenIE. We first evaluate SYMBOLICTOM's performance as a plug-and-play method for different base LMs on ToMi (§5.1). We then test whether performance gains are robust to ToMi story structure modifications (§5.2). Finally, we explore SYMBOL-ICTOM's robustness to linguistic diversity (§5.3). Supervised Models For comparison, we train two supervised models: Textual Time Travel (TTT) (Arodi and Cheung, 2021), and a fine-tuned GPT3- Curie. TTT is a modification of EntNet (Henaff et al., 2017) designed for theory of mind tasks; GPT3-Curie is finetuned on 6000 ToMi examples for one epoch. GPT3-Curie achieves near-perfect performance when finetuned on ToMi (98.5% accuracy when averaging all questions; Table 5). Interestingly, GPT3-Curie achieves a higher accuracy than the theory of mind-motivated TTT (accuracy 92.3%). We explore model robustness in §5.2. ## 5.1 In-Domain Evaluation We evaluate all base LMs comparing their performance out-of-the-box, versus when adding SYM-BOLICTOM. Figure 4 shows results by question type, showing dramatic improvements for all theory of mind questions: +62 points in accuracy for first-order false-belief questions for Flan-T5-XL, +78 points in accuracy for second-order false-belief questions for GPT3.5, among other improvements. In addition, we observe all models maintain nearperfect performance with and without SYMBOL-ICTOM in memory questions. Supervised models  show high accuracy for all question types. We only see significant decreases in performance for reality questions in Flan-T5 models. This can be partially attributed to the questions' phrasing: questions are posed as "Where is the celery *really*?". Removing *really* results in 96% accuracy for Flan-T5-XL. Flan-T5-XXL empirically shows a bias towards providing a room rather than container as an answer when only one container is mentioned, which is often the case for SYMBOLICTOMfiltered stories. Rooms are invalid answers in ToMi. An ablation on the final filter function of Algorithm 1 suggests that keeping more containers in the final story reduces this bias and still yields significant improvements for false-belief questions across all models (see §C.1). Besides *reality* questions, FlanT5-XXL with SYMBOLICTOM achieves results comparable to the supervised TTT. ## 5.2 Story Structure Robustness Test Sets We create three test sets by modifying ToMi's stories structures without adding new types of actions or linguistic diversity. These tests were only evaluated once, after finishing development of SYMBOL-ICTOM. Test sets are defined below. See Appendix B.2 for concrete examples. | D1 | D2 | D3 | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|----| | Off-the-shelf models Macaw-3B 8 | 12 | 30 | | | Flan-T5-XL | 86 | 51 | 68 | | Flan-T5-XXL | 69 | 59 | 52 | | GPT3-Curie | 37 | 39 | 57 | | GPT3-Davinci | 20 | 25 | 39 | | GPT3.54 | 1 | 0 | 48 | | GPT4 | 58 | 62 | 97 | | LLaMA-7B | 17 | 17 | 17 | | LLaMA-13B | 26 | 36 | 37 | | SYMBOLICTOM + Off-the-shelf models Macaw-3B 89 (+81) 71 (+60) 70 (+41) Flan-T5-XL 76 (-10) 96 (+46) 100 (+33) Flan-T5-XXL 93 (+24) 100 (+41) 100 (+49) GPT3-Curie 84 (+48) 81 (+42) 73 (+16) GPT3-Davinci 92 (+73) 91 (+66) 90 (+50) GPT3.5 100 (+99) 100 (+99) 99 (+51) GPT4 100 (+42) 100 (+38) 100 ( +4) LLaMA-7B 99 (+82) 92 (+75) 88 (+71) LLaMA-13B 78 (+52) 84 (+48) 84 (+47) Supervised models TTT 49 65 78 Finetuned GPT3 51 68 32 | | | | ## Double Room False Belief Story (D1) Two False belief substories involving the same two characters p1, p2 are concatenated to yield a longer, more complex story. Each substory has different objects being moved, across different containers. The system is probed using all four combinations of secondorder theory of mind questions involving the two characters and locations. Questions are evenly split between the first and second substory. Three Active Characters Story (D2) Three characters p1, p2, p3 are in the same room, where an object o1 and three containers c1, c2, c3 are available. The story is as follows: p2 leaves before p1 moves o1 from c1 to c2, but p3 witnesses the move. Then, p1 leaves the room. Later, p3 moves the object to container c3 without any witnesses. The system is probed using all combinations of secondorder theory of mind questions. Multiple Object Movements Across Four Containers (D3) Two characters p1, p2 are in a room, with a single object, and four containers c1*, . . . , c*4. p1 moves the object from c1 to c2 and right before leaving the room, p2 enters. p2 then moves the object to c3, and then c4. We probe with all first and second-order theory of mind questions. Results Supervised models significantly overfit to ToMi's original story structures (Table 2). In contrast, all models had high accuracy when equipped with SYMBOLICTOM, especially larger models, such as GPT3.5, LLaMA-{7B,13B}, among others. D2 may also be used to test third-order ToM reasoning, asking questions such as "Where does p1 think that p2 thinks that p1 will search for the o1?". Third-order ToM is a reasoning depth currently untested by available NLP benchmarks. SYMBOL-ICTOM consistently enhances the performance of off-the-shelf LLMs and outperforms supervised methods in the third-order ToM setting. See details in Appendix C.2. This experiment showcases how extensions of ToMi may be used to test higherorder reasoning. This is the first approach towards testing third-order ToM in LLMs; a benchmark to comprehensively test such order of reasoning exceeds the scope of this paper. ## 5.3 Paraphrasing Robustness Evaluation We assess the robustness of all models when utilizing various wordings for each sentence. We reword all templates using GPT3-Davinci, utilizing different choices of objects, rooms, and names, and manually excluded incorrect paraphrases. The resulting dataset—ParaphrasedToMi—exhibits much greater complexity, as these rewordings can express actions in a less straightforward way. All paraphrases are shown in Appendix B.1. Figure 5 demonstrates significant performance decreases for supervised models transferring to ParaphrasedToMi. TTT's average accuracy drops 54 points from ToMi, with losses across all question types. Finetuned GPT3 exhibits significant losses in false-belief questions (-40 average accuracy) but is robust for other question types. Methods without supervision also suffer significant losses, but SYMBOLICTOM still results in  large improvements for theory of mind questions. Models equipped with SYMBOLICTOM perform significantly better than the supervised TTT model across all theory of mind questions. ParaphrasedToMi is significantly more difficult for SYMBOLICTOM since it triggers more errors in edge removal (due to errors in NLI classification), as well as errors in edge insertion (due to errors in the resulting state's triple extraction). Although computing RESULTINGSTATE by prompting the base LMs was successful with original phrasings (as defined in §3.2.1), we observed differences in robustness when prompting with paraphrases. We found implementing RESULTINGSTATE with GPT3 reliable, and thus we use it for all models. Results using other models are included in §C.3: false-belief performance is even better for models like LLaMA, GPT3.5, or GPT4. ## 6 Related Work Existing Approaches Classical reasoning tasks require achieving some goal, e.g., proving a statement, given a set of facts and universally valid rules (e.g., Tafjord et al., 2021). A common approach is to decompose the target reasoning task into subtasks, for example by using off-the-shelf LMs (Creswell et al., 2023; Kazemi et al., 2022; Nye et al., 2021). We use a similar technique in SYMBOLICTOM, breaking the higher-level reasoning task into graph reasoning subtasks. Nonetheless, these approaches cannot be simply ported to our domain: stories' facts (i.e. the world state) change over time and are not universally accessible to all characters, and commonsense rules and assumptions like object permanence must made explicit. SYMBOLICTOM's design addresses these challenges by maintaining and updating graphs about facts and beliefs as a story progresses. In scenarios where world state changes over time, such as in text-based games, existing approaches maintain and update structured world representations as the world state changes (Ammanabrolu and Riedl, 2021; Adhikari et al., 2020). However, while these approaches could potentially be applied in our scenario to update G, they would not address the problems of multiple-belief representation or knowledge propagation to witnesses' graphs, with some approaches even being explicitly impossible for modeling second-order ToM (Qiu et al., 2022). ToM beyond NLP Theory of mind is also crucial in multi-agent reinforcement learning (Rabinowitz et al., 2018), including in bidirectional symbolic-communication (Wang et al., 2022; Sclar et al., 2022), unidirectional natural-language settings (Zhu et al., 2021); and recently, by combining reinforcement learning, planning, and language, to create a human-level Diplomacy player (, FAIR). It has also received increased attention in humancomputer interaction (Wang et al., 2021) and explainable AI (Akula et al., 2022). Psychologists divide theory of mind into two types of reasoning: affective (emotions, desires) and cognitive (beliefs, knowledge) (ShamayTsoory et al., 2010), with the former developing earlier in children (Wellman, 2014). Our work focuses on the latter, but the principle of multiple belief representation could also be applied to affective theory of mind reasoning. Existing work has shown that humans are proficient at second-order or higher false-belief reasoning, also referred to as *advanced ToM* (Białecka-Pikul et al., 2017), with evidence that we can perform even third- and fourthorder reasoning (Valle et al., 2015; Osterhaus et al., 2016). While, to best of our knowledge, no dataset requires beyond second-order ToM, SYMBOLICTOM explicitly models the recursive reasoning that supports queries of any reasoning order. ## 7 Conclusions Theory of mind is an essential social intelligence ability. Developing agents with theory of mind is requisite for a wide range of applications, including reading comprehension, tutoring, dialogue, personalization, and negotiation. For example, in reading comprehension settings (and broadly for natural language understanding), having a multi-level understanding of texts is crucial for providing meaningful and contextualized answers: stories often rely on theory of mind reasoning to create conflict (e.g., in murder mysteries, drama, and romances, as in the final acts of *Romeo and Juliet*). We present SYMBOLICTOM, a plug-and-play method to enable theory of mind reasoning in language models via explicit symbolic representations in the form of nested belief states. SYMBOLICTOM requires no training or fine-tuning, a key aspect for a domain with scarce supervised data and limited success in learning from massive unlabeled text alone. With experiments on reading comprehension tasks, our approach demonstrates dramatic improvement in the accuracy of base language models, especially for false-belief scenarios. We also show that, in contrast to supervised methods, SYMBOLICTOM is highly robust to story perturbations and out-of-domain inputs where supervised methods suffer significant degradations (as in, e.g., Yu et al., 2022).5 Our results show the promise of augmenting neural language models with symbolic knowledge for improving their social reasoning skills. We leave to future work to investigate similar approaches for other types of social intelligence; as well as develop new datasets that cover a more diverse set of interactions. ## Limitations SYMBOLICTOM assumes stories are written chronologically, which may not hold for some human-written stories. This may be alleviated using time-stamping models like Faghihi and Kordjamshidi (2021). Furthermore, since we use off-theshelf models (WANLI (Liu et al., 2022) and OpenIE (Stanovsky et al., 2018)) to create and update the graphs, the presented approach may propagate errors as revealed in the linguistic diversity experiments. However, these issues can be largely alleviated by using more sophisticated models, even the LLMs like GPT3 themselves. We do not experiment with them due to budgetary restrictions. Currently, all NLP datasets available for theory of mind reasoning describe Sally-Anne tests. In these datasets, the concept of large distances is absent, meaning that anyone specified to be in a location is assumed to be a witness of the actions that occur there. This assumption can be violated in realistic settings. For example, *"Anne is in the USA"* does not imply she is a witness to every action happening in the USA. In future work, this approach can be improved by refining the witnesses detection algorithm to incorporate physical commonsense reasoning. We could also refine the witness detection algorithm by sampling paths between the inserted edge and each node referring to a person, to query an LM directly on that substory by asking if the person witnessed the action. To be able to test both of these ideas, we would need to obtain new theory of mind datasets with significantly more types of interactions and physical commonsense in the stories. ## Ethics Statement Theory of mind research at its core deals with reasoning about the mental states of others. In this work, we focus on reading comprehension, a task which can similarly be exposed to ethical concerns: for example, when a model makes erroneous predictions about the mental states of characters in the description, when it is misused to reason about private situations, and when it makes predictions which reinforce social biases. This issue can be exacerbated if the characters are actual people. In this work, however, we experiment with simple, prototypical character references from a public dataset, and not with actual people. This decision is intentional. Furthermore, we focus on reasoning about physical objects and observers' knowledge about their location in space, which is less prone to ethical concerns. This data can nonetheless lead to biased decisions, such as imbalanced decisions correlated with social attributes like gender (often correlated with names). Future work in this area may include scenarios with more realistic human-agent interaction, such as dialogue tasks, where parties involved may not have the same incentive structure. These scenarios will need to be handled with special care as they could lead to agents learning to deceive humans by exploiting a predicted (lack of) knowledge. The state-of-the-art in machine theory of mind is still far from these capabilities, but we believe it is important to consider these risks when designing experiments. ## Acknowledgements We thank Lucille Njoo and Tianxing He for the valuable discussions, and Akshatha Arodi for the support in running the Textual Time Travel code base. S.K. gratefully acknowledges support from Google Ph.D. Fellowship. We also thank OpenAI for providing academic access to their language model API. This material is based upon work partly funded by the DARPA CMO under Contract No. HR001120C0124, by DARPA MCS program through NIWC Pacific (N66001-19-2-4031), by NSF DMS-2134012, by NSF CAREER Grant No. IIS2142739, and an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellowship. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ## References Ashutosh Adhikari, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Mikuláš Zelinka, Marc-Antoine Rondeau, Romain Laroche, Pascal Poupart, Jian Tang, Adam Trischler, and Will Hamilton. 2020. Learning dynamic belief graphs to generalize on text-based games. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3045– 3057. Arjun R. Akula, Keze Wang, Changsong Liu, Sari SabaSadiya, Hongjing Lu, Sinisa Todorovic, Joyce Chai, and Song-Chun Zhu. 2022. Cx-tom: Counterfactual explanations with theory-of-mind for enhancing human trust in image recognition models. *iScience*, 25(1):103581. Prithviraj Ammanabrolu and Mark Riedl. 2021. Learning knowledge graph-based world models of textual environments. In *Advances in Neural Information* Processing Systems. Akshatha Arodi and Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. 2021. Textual time travel: A temporally informed approach to theory of mind. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 4162–4172, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Cristian-Paul Bara, CH-Wang Sky, and Joyce Chai. 2021. Mindcraft: Theory of mind modeling for situated dialogue in collaborative tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1112–1125. Simon Baron-Cohen, Alan M Leslie, and Uta Frith. 1985. Does the autistic child have a "theory of mind"? *Cognition*, 21(1):37–46. Marta Białecka-Pikul, Anna Kołodziejczyk, and Sandra Bosacki. 2017. Advanced theory of mind in adolescence: Do age, gender and friendship style play a role? *Journal of Adolescence*, 56:145–156. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 33:1877–1901. James Carney, Rafael Wlodarski, and Robin Dunbar. 2014. Inference or enaction? the impact of genre on the narrative processing of other minds. *PloS one*, 9(12):e114172. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Higgins. 2023. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. Hossein Rajaby Faghihi and Parisa Kordjamshidi. 2021. Time-stamped language model: Teaching language models to understand the flow of events. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4560–4570. Meta Fundamental AI Research Diplomacy Team (FAIR), Anton Bakhtin, Noam Brown, Emily Dinan, Gabriele Farina, Colin Flaherty, Daniel Fried, Andrew Goff, Jonathan Gray, Hengyuan Hu, Athul Paul Jacob, Mojtaba Komeili, Karthik Konath, Minae Kwon, Adam Lerer, Mike Lewis, Alexander H. Miller, Sasha Mitts, Adithya Renduchintala, Stephen Roller, Dirk Rowe, Weiyan Shi, Joe Spisak, Alexander Wei, David Wu, Hugh Zhang, and Markus Zijlstra. 2022. Human-level play in the game of <i>diplomacy</i> by combining language models with strategic reasoning. *Science*, 378(6624):1067– 1074. C.D. Frith, D.M. Wolpert, Uta Frith, and Christopher D. Frith. 2003. Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal* Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431):459–473. Matt Gardner, Joel Grus, Mark Neumann, Oyvind Tafjord, Pradeep Dasigi, Nelson F. Liu, Matthew Peters, Michael Schmitz, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. AllenNLP: A deep semantic natural language processing platform. In Proceedings of Workshop for NLP Open Source Software (NLP-OSS), pages 1–6, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Erin Grant, Aida Nematzadeh, and Thomas L. Griffiths. 2017. How can memory-augmented neural networks pass a false-belief task? *Cognitive Science*. Mikael Henaff, Jason Weston, Arthur Szlam, Antoine Bordes, and Yann LeCun. 2017. Tracking the world state with recurrent entity networks. In *International* Conference on Learning Representations. Léo Jacqmin, Lina M Rojas Barahona, and Benoit Favre. 2022. "do you follow me?": A survey of recent approaches in dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 336–350. Peter Jansen. 2022. A systematic survey of text worlds as embodied natural language environments. In The Third Wordplay: When Language Meets Games Workshop. Seyed Mehran Kazemi, Najoung Kim, Deepti Bhatia, Xin Xu, and Deepak Ramachandran. 2022. Lambada: Backward chaining for automated reasoning in natural language. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13894*. Matthew Le, Y-Lan Boureau, and Maximilian Nickel. 2019. Revisiting the evaluation of theory of mind through question answering. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5872–5877. Alan M Leslie, Ori Friedman, and Tim P German. 2004. Core mechanisms in 'theory of mind'. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(12):528–533. Paula Leverage, Howard Mancing, and Richard Schweickert. 2010. *Theory of mind and literature*. Purdue University Press. Alisa Liu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2022. WANLI: Worker and ai collaboration for natural language inference dataset creation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 6826–6847, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aida Nematzadeh, Kaylee Burns, Erin Grant, Alison Gopnik, and Tom Griffiths. 2018. Evaluating theory of mind in question answering. In *Proceedings of the* 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2392–2400, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maxwell Nye, Michael Tessler, Josh Tenenbaum, and Brenden M Lake. 2021. Improving coherence and consistency in neural sequence models with dualsystem, neuro-symbolic reasoning. *Advances in* Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:25192– 25204. OpenAI. 2022. ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dialogue. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 technical report. Christopher Osterhaus, Susanne Koerber, and Beate Sodian. 2016. Scaling of advanced theory-of-mind tasks. *Child development*, 87(6):1971–1991. David Premack and Guy Woodruff. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and brain sciences, 1(4):515–526. Liang Qiu, Yizhou Zhao, Yuan Liang, Pan Lu, Weiyan Shi, Zhou Yu, and Song-Chun Zhu. 2022. Towards socially intelligent agents with mental state transition and human value. In *Proceedings of the 23rd Annual* Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 146–158, Edinburgh, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics. Neil Rabinowitz, Frank Perbet, Francis Song, Chiyuan Zhang, SM Ali Eslami, and Matthew Botvinick. 2018. Machine theory of mind. In *International conference* on machine learning, pages 4218–4227. PMLR. Maarten Sap, Ronan LeBras, Daniel Fried, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Neural theory-of-mind? on the limits of social intelligence in large lms. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, page 3762–3780, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Melanie Sclar, Graham Neubig, and Yonatan Bisk. 2022. Symmetric machine theory of mind. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 19450–19466. PMLR. Simone G Shamay-Tsoory, Hagai Harari, Judith AharonPeretz, and Yechiel Levkovitz. 2010. The role of the orbitofrontal cortex in affective theory of mind deficits in criminal offenders with psychopathic tendencies. *Cortex*, 46(5):668–677. Natalie Shapira, Mosh Levy, Seyed Hossein Alavi, Xuhui Zhou, Yejin Choi, Yoav Goldberg, Maarten Sap, and Vered Shwartz. 2023. Clever hans or neural theory of mind? stress testing social reasoning in large language models. Gabriel Stanovsky, Julian Michael, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Ido Dagan. 2018. Supervised open information extraction. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 885– 895. Oyvind Tafjord and Peter Clark. 2021. General-purpose question-answering with macaw. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.02593. Oyvind Tafjord, Bhavana Dalvi, and Peter Clark. 2021. ProofWriter: Generating implications, proofs, and abductive statements over natural language. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021*, pages 3621–3634, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. Tomer Ullman. 2023. Large language models fail on trivial alterations to theory-of-mind tasks. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2302.08399. Annalisa Valle, Davide Massaro, Ilaria Castelli, and Antonella Marchetti. 2015. Theory of mind development in adolescence and early adulthood: The growing complexity of recursive thinking ability. *Europe's journal of psychology*, 11(1):112. Max J van Duijn, Ineke Sluiter, and Arie Verhagen. 2015. When narrative takes over: The representation of embedded mindstates in shakespeare's othello. Language and Literature, 24(2):148–166. Qiaosi Wang, Koustuv Saha, Eric Gregori, David Joyner, and Ashok Goel. 2021. Towards mutual theory of mind in human-ai interaction: How language reflects what students perceive about a virtual teaching assistant. In *Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on* Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–14. Yuanfei Wang, fangwei zhong, Jing Xu, and Yizhou Wang. 2022. Tom2c: Target-oriented multi-agent communication and cooperation with theory of mind. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Henry M Wellman. 2014. Making minds: How theory of mind develops. Oxford University Press. Heinz Wimmer and Josef Perner. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. *Cognition*, 13(1):103–128. Ping Yu, Tianlu Wang, Olga Golovneva, Badr Alkhamissy, Gargi Ghosh, Mona Diab, and Asli Celikyilmaz. 2022. Alert: Adapting language models to reasoning tasks. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08286*. Pei Zhou, Andrew Zhu, Jennifer Hu, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Chris Callison-Burch, Yejin Choi, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. 2022. An ai dungeon master's guide: Learning to converse and guide with intents and theory-of-mind in dungeons and dragons. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10060. Hao Zhu, Graham Neubig, and Yonatan Bisk. 2021. Few-shot language coordination by modeling theory of mind. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12901–12911. PMLR. Lisa Zunshine. 2006. *Why we read fiction: Theory of* mind and the novel. Ohio State University Press. ## A Additional Details On S**Ymbolic**Tom A.1 Detailed Description Of Information Contained In Global Context G In the main paper, we define G as a graph containing the true world state (as opposed to beliefs about the current world state). This means that G will represent where people and objects are truly located, regardless of beliefs. G will in general contain only the *observable* true world state. Thus, information passed verbally would not be stored in the global context (e.g. someone speaking in a room is not observable after they finished talking), and would instead be stored in the local contexts of the people that heard the speech. Since verbal interactions are not tested by available datasets, this distinction is not relevant in ToMi. ## A.2 Prompts For Resulting State Extraction For GPT3-Curie we 2-shot prompt with the following prompt (both for original and linguistic diversity experiments): John quit his job. The resulting state after this action is that John no longer has a job.\n\nJohn signed a contract. The resulting state after this action is that the contract is signed.\n\n**<sentence>**. The resulting state after this action is that We find that GPT3-Davinci, Flan-T5-XL, GPT3.5, and GPT4 are able to zero-shot answer to this subtask just by describing the instruction, but smaller models benefit from few-shot. We were unable to query Macaw for this task, so we instead rely on GPT3-Curie, a model of comparable size. Zero-shot instruction is as follows: <sentence>. What is the resulting state after this action? Do not add new information. The resulting state after this action is that We observe that GPT3 is significantly more robust to paraphrases than Flan-T5: Flan-T5 models are poor at detecting the resulting state for florid paraphrases, although the original phrasings are a straightforward task for Flan-T5. Larger models like GPT3.5 and GPT4 are able to perform the task well zero-shot, similarly to GPT3; LLaMA models require fewer demonstrations than Flan-T5. We ran all main experiments implementing Resulting State Extraction with GPT3. ## A.3 Solving Processquestion **Using Gpt3** Our explorations suggest that GPT3 (Curie and GPT3-Davinci text-davinci-002—the version used in all our experiments) can successfully extract entities and rephrase the question. See Figure 6 for an example prompt. Figure 6: GPT3 shows one-shot generalization abilities from first-order to second-order questions. ## B Details On Out-Of-Domain Evaluation B.1 Linguistic Diversity Per Tomi Template | Sentence type | Count | |-------------------------------|---------| | Object's Position | 38 | | Distractor Negative Sentiment | 36 | | Distractor Positive Sentiment | 31 | | Person Entered Room | 21 | | Person Exited Room | 19 | | Person Moved Object | 18 | | Person's Position | 9 | Table 3: Number of paraphrases per original sentence template. Paraphrases were obtained from prompting GPT3-Davinci (text-davinci-002). ## B.1.1 All Paraphrases Of Personx Entered The Roomy. PersonX entered the RoomY. PersonX approached the RoomY. PersonX arrived at the RoomY. PersonX arrived in the RoomY. PersonX bounded into the RoomY. PersonX came by the RoomY. PersonX came into the RoomY. PersonX came to the RoomY. PersonX crept into the RoomY. PersonX entered the RoomY. PersonX leapt into the RoomY. PersonX showed up at the RoomY. PersonX shuffled into the RoomY. PersonX sidled into the RoomY. PersonX slithered into the RoomY. PersonX stepped into the RoomY. PersonX tiptoed into the RoomY. PersonX visited the RoomY. PersonX walked into the RoomY. PersonX went into the RoomY. PersonX went to the RoomY. ## B.1.2 All Paraphrases Of Personx Exited The Roomy. Prompted with the prompt: Find 30 alternative ways of expressing the following sentence: Abigail exited the bedroom. and manually filtering results (with this and other name/location selection. PersonX exited the RoomY. PersonX left the RoomY. PersonX walked out of the RoomY. PersonX stepped out of the RoomY. PersonX departed the RoomY. PersonX went out of the RoomY. PersonX came out of the RoomY. PersonX emerged from the RoomY. PersonX quit the RoomY. PersonX took off from the RoomY. PersonX bolted from the RoomY. PersonX flew from the RoomY. PersonX ran from the RoomY. PersonX sprinted from the RoomY. PersonX jogged from the RoomY. PersonX hurried from the RoomY. PersonX crawled from the RoomY. PersonX crept from the RoomY. PersonX tiptoed from the RoomY. ## B.1.3 All Paraphrases Of The Object1 Is In The Container1. Prompted with Object1=apple, Container1={fridge, envelope, bathtub}. Then filtered to remove object-specific wording. The Object1 is in the Container1. The Object1 is stored in the Container1. The Object1 is kept in the Container1. The Object1 is located in the Container1. The Object1 is situated in the Container1. The Object1 is set in the Container1. The Object1 is placed in the Container1. The Object1 is found in the Container1. The Object1 is positioned in the Container1. The Object1 is set upon in the Container1. The Object1 is put in the Container1. The Object1 is laid in the Container1. The Object1 is deposited in the Container1. The Object1 is stationed in the Container1. The Object1 is put to rest in the Container1. The Object1 is set to rest in the Container1. The Object1 is rested in the Container1. The Object1 is set aside in the Container1. The Object1 is stowed in the Container1. The Container1 contains the Object1. The Object1 is inside the Container1. The Object1 is within the Container1. The Container1 is where the Object1 is. The Container1 has the Object1. The Container1 is holding the Object1. The Container1 is keeping the Object1. The Container1 is safeguarding the Object1. The Container1 is storing the Object1. The Container1 has the Object1 within it. The Container1 has the Object1 inside of it. The Container1 is holding the Object1 within it. The Container1 is keeping the Object1 inside of it. The Container1 is safeguarding the Object1 inside of it. The Container1 is storing the Object1 inside of it. There is a Object1 in the Container1. A Object1 is in the Container1. The Container1 has a Object1 in it. Inside the Container1 is a Object1. ## B.1.4 All Paraphrases Of Personx Moved The Object1 To The Container1. PersonX moved the Object1 to the Container1. PersonX relocated the Object1 to the Container1. PersonX transferred the Object1 to the Container1. PersonX shifted the Object1 to the Container1. PersonX placed the Object1 in the Container1. PersonX set the Object1 in the Container1. PersonX put the Object1 in the Container1. PersonX stowed the Object1 in the Container1. PersonX stored the Object1 in the Container1. PersonX hid the Object1 in the Container1. PersonX shoved the Object1 into the Container1. PersonX pushed the Object1 to the Container1. PersonX carried the Object1 to the Container1. PersonX conveyed the Object1 to the Container1. PersonX led the Object1 to the Container1. PersonX transported the Object1 to the Container1. PersonX brought the Object1 to the Container1. PersonX took the Object1 to the Container1. ## B.1.5 All Paraphrases Of Personx Is In The Roomy. PersonX is in the RoomY. PersonX is inside the RoomY. PersonX is located in the RoomY. PersonX is situated in the RoomY. PersonX is present in the RoomY. PersonX is to be found in the RoomY. PersonX is contained in the RoomY. The RoomY holds PersonX. The RoomY shelters PersonX. ## B.1.6 All Paraphrases Of Positive Distractor Sentences PersonX has a bad case of Object1 fever. PersonX is Object1 crazy. PersonX is Object1-crazed. PersonX is Object1-obsessed. PersonX is a Object1 fiend. PersonX is a Object1 maniac. PersonX is a Object1-aholic. PersonX is always thirsty for a Object1. PersonX is besotted with the Object1. PersonX is captivated by the Object1. PersonX is charmed by the Object1. PersonX is crazy about the Object1. PersonX is crazy for the Object1. PersonX is eager for the Object1. PersonX is enamored with the Object1. PersonX is enthusiastic about the Object1. PersonX is entranced by the Object1. PersonX is fascinated by the Object1. PersonX is fond of the Object1. PersonX is in love with the Object1. PersonX is infatuated with the Object1. PersonX is keen on the Object1. PersonX is mad about the Object1. PersonX is never seen without a Object1. PersonX is nuts about the Object1. PersonX is smitten with the Object1. PersonX is spellbound by the Object1. PersonX is taken with the Object1. PersonX is wild about the Object1. PersonX loves to drink from a Object1. PersonX would do anything for a Object1. ## B.1.7 All Paraphrases Of Positive Negative Sentences (Personx Hates Objecty) PersonX hates Object1. PersonX can't stand the Object1. PersonX despises the Object1. PersonX detests the Object1. PersonX is annoyed by the Object1. PersonX is bothered by the Object1. PersonX is concerned by the Object1. PersonX is disconcerted by the Object1. PersonX is discouraged by the Object1. PersonX is disgusted by the Object1. PersonX is disheartened by the Object1. PersonX is disquieted by the Object1. PersonX is grieved by the Object1. PersonX is horrified by the Object1. PersonX is irritated by the Object1. PersonX is offended by the Object1. PersonX is pained by the Object1. PersonX is repelled by the Object1. PersonX is revolted by the Object1. PersonX is scandalized by the Object1. PersonX is shocked by the Object1. PersonX is sorrowful by the Object1. PersonX is terrified by the Object1. PersonX is troubled by the Object1. PersonX is vexed by the Object1. PersonX loathes the Object1. The Object1 horrifies PersonX. The Object1 is abhorrent to PersonX. The Object1 nauseates PersonX. The Object1 offends PersonX. The Object1 repulses PersonX. The Object1 revolts PersonX. The Object1 scandalizes PersonX. The Object1 shocks PersonX. The Object1 sickens PersonX. The Object1 terrifies PersonX. The Object1 turns PersonX's stomach. ## B.2 Structure Of Story Structure Robustness Test Sets B.2.1 Double Room False-Belief Episode person1 entered the room1. person2 entered the room1. The object1 is in the container1. The container1 is in the room1. person2 exited the room1. person1 moved the object1 to the container2. The container2 is in the room1. person1 exited the room1. person2 entered the room2. person1 entered the room2. The object2 is in the container3. The container3 is in the room2. person1 exited the room2. person2 moved the object2 to the container4. The container4 is in the room2. person2 exited the room2. ## B.2.2 Three Active Characters Story person1 entered the room1. person2 entered the room1. person3 entered the room1. The object1 is in the container1. The container1 is in the room1. person2 exited the room1. person1 moved the object1 to the container2. The container2 is in the room1. person1 exited the room1. person3 moved the object1 to the container3. The container3 is in the room1. person3 exited the room1. ## B.2.3 True-Belief Interaction, Falsified By Unwitnessed Third-Person Story person1 entered the room1. person2 entered the room1. The object1 is in the container1. The container1 is in the room1. person1 moved the object1 to the container2. The container2 is in the room1. person2 exited the room1. person1 exited the room1. person3 entered the room1. person3 moved the object1 to the container1. ## B.2.4 Four Containers With Multiple Movements person1 is in the room1. The object1 is in the container1. The container1 is in the room1. person1 moved the object1 to the container2. The container2 is in the room1. person2 entered the room1. person1 exited the room1. person2 moved the object1 to the container3. The container3 is in the room1. person2 moved the object1 to the container4. The container4 is in the room1. ## C Expanded Results Experimental Note: All zero-shot GPT3 (text-curie-001 and text-davinci-002) experiments were performed between November 2022 and January 2023. GPT3.5 (gpt-3.5-turbo) and GPT4 (gpt-4) were added in May 2023. ## C.1 Ablating Filterbasedonq**Uestion** From S**Ymbolic**Tom FILTERBASEDONQUESTION **definition** This function filters the story S′to obtain an even shorter subset of the original story S′′ by only keeping edges where at least one of the endpoints represents an entity mentioned in the question. Last step of Algorithm 1 is applying FIL-TERBASEDONQUESTION, which yields an even shorter story to feed language models. We evaluate the effect this final filter has on the final performances reported by SYMBOLICTOM. FILTERBASEDONQUESTION has a positive effect on Macaw-3B, GPT3, Flan-T5-XXL, and LLaMA-7B (+7, +3.5, +12.8, and +15 points in average accuracy gain across all question types), and a mild negative one on Flan-T5-XL, and GPT4 (-5.3, and -4 points of accuracy on average). See Table 7 for all differences between executing SYM-BOLICTOM using this final filtering or not. Figure 7 visually represents the accuracy of all models by  question type. Regardless of the final filter application, GPT4+SYMBOLICTOM significantly outperforms out-of-the-box GPT4 in all four ToM question types and maintains performance on Reality and Memory questions. For Flan-T5-XL, FlanT5-XL+SYMBOLICTOM outperforms Flan-T5-XL significantly in all four ToM question types (e.g. +76 and +36 points in accuracy for first and secondorder false belief questions), and shows slight declines for Reality and Memory questions—in line with findings on the full algorithm, but with less stark declines, suggesting that having more entities may help reduce bias towards answering rooms instead of containers. See Table 6 for the full table of accuracy differences. Regardless of the final filtering application, SYMBOLICTOM shows improvements in theory of mind questions for all models. We only find the filter application to be relevant to beat the base model in theory of mind questions for Flan-T5-XXL. ## C.2 Third-Order Theory Of Mind Evaluation We ask all third-order theory of mind questions for each D2 story, such as "Where does p1 think that p2 thinks that p1 will search for the o1?". Questions involving p2 will have a final answer c1, since everyone saw p2 leaving. We ask all six possible  | Off-the-shelf models Macaw-3B | 13 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Flan-T5-XL | 32 | | Flan-T5-XXL | 62 | | GPT3-Curie | 28 | | GPT3-Davinci | 19 | | GPT3.5 | 8 | | GPT4 | 26 | | LLaMA-7B | 22 | | LLaMA-13B | 39 | | SYMBOLICTOM + Off-the-shelf models Macaw-3B 85 (+72) Flan-T5-XL 97 (+65) Flan-T5-XXL 100 (+38) GPT3-Curie 89 (+61) GPT3-Davinci 90 (+71) GPT3.5 100 (+91) GPT4 100 (+73) LLaMA-7B 90 (+68) LLaMA-13B 95 (+57) Supervised models TTT 52 Finetuned GPT3 76 | | questions involving p2. We also ask the two thirdorder theory of mind questions that do not involve p2 nor repeats the same person twice consecutively ("Where does p1 think that p3 thinks that p1 will search for the o1?" and "Where does p3 think that p1 thinks that p3 will search for the o1?"), totaling eight questions per D2 story. Table 4 shows results for all models using k = 2 representations (same depth as in the main paper). Using SYMBOLICTOM significantly outperforms the supervised baselines and yields dramatic improvements with respect to using the LLMs offthe-shelf. We hypothesize that although the task theoretically requires k = 3, the second-order theory of mind representation already helps models avoid attending to parts of the story that are inaccessible to relevant characters. C.3 Alternative RESULTINGS**TATE**  RESULTINGSTATE(s) refers to the state of the world after s has been performed. For example, if "Oliver moved the apple to the box", then the resulting state is that "The apple is in the box". If "Oliver exited the bedroom", the resulting state would be that "Oliver is no longer in the bedroom". These are the relationships that we may insert in a context graph—actions are instantaneous and do not reflect an observable state. In this section, we explore using the same LLM for implementing RESULTINGSTATE as well as the final inference. In the main text, we use Davinci for all non-GPT3-based models. We find GPT3 to be among the most reliable to answer the resulting state of a given action in a zero-shot (Davinci) or two-shot (Curie) manner. Similarly, GPT3.5 and GPT4 perform well zeroshot: for experiments, we use GPT3.5 zero-shot and GPT4 two-shot to improve the resulting phrasing stability. Additional exploration shows that although FlanT5 models perform worse zero-shot than GPT models, they are capable of performing this task with more careful prompting. Figure 8 shows the results after nine-shot prompting Flan-T5-XL and elevenshot prompting Flan-T5-XXL. Our explorations show that LLaMA models require fewer demonstrations than the Flan-T5 models to compute the resulting state: we observe highly reliable results when using six-shot prompting for LLaMA-7B, and seven-shot prompting for LLaMA-13B. Accuracy using LLaMA was even higher than when using GPT3. ## C.4 Detailed Result Tables All results in the appendix show accuracy as a ratio (between 0 and 1). For simplicity of reading, in the main text, they are referred to in percentages (values 0 to 100, higher is better). Figures 5, 6, and 7 show performances when applying the final filtering function, when not applying it, and the difference in performance between the two, respectively. | 1st TB | 1st FB | 2nd TB | 2nd FB | Reality | Memory | | |----------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | Macaw-3B | 0.86 [0.50] | 0.79 [0.33] | 0.86 [0.34] | 0.84 [0.17] | 0.10 [0.14] | 0.95 [0.91] | | GPT3-Curie | 0.77 [0.42] | 0.82 [0.35] | 0.73 [0.26] | 0.89 [0.26] | 0.61 [0.69] | 0.99 [0.86] | | GPT3-Davinci | 0.96 [0.75] | 0.96 [0.25] | 0.93 [0.14] | 0.90 [0.26] | 0.77 [0.86] | 0.98 [0.98] | | Flan-T5-XL | 0.98 [0.97] | 0.80 [0.18] | 0.98 [0.68] | 0.78 [0.56] | 0.73 [0.97] | 1.00 [1.00] | | Flan-T5-XXL | 0.98 [0.84] | 0.95 [0.67] | 1.00 [0.76] | 0.90 [0.39] | 0.13 [0.63] | 1.00 [1.00] | | LLaMA-7B | 0.82 [0.32] | 0.95 [0.66] | 0.66 [0.31] | 0.72 [0.41] | 0.87 [0.37] | 1.00 [0.83] | | LLaMA-13B | 0.82 [0.60] | 0.86 [0.67] | 0.70 [0.53] | 0.62 [0.77] | 0.87 [0.48] | 1.00 [0.90] | | GPT3.5 | 0.97 [0.76] | 0.95 [0.66] | 0.99 [0.02] | 0.87 [0.09] | 0.98 [1.00] | 0.99 [0.80] | | GPT4 | 0.98 [0.83] | 0.94 [0.73] | 0.98 [0.36] | 0.89 [0.64] | 0.94 [1.00] | 1.00 [1.00] | | Finetuned GPT3 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | | TTT-learned | 0.84 | 1.00 | 0.82 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 1.00 | Table 5: Performance per model and question using SYMBOLICTOM, with out-of-the-box performance shown in brackets (100 samples per question type). Bottom rows represent supervised baselines. Table 6: Performance per model and question using SYMBOLICTOM without FILTERBASEDONQUESTION, with out-of-the-box performance shown in brackets (100 samples per question type). Bottom rows represent supervised baselines. | 1st TB | 1st FB | 2nd TB | 2nd FB | Reality | Memory | | |----------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | Macaw-3B | 0.54 [0.50] | 0.86 [0.33] | 0.56 [0.34] | 0.88 [0.17] | 0.16 [0.14] | 0.98 [0.91] | | GPT3-Curie | 0.66 [0.42] | 0.79 [0.35] | 0.69 [0.26] | 0.87 [0.26] | 0.65 [0.69] | 0.94 [0.86] | | GPT3-Davinci | 0.94 [0.75] | 0.88 [0.25] | 0.90 [0.14] | 0.83 [0.26] | 0.83 [0.86] | 0.90 [0.98] | | Flan-T5-XL | 1.00 [0.97] | 0.94 [0.18] | 1.00 [0.68] | 0.92 [0.56] | 0.88 [0.97] | 0.85 [1.00] | | Flan-T5-XXL | 0.74 [0.84] | 0.69 [0.67] | 0.68 [0.76] | 0.64 [0.39] | 0.44 [0.63] | 1.00 [1.00] | | LLaMA-7B | 0.48 [0.32] | 0.95 [0.66] | 0.38 [0.31] | 0.98 [0.41] | 0.48 [0.37] | 0.84 [0.83] | | LLaMA-13B | 0.75 [0.60] | 0.96 [0.67] | 0.70 [0.53] | 0.96 [0.77] | 0.57 [0.48] | 0.89 [0.90] | | GPT3.5 | 0.99 [0.76] | 1.00 [0.66] | 1.00 [0.02] | 0.98 [0.09] | 0.98 [1.00] | 0.90 [0.80] | | GPT4 | 0.99 [0.83] | 1.00 [0.73] | 1.00 [0.36] | 0.98 [0.64] | 1.00 [1.00] | 1.00 [1.00] | | Finetuned GPT3 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | | TTT-learned | 0.84 | 1.00 | 0.82 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1st TB 1st FB 2nd TB 2nd FB Reality Memory Macaw-3B 0.32 -0.07 0.30 -0.04 -0.06 -0.03 GPT3-Curie 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.02 -0.04 0.05 GPT3-Davinci 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.07 -0.06 0.08 Flan-T5-XL -0.02 -0.14 -0.02 -0.14 -0.15 0.15 Flan-T5-XXL 0.24 0.26 0.32 0.26 -0.31 0.00 LLaMA-7B 0.34 0.00 0.28 -0.26 0.39 0.16 LLaMA-13B 0.07 -0.10 0.00 -0.34 0.30 0.11 GPT3.5 -0.02 -0.05 -0.01 -0.11 0.00 0.09 GPT4 -0.01 -0.06 -0.02 -0.09 -0.06 0.00 Table 7: Differences between accuracy of base models using SYMBOLICTOM with the final FILTERBASEDONQUES-TION filter, and without using the final filter. As shown in Table 5 and 6, both versions are still far superior to not using SYMBOLICTOM. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section "Limitations" after Conclusions but before the references, as required by ACL 2023 guidelines. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section "Ethics Statement" after Conclusions but before the references, as required by ACL 2023 guidelines. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract + Section 1 ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? GPT3-Davinci, for brainstorming paraphrases of sentences in Section 1 and Section 2. We later edited these paraphrases, but GPT3-Davinci gave interesting suggestions. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 1, Section 4, Section 5, Abstract. ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Artifact is an NLP research dataset. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 4 ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? The dataset is artificially generated. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 5 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5 ✗ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Model does not require training, it is inference-time only. ✗ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Model does not require training, it is inference-time only. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 5 ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Section 4 ✗ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Annotators are only used to contribute to a small comment and are not used in evaluating our method. ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank. ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank. ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank. ✗ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not necessary for the small-scale experiment ran.

gupta-etal-2023-dont

Don{'}t Retrain, Just Rewrite: Countering Adversarial Perturbations by Rewriting Text

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.781

Can language models transform inputs to protect text classifiers against adversarial attacks? In this work, we present ATINTER, a model that intercepts and learns to rewrite adversarial inputs to make them non-adversarial for a downstream text classifier. Our experiments on four datasets and five attack mechanisms reveal that ATINTER is effective at providing better adversarial robustness than existing defense approaches, without compromising task accuracy. For example, on sentiment classification using the SST-2 dataset, our method improves the adversarial accuracy over the best existing defense approach by more than 4{\%} with a smaller decrease in task accuracy (0.5 {\%} vs 2.5{\%}). Moreover, we show that ATINTER generalizes across multiple downstream tasks and classifiers without having to explicitly retrain it for those settings. For example, we find that when ATINTER is trained to remove adversarial perturbations for the sentiment classification task on the SST-2 dataset, it even transfers to a semantically different task of news classification (on AGNews) and improves the adversarial robustness by more than 10{\%}.

# Don'T Retrain, Just Rewrite: Countering Adversarial Perturbations By Rewriting Text Ashim Gupta1∗, Carter Wood Blum2**, Temma Choji**2, Yingjie Fei2, Shalin Shah2**, Alakananda Vempala**2, Vivek Srikumar1 1University of Utah, 2Bloomberg, {ashim, svivek}@cs.utah.edu, {szhang611, cblum18, yfei29, sshah804, tchoji, avempala}@bloomberg.net ## Abstract Can language models transform inputs to protect text classifiers against adversarial attacks? In this work, we present ATINTER, a model that intercepts and learns to rewrite adversarial inputs to make them non-adversarial for a downstream text classifier. Our experiments on four datasets and five attack mechanisms reveal that ATINTER is effective at providing better adversarial robustness than existing defense approaches, without compromising task accuracy. For example, on sentiment classification using the SST-2 dataset, our method improves the adversarial accuracy over the best existing defense approach by more than 4% with a smaller decrease in task accuracy (0.5 % vs. 2.5%). Moreover, we show that ATINTER generalizes across multiple downstream tasks and classifiers without having to explicitly retrain it for those settings. For example, we find that when ATINTER is trained to remove adversarial perturbations for the sentiment classification task on the SST-2 dataset, it even transfers to a semantically different task of news classification (on AGNews) and improves the adversarial robustness by more than 10%. ## 1 Introduction Neural models in NLP have been shown to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks both during training time (Gu et al., 2017; Wallace et al., 2019, 2021; Chen et al., 2021) and at deployment (Ebrahimi et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2020; Garg and Ramakrishnan, 2020a). The attacks of the latter type aim to craft adversarial inputs by introducing small, imperceptible perturbations in the input text that erroneously change the output label of a classification model. Defending against such attacks is important because it ensures the integrity and reliability of NLP systems. If undefended, for example, an attacker could adversarially manipulate a spam email to evade a spam detector. ∗Work done during internship at Bloomberg An ideal defense mechanism against such adversarial attacks should maintain good task performance on non-adversarial inputs, effectively mitigate adversarial attacks, and be transferable to other models and datasets. The transferability of defenses is a valuable property because it allows easy application to new and unknown models without retraining the underlying classification model. This is particularly useful when complete access to the model is not possible; for example when the model is accessed through an API. Most existing methods do not satisfy these desiderata, typically lacking in one or more desired properties. For example, the methods that use input randomization like SAFER (Ye et al., 2020) and Sample Shielding (Rusert and Srinivasan, 2022) significantly degrade task accuracies due to the smoothing and aggregation involved, and are thus ineffective defenses. Another set of methods— e.g., adversarial training (Jia and Liang, 2017; Ebrahimi et al., 2018) and SHIELD (Le et al., 2022)—require model retraining; while serving as effective defenses, they cannot be transferred to other models and datasets without retraining the classifier. In this work, we present a novel strategy for defending against adversarial attacks that satisfies the aforementioned desiderata. Our method—Adversarial Text **Inte**rceptor and Rewriter ( ATINTER)—is based on the intuition that automatically generated adversarial inputs can be undone by *learning* to manipulate the textual inputs instead of retraining the classification model. Specifically, we employ an encoder-decoder module that intercepts and rewrites the adversarial input to remove any adversarial perturbations before feeding it to the classifier1. Our method differs from existing input randomization approaches in that it does not rely on random word replacements 13981  or deletions to counteract adversarial changes. Instead, we employ a separate model that is explicitly trained to remove adversarial perturbations. One benefit of this strategy is that it dissociates the responsibility of ensuring adversarial robustness from the classification model and delegates it to an external module, the text rewriter. Consequently, the rewriter module serves as a pluggable component, enabling it to defend models that it was not explicitly trained to protect. Figure 1 demonstrates this scenario. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach using a T5 model (Raffel et al., 2020) as the general-purpose text rewriter, but our method is applicable to any transformer-based text generator/rewriter. Through extensive experimentation and comparison with existing methods, we show that ATINTER effectively removes adversarial perturbations, and consistently outperforms other defense approaches on several datasets for text classification. When used as a pluggable component, ATINTER exhibits good transferability to new models and datasets without the need for retraining (examples shown in fig. 1). Specifically, we find that this T5-based rewriter trained to remove adversarial perturbations for the sentiment classification task on the SST-2 dataset, also removes adversarial perturbations for a news classification model (on AGNews), increasing adversarial robustness by over 10%. In summary, our contributions are: 1. We propose a novel defense mechanism against adversarial attacks, called ATINTER that uses a text rewriter module, along with a simple strategy to train this module2. 2. We demonstrate its effectiveness on four benchmark datasets and five adversarial attacks. Compared with competitive baselines, our method substantially improves the adversarial robustness with a much smaller decrease in accuracy on non-adversarial inputs. 3. We show that ATINTER can be used as a pluggable module without retraining and that its ability to defend models is transferable to new models (e.g., BERT → RoBERTa) as well as new datasets (BERT on SST-2 → BERT on AGNews). ## 2 Related Work Adversarial Attacks Most adversarial attacks use heuristic-based search methods to substitute vulnerable parts of the input with carefully chosen adversarial text (Ebrahimi et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2020; Jia and Liang, 2017). These substitutions can be performed at the character-level (Gao et al., 2018; Belinkov and Bisk, 2018), word-level (Ren et al., 2019; Jin et al., 2020; Garg and Ramakrishnan, 2020b; Li et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021), or both (Li et al., 2018). Finally, while adversarial attacks show that NLP models are over-sensitive to small perturbations, NLP models have also been 2Code will be available at https://github.com/ bloomberg shown to be under-sensitive to certain perturbations like input reduction, etc. (Feng et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2021). We refer the reader to the detailed recent survey of Wang et al. (2022b). Defenses against Adversarial Attacks The typical strategies employed for defending text classification systems against adversarial attacks involve either retraining the classifiers using adversarial examples or incorporating randomized smoothing at the input stage to make robust predictions. The defenses of the former type involve *adversarial training* (Goodfellow et al., 2015; Alzantot et al., 2018), certified training (Jia et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2019), and other specialized training schemes (Le et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2022). While adversarial training lacks in effectiveness (Alzantot et al., 2018), the certification based methods are only applicable for a specific set of perturbations; e.g., Jia et al. (2019) restrict word substitutions to belong to a counter-fitted embedding space (Mrkšic´ et al., 2016). More recently, Le et al. (2022) proposed SHIELD, that trains a stochastic ensemble of experts by only *patching* the last layer of the BERT classifier. We use SHIELD, and adversarial training for comparison with our proposed method. On the other end of the spectrum are the models that do not retrain the classifier and instead use randomized smoothing techniques to enhance the robustness of the models (Cohen et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2019; Ye et al., 2020; Rusert and Srinivasan, 2022; Wang et al., 2022a). Ye et al. (2020) introduced a defense called SAFER, that significantly improves certified robustness by performing randomized substitutions using a synonym network. Rusert and Srinivasan (2022) proposed another randomization defense called Sample Shielding, which relies on making an ensemble of predictions on different random samples of the input text. One major drawback of utilizing randomizationbased techniques is that they may result in a significant decrease in task accuracies on non-adversarial inputs. To overcome this limitation, Bao et al. (2021) proposed ADFAR, which trains an anomaly detector for identifying adversarial examples and performs frequency-aware randomization only for the adversarial inputs. The authors observe that this scheme preserves adversarial robustness without sacrificing the task performance. We adopt ADFAR, Sample Shielding, and SAFER as the other set of baselines for our work.  ## 3 Learning To Remove Adversarial Perturbations As mentioned in section 2, most existing methods that operate on the textual input rely on randomization to remove any adversarial perturbations. We present a model that *learns* to remove these perturbations by rewriting the text. Although similar to paraphrasing in terms of the task interface, our goal is different; we focus on removing the perturbation instead of just preserving the meaning. The rest of this section formalizes this intuition. ## 3.1 Notation Given a sequence of tokens x, suppose we have a trained classifier with parameters θ, which maps x to the output label y from the label space Y as $$y=\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{y_{i}\in{\mathcal{Y}}}P_{\theta}(y_{i}|\mathbf{x})$$ When the classifier makes a correct prediction, y = y∗, the true label for that input. For a successful adversarial attack, the adversary takes the input sequence x and produces a perturbed variant ˆx by making a small change to x such that the prediction made by the model is incorrect: $$\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{y_{i}\in{\mathcal{Y}}}P_{\theta}(y_{i}|{\hat{\mathbf{x}}})\neq y^{*}$$ Additionally, the adversary ensures that the perturbation is *meaningful* and *imperceptible*. 3 Typically, this perturbation is achieved via an iterative process, during which the adversary 3Most attacks ensure this by enforcing constraints on the part-of-speech tags of the replaced words as well as maintaining the fluency through an LM perplexity score. makes incrementally small modifications to the input (Ebrahimi et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2020). Assume that the adversary makes k successive changes to the input taking the original input x to the final adversarial variant ˆxk, represented as follows $$\mathbf{x}\rightarrow\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{1}\rightarrow\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{2}\rightarrow\ldots\rightarrow\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{k}$$ To construct an adversarial input, the adversary selects perturbations such that the probability of the true label decreases after each successive modification until the required incorrect prediction is achieved. In other words, the adversary wants $$P_{\mathbf{\theta}}(y^{*}|\mathbf{x})>P_{\mathbf{\theta}}(y^{*}|\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{1})>\cdots>P_{\mathbf{\theta}}(y^{*}|\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{k})\tag{1}$$ In summary, given an input sequence x, an adversary keeps introducing small changes (x → ˆx1, etc.), each of which reduces the predicted probability of the correct label y∗. Figure 2 shows a visual representation of the adversarial process, which moves the example marked x to the wrong side of the decision boundary by following the red arrows. ## 3.2 Training The Text Rewriter As we saw in section 2, the most common strategy to counter such adversarial attacks is to retrain the model with new parameters θnew such that $$\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{y_{i}\in{\mathcal{Y}}}P_{\theta_{n e w}}(y_{i}|{\hat{\mathbf{x}}}_{k})=y^{*}$$ In this work, our objective is to keep the model parameters θ unchanged and instead manipulate the input x by rewriting it. To this end, we define ATINTER that intercepts and rewrites potentially adversarial inputs. ATINTER is a text-to-text transducer, which we will denote by Tϕ with its own trainable parameters ϕ. To effectively counteract adversarial inputs, the transformation function Tϕ, must transform the input x such that the task classifier makes the correct prediction on the transformed text: $$\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{y_{i}\in{\mathcal{Y}}}P_{\theta}(y_{i}|{\mathcal{T}}_{\phi}({\hat{\mathbf{x}}}_{k}))=y^{*}$$ We can guarantee this outcome by simply training Tϕ to ensure that Tϕ(ˆxk) = x. In other words, our goal is to learn a transformation function, Tϕ, that is capable of undoing or *reversing* the impact of adversarial modifications. However, merely training the rewriter to reverse the final step ˆxk may not be sufficient because ˆxk is produced through a series of small changes. Therefore, in addition to undoing ˆxk, the rewriter should also be able to reverse each intermediate step. This strategy is based on the intuition that each successive change made to the input x in constructing an adversarial input ˆxk is in itself adversarial; all intermediate changes decrease the probability of the true label and are thus undesirable (eq. (1)). Green curved arrows in fig. 2 show the task of the rewriter. Figure 3 in the appendix shows an example of this process. In summary, any adversarial modification made to the input at any stage should be reversed by ATINTER , i.e., $$T_{\phi}({\hat{\mathbf{x}}}_{i})=\mathbf{x},\forall i\in\{1,k\}$$ Tϕ(ˆxi) = x, ∀i ∈ {1, k} (2) Finally, on non-adversarial inputs, we do not need to make any changes, and the function Tϕ should therefore act as an identity function on these inputs: $\eqref{eq:walpha}$. $$T_{\phi}(\mathbf{x})=\mathbf{x},$$ Tϕ(x) = x (3) Training Details We use the T5 model (Raffel et al., 2020) as the starting point for our text rewriter ATINTER. Since we need adversarial examples to train our rewriter, we follow Bao et al. (2021) and choose TextFooler (Jin et al., 2020) for generating these examples on the whole training set. The training data for ATINTER consists of input-output pairs of the form (ˆxi, x): as described in eq. (2), for every adversarial modification ˆxi, including the ones with intermediate changes, and the original, unperturbed sequence x is the desired output. In addition, as per eq. (3), the training data also includes unperturbed examples of the form (x, x). Figure 4 shows an illustrative example. We train the base variant of the T5 model for 5 epochs with the starting learning rate of 5 × 10−5. More details on the hyperparameters are provided in the appendix appendix A.2. We use the Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) for our implementation. ## 4 Experimental Setup In this section, we will detail the datasets we use for our experiments, the baseline defense mechanisms, and the adversarial attacks they will be pitted against, and the three metrics we will use to compare the defense methods. ## 4.1 Datasets We evaluate our proposed defense on four text classification datasets. Stanford Sentiment Treebank (SST-2) The SST-2 dataset is used for sentiment classification (Socher | Dataset | # Avg. words | # Labels | Size | |-----------|----------------|------------|--------| | SST-2 | 9.4 | 2 | 68K | | MR | 21.6 | 2 | 11K | | AGNews | 44.1 | 4 | 127K | | MNLI | 33.9 | 3 | 433K | et al., 2013) among two labels: *positive*, and *negative*. We use the splits from the GLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2019); we use the validation set for reporting our results since the test set is not available publicly. Rotten Tomatoes Movie Reviews (MR, Pang and Lee, 2005) Similar to SST-2 task, the goal is to predict a movie review's sentiment (*positive* vs. negative). We use the official test set for evaluation. AG News (Zhang et al., 2015) This is a news classification dataset with four possible labels (*sports*, world, science/technology, *business*). The test set contains 7600 examples and since it can take a long time for robustness evaluation across all seven models and the five attackers, we randomly choose 1000 examples for our evaluation set. Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI, Williams et al., 2018) This is a standard dataset for Natural Language Inference (NLI) where the goal is to determine the inferential relation between a premise and a hypothesis. The dataset requires sentence-pair classification among three labels (entailment, *neutral*, and *contradiction*). Again, we sample 1000 instances from the validation-matched subset for evaluation. ## 4.2 Baselines And Adversarial Attacks Baselines We compare our model with a number of baselines: Adversarial Training (AT, Alzantot et al., 2018), SHIELD (Le et al., 2022), SAFER (Ye et al., 2020), SampleShielder (Rusert and Srinivasan, 2022), and ADFAR (Bao et al., 2021). SAFER and SampleShielder are input randomization methods, while AT, and SHIELD require model retraining. ADFAR requires retraining the model and also uses input randomization. We could not compare the results with DISP (Zhou et al., 2019) as we were not able to run their implementation. We have provided more details in the appendix appendix A. Adversarial Attacks We use the open source toolkit TextAttack (Morris et al., 2020a,b) to evaluate all models on five black-box adversarial attacks. TextFooler (Jin et al., 2020), PWWS (Ren et al., 2019), and BAE (Garg and Ramakrishnan, 2020b) attack at the word-level, DeepWordBug (DWB, Gao et al., 2018) attacks at the character-level, and TextBugger (Li et al., 2018) attacks at both word and character-level. TextFooler and PWWS use counter-fitted word embeddings (Mrkšic et al. ´ , 2016), while BAE uses the BERT as a masked language model (Devlin et al., 2019) to find the best word replacements. We provide an example of each of them in table 6 in the appendix. We perform our main experiments with a BERTbase classifier as the victim model with hyperparameters as suggested by Devlin et al. (2019). ## 4.3 Evaluation Evaluation Metrics We measure the quality of the defense methods using three metrics, namely Clean Accuracy (Clean Acc.), Adversarial Accuracy (AA), and Average number of queries (\#Q). Clean Accuracy is the accuracy of the model on clean non-adversarial inputs, measured on the original validation or test sets. A model that retains the clean accuracy of the original model is desirable. Adversarial Accuracy (AA) The Attack Success Rate (ASR) of an attack is the percentage of instances where the attack algorithm successfully constructs an adversarial example. A defense method that makes a model more robust results in a lower ASR. We report the Adversarial Accuracy of the defense methods, defined as 100 − ASR. Average Number of Queries (\#Q) is the measure of the cost for an attacker, and is the average number of forward passes (queries) to the model by the attacker. On average, a more robust defense method requires more queries. Evaluation Protocol The adversarial accuracy depends on the number of queries an attacker is allowed to perform - a lower query budget entails a higher AA. There is currently no established protocol for evaluating the adversarial robustness of text classification systems. In this study, we do not impose a restriction on the number of queries allowed to the attacker, resulting in the most challenging conditions for the defense methods. ## 5 Main Results Table 2 shows the results for the defense methods on all four datasets. Additionally, table 9 in the appendix summarizes the results in terms of average improvements for the five adversarial attacks. As observed from the table, our proposed method ATINTER provides a consistent and substantial improvement in terms of adversarial robustness over the baselines. We find that there is a trade-off between clean accuracy and adversarial robustness for all the models, aligning with the findings of Raghunathan et al. (2020). The results show that ATINTER maintains the highest level of clean accuracy on all datasets except MR, where SAFER improves it by more than 1%, but does so at the cost of making the model less robust. The most formidable baseline is ADFAR, which employs an anomaly detector to identify adversarial inputs and uses input randomization for handling adversarial instances. Our method substantially outperforms ADFAR on all settings except one. Furthermore, we observe that SampleShielder performs well on AGNews but not on other datasets. This can be attributed to the fact that SampleShielder randomly removes parts of the input before making a prediction. This is effective for tasks with longer inputs and simpler semantics (such as topic classification on AGNews), but does not work for others where removing parts of the input can alter the label. Additionally, while SampleShielder provides the best adversarial accuracies on the MNLI dataset, the clean accuracy is almost close to random. Our proposed model ATINTER on the other hand, provides the best balance between adversarial and clean accuracies. ## 5.1 Results Against Other Attack Types Several defense methods, including ours, utilize adversarial examples from one attack type to train their models. The true effectiveness of adversarial defenses is determined when they are tested against previously unseen adversarial attacks. Our evaluation using four other attacks, excluding TextFooler, accomplishes this. Each of these attacks differ from TextFooler in one or more aspects. For example, while TextFooler is a token-level attack, DeepWordBug (DWB) is a character-level attack. TextBugger, on the other hand, is a multi-level attack, capable of attacking at both token and character level. BAE replaces words uses a BERT MLM while TextFooler uses GloVe word embeddings. PWWS, in comparison, employs a different algorithm for token replacement. From table 2, we observe that, as compared to the baselines, ATINTER provides significant improvements in robustness against other attacks. Notably, while ATINTER is only trained against synonym substitutions from TextFooler, it is able to generalize to other attacks that operate at the character level. Lastly, the improvement against BAE is less than that against other attacks. We hypothesize that this is due to the fact that BAE employs a BERT language model for word replacements, which is different from the technique used by TextFooler. ## 5.2 Transferability To Other Classifiers As mentioned previously, one motivation for using a separate robustness module like ours is that it can be transferred to other text classification models without retraining the rewriter. We use ATINTER which was trained to remove adversarial perturbations for the BERT classifier on the SST-2 dataset and employ it, without retraining, to remove adversarial perturbations for other classifiers on the same dataset. We assess the transferability of ATINTER against three classifiers, namely: RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019), and ALBERT (Lan et al., 2019). The results for evaluation against TextFooler are presented in table 3. We observe that ATIN-TER is effective in enhancing adversarial robustness for models other than BERT. Importantly, this improvement is achieved without much drop in performance on the clean examples (< 1% in all cases). On average, ATINTER improves adversarial accuracy by 16.6% across the three models. Surprisingly, the improvement for the RoBERTa model is even more pronounced than that for the BERT model. We hypothesize that this transferability from ATINTER is due to two factors. First, adversarial attacks often result in similar adversarial changes, particularly for the same dataset. Second, previous research has demonstrated that adversarial examples transfer across classifiers for the same task (Papernot et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2017). ## 5.3 **Transferability To Other Tasks And Datasets** As explained in the previous section, ATINTER allows for its application to tasks and datasets for which it was not trained. We now assess the transferability of our method with respect to other tasks and datasets. We use the ATINTER trained | Dataset | Defense | Clean | TextFooler | TextBugger | BAE | PWWS | DWB | | | | | | |----------------|-----------|---------|--------------|--------------|-------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Acc. | AA | #Q | AA | #Q | AA | #Q | AA | #Q | AA | #Q | | | | None | 92.4 | 4.8 | 95.4 | 31.3 | 49.3 | 33.9 | 60.4 | 13.4 | 143.1 | 18.6 | 34.7 | | | AT | 88.4 | 5.7 | 91.6 | 23.1 | 46.3 | 34.6 | 61.8 | 13.2 | 139.4 | 10.1 | 32.3 | | | SHIELD | 88.8 | 6.6 | 90.9 | 25.1 | 51.4 | 28.5 | 61.3 | 13.6 | 137.1 | 9.7 | 33.2 | | | SAFER | 89.3 | 8.7 | 91.9 | 27.7 | 48.4 | 36.3 | 62.2 | 16.2 | 138.8 | 16.5 | 32.4 | | | SampleShielder | 76.8 | 6.6 | 97.1 | 25.7 | 58.4 | 28.8 | 66.2 | 17.7 | 143.8 | 17.5 | 36.2 | | | ADFAR | 89.9 | 19.5 | 115.4 | 29.3 | 58.1 | 37.1 | 68.7 | 20.9 | 142.7 | 22.8 | 36.1 | | | ATINTER | 92.0 | 24.0 | 136.7 | 40.5 | 54.3 | 34.2 | 60.4 | 22.9 | 150.1 | 25.3 | 38.0 | | | SST-2 | None | 84.2 | 10.7 | 117.7 | 37.3 | 56.1 | 38.4 | 64.4 | 18.7 | 150.0 | 22.3 | 40.5 | | AT | 84.2 | 11.3 | 118.6 | 34.3 | 54.8 | 35.9 | 65.8 | 19.2 | 151.1 | 18.1 | 38.2 | | | SHIELD | 82.1 | 12.1 | 98.7 | 22.3 | 60.8 | 27.4 | 65.6 | 18.2 | 141.7 | 18.7 | 37.2 | | | SAFER | 85.5 | 3.7 | 88.1 | 23.4 | 49.3 | 33.4 | 59.8 | 10.6 | 142.0 | 16.0 | 34.0 | | | SampleShielder | 76.2 | 12.1 | 105.5 | 26.5 | 58.2 | 27.3 | 61.7 | 21.4 | 150.7 | 24.3 | 39.7 | | | ADFAR | 82.4 | 17.5 | 120.5 | 26.0 | 59.6 | 31.4 | 65.5 | 23.0 | 148.8 | 22.6 | 38.2 | | | ATINTER | 84.3 | 21.1 | 140.2 | 45.7 | 61.0 | 38.6 | 65.8 | 26.4 | 154.2 | 32.5 | 43.6 | | | MR | None | 83.5 | 1.1 | 81.3 | 4.2 | 54.1 | 19.3 | 59.2 | 2.4 | 188.3 | 4.2 | 41.5 | | AT | 80.8 | 2.7 | 105.0 | 6.3 | 59.3 | 20.7 | 62.5 | 3.5 | 190.4 | 6.9 | 41.7 | | | SHIELD | 79.5 | 2.9 | 103.8 | 6.7 | 60.2 | 20.9 | 63.1 | 3.4 | 191.1 | 7.9 | 44.0 | | | SAFER | 78.0 | 1.7 | 101.3 | 10.3 | 58.8 | 24.5 | 62.9 | 5.3 | 196.7 | 8.3 | 44.1 | | | SampleShielder | 41.4 | 17.5 | 178.3 | 17.2 | 102.2 | 41.7 | 100.1 | 26.1 | 231.2 | 19.9 | 57.0 | | | ADFAR | 78.1 | 10.5 | 117.8 | 7.6 | 64.3 | 16.3 | 61.6 | 11.0 | 200.7 | 9.4 | 44.9 | | | ATINTER | 83.0 | 16.1 | 158.2 | 9.7 | 67.3 | 20.4 | 61.5 | 10.9 | 195.2 | 9.5 | 45.4 | | | MNLI | None | 94.9 | 18.2 | 334.1 | 47.7 | 180.9 | 84.8 | 116.8 | 43.2 | 353.0 | 38.9 | 110.1 | | AT | 94.1 | 19.1 | 379.2 | 49.1 | 189.7 | 83.4 | 117.1 | 44.1 | 355.6 | 39.7 | 114.2 | | | SHIELD | 92.4 | 20.1 | 385.3 | 51.7 | 190.9 | 81.8 | 114.4 | 44.9 | 359.4 | 39.7 | 112.4 | | | SAFER | 91.2 | 15.7 | 280.6 | 33.6 | 156.6 | 78.8 | 119.9 | 45.8 | 361.2 | 40.8 | 114.7 | | | SampleShielder | 90.8 | 52.6 | 425.6 | 56.7 | 216.9 | 84.4 | 119.5 | 49.8 | 365.4 | 41.6 | 115.4 | | | ADFAR | 92.4 | 58.3 | 422.2 | 52.5 | 245.1 | 79.7 | 136.3 | 45.9 | 368.4 | 47.1 | 115.8 | | | ATINTER | 94.7 | 73.0 | 520.0 | 63.9 | 222.9 | 87.3 | 123.5 | 63.9 | 375.2 | 49.7 | 117.3 | | | AGNews | | | | | | | | | | | | | Table 2: Results comparing model robustness using the clean accuracy (%) and adversarial accuracy (%) on the five adversarial attacks: None indicates the BERT model without any defense and therefore acts as a baseline model. Notably, our model ATINTER yields superior results across the board without significant drop in clean accuracy. | Clean Acc | Adv. Acc. | Clean Acc | Adv. Acc. | | | |-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|------|-----| | BERT | 92.4 | 4.8 | | | | | + ATINTER | 92.0 | 24.0 | | | | | RoBERTa | 94.1 | 5.0 | | | | | + ATINTER | 93.7 | 25.1 | | | | | DistilBERT | 90.0 | 2.9 | | | | | + ATINTER | 89.5 | 17.8 | | | | | ALBERT | 91.1 | 4.2 | | | | | + ATINTER | 90.4 | 19.0 | BERT-SST2 | 92.4 | 4.8 | | + ATINTER | 92.0 | 24.0 | | | | | MR | 84.2 | 10.7 | | | | | + ATINTER | 84.2 | 29.3 | | | | | AGNews | 94.2 | 18.2 | | | | | + ATINTER | 93.1 | 30.8 | | | | | MNLI | 83.5 | 1.1 | | | | | + ATINTER | 83.2 | 2.8 | | | | Table 4: Results comparing transferability of ATINTER to other tasks. The ATINTER trained for the BERT model on SST-2 dataset is evaluated for BERT classifiers on other datasets without retraining. | Model | Params. | Clean Acc | Avg. AA | |----------|-----------|-------------|-----------| | t5-small | 60M | 92.4 | 21.9 | | t5-base | 220M | 92.0 | 29.4 | | t5-large | 770M | 92.4 | 37.8 | | t5-3b | 3B | 92.1 | 45.9 | for sentiment classification on SST-2 using BERT and apply for the BERT model trained on other datasets. We perform this evaluation on three datasets, namely MR, AGNews, and MNLI. We present the results in the table 4. We find that our model ATINTER exhibits strong transferablity for other datasets. Again, as with previous results, we see only small drops in performance on non-adversarial inputs. The favorable results on the MR dataset shows that ATINTER effectively transfers for a different dataset of the same task. Note that the improvement in adversarial accuracy for MR is even higher than a model that is specifically trained for removing adversarial perturbations for the MR dataset (see table 2). This is explained by the fact that the MR dataset is much smaller and thus the ATINTER trained on that dataset has fewer adversarial instances to learn from (10k vs. 67k). We notice more than 12% increase in adversarial accuracy on the AGNews dataset. This is perhaps most surprising, since not only the task is semantically different with different set of classes, but the domain of the dataset is also different (movies vs. news). On the MNLI dataset though, we notice only small improvement, perhaps because it is a semantically harder task. In summary, our proposed model ATINTER transfers across both models and datasets. This observation can motivate the training of a single rewriter module for all tasks and datasets. The benefits of such an approach are two-fold. First, since the defense capability transfers across models, a single shared model could be more robust than the individual ones. Second, having a single shared is more practical as it reduces the overhead in deployment of ATINTER. We leave the exploration of this shared rewriter approach to future work. ## 5.4 Effect Of The Model Size For all experiments in previous sections, we used the base variant of the T5 model for training ATINTER. We now investigate the effect of the size of the rewriter module on the adversarial robustness. For the SST-2 dataset, we train four variants of ATINTER with different sizes: t5-small, t5-base, t5-large, t5-3b. The results are shown in table 5. We observe that with increased size, the rewriter module defends the classification model more robustly. ## 5.5 Pre-Training The Rewriter One additional benefit of having a separate rewriter module is that we can pre-train the rewriter without using any task-specific datasets. We demonstrate this approach by artificially constructing a training corpus using the Wikipedia text. Specifically, we sample 100k sentences from the English Wikipedia and randomly substitute 15% of the words in each of those sentences with one of the neighbors from the GloVe embedding space (Pennington et al., 2014). The pre-training task for the rewriter is to simply *reverse* this perturbation by generating the original unperturbed sentence. Note that this setup is close to but does not perfectly simulate the actual adversarial attack scenario, as the perturbations used in the latter are chosen with greater precision. We observe that this pre-training improves the ATINTER by more than 2.5% in terms of adversarial accuracy without any significant decrease in clean accuracy. Due to space constraints, the results are shown in table 8 in the appendix . ## 5.6 Latency At Inference One limitation of our proposed strategy is that it utilizes two neural models to make predictions, hurting the overall inference time. We measure latency for each of the models by averaging their inference time over 200 examples (100 clean + 100 adversarial). We observe that ATINTER is slower than model retraining approaches (22.0 ms for SHIELD vs. 95 ms for ATINTER), while being faster or competitive with input randomization methods. SAFER is the slowest of all since it performs averaging over a large number of candidate synonyms. One possible approach to reduce inference time could be to use more efficient text generation models like non-autoregressive text generation (Gu et al., 2018). Moreover, a method based on textediting can also be promising (Malmi et al., 2022). We leave these explorations to the future work. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we explore a novel strategy to defend against textual adversarial attacks that does not require model retraining. Our proposed model, ATINTER intercepts and rewrites adversarial inputs to make them non-adversarial for a downstream text classifier. We perform experiments on four text classification datasets and test its effectiveness against five adversarial attacks. The results suggest that, in comparison with baselines, our proposed approach is not only more effective against adversarial attacks but is also better at preserving the task accuracies. Moreover, when used as a pluggable module, ATINTER shows great transferability to new models and datasets—on three new datasets, it improves adversarial accuracy by 10.9% on average. We expect the future work to focus on improving inference time latency by using more sophisticated text generation methods. ## 7 Limitations This work is subject to two limitations. First, our experiments were restricted to text classification tasks and we did not evaluate if our methods can effectively defend against adversarial attacks for other tasks like QA, etc. (Jia and Liang, 2017). It therefore remains unexplored if our conclusions transfer beyond the text classification tasks. Second, the primary contribution of our work, ATINTER relies on using a language model like T5, which is trained on large amount of text in English. It is possible that our approach is not as effective for languages where such a model is not freely available. Additionally, in this work, we did not explore the impact of large language model pretraining on our results. ## 8 Ethical Considerations This work is concerned with protecting or defending against adversarial attacks on text classification systems. For modeling, our method ATINTER uses another neural network based language model T5 (Raffel et al., 2020). This means the ATINTER can itself be attacked by an adversary. We believe that attacking a pipelined model such as ATINTER is not straightforward for the following two reasons. First, performing an adversarial attack on a model typically requires access to output scores from that model. Since ATINTER is used in a pipeline with a task classifier, the attacker can never get access to ATINTER's output scores. This adds an additional layer of complexity for the adversary. Second, targeted adversarial attacks on sequence-to-sequence models (such as ATINTER) are much less prominent and it is generally more difficult to make small alterations in the input without forcing a more significant change in the textual output (Cheng et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020). Nevertheless, we have not explored this possibility and therefore recommend practitioners interested in using this work to carefully check for this. Additionally, the experiments were only performed on four text classification datasets. Although we expect our method to be effective for other classification tasks like Toxicity detection, Hate Speech identification, but considering the sensitive nature of these applications, we urge the practitioners to first comprehensively evaluate our work on those tasks before deploying in a real world scenario. For all our experiments, we used pre-established and published datasets, which do not pose any serious ethical concerns. For transparency and reproduciblity, we will make our code publicly available. ## Acknowledgements The authors thank Bloomberg's AI Engineering team, especially Umut Topkara and Anju Kambadur for helpful feedback and directions. We would also like to thank members of the Utah NLP group for their valuable insights, and the reviewers for their helpful feedback. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grants \#1801446, \#1822877, \#2007398 and \#2217154. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. ## References Moustafa Alzantot, Yash Sharma, Ahmed Elgohary, Bo-Jhang Ho, Mani Srivastava, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Generating natural language adversarial examples. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2890–2896, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rongzhou Bao, Jiayi Wang, and Hai Zhao. 2021. Defending pre-trained language models from adversarial word substitution without performance sacrifice. In *Findings of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 3248–3258, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yonatan Belinkov and Yonatan Bisk. 2018. Synthetic and natural noise both break neural machine translation. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Yangyi Chen, Fanchao Qi, Hongcheng Gao, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Textual backdoor attacks can be more harmful via two simple tricks. Minhao Cheng, Jinfeng Yi, Pin-Yu Chen, Huan Zhang, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2020. Seq2sick: Evaluating the robustness of sequence-to-sequence models with adversarial examples. In *Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence*, volume 34, pages 3601–3608. Jeremy Cohen, Elan Rosenfeld, and Zico Kolter. 2019. Certified adversarial robustness via randomized smoothing. In *International Conference on Machine* Learning, pages 1310–1320. PMLR. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2018. HotFlip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 31–36, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shi Feng, Eric Wallace, Alvin Grissom II, Mohit Iyyer, Pedro Rodriguez, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2018. Pathologies of neural models make interpretations difficult. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3719–3728, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ji Gao, Jack Lanchantin, Mary Lou Soffa, and Yanjun Qi. 2018. Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers. In 2018 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), pages 50–56. IEEE. Siddhant Garg and Goutham Ramakrishnan. 2020a. BAE: BERT-based adversarial examples for text classification. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6174–6181, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Siddhant Garg and Goutham Ramakrishnan. 2020b. Bae: Bert-based adversarial examples for text classification. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.01970*. Ian Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Jiatao Gu, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, Victor OK Li, and Richard Socher. 2018. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Tianyu Gu, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt, and Siddharth Garg. 2017. Badnets: Identifying vulnerabilities in the machine learning model supply chain. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1708.06733. Ashim Gupta, Giorgi Kvernadze, and Vivek Srikumar. 2021. Bert & family eat word salad: Experiments with text understanding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12946–12954. Po-Sen Huang, Robert Stanforth, Johannes Welbl, Chris Dyer, Dani Yogatama, Sven Gowal, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham, and Pushmeet Kohli. 2019. Achieving verified robustness to symbol substitutions via interval bound propagation. In *Proceedings of the* 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4083–4093, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In *Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2021–2031, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robin Jia, Aditi Raghunathan, Kerem Göksel, and Percy Liang. 2019. Certified robustness to adversarial word substitutions. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference* on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4129–4142, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lan Jiang, Hao Zhou, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Rui Jiang. 2022. Rose: Robust selective finetuning for pre-trained language models. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2210.09658. Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is bert really robust? a strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In *Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence*, volume 34, pages 8018–8025. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2019. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1909.11942. Thai Le, Noseong Park, and Dongwon Lee. 2022. SHIELD: Defending textual neural networks against multiple black-box adversarial attacks with stochastic multi-expert patcher. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6661– 6674, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jinfeng Li, Shouling Ji, Tianyu Du, Bo Li, and Ting Wang. 2018. Textbugger: Generating adversarial text against real-world applications. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1812.05271. Linyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue, and Xipeng Qiu. 2020. BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial attack against BERT using BERT. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6193–6202, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yanpei Liu, Xinyun Chen, Chang Liu, and Dawn Song. 2017. Delving into transferable adversarial examples and black-box attacks. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Eric Malmi, Yue Dong, Jonathan Mallinson, Aleksandr Chuklin, Jakub Adamek, Daniil Mirylenka, Felix Stahlberg, Sebastian Krause, Shankar Kumar, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2022. Text generation with textediting models. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Tutorial Abstracts*, pages 1–7, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. John Morris, Eli Lifland, Jin Yong Yoo, Jake Grigsby, Di Jin, and Yanjun Qi. 2020a. Textattack: A framework for adversarial attacks, data augmentation, and adversarial training in nlp. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 119–126. John X Morris, Eli Lifland, Jack Lanchantin, Yangfeng Ji, and Yanjun Qi. 2020b. Reevaluating adversarial examples in natural language. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2004.14174. Nikola Mrkšic, Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha, Blaise Thomson, ´ Milica Gašic, Lina M. Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, ´ David Vandyke, Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Steve Young. 2016. Counter-fitting word vectors to linguistic constraints. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 142–148, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'05), pages 115–124, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, and Ian Goodfellow. 2016. Transferability in machine learning: from phenomena to black-box attacks using adversarial samples. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07277*. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In *Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)*, pages 1532–1543, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21:1– 67. Aditi Raghunathan, Sang Michael Xie, Fanny Yang, John Duchi, and Percy Liang. 2020. Understanding and mitigating the tradeoff between robustness and accuracy. In *International Conference on Machine* Learning, pages 7909–7919. PMLR. Shuhuai Ren, Yihe Deng, Kun He, and Wanxiang Che. 2019. Generating natural language adversarial examples through probability weighted word saliency. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1085– 1097, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonathan Rusert and Padmini Srinivasan. 2022. Don't sweat the small stuff, classify the rest: Sample shielding to protect text classifiers against adversarial attacks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2716–2725, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1910.01108. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In *Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 1631–1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Samson Tan, Shafiq Joty, Min-Yen Kan, and Richard Socher. 2020. It's morphin' time! Combating linguistic discrimination with inflectional perturbations. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 2920– 2935, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Nikhil Kandpal, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2019. Universal adversarial triggers for attacking and analyzing NLP. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2153–2162, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Eric Wallace, Tony Zhao, Shi Feng, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Concealed data poisoning attacks on NLP models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 139–150, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In the Proceedings of ICLR. Jiayi Wang, Rongzhou Bao, Zhuosheng Zhang, and Hai Zhao. 2022a. Distinguishing non-natural from natural adversarial samples for more robust pre-trained language model. In *Findings of the Association for* Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 905– 915, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xuezhi Wang, Haohan Wang, and Diyi Yang. 2022b. Measure and improve robustness in NLP models: A survey. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4569–4586, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112–1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mao Ye, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. 2020. SAFER: A structure-free approach for certified robustness to adversarial word substitutions. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 3465– 3475, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 28. Xinze Zhang, Junzhe Zhang, Zhenhua Chen, and Kun He. 2021. Crafting adversarial examples for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1967–1977, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yi Zhou, Xiaoqing Zheng, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Kai-Wei Chang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2021. Defense against synonym substitution-based adversarial attacks via Dirichlet neighborhood ensemble. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5482–5492, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yichao Zhou, Jyun-Yu Jiang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Wei Wang. 2019. Learning to discriminate perturbations for blocking adversarial attacks in text classification. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4904– 4913, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Appendix A.1 Implementation Details SHIELD We find that SHIELD is very sensitive to the τ hyperparameter involved. There is a strong trade-off between the clean accuracy and adversarial robustness for the change in τ . For reporting the results, we try four values of | Attack | Type | Can humans | Example | |--------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | identify it? | | | | | TextFooler | word-level | NO | Org: The child is at the beach. Adv: The youngster is at the shore. | | TextBugger | char-level, | YES | Org: I love these awful 80's summer camp movies. | | word-level | Adv: I love these aw ful 80's summer camp movies. | | | | BAE | word-level | NO | Org: The government made a quick decision. Adv: The doctor made a quick decision. | | PWWS | word-level | NO | Org: E-mail scam targets police chief. Adv: E-mail scam targets police headman. | | DeepWord | char-level | YES | Org: Subject: breaking news. would you ref inance ... Adv: sujbect woulg yuo hvae an [OOV] ... | Table 6: **Summary of the black-box adversarial attacks**: Comparing the adversarial attacks we use in this work along with related information such as attach type, human perceptibility, and an example input for each attack. The third column indicates whether a human can easily identify if textual input was modified or not based on grammar syntax, semantics, and other language rules. | Model | # Params | Clean | TextFooler | TextBugger | BAE | PWWS | | | |----------|------------|---------|--------------|--------------|-------|--------|-------|-------| | Acc. | AA | AA | AA | AA | | | | | | t5-small | 60M | 92.43 | 11.29 | 31.39 | 33.62 | 15.51 | 17.49 | 21.86 | | t5-base | 220M | 91.97 | 23.96 | 40.52 | 34.16 | 23.06 | 25.31 | 29.40 | | t5-large | 770M | 92.43 | 31.14 | 50.99 | 36.85 | 30.4 | 39.45 | 37.77 | | t5-3b | 3B | 92.09 | 39.33 | 57.53 | 42.67 | 35.1 | 54.79 | 45.88 | Table 7: Detailed Results with different sizes of the ATINTER. AA stands for Adversarial Accuracy. The results shown here are for the SST-2 dataset and the BERT classifier. τ = [1.0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001] and report the results for the model that retains the accuracy the most. SAFER Since SAFER is an input randomization method, the default implementation provides different results for different runs, although we do not see any substantial change in numbers. For reporting clean accuracy, we average it with the numbers obtained with each of the five attacks. Additionally, since SAFER aggregates predictions by considering a large number of candidates for random synonym replacements for each word it decides to perturb, we found it is not practical to run with number of candidates equal to 100 (used in the original implementation). Therefore, we report the numbers with n = 30 in this paper. ADFAR The official ADFAR implementation 4 only provides instructions to reproduce results for MR dataset (more specifically for tasks with single input classification and with only two possible labels). We, therefore, modify the codebase to make it work for AGNews –that has four classes, and MNLI, where the task is sentence-pair classification. We will release our modified codebase for ADFAR for the community to reproduce these results. DISP We were not able to run the open-sourced implementation of DISP during our experiments 5. We experimented with several different versions of both PyTorch and the transformers libraries but were still unsuccessful. More details can be found at a github issue we created at: 6. ## A.2 Hyperparameters For Training Atinter We list here the hyperparameters we used for training our model. 1. Learning Rate: We found that the learning rate of 5e-5 works best. We performed the learning rate search over the set [1e-5, 5e-5, 1e-6, 5e-6]. Also, we find the best learning rate for the SST-2 dataset and use the same for other datasets. | Model | Clean Acc | Adv. Acc. | |-----------------------------|-------------|-------------| | ADFAR (Bao et al., 2021) | 89.9 | 19.5 | | ATINTER (pre-training only) | 92.3 | 9.6 | | ATINTER (SST-2) | 92.0 | 24.0 | | + pre-training | 91.9 | 26.5 | Table 8: Effect of Pretraining ATINTER using wikipedia sentences. Results shown for the SST-2 dataset. fit the GPU (for example on the 16GB V100), we use gradient accumulation to have the effective batch size of 16. We did not perform any hyperparameter search for batch size due to computational reasons. 3. Sequence Length: Since examples in the SST2 and MR datasets are smaller, we used the source and target side sequence lengths to both be 128. For AGNews, we use the sequence length of 512 and for MNLI, we use 256. 4. Number of epochs: For all our models (except that involve wiki pre-training), we used 5 epochs. For the pre-training setup, we used 10 epochs. For training t5-3b, we needed to use DeepSpeed 7for our experiments. ## A.3 Reproducibility Details Dataset Splits We use the dataset splits from the Huggingface datasets repository. 8. For datasets where we use a subsample of the test set, we use the random seed 1 to first shuffle and then evaluate on first 1000 instances. Hardware We run most of our experiments using the Nvidia V100 (32 GB) GPU. Some of the later experiments with T5-3b required even larger GPU RAM and therefore, I was able to use Tesla A100 (40 GB VRAM) for last few experiments. Additionally, the servers had CPU: AMD EPYC 7513 32-Core Processor with CPU RAM 512 GB.   | Defense | SST-2 | MR | MNLI | AGNews | | | | | |----------------|---------|-------|--------|----------|-------|-------|------|------| | Clean | Adv. | Clean | Adv. | Clean | Adv. | Clean | Adv. | | | Acc. | Acc. | Acc. | Acc. | Acc. | Acc. | Acc. | Acc. | | | AT | -4.0 | -4.0 | 0.0 | -1.5 | -2.7 | 1.8 | -0.7 | -1.0 | | SHIELD | -3.6 | -3.7 | -2.1 | -5.1 | -4.0 | 1.9 | -2.5 | 1.2 | | SAFER | -3.1 | 0.3 | 1.3 | -6.5 | -5.5 | 3.8 | -3.7 | -4.2 | | SampleShielder | -15.6 | -1.4 | -8.0 | -3.6 | -42.1 | - | -4.1 | 9.4 | | ADFAR | -2.5 | 4.2 | -1.8 | -1.4 | -5.4 | 4.7 | -2.7 | 10.2 | | ATINTER | -0.4 | 7.4 | 0.1 | 6.2 | -0.5 | 6.3 | -0.2 | 21.9 | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7, Section 5.6 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 8 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4, 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 5.4, Appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 3.2, Appendix C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Not applicable. Left blank. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. Left blank. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

wang-etal-2023-aggregating

Aggregating Multiple Heuristic Signals as Supervision for Unsupervised Automated Essay Scoring

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.782

Automated Essay Scoring (AES) aims to evaluate the quality score for input essays. In this work, we propose a novel unsupervised AES approach ULRA, which does not require groundtruth scores of essays for training. The core idea of our ULRA is to use multiple heuristic quality signals as the pseudo-groundtruth, and then train a neural AES model by learning from the aggregation of these quality signals. To aggregate these inconsistent quality signals into a unified supervision, we view the AES task as a ranking problem, and design a special Deep Pairwise Rank Aggregation (DPRA) loss for training. In the DPRA loss, we set a learnable confidence weight for each signal to address the conflicts among signals, and train the neural AES model in a pairwise way to disentangle the cascade effect among partial-order pairs. Experiments on eight prompts of ASPA dataset show that ULRA achieves the state-of-the-art performance compared with previous unsupervised methods in terms of both transductive and inductive settings. Further, our approach achieves comparable performance with many existing domain-adapted supervised models, showing the effectiveness of ULRA. The code is available at \url{https://github.com/tenvence/ulra}.

# Aggregating Multiple Heuristic Signals As Supervision For Unsupervised Automated Essay Scoring Cong Wang, Zhiwei Jiang∗**, Yafeng Yin, Zifeng Cheng, Shiping Ge, Qing Gu** State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China cw@smail.nju.edu.cn, {jzw,yafeng}@nju.edu.cn, {chengzf,shipingge}@smail.nju.edu.cn, guq@nju.edu.cn ## Abstract Automated Essay Scoring (AES) aims to evaluate the quality score for input essays. In this work, we propose a novel unsupervised AES approach ULRA, which does not require groundtruth scores of essays for training. The core idea of our ULRA is to use multiple heuristic quality signals as the pseudo-groundtruth, and then train a neural AES model by learning from the aggregation of these quality signals. To aggregate these inconsistent quality signals into a unified supervision, we view the AES task as a ranking problem, and design a special Deep Pairwise Rank Aggregation (DPRA) loss for training. In the DPRA loss, we set a learnable confidence weight for each signal to address the conflicts among signals, and train the neural AES model in a pairwise way to disentangle the cascade effect among partialorder pairs. Experiments on eight prompts of ASPA dataset show that ULRA achieves the state-of-the-art performance compared with previous unsupervised methods in terms of both transductive and inductive settings. Further, our approach achieves comparable performance with many existing domain-adapted supervised models, showing the effectiveness of ULRA. The code is available at https: //github.com/tenvence/ulra. ## 1 Introduction Automated Essay Scoring (AES) that aims to score the writing quality of essays without human intervention, is an important application of natural language processing in education. State-of-the-art AES models are typically trained in a supervised way with large labeled corpora, comprising essays and their groundtruth quality scores (Cozma et al., 2018; Ke and Ng, 2019; Kumar et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). However, collecting labeled essays is time-consuming and labor-intensive, especially for essays written specific to new prompts and when there is no professional scoring staff available. ∗ Corresponding author. Unsupervised AES can get rid of the requirement of groundtruth scores for training, and thus has significant potential in both scientific research and practical applications. Its importance can be summarized in three key aspects: 1) Unsupervised AES models can handle special scenarios that lack labeling resource, such as the absence of professional scoring staff, the need for rapid essay scoring without timely labeled data, or the cold start scoring of an AES system without historical labeled data; 2) Unsupervised AES models can serve as pseudo-label generators or validators for essay scoring based on semi-supervised learning, few-shot learning, or transfer learning; 3) In practical writing tests, unsupervised AES models can rapidly provide a preliminary decision-making basis for scoring staff prior to scoring. Early work tackles unsupervised AES by using the clustering method (Chen et al., 2010). To solve the problem of *unordered* clusters (i.e., cannot map clusters to ordinal scores), Chen et al. (2010) propose to use a heuristic quality signal the number of unique term in essay as the initial score of each essay, and then iteratively propagate the scores to other essays in the same cluster. However, such unsupervised clustering process is *uncontrollable* (i.e., there is no guarantee that clusters are generated towards to essay quality). Recently, researchers propose to use a heuristic quality signal *word count* as the weak supervision to train a neural AES model (Zhang and Litman, 2021). However, they demonstrate that directly regressing the predicted score to a real-valued quality signal (i.e., word count) leads to poor performance. The above unsupervised AES methods provide a good idea that heuristic quality signals can be used as an alternative of groundtruth scores for model training, but have two major drawbacks. 1) Signal values are too noisy to be directly regressed to. Considering that the quality signal and groundtruth score may have completely different values but sim13999 ilar partial orders, it is better to utilize the partial orders in signal rather than the values. 2) Single signal is too weak to provide good supervision. Since a single quality signal cannot comprehensively describe the quality of essay, more quality signals should be introduced to bring stronger and more robust crowdsourcing-like supervision. To this end, we propose a novel framework for Unsupervised AES by Learning from Rank Aggregation (ULRA). The core idea of our ULRA is to introduce multiple heuristic quality signals as the pseudo-groundtruth, and then train a neural AES model by learning from the aggregation of these quality signals. Specifically, our ULRA contains a Heuristic Essay Ranking (HER) module which views each signal as a ranking metric to generate multiple rank lists, and a Deep Pairwise Rank Aggregation (DPRA) module which can aggregate the inconsistent quality signals for model training. In the HER module, we introduce three types of classic quality signals for essay ranking. In the DPRA module, we set a learnable confidence weight for each signal to address the conflicts among signals, and train the neural AES model in a pairwise way to disentangle the cascade effect among partial-order pairs. We conduct experiments on eight prompts of ASAP dataset, which demonstrate that our proposed ULRA significantly outperforms previous unsupervised methods, and can even achieve comparable performance to many existing domain-adapted supervised methods. ## 2 Related Work Automated Essay Scoring. Early supervised AES systems are developed with handcrafted features (Attali and Burstein, 2004; Phandi et al., 2015; Yannakoudakis et al., 2011). While with the development of deep learning, most of recent AES methods try to use neural model to solve the problem (Taghipour and Ng, 2016; Alikaniotis et al., 2016; Dong et al., 2017; Nadeem et al., 2019; Tay et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019; Uto et al., 2020). These methods are effective but labor-intensive for labeling. To reduce the reliance on labels, the generic method (Attali et al., 2010), cross-prompt methods (Cao et al., 2020; Dong et al., 2017; Jin et al., 2018), and one-shot method (Jiang et al., 2021) are proposed. For unsupervised AES setting, Chen et al. (2010) propose a voting algorithm that iteratively updates the scores by the heuristic quality signals. Zhang and Litman (2021) try to directly regress the predicted score to a real-valued quality signal, but achieve poor performance, because of the weak information of the quality feature. Overall, the effective unsupervised AES methods have not been widely explored. Rank Aggregation. Rank aggregation (RA) is to aggregate multiple ranked list (i.e. base rankers) into one single list (i.e. aggregated ranker), which is intended to be more reliable than the base rankers (Deng et al., 2014). Many prior work have been proposed to effectively and efficiently solve the RA problem. These works can be roughly divided into three categories, which are the permutation-based methods (Mallows, 1957; Qin et al., 2010), the matrix factorization methods (Gleich and Lim, 2011), and the score-based probabilistic methods (Bradley and Terry, 1952; Luce, 2012; Pfeiffer et al., 2012; Thurstone, 1927; Chen et al., 2013). The scorebased methods are gradually developed, which usually predicts a score for each object based on the base rankers, and obtains the aggregated ranker based on the scores. Bradley-Terry (BT) model (Bradley and Terry, 1952) is an early work that is instructive for the following researches. It is proposed to model a probabilistic relationship between objects, according to the achieved scores, which is suitable for pairwise comparison. Then, Thurstone model (Thurstone, 1927) extends the BT model by assuming that the score for each object has a Gaussian distribution. Another important extension is Crowd-BT (Chen et al., 2013) model, which assigns a learnable weight for each base ranker, and optimizes the scores and the weights by active learning and online learning. Crowd-BT achieves competitive performance on the task of reading difficulty ranking, and directly inspires our work. 3 Problem Definition We firstly introduce some notation and formalize the unsupervised AES problem. Let X = {xi} N i=1 be a set of essays which are written to a prompt, and Y = {1, 2, · · · , L} be the pre-defined scores. For unsupervised AES, we are given a set of unlabeled essays D = {xi} ND i=1 ⊆ X for model training. The purpose of unsupervised AES is to train a model Fθ with parameters θ to predict the score of each essay xi *∈ T ⊆ X* into the score set Y, by $${\hat{y}}_{i}=F_{\theta}(x_{i};{\mathcal{D}})\in{\mathcal{Y}}\,.$$ #### **odel** $F_{\alpha}$ is a row. In this paper, the model Fθ is a neural AES model, and we consider two settings of unsuper-  vised AES, transductive and inductive. For the transductive setting, the test set is just the training set T = D. For the inductive setting, the test set does not intersect the training set *T ∩ D* = ∅. ## 4 The Ulra Framework 4.1 An Overview Of Ulra Our ULRA framework involves two stages, model training and model inference. As shown in Figure 1, in the model training stage, the ULRA framework contains two modules: 1) **Heuristic Essay Ranking** module, which can generate partial-order pairs by ranking essays according to heuristic quality signals, and 2) **Deep Pairwise Rank Aggregation** module, which trains a neural AES model by aggregating the partial-order pairs derived from multiple quality signals into a unified supervision. In the model inference stage, considering that the essay scores predicted by the neural AES model may have a different range from the pre-defined score set Y, we propose a **Scoring Strategy** to transform the predicted scores given by the neural AES model into the range of the pre-defined score set. In addition, it should be noted that Figure 1 only shows the case of transductive setting, while for inductive setting, the trained neural AES model can be directly used to score unseen essays. ## 4.2 Heuristic Essay Ranking As illustrated in Figure 1, the heuristic essay ranking module contains three components: quality signals, essay ranking, and partial-order pairs generation. Among them, multiple classic quality signals are introduced to describe the quality of essays from different aspects. Each quality signal can then be used to rank essays according to signal values and generate a rank list. Finally, each rank list can be transformed into many partial-order pairs for later model training. Quality Signals. The quality signals are important to the ULRA framework, since it provides all supervision for model training. To obtain high-quality supervision, we investigate a lot of studies based on handcrafted quality signals (Lagakis and Demetriadis, 2021; Chen and He, 2013; Uto et al., 2020; Phandi et al., 2015). Considering that in practical unsupervised AES, there is no labeled data available as standard to select the most relevant signals, we just employ a set of quality signals designed in a classic work (Chen and He, 2013), which contains three aspects of signals, i.e., surface, preposition, and readability. In experiments, we find that not all of these signals are highly correlated with the groundtruth score. Moreover, for many of these signals, they may be highly correlated with the groundtruth score in one prompt but less correlated in other prompts. Such quality signals with unstable supervision pose great challenges for the robustness of model training. Essay Ranking. Compared with calculating the quality score of an essay based on its quality signals, it is easier to judge the relative quality of two essays based on their quality signals. Therefore, for each quality signal, we only reserve the partial-order relationship among essays by ranking the essays. Specifically, we rank the essays in a batch-wise way. Let B = {xi} NB i=1 denote an essay batch with NB essays, and R = {rk} K k=1 denote K heuristic quality signals. As shown in Figure 1, we can calculate each quality signal rk on each essay xito get a signal value gi,k = rk(xi), which can then be used for essay ranking. For the k-th quality signal, we can rank all essays xi based on their signal values gi,k to get a partial-order rank list xp1 ≻k *· · · ≻*k xpNB , where ≻k denotes the partial-order relation defined by the k-th quality signal and pj denotes the index of j-th essays in the rank list. Finally, we can get K rank lists {xp1 ≻k *· · · ≻*k xpNB} K k=1. Partial-Order Pairs Generation. Considering that only part of the partial-order information in each rank list is correct, we transform each rank list into a set of partial-order pairs, which allows the incorrect partial-order pairs to be corrected by other rank lists. Specifically, for a batch B, each rank list can be transformed into a total of NB(NB − 1)/2 partial-order pairs. Then, we can use a binary matrix with size of NB(NB − 1)/2 × K to record the transformed partial-order pairs, that is, $$\mathbf{M}=\left[\mathbbm{1}_{x_{i}\succ_{k}x_{j}}\right]^{\frac{N_{B}(N_{B}-1)}{2}\times K},\qquad\qquad(2)$$ where i ̸= j and 1 is an indicator function. M reflects the partial-order relationship between two essays in terms of different heuristic quality signals, and will be used as the supervision information to train the neural AES model in the next module. ## 4.3 Deep Pairwise Rank Aggregation This module mainly deals with how to address the inconsistent partial-order supervision from multiple quality signals, so that the neural AES model can learn how to judge the partial-order relationship of essay quality. To address this problem, we design a deep pairwise rank aggregation loss, which set a learnable confidence weight for each signal to measure the importance of each signal. Neural AES Model. We denote the neural AES model as Fθ(·) with learnable parameters θ. By feeding an essay xiinto the model, we can get the predicted score si = Fθ(xi) ∈ R (not the final score) for the essay xi. The neural AES model consists of two components, an essay encoder which maps the essay into an essay embedding, and a fully-connected (fc) layer which maps the embedding into a predicted score. Confidence Weight. Considering that two signals may provide opposite partial order for an essay pair, we expect to measure which one is more trustworthy. Therefore, we set a learnable confidence weight ηk for the k-th quality signal to measure its confidence. The learnable weight ηk can be defined as the probability that the partial-order information in the k-th rank list agrees with the groundtruth score. Inspired by Crowd-BT (Chen et al., 2013), we formalize ηk as $$\eta_{k}\equiv\mathrm{P}\left(x_{i}\succ_{k}x_{j}\mid x_{i}\succ x_{j}\right)\;,$$ $$(3)$$ where xi ≻k xj and xi ≻ xj denote the partialorder relationship between two essays in the k-th rank list and the ground truth score, respectively. In ULRA, ηk is generated by applying sigmoid function on learnable parameters W = {c1 · · · , cK}, $$\eta_{k}=\operatorname{sigmoid}(c_{k})\in[0,1]\;,$$ $$(4)$$ where ck is a learnable parameter and is optimized with model parameter θ together. Deep Pairwise Rank Aggregation Loss. Based on the partial-order pairs derived from multiple signals and the confidence weight corresponding to each signal, we can define a special Deep Pairwise Rank Aggregation (DPRA) loss for model training. Specifically, given an essay pair (xi, xj ), we can use the neural AES model to get their predicted scores si and sj , respectively. Inspired by the Bradley-Terry model for paired comparisons (Bradley and Terry, 1952), we can define the predicted probability of xi ≻ xj as $$\mathrm{P}\left(x_{i}\succ x_{j}\right)=\mathrm{sigmoid}\left(s_{i}-s_{j}\right)\ .$$ $$({\boldsymbol{5}})$$ If si ≫ sj , P(xi ≻ xj ) tends to be 1; If si ≪ sj , P(xi ≻ xj ) tends to be 0; While si = sj , P(xi ≻ xj ) = 0.5. To further get the predicted probability of the partial-order pair xi ≻k xj generated by the k-th 14002 Algorithm 1: The Scoring Process of ULRA Input: A set of unlabeled essays *D ⊆ X*  Rank essays based on each signal; Generate partial-order pairs from rank lists; ▷ *Deep Pairwise Rank Aggregation*; for *each partial-order pair* do Predict probability of partial-order pair; Calculate the pairwise loss by Eq.7; end Optimize the neural AES model by Eq.8; end end ▷ **Inference**: scoring essays by trained neural model; for *each essay in* T do ▷ Here T can just be D; Predict score of essay by the neural AES model; end Get final scores for all essays by the scoring strategy; return all final scores; quality signal, we can make use of the confidence weights and apply the law of total probability as $$\succ x_{j})\cdot\operatorname{P}(x_{i}\succ x_{j})$$ P(xi ≻k xj ) =P(xi ≻k xj | xi ≻ xj ) · P(xi ≻ xj ) + P(xi ≻k xj | xi ≺ xj ) · P(xi ≺ xj ) =P(xi ≻k xj | xi ≻ xj ) · P(xi ≻ xj ) + P(xj ≺k xi| xj ≻ xi) · P(xi ≺ xj ) =ηk · P(xi ≻ xj ) + (1 − ηk) · P(xi ≺ xj ) . (6) Here, P(xi ≻k xj ) is the predicted probability of xi ≻k xj , the label of which is 1xi≻kxj . Then, the loss function for si, sj , and ηk can be formulated as a negative log likelihood loss, which is $$\mathbf{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})=-1x_{i}\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\nabla}}}x_{j}\mathbf{\Phi}$$ L(si, sj , ηk) = −1xi≻kxj log P(xi ≻k xj ) . (7) For each essay batch B, a set of NB(NB − 1)/2 partial-order pairs are obtained, which is denoted as SB. Based on the supervision of M, the loss function can be formulated as $$\mathcal{L}=\sum_{(x_{i},x_{j})\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{B}}}\sum_{k=1}^{K}-\mathbf{M}_{(i,j),k}\cdot\log\mathrm{P}(x_{i}\succ_{k}x_{j}).\tag{8}$$ ## 4.4 Scoring Strategy Considering that the range of predicted score is not constrained during training process, the predicted score can be any real number. Therefore, we should | Prompt | Numbers of Essays | Genre | Average Length | Score Range | |----------|---------------------|---------|------------------|---------------| | 1 | 1783 | ARG | 350 | [2, 12] | | 2 | 1800 | ARG | 350 | [1, 6] | | 3 | 1726 | RES | 150 | [0, 3] | | 4 | 1772 | RES | 150 | [0, 3] | | 5 | 1805 | RES | 150 | [0, 4] | | 6 | 1800 | RES | 150 | [0, 4] | | 7 | 1569 | NAR | 250 | [0, 30] | | 8 | 723 | NAR | 650 | [0, 60] | | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | CH | .414 | .399 | .244 | .409 | .267 | .212 | .225 | .413 | | W | .437 | .432 | .261 | .401 | .300 | .208 | .253 | .330 | | CO | .140 | .195 | .115 | .180 | .111 | .121 | .073 | .144 | | UW | .314 | .375 | .394 | .471 | .344 | .323 | .294 | .221 | | NNP | .204 | .294 | .168 | .223 | .255 | .161 | .131 | .064 | | DT | .287 | .351 | .223 | .371 | .198 | .182 | .163 | .291 | | NN | .256 | .298 | .217 | .422 | .253 | .164 | .231 | .339 | | RB | .221 | .251 | .207 | .198 | .248 | .217 | .151 | .166 | | JJ | .217 | .373 | .184 | .269 | .228 | .232 | .179 | .228 | | IN | .305 | .320 | .214 | .353 | .227 | .190 | .223 | .382 | | GF | .179 | .202 | .253 | .304 | .258 | .194 | .152 | .168 | | SMOG | .387 | .398 | .243 | .413 | .271 | .204 | .228 | .418 | | RIX | .366 | .433 | .236 | .404 | .269 | .216 | .215 | .416 | | DC | .425 | .437 | .260 | .404 | .302 | .204 | .256 | .321 | | WT | .469 | .536 | .370 | .449 | .375 | .308 | .295 | .458 | | S | .179 | .202 | .253 | .304 | .258 | .194 | .152 | .168 | | LW | .237 | .319 | .197 | .379 | .223 | .178 | .141 | .284 | | CW | .165 | .325 | .170 | .309 | .220 | .157 | .094 | .146 | | NBW | .282 | .324 | .243 | .367 | .230 | .188 | .194 | .181 | | DW | .169 | .186 | .226 | .428 | .212 | .272 | .122 | .141 | cast the predicted score si of an essay xiinto the range of the pre-defined score set Y = {1, · · · , L} to get the final scores yˆi ∈ Y. Here, we can get the final score yˆi of xi by min-max transformation h(L − 1) si−min(s1,··· ,sN ) max(s1,··· ,sN )−min(s1,··· ,sN ) i+ 1. $$\,\,\,z_{i}\succ_{k}x_{j})\,\,.$$ ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Dataset And Evaluation Metric Experiments are conducted on the Automated Student Assessment Prize1(ASAP) dataset, which is widely used for the AES task. A total of 12,978 essays in ASAP are divided into 8 different sets, each of which corresponds to a prompt. The statistics of the dataset is shown in Table 1. Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) is adopted to be the evaluation metric. Specifically, given a score set Y = {1, · · · , L}, QWK is calculated to measure the automated predicted scores (Rater A) 1https://www.kaggle.com/c/asap-aes Setting Method P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Avg. One-Shot TGOD (Jiang et al., 2021) .772 .581 .690 .725 .776 .691 .766 .505 .688 Mean of the 20 quality signals .283 .333 .234 .353 .253 .206 .189 .264 .264 Maximum of the 20 quality signals .469 .536 .394 .471 .375 .323 .295 .458 .415 Signal Clustering (Chen et al., 2010) .355 .386 .370 .446 .509 .425 .428 .334 .407 Signal Clustering w/ averaged signal as supervision .393 .408 .383 .480 .500 .425 .470 .354 .427 Signal Clustering w/ averaged output as prediction .405 .413 .384 .498 .509 .435 .473 .370 .436 Signal Clustering w/ aggregated signal as supervision .359 .425 .404 .466 .535 .461 .465 .371 .436 Signal Clustering w/ aggregated output as prediction .363 .419 .397 .467 .544 .464 .467 .379 .438 Signal Regression (Zhang and Litman, 2021) .224 .321 .264 .404 .301 .441 .292 .353 .325 Signal Regression w/ averaged signal as supervision .232 .326 .271 .415 .303 .451 .304 .368 .334 Signal Regression w/ averaged output as prediction .249 .342 .289 .430 .311 .470 .316 .374 .348 Signal Regression w/ aggregated signal as supervision .246 .342 .263 .434 .309 .454 .304 .349 .338 Signal Regression w/ aggregated output as prediction .256 .344 .284 .451 .333 .496 .341 .345 .356 Signal Aggregation (Chen et al., 2013) .435 .480 .454 .608 .452 .439 .489 .218 .455 ULRA (Ours) .757 .621 .547 .628 .664 .562 .694 .450 .615 | Unsupervised | |----------------| Table 3: **Transductive** performance (QWK) of all comparison methods under 8 prompts of ASAP dataset. The best measures of the unsupervised methods are in **bold**. Setting Method P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Avg. BLRR (Phandi et al., 2015) .761 .606 .621 .742 .784 .775 .730 .617 .705 CNN-LSTM-Att (Dong et al., 2017) .822 .682 .672 .814 .803 .811 .801 .705 .764 TSLF (Liu et al., 2019) .852 .736 .731 .801 .823 .792 .762 .684 .773 HA-LSTM (Cao et al., 2020) .828 .718 .711 .787 .808 .814 .786 .734 .773 R 2**BERT** (Yang et al., 2020) .817 .719 .698 .845 .841 .847 .839 .744 .794 (Uto et al., 2020) .852 .651 .804 .888 .885 .817 .864 .645 .801 Cross-Prompt**CNN-LSTM-Att** (Dong et al., 2017) .592 .553 .666 .680 .690 .656 .640 .565 .630 HA-LSTM (Cao et al., 2020) .633 .545 .685 .683 .729 .629 .281 .436 .578 BERT (Cao et al., 2020) .661 .669 .651 .698 .709 .599 .725 .574 .661 Mean of the 20 quality signals .320 .408 .285 .419 .262 .296 .305 .272 .320 Maximum of the 20 quality signals .511 .606 .420 .549 .368 .464 .427 .444 .474 Signal Regression (Zhang and Litman, 2021) .244 .309 .216 .338 .234 .189 .151 .247 .241 Signal Regression w/ averaged signal as supervision .253 .328 .219 .355 .247 .183 .162 .248 .249 Signal Regression w/ averaged output as prediction .269 .341 .213 .364 .239 .193 .180 .248 .256 Signal Regression w/ aggregated signal as supervision .252 .314 .239 .351 .246 .198 .167 .271 .255 Signal Regression w/ aggregated output as prediction .258 .319 .250 .365 .248 .216 .191 .300 .268 ULRA (Ours) .759 .508 .608 .644 .711 .577 .661 .446 .614 | R | |-------------------------| | Supervised Unsupervised | and the resolved human scores (Rater B), $$\kappa=1-{\frac{\sum_{i,j}w_{i,j}\cdot O_{i,j}}{\sum_{i,j}w_{i,j}\cdot E_{i,j}}}$$ $$(9)$$ where wi,j = (i − j) 2/(L − 1)2is the difference between scores of the raters, O is an L-by-L histogram matrix, Oi,j is the number of essays that received a score i by Rater A and a score j by Rater B, and E is the normalized outer product between each rater's histogram vector of scores. ## 5.2 Implementation Details Quality Signals Setting. The employed 20 quality signals, which are commonly used in some earlier work (Chen and He, 2013; Uto et al., 2020; Phandi et al., 2015), fall into following three categories: - **Surface Signals**: character number (CH), word number (W), commas number (CO), and number ## Of Unique Words (Uw); - **Preposition Signals**: number of noun-plural words (NNP), number of determiner words (DT), number of noun-singular words (NN), number of adverb words (RB), number of adjective words (JJ), and number of preposition/subordinatingconjunction words (IN); - **Readability Signals**: Gunning Fog (GF) index (Gunning, 1969), SMOG index (Mc Laughlin, 1969), RIX (Anderson, 1983), Dale-Chall (DC) index (Dale and Chall, 1948), wordtype number (WT), sentence number (S), number of long words (LW), number of complex words (CW), number of non-basic words (NBW), and number of difficult words (DW). In Table 2, we demonstrate QWK between each signal and the groundtruth of each prompt. It indicates that single quality signal carry noisy partial-order | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | Avg. | | |------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|--------|------| | Full Model | .757 | .621 | .547 | .628 | .664 | .562 | .694 | .450 | .615 | | − learnable ηk (fix ηk = 1) | .702 | .610 | .504 | .610 | .651 | .547 | .610 | .380 | .577 | | − pretrained neural model (using CNN-LSTM-Att) | .634 | .599 | .501 | .628 | .411 | .553 | .641 | .419 | .548 | | − pretrained neural model (using HA-LSTM) | .653 | .613 | .513 | .605 | .600 | .501 | .615 | .436 | .567 | | − neural model (all si are set as learnable parameters) | .432 | .481 | .451 | .519 | .600 | .450 | .484 | .213 | .454 | | − surface signals (preposition & readability signals) | .714 | .610 | .419 | .593 | .623 | .541 | .585 | .451 | .567 | | − preposition signals (surface & readability signals) | .694 | .584 | .504 | .613 | .649 | .515 | .643 | .451 | .582 | | − readability signals (surface & preposition signals) | .712 | .584 | .471 | .626 | .631 | .500 | .683 | .431 | .580 | | − preposition & readability signals (only surface signals) | .672 | .588 | .543 | .628 | .597 | .497 | .612 | .434 | .571 | | − surface & readability signals (only preposition signals) | .691 | .553 | .441 | .518 | .483 | .429 | .677 | .403 | .524 | | − surface & preposition signals (only readability signals) | .654 | .627 | .464 | .563 | .598 | .514 | .661 | .444 | .566 | | w/ averaged signal as supervision | .524 | .541 | .501 | .615 | .646 | .542 | .545 | .245 | .520 | | w/ averaged output as prediction | .536 | .542 | .519 | .621 | .632 | .561 | .553 | .270 | .529 | | w/ aggregated signal as supervision | .548 | .544 | .531 | .624 | .648 | .548 | .562 | .262 | .533 | | w/ aggregated output as prediction | .573 | .544 | .530 | .629 | .649 | .551 | .566 | .260 | .538 | information of groundtruth scores, which results in poor performance. Dataset Setting. For the transductive setting, the model is trained on the entire dataset (w/o labels), and is tested on the entire dataset, which means that all test essays have been *seen* during training. For the inductive setting, the dataset (w/o labels) is divided into the training set, the validation set, and the test set in a ratio of 6:2:2, which means that all test essays have not been *seen* during training. Due to the unsupervised setting, the validation set is useless and therefore discarded for ULRA. Model Setting. The model is implemented by PyTroch (Paszke et al., 2019) and Higgingface Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) libraries. BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) with pretained parameters bert-base-uncased is adopted as the essay encoder, whose hidden size is 712. The essay embedding is achieved by mean-pooling the token embeddings of BERT output. The fc layer of the neural AES model maps the essay embeddings into scalars. Each confidence weight ηk is initialized as 0.9. Training. AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) is adopted as the optimizer, whose weight decay is set as 5e-4. The learning rates for the neural AES model and all ηk are 5e-5 and 5e-2, respectively. The batch size is set as 32. Our model is trained for 30 epochs, and the model which achieves minimum loss is selected to report the results. ## 5.3 Comparison Methods We mainly compare our method with previous unsupervised AES methods, Signal Clustering (Chen et al., 2010) and Signal Regression (Zhang and Litman, 2021). Considering that they only employ one quality signal as supervision, we extend them by introducing the 20 signals we used into their method. Four variants are tested: (1) *averaged signal as supervision*, (2) *averaged output as prediction*, (3) *aggregated signal as supervision*, and (4) *aggregated* output as prediction. Here, *aggregated* means that multiple rank lists are aggregated into one rank lists based on a rank aggregation algorithm (Chen et al., 2013). We also list two additional baselines, which directly apply the mean and maximum of the 20 quality signals as the predicted scores, respectively. Moreover, we list the performance of several stateof-the-art supervised methods (including general supervised, cross-prompt, and one-shot). ## 5.4 Performance Comparison We can find that ULRA outperforms all unsupervised methods with a large improvement, and achieves the average QWK of 0.615 and 0.614 under transductive (Table 3) and inductive (Table 4) settings, respectively. It indicates that ULRA can perform well on both *seen* and *unseen* essay sets. Compared with the cross-prompt and one-shot methods, we can find that ULRA achieves competitive performance, which is only 0.047 and 0.073 lower than that of the cross-prompt and one-shot methods, respectively. By observing the general supervised methods, we can find that the performance of ULRA is still much lower than theirs, due to the lack of strong supervision. But on some prompts, ULRA achieves comparable performance with the handcrafted features-based supervised method BLRR (e.g., prompt 1 and 3). By observing the variants of two unsupervised methods, we can find that both unsupervised methods achieve improvements after introducing 20   quality signals. Among the four variants, two *aggregated* variants outperform two *averaged* variants. It indicates that the aggregation operation is better than the averaging operation, no matter as supervision or as prediction. ## 5.5 Ablation Study We firstly study the effect of confidence weight ηk and neural model on the performance. As shown in Table 5, by replacing learnable ηk with fixed ηk = 1, the performance drops a lot. It indicates that the learnable ηk can address conflicts among inconsistent signals. The performance also drops a lot when using the non-pretrained encoder, or directly setting the essay scores si as learnable parameters. It indicates that a good essay encoder can make full use of the textual information of essays to improve scoring performance. We then study the effect of signals on the performance by removing some types of signals from supervision. As show in Table 5, the performance drops by about 0.02 after removing one type, and continues to drop after further removing another one. It indicates that all three types of quality signals are useful for model training. We finally study the effect of using the four vari- | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | |--------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------------|-------| | Transductive | .7438 | .6855 | .6677 | .7813 | .5365 | .6033 .8360 | .8932 | | Inductive | .7442 | .6659 | .6052 | .7994 | .5681 | .6259 .8254 | .9007 | ants on the performance. As shown in Table 5, using the same 20 signals, aggregating signals during training (i.e., ULRA) is superior to aggregating before training (i.e., *averaged/aggregated signal as supervision*) or during inference (i.e., *averaged/aggregated output as prediction*). ## 5.6 Model Analysis Effect of More Unlabeled Essays. We study the impact of varying the number of unlabeled essays on the performance of ULRA, i.e., whether our ULRA requires numerous unlabeled essays to achieve a good enough performance. To this end, we vary the ratio of essays for training from 0.2 to 1.0 step by 0.2. As shown in Figure 2(a), we can find that the lines show a trend that goes up first and then keeps stable after the ratio about 0.6. It indicates that about 60% of unlabeled essays are sufficient to train a good enough ULRA model. Effect of More Training Pairs. We study the impact of varying the number of training pairs on the performance of ULRA, i.e., whether our ULRA framework can benefit from more training pairs. To this end, we vary the batch size from 2 to 32, so that the number of training pairs in a batch will accordingly vary from 1 to 496. As shown in Figure 2(b), we can find that all the lines show a trend that goes up. It indicates that a larger number of training pairs can lead to better performance. Effect of Weak Signals. We study the impact of weak signals (i.e., low correlation with groundtruth | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | Avg. | | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|--------|------| | G | .840 | .693 | .688 | .730 | .807 | .704 | .730 | .610 | .725 | | N | .545 | .551 | .645 | .729 | .736 | .554 | .601 | .300 | .583 | | T | .576 | .595 | .631 | .727 | .742 | .553 | .673 | .346 | .605 | | U | .543 | .568 | .632 | .728 | .730 | .554 | .586 | .296 | .580 | | O | .757 | .621 | .547 | .628 | .664 | .562 | .694 | .450 | .615 | scores) on the performance of ULRA. To this end, we add additional 0 to 80 weak signal(s) to the 20 quality signals. Note that the details can be seen in Appendix A. As shown in Figure 2(c), we can find that almost all lines show an overall downward trend. It indicates that weak signals will weaken the supervision and thus reduce the model performance. However, when between 0 and 10, all lines do not go down too much, and some lines even go up (e.g. prompt 1, 3, and 4). It indicates that ULRA is robust to weak signals if the weak signals are not yet dominant the signal set. Effect of More Signals. We study the impact of the number of employed signals on the performance of ULRA, assuming that these signals have similar correlations with the groundtruth scores. To this end, we conduct experiments based on the best-N quality signals and the worst-N quality signals, according to QWKs with the groundtruth scores which are shown in Table 2. By varying N from 1 to 10, as shown in Figure 3, we can find that all the lines of best-N and most lines of worst-N show an upward trend. It indicates that more signals can often lead to better performance. By comparing the lines of best-N (with blue color) and worst-N (with red color), we can find that in most prompts, the performance differences between best-N and worst-N decrease with the growth of N. This may be because that more signals can help better address conflicts among signals, and therefore achieve more robust performance. Effect of Confidence Weights. We study the impact of the learnable confident weights in ULRA. To this end, we calculate the Spearman's correlation coefficient the learned confidence weights and the corresponding QWKs listed in Table 2 under each prompt. As shown in Table 6, we can find that they are highly correlated under both transductive and inductive settings, which indicate that the learned confidence weights can indeed reflect the | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | Avg. | | | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|--------|------|------| | T | G | .674 | .789 | .998 | .999 | .922 | .897 | .812 | .585 | .835 | | O | .757 | .621 | .547 | .628 | .664 | .562 | .694 | .450 | .615 | | | I | G | .635 | .610 | .567 | .842 | .713 | .769 | .717 | .448 | .663 | | O | .759 | .508 | .608 | .644 | .711 | .577 | .661 | .446 | .614 | | ## Confidences Of Quality Signals. Effect of Different Scoring Strategies. We study the impact of different scoring strategies on the performance of ULRA. To this end, we test other four scoring strategies, which conduct score transformation based on predefined distributions. These distributions include groundtruth distribution (G), normal distribution (N), triangle distribution (T), and uniform distribution (U). Note that the details can be seen in Appendix B. As shown in Table 7, we can find that our scoring strategy outperforms all strategies except for the strategy based on groundtruth distribution. It indicates that our scoring strategy can adaptively learn the score distribution and ULRA can achieve better performance once the distribution of groundtruth score is known. Groundtruth as Signal. In our ULRA framework, the applied 20 heuristic quality signals contain the information about score ranking, but also noise. We want to explore how the model would perform if the input signal contains no noise at all. Therefore, we conduct experiments by feeding the groundtruth scores as the signal in our ULRA. As shown in Table 8, the average QWK of our ULRA is 0.220 and 0.049 lower than which applies the groundtruth scores under the transductive and inductive settings. It indicates that the signals with less noise can help model to achieve better performance. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we aim to perform essay scoring under the unsupervised setting. To this end, we propose a novel ULRA framework to train a neural AES model by aggregating the partial-order knowledge contained in multiple heuristic quality signals. To address the conflicts among different signals and get a unified supervision, we design a deep pairwise rank aggregation loss for model training. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of ULRA for unsupervised essay scoring. ## Limitations Although our ULRA outperforms all unsupervised baseline methods, there are still some limitations. The first limitation is that there is still a gap between the performance of our unsupervised method and that of some supervised methods. Although our ULRA can complete the AES task without label annotations, it is still worth exploring an unsupervised AES method whose performance is comparable to the state-of-the-art supervised method. The second limitation is that the essay encoder which adopted in our ULRA (i.e., BERT) is pretrained on the English-based corpora, and the essays for training is also written by English. Thus, our ULRA works mostly for English, which means a well-trained ULRA model may fail to perform well on the essays written by other languages. An unsupervised AES system which supports multiple languages needs to be further explored. The third limitation is that it requires about 25G GPU memory for training, which may fail on devices with small GPU memory. A possible solution is to set a smaller batch size, but this may take longer time. However, the evaluation process only requires about 2G GPU memory, which can run in most of GPU devices, or even CPU devices. ## Acknowledgements This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 61972192, 62172208, 61906085, 41972111. This work is partially supported by Collaborative Innovation Center of Novel Software Technology and Industrialization. ## References Dimitrios Alikaniotis, Helen Yannakoudakis, and Marek Rei. 2016. Automatic text scoring using neural networks. In *Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 715–725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonathan Anderson. 1983. Lix and rix: Variations on a little-known readability index. *Journal of Reading*, 26(6):490–496. Yigal Attali, Brent Bridgeman, and Catherine Trapani. 2010. Performance of a generic approach in automated essay scoring. *The Journal of Technology,* Learning and Assessment, 10(3). Yigal Attali and Jill Burstein. 2004. Automated essay scoring with e-rater® v. 2.0. *ETS Research Report* Series, 2004(2):i–21. Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E Terry. 1952. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons. *Biometrika*, 39(3/4):324– 345. Yue Cao, Hanqi Jin, Xiaojun Wan, and Zhiwei Yu. 2020. Domain-adaptive neural automated essay scoring. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 1011–1020. Hongbo Chen and Ben He. 2013. Automated essay scoring by maximizing human-machine agreement. In *Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 1741–1752, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xi Chen, Paul N Bennett, Kevyn Collins-Thompson, and Eric Horvitz. 2013. Pairwise ranking aggregation in a crowdsourced setting. In *Proceedings of the* sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, pages 193–202. Yen-Yu Chen, Chien-Liang Liu, Tao-Hsing Chang, and Chia-Hoang Lee. 2010. An unsupervised automated essay scoring system. IEEE Computer Architecture Letters, 25(05):61–67. Mad˘ alina Cozma, Andrei Butnaru, and Radu Tudor ˘ Ionescu. 2018. Automated essay scoring with string kernels and word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 503–509, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Edgar Dale and Jeanne S Chall. 1948. A formula for predicting readability: Instructions. *Educational research bulletin*, pages 37–54. Ke Deng, Simeng Han, Kate J Li, and Jun S Liu. 2014. Bayesian aggregation of order-based rank data. *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 109(507):1023–1039. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fei Dong, Yue Zhang, and Jie Yang. 2017. Attentionbased recurrent convolutional neural network for automatic essay scoring. In *Proceedings of the 21st* Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 153–162, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. David F Gleich and Lek-heng Lim. 2011. Rank aggregation via nuclear norm minimization. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 60– 68. Robert Gunning. 1969. The fog index after twenty years. Journal of Business Communication, 6(2):3–13. Zhiwei Jiang, Meng Liu, Yafeng Yin, Hua Yu, Zifeng Cheng, and Qing Gu. 2021. Learning from graph propagation via ordinal distillation for one-shot automated essay scoring. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 2347–2356. Cancan Jin, Ben He, Kai Hui, and Le Sun. 2018. TDNN: A two-stage deep neural network for promptindependent automated essay scoring. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1088–1097, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zixuan Ke and Vincent Ng. 2019. Automated essay scoring: A survey of the state of the art. In *Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19*, pages 6300–6308. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Rahul Kumar, Sandeep Mathias, Sriparna Saha, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2022. Many hands make light work: Using essay traits to automatically score essays. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1485–1495, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Paraskevas Lagakis and Stavros Demetriadis. 2021. Automated essay scoring: A review of the field. In *2021* International Conference on Computer, Information and Telecommunication Systems (CITS), pages 1–6. IEEE. Jiawei Liu, Yang Xu, and Yaguang Zhu. 2019. Automated essay scoring based on two-stage learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07744. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101. R Duncan Luce. 2012. *Individual choice behavior: A* theoretical analysis. Courier Corporation. Colin L Mallows. 1957. Non-null ranking models. i. Biometrika, 44(1/2):114–130. G Harry Mc Laughlin. 1969. Smog grading-a new readability formula. *Journal of reading*, 12(8):639–646. Farah Nadeem, Huy Nguyen, Yang Liu, and Mari Ostendorf. 2019. Automated essay scoring with discourseaware neural models. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Build- ing Educational Applications, pages 484–493, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. Thomas Pfeiffer, Xi Alice Gao, Yiling Chen, Andrew Mao, and David G Rand. 2012. Adaptive polling for information aggregation. In *Twenty-Sixth AAAI* Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Peter Phandi, Kian Ming A. Chai, and Hwee Tou Ng. 2015. Flexible domain adaptation for automated essay scoring using correlated linear regression. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 431– 439, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tao Qin, Xiubo Geng, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2010. A new probabilistic model for rank aggregation. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1948–1956. Kaveh Taghipour and Hwee Tou Ng. 2016. A neural approach to automated essay scoring. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1882–1891, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yi Tay, Minh Phan, Luu Anh Tuan, and Siu Cheung Hui. 2018. Skipflow: Incorporating neural coherence features for end-to-end automatic text scoring. In *Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial* intelligence. Louis L Thurstone. 1927. The method of paired comparisons for social values. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21(4):384. Masaki Uto, Yikuan Xie, and Maomi Ueno. 2020. Neural automated essay scoring incorporating handcrafted features. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 6077–6088, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Yongjie Wang, Chuang Wang, Ruobing Li, and Hui Lin. 2022. On the use of bert for automated essay scoring: Joint learning of multi-scale essay representation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3416–3425, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yucheng Wang, Zhongyu Wei, Yaqian Zhou, and Xuanjing Huang. 2018. Automatic essay scoring incorporating rating schema via reinforcement learning. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 791–797, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ruosong Yang, Jiannong Cao, Zhiyuan Wen, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2020. Enhancing automated essay scoring performance via fine-tuning pre-trained language models with combination of regression and ranking. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 1560–1569, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Helen Yannakoudakis, Ted Briscoe, and Ben Medlock. 2011. A new dataset and method for automatically grading ESOL texts. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 180–189, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Haoran Zhang and Diane Litman. 2021. Essay quality signals as weak supervision for source-based essay scoring. In Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pages 85–96, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Details Of Weak Signals In Section 5.6, we study the impact of using weak signals on the performance of our ULRA. We add additional 0 to 80 weak signals into the set of employed 20 quality signals. These 80 weak signals include: (1) mean of characters per word, (2) variance of characters per word, (3) mean of word per sentence, (4) variance of word per sentence, (5) mean of NNP per sentence, (6) number of PRP, (7) mean of PRP per sentence, (8) number of NNS, (9) mean of NNS per sentence, (10) number of VBZ, (11) mean of VBZ per sentence, (12) mean of DT per sentence, (13) mean of NN per sentence, (14) mean of RB per sentence, (15) number of POS, (16) mean of POS per sentence, (17) number of TO, (18) mean of TO per sentence, (19) number of VB, (20) mean of VB per sentence, (21) mean of JJ per sentence, (22) number of VBP, (23) mean of VBP per sentence, (24) mean of IN per sentence, (25) number of CC, (26) mean of CC per sentence, (27) number of VBG, (28) mean of VBG per sentence, (29) number of VBN, (30) mean of VBN per sentence, (31) number of WP, (32) mean of WP per sentence, (33) number of MD, (34) mean of MD per sentence, (35) number of WRB, (36) mean of WRB per sentence, (37) number of VBD, (38) mean of VBD per sentence, (39) number of NNPS, (40) mean of NNPS per sentence, (41) number of CD, (42) mean of CD per sentence, (43) number of JJR, (44) mean of JJR per sentence, (45) number of JJS, (46) mean of JJS per sentence, (47) number of RBR, (48) mean of RBR per sentence, (49) number of RBS, (50) mean of RBS per sentence, (51) number of RP, (52) mean of RP per sentence, (53) number of EX, (54) mean of EX per sentence, (55) number of WDT, (56) mean of WDT per sentence, (57) number of UH, (58) mean of UH per sentence, (59) number of PDT, (60) mean of PDT per sentence, (61) number of LS, (62) mean of LS per sentence,(63) mean of clause per sentence, (64) mean of clause length, (65) number of maximum of clause per sentence, (66) mean of tree depth of sentences, (67) mean of average leaf depth of sentences, (68) number of error words, (69) ratio of stop words, (70) ratio of positive sentiment, (71) ratio of negative sentiment, (72) ratio of neutral sentiment, (73) ratio of compound sentiment, (74) Kincaid index, (75) ARI index, (76) Coleman-Liau index, (77) Flesch Reading Ease index, (78) LIX, (79) sentence beginnings with pronoun, and (80) sentence beginnings with preposition. Through comparing Table 9 and Table 2, we can find that the 80 weak signals are less correlated with the groundtruth scores, compared with the 20 quality signals used in ULRA. $\begin{array}{cc}\hline48&.173\\ 12&.013\\ \hline\end{array}$ . | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Max | .240 | .317 | .187 | .348 | .245 | .179 | .248 | .173 | | Avg | .025 | .039 | .029 | .039 | .032 | .018 | .012 | .013 | Table 9: The maximum and mean of QWKs between the groundtruth scores and the employed 80 weak signals under 8 prompts, which are obtained by viewing the quality signal as the predicted score and applying the scoring strategy described in Section 4.4. ## B Details Of Different Scoring Strategies In Section 5.6, we study the impact of different scoring strategies on the performance of our ULRA. We test other four scoring strategies, which conduct score transformations based on predefined distributions (i.e., groundtruth distribution, normal distribution, triangle distribution, and uniform distribution). For the scoring strategy based on **groundtruth** distribution, we denote the distribution of the groundtruth labels in X as {a1, · · · , aL}, where aiis the number of essays with the score i ∈ Y. We fist rank all essays in X according to their predicted scores {si} N i=1, and get a rank list of essays {xr1 , · · · , xrN}, where riis the rank index. Finally, for each essay xri , if its ranking index ri satisfies Pt−1 j=1 aj < ri ≤Ptj=1 aj for t ∈ Y, the corresponding final score yˆri is set as t. For the scoring strategy based on **normal distribution**, we first rank all essays in X according to their predicted scores {si} N i=1, and get a rank list of essays {xr1 , · · · , xrN}, where riis the rank index. Next, we use the normal distribution N ( L−1 2, 1) to calculate the proportion2 of samples in i-th final score to the total number of samples after the score transformation for all i ∈ Y, which is ϕi = exp − i − 1 − L − 1 2 2/2 ! Φi = ϕi/ X L j=1 ϕj , (11) , (10) $$\quad(10)$$ $$(11)$$ where Φiis the proportion of samples in i-th final score to the total number of samples. Then, the sample number in i-th final score after the score transformation is $$\Psi_{i}=\left\lfloor N\Phi_{i}\right\rfloor\,,$$ $$(12)$$ where ⌊·⌋ is the floor function. Finally, for each essay xri , if its ranking index ri satisfies Pt−1 j=0 Ψj < ri ≤Ptj=0 Ψj for t ∈ Y, the corresponding final score yˆri is set as t. Note that we additionally define Φ0 = 0. For the scoring strategy based on **triangle distribution**, we first rank all essays in X according to their predicted scores {si} N i=1, and get a rank list of essays {xr1 , · · · , xrN}, where riis the rank index. Then, we use the triangle distribution to calculate the proportion of samples in i-th final score to the total number of samples after the score transformation for all i ∈ Y, which is ϕi = −  i − 1 − L − 1 2  + L + 1 2. (13) 2Since the calculation is a proportion (e.g., Equation 11), the term 1/ √2π is removed for simplicity in Equation 10. Same as the scoring strategy based on normal distribution, the sample number in i-th final score after the score transformation is $$\Psi_{i}=\lfloor N\phi_{i}/\sum_{j=1}^{L}\phi_{j}\rfloor\;.\qquad\qquad(14)$$ Finally, for each essay xri , if its ranking index ri satisfies Pt−1 j=0 Ψj < ri ≤Ptj=0 Ψj for t ∈ Y, the corresponding final score yˆri is set as t. Note that we additionally define Ψ0 = 0. For the scoring strategy based on **uniform distribution**, we fist rank all essays in X according to their predicted scores {si} N i=1, and get a rank list of essays {xr1 , · · · , xrN}, where riis the rank index. The final score yˆri of xri is set as ⌊ L N ri⌋ + 1. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section Limitations ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Our work provides methodological contributions that do not have direct boarder impacts. Although our work might indirectly lead to future researches and applications, it is premature to predict their positive or negative impacts. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 5.1 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 5.1 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 5.1 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 5.1 ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Section 5.1 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 5.1 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 5.1 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 5.2 & Section Limitations The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 5.2 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5.2 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 5.2 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

fei-etal-2023-mitigating

Mitigating Label Biases for In-context Learning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.783

Various design settings for in-context learning (ICL), such as the choice and order of the in-context examples, can bias the model{'}s predictions. While many studies discuss these design choices, there have been few systematic investigations into categorizing them and mitigating their impact. In this work, we define a typology for three types of label biases in ICL for text classification: vanilla-label bias, context-label bias, and domain-label bias (which we conceptualize and detect for the first time). Our analysis demonstrates that prior label bias calibration methods fall short of addressing all three types of biases. Specifically, domain-label bias restricts LLMs to random-level performance on many tasks regardless of the choice of in-context examples. To mitigate the effect of these biases, we propose a simple bias calibration method that estimates a language model{'}s label bias using random in-domain words from the task corpus. After controlling for this estimated bias when making predictions, our novel domain-context calibration significantly improves the ICL performance of GPT-J and GPT-3 on a wide range of tasks. The gain is substantial on tasks with large domain-label bias (up to 37{\%} in Macro-F1). Furthermore, our results generalize to models with different scales, pretraining methods, and manually-designed task instructions, showing the prevalence of label biases in ICL.

# Mitigating Label Biases For In-Context Learning Yu Fei†1, Yifan Hou∗2, Zeming Chen∗3**, Antoine Bosselut**3 1UC Irvine, 2ETH Zurich, 3NLP Lab, IC, EPFL, Switzerland yu.fei@uci.edu, yifan.hou@inf.ethz.ch, {zeming.chen, antoine.bosselut}@epfl.ch ## Abstract Various design settings for in-context learning (ICL), such as the choice and order of the incontext examples, can bias the model's predictions. While many studies discuss these design choices, there have been few systematic investigations into categorizing them and mitigating their impact. In this work, we define a typology for three types of label biases in ICL for text classification: vanilla-label bias, *contextlabel bias*, and *domain-label bias* (which we conceptualize and detect for the first time). Our analysis demonstrates that prior label bias calibration methods fall short of addressing all three types of biases. Specifically, domainlabel bias restricts LLMs to random-level performance on many tasks regardless of the choice of in-context examples. To mitigate the effect of these biases, we propose a simple bias calibration method that estimates a language model's *label bias* using random indomain words from the task corpus. After controlling for this estimated bias when making predictions, our novel *domain-context calibration* significantly improves the ICL performance of GPT-J and GPT-3 on a wide range of tasks. The gain is substantial on tasks with large domain-label bias (up to 37% in MacroF1). Furthermore, our results generalize to models with different scales, pretraining methods, and manually-designed task instructions, showing the prevalence of label biases in ICL. ## 1 Introduction Large language models (LLMs) can perform unseen tasks by conditioning on a context prompt that consists of a few training example-label pairs (Brown et al., 2020). However, such in-context learning ability is highly sensitive to various design settings, such as the choice (Liu et al., 2021) and order (Lu et al., 2021) of the in-context samples. *Equal contribution. †Work done while interning at EPFL.  Recently, Zhao et al. (2021) showed that the instability of ICL largely arises from the fact that these design settings bias the model toward predicting certain answers (*e.g.*, LLMs often predict the label of the last in-context example). As a result, the sensitivity of the results in ICL studies calls for a systematic discussion of biases in ICL and new methods to properly categorize, detect, and comprehensively mitigate various types of biases. In this work, we conduct a thorough investigation of biases in ICL for text classification. We start by defining a typology of three types of *label biases* (the model's undesirable preference toward certain label names): vanilla label bias, *context-label bias*, and *domain-label bias*. What we term *vanilla label* bias captures the model's non-contextualized preference for the label names (*e.g.*, the common token bias mentioned by Zhao et al. (2021) caused by different frequencies of label names in the pretraining corpus). *Context-label bias* summarizes the effects of the context prompt (*e.g.*, LLMs tend to prefer the majority and last label of the in-context examples). Finally, *domain-label bias* captures the effects of the task corpus on the model's predictions. We show that domain-label biases significantly affect a model's prediction in ICL. For example, 14014   on a hate detection task with two nearly balanced classes, simply seeing random words sampled from the dataset severely biases the model towards predicting the label *hate* (Fig. 1(a)), while seeing random English words does not show such an effect. More importantly, on many tasks with large domain-label bias, LLMs achieve no better than random performance, regardless of the choice of in-context examples (Fig. 2). Moreover, we find that existing bias mitigation methods, such as Contextual Calibration (CC; Zhao et al., 2021) do not combat this effect. To this end, we propose Domain-context Calibration (DC) to mitigate label biases in ICL. DC first estimates the effects of different label biases holistically using random words sampled from the task corpus. Specifically, we compute the probabilities assigned by the model to each label using random in-domain words as the task input (with optional real in-context learning examples prepended). Using random words limits the semantic meaning of the input, allowing us to estimate the vanilla-label and context-label biases while using in-domain words accounts for the effect of the task corpus. Then, at inference time, we use this label bias estimate to calibrate the model's output probabilities. We evaluate the impact of DC on 24 classification datasets, showing that DC improves the average ICL performance of GPT-J (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021) and GPT-3 by 20% and 18%. We observe substantial gains on tasks with large domainlabel bias (up to 37% in Macro-F1). DC also benefits models with different scales, instruction-tuning (*e.g.*, Instruct-GPT, Ouyang et al., 2022), and provided with task instructions. Finally, we show that DC improves the zero-shot prompting performance of smaller models like RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), demonstrating that label bias can be mitigated in prompt-based frameworks beyond ICL. Overall, our work proposes a new typology of label biases in prompt-based methods, and a simple method for mitigating them. When studying ICL on a diverse collection of datasets, the results on datasets with severe *label bias* can obfuscate the actual behaviors of the model. Thus, rigorous design for dataset selection (that accounts for confounders) and fine-grained analysis of individual datasets are essential for effectively studying ICL. ## 2 Categorizing Label Biases In Icl In this paper, we focus on in-context learning (ICL; Fig. 3) for classification tasks. Formally, we consider a dataset of examples {xi, yi} where xi are text inputs and each yi can be mapped to a verbalization in a label name set L. We assume each class has one label name. For example, in a sentiment task, L could be composed of *positive* and negative as label names. Given a context prompt C consisting of a few labeled examples and an input text xi, the model M determines the label of xi by computing: arg maxy∈L PM(y|xi, C). Using this notation, we define our typology of label biases based on the mathematical formulation of ICL. ## 2.1 A Typology Of Label Biases To perform a classification task, a model needs to learn the underlying text-label mapping, i.e., P(y|x). In supervised learning, such mapping is learned by optimizing the model using the training data. In ICL, on the other hand, the model is fixed, and it determines the label of a text by computing the probabilities of predicting the label names PM(y|*x, C*). Notice that there are three components involved in the inference: the label name y, the text x from a specific task corpus, and the context C. Accordingly, as shown in Fig. 4, we can define three types of label biases that lead to a discrepancy between PM(y|*x, C*) and P(y|x). Vanilla-label bias pertains to the uncontextual preference of the model towards predicting certain label names. One possible cause is the pre-training term frequencies of the label names. Zhao et al. (2021) reported a high correlation between the frequency of the DBPedia dataset label names and the rate at which GPT-3 predicts those labels. Context-label bias summarizes the effect of the context prompt. With in-context learning, the model "learns" from a few examples, and the learning is particularly sensitive to seemingly arbitrary decisions such as the order of the in-context examples (Lu et al., 2021) and the task template used to map the example to text that the model can process (Mishra et al., 2021; Holtzman et al., 2021). Domain-label bias captures the effect of the task corpus. Beyond the text-label association demonstrated in the in-context examples, the model also relies on its prior knowledge of the task when making predictions. We show that the association of words to the label names learned from pre-training is a potential pitfall and discuss domain-label bias in more detail in the next section. ## 3 Domain Label Bias To illustrate how the domain of a task can induce label bias, consider a case where an LLM predicts whether a patient is sick or *healthy* based on some medical descriptions. Because medical descriptions are associated more often with people having health problems in the natural corpus, frequently used words in such documents are likely to have a stronger correlation with *sick* than *healthy*, leading to a systematic bias in the model's predictions. Supporting this intuition, we find that for many datasets, conditioning on random words from the dataset examples biases the model toward predicting certain label names. For example, in the hate speech detection task depicted in Fig. 1, we compute the model's preference (prior) on both label names given random words as the input. A model such as GPT-J has no preference for either of the classes (*neutral* v.s. *hate*) given random English words, but given random in-domain words sampled  from the dataset, the label priors shift dramatically, becoming 0.95 (*hate*) v.s. 0.05 (*neutral*). Motivated by this experiment, we quantify the domain-label bias of a model for a particular task using the distance of the model's priors estimated using random English words and in-domain words. To make the measure more comparable on tasks with different numbers of classes, we define the following metric: $$b i a s=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{y\in\mathcal{L}}\Big|P_{M}(y|x_{E n g.})-P_{M}(y|x_{i.d.})\Big|,\,\,\mathrm{(1)}$$ where x*Eng.* and x*i.d.* correspond to L random English or random in-domain words and L is the average text length of the dataset. We find that datasets1exhibit different levels of domain-label bias (see Fig. 17 in App. A). More importantly, LLMs behave distinctively on datasets with small and large domain-label bias. As shown in Fig. 5, while GPT-J performs competitively on datasets with small domain-label bias, it rarely outperforms the random baselines on large-bias datasets, indicating that domain-label bias significantly affects ICL. Contextual calibration, which only considers vanilla-label bias and context-label bias, fails to handle domain-label bias. ## 4 Domain-Context Calibration In this section, we propose Domain-context Calibration (DC), which mitigates the effects of the multiple label biases of our typology (§ 2.1). Following contextual calibration (CC; Zhao et al., 2021), we estimate the overall label bias of a model 1We note that domain-label bias is model-dependent. However, we observe a high correlation of domain-label bias between LLMs in general (see App. B). Also, by definition, domain-label bias depends on the task formulation, particularly the choice of label names, which we discuss in § 7.  with respect to a task by estimating the label probabilities on a *content-free* example text. However, unlike CC, which uses a single, seemingly contentfree token (*e.g.*, "N/A") to approximate the label bias, we use random words sampled from the unlabeled evaluation dataset as the content-free text. Then, for all examples we classify for the task, we re-calibrate the model's prediction probability using this estimated bias. More formally, given a dataset, we first construct a bag-of-words B using the unlabeled texts {xi}. Assuming xi's have average length L, we sample L words randomly from B to form a content-free random text, which captures the word distribution of the dataset domain. However, the random text still remains nearly content-free as it is not grammatically meaningful and potentially contains words from all classes, making it suitable for calibration. We repeat this process M times and average the estimated priors: $$\bar{P}(y|C)=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{j=1}^{M}P(y|[r a n d o m\;t e x t]_{j},C).\,\,\,(2)$$ The model then makes predictions according to the following estimate: $$\hat{y}_{i}=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{y\in{\mathcal{L}}}\frac{P(y|x_{i},C)}{\bar{P}(y|C)}.$$ where P(y|xi, C) is the original probability assigned to label y for a particular example xi. ## 5 Experimental Setup We conduct comprehensive experiments to analyze the effectiveness of our domain-context calibration in mitigating label biases in ICL. Datasets We conduct experiments on 24 text classification datasets that cover a wide range of tasks. Most of these datasets are recently used for studying ICL (Zhao et al., 2021; Min et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2021). To control the evaluation budget, we use a subset of the 24 datasets for GPT-3 experiments following Min et al. (2022). More details can be found in Appendix C. Model and implementation details We use GPT-J (6B) and GPT-3 (175B) as models in our study. For all experiments, unless stated otherwise, we use k = 8 examples sampled randomly from the training set to construct the context prompt and evaluate 5 times using different random seeds. Following Min et al. (2022), we use simple and unified templates for all datasets and do not use any task instructions to keep human engineering at a minimal level. We discuss the effect of task instructions in § 6.1. The templates and label names we used for all datasets can be found in App. E. To further control the budget for evaluating with GPT-3, we follow Lu et al. (2021) and sample a subset of size 500 for all datasets whose test sets have sizes exceeding this number. For domain-context calibration, we use the unlabeled test set for sampling random in-domain words and aggregate using M = 20 random texts (Eq. 2). We discuss the sampling of random words in more detail in Appendix F. We use Open-AI's API for GPT-3 experiments and Tesla V100 GPUs for GPT-J inference. Evaluation Details For each model, we compare the performance of domain-context calibration to the following baselines: random performance, uncalibrated performance, and contextual calibration performance. Following prior work, we use the Macro-F1 score as the evaluation metric. ## 6 Experimental Results We report the average Macro-F1 scores of GPT-J (6B) and GPT-3 (175B) across the entire evaluation suite in Figure 6. Furthermore, we stratify our results into three equal-sized subsets according to their levels of domain-label bias. Our main finding is that **domain-context calibration generally improves in-context learning,** especially on tasks with large domain-label bias.    On all datasets, DC consistently boosts the performance for both models with an average improvement (Macro-F1) of 20% (GPT-J) and 18% (GPT3).2 As Fig. 6 shows, the performance gain of DC over baselines (original predictions and CC) largely increases when the degree of domain-label bias increases. On the tasks with the largest domain-label bias, DC is the only method that significantly outperforms the random baseline and achieves up to 37% (GPT-J) and 35% (GPT-3) performance improvement over other baselines, indicating that DC effectively mitigates domain-label bias. ## 6.1 Generalizability Following the finding that DC improves ICL significantly on datasets with large domain-label bias, we analyze the robustness of DC under changes in model scale, number of in-context learning examples, and task instructions (all of which have been shown to improve ICL). We use three datasets that exhibit a high level of domain-label bias for GPT-J. Scaling up the model We evaluate GPT-3 models with sizes ranging from 350M to 175B. As Fig. 7 shows, larger models (both the original prediction and CC) do not exhibit better performance on tasks with large domain-label bias. However, DC consistently improves the performance of GPT3 models of all sizes while reducing the variance due to different choices of in-context examples. Adding more in-context examples In Table 1, we study the effect of adding more in-context examples by evaluating GPT-J and GPT-3 using 0, 8, and 16 in-context examples. For both models, adding more examples does not seem to benefit the model's original and CC performance on tasks with large domain-label bias. However, in all settings, DC gives the best results, and for GPT-3, DC further improves the performance when provided with more in-context examples. Task instructions and instruction-tuning Instruction-tuning and task instructions have been shown to be beneficial to ICL. As shown in Table 2, for GPT-3, providing task instructions3improves the performance with DC much larger than the | Shot | GPT-J | GPT-3 | | | | | |--------|---------|---------|------|------|------|------| | Ori. | CC | DC | Ori. | CC | DC | | | 0 | 56.0 | 30.9 | 65.9 | 51.5 | 36.2 | 61.4 | | 8 | 50.8 | 48.4 | 64.2 | 47.4 | 49.8 | 61.8 | | 16 | 53.7 | 45.9 | 62.7 | 48.0 | 49.8 | 63.1 | original and CC performance, showing that DC enables GPT-3 to make better use of the task instruction. For Instruct-GPT3 (text-davinci-002), adding task instructions largely improves the model's original performance. Still, DC yields significant improvement, while CC actually hurts the model's performance. | Task | GPT-3 | Text-davinci-002 | | | | | |-------------|---------|--------------------|------|------|------|------| | Instruction | Ori. | CC | DC | Ori. | CC | DC | | ✗ | 47.4 | 49.8 | 61.8 | 58.5 | 57.3 | 71.9 | | ✓ | 47.7 | 54.6 | 68.6 | 64.1 | 56.7 | 68.1 | Table 2: Average Macro-F1 scores on three tweet datasets. **DC benefits instruction-tuning models and** works in conjunction with task instructions. ## 6.2 Analysis To understand why DC outperforms CC, we conduct a systematic analysis using GPT-J of three differences between DC and CC: 1) the effect of a predefined content-free token such as "N/A" compared to using random words; 2) the length of the random word sequence; 3) the source of random words. Below, we summarize our results from Fig. 8. Content-free token can also be biased First, we find that replacing the pre-defined content-free token from CC (*i.e.*, "N/A") with a single random English word improves GPT-J's overall performance, indicating that specific content-free tokens may themselves can be biased toward particular labels. For example, as shown in Fig. 10, on sentiment tasks, calibration GPT-J using "N/A" leads to a systematic bias toward the positive class. Calibrating using random English words to estimate the label bias avoids this problem. Calibrating with random texts of the average input length is beneficial As shown in Fig. 8, when  calibrating using random English words, increasing the number of words improves performance. Intuitively, using random texts of the average input length for calibration gives a more precise estimate of the effect of the context prompt. To test this, we select the longest and shortest 10% samples of all 24 datasets to construct a dataset with long and short inputs for a task. Then, we test the calibration performance using random English words of different lengths4. As shown in Fig. 11, longer (shorter) texts prefer longer (shorter) random texts as calibration sequences to estimate the label bias. Calibrating using random in-domain words removes domain-label bias Finally, calibrating using random in-domain words yields a large improvement over calibrating using random English words. We plot the prediction distributions of GPTJ on Tweet hate after calibrating with both random English and in-domain words of various lengths in Fig. 9. We see that, when only calibrating using a few in-domain words, the word distribution of the dataset is not well-captured, and thus the domainlabel bias is not effectively removed. When cali4We use random English words rather than random indomain words to better study the effect of the length. 3The instructions we used can be found in App. E.   brating using more in-domain words, the prediction becomes more balanced, while after calibrating using more random English words, the model is still biased towards predicting label *hate*. Interestingly, we notice that the more DC mitigates the domainlabel bias, the more task performance increases. ## 6.3 Zero-Shot Prompting Smaller LLMs pre-trained using masked language modeling can also be efficiently adapted to unseen tasks by reformulating the task into a cloze problem using a natural language prompt (*i.e.*, zero-shot prompting (Schick and Schütze, 2020)). To demonstrate that DC can be used even with smaller models, we evaluate the zero-shot prompting ability of RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019) when it is calibrated using DC.5. We report our results in Tab. 7 (App.G) and find that across the same 24 datasets,  DC achieves a significant performance gain of 26%. Similar to ICL with GPT models, label biases affect RoBERTa's zero-shot prompting priors. However, DC effectively mitigates these biases, leading to significant performance improvements. ## 7 Discussion Label Name Selection As Label Bias Mitigation Our results outline how LLMs can be biased to certain label names for different tasks. Intuitively, because the task is formulated as *generating* the label name given an example, the mechanism elicits the model's prior knowledge about the task. To better understand whether domain-label bias could be mitigated through more careful label name selection, we test GPT-J with three different pairs of label names on Tweet hate: 1) *neutral* v.s. *hate*, which is the most task-relevant set of label names but introduces severe domain-label bias; 2) *favor* v.s. *against*, a pair of less task-relevant antonyms used by Min et al. (2022); 3) X v.s. Y, which are meaningless placeholders.  As shown in Fig. 12, calibrating using random English words or in-domain words makes little difference when choosing (X, Y) or (favor, *against*) as the label names, showing that they do not introduce domain-label bias. However, although GPT-J is able to achieve better original and CC performance on these label names, (neutral, *hate*) yields the best performance after removing domain-label bias using DC. Thus, with proper calibration, using the most task-indicative words as label names is likely to be the best option. Surprisingly, the manually picked label names (favor, *against*) under-perform the meaningless ones (X, Y) after applying DC, hinting that human-plausible label names are not necessarily good label names for LLMs. Select datasets for ICL analysis The varying levels of domain-label bias in our studied datasets suggest a large variance in how ICL will perform on different datasets. Consequently, macro-averaging the performance on datasets with differing levels of label biases potentially obfuscates diverse results among different tasks. Our work encourages future studies to select datasets carefully to cover varying degrees of label bias among reported results, and to perform fine-grained analysis of individual datasets to when studying ICL performance. Alternate causes of domain label bias When evaluating models for real-world applications such as hate speech detection, we usually use hard examples (*e.g.*, non-hateful, but "hateful-looking" examples) to check the robustness of the model. However, LLMs trained on natural corpora are likely to be susceptible to adversarial word-level features (LLMs use word associations learned from pretraining to perform ICL). To some degree, adversarial examples could also be a source or large domain-label bias on many datasets. ## 8 Related Work In-context learning (ICL) is the standard paradigm for adapting LLMs (Chowdhery et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). Many recent works focus on understanding its mechanism to improve adaptation performance. For example, Lu et al. (2021) showed that ICL is sensitive to the order of in-context examples. Razeghi et al. (2022) demonstrated that the ICL performance on numerical reasoning tasks is strongly correlated with the pretraining term frequencies. Liu et al. (2021) found that using examples semantically close to the input texts is beneficial. Min et al. (2022) showed that for classification tasks, the input-label pairing format plays the most crucial role in ICL. Sorensen et al. (2022) found that structure of the prompt also significantly affected ICL performance, and that better prompts could be selected based on mutual information between the prompts and the model's output. Complementary to these works, we comprehensively study the label bias problem in ICL. The existence of domain-label bias indicates that ICL is largely affected by the word-level associations LLMs learn during pre-training. Other recent works discuss the bias problem in ICL. Zhao et al. (2021) proposed contextual calibration to mitigate three types of biases in ICL: the majority bias, recency bias, and common token bias. Holtzman et al. (2021) focused on the zeroshot setting and found that different surface forms of the answer can compete for probability mass given a question, leading to a bias when predicting with a single label name for each class. In contrast to these works, which consider a specific type of bias, we propose a typology of label biases and propose domain-context calibration that handles all biases in our typology. The ability of the largest models, like PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), to perform in-context learning under the flipped label or semanticallyunrelated label settings (Wei et al., 2023) is very relevant to this work. As the largest models tend to have emergent abilities, it would be interesting to test how vulnerable these models are to label biases (especially domain-label bias) and how domaincontext calibration would help. Unfortunately, we currently do not have access to them (e.g., PaLM and Flan-PaLM (Chung et al., 2022)). Nevertheless, the similar behavior of PaLM and Instruct-GPT (as shown in Wei et al. (2023)) and the fact that Instruct-GPT also suffers from domain-label bias (Table 2) indicate that these more capable models may still be susceptible to label biases. Also, how scaling up or instruction-tuning would relieve label biases is an interesting direction to explore. ## 9 Conclusion In this work, we define a typology of label biases that affect in-context learning (ICL). We categorize existing findings of label biases into two types: vanilla-label bias and context-label bias, and identify a new type of bias, domain-label bias, that significantly influences ICL performance. To mitigate these label biases, we propose domain-context calibration, which significantly improves ICL performance on a wide range of tasks, particularly on datasets with large domain-label bias. The various levels of domain-label bias in different datasets also suggest that when analyzing ICL, we need to select datasets with diverse types of label biases and report stratified that acknowledge this diversity beyond single aggregated scores. ## Limitations Data and Task Limitation In this work, we analyze domain-label bias and apply our domaincontext calibration to English. We leave analysis and mitigation methods for multilingual tasks to future works. In experiments, we discuss calibration on classification tasks. The effect of domain-label bias could exist differently for open-end tasks like text generation. Our analysis of domain-label bias also emphasizes more on the word-level bias. Other types of biases associated with a domain, such as topics and genders, may also impact model prediction. We leave the diverse analysis to future works. Due to budget limitations, we conduct experiments on a subset of the 24 reported datasets for GPT-3. One can evaluate all 24 datasets to get a complete picture with enough budget. Model Limitation For large language models, we only focus on the GPT models and only select RoBERTa as the small-scale language model in experiments. Future work could consider expanding to other model types, such as PaLM for large models and DeBERTa for small models. Access to the OpenAI API for GPT-3 is also necessary for parts of our experiments. Future work can consider experimenting with open-source LLMs like the OPT-175B or BLOOM-176B model. ## Ethics Statement Our work focuses on analyzing the general label bias problem of the in-context learning ability of LLMs and improving their performance with a tuning-free method, which involves no large neural model pre-training, re-training, or fine-tuning. As we only use LLMs for inference, developing and applying our approach requires only minimal computational resources compared to methods that require dataset-specific model fine-tuning or engineering. We do not anticipate significant ethical issues introduced by our approach, as we use only off-the-shelf LLMs, and the datasets involved are all publicly available text classification datasets. The discussion of biases in our work is general and not specific to any real word context. Still, our analysis and typology of the label biases of ICL may motivate future work to analyze the bias problem of ICL and LLMs in areas with larger social impacts, such as healthcare or legal scenarios. ## References Francesco Barbieri, Jose Camacho-Collados, Luis Espinosa Anke, and Leonardo Neves. 2020. TweetEval: Unified benchmark and comparative evaluation for tweet classification. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1644–1650, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In *Machine learning challenges workshop*, pages 177–190. Springer. Ona de Gibert, Naiara Perez, Aitor García-Pablos, and Montse Cuadros. 2018. Hate speech dataset from a white supremacy forum. In *Proceedings of the* 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2), pages 11–20, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Marie-Catherine De Marneffe, Mandy Simons, and Judith Tonhauser. 2019. The commitmentbank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse. In *proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung*, volume 23, pages 107–124. Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2020. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15723*. Ari Holtzman, Peter West, Vered Shwartz, Yejin Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. Surface form competition: Why the highest probability answer isn't always right. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08315*. Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In *Proceedings of the tenth* ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 168–177. Hector Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgenstern. 2012. The winograd schema challenge. In Thirteenth international conference on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumond, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, et al. 2021. Datasets: A community library for natural language processing. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2109.02846. Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2101.06804. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2021. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2104.08786. Pekka Malo, Ankur Sinha, Pekka Korhonen, Jyrki Wallenius, and Pyry Takala. 2014. Good debt or bad debt: Detecting semantic orientations in economic texts. *Journal of the Association for Information* Science and Technology, 65(4):782–796. Marco Marelli, Stefano Menini, Marco Baroni, Luisa Bentivogli, Raffaella Bernardi, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2014. A sick cure for the evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models. In *Proceedings* of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), pages 216– 223. Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2202.12837. Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Reframing instructional prompts to gptk's language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07830. Ioannis Mollas, Zoe Chrysopoulou, Stamatis Karlos, and Grigorios Tsoumakas. 2022. Ethos: a multi-label hate speech detection dataset. Complex & Intelligent Systems, pages 1–16. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2203.02155. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. *arXiv preprint cs/0409058*. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. *arXiv preprint cs/0506075*. Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2022. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2202.07206. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Exploiting cloze questions for few shot text classification and natural language inference. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2001.07676. Emily Sheng and David Uthus. 2020. Investigating societal biases in a poetry composition system. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing, pages 93–106, Barcelona, Spain (Online). Association for Computational Linguistics. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In *Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing*, pages 1631–1642. Taylor Sorensen, Joshua Robinson, Christopher Michael Rytting, Alexander Glenn Shaw, Kyle Jeffrey Rogers, Alexia Pauline Delorey, Mahmoud Khalil, Nancy Fulda, and David Wingate. 2022. An information-theoretic approach to prompt engineering without ground truth labels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11364. Ellen M Voorhees and Dawn M Tice. 2000. Building a question answering test collection. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 200–207. Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/ mesh-transformer-jax. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903*. Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Dustin Tran, Albert Webson, Yifeng Lu, Xinyun Chen, Hanxiao Liu, Da Huang, Denny Zhou, et al. 2023. Larger language models do in-context learning differently. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03846. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28. Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 12697–12706. PMLR. ## A Domain-Label Bias Of All Datasets We compute and illustrate the domain-label bias of all datasets we used with different LLMs in Fig. 17. Different datasets exhibit different levels of domain-label bias. Regarding task types, The detection tasks (red) show the largest domain-label bias, while the NLI tasks (orange) have the least. On sentiment and topic tasks, the domain-label bias is mostly small but can vary depending on the domain of the dataset. For example, for sentiment classification datasets, movie review datasets like SST-2 have relatively small domain-label bias. While financial statements and poem sentiment, whose texts are from rare domains, have much larger biases. We discuss the model dependency of domain-label bias in the next section. ## B Correlation Of Domain-Label Bias Estimated With Different Llms We compute the correlation of domain-label bias (defined by eq. (1)) computed with 5 different models on all 24 evaluation datasets. We use GPT-3 Ada (350M), GPT-3 Babbage (1.3B), GPT-3 curie (6.7B), GPT-3 DaVinci (175B), and GPT-J (6B). We show the correlation plot in Figure 13. Although domain-label bias is model-dependent by definition, the biases computed by different models are highly correlated.  ## C Full Dataset Information We use 24 datasets falling into three categories: sentiment and topic classification, NLI, and Detection. Most of the used datasets are from existing works. W(Min et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021)e added a few more detection datasets for better studying the domain-label bias as they tend to show the largest domain-label bias. We use the HuggingFace venison Lhoest et al. (2021) of all datasets and use the test set, if available, for evaluation. Otherwise, we use the development set. We summarize the full dataset information in Table 3. ## D Full Few-Shot Results We report the full 8-shot results on individual datasets with the standard deviations (5 random seeds) in Table 6. We further show the few-shot performance gain (GPT-J) of DC over CC on all datasets in Figure 14.  ## E Templates And Task Instructions We show the templates and label names for all datasets in Table 4. The task instructions used in Table 2 are illustrated in Table 5. We always use exactly one word for every label name. To avoid label names being tokenized into subwords, we always use lower-cased label names except for tasks answering with True or False. ## F Sampling Analysis In this section, we analyze two factors related to the random word sampling process involved in DC: 1) the number of random texts to use for estimating the prior (M in eq. (2)), and 2) the size of the unlabeled dataset to sample random in-domain words from. We conduct experiments on two smalldomain-label-bias datasets (SST-2 and AG News) and two large-domain-label-bias datasets (Tweet hate and Tweet irony). How many random texts should we sample? First, we sample different numbers of random texts M for estimating the model's prior as in eq. (2). As shown in Figure 15, DC is able to achieve a good estimate with a relatively small number of sampling. We choose M = 20 as it achieves a good balance between computational efficiency and stability of prior estimation.  ## How Large Should The Unlabeled Task Corpus Be? In the main experiments, we use the whole unlabeled test set to construct a bag-of-words and sample random words from it. Here, we study the effect of the unlabeled dataset set size on the performance of DC. As shown in Figure 15, DC is able to achieve a good estimate with 50 unlabeled texts from the dataset.  ## G Zero-Shot Prompting Experiment Templates for zero-shot prompting We adapt templates from Gao et al. (2020) for our zero-shot prompting experiments. Sentiment and detection tasks:    Subj:    Topic tasks:        Full Results We show the full zero-shot prompting results with RoBERTa-large on individual datasets in Table 7.  | Dataset | # Class | Balanced | GPT-J | GPT-3 | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|------------|---------|---------| | Sentiment and topic classification SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013) | 2 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | SST-5 (Socher et al., 2013) | 5 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | | MR (Pang and Lee, 2005) | 2 | ✓ | ✓ | | | CR (Hu and Liu, 2004) | 2 | ✓ | ✓ | | | financial_phrasebank (Malo et al., 2014) | 3 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | | poem_sentiment (Sheng and Uthus, 2020) | 4 | ✗ | ✓ | | | Subj (Pang and Lee, 2004) | 2 | ✗ | ✓ | | | AG News (Zhang et al., 2015) | 4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | DBpedia (Zhang et al., 2015) | 14 | ✓ | ✓ | | | TREC (Voorhees and Tice, 2000) | 6 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | | Natural language inference glue-wnli (Levesque et al., 2012) | 2 | ✗ | ✓ | | | RTE (Dagan et al., 2005) | 2 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | | CB (De Marneffe et al., 2019) | 3 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | | sick (Marelli et al., 2014) | 3 | ✗ | ✓ | | | Detection tweet_eval-hate (Barbieri et al., 2020) | 2 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | | tweet_eval-irony (Barbieri et al., 2020) | 2 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | | tweet_eval-offensive (Barbieri et al., 2020) | 2 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | | tweet_eval-stance_atheism (Barbieri et al., 2020) | 3 | ✗ | ✓ | | | tweet_eval-stance_feminist (Barbieri et al., 2020) | 3 | ✗ | ✓ | | | hate_speech18 (de Gibert et al., 2018) | 2 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | | ethos-binary (Mollas et al., 2022) | 2 | ✗ | ✓ | | | ethos-religion (Mollas et al., 2022) | 2 | ✗ | ✓ | | | ethos-national_origin (Mollas et al., 2022) | 2 | ✗ | ✓ | | | ethos-race (Mollas et al., 2022) | 2 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | | Table 3: Full dataset information. To control the evaluation budget, we use a subset of the 24 datasets for GPT-3 | | | | | Table 3: Full dataset information. To control the evaluation budget, we use a subset of the 24 datasets for GPT-3 experiments following Min et al. (2022). The GPT-J and GPT-3 columns indicate whether the corresponding datasets are used in Fig. 6. | Dataset | Template | Label Name | | | |--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|-----------|---------| | SST-2, SST-5, MR, CR | Review: [INPUT] | positive, negative | | | | Sentiment: [LABEL] | | | | | | financial phrasebank | Sentence: [INPUT] | positive, negative, neutral | | | | Sentiment: [LABEL] | | | | | | poem sentiment | Verse text: [INPUT] | positive, negative, neutral, | | | | Sentiment: [LABEL] | mixed | | | | | Subj | Input: [INPUT] | subjective, objective | | | | Label: [LABEL] | | | | | | AG News | Article: [INPUT] | world, sports, business, technology & science | | | | Answer: [LABEL] | | | | | | DBpedia | Article: [INPUT] | company, school, artist, athlete, politics, transportation, | | | | Article type: [LABEL] | building, nature, village, animal, plant, album, film, book | | | | | TREC | Question: [INPUT] | number, | location, | person, | | Answer type: [LABEL] | description, entity, abbre | | | | | RTE, glue-wnli | [PREMISE] question: [HYPOTHESIS] | True, False | | | | True or False? answer: [LABEL] | | | | | | CB | [PREMISE] question: [HYPOTHESIS] | true, false, neither | | | | true, false, or neither? answer: [LABEL] | | | | | | sick | [PREMISE] question: [HYPOTHESIS] | entailment, neutral, contradiction | | | | entailment, neutral, or contradiction? answer: [LABEL] | | | | | | tweet_eval-hate | Tweet: [INPUT] | neutral, hate | | | | Label: [LABEL] | | | | | | tweet_eval-irony | Tweet: [INPUT] | neutral, ironic | | | | Label: [LABEL] | | | | | | tweet_eval-offensive | Tweet: [INPUT] | neutral, offensive | | | | Label: [LABEL] | | | | | | tweet_eval-stance_atheism, | Tweet: [INPUT] | none, against, favor | | | | tweet_eval-stance_feminist | Label: [LABEL] | | | | | hate_speech18, | ethos-race, | | | | | ethos-binary, | ethos-religion, | | | | | ethos-national_origin, | Text: [INPUT] | neutral, hate | | | | Label: [LABEL] | | | | | | Table 4: | Templates of all 24 datasets used in our experiments. We mainly adapt templates used in Zhao et al. | | | | Table 4: Templates of all 24 datasets used in our experiments. We mainly adapt templates used in Zhao et al. (2021) and Min et al. (2022). We remove all task instructions and unify the format for similar tasks. We always use lower-case label names to avoid label names being tokenized into subwords except for "True or False" tasks. | Dataset | Instruction and Template | |----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | tweet_eval-hate | Classify tweets that are hateful against immigrants or women as hate and tweets that are not hateful against immigrants or women as neutral. Tweet: [INPUT] Label: [LABEL] | | tweet_eval-irony | Classify tweets that are ironic as ironic, and tweets that are not ironic as neutral. Tweet: [INPUT] Label: [LABEL] | | tweet_eval-offensive | Classify tweets that are offensive as offensive, and tweets that are not offensive as neutral. Tweet: [INPUT] Label: [LABEL] Table 5: Task instructions used in Table 2. | Dataset GPT-J GPT-3 Original CC DC Original CC DC Sentiment and topic classification SST-2 91.06.0 90.83.2 94.01.3 96.01.0 96.40.2 96.30.5 CR 81.46.9 86.50.8 87.04.0 - - - MR 93.10.7 91.31.1 93.10.5 - - - SST-5 28.94.6 40.85.4 40.34.9 32.53.3 41.10.9 42.42.9 Financial phrasebank 46.46.9 46.74.2 61.63.3 58.911.6 60.64.6 69.57.1 Poem sentiment 26.66.1 25.55.2 31.43.0 - - - AG News 68.49.9 76.87.2 81.55.1 79.97.0 86.01.5 85.91.1 DBpedia 83.53.0 90.61.7 92.41.2 - - - TREC 55.37.0 63.91.1 70.33.1 69.013.2 76.57.9 76.97.9 Subj 65.212.2 61.913.3 70.74.3 - - - Natural language inference RTE 43.15.8 37.84.3 50.35.6 61.810.6 65.83.8 64.55.2 WNLI 33.50.0 33.90.6 38.13.1 - - - CB 24.86.1 27.89.3 42.33.6 53.71.7 49.08.4 51.18.9 Sick 25.66.7 41.13.7 41.410.9 - - - Detection Tweet hate 32.81.2 36.43.4 61.22.3 36.84.7 49.57.6 59.04.1 Tweet irony 60.010.4 50.37.7 62.45.3 42.714.1 37.510.6 62.77.6 Tweet offensive 59.411.4 51.06.3 68.32.9 59.36.1 60.53.6 64.81.9 Tweet stance atheism 23.25.1 23.06.0 27.43.2 - - - Tweet stance feminist 40.410.0 34.62.6 41.31.9 - - - Hate speech18 51.54.7 41.68.6 57.32.5 49.911.5 47.06.2 52.03.9 Ethos binary 48.416.1 60.18.2 70.22.5 - - - Ethos religion 30.714.3 28.013.8 43.86.7 - - - Ethos nation 23.18.7 18.22.1 40.77.8 - - - Ethos race 36.411.8 44.817.4 51.46.4 40.012.2 33.27.6 47.06.9 Setting SST-2 CR MR SST-5 FP PS AG DB TREC Subj RTE WNLI Ori. 82.5 82.2 78.5 28.3 32.5 24.1 52.0 65.5 7.0 37.9 39.2 32.9 CC 79.4 81.0 76.0 19.3 40.0 21.7 59.1 73.1 5.0 **51.6 46.0** 33.6 DC **87.2 82.2 82.5 35.1 43.3 26.2 62.7 74.2 22.6** 44.3 44.6 **33.8** Setting Tw-H Tw-I Tw-O Tw-A Tw-F HS18 Eth-B Eth-Re Eth-N Eth-Ra CB Sick Ori. 32.9 30.5 28.4 23.7 22.4 37.7 45.0 21.0 17.8 17.3 21.3 38.2 CC 30.5 30.8 32.8 19.5 28.0 26.5 37.0 17.6 15.5 15.8 **34.9** 39.7 DC **59.0 49.7 56.3 28.5 29.4 44.3 58.7 42.7 36.9 44.1** 27.5 **54.2** Table 7: Zero-shot prompting results with RoBERTa-large (Macro-F1). ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? At the end of the paper, after the conclusion section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? At the end of the paper, after the limitation section. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? We summarize our main contributions in the abstract and introduction sections. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 6. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 5. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 5. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 6 and Appendix D. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 5 and Appendix C. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

malaviya-etal-2023-quest

{QUEST}: A Retrieval Dataset of Entity-Seeking Queries with Implicit Set Operations

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.784

Formulating selective information needs results in queries that implicitly specify set operations, such as intersection, union, and difference. For instance, one might search for {``}shorebirds that are not sandpipers{''} or {``}science-fiction films shot in England{''}. To study the ability of retrieval systems to meet such information needs, we construct QUEST, a dataset of 3357 natural language queries with implicit set operations, that map to a set of entities corresponding to Wikipedia documents. The dataset challenges models to match multiple constraints mentioned in queries with corresponding evidence in documents and correctly perform various set operations. The dataset is constructed semi-automatically using Wikipedia category names. Queries are automatically composed from individual categories, then paraphrased and further validated for naturalness and fluency by crowdworkers. Crowdworkers also assess the relevance of entities based on their documents and highlight attribution of query constraints to spans of document text. We analyze several modern retrieval systems, finding that they often struggle on such queries. Queries involving negation and conjunction are particularly challenging and systems are further challenged with combinations of these operations.

# Quest**: A Retrieval Dataset Of Entity-Seeking Queries** With Implicit Set Operations Chaitanya Malaviya1∗ , Peter Shaw2, Ming-Wei Chang2, Kenton Lee2**, Kristina Toutanova**2 1University of Pennsylvania 2Google DeepMind cmalaviy@seas.upenn.edu {petershaw,mingweichang,kentonl,kristout}@google.com ## Abstract Formulating selective information needs results in queries that implicitly specify set operations, such as intersection, union, and difference. For instance, one might search for "shorebirds that are not sandpipers" or "science-fiction films shot in England". To study the ability of retrieval systems to meet such information needs, we construct QUEST, a dataset of 3357 natural language queries with implicit set operations, that map to a set of entities corresponding to Wikipedia documents. The dataset challenges models to match multiple constraints mentioned in queries with corresponding evidence in documents and correctly perform various set operations. The dataset is constructed semi-automatically using Wikipedia category names. Queries are automatically composed from individual categories, then paraphrased and further validated for naturalness and fluency by crowdworkers. Crowdworkers also assess the relevance of entities based on their documents and highlight attribution of query constraints to spans of document text. We analyze several modern retrieval systems, finding that they often struggle on such queries. Queries involving negation and conjunction are particularly challenging and systems are further challenged with combinations of these operations.1 ## 1 Introduction People often express their information needs with multiple preferences or constraints. Queries corresponding to such needs typically implicitly express set operations such as intersection, difference, and union. For example, a movie-goer might be looking for a *science-fiction film from the 90s which does* not feature aliens and a reader might be interested in a *historical fiction novel set in France*. Similarly, ∗Work done during an internship at Google. 1The dataset is available at https://github.com/ google-research/language/tree/master/language/ quest.  Figure 1: The dataset construction process for QUEST. First, (1) we sample Wikipedia category names and find their corresponding set of relevant entities. (2) Then, we compose a query with set operations and have this query paraphrased by crowdworkers. (3) These queries are then validated for fluency and naturalness. (4) Finally, crowdworkers mark the entities' relevance by highlighting attributable spans in their documents. a botanist attempting to identify a species based on their recollection might search for *shrubs that* are evergreen and found in Panama. Further, if the set of entities that satisfy the constraints is relatively small, a reader may like to see and explore an exhaustive list of these entities. In addition, to verify and trust a system's recommendations, users benefit from being shown evidence from trusted sources (Lamm et al., 2021). Addressing such queries has been primarily studied in the context of question answering with structured knowledge bases (KBs), where query constraints are grounded to predefined predicates and symbolically executed. However, KBs can be incomplete and expensive to curate and maintain. Meanwhile, advances in information retrieval may enable developing systems that can address such queries without relying on structured KBs, by 14032 061 erations are not well represented in existing re-062 trieval benchmarks such as MSMarco (Nguyen 063 et al., 2016) and Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski 064 et al., 2019). Also, such datasets do not focus on 065 retrieving an exhaustive document set, instead lim-066 iting annotation to the top few results of a baseline 067 information retrieval system. matching query constraints directly to supporting evidence in text documents. However, queries that combine multiple constraints with implicit set operations are not well represented in existing retrieval benchmarks such as MSMarco (Nguyen et al., 2016) and Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). Also, such datasets do not focus on retrieving an exhaustive document set, instead limiting annotation to the top few results of a baseline information retrieval system. To analyze retrieval system performance on such queries, we present QUEST, a dataset with natural language queries from four domains, that are mapped to relatively comprehensive sets of entities corresponding to Wikipedia pages. We use categories and their mapping to entities in Wikipedia as a building block for our dataset construction approach, but do not allow access to this semistructured data source at inference time, to simulate text-based retrieval. Wikipedia categories represent a broad set of natural language descriptions of entity properties and often correspond to selective information need queries that could be plausibly issued by a search engine user. The relationship between property names and document text is often subtle and requires sophisticated reasoning to determine, representing the natural language inference challenge inherent in the task. Our dataset construction process is outlined in Figure 1. The base queries are semi-automatically generated using Wikipedia category names. To construct complex queries, we sample category names and compose them by using pre-defined templates (for example, A ∩ B \ C). Next, we ask crowdworkers to paraphrase these automatically generated queries, while ensuring that the paraphrased queries are fluent and clearly describe what a user could be looking for. These are then validated for naturalness and fluency by a different set of crowdworkers, and filtered according to those criteria. Finally, for a large subset of the data, we collect scalar relevance labels based on the entity documents and fine-grained textual attributions mapping query constraints to spans of document text. Such annotation could aid the development of systems that can make precise inferences from trusted sources. Performing well on this dataset requires systems that can match query constraints with corresponding evidence in documents and handle set operations implicitly specified by the query (see 061 erations are not well represented in existing re-062 trieval benchmarks such as MSMarco (Nguyen 063 et al., 2016) and Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski 064 et al., 2019). Also, such datasets do not focus on 065 retrieving an exhaustive document set, instead lim-066 iting annotation to the top few results of a baseline 067 information retrieval system. 068 To analyze how well retrieval systems handle 069 such queries, we present QUEST, a dataset with 070 natural language queries from four domains, that 071 are mapped to relatively comprehensive sets of en-072 tities corresponding to Wikipedia pages. We use 073 Wikipedia categories and their mapping to entities 074 in Wikipedia as a building block for our dataset 075 construction approach, but do not allow access to 076 this semi-structured data source at inference time, 077 to simulate text-based retrieval. Wikipedia cate-078 gories represent a broad set of natural language 079 descriptions of entity properties and often corre-080 spond to selective information need queries that 081 could be plausibly issued by a search engine user 082 ([At least 90% of the time based on our filtering?]). 083 The correspondence between property names and 084 document text is also often subtle and requires so-085 phisticated reasoning to determine relevance, rep-086 resenting the natural language inference challenge 087 inherent in the task, while the knowledge of cate-088 gory membership allows us to construct relatively 089 comprehensive sets of candidate entities for atomic 090 categories and their combinations. 091 Our dataset construction process is outlined in 092 Figure 1. The base queries in our dataset are 093 semi-automatically generated using Wikipedia cat-094 egory names. To construct queries, we sample 095 category names and compose them into complex 096 queries by using pre-defined templates (for exam-097 ple, A \ B \ C). Next, we ask crowdworkers to 098 paraphrase these automatically generated queries, 099 while ensuring that the paraphrased queries are 100 fluent and clearly describe what a user could be 101 looking for. These are then validated for natural-102 ness and fluency by a different set of crowdworkers, 103 and filtered according to those criteria. Finally, for 104 a large subset of our dataset, we collect scalar rel-105 evance labels based on the entity documents, and 106 textual attributions mapping query constraints to 107 spans of document text, to aid the development of 108 systems that can make precise inferences based on 109 trusted sources. 110 Performing well on this dataset requires sys-111 tems that can match query constraints with cor068 To analyze how well retrieval systems handle 069 such queries, we present QUEST, a dataset with 070 natural language queries from four domains, that 071 are mapped to relatively comprehensive sets of en-072 tities corresponding to Wikipedia pages. We use 073 Wikipedia categories and their mapping to entities 074 in Wikipedia as a building block for our dataset 075 construction approach, but do not allow access to 076 this semi-structured data source at inference time, 077 to simulate text-based retrieval. Wikipedia cate-078 gories represent a broad set of natural language 079 descriptions of entity properties and often corre-080 spond to selective information need queries that 081 could be plausibly issued by a search engine user 082 ([At least 90% of the time based on our filtering?]). 083 The correspondence between property names and 084 document text is also often subtle and requires so-085 phisticated reasoning to determine relevance, rep-086 resenting the natural language inference challenge 087 inherent in the task, while the knowledge of cate-088 gory membership allows us to construct relatively 089 comprehensive sets of candidate entities for atomic 090 categories and their combinations. 091 Our dataset construction process is outlined in 092 Figure 1. The base queries in our dataset are 093 semi-automatically generated using Wikipedia cat-094 egory names. To construct queries, we sample 095 category names and compose them into complex 096 queries by using pre-defined templates (for exam-097 ple, A \ B \ C). Next, we ask crowdworkers to 098 paraphrase these automatically generated queries, 099 while ensuring that the paraphrased queries are 100 fluent and clearly describe what a user could be 101 looking for. These are then validated for natural-102 ness and fluency by a different set of crowdworkers, 103 and filtered according to those criteria. Finally, for 104 a large subset of our dataset, we collect scalar rel-105 evance labels based on the entity documents, and 106 textual attributions mapping query constraints to 107 spans of document text, to aid the development of 108 systems that can make precise inferences based on 109 trusted sources. 110 Performing well on this dataset requires sys-111 tems that can match query constraints with cor-  responding evidence in documents and handle set 112 operations implicitly specified by the query (see 113 Figure 2), while also efficiently scaling to large 114 collections of entities. We evaluate several re- 115 trieval systems by finetuning pretrained models on 116 our dataset. Systems are trained to retrieve multi- 117 answer sets given a query. We find that current dual 118 encoder and cross-attention models up to the size 119 of T5-Large (Raffel et al., 2020) are largely not 120 effective at performing retrieval for queries with 121 set operations. Queries with conjunctions and nega- 122 tions prove to be especially challenging for models 123 and systems are further challenged with combina- 124 tions of set operations. Our error analysis reveals 125 that non-relevant false positive entities are often 126 caused by the model ignoring negated constraints, 127 or ignoring the conjunctive constraints in a query. 128 Figure 2), while also efficiently scaling to large collections of entities. We evaluate several retrieval systems by finetuning pretrained models on our dataset. Systems are trained to retrieve multidocument sets given a query. We find that current dual encoder and cross-attention models up to the size of T5-Large (Raffel et al., 2020) are largely not effective at performing retrieval for queries with set operations. Queries with conjunctions and negations prove to be especially challenging for models and systems are further challenged with combinations of set operations. Our error analysis reveals that non-relevant false positive entities are often caused by the model ignoring negated constraints, or ignoring the conjunctive constraints in a query. responding evidence in documents and handle set 112 operations implicitly specified by the query (see 113 Figure 2), while also efficiently scaling to large 114 collections of entities. We evaluate several re- 115 trieval systems by finetuning pretrained models on 116 our dataset. Systems are trained to retrieve multi- 117 answer sets given a query. We find that current dual 118 encoder and cross-attention models up to the size 119 of T5-Large (Raffel et al., 2020) are largely not 120 effective at performing retrieval for queries with 121 set operations. Queries with conjunctions and nega- 122 tions prove to be especially challenging for models 123 and systems are further challenged with combina- 124 tions of set operations. Our error analysis reveals 125 that non-relevant false positive entities are often 126 caused by the model ignoring negated constraints, 127 or ignoring the conjunctive constraints in a query. 128 2 Related Work 129 ## 2 Related Work Previous work in question answering and informa- 130 tion retrieval has focused on QA over knowledge 131 bases as well as open-domain QA and retrieval over 132 a set of entities or documents. We highlight how 133 these relate to our work below. 134 2 Related Work 129 Previous work in question answering and informa- 130 tion retrieval has focused on QA over knowledge 131 bases as well as open-domain QA and retrieval over 132 a set of entities or documents. We highlight how 133 these relate to our work below. 134 Previous work in question answering and information retrieval has focused on QA over knowledge bases as well as open-domain QA and retrieval over a set of entities or documents. We highlight how these relate to our work below. Knowledge Base QA Several datasets have been proposed for question answering over knowledge bases (Berant et al., 2013; Yih et al., 2016; Talmor and Berant, 2018; Keysers et al., 2020; Gu et al., 2021, *inter alia*). These benchmarks require retrieval of a set of entities that exist as nodes Knowledge Base QA Several datasets have been 135 proposed for question answering over knowledge 136 bases (Berant et al., 2013; Yih et al., 2016; Tal- 137 mor and Berant, 2018; Keysers et al., 2020; Gu 138 et al., 2021, *inter alia*). These benchmarks re- 139 quire retrieval of a set of entities that exist as nodes 140 or relations in an accompanying knowledge base. 141 Questions are optionally supplemented with logical 142 forms. Lan et al. (2021) provide a comprehensive 143 Knowledge Base QA Several datasets have been 135 proposed for question answering over knowledge 136 bases (Berant et al., 2013; Yih et al., 2016; Tal- 137 mor and Berant, 2018; Keysers et al., 2020; Gu 138 et al., 2021, *inter alia*). These benchmarks re- 139 quire retrieval of a set of entities that exist as nodes 140 or relations in an accompanying knowledge base. 141 Questions are optionally supplemented with logical 142 forms. Lan et al. (2021) provide a comprehensive 143 or relations in an accompanying knowledge base. Questions are optionally supplemented with logical forms. Lan et al. (2021) provide a comprehensive survey of complex KBQA datasets. Previous work has simultaneously noted that large curated KBs are incomplete (Watanabe et al., 2017). Notably, KBQA systems operate over a constrained answer schema, which limits the types of queries they can handle. Further, these schema are expensive to construct and maintain. For this reason, our work focuses on a setting where we do not assume access to a KB. We note that KBQA datasets have also been adapted to settings where a KB is incomplete or unavailable (Watanabe et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2019). This was done by either removing some subset of the data from the KB or ignoring the KB entirely. A key difference from these datasets is also that we do not focus on multihop reasoning over multiple documents. Instead, the relevance of an entity can be determined solely based on its document. Open-Domain QA and Retrieval Many opendomain QA benchmarks, which consider QA over unstructured text corpora, have been proposed in prior work. Some of these, such as TREC (Craswell et al., 2020), MSMarco (Nguyen et al., 2016) and Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) are constructed using "found data", using real user queries on search engines. Thakur et al. (2021) present a benchmark where they consider many such existing datasets. Datasets such as HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018), and MultiRC (Khashabi et al., 2018) have focused on multi-hop question answering. Other work has explored e-commerce datasets (for example, (Kong et al., 2022)), but these have not been released publicly. Notably, the focus of these datasets differs from ours as we focus on queries that contain implicit set operations over exhaustive answer sets. Such queries are not well represented in existing datasets because they occur in the tail of the query distributions considered. Multi-Answer Retrieval Related work (Min et al., 2021; Amouyal et al., 2022) also studies the problem of *multi-answer retrieval*, where systems are required to predict multiple distinct answers for a query. Min et al. (2021) adapt existing datasets (for example, WebQuestionsSP (Yih et al., 2016)) to study this setting and propose a new metric, MRecall@K, to evaluate exhaustive recall of multiple answers. We also consider the problem of multi-answer set retrieval, but consider queries that implicitly contain set constraints. In concurrent work, RomQA (Zhong et al., 2022) proposes an open-domain QA dataset, focusing on combinations of constraints extracted from Wikidata. RomQA shares our motivation to enable answering queries with multiple constraints, which have possibly large answer sets. To make attribution to evidence feasible without human annotation, RomQA focuses on questions whose component constraints can be verified from single entity-linked sentences from Wikipedia abstracts, annotated with relations automatically through distant supervision, with high precision but possibly low recall (T-Rex corpus). In QUEST, we broaden the scope of queryevidence matching operations by allowing for attribution through more global, document-level inference. To make human annotation for attribution feasible, we limit the answer set size and the evidence for an answer to a single document. ## 3 Dataset Generation QUEST consists of 3357 queries paired with up to 20 corresponding entities. Each entity has an associated document derived from its Wikipedia page. The dataset is divided into 1307 queries for training, 323 for validation, and 1727 for testing. The task for a system is to return the correct set of entities for a given query. Additionally, as the collection contains 325,505 entities, the task requires retrieval systems that can scale efficiently. We do not allow systems to access additional information outside of the text descriptions of entities at inference time. Category labels are omitted from all entity documents. ## 3.1 Atomic Queries The base atomic queries (i.e., queries without any introduced set operations) in our dataset are derived from Wikipedia category names2. These are handcurated natural language labels assigned to groups of related documents in Wikipedia3. Category assignments to documents allow us to automatically determine the set of answer entities for queries with high precision and relatively high recall. We compute transitive closures of all relevant categories to determine their answer sets. However, repurposing these categories for constructing queries poses challenges: 1) lack of evi- 2We use the Wikipedia version from 06/01/2022. 3Note that these category labels can sometimes be conjunctive themselves, potentially increasing complexity.   dence in documents: documents may not contain sufficient evidence for judging their relevance to a category, potentially providing noisy signal for relevance attributable to the document text, 2) low recall: entities may be missing from categories to which they belong. For about half of the dataset, we crowdsource relevance labels and attribution based on document text, and investigate recall through manual error analysis (§5). We select four domains to represent some diversity in queries: films, books, animals and plants. Focusing on four rather than all possible domains enables higher quality control. The former two model a general search scenario, while the latter two model a scientific search scenario. ## 3.2 Introducing Set Operations To construct queries with set operations, we define templates that represent plausible combinations of atomic queries. Denoting atomic queries as A, B and C, our templates and corresponding examples from different domains are listed in Table 1. Templates were constructed by composing three basic set operations (intersection, union and difference). They were chosen to ensure unambiguous interpretations of resulting queries by omitting those combinations of set operations that are non-associative. Below we describe the logic behind sampling atomic queries (i.e., A, B, C) for composing complex queries, with different set operations. In all cases, we ensure that answer sets contain between 2-20 entities so that crowdsourcing relevance judgements is feasible. We sample 200 queries per template and domain, for a total of 4200 initial queries. The dataset is split into train + validation (80-20 split) and testing equally. In each of these sets, we sampled an equal number of queries per template. Intersection. The intersection operation for a template A∩B is particularly interesting and potentially challenging when both A and B have large answer sets but their intersection is small. We require the minimum answer set sizes of each A and B to be fairly large (>50 entities), while their intersection to be small (2-20 entities). Difference. Similar to intersection, we require the answer sets for both A and B to be substantial (>50 entities), but also place maximum size constraints on both A (<200 entities) and B (<10000 entities) as very large categories tend to suffer from recall issues in Wikipedia. We also limit the intersection of A and B (see reasoning in Appendix B). Union. For the union operation, we require both A and B to be well-represented through the entities in the answer set for their union A ∪ B. Hence, we require both A and B to have at least 3 entities. Further, we require their intersection to be non-zero but less than 1/3rd of their union. This is so that A and B are somewhat related queries. | Films | Books | Plants | Animals | All | | |--------------------|---------|----------|-----------|-------|--------| | Num. Queries | 896 | 870 | 802 | 789 | 3357 | | Num. Entities | 146368 | 50784 | 83672 | 44681 | 325505 | | Avg. Query Len. | 8.68 | 7.93 | 8.94 | 9.09 | 8.64 | | Avg. Doc. Len. | 532.2 | 655.3 | 258.1 | 293.1 | 452.2 | | Avg. Ans. Set Size | 8.8 | 8.6 | 12.2 | 12.6 | 10.5 | For all other templates that contain compositions of the above set operations, we apply the same constraints recursively. For example, for A∩B\C, we sample atomic queries A and B for the intersection operation, then sample C based on the relationship between A ∩ B and C. ## 3.3 Annotation Tasks Automatically generating queries based on templates results in queries that are not always fluent and coherent. Further, entities mapped to a query may not actually be relevant and don't always have attributable evidence for judging their relevance. We conduct crowdsourcing to tackle these issues. The annotation tasks aim at ensuring that 1) queries are fluent, unambiguous and contain diverse natural language logical connectives, (2) entities are verified as being relevant or non-relevant and (3) relevance judgements are attributed to document text for each relevant entity. Crowdsourcing is performed in three stages, described below. More annotation details and the annotation interfaces can be found in Appendix C. ## 3.3.1 Paraphrasing Crowdworkers were asked to paraphrase a templatically generated query so that the paraphrased query is fluent, expresses all constraints in the original query, and clearly describes what a user could be looking for. This annotation was done by one worker per query. ## 3.3.2 Validation This stage is aimed at validating the queries we obtain from the paraphrasing stage. Crowdworkers were given queries from the first stage and asked to label whether the query is 1) fluent, 2) equivalent to the original templatic query in meaning, and 3) rate its naturalness (how likely it is to be issued by a real user). This annotation was done by 3 workers per query. We excluded those queries which were rated as not fluent, unnatural or having a different meaning than the original query, based on a majority vote. Based on the validation, we removed around around 11% of the queries from stage 1. ## 3.3.3 Relevance Labeling Next, crowdworkers were asked to provide relevance judgements for the automatically determined answer sets of queries. Specifically, they were given a query and associated entities/documents, and asked to label their relevance on a scale of 0-3 (definitely not relevant, likely not relevant, likely relevant, definitely relevant). They were asked to ensure that relevance should mostly be inferred from the document, but they could use some background knowledge and do minimal research. We also asked them to provide attributions for document relevance. Specifically, we ask them to first label whether the document provides sufficient evidence for the relevance of the entity (complete/partial/no). Then, for different phrases in the query (determined by the annotator), we ask them to mark sentence(s) in the document that indicate its relevance. The attribution annotation is broadly inspired by Rashkin et al. (2021). For negated constraints, we ask annotators to mark attributable sentences if they provide counter-evidence. Since this annotation was time-intensive, we collected these annotations for two domains (films and books). We found that relevance labeling was especially difficult for the plants and animals domains, as they required more specialized scientific knowledge. In our pilot study prior to larger scale data collection, we collected 3 relevance ratings from different annotators for 905 query and document pairs from the films domain. In 61.4% of cases, all 3 raters judged the document to be "Definitely relevant" or "Likely relevant" or all 3 raters judged the document to be "Definitely not relevant" or "Likely not relevant". The Fleiss' kappa metric on this data was found to be K=0.43. We excluded all entities which were marked as likely or definitely not relevant to a query based on the document text from its answer set. Around 23.7% of query-document pairs from stage 2 were excluded.  ## 3.4 Dataset Statistics Basic dataset statistics are reported in Table 2. The dataset contains more entities from the films domain, because this domain is more populated in Wikipedia. The average length of queries is 8.6 words and the average document length is 452 words. Documents from the films and books domains are longer on average, as they often contain plots and storylines. Around ∼69% of entities have complete evidence and ∼30% have partial evidence. Evidence was labeled as partial when not all phrases in the query had explicit evidence in the document (i.e., they may require background knowledge or reasoning). There are on average 33.2 words attributed for each entity with the maximum attribution text span ranging up to length 1837 words. Finally, the average answer set size is 10.5 entities. ## 3.5 Additional Training Examples Beyond the annotated data, we generated additional synthetic examples for training. We found including such examples improved model performance, and we include these examples for the experiments in §4. To generate these examples, we sample 5000 atomic queries from all domains, ensuring that they do not already appear as sub-queries in any of the queries in QUEST and use their corresponding entities in Wikipedia as their relevant entity set. ## 4 Experimental Setup We evaluate modern retrieval systems to establish baseline performances. We also perform extensive error analysis to understand patterns of model errors and the quality of the labels in QUEST. ## 4.1 Task Definition We consider a corpus, E, that contains entities across all domains in the dataset. Each entity is accompanied with a document based on its Wikipedia page. An example in our dataset consists of a query, x, and an annotated set of relevant entities, y ⊂ E. As described in §3, for all examples |y| < 20. Our task is to develop a system that, given E and a query x, predicts a set of relevant entities, yˆ ⊂ E. ## 4.2 Evaluation Our primary evaluation metric is average F1, which averages per-example F1 scores. We compute F1 for each example by comparing the predicted set of entities, yˆ, with the annotated set, y. ## 4.3 Baseline Systems We evaluated several combinations of retrievers and classifiers, as shown in Figure 3. For the retriever component, we consider a sparse BM25 retriever (Robertson et al., 2009) and a dense dual encoder retriever (denoted DE). Following Ni et al. (2022), we initialize our dual encoder from a T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) encoder and train with an in-batch sampled softmax loss (Henderson et al., 2017). Once we have a candidate set, we need to determine a set of relevant entities. To classify relevance of each candidate document for the given query, we consider a cross-attention model which consists of a T5 encoder and decoder.4 We train the cross-attention classifier using a binary cross-entropy loss with negative examples based on non-relevant documents in top 1,000 documents retrieved by BM25 and random non-relevant documents (similarly to Nogueira and Cho (2019)). As cross-attention classification for a large number of candidates is computationally expensive, we restrict BM25 and the dual encoder to retrieve 100 candidates which are then considered by the crossattention classifier. As our T5-based dual encoder can only efficiently accommodate up to 512 tokens, 4Scores from BM25 and dual encoders trained with a softmax loss are not normalized to provide relevance probabilities for documents. We found that naively applying a global threshold to these scores to produce answer sets did not perform as well as using a classifier trained with a binary cross-entropy loss to predict document relevance. | Retriever (K=100) | Classifier | Avg. Precision | Avg. Recall | Avg. F1 | |---------------------|--------------|------------------|---------------|-----------| | BM25 | T5-Base | 0.168 | 0.160 | 0.141 | | BM25 | T5-Large | 0.178 | 0.168 | 0.150 | | T5-Large DE | T5-Base | 0.153 | 0.354 | 0.176 | | T5-Large DE | T5-Large | 0.165 | 0.368 | 0.192 | Table 3: Average Precision, Recall, and F1 of baseline systems evaluated on the test dataset. | Avg. Recall@K | MRecall@K | | | | | | | | |-----------------|-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Retriever | 20 | 50 | 100 | 1000 | 20 | 50 | 100 | 1000 | | BM25 | 0.104 | 0.153 | 0.197 | 0.395 | 0.020 | 0.030 | 0.037 | 0.087 | | T5-Base DE | 0.255 | 0.372 | 0.455 | 0.726 | 0.045 | 0.088 | 0.127 | 0.360 | | T5-Large DE | 0.265 | 0.386 | 0.476 | 0.757 | 0.047 | 0.100 | 0.142 | 0.408 | Table 4: Average Recall and MRecall of various retrievers. we truncate document text. We discuss the impact of this and alternatives in §5. Further, since T5 was pre-trained on Wikipedia, we investigate the impact of memorization in Appendix D. Additional details and hyperparameter settings are in Appendix A. ## 4.4 Manual Error Annotation For the best overall system, we sampled errors and manually annotated 1145 query-document pairs from the validation set. For the retriever, we sampled relevant documents not included in the top-100 candidate set and non-relevant documents ranked higher than relevant ones. For the classifier, we sampled false positive and false negative errors made in the top-100 candidate set. This annotation process included judgements of document relevance (to assess agreement with the annotations in the dataset) and whether the document (and the truncated version considered by the dual encoder or classifier) contained sufficient evidence to reasonably determine relevance. We also annotated relevance for each constraint within a query. We discuss these results in §5. ## 5 Results And Analysis We report the performance of our baseline systems on the test set in Table 3. In this section, we summarize the key findings from our analysis of these results and the error annotation described in §4.4. Dual encoders outperform BM25. As shown in Table 3, the best overall system uses a T5- Large Dual Encoder instead of BM25 for retrieval. The performance difference is even more significant when comparing recall of Dual Encoders and BM25 directly. We report average recall (average per-example recall of the full set of relevant documents) and MRecall (Min et al., 2021) (the percentage of examples where the candidate set contains all relevant documents), over various candidate set sizes in Table 4. Retrieval and classification are both challenging. As we consider only the top-100 candidates from the retriever, the retriever's recall@100 sets an upper bound on the recall of the overall system. Recall@100 is only 0.476 for the T5-Large Dual Encoder, and the overall recall is further reduced by the T5-Large classifier to 0.368, despite achieving only 0.165 precision. This suggests that there is room for improvement from both stages to improve overall scores. As performance improves for larger T5 sizes for both retrieval and classification, further model scaling could be beneficial. Models struggle with intersection and difference. We also analyzed results across different templates and domains, as shown in Table 5. Different constraints lead to varying distributions over answer set sizes and the atomic categories used. Therefore, it can be difficult to interpret differences in F1 scores across templates. Nevertheless, we found the queries with set union have the highest average F1 scores. Queries with set intersection have the lowest average F1 scores, and queries with set difference also appear to be challenging. To analyze why queries with conjunction and negation are challenging, we labeled the relevance of individual query constraints (§4.4), where a system incorrectly judges relevance of a non-relevant document. The results are summarized in Table 6. For a majority of false positive errors involving intersection, at least one constraint is satisfied. This could be interpreted as models incorrectly treating intersection as union when determining relevance. Similarly, for a majority of examples with set difference, the negated constraint is not satisfied. This suggests that the systems are not sufficiently sensitive to negations. Template Films Books Plants Animals All A 0.231 0.436 0.209 0.214 0.274 A ∪ B 0.264 0.366 0.229 0.271 0.282 A ∩ B 0.115 0.138 0.049 0.063 0.092 A \ B 0.177 0.188 0.216 0.204 0.193 A ∪ B ∪ C 0.200 0.348 0.306 0.294 0.287 A ∩ B ∩ C 0.086 0.121 0.07 0.065 0.086 A ∩ B \ C 0.119 0.112 0.121 0.136 0.122 All 0.171 0.248 0.165 0.182 0.192 ## There Is Significant Headroom To Improve Both precision and recall. As part of our manual error analysis (§4.4), we made our own judgements of relevance and measured agreement with the relevance annotations in QUEST. As this analysis focused on cases where our best system disagreed with the relevance labels in the dataset, we would expect agreement on these cases to be significantly lower than on randomly selected query-document pairs in the dataset. Therefore, it provides a focused way to judge the headroom and annotation quality of the dataset. For false negative errors, we judged 91.1% of the entities to be relevant for the films and books domains, and 81.4% for plants and animals. Notably, we collected relevance labels for the films and books domains and removed some entities based on these labels, as described in §3, which likely explains the higher agreement for false negatives from these domains. This indicates significant headroom for improving recall as defined by QUEST, especially for the domains where we collected relevance labels. For false positive errors, we judged 28.8% of the entities to be relevant, showing a larger disagreement with the relevance labels in the dataset. This is primarily due to entities not included in the entity sets derived from the Wikipedia category taxonomy (97.7%), rather than entities removed due to relevance labeling. This is a difficult issue to fully resolve, as it is not feasible to exhaustively label relevance for all entities to correct for recall issues in the Wikipedia category taxonomy. Future work can use pooling to continually grow the set | # Constraints 1 2 3 | Neg. | | | | |-----------------------|--------|------|------|------| | Retriever A ∩ B | 63.5 | 36.5 | - | - | | A ∩ B ∩ C | 56.5 | 37.0 | 6.5 | - | | A \ B | 80.3 | 19.7 | - | 59.1 | | A ∩ B \ C | 47.6 | 40.5 | 11.9 | 26.2 | | Classifier A ∩ B | 83.3 | 16.7 | - | - | | A ∩ B ∩ C | 73.2 | 22.0 | 4.9 | - | | A \ B | 81.0 | 19.1 | - | 38.1 | | A ∩ B \ C | 95.5 | 4.6 | 0.0 | 68.2 | of relevant documents (Sparck Jones and Van Rijsbergen, 1975). Despite this, our analysis suggests there is significant headroom for improving precision, as we judged a large majority of the false positive predictions to be non-relevant. Truncating document text usually provides sufficient context. In our experiments, we truncate document text to 512 tokens for the dual encoder, and 384 tokens for the classifier to allow for the document and query to be concatenated. Based on our error analysis (§4.4), out of the documents with sufficient evidence to judge relevance, evidence occurred in this truncated context 93.2% of the time for the dual encoder, and 96.1% of the time for the classifier. This may explain the relative success of this simple baseline for handling long documents. We also evaluated alternative strategies but these performed worse in preliminary experiments5. Future work can evaluate efficient transformer variants (Guo et al., 2022; Beltagy et al., 2020). ## 6 Conclusion We present QUEST, a new benchmark of queries which contain implicit set operations with corresponding sets of relevant entity documents. Our experiments indicate that such queries present a 5For the dual encoder, we split documents into overlapping chunks of 512 tokens, and aggregated scores at inference (Dai and Callan, 2019). For the cross-attention model, we evaluated using BM25 to select the top-3 passages of length 128. challenge for modern retrieval systems. Future work could consider approaches that have better inductive biases for handling set operations in natural language expressions (for example, Vilnis et al. (2018)). The attributions in QUEST can be leveraged for building systems that can provide finegrained attributions at inference time. The potential of pretrained generative LMs and multi-evidence aggregation methods to answer set-seeking selective queries, while providing attribution to sources, can also be investigated. ## 7 Limitations Naturalness. Since our dataset relies on the Wikipedia category names and semi-automatically generated compositions, it does not represent an unbiased sample from a natural distribution of real search queries that contain implicit set operations. Further, we limit attention to non-ambiguous queries and do not address the additional challenges that arise due to ambiguity in real search scenarios. However, the queries in our dataset were judged to plausibly correspond to real user search needs and system improvements measured on QUEST should correlate with improvements on at least a fraction of natural search engine queries with set operations. Recall. We also note that because Wikipedia categories have imperfect recall of all relevant entities (that contain sufficient evidence in their documents), systems may be incorrectly penalised for predicted relevant entities assessed as false positive. We quantify this in section 5. We have also limited the trusted source for an entity to its Wikipedia document but entities with insufficient textual evidence in their documents may still be relevant. Ideally, multiple trusted sources could be taken into account and evidence could be aggregated to make relevance decisions. RomQA (Zhong et al., 2022) takes a step in this latter direction although the evidence attribution is not manually verified. Answer Set Sizes. To ensure that relevance labels are correct and verifiable, we seek the help of crowdworkers. However, this meant that we needed to restrict the answer set sizes to 20 for the queries in our dataset, to make annotation feasible. On one hand, this is realistic for a search scenario because users may only be interested in a limited set of results. On the other hand, our dataset does not model a scenario where the answer set sizes are much larger. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank Isabel Kraus-Liang, Mahesh Maddinala, Andrew Smith, Daphne Domansi, and all the annotators for their work. We would also like to thank Mark Yatskar, Dan Roth, Zhuyun Dai, Jianmo Ni, William Cohen, Andrew McCallum, Shib Sankar Dasgupta and Nicholas Fitzgerald for useful discussions. ## References Samuel Joseph Amouyal, Ohad Rubin, Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Qampari:: An open-domain question answering benchmark for questions with many answers from multiple paragraphs. ArXiv, abs/2205.12665. Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv:2004.05150. Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic parsing on Freebase from question-answer pairs. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1533–1544, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nick Craswell, Bhaskar Mitra, Emine Yilmaz, Daniel Campos, and Ellen M Voorhees. 2020. Overview of the TREC 2019 deep learning track. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2003.07820. Zhuyun Dai and Jamie Callan. 2019. Deeper text understanding for ir with contextual neural language modeling. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 985–988. Yu Gu, Sue Kase, Michelle Vanni, Brian Sadler, Percy Liang, Xifeng Yan, and Yu Su. 2021. Beyond iid: three levels of generalization for question answering on knowledge bases. In *Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021*, pages 3477–3488. Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David Uthus, Santiago Ontanon, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2022. LongT5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, pages 724–736, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matthew Henderson, Rami Al-Rfou, Brian Strope, YunHsuan Sung, László Lukács, Ruiqi Guo, Sanjiv Kumar, Balint Miklos, and Ray Kurzweil. 2017. Efficient natural language response suggestion for smart reply. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00652*. Daniel Keysers, Nathanael Schärli, Nathan Scales, Hylke Buisman, Daniel Furrer, Sergii Kashubin, Nikola Momchev, Danila Sinopalnikov, Lukasz Stafiniak, Tibor Tihon, Dmitry Tsarkov, Xiao Wang, Marc van Zee, and Olivier Bousquet. 2020. Measuring compositional generalization: A comprehensive method on realistic data. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Daniel Khashabi, Snigdha Chaturvedi, Michael Roth, Shyam Upadhyay, and Dan Roth. 2018. Looking beyond the surface: A challenge set for reading comprehension over multiple sentences. In *Proceedings* of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 252–262, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Weize Kong, Swaraj Khadanga, Cheng Li, Shaleen Gupta, Mingyang Zhang, Wensong Xu, and Mike Bendersky. 2022. Multi-aspect dense retrieval. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452–466. Matthew Lamm, Jennimaria Palomaki, Chris Alberti, Daniel Andor, Eunsol Choi, Livio Baldini Soares, and Michael Collins. 2021. QED: A Framework and Dataset for Explanations in Question Answering. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 9:790–806. Yunshi Lan, Gaole He, Jinhao Jiang, Jing Jiang, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2021. A survey on complex knowledge base question answering: Methods, challenges and solutions. *Proceedings of* the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-21). Sewon Min, Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, Kristina Toutanova, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Joint passage ranking for diverse multi-answer retrieval. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 6997–7008, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, and Li Deng. 2016. Ms marco: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. In *CoCo@ NIPs*. Jianmo Ni, Chen Qu, Jing Lu, Zhuyun Dai, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Ji Ma, Vincent Zhao, Yi Luan, Keith Hall, Ming-Wei Chang, and Yinfei Yang. 2022. Large dual encoders are generalizable retrievers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9844–9855, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Passage re-ranking with bert. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1901.04085. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21:1–67. Hannah Rashkin, Vitaly Nikolaev, Matthew Lamm, Lora Aroyo, Michael Collins, Dipanjan Das, Slav Petrov, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Iulia Turc, and David Reitter. 2021. Measuring attribution in natural language generation models. Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. *Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval*, 3(4):333–389. K. Sparck Jones and C. J. Van Rijsbergen. 1975. Report on the need for and provision of an ideal information retrieval test collection. Haitian Sun, Tania Bedrax-Weiss, and William Cohen. 2019. PullNet: Open domain question answering with iterative retrieval on knowledge bases and text. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2380– 2390, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alon Talmor and Jonathan Berant. 2018. The web as a knowledge-base for answering complex questions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 641–651, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rücklé, Abhishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. BEIR: A heterogeneous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models. In *Thirty-fifth* Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2). Luke Vilnis, Xiang Li, Shikhar Murty, and Andrew McCallum. 2018. Probabilistic embedding of knowledge graphs with box lattice measures. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 263–272, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yusuke Watanabe, Bhuwan Dhingra, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2017. Question answering from unstructured text by retrieval and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.08885. Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2369–2380, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wen-tau Yih, Matthew Richardson, Chris Meek, MingWei Chang, and Jina Suh. 2016. The value of semantic parse labeling for knowledge base question answering. In *Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 201–206, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Victor Zhong, Weijia Shi, Wen-tau Yih, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. RoMQA: A benchmark for robust, multi-evidence, multi-answer question answering. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14353*. ## A Experiment Details And Hyperparameters All models were fine-tuned starting from T5 1.1 checkpoints 6. We fine-tune T5 models on 32 Cloud TPU v3 cores7. Fine-tuning takes less than 8 hours for all models. Dual Encoder. We used the t5x_retrieval library 8for implementing dual encoder models. We tuned some parameters based on results on the validation set. Relevant hyperparameters for training the dual encoder are: - Learning Rate: 1e-3 - Warmup Steps: $\small1500$ . - Finetuning Steps: 15000 - Batch Size: 512 - Max Query Length: 64 ## - Max Candidate Length: 512 Classifier. For negative examples, we sampled 250 random non-relevant documents and sampled 250 non-relevant documents from the top-1000 documents retrieved by BM25. We also replicated each positive example 50 times. We found an approximately even number of positive and negative examples lead to better performance than training with a large class imbalance. We found a combination of random negatives and negatives from BM25 performed better than using only either individual type of negative examples. Additionally, selecting negative examples from BM25 performed better than selecting negative examples from the T5-Large dual encoder. For the T5 input we concatenated the query and truncated document text. The T5 output is the string "relevant" or "not relevant". To classify document relevance at inference time, we applied a threshold to the probability assigned to the "relevant" label, which we tuned on the validation set. When classifying BM25 candidates we used a threshold of 0.9 and when classifying the dual encoder candidates we used a threshold of 0.95. Other relevant hyperparameters for training the classifier are: 6https://github.com/googleresearch/t5x/blob/main/docs/models.md 7https://cloud.google.com/tpu/ 8https://github.com/google-research/t5x_retrieval - Learning Rate: 1e-3 - Warmup Steps: 1000 - Finetuning Steps: 10000 - Batch Size: 1024 - Max Source Length: 512 - Max Target Length: 16 ## B Set Difference And Recall Notation and Assumptions Let us assume we have two sets derived from the Wikipedia category graph, Aˆ and Bˆ. The Wikipedia category graph can be missing some relevant entities, such that Aˆ ⊂ A and Bˆ ⊂ B, where A and B are interpreted as the hypothetical sets containing all relevant entities. We quantify the degree of missing entities by denoting recall as rA and rB, such that |Aˆ| = rA ∗ |A| and |Bˆ| = rB ∗ |B|. We quantify the fraction of elements in A that are also in B as r∩, such that |A ∩ B| = r∩ ∗ |A|. For simplicity, we also assume that the overlap between Aˆ and Bˆ is such that |Aˆ ∩ B| = rA ∗ |A ∩ B| and |Aˆ ∩ Bˆ| = rA ∗ rB ∗ |A ∩ B|. Derivation What is the recall (r) and precision (p) of Aˆ \ Bˆ relative to A \ B *as a function of* rA, rB*, and* r∩? First, we derive this function for recall:9 $r=\dfrac{|(A\setminus B)\cap(\hat{A}\setminus\hat{B})|}{|(A\setminus B)|}$ $r=\dfrac{|(\hat{A}\setminus B)|}{|(A\setminus B)|}$ $r=\dfrac{|\hat{A}|-|\hat{A}\cap B|}{|A|-|A\cap B|}$ $r=\dfrac{r_A*|A|-r_A*r_\cap*|A|}{|A|-(r_\cap*|A|)}$ $r=\dfrac{r_A*(1-r_\cap)*|A|}{(1-r_\cap)*|A|}$ $\boxed{r=r_A}$ And for precision: p = |(A \ B) ∩ (Aˆ \ Bˆ)| |(Aˆ \ Bˆ)| 9We note some useful properties of pairs of sets X and Y : X \ Y = X ∩ Y c, |X \ Y | = |X| − |X ∩ Y |, if X ⊂ Y then X ∩ Y = X, and if X ⊂ Y then Y c ⊂ X c. $$p=\frac{|(\hat{A}\setminus B)|}{|(\hat{A}\setminus\hat{B})|}$$ $$p=\frac{|\hat{A}|-|\hat{A}\cap B|}{|\hat{A}|-|\hat{A}\cap\hat{B}|}$$ $$p=\frac{r_A*|A|-r_A*r_\cap*|A|}{r_A*|A|-r_A*r_B*r_\cap*|A|}$$ $$=(1-r_A)*|A|$$ $p=\dfrac{r_{A}*(1-r_{\cap})*|A|}{r_{A}*(1-r_{B}*r_{\cap})*|A|}$ $p=\dfrac{(1-r_{\cap})}{(1-r_{B}*r_{\cap})}$ **ion**: While recall is simply equal to $r_{A}$. Discussion While recall is simply equal to rA, precision is a more complicated function of rB and r∩, and can be very low for large values of r∩. Intuitively, if subtracting Bˆ from Aˆ removes most of Aˆ, then the precision of the resulting set will be dominated by the relevant entities missing from Bˆ. This motivates limiting the intersection of the two sets used to construct queries involving set intersection. For example, if rB = 0.95, then with r∩ < 0.8, we can ensure p > 0.83. ## C Annotation Details The annotation tasks in QUEST were carried out by participants who were paid contractors. They are based in Austin, TX and either have a bachelor's degree (55%) or equivalent work experience (45%). They were paid by the hour for their work and were recruited from a vendor who screened them for knowledge of US English. They were informed of how their work would be used and could opt out. They received a standard contracted wage, which complies with living wage laws in their country of employment. The annotation interfaces presented to the annotators are shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6. ## D Impact Of Memorization Of Pre-Training Data Since the T5 checkpoints we use to initialize our models were pre-trained on the C4 corpus (which includes Wikipedia), we investigate whether these models have memorized aspects of the Wikipedia category graph. We compare recall of the T5-based dual encoder model for Wikipedia documents that were created prior to the pre-training date of the T5 checkpoint compared with documents that were added after pre-training. We report these in Table 7, along with the recalls for the same sets of documents with a BM25 retriever, for a baseline | Avg. Recall@100 | | | |-------------------|--------|-------| | Retriever | Before | After | | BM25 | 0.183 | 0.050 | | T5-Large DE | 0.466 | 0.171 | comparison. We note that the ratio of scores between the documents added before pre-training to documents added after pre-training is similar for both systems, which suggests factors other than memorization may explain the difference. For example, the documents created before vs. after the pre-training date have average lengths of 759.7 vs. 441.2 words, respectively.    ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. We did not identify any risks. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** We will release the code and our dataset publicly. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Appendix A ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Yes, we will use an MIT license to release our dataset. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? 3 ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? 3 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 3 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 3 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix A The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4 and Appendix A ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Appendix A ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix A D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Appendix C ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix C ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Appendix C ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Appendix C ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Appendix C

wang-etal-2023-dynamic

Dynamic Heterogeneous-Graph Reasoning with Language Models and Knowledge Representation Learning for Commonsense Question Answering

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.785

Recently, knowledge graphs (KGs) have won noteworthy success in commonsense question answering. Existing methods retrieve relevant subgraphs in the KGs through key entities and reason about the answer with language models (LMs) and graph neural networks. However, they ignore (i) optimizing the knowledge representation and structure of subgraphs and (ii) deeply fusing heterogeneous QA context with subgraphs. In this paper, we propose a dynamic heterogeneous-graph reasoning method with LMs and knowledge representation learning (DHLK), which constructs a heterogeneous knowledge graph (HKG) based on multiple knowledge sources and optimizes the structure and knowledge representation of the HKG using a two-stage pruning strategy and knowledge representation learning (KRL). It then performs joint reasoning by LMs and Relation Mask Self-Attention (RMSA). Specifically, DHLK filters key entities based on the dictionary vocabulary to achieve the first-stage pruning while incorporating the paraphrases in the dictionary into the subgraph to construct the HKG. Then, DHLK encodes and fuses the QA context and HKG using LM, and dynamically removes irrelevant KG entities based on the attention weights of LM for the second-stage pruning. Finally, DHLK introduces KRL to optimize the knowledge representation and perform answer reasoning on the HKG by RMSA.We evaluate DHLK at CommonsenseQA and OpenBookQA, and show its improvement on existing LM and LM+KG methods.

# Dynamic Heterogeneous-Graph Reasoning With Language Models And Knowledge Representation Learning For Commonsense Question Answering Yujie Wang1, Hu Zhang1,2,∗, Jiye Liang1,2,∗, Ru Li1,2 1.School of Computer and Information Technology, Shanxi University, Taiyuan, China 2.Key Laboratory of Computational Intelligence and Chinese Information Processing of Ministry of Education, Shanxi University, Taiyuan, China init_wang@foxmail.com,{zhanghu,ljy,liru}@sxu.edu.cn ## Abstract Recently, knowledge graphs (KGs) have won noteworthy success in commonsense question answering. Existing methods retrieve relevant subgraphs in the KGs through key entities and reason about the answer with language models (LMs) and graph neural networks. However, they ignore (i) optimizing the knowledge representation and structure of subgraphs and (ii) deeply fusing heterogeneous QA context with subgraphs. In this paper, we propose a dynamic heterogeneous-graph reasoning method with LMs and knowledge representation learning (DHLK), which constructs a heterogeneous knowledge graph (HKG) based on multiple knowledge sources and optimizes the structure and knowledge representation of the HKG using a two-stage pruning strategy and knowledge representation learning (KRL). It then performs joint reasoning by LMs and Relation Mask Self-Attention (RMSA). Specifically, DHLK filters key entities based on the dictionary vocabulary to achieve the first-stage pruning while incorporating the paraphrases in the dictionary into the subgraph to construct the HKG. Then, DHLK encodes and fuses the QA context and HKG using LM, and dynamically removes irrelevant KG entities based on the attention weights of LM for the second-stage pruning. Finally, DHLK introduces KRL to optimize the knowledge representation and perform answer reasoning on the HKG by RMSA. We evaluate DHLK at CommonsenseQA and OpenBookQA, and show its improvement on existing LM and LM+KG methods. ## 1 Introduction Question answering (QA) is a challenging task that requires machines to understand questions asked by natural language and respond to the questions based on the knowledge acquired. Recently, QA has made remarkable progress with the development of Language Models (LMs) (Devlin et al., ∗Corresponding author. 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Lan et al., 2020; Raffel et al., 2020). Fine-tuning based on LMs has now become a major paradigm for QA tasks. LMs are pre-trained on a general large-scale corpus containing rich world knowledge, which the machine can utilize when fine-tuning downstream tasks using LMs. In some simple, fact-based QA tasks, such as SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016, 2018) and RACE (Lai et al., 2017), machine has surpassed humans in terms of answer accuracy. However, the machine remains less satisfactory in some structured reasoning QA tasks that require commonsense knowledge. Commonsense knowledge is the general law summarized by human beings through observation, research, and reflection of various phenomena in the objective world, which is verified by the longterm experience of countless people and is the common daily consensus of people. When humans answer questions, they use this knowledge unconsciously. For example, if you ask "John had an urgent matter to attend to at his company, and he drove fast to the company but stopped at an intersection, what could have happened?". We can reason that John may be passing through the intersection when the traffic light turns red. Thus, he has to stop and wait for the light to turn green. This commonsense reasoning is easy for humans. However, considering that commonsense knowledge is a relatively tacit knowledge, LMs do not capture it well. Knowledge graphs (KGs) store a large amount of commonsense knowledge that can be used by machines to make sound judgments, and this knowledge can provide the machines with displayed and interpretable evidence. Therefore, some methods (Lin et al., 2019; Feng et al., 2020; Yasunaga et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022; Zheng and Kordjamshidi, 2022; Zhang et al., 2022) have introduced KGs into LMs-based QA methods to model and reason about structured knowledge in KGs through graph 14048  Figure 1: An example from CommonsenseQA , we retrieve knowledge paths from ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017) and key entity paraphrases from WordNet (Miller, 1995) and Wiktionary. neural networks (GNNs) (Scarselli et al., 2009). Related methods generally follow the following steps: (i) Extracting key entities in the QA context using entity recognition methods; (ii) Retrieving relevant knowledge subgraphs in KGs based on key entities; (iii) Initializing subgraph entities using pre-trained word embedding models; and (iv) Designing a GNNs-based reasoning module to perform joint reasoning with LMs. Therefore, subgraphs' quality and the joint method of GNNs and LMs are crucial to the reasoning performance. Currently, combining LMs and GNNs to solve commonsense QA (CQA) task has proven to be an effective method but still contains some problems: (i) In the key entities-based subgraph extraction method, the goodness of the key entities largely determines the quality of the subgraph. As shown in Figure 1, entities such as "wood", "bank", "top", and "cat" are some noisy knowledge for the current question, and they affect the model's judgment during the inference process. But a part of the noisy knowledge can be solved by optimizing key entities. In the example of Figure 1, "side chair" is a noun phrase, which should be considered as a whole when retrieving knowledge based on it, and this will reduce the introduction of some noisy knowledge; (ii) The knowledge representation of entities in subgraph are mostly obtained by Glove (Pennington et al., 2014), LMs, and so on, ignoring the semantic associations between entities; additionally, the knowledge representations obtained are less effective; (iii) Given that the QA context and subgraph have different structures, existing methods encode QA context and subgraph separately, with shallow interactions only at the GNN layer through message passing (Yasunaga et al., 2021; Zheng and Kordjamshidi, 2022) or at the output layer through attention mechanism (Sun et al., 2022) or MLP (Feng et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022; Yasunaga et al., 2022), lacking deep fusion of QA context and subgraph, which will hinder the inference capability of the model. Based on the above problems, we propose a Dynamic Heterogeneous-graph reasoning method based on Language models and Knowledge representation learning (DHLK). Specifically, given a question and choice, we first use KeyBERT (Grootendorst, 2020) to extract the candidate entities and introduce WordNet (Miller, 1995) and Wiktionary 1 vocabularies to filter the candidate entities and then obtain the key entities, which can remove some noisy entities in the subgraph retrieval process and realize first-stage pruning of the subgraph. We also incorporate the paraphrases of key entities in the two dictionaries as entities into the subgraph to construct a heterogeneous knowledge graph (HKG). Then, we use LM to encode the QA context and HKG and fuse the QA context and HKG in the encoding process. In addition, we dynamically remove irrelevant entities according to the attention weights of LM to achieve the second-stage pruning of the subgraph. Finally, we combine KRL and Relation Mask Self-Attention (RMSA) to optimize the knowledge representation of HKG and incorporate the path information in the HKG into the QA context. In summary, our contributions are threefold: - We construct the HKG based on multiple knowledge sources and introduce a two-stage pruning strategy and KRL to optimize the structure and knowledge representation of the HKG. - We effectively fuse the QA context and HKG in the encoding phase of LM to achieve better reasoning performance. - We evaluate our method on CommonsenseQA and OpenBookQA, proving the effectiveness of the method through a series of ablation experiments and case studies. 1https://www.wiktionary.org/ ## 2 Related Work Recently, large LMs such as UnifiedQA (Khashabi et al., 2020), T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) have been widely applied in QA tasks, such as open-domain question answering (ODQA) and CQA, driving the development of QA. However, larger LMs result in disproportionate resource consumption and training time. Therefore, many works have enhanced the reasoning ability of machines by introducing external knowledge, hoping to achieve good answering results while reducing resource consumption and training time. Knowledge-enhanced ODQA. ODQA model utilizes external knowledge to answer questions, typically consisting of a retriever and a reader component. With the development of LMs, Retrieval Augmented Architectures (Lewis et al., 2020; Guu et al., 2020) have become the mainstream method for ODQA. They apply LMs to retriever-reader and conduct joint training of the retriever-reader. However, previous works (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Izacard and Grave, 2021) primarily focused on unstructured knowledge sources, such as Wikipedia. Recently, some works (Min et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2022) have started incorporating structured KGs into the retriever-reader architecture to enhance retrieval effectiveness and question answering capabilities. For example, UniKQA (Oguz et al., 2022) converts KG triplets into text and merges them with unstructured knowledge repositories. KG-FiD (Yu et al., 2022) utilizes KG to establish relational dependencies between retrieved paragraphs and employs GNNs to sort and prune the retrieved paragraphs. Grape (Ju et al., 2022) constructs a localized bipartite graph for each pair of question and article, learning knowledge representations through GNNs. Knowledge-enhanced CQA. CQA also requires external knowledge to answer questions, but it is more focused on commonsense questions. From the perspective of knowledge and QA context fusion, there are currently two main methods. Some works (Bian et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021, 2022) feed the retrieved knowledge together with the QA context into the LM, utilizing self-attention to fuse the knowledge. However, the self-attention treats the input knowledge and QA context indiscriminately, which can undermine the semantic information of the QA context. Other works (Lin et al., 2019; Feng et al., 2020; Lv et al., 2020; Yasunaga et al., 2022; Zheng and Kordjamshidi, 2022) combine LM and GNNs to solve CQA. For example, QAGNN (Yasunaga et al., 2021) uses LM to estimate the importance of subgraph entities and considers the QA context as an additional node connected to the subgraph. JointLK (Sun et al., 2022) uses the bidirectional attention module to fuse the two modalities while designing a pruning module to remove irrelevant entities from the subgraph. GREASELM (Zhang et al., 2022) fuses encoding representations from LM and GNNs through multi-layered modality interaction operations. However, these works encode the QA context and KG subgraph in isolation, leading to limited interaction between textual and KG representations. Additionally, they don't consider the influence of key entities and knowledge representations on subgraph retrieval and model inference. In contrast to previous works, we propose to reduce noisy knowledge by optimizing the set of key entities in the subgraph retrieval process. In addition, we use LM to encode and fuse the two modalities and prune the subgraph according to the attention weights of LM. Meanwhile, during the inference process, we introduce the KRL algorithm to optimize the knowledge representation of the subgraph. Figure 2 shows the overall architecture of our method. ## 3 Methods 3.1 Task Formulation We focus on the multi-choice CQA task in this paper. Given a question q and a set of candidate choices {c1, c2*, ..., c*b}, we need to select the one that best fits the question's meaning. In general, CQA does not provide the background knowledge related to the question. Therefore, we need to retrieve relevant knowledge from KG and combine it to reason about the answer. In this paper, we retrieve a relevant subgraph from ConceptNet based on key entities in question and choice, and identify the paraphrases of the key entities in WordNet and Wiktionary. Meanwhile, we explicitly take the paraphrases as some additional entities (paraphrase entities) connected to the KG subgraph. Therefore, our method starts with the HKG construction. ## 3.2 Hkg Construction In the KG-based CQA task, the subgraph needs to be retrieved from the KG based on key entities. Therefore, the key entities determine the quality of the subgraph. We use KeyBERT to identify  candidate entities Eˆ = {eˆ1, eˆ2*, ...,* eˆn} in question and choice. Meanwhile, we identify phrase entities in Eˆ based on WordNet and Wiktionary vocabularies, and remove the subwords that constitute phrase entities in Eˆ, to obtain key entities E = {e1, e2*, ..., e*m} and their corresponding paraphrases P = {p1, p2*, ..., p*m}. Here *n, m* denotes the number of candidate entities and key entities, and n ≥ m. Following the work of Yasunaga et al. (2021), we retrieve the subgraph in ConceptNet according to E. The subgraph consists of multiple knowledge paths within two-hops, and each path contains at most two triples. Meanwhile, we separately connect the question key entities and choice key entities in the subgraph, and define the relation between them as "SameQA". In addition, we consider P as paraphrase entities and connect them with the corresponding key entities to construct HKG, and define the relation between them as "DefAs". We give all the relations included in HKG in Appendix A. From the knowledge source perspective, HKG contains two types of entities, i.e., concept entities and paraphrase entities. ## 3.3 Lm-Based Encoding Inspired by K-BERT (Liu et al., 2020), we construct two visible matrices and use RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) to encode the QA context, concept entities, and paraphrase entities in HKG. The visible matrix and the encoding process are described further below. We connect the QA context with the concept entities and construct the visual matrix M according to the following rules: (i) The tokens contained in the QA context are visible to each other. (ii) The tokens belonging to the same concept entity are visible to each other. (iii) The key entities exist in the concept entities, and they are also extracted from the QA context. Therefore, the key entities and the corresponding tokens in the QA context are visible to each other. The value of Mi,j is 0 or 1, where Mi,j = 1 means that tokens are visible to each other, and Mi,j = 0 means that tokens are invisible to each other. In RoBERTa model, M is further defined as $$\tilde{M}~~=~~\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{{0}}&{{M_{i,j}=1}}\\ {{-\infty}}&{{M_{i,j}=0}}\end{array}\right.$$ $$\mathbf{\partial}.\mathbf{\partial}$$ Based on M˜ , we introduce Mask Self-Attention (MSA) into RoBERTa to encode the QA context and concept entities. Formally, the MSA is defined as $\Large\begin{array}{cc}{\color{blue}Q^{i+1},K^{i+1},V^{i+1}=h^i W_q,h^i W_k,h^i W_v}&{\color{blue}0}\\ &\\ {\color{blue}s^{i+1}=\cfrac{Q^{i+1}K^{i+1^\top}}{\sqrt{d}}}&{\color{blue}0}\\ &\\ {\color{blue}\alpha^{i+1}=softmax(s^{i+1}+\tilde{M})}&{\color{blue}0}\\ &{\color{blue}h^{i+1}=s^{i+1}V^{i+1}}&{\color{blue}0}\end{array}$ . $\cdot$ **hidden state of RoBERTa**. where h iis the hidden state of RoBERTa at i-th layer. Wq, Wk and Wv are trainable model parameters. α i+1 is the attention weights after integrating M˜ . d denotes the hidden layer size of RoBERTa. We feed the QA context, concept entities, and M into RoBERTa to obtain the tokens embeddings of the QA context and concept entities: {q˜i} A i=1 ∈ R d and {c˜i} Z i=1 ∈ R d. Here A and Z denote the number of tokens of QA context and concept entities, respectively. Similarly, we construct a visible matrix Mˆ to prevent the change in paraphrases meaning due to the interaction between different paraphrases. In Mˆ , only the tokens located in the same paraphrase are visible to each other. We connect all the paraphrases and feed them into RoBERTa along with Mˆ to obtain the tokens embeddings {p˜i} F i=1 ∈ R d of the paraphrase entities. Here F denotes the number of paraphrase tokens. ## 3.4 Dynamic Pruning Although we prune the HKG by filtering key entities during its construction, noisy entities persist in the HKG. Therefore, we prune the HKG in the second-stage according to the importance of the concept entities to the QA context. We take the embedding representation q˜1 of the [CLS] position in RoBERTa as semantic representation of the QA context. For the concept entities in HKG, we obtain the token-level attention weights w = {wj , wj+1*, ..., w*k} of each entity for q˜1 by equation 3, and then obtain the node-level attention weight w˜ by $ \hat{w}=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=j}^{k}w_{i}$ (6) $ \hat{w}=\frac{\hat{w}-\hat{w}_{min}}{\hat{w}_{max}-\hat{w}_{min}}$ (7) $ \hat{w}_{min}$ are the maximum and mini where wˆmax, wˆmin are the maximum and minimum values of node-level attention weights. Next, we remove the entities with *w < µ* ˜ in the HKG and remove the edges connected to these entities in the HKG. ## 3.5 Krl Layer HKG can be viewed as the knowledge subgraph composed of multiple triples connections. To obtain better entity and relation embeddings, we introduce KRL to optimize knowledge representation and improve the reasoning effect. Entity and relation embeddings. For a triplet (*h, r, t*), h,t are the entities in HKG, and r is the concatenated edge between the entities. Based on the tokens embeddings {t˜i} T i=1 ∈ R d of each entity obtained in Section 3.3, we obtain the entity embedding e˜ by $$\tilde{\mathbf{e}}=W_{t}f_{avg}(\{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_{1},\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_{2},...,\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_{T}\})\tag{8}$$ where $W_{t}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d_{t}}$ is a linear transformation, $f_{avg}$ is an average pooling function. Similarly, we feed all the relations and corresponding paraphrases into RoBERTa to obtain the relation embedding r˜ by equation 8. For simplicity, we follow TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), combined with a negative sampling strategy to optimize entity and relation embeddings. TransE training objective is $$\begin{array}{c}{{\cal L}_{K R L}=\sum_{(h,r,t)\in S\,(h^{\prime},r,t^{\prime})\in S_{(h,r,t)}^{\prime}}}\\ {{\left[\gamma+d_{r}(h,t)-d_{r}(h^{\prime},t^{\prime})\right]}}\\ {{\left.d_{r}(h,t)=||h+r-t||_{p}}\right.}}\end{array}\tag{9}$$ where γ > 0 is a margin hyperparamet, dr is the scoring function, we take the norm p as 1, and S′is the samples obtained by negative sampling. For the negative sampling strategy, we randomly sample entity in other HKGs in the same batch to replace the head entity or tail entity. ## 3.6 Rmsa Layer Inspired by (Wang et al., 2020a; Shao et al., 2020), we introduce the relation into Mask Self-Attention to construct RMSA and combine LM and RMSA for reasoning. First, we separately obtain the initial embedding representation E0 = {e˜i} V i=1 ∈ R dt and R0 = {r˜i} B i=1 ∈ R dt of all entities and the relations between entities in HKG by Section 3.5. Here V and B denote the number of entities and relations, respectively. Then, we apply L-layer RMSA to update the embedding representations of entities and relations in HKG. Specifically, the computation process of the l-th layer RMSA can be formulated as $\tilde{\alpha}^{l-1}=(\textbf{E}^{l-1}W_q^e)(\textbf{E}^{l-1}W_k^e+\textbf{R}^{l-1}W_k^r)^\top$ $\begin{array}{c}\alpha^{l-1}=softmax(\tilde{\alpha}^{l-1}/\sqrt{d_t}+M_{hkg})\\ \tilde{\textbf{E}}^{l-1}=\alpha^{l-1}(\textbf{E}^{l-1}W_v^e+\textbf{R}^{l-1}W_v^r)\\ \textbf{E}^l=LayerNorm(\tilde{\textbf{E}}^{l-1})\end{array}$ 2. $$(11)$$ v) (13) where We q , We k , We v , Wr k and Wr v are trainable model parameters, Mhkg is the adjacency matrix of HKG after pruning. We obtain the HKG graph embedding representation g˜ by $$\tilde{g}=f_{m a x}(\tilde{e}^{q})$$ q) (15) where fmax is maximum pooling function, e˜ qis all question entities embeddings. ## 3.7 Integrator & Answer Prediction After L-layer RMSA iteration, we obtain the entities and relations embeddings in HKG. Then, we incorporate the path information of HKG into the QA context by a KG2QA layer and then connect it with the g˜ to predict the answer. KG2QA. HKG is composed of multiple paths X = {x1, x2*, ..., x*y}, each of which is a sequence of multiple triples. Same as Lin et al. (2019), we define the k-th path between the i-th question entity e q i ∈ Eq and the j-th choice entity e c j ∈ Ec as $$X_{i,j}[k]=[(e_{i}^{q},r_{0},t_{0}),...(t_{n-1},r_{n},e_{j}^{c})]\quad\quad(16)$$ We use GRU to encode X and use the last hidden layer state as X's embedding representation X˜ . Not all paths are helpful for answering questions, so we dynamically select the appropriate paths by the relevance between the paths and the QA context. First, we compute the similarity score s pq between the paths and QA context through the cosine similarity algorithm. Then, we retain top β% of the knowledge paths X˜ qaccording to s pq. Finally, we obtain the QA context representation Q˜p of the fusion paths information by $$s_{p q}=s o f t m a x\left((\tilde{q}W_{q}^{q})(\tilde{X}^{q}W_{k}^{p})^{\top}\right)$$ ⊤(17) $$\hat{Q}^{p}=L a y e r N o r m(s_{p q}\tilde{X}^{q}W_{v}^{p}+\tilde{q})$$ $$\hat{Q}^{p}=f_{a v g}(\hat{Q}^{p})$$ v + q˜) (18) Here q˜ is the tokens embeddings of the QA context, W q q , W p k and W p v are trainable model parameters. Finally, we feed g˜, Q˜pand Q˜qinto the MLP to predict the answer probability. $$p=M L P([\tilde{g};\tilde{Q}^{p};\tilde{Q}^{q}])$$ d be converging the $\infty$-all? Here Q˜qis obtained by averaging the pooling of q˜. ## 4 Experiment 4.1 Datasets We evaluate our method on CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019) and OpenBookQA (Mihaylov et al., 2018). Given that the test set of CommonsenseQA is not public, we conduct experiments on the in-house dataset (IHdata) splitted by (Lin et al., 2019) (specific details of the datasets are in Appendix B). ## 4.2 Implementation Details For the CQA tasks, we use two types of external knowledge: knowledge graph and dictionary. Given a question and choice, we extract at most 100 knowledge paths within two-hops in ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017) based on the question key entities and the choice key entities. We also retrieve the paraphrases of the key entities in WordNet (Miller, 1995) and Wiktionary. In the experiment, we use RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019) as the encoder and Adamw (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) as the model optimizer. For some hyperparameters, we set the learning rate to 1e-5, the batch size to {4, 5}, the epochs to {3, 6}, RMSA's layer number L=4, dynamic pruning threshold µ=0.38, and knowledge path's retention rate β=40%. Each model is trained using one GPU (NVIDIA_A100), which takes 1.5 hours on average. ## 4.3 Compared Method $$(17)$$ We compare with the mainstream RoBERTalarge+KG methods, including RN (Santoro et al., 2017), RGCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018), GconAttn (Wang et al., 2019), KagNet (Lin et al., 2019), MHGRN (Feng et al., 2020), QAGNN (Yasunaga et al., 2021), JointLK (Sun et al., 2022), DRGN (Zheng and Kordjamshidi, 2022), GREASELM (Zhang et al., 2022) and DRAGON (Yasunaga et al., 2022). Meanwhile, we compare our method with DESC-KCR (Xu et al., 2021), which also uses both KG and dictionary types of knowledge. But since DESC-KCR uses ALBEERxxlarge (Lan et al., 2020) as the encoder, we retrained the DESC-KCR model in IHdata using RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019) for a fair comparison. $$(18)$$ $$(19)$$ ## 4.4 Main Results $$(20)$$ Table 1 and Table 2 give the experimental results on CommonsenseQA and OpenBookQA. On both datasets, our method achieves consistent | Methods | IHdev-Acc.(%) | IHtest-Acc.(%) | |--------------------------|-----------------|------------------| | Fine-tuned LMs (w/o KBs) | 73.07 (±0.45) | 68.69 (±0.56) | | + RGCN | 72.69 (±0.19) | 68.41 (±0.66) | | + GconAttn | 72.61 (±0.39) | 68.59 (±0.96) | | + KagNet | 73.47 (±0.22) | 69.01 (±0.76) | | + RN | 74.57 (±0.91) | 69.08 (±0.21) | | + MHGRN | 74.45 (±0.10) | 71.11 (±0.81) | | + QA-GNN | 76.54 (±0.21) | 73.41 (±0.92) | | + DESC-KCR | 78.21(±0.23) | 73.78 (±0.39) | | + DGRN | 78.20 | 74.00 | | + GREASELM | 78.5(±0.5) | 74.20(±0.4) | | + JointLK | 77.88 (±0.25) | 74.43 (±0.83) | | + DRAGON ∗ | - | 76.00 | | + DRAGON (w/o MLM) ∗ | - | 73.80 | | + DHLK (ours) | 79.39 (±0.24) | 74.68 (±0.26) | | Methods | RoBERTa | AristoRoBERTa | |-------------------------|---------------|-----------------| | Fine-tuned LMs (w/o KB) | 64.80 (±2.37) | 78.40 (±1.64) | | + RGCN | 62.45 (±1.57) | 74.60 (±2.53) | | + GconAttn | 64.75 (±1.48) | 71.80 (±1.21) | | + RN | 65.20 (±1.18) | 75.35 (±1.39) | | + MHGRN | 66.85 (±1.19) | 80.60 | | + QAGNN | 70.58 (±1.42) | 82.77 (±1.56) | | + DESC-KCR ∗ | - | - | | + DGRN | 69.60 | 84.10 | | + GREASELM | - | 84.80 | | + JointLK | 70.34 (±0.75) | 84.92 (±1.07) | | + DRAGON | 72.00 | - | | + DRAGON (w/o MLM) | 66.40 | - | | + DHLK (ours) | 72.20 (±0.40) | 86.00 (±0.79) | improvements compared to fine-tuned LM and other LM+KG methods. On CommonsenseQA, DHLK improves 6.32% and 5.99% on IHdev and IHtest compared to fine-tuned RoBERTa, respectively. Compared to other LM+KG methods, DHLK has also achieved highly competitive results. (DRAGON further pre-trained on BookCorpus, so it outperforms us on IHtest.) Similarly, our method achieves better experimental results on OpenBookQA. Compared to the best JointLk method, our method improves by 1.08%. In Tables 3 and 4, we also compare with similar methods in the leaderboard, and our method achieves competitive results. Table 3: Performance comparison on Commonsense QA official leaderboard. | Methods | Dev-Acc. (%) | Test-Acc.(%) | |----------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) | 78.5 | 72.1 | | RoBERTa + FreeLB (Zhu et al., 2020) | 78.81 | 72.19 | | RoBERTa + HyKAS (Ma et al., 2019) | 80.1 | 73.2 | | RoBERTa + KE | 78.7 | 73.3 | | Albert (Lan et al., 2020) | 80.5 | 73.5 | | RoBERTa + KEDGN (ensemble) | - | 74.4 | | XLNet + Graph Reasoning (Lv et al., 2020) | 79.3 | 75.3 | | RoBERTa + MHGRN (Feng et al., 2020) | - | 75.4 | | ALBERT + Path Generator (Wang et al., 2020b) | 78.42 | 75.6 | | RoBERTa + QA-GNN (Yasunaga et al., 2021) | - | 76.1 | | Albert (Lan et al., 2020) (ensemble) | - | 76.5 | | RoBERTa + JointLK (Sun et al., 2022) | - | 76.6 | | RoBERTa + DHLK (ours) | 80.85 | 77.6 | | Methods | Test-Acc.(%) | |------------------------------------------------|----------------| | Careful Selection (Banerjee et al., 2019) | 72.0 | | AristoRoBERTa | 77.8 | | KF+SIR (Banerjee and Baral, 2020) | 80.0 | | AristoRoBERTa + PG (Wang et al., 2020b) | 80.2 | | AristoRoBERTa + MHGRN (Feng et al., 2020) | 80.6 | | ALBERT + KB | 81.0 | | AristiRoBERTa + QA-GNN (Yasunaga et al., 2021) | 82.8 | | T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) | 83.2 | | AristoRoBERTa + DRGN (Sun et al., 2022) | 84.1 | | AristoRoBERTa + GREASELM (Zhang et al., 2022) | 84.8 | | AristoRoBERTa + JointLK (Sun et al., 2022) | 85.6 | | UnifiedQA(11B)∗ (Khashabi et al., 2020) | 87.2 | | AristoRoBERTa + DHLK (our) | 86.8 | ## 5 Analysis 5.1 Ablation Studies We conduct ablation studies on the Commonsense IHdev set to further analyze the effectiveness of each module of DHLK. Impact of DHLK module. Table 5(a) shows the experimental results after ablation of each model of DHLK. Disabling the KG2QA module results in a performance decrease of 1.24%, showing that KG2QA can effectively incorporate the paths information from HKG into the QA context. Removing the KRL module results in a 0.83% decrease in the DHLK's performance, demonstrating that optimizing the knowledge representation of HKG by KRL can improve the reasoning ability of the model. Removing the dynamic pruning module results in 0.66% decrease of DHLK's performance, which proves that there is some unfavorable knowledge in HKG for model reasoning. After removing the visible matrix M in the RoBERTa encoding process, the performance decreases by 3.53%. The reason is that when M is removed, all tokens are visible to each other when encoding QA context and concept  entities by RoBERTa, too many concept entities can change the original meaning of QA context and also have an impact on dynamic pruning. Finally, removing paraphrase entities from HKG results in a 0.5% performance degradation, which is due to the fact that paraphrase entities can further enhance the semantic representation of key entities. Impact of RMSA layers. We further analyze the effect of the number of RMSA layers on DHLK. As shown in Table 5(b), the DHLK performance gradually increases as the number of layers increases, and the best performance is achieved when L = 4. Impact of pruning threshold and retention rate. We analyze the thresholds of the dynamic pruning module and the KG2QA module, respectively (see in Table 5(c) and Table 5(d)). For the dynamic pruning module, DHLK achieves the best performance when we remove entities with nodelevel attention weights less than 0.38 in the HKG. Similarly, for the KG2QA module, DHLK achieves the best performance when we retain the top 40% of the paths most relevant to the QA context.  ## 5.2 Case Study We analyze the two-stage pruning strategy of DHLK by a case study. As shown in Figure 3(a), when we extract the subgraph in ConceptNet based on the candidate entities, we introduce some unrelated entities to the question inevitably. For example, "side chair" is a noun phrase and should be considered as a whole. When it is split into "side" and "chair", the "side" has different meanings from it. Meanwhile, "side" and "chair" also introduce some irrelevant entities to the current question, such as "bank", "top", "cat", etc. Therefore, in Figure 3(b) we introduce the dictionary's vocabularies to filter the candidate entities and remove the subwords that make up the phrase entities, so that some irrelevant entities such as "bank", "top" and "cat" can be removed when retrieving the subgraph. We consider the above process as the first-stage pruning of HKG. However, the subgraph obtained by this process is static and there are still some noisy entities in HKG. We think that the entities that are weakly associated with the QA context should be removed dynamically in the model inference process. Therefore, as shown in Figure 3 (c), in the second-stage pruning, we dynamically remove entities with less relevance to the QA context, e.g., "wood", during the model reasoning based on the LM's attention weights. ## 5.3 Error Analysis To further analyze why our model fails on some questions. As shown in Appendix C, we randomly select 50 examples for analysis and classify them into the following classes. Inappropriate paraphrases. Some entities have multiple paraphrases, even though we extract paraphrases based on entity POS tags in the QA context and the similarity of each paraphrase to the QA context, there are still some entities whose paraphrases are inappropriate. For example, the paraphrase of "fair" in the first example should be "(used of hair or skin) pale or light colored", but the paraphrase we extracted is "a competitive exhibition of farm products", which is inconsistent with the question in the example. Indistinguishable knowledge paths. When we analyze the error examples, we find that some questions have similar knowledge paths in multiple choices. In such cases, the model predicts answers that are also consistent with human commonsense. For example, in the second example, the "hedgehog" and "porcupine" have similar knowledge paths and the same paraphrase. Lack of relevant knowledge. Although we use multiple knowledge sources, there is still much knowledge that is not covered. In the third example, the question is about the content of the selfreferential book written by Kramer. This requires some knowledge of Kramer's life to answer, but we did not retrieve this knowledge in ConcetNet or the dictionaries. Incomprehensible questions. When the question is too long or rather abstract, the model is difficult to make correct judgment. The fourth example asks "The pencil sharpener in the classroom is broken, and the teacher tells the students where they should go to find another.". Although our model retrieves the correct paths and paraphrases, it lacks further understanding of the question and cannot model the current question scenario. The lack of this ability led to our method's unsatisfactory results in answering some complex questions. ## 6 Conclusions In this paper, we propose DHLK, a CQA method based on LM and KRL. Our main innovations include: (i) Constructing the HKG based on KG and dictionary, and introducing a two-stage pruning strategy and KRL to optimize the structure and knowledge representation of the HKG; (ii) Deeply fusing the QA context and HKG in the encoding stage of LM, and designing a KG2QA module to incorporate the paths information of HKG into the QA context. The effectiveness of DHLK is demonstrated via experimental results and analysis on CommonsenseQA and OpenBookQA. ## Limitations In this section, we will analyze the limitations of our method. First, we introduce multiple knowledge sources to construct HKG, and encoding this knowledge through LM consumes more GPU resources. Second, some useful knowledge may be removed when retrieving knowledge from key entities optimized by dictionary vocabulary. Then, we experimentally demonstrate that the paraphrase descriptions are effective in improving the reasoning ability of the model, but due to resource constraints, we are unable to incorporate the paraphrases of all entities into HKG. Finally, our method uses the simpler TransE algorithm when optimizing the knowledge representation using KRL due to GPU constraints, which may not be able to model the complex relationships in HKG well. ## Acknowledgments We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2020AAA0106100), National Natural Science Foundation of China (62176145) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (62076155). ## References Pratyay Banerjee and Chitta Baral. 2020. Knowledge fusion and semantic knowledge ranking for open domain question answering. *CoRR*, abs/2004.03101. Pratyay Banerjee, Kuntal Kumar Pal, Arindam Mitra, and Chitta Baral. 2019. Careful selection of knowledge to solve open book question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 6120–6129. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ning Bian, Xianpei Han, Bo Chen, and Le Sun. 2021. Benchmarking knowledge-enhanced commonsense question answering via knowledge-to-text transformation. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 12574–12582. AAAI Press. Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto GarcíaDurán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multirelational data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26: 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2013. Proceedings of a meeting held December 5-8, 2013, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, pages 2787–2795. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901. Peter Clark, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Daniel Khashabi, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Kyle Richardson, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, Oyvind Tafjord, Niket Tandon, Sumithra Bhakthavatsalam, Dirk Groeneveld, Michal Guerquin, and Michael Schmitz. 2020. From 'f' to 'a' on the N.Y. regents science exams: An overview of the aristo project. AI Mag., 41(4):39–53. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yanlin Feng, Xinyue Chen, Bill Yuchen Lin, Peifeng Wang, Jun Yan, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Scalable multihop relational reasoning for knowledge-aware question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing (EMNLP), pages 1295–1309, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maarten Grootendorst. 2020. Keybert: Minimal keyword extraction with bert. Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In *Proceedings of the* 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 3929–3938. PMLR. Ziniu Hu, Yichong Xu, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Ziyi Yang, Chenguang Zhu, Kai-Wei Chang, and Yizhou Sun. 2022. Empowering language models with knowledge graph reasoning for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 9562–9581. Association for Computational Linguistics. Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, EACL 2021, Online, April 19 - 23, 2021, pages 874– 880. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mingxuan Ju, Wenhao Yu, Tong Zhao, Chuxu Zhang, and Yanfang Ye. 2022. Grape: Knowledge graph enhanced passage reader for open-domain question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 169–181. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick S. H. Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6769–6781. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel Khashabi, Sewon Min, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Unifiedqa: Crossing format boundaries with a single QA system. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, Online Event, 16-20 November 2020, volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 1896–1907. Association for Computational Linguistics. Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard H. Hovy. 2017. RACE: large-scale reading comprehension dataset from examinations. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 9-11, 2017, pages 785–794. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. ALBERT: A lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language representations. In *8th International Conference on Learning Representations,* ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Patrick S. H. Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Bill Yuchen Lin, Xinyue Chen, Jamin Chen, and Xiang Ren. 2019. Kagnet: Knowledge-aware graph networks for commonsense reasoning. In *Proceedings* of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 2829–2839. Association for Computational Linguistics. Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhe Zhao, Zhiruo Wang, Qi Ju, Haotang Deng, and Ping Wang. 2020. K-BERT: enabling language representation with knowledge graph. In *The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial* Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 2901–2908. AAAI Press. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. *CoRR*, abs/1907.11692. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *7th International* Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net. Shangwen Lv, Daya Guo, Jingjing Xu, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Daxin Jiang, Guihong Cao, and Songlin Hu. 2020. Graph-based reasoning over heterogeneous external knowledge for commonsense question answering. In *The ThirtyFourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence,* AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8449–8456. AAAI Press. Kaixin Ma, Jonathan Francis, Quanyang Lu, Eric Nyberg, and Alessandro Oltramari. 2019. Towards generalizable neuro-symbolic systems for commonsense question answering. *CoRR*, abs/1910.14087. Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? A new dataset for open book question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 2381–2391. Association for Computational Linguistics. George A. Miller. 1995. Wordnet: A lexical database for english. *Commun. ACM*, 38(11):39–41. Sewon Min, Danqi Chen, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Knowledge guided text retrieval and reading for open domain question answering. *CoRR*, abs/1911.03868. Barlas Oguz, Xilun Chen, Vladimir Karpukhin, Stan Peshterliev, Dmytro Okhonko, Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Sonal Gupta, Yashar Mehdad, and Scott Yih. 2022. Unik-qa: Unified representations of structured and unstructured knowledge for opendomain question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1535–1546. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In *Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2014, October 25-29, 2014, Doha,* Qatar, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 1532–1543. ACL. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,* ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 2: Short Papers, pages 784–789. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100, 000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In *Proceedings* of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1-4, 2016, pages 2383–2392. The Association for Computational Linguistics. Adam Santoro, David Raposo, David G. T. Barrett, Mateusz Malinowski, Razvan Pascanu, Peter W. Battaglia, and Tim Lillicrap. 2017. A simple neural network module for relational reasoning. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30:* Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 4967–4976. Franco Scarselli, Marco Gori, Ah Chung Tsoi, Markus Hagenbuchner, and Gabriele Monfardini. 2009. The graph neural network model. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, 20(1):61–80. Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In The Semantic Web - 15th International Conference, ESWC 2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3-7, 2018, Proceedings, volume 10843 of *Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, pages 593–607. Springer. Nan Shao, Yiming Cui, Ting Liu, Shijin Wang, and Guoping Hu. 2020. Is graph structure necessary for multi-hop question answering? In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 7187–7192. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In *Proceedings of the Thirty-First* AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 4-9, 2017, San Francisco, California, USA, pages 4444–4451. AAAI Press. Yueqing Sun, Qi Shi, Le Qi, and Yu Zhang. 2022. Jointlk: Joint reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for commonsense question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the* North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 5049–5060. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149–4158. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kai Wang, Weizhou Shen, Yunyi Yang, Xiaojun Quan, and Rui Wang. 2020a. Relational graph attention network for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020*, pages 3229–3238. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peifeng Wang, Nanyun Peng, Filip Ilievski, Pedro A. Szekely, and Xiang Ren. 2020b. Connecting the dots: A knowledgeable path generator for commonsense question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, Online Event, 16-20 November 2020, volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 4129–4140. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaoyan Wang, Pavan Kapanipathi, Ryan Musa, Mo Yu, Kartik Talamadupula, Ibrahim Abdelaziz, Maria Chang, Achille Fokoue, Bassem Makni, Nicholas Mattei, and Michael Witbrock. 2019. Improving natural language inference using external knowledge in the science questions domain. In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 7208– 7215. AAAI Press. Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, Shuohang Wang, Siqi Sun, Hao Cheng, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Pengcheng He, Michael Zeng, and Xuedong Huang. 2022. Human parity on commonsenseqa: Augmenting self-attention with external attention. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 2762–2768. ijcai.org. Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, Ruochen Xu, Yang Liu, Michael Zeng, and Xuedong Huang. 2021. Fusing context into knowledge graph for commonsense question answering. In *Findings of the Association for* Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 1201–1207. Association for Computational Linguistics. Michihiro Yasunaga, Antoine Bosselut, Hongyu Ren, Xikun Zhang, Christopher D. Manning, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2022. Deep bidirectional language-knowledge graph pretraining. *CoRR*, abs/2210.09338. Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 535–546. Association for Computational Linguistics. Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. 2022. Kg-fid: Infusing knowledge graph in fusion-in-decoder for opendomain question answering. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 4961– 4974. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xikun Zhang, Antoine Bosselut, Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Percy Liang, Christopher D. Manning, and Jure Leskovec. 2022. Greaselm: Graph reasoning enhanced language models for question answering. *CoRR*, abs/2201.08860. Chen Zheng and Parisa Kordjamshidi. 2022. Dynamic relevance graph network for knowledge-aware question answering. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2022, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, October 12-17, 2022, pages 1357–1366. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Mantong Zhou, Zhouxing Shi, Minlie Huang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2020. Knowledge-aided opendomain question answering. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2006.05244. Chen Zhu, Yu Cheng, Zhe Gan, Siqi Sun, Tom Goldstein, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. Freelb: Enhanced adversarial training for natural language understanding. In *8th International Conference on Learning* Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. ## A Relation Types | Relations | Merged Relation | |-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Antonym | | | DistinctFrom | Antonym | | AtLocation LocatedNear | AtLocation | | CapableOf | CapableOf | | Causes | | | CausesDesire | Causes | | MotivatedByGoal CreatedBy | CreatedBy | | IsA | | | InstanceOf | ISA | | DefinedAs Desires | Desires | | HasSubevent | | | HasFirstSubevent HasLastSubevent HasPrerequisite Entails MannerOf | HasSubevent | | PartOf HasA | PartOf | | HasContext | HasContext | | HasProperty | HasProperty | | Madeof | Madeof | | NotCapableOf | NotCapableOf | | NotDesires | NotDesires | | ReceivesAction | ReceivesAction | | RelatedTo SimilarTo | RelatedTo | | Synonym UsedFor | UsedFor | | SameQA | SameQA | | DefAs | DefAs | Table 6 gives all the relation types used in our method, 19 relations in total. We view all the relations as undirected in our experiments. Table 6: HKG involves relationship types. We follow the relationship type defined by (Yasunaga et al., 2021) and add "SameQA" and "DefAS" to it, which represent the relationship between key entities and the relationship between key entities and paraphrase entities, respectively. ## B Details Of Datasets CommonsenseQA is a multiple-choice QA dataset that requires different types of commonsense knowledge to answer questions, with each question Table 7: Statistics of CommonsenseQA (CSQA) and OpenBookQA (OBQA). containing one correct choice and four distracting choices. The dataset has a total of 12,102 questions. OpenBookQA is a QA dataset focusing on scientific facts that require a combination of scientific facts or commonsense knowledge to answer. It contains 5,957 questions, each containing one correct choice and three distracting choices. We conduct experiments on the official split dataset. The statistics for the datasets are shown in Table 7. ## C Error Types And Examples Table 8 gives some examples of error analysis. Each example gives a part knowledge paths and paraphrase descriptions retrieved in multiple knowledge sources. | Datasets | Train | Dev | Test | |----------------|---------|-------|--------| | CSQA(Official) | 9,741 | 1,221 | 1,140 | | CSQA(IHdata) | 8,500 | 1,221 | 1,241 | | OBQA | 4,957 | 500 | 500 | | Error type | Examples Question | What is another name for the color of the fur of a dog with light colored fur? | |-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Choices | ✓ fair | ✕ basket | ✕ dog hair | ✕game | ✕sun | | | Inappropriate | Paths for correct answer | color relatedto −−−−−→pale relatedto −−−−−→fair; color isa −−→white relatedto −−−−−→fair; ... | | paraphrases | Paths for predicted answer | fur relateddto −−−−−−→hair; fur relatedto −−−−−→hairball relateddto −−−−−−→hair;fur partof −−−−→dog madeof −−−−−→hair; ... | | (8/50) | Correct paraphrase description | fair: (used of hair or skin) pale or light colored. | | Inappropriate paraphrase description | fair: a competitive exhibition of farm products. | | | Question | What animal has quills all over it? | | | Indistinguishable | Choices | ✕ feather | ✕ chicken | ✕ calligraphy | ✕porcupine | ✓ hedgehog | | knowledge | Paths for correct answer | quill partof −−−−→hedgehog; quill partof −−−−→porcupine relatedto −−−−−→hedgehog; ... | | paths | Paths for predicted answer | quill partof −−−−→porcupine; quill partof −−−−→hedgehog relatedto −−−−−→porcupine; ... | | (17/50) | Paraphrase description | porcupine: relatively large rodents with sharp erectile bristles mingled with the fur. hedgehog: relatively large rodents with sharp erectile bristles mingled with the fur | | Question | Kramer wrote a self-referential book. What might that book be about? | | | Lack of | Choices | ✕ counter | ✓ coffee table | ✕ school room | ✕ backpack | ✕ bedside table | | relevant | Paths for correct answer | book atlocation −−−−−−→coffee table; book isa −−→magazine relatedto −−−−−→coffee table; ... | | knowledge | Paths for predicted answer | book partof −−−−→backpack; book atlocation −−−−−−→satchel relatedto −−−−−→backpack; ... | | (13/50) | Paraphrase description | coffee table: low table where magazines can be placed and coffee or cocktails are served. backpack: a bag carried by a strap on your back or shoulder | | Question | The pencil sharpener was broken in the classroom, where did the teacher recommend the student go? | | | Choices | ✕ home | ✓ library | ✕ stationery store | ✕ cabinet | ✕ desk drawer | | | Incomprehensible Paths for correct answer | pencil sharpener atlocation −−−−−−→library; pencil sharpener atlocation −−−−−−→desk atlocation −−−−−−→library; | | | question | classroom atlocation −−−−−−→student atlocation −−−−−−→library; ... | | | (10/50) | Paths for predicted answer | classroom atlocation −−−−−−→ferret atlocation −−−−−−→home; classroom atlocation −−−−−−→door relatedto −−−−−→home; classroom atlocation −−−−−−→poet atlocation −−−−−−→home; ... | | Paraphrase description | classroom: a room in a school where lessons take place. pencil sharpener: a rotary implement for sharpening the point on pencils | | Table 8: Error analyse, we divide the error data into four categories ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? In Section 7 Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? In Section 7 Limitations ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? In Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** In Section 1 And 3 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? In Section 1 B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Yes, we report the details of the dataset used in Section 4.1. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** In Section 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? In Section 4.2 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? In Section 5.1 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? In Section 4.4 C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Not applicable. Left blank. D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

li-etal-2023-hear

Do You Hear The People Sing? Key Point Analysis via Iterative Clustering and Abstractive Summarisation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.786

Argument summarisation is a promising but currently under-explored field. Recent work has aimed to provide textual summaries in the form of concise and salient short texts, i.e., key points (KPs), in a task known as Key Point Analysis (KPA). One of the main challenges in KPA is finding high-quality key point candidates from dozens of arguments even in a small corpus. Furthermore, evaluating key points is crucial in ensuring that the automatically generated summaries are useful. Although automatic methods for evaluating summarisation have considerably advanced over the years, they mainly focus on sentence-level comparison, making it difficult to measure the quality of a summary (a set of KPs) as a whole. Aggravating this problem is the fact that human evaluation is costly and unreproducible. To address the above issues, we propose a two-step abstractive summarisation framework based on neural topic modelling with an iterative clustering procedure, to generate key points which are aligned with how humans identify key points. Our experiments show that our framework advances the state of the art in KPA, with performance improvement of up to 14 (absolute) percentage points, in terms of both ROUGE and our own proposed evaluation metrics. Furthermore, we evaluate the generated summaries using a novel set-based evaluation toolkit. Our quantitative analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of our proposed evaluation metrics in assessing the quality of generated KPs. Human evaluation further demonstrates the advantages of our approach and validates that our proposed evaluation metric is more consistent with human judgment than ROUGE scores.

# Do You Hear The People Sing? Key Point Analysis Via Iterative Clustering And Abstractive Summarisation Hao Li♣ Viktor Schlegel♢♣ **Riza Batista-Navarro**♣ and **Goran Nenadic**♣ ♣Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, United Kingdom ♢ASUS Intelligent Cloud Services (AICS), Singapore {hao.li-2, riza.batista, gnenadic}@manchester.ac.uk viktor_schlegel@asus.com ## Abstract Argument summarisation is a promising but currently under-explored field. Recent work has aimed to provide textual summaries in the form of concise and salient short texts, i.e., key points (KPs), in a task known as Key Point Analysis (KPA). One of the main challenges in KPA is finding high-quality key point candidates from dozens of arguments even in a small corpus. Furthermore, evaluating key points is crucial in ensuring that the automatically generated summaries are useful. Although automatic methods for evaluating summarisation have considerably advanced over the years, they mainly focus on sentence-level comparison, making it difficult to measure the quality of a summary (a set of KPs) as a whole. Aggravating this problem is the fact that human evaluation is costly and unreproducible. To address the above issues, we propose a two-step abstractive summarisation framework based on neural topic modelling with an iterative clustering procedure, to generate key points which are aligned with how humans identify key points. Our experiments show that our framework advances the state of the art in KPA, with performance improvement of up to 14 (absolute) percentage points, in terms of both ROUGE and our own proposed evaluation metrics1. Furthermore, we evaluate the generated summaries using a novel set-based evaluation toolkit. Our quantitative analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of our proposed evaluation metrics in assessing the quality of generated KPs. Human evaluation further demonstrates the advantages of our approach and validates that our proposed evaluation metric is more consistent with human judgment than ROUGE scores. ## 1 Introduction Automated summarisation of salient arguments from texts is a long-standing problem, which has 1Our code can be found on Github: https://github. com/HarrywillDr/keypoint-Analysis attracted a lot of research interest in the last decade. Early efforts proposed to tackle argument summarisation as a clustering task, implicitly expressing the main idea based on different notions of relatedness, such as argument facets (Misra et al., 2016), similarity (Reimers et al., 2019) and frames (Ajjour et al., 2019). However, they do not create easy-tounderstand summaries from clusters, which leads to unmitigated challenges in comprehensively navigating the overwhelming wealth of information available in online textual content. Recent trends aim to alleviate this problem by summarising a large collection of arguments in the form of a set of concise sentences that describe the collection at a high-level—these sentences are called *key points* (KPs). This approach was first proposed by Bar-Haim et al. (2020a), consisting of two subtasks, namely, *key point generation* (selecting key point arguments from the corpus) and key point matching (matching arguments to these key points). Later work applied it across different domains (Bar-Haim et al., 2020b), for example for product/business reviews (Bar-Haim et al., 2021). While this seminal work advanced the state of the art in argument summarisation, a bottleneck is the lack of large-scale datasets. A common limitation of such an extractive summarisation method, is that it is difficult to select candidates that concisely capture the main idea in the corpus from dozens of arguments. Although Bar-Haim et al. (2021) suggested extracting key point candidates from the broader domain (e.g. selecting key point candidates from restaurant or hotel reviews when the topic is "*whether the food served is tasty*") to overcome this fundamental limitation, it is impractical to assume that such data will always be available for selection. An alternative, under-explored line of work casts the problem of finding suitable key points as *abstractive summarisation*. Research work in this direction aims to generate key points for each given argument, without summarising multiple of 14064 them (Kapadnis et al., 2021). As such, their approach rephrases existing arguments rather than summarising them. One possible reason for key point generation being under-explored, is the lack of reliable automated evaluation methods for generated summaries. Established evaluation metrics such as ROUGE (Lin, 2004) and BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) rely on the n-gram overlap between candidate and reference sentences, but are not concerned with the *semantic similarity* of predictions and gold-standard (reference) data. Recent trends consider automated evaluation as different tasks, including unsupervised matching (Zhao et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020b), supervised regression (Sellam et al., 2020), ranking (Rei et al., 2020), and text generation (Yuan et al., 2021). While these approaches model the semantic similarity between prediction and reference, they are limited to per-sentence evaluation. However, this is likely insufficient to evaluate the quality of multiple generated key point summaries as a whole. For instance, the two key points "Government regulation of social media contradicts basic rights" and "It would be a coercion to freedom of opinion" essentially contain the same information as the reference "Social media regulation harms freedom of speech and other democratic rights", but individually contain different pieces of information. In this work, we propose a novel framework for generative key point analysis, in order to reduce the reliance on large, high-quality annotated datasets. Compared to currently established frameworks (Bar-Haim et al., 2020a,b), we propose a novel two-step abstractive summarisation framework. Our approach first clusters semantically similar arguments using a neural topic modelling approach with an iterative clustering procedure. It then leverages a pre-trained language model to generate a set of concise key points. Our approach establishes new state-of-the-art results on an existing KPA benchmark without additional annotated data. Results of our evaluation suggest that ROUGE scores that assess generated key points against gold standard ones do not necessarily correlate with how well the key points represent the whole corpus. The novel *set-based* evaluation metric that we propose, aims to address this. Overall, the main contributions of this work are as follows: We propose a novel framework for key point analysis, depicted in Figure 1, which signifi-  cantly outperforms the state of the art, even when optimised on a limited number of manually annotated arguments and key points. The framework improves upon an existing neural topic modelling approach with a semantic similarity-based procedure. Compared to previous work, it allows for better handling of outliers, which helps to extract topic representations accurately. Furthermore, we propose a toolkit for automated summary evaluation taking into account semantic similarity. While previous approaches concentrated on sentence-level comparisons, we focus on corpus-level evaluation. ## 2 Related Work Argument Summarisation: The field of argument summarisation has developed considerably in recent years. Syed et al. (2020, 2021) used an attention-based neural network to construct concise and fluent summaries of opinions in news editorials or social media. Alshomary et al. (2020), focussing on web search, introduced an unsupervised extractive summarisation approach to generate argument snippets representing the key claim and reason. All of these efforts tackled *single* document summarisation where only one argumentative text is summarised at a time. The earliest multi-document summarisation work attempted to summarise argumentative discussions in online debates by extracting summaries in the form of salient "points", where a point is a verb and its syntactic arguments (Egan et al., 2016). However, their approach relies on lexical features that make it difficult to capture variability in claims that share the same meaning but are expressed differently. The work of Ajjour et al. (2019) and Reimers et al. (2019) aimed to cluster semantically similar arguments. However, these efforts did not attempt to summarise these clusters, hence main points in the corpus remained implicit. Recent work proposed Key Point Analysis, which aims to extract salient points from a corpus of arguments, providing a textual and quantitative view of the data (Bar-Haim et al., 2020a,b). Alshomary et al. (2021) contributed to the development of this framework by proposing a graph-based extractive summarisation approach. One common limitation of extractive summarisation methods, however, is that it is difficult to select key point candidates that truly capture salient points from dozens of arguments . Kapadnis et al. (2021) used an abstractive summarisation method, where each single argument and its topic were used as input in order to generate summaries. A set of sentences which have the highest scores based on ROUGE (Lin, 2004) ranking, is then selected as key points. However, in practice this is not feasible as the computation of ROUGE scores requires the availability of gold standard key points. Automatic Evaluation of Generated Summaries: Most of the current work relies on humancentric evaluation methods (Alshomary et al., 2021; Kapadnis et al., 2021; Friedman et al., 2021). However, they are time-consuming, costly and difficult to replicate. Some of the work attempts to use automated evaluation methods such as ROUGE, a metric widely used to evaluate automatically generated summaries (Lin, 2004). This type of automatic metric compares generated sentences with gold standard ones, but it is difficult to measure their accuracy and effectiveness in terms of capturing semantic similarity. Recent trends consider automated evaluation as different tasks. Zhang et al. (2020b) proposed unsupervised matching metrics, aimed at measuring semantic equivalence by mapping candidates and references to a distributed representation space. Sellam et al. (2020) presented a supervised learning evaluation metric that can model human judgments by a novel pre-training scheme. Their work demonstrates that pre-training a metric on task-specific synthetic data, before finetuning it on handpicked human ratings can improve metric robustness. Rei et al. (2020) considered the problem as a ranking task, leveraging breakthroughs in multilingual pre-trained models to generate ratings that resemble human judgments. Yuan et al. (2021) instead suggested that evaluating the quality of summaries can be treated as a text generation task. The main idea is that converting a well-performing generated text to/from a reference text would easily achieve higher scores. While these approaches have advanced the field, they all focus on sentence-level evaluation. Our task, however, requires the evaluation of a set of key points. The reason is that when comparing generated key points to gold-standard annotations at a sentence level, important information could be lost. This can only be retained by considering all sentences at once. ## 3 Methodology In this section, we describe our framework in detail. As can be seen from Figure 1, for each debate topic such as *"Should we abandon the use of school uniforms?"*, we take a corpus of relevant arguments grouped by their stance towards the topic (i.e. "pro" or "con") as input, as mined from online discussion boards. As part of KPM, these arguments are clustered using a neural topic modelling approach to group them by their common theme. The clusters are then used as input to the KPG model for summarisation, which is optimised to generate a key point for each argument cluster. During the training of our model for KPM, we employ data augmentation. ## 3.1 Key Point Modelling (Kpm) In previous work, researchers made the simplifying assumption that each argument can be mapped to a single key point (Alshomary et al., 2021; Kapadnis et al., 2021). As a consequence, finding this mapping was modelled as a classification task. In practice, however, a single argument may be related to multiple key points. For instance, the argument: "*School uniforms stifle freedom of expression; they can be costly and make circumstances* difficult for those on a budget." expresses the key points "*School uniform is harming the student's self* expression." and "*School uniforms are expensive.*". Inspired by this observation, we approach KPM as *clustering*, by grouping together similar arguments. This naturally allows us to map arguments to multiple key points. Unlike key point matching using a classifier, this step can be performed without any labelled data, since clustering is an unsupervised technique. If training data in the form of argument-key point mappings is available, it is desirable to incorporate this information, as latest work shows that supervision can improve clustering performance (Eick et al., 2004). To that end, we use BERTopic as our clustering model (Grootendorst, 2022), which facilitates the clustering of sentences based on their contextualised embeddings obtained from a pre-trained language model (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019), as well as fine-tuning them further for the clustering task. We convert the key points into numbers as labels for training; arguments that do not match any key points are dropped. A common challenge of clustering algorithms is the difficulty of clustering data in high-dimensional space. Although several methods to overcome the curse of dimensionality were proposed recently (Pandove et al., 2018), the most straightforward way is to reduce the dimensionality of embeddings (Molchanov and Linsen, 2018). We achieve this by applying UMAP on the raw embeddings (McInnes and Healy, 2018) to reduce their dimension while preserving the local and global structure of embeddings. HDBSCAN (McInnes et al., 2017) is then used to cluster the reduced embeddings. The output of this step is a set of clusters and the probability distribution of each argument belonging to each cluster. Based on this, we discretise the probability distribution, i.e. represent each argument-cluster pair as a value, which allows us to map arguments to multiple clusters; the formulae and details can be seen in Appendix B.2. As shown in Figure 1, these clustered arguments serve as input for the Key Point Generation model. ## 3.2 Iterative Clustering (Ic) The output of KPM includes a set of arguments that are unmatched, i.e., not assigned to any cluster, represented as a cluster with the label "-1", because HDBSCAN is a soft clustering approach that does not force every single node to join a cluster (McInnes et al., 2017). In order to increase the "representativeness" of generated KPs, it is reasonable to maximise the number of arguments in each cluster. To this end, we propose an iterative clustering Algorithm 1 KPM with Iterative Clustering Input: Clusters C; Unclassified Arguments Arg Parameter: Threshold λ Output: Algorithm Result IC 1: IC ← C, ϕ ← 0, l ← len(Arg), ω ← len(C) 2: for i to l do 3: for J to ω do 4: β ← compute anchor of IC $$\begin{array}{c}{{\rho\leftarrow\mathrm{compute~anion~of~}T C}}\\ {{\phi\leftarrow\mathrm{compute~similarity~}(a_{i},\beta)}}\\ {{\bf{if~}\phi>\lambda\ {\bf{then}}}}\\ {{I C_{j}\gets I C_{j}+a_{i}}}\\ {{\bf{else}}}\\ {{I C_{\omega+1}\gets a_{i},\,C_{\omega+1}\gets a_{i}}}\\ {{\bf{end~if}}}\\ {{\bf{update~}I C}}\end{array}$$  algorithm (formally described in Algorithm 1) to further assign these unmatched arguments according to their semantic similarity to cluster centroids. We compute the semantic similarity between each unclassified argument and the cluster centre, by calculating the vector product of embeddings and the average of clusters. To tackle the issue of determining the cluster centers, we employ two different techniques: one is by calculating the similarity of the candidates to each sample in the cluster and then taking the average distance, while the other is by taking the centroid of each cluster as the *anchor* (Wang et al., 2021). As a filtering step, each unmatched argument is compared to the anchor. We only assign the argument to the cluster if the similarity is higher than a hyper-parameter λ; otherwise we create a new cluster. Next, the clusters are updated at each iteration until all arguments have been assigned to a cluster. ## 3.3 Key Point Generation (Kpg) We model KPG as a supervised text generation problem. The input to our model is as follows: {Stance} {Topic} {List of Arguments in Cluster}2, where the order of arguments in the list is determined by TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004). We train the model by minimising the cross-entropy loss between generated and reference key points. 2For example: *Positive We should abandon the use of* school uniforms. School uniforms are expensive and place an unnecessary burden on the parents of students... The reference key points are drawn from a KPM dataset, together with their matched arguments, which serve as the input to the model. During inference, we use the list of arguments as provided by KPM as input. The generated KPs are ranked in order of relevance using TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004). Duplicate KPs with a cosine similarity threshold above 0.95 are combined and the final list of KPs is ranked based on the size of their clusters (for example, the yellow key point with six arguments is ranked higher than the pink key point with four arguments in Figure 1). For combined KPs, we take the sum of the respective cluster sizes. ## 3.4 Data Augmentation (Da) Many problems lack annotated data to fully exploit supervised learning approaches. For example, the popular KPA dataset **ArgKP-2021** (Bar-Haim et al., 2020a) features an average 150 arguments per topic, mapped to 5-8 KPs. We rely on data augmentation to obtain more KPM training samples. Specifically, we use DINO (Schick and Schütze, 2021) as a data augmentation framework, that leverages the generative abilities of pre-trained language models (PLMs) to generate task-specific data by using prompts. We customised the prompt for DINO to include task descriptions (i.e., "*Write two claims* that mean the same thing") to make the model generate a new paraphrase argument. We then used BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020b) and BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020) to assess the difference in quality between each generated sample and the corresponding reference, removing 25% of the lowest scoring generated arguments. ## 3.5 Set-Level Kpg Evaluation Other tasks with sets of predictions, such as information retrieval, are evaluated by means of precision and recall, where a set of predictions is compared against a set of references. Since the final output of KPG and the reference KPs are sets, it is desirable to follow a similar evaluation method. However, it is not sufficient to rely on traditional precision and recall, as these are based on direct sentence equivalence comparisons whereby predictions and references might differ in wording although they are semantically similar. Instead, we rely on *semantic similarity measures* that assign continuous similarity scores rather than equivalence comparison to identify the best match between generated and reference KPs—we call these metrics *Soft-Precision* (sP) and *Soft-Recall* (sR). More specifically, for sP, we find the reference KP with the highest similarity score for each generated KP and vice-versa for sR. We further define *SoftF1* (sF1) as the harmonic mean between sP and sR. The final sP and sR scores is the average of these best matches. Formally, we compute sP (and sR analogously) as follows: sP = 1 n × X αi∈A max βj∈B f(αi, βj ) (1) sR = 1 m × X βi∈B max αj∈A f(αi, βj ) (2) where, f computes similarities between two individual key points, A, B are the set of candidates and references and n = |A| and m = |B|, respectively. When i iterates over each candidate, j iterates over each reference and selects the pair with the highest score as the reference for that candidate. We have chosen state-of-the-art semantic similarity evaluation methods such as BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020) and BARTScore (Yuan et al., 2021) as fmax. ## 3.6 Implementation Details KPM with Iterative Clustering: We first experimented with thresholds at 0.2 intervals respectively, but the results showed little variation in downstream KPA performance on ROUGE when the threshold was less than 0.6. Therefore, we compare the influence of key point quality on ROUGE when the threshold was greater than 0.6 with 0.1 intervals. Preliminary experiments showed that cluster sizes vary in length and contain irrelevant or incorrectly assigned arguments. Following the intuition that important sentences should be considered first by the KPG model, we order the input sentences based on their *centrality* in the cluster. Specifically, we use TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004), such that sentences receive a higher ranking if they have a high similarity score to all other sentences. Key Point Generation: We choose Flan-T5 (Chung et al., 2022) as our KPG model, which is fine-tuned on more than 1000 different tasks, and it has received a lot of attention as a potential alternative of GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020). To maintain comparability to previous work, we only keep n generated key points, where n is the number of key points in the reference. Data Augmentation: We employ GPT2-XL (Radford et al., 2019) as the data augmentation model with default settings, setting the maximum output length to 40. Finally, the arguments are matched with the corresponding key points, stance and topics to create a training set of 520k instances. Example templates and the full dataset description can be found in Appendix A. ## 4 Experimental Setup Broadly speaking, we aim to investigate the efficacy of our proposed KPM framework as well as the evaluation metrics. Specifically, we ask: (i) Does the proposed approach improve the performance of the task? *(ii)* Does data augmentation help with the lack of training data? *(iii)* Does the re-clustering of outliers by using IC improve performance on downstream tasks? *(iv)* Does the proposed evaluation framework correlate better with human judgments than raw ROUGE scores? To answer question (i) we compare the performance of our proposed approach to established previous approaches on the task of KPA. For questions (ii) and (iii), we perform ablation studies to measure the impact our using supervised and unsupervised KPM pipelines (*S-KPM* and *US-KPM*) as well as data augmentation (+DA) and iterative clustering (+IC). For question *(iv)*, we conduct manual evaluation. Baselines: We compare our approach with previous known and open-source work—Enigma (Kapadnis et al., 2021) and Graph-based Summarization (GBS) (Alshomary et al., 2021) 3, selecting their best reported results as the baseline. Enigma uses an abstract summarisation approach, employing PEGASUS (Zhang et al., 2020a) as the summarisation model, to generate candidate KPs by taking a single argument and its corresponding topic as input. Finally, the top-n highest ROUGE scores with reference KPs were selected as the final result. Similar to the work of Alshomary et al. (2020), GBS constructs an undirected graph with arguments as nodes. Nodes with sufficiently high argument quality scores (Toledo et al., 2019), and node matching scores (Alshomary et al., 2021) are connected. The importance score of each argument is then calculated based on PageRank (Page et al., 1999) and ranked in descending order. Finally, only those 3Note that only key point matching is described in their published paper, but their key point generation code can be found on Github at https://github.com/manavkapadnis/ Enigma_ArgMining arguments where matching scores are below the threshold of the already selected candidates are added to the final set of key points. Evaluation metrics: We calculate ROUGE (Lin, 2004) scores on the test set, by comparing the concatenation of all generated key points to the concatenation of the reference, averaging for all topic and stance combinations. Furthermore, in order to evaluate the quality of the generated key points invariant to the order of sentences, we also compare the performance based on the proposed set-level evaluation approach. Similar to our idea, the earth mover's distance (EMD) (Rubner et al., 2000) is a measure of the similarity between two data distributions. By combining Word Mover's Distance (WMS) (Kusner et al., 2015) and Sentence Mover's Similarity (SMS) (Clark et al., 2019), Sentence + Word Mover's Similarity (S+WMS) measures both the word distribution of a single sentence and similarity at the set level. However, an observable shortcoming is that they consider a set of sentences as a single paragraph, without splitting and using GloVe embeddings (Pennington et al., 2014) instead of fine-tuning on sentence-level similarity. Human Evaluation: Taking into account the wealth of problems arising from automatically evaluating generated texts, we further verify the reliability of our obtained results,by means of human evaluation. Seven annotators were selected, all of whom are graduate students with a diploma from a University in the UK. Before starting, all annotators received task-oriented training, the specific instructions can be found in Appendix C.1. After an introduction, they had to answer a questionnaire containing 66 questions for all topics and stances in the test set. The annotators were asked to answer on a Likert scale ranging from "very good" (5) to "not good at all" (1). The first evaluation task (HT1) investigates how well the generated summaries of clusters serve as KPs. Following Bar-Haim et al. (2021), we assessed the quality of the key points in four requirements: VALIDITY, SENTIMENT, INFORMATIVE-NESS and SINGLEASPECT. Annotators are asked to read three sets of KPs separately (reference, our best approach, previous work), assigning each of the four dimensions above a single score, and then ranking each of the three outputs the outputs from best to worst. The second task (HT2) evaluates how well the generated set of key points summarises the corpus | ROUGE | BLEURT | BARTScore | | | | | | | | | |-----------------------|----------|-------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|--------| | ApproachSize(Setting) | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | sP | sR | sF1 | sP | sR | sF1 | S+WMS | | SKPM11B(DA + IC) | 32.8 | 9.7 | 29.9 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.0416 | | SKPM3B(DA + IC) | 32.2 | 9.0 | 27.9 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.58 | 0.71 | 0.64 | 0.0382 | | SKPMLarge(DA + IC) | 31.4 | 9.1 | 28.1 | 0.57 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.54 | 0.75 | 0.63 | 0.0276 | | SKPMBase(DA + IC) | 30.3 | 8.9 | 28.1 | 0.59 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.63 | 0.60 | 0.0320 | | SKPMBase(DA) | 30.7 | 9.1 | 27.6 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.66 | 0.59 | 0.0304 | | SKPMBase(IC) | 28.9 | 9.2 | 28.3 | 0.62 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.53 | 0.60 | 0.57 | 0.0332 | | SKPMBase | 24.9 | 6.1 | 24.0 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.67 | 0.59 | 0.0279 | | USKPMBase(IC) | 29.5 | 7.8 | 28.1 | 0.61 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.54 | 0.66 | 0.60 | 0.0318 | | KMeansBase | 26.5 | 7.3 | 25.5 | 0.59 | 0.56 | 0.57 | 0.53 | 0.69 | 0.60 | 0.0264 | | USKPMBase | 25.2 | 5.7 | 23.2 | 0.59 | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.52 | 0.63 | 0.57 | 0.0306 | | Enigma | 20.0 | 4.8 | 18.0 | 0.58 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.54 | 0.69 | 0.61 | 0.0368 | | GBS (Baseline) | 19.8 | 3.5 | 18.0 | 0.51 | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.66 | 0.59 | 0.0258 | | GBS (Ours) | 19.6 | 3.4 | 17.7 | 0.53 | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.53 | 0.71 | 0.61 | 0.0250 | | Aspect Clustering | 18.9 | 4.7 | 17.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | of arguments. In previous work crowdworkers evaluated how well generated key points represent a given corpus of arguments (Friedman et al., 2021). However, they only considered REDUNDANCY and COVERAGE, as the outputs key points were extracted from a corpus, rather than generated. To adapt their experiment to the generative setting, We additionally define SIGNIFICANCE (i.e. how well a KP uniquely captures a theme) and FAITHFUL-NESS (i.e. no unfounded claims are conjectured). We refer the reader to Appendix C.2 for the full definition of all quality dimensions. Finally, in the third evaluation task (HT3), we investigate how well automated evaluation metrics correlate with human judgement. Here, the annotators were asked to perform pair-wise comparison between two sets of generated KPs for which the difference between ROUGE scores and the soft-F1 metric was the highest. ## 5 Results And Analysis Proposed approach improves performance on KPA task: Our proposed two-step method outperforms the reference implementations on the full KPA task, with improvements of up to 12% and 14% in ROUGE and Soft-F1, respectively, as shown in Table 1. Table 2: ROUGE for different threshold values on IC | Threshold | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | R-1 | 25.5 | 27.7 | 28.9 | 29.1 | | R-2 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 6.4 | 7.5 | | R-L | 24.3 | 25.9 | 27.0 | 27.2 | Overall, each proposed improvement (+DA and +IC) contributes to achieve better scores. A robustness experiment was then performed on the best-performing approach, with 10 runs, showing that the overall performance is still up to 11% superior compared to the baseline according to ROUGE, and up to 3% superior based on the proposed evaluation approach. It is worth noting that unsupervised KPM with IC (*US-KPM+IC*) yields increases of more then ten points in ROUGE-L and two soft-F1 (BLEURT) percent points compared to the best performing baseline, demonstrating that the proposed method outperforms previous state-of-the-art approaches even without training the clustering model and relying on data augmentation. Our human evaluation further supports these findings: in the ranking task T1, our method was ranked higher than the baselines, slightly behind human-written reference KPs. | (Stance) Topic | Sup-KPM+DA | Unsup-KPM+IC | |------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | (Con) | Routine | | | child | vaccina | | | tions | should | be | | mandatory | (1) Child vaccinations should not be mandatory because many times children cannot catch the virus. (2) Parents should have the freedom to choose what is best for their child. (3) Child vaccinations can lead to harmful side effects. | | | (Pro) | Social | | | media | platforms | | | should | be | reg | | ulated | by | the | | government | (1) The Routine child vaccinations should not be mandatory. (2) The parents should decide for their child. (3) The vaccine can cause harm to the child. (1) Social media platforms can be regulated to prevent terrorism. (2) Social media platforms should be regulated to prevent hate crimes. (3) Social media platforms can be regulated to prevent spreading of false news. | (1) Social media platforms should be regulated to prevent rumors/harming the economy. (2) Social media platforms should be regulated to prevent hate crimes. (3) Social media platforms should be regulated to prevent inappropriate content. | As can be seen from Table 5, the annotators consider our work to be slightly worse (4.5) than the gold standard in terms of SENTIMENT, but comparable in performance on the other dimensions (between 4.5 and 4.7). In comparison to other work, our approach outperforms the baseline in all dimensions. This is especially significant for COVERAGE (4.6 vs 4.0) and REDUNDANCY (4.5 vs 3.2), as it suggests that our approach to KPA better captures unique themes across the corpus of arguments and effectively reduces redundancy in the KPs. It is worth noting that annotators generally preferred it when the output consisted of a few general KPs (Ref, *S-KPM+IC+DA*) rather than a higher number of specific ones (GBS). This contradicts the conclusion made by Syed et al. (2021). However, they suggested summarising long texts into a single conclusion, whereas we focused on summarising a body of short texts (i.e. arguments) in terms of multiple key points. Data augmentation helps: In the ablation experiments, data augmentation in the supervised scenario shows a significant improvement (*S-KPMDA* vs. *S-KPM*), by around 4 points on ROUGE-L and up to 3 points on proposed evaluation metrics. A possible reason for this improvement is | Methods | R-value | P-value | |-----------|-----------|-----------| | Rouge | 0.61 | 0.03 | | Soft-F1 | 0.72 | 0.01 | | S+WMS | 0.60 | 0.04 | Table 4: Spearman's correlation between humanassigned scores and the metrics ROUGE, soft-F1 and EMD. The inputs used in the calculations are only those systems included in the human evaluation. likely because the original dataset is too small for supervised models to learn task-specific representations. Employing prompt-based data augmentation leverages the pre-training of language models, by aligning the down-stream task (i.e. generating similar data) to the pre-traing task (Liu et al., 2021). As a consequence, the proposed data augmentation method can generate training data of sufficient quality to improve downstream KPM performance, even after training the DA model with only a limited amount of annotated data. ## Ic Improves The Clustering Performance: For unsupervised KPM, iterative clustering (*USKPM+IC*), performs significantly better than the method with no such additional processing step (*US-KPM*), showing an increase of 5 points in terms of ROUGE-L. The gap closes for supervised models (*S-KPM*), presumably due to the fact that after supervision, the KPM model produces less outliers to be further assigned with IC. Furthermore, Table 2 demonstrates the relationship between the threshold and the performance of the model. There is a strong positive correlation—increasing the threshold results in higher ROUGE scores (Spearman's r = 0.94, p = 2.5e−9). We further implemented an ablation experiment to compare the performance of K-Means and HDBSCAN in order to investigate the research question of whether the IC step may be unnecessary if a different clustering method was applied to the reduced embeddings. The results show that K-Means performs better than Unsup-KPM (*ROUGE* = 25.5*, sF*1 = 0.57 vs. *ROUGE* = 23.2*, sF*1 = 0.56) but worse than Unsup-KPM+IC (*ROUGE* = 28.1*, sF*1 = 0.59). This supports our hypothesis that the arguments labelled as "-1" are meaningful. K-Means assigns them to an existing cluster which is better than discarding them completely (KPM without IC), while IC is more accurate in finding (potentially new) clusters for them. It also demonstrates that the proposed iterative distance is useful. ## The Proposed Evaluation Framework Better reflects human judgement: We note several important differences between our proposed metrics and ROUGE-based evaluation. For instance, *SKPM+DA* has higher ROUGE scores than *UnsupKPM+IC*, while *Unsup-KPM+IC* performs worse than *S-KPM+DA* according to both Soft-F1 and human evaluation. One possible explanation is that ROUGE focusses on the overlap of n-grams rather than on semantic similarity, resulting in the fact that summaries that repeat words appearing in the reference, but with a lower semantic similarity overall, may receive higher scores. Table 3 exemplifies this assumption, as KPs generated by *S-KPM+DA* are less informative and more concise than those generated by *US-KPM+IC*. When directly comparing two sets of KPs produced by *Sup-KPM+DA* and *Unsup-KPM+IC* (HT3), 80% of the annotators indicated that as a whole, the *US-KPM+IC* outperforms *S-KPM+DA*. The remaining 20% consdered both to be of equal quality. In addition, we conducted supplementary experiments to investigate the difference with existing methods. Similar to our set-based method, Clark et al. (2019) evaluated texts in a continuous space using word and sentence embeddings (S+WMS). As shown in Table 1, the proposed methods are higher than the baseline by 5 points, emphasising the superiority of our approach. To further substantiate the claim that our proposed metrics better correlate with human judgement than the prevalent methodology based on ROUGE and S+WMS, we investigate Spearman's (Akoglu, 2018) correlation between human-assigned scores (averaged for all dimensions) and the metrics ROUGE (r*ROUGE*), soft-F1 (rsF1) and S+WMS (rS+WMS), for all evaluated models and test set topics. Table 4 demonstrates our finding that Soft-F1 is indeed a more truthful reflection of human judgment than ROUGE (rsF1 = 0.72, p = 0.01 vs. r*ROUGE* = 0.61, p = 0.03) and S+WMS (rsF1 = 0.72, p = 0.01 vs. rS+WMS = 0.60, p = 0.04). Human evaluation is reliable: We measured Krippendorff's α (Hayes and Krippendorff, 2007) to investigate inter-annotator agreement, reporting an average of 0.61 across all test set topics and quality dimensions, implying that the results are | Approach | VL | SN | IN | SA | SG | CV | FF | RD | |-------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Reference | 5.0 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 4.9 | | S-KPM+DA+IC | 4.7 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.2 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.5 | | S-KPM+DA | 4.8 | 4.4 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 4.4 | 3.4 | 2.7 | | US-KPM+IC | 4.9 | 4.9 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 4.1 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 4.0 | | Enigma | 4.6 | 4.2 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 2.2 | | GBS | 4.7 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 3.7 | 3.2 | moderately reliable. The human evaluation is more reliable for SENTIMENT, SINGLEASPECT and RE-DUNDANCY with α of 0.69, 0.69 and 0.74, respectively. One possible explanation is that these dimensions are dichotomous, and thus are more likely for annotators to produce definite results—for example SENTIMENT measures whether KPs have a clear stance towards the topic, while REDUNDANCY essentially asks whether KPs are duplicated. Conversely, reliability scores are lower for SIGNIFI-CANCE and FAITHFULNESS (α = 0.53 for both), likely because these dimensions are susceptible to annotator bias and rely on their knowledge. For example, FAITHFULNESS measures how well the KPs reflect arguments in the corpus. This requires annotators to have a good understanding of the debate topic which might be difficult to achieve in practice. Evaluation scores and agreements for all dimensions and test set topics are in Appendix C.3. ## 6 Conclusion This paper contributes to the development of key point analysis. Firstly, we proposed a two-step abstractive summarisation framework. Compared with previous work, our approach achieves performance on par with a human without additional training samples. Secondly, we developed a new evaluation toolkit, whose effectiveness was demonstrated with human annotators, presenting a more realistic view of the generated KPs' quality than traditional automatic evaluation metrics. In future work, we will address the issue that KPs with few matching arguments are difficult to cluster, by using contrastive learning (Zhang et al., 2021) to facilitate better intra-cluster and inter-cluster distances. ## Limitations Recruiting human subjects for annotation limits the reproducibility of human evaluation. In addition, we have only tested the performance of the proposed framework on the fixed dataset, ArgKP2021, that we described above, and not on a wider range of data. This is because ArgKP-2021 was the only dataset available for use in this task. Finally, we did not filter the arguments in the original corpus, with the result that potentially offensive arguments may come into the framework as input and generate key points which some readers might find offensive. It is worth noting, however, that the identification of offensive language is not the aim of this work. ## Ethics Statement For the present work, we used an existing anonymised dataset without any data protection issues. In addition, all annotators were systematically trained and explicitly informed that their work would be used in the study before human evaluation. The annotators' work was only taken into account if they clearly understood the task and consented to how their work will be used. In addition, we do not collect their names or personal information, only their ratings. Therefore, institutional ethical approval was not required. ## Acknowledgements We thank the anonymous reviewers from the ARR December 2022 cycle for their valuable feedback. We would also like to acknowledge the use of the Computational Shared Facility at The University of Manchester. This work was partially funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation action programme, via the AI4Media Open Call \#1 issued and executed under the AI4Media project (Grant Agreement no. 951911). ## References Yamen Ajjour, Milad Alshomary, Henning Wachsmuth, and Benno Stein. 2019. Modeling frames in argumentation. In *EMNLP/IJCNLP (1)*, pages 2922–2932. Association for Computational Linguistics. Haldun Akoglu. 2018. User's guide to correlation coefficients. *Turkish journal of emergency medicine*, 18(3):91–93. Milad Alshomary, Nick Düsterhus, and Henning Wachsmuth. 2020. Extractive snippet generation for arguments. In *SIGIR*, pages 1969–1972. ACM. Milad Alshomary, Timon Gurcke, Shahbaz Syed, Philipp Heinisch, Maximilian Spliethöver, Philipp Cimiano, Martin Potthast, and Henning Wachsmuth. 2021. Key point analysis via contrastive learning and extractive argument summarization. In *ArgMining@EMNLP*, pages 184–189. Association for Computational Linguistics. Roy Bar-Haim, Lilach Eden, Roni Friedman, Yoav Kantor, Dan Lahav, and Noam Slonim. 2020a. From arguments to key points: Towards automatic argument summarization. In ACL, pages 4029–4039. Association for Computational Linguistics. Roy Bar-Haim, Lilach Eden, Yoav Kantor, Roni Friedman, and Noam Slonim. 2021. Every bite is an experience: Key point analysis of business reviews. In ACL/IJCNLP (1), pages 3376–3386. Association for Computational Linguistics. Roy Bar-Haim, Yoav Kantor, Lilach Eden, Roni Friedman, Dan Lahav, and Noam Slonim. 2020b. Quantitative argument summarization and beyond: Crossdomain key point analysis. In *EMNLP (1)*, pages 39–49. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In NeurIPS. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Y. Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. CoRR, abs/2210.11416. Elizabeth Clark, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Sentence mover's similarity: Automatic evaluation for multi-sentence texts. In *ACL (1)*, pages 2748–2760. Association for Computational Linguistics. Charlie Egan, Advaith Siddharthan, and Adam Z. Wyner. 2016. Summarising the points made in online political debates. In *ArgMining@ACL*. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Christoph F. Eick, Nidal M. Zeidat, and Zhenghong Zhao. 2004. Supervised clustering - algorithms and benefits. In *ICTAI*, pages 774–776. IEEE Computer Society. Roni Friedman, Lena Dankin, Yufang Hou, Ranit Aharonov, Yoav Katz, and Noam Slonim. 2021. Overview of the 2021 key point analysis shared task. In *ArgMining@EMNLP*, pages 154–164. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maarten Grootendorst. 2022. Bertopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. CoRR, abs/2203.05794. Andrew F Hayes and Klaus Krippendorff. 2007. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. *Communication methods and measures*, 1(1):77–89. Manav Nitin Kapadnis, Sohan Patnaik, Siba Smarak Panigrahi, Varun Madhavan, and Abhilash Nandy. 2021. Team enigma at argmining-emnlp 2021: Leveraging pre-trained language models for key point matching. In *ArgMining@EMNLP*, pages 200–205. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matt J. Kusner, Yu Sun, Nicholas I. Kolkin, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2015. From word embeddings to document distances. In *ICML*, volume 37 of JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, pages 957– 966. JMLR.org. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74–81. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. CoRR, abs/2107.13586. Leland McInnes and John Healy. 2018. UMAP: uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. *CoRR*, abs/1802.03426. Leland McInnes, John Healy, and Steve Astels. 2017. hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering. J. Open Source Softw., 2(11):205. Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. Textrank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 404–411. Amita Misra, Brian Ecker, and Marilyn A. Walker. 2016. Measuring the similarity of sentential arguments in dialogue. In *SIGDIAL Conference*, pages 276–287. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Vladimir Molchanov and Lars Linsen. 2018. Overcoming the curse of dimensionality when clustering multivariate volume data. In *VISIGRAPP (3: IVAPP)*, pages 29–39. SciTePress. Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and Terry Winograd. 1999. The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford InfoLab. Divya Pandove, Shivani Goel, and Rinkle Rani. 2018. Systematic review of clustering high-dimensional and large datasets. *ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data*, 12(2):16:1–16:68. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In *EMNLP*, pages 1532–1543. ACL. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9. Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C. Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In *EMNLP (1)*, pages 2685–2702. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In *EMNLP/IJCNLP (1)*, pages 3980–3990. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nils Reimers, Benjamin Schiller, Tilman Beck, Johannes Daxenberger, Christian Stab, and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Classification and clustering of arguments with contextualized word embeddings. In ACL (1), pages 567–578. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yossi Rubner, Carlo Tomasi, and Leonidas J Guibas. 2000. The earth mover's distance as a metric for image retrieval. International journal of computer vision, 40(2):99. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Generating datasets with pretrained language models. In *EMNLP* (1), pages 6943–6951. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur P. Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: learning robust metrics for text generation. In ACL, pages 7881–7892. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shahbaz Syed, Roxanne El Baff, Johannes Kiesel, Khalid Al Khatib, Benno Stein, and Martin Potthast. 2020. News editorials: Towards summarizing long argumentative texts. In *COLING*, pages 5384–5396. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Shahbaz Syed, Khalid Al Khatib, Milad Alshomary, Henning Wachsmuth, and Martin Potthast. 2021. Generating informative conclusions for argumentative texts. In *ACL/IJCNLP (Findings)*, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 3482– 3493. Association for Computational Linguistics. Assaf Toledo, Shai Gretz, Edo Cohen-Karlik, Roni Friedman, Elad Venezian, Dan Lahav, Michal Jacovi, Ranit Aharonov, and Noam Slonim. 2019. Automatic argument quality assessment - new datasets and methods. In *EMNLP/IJCNLP (1)*, pages 5624– 5634. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yutong Wang, Renze Lou, Kai Zhang, Mao Yan Chen, and Yujiu Yang. 2021. More: A metric learning based framework for open-domain relation extraction. In *ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing* (ICASSP), pages 7698–7702. IEEE. Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. Bartscore: Evaluating generated text as text generation. In *NeurIPS*, pages 27263–27277. Dejiao Zhang, Feng Nan, Xiaokai Wei, Shang-Wen Li, Henghui Zhu, Kathleen R. McKeown, Ramesh Nallapati, Andrew O. Arnold, and Bing Xiang. 2021. Supporting clustering with contrastive learning. In NAACL-HLT, pages 5419–5430. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. PEGASUS: pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In *ICML*, volume 119 of *Proceedings of Machine* Learning Research, pages 11328–11339. PMLR. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020b. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In *ICLR*. OpenReview.net. Wei Zhao, Maxime Peyrard, Fei Liu, Yang Gao, Christian M. Meyer, and Steffen Eger. 2019. Moverscore: Text generation evaluating with contextualized embeddings and earth mover distance. In EMNLP/IJCNLP (1), pages 563–578. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Data Augmentation A.1 Data Description A.2 Example Of Template B More Details Of The Methodology B.1 Parameters For Da B.2 Filtering Mechanism For Kpm | Data Set | Arg | Single Arg-KP | Multiple Arg-KP | |------------|-------|-----------------|-------------------| | Train(24) | 5583 | 3778 | 238(2) | | Dev(4) | 932 | 604 | 67(0) | | Test(3) | 723 | 454 | 46(6) | In this work, we use the dataset **ArgKP-2021**, which contains arguments obtained by crowdsourcing on 31 topics and key points written by experts (Friedman et al., 2021). 27k samples are present in the form of ⟨ argument, key point, label ⟩ triples, and are grouped by positive or negative stance. Labels are crowd-sourced judments of whether a post is an argument, and which arguments are represented by which key points. Table 6 shows that 5% of the arguments are matched with multiple key points and 27% of the arguments do not match any of the key points. The dataset was divided at the topic level, with the training, validation and test subsets corresponding to 24, 4 and 3 topics respectively (where the topics across the subsets do not overlap with each other).As mentioned earlier, only 0.001% of the arguments (2 out of 238 in the training set, 6 out of 46 in the test set and none in the validation set) matched more than three key points ## A.3 Result Of Data Distribution Of The Data Augmentation Dataset Figure 3 illustrates the data distribution of the final augmented dataset, with each topic containing an average of 20,000 arguments and 7,500 arguments matched to key points. We set DINO's num entries per input and label to 50 which generates 50 data for each label (0, 0.5, 1) of each input example, top p to 0.9, top k to 5 and other parameters follow the default. The DINO (Schick and Schütze, 2021) is trained on a single NVIDIA Tesla 32G V100 GPU, with each run taking up to twelve hours. By thresholding the unclassified arguments, we take into account the second highest probability. Table 6: Data Set Statistics.  Figure 2: Continuation text generated by prompted learning data augmented methods with three different template descriptions. We chose to give input sentence 1 and generate only sentence 2, which helps to generate sentence similarity datasets. | ROUGE | BLEURT | | | | | | |---------------|----------|---------|----------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Approach | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | sP | sR | sF1 | | Experiment 1 | 30.7 | 9.1 | 28.3 | 0.61 | 0.59 | 0.60 | | Experiment 2 | 31.4 | 9.3 | 29.0 | 0.62 | 0.59 | 0.61 | | Experiment 3 | 29.7 | 9.8 | 27.9 | 0.57 | 0.55 | 0.56 | | Experiment 4 | 30.2 | 9.5 | 28.1 | 0.60 | 0.57 | 0.58 | | Experiment 5 | 31.1 | 8.7 | 28.9 | 0.61 | 0.59 | 0.60 | | Experiment 6 | 27.8 | 7.0 | 26.4 | 0.55 | 0.56 | 0.56 | | Experiment 7 | 31.1 | 8.7 | 29.0 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.60 | | Experiment 8 | 30.1 | 9.5 | 28.2 | 0.60 | 0.56 | 0.58 | | Experiment 9 | 30.3 | 8.9 | 28.1 | 0.59 | 0.58 | 0.59 | | Experiment 10 | 31.7 | 8.5 | 29.6 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.62 | | Average | 29.8±2 | 8.4±1.4 | 28.0±1.6 | 0.59±0.03 | 0.58±0.04 | 0.59±0.03 | Formally, this procedure is described as follows: $$\frac{i-m a x\left(A r g_{i}\right)}{\mathrm{max}}$$ γ = Pn i=1 Psecond−max(Argi) n(3) where γ is the value of the threshold, Argi ∈ InputT ext is an independent argument, i iterates over the second highest probability of each argument, and n is the number of arguments per stance per topic. We average the sum of the second highest probabilities as the threshold for selecting the arguments since only 0.001% of the arguments matched more than two key points, and the third highest probability was more different from the top two (Data distribution details can be seen in Appendix A.1). ## B.3 Experimental Parameters For Kpg We train the model for a total of 15 epochs on two NVIDIA Tesla A100 80GB GPUs with and batch  size of 16, limiting input length to 512. ## B.4 Second Set-Based Automatic Evaluation Design Due to their outstanding multiple task-based formulation and ability to utilize the entirety of the pre-trained model's parameters, we propose two different lines to use flexibly in different evaluation scenarios. Specifically, the first consideration is that the number of generated key points is likely to be different from the number of reference key points, presented as in evaluating them from different directions, which are already explained in the main page. In addition, we propose an evaluation idea specifically for the scenario where the number of generated key points is the same as the number of reference key points. For n generated and reference key points find n pairs of (generated, reference) with maximum score, such that: - Each generated and reference key point appears in some pair - Each generated and reference key point appears only once ## B.5 Result Of Different Methods Table 8 shows the example generated KPs based on different threshold. Table 1 demonstrates the different work in sP,sR and sF1 based on BARTScore. Table 7 shows the overall performance of *S-KPM+IC+DA* after 10 times running. | Topic | Stance | Threshold 0.6 | Threshold 0.9 | |--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------| | The USA is a good | Pro | (1) United States is the best country to | | | country to live in | live. (2) The United States has a lot of diversity. (3) USA is the American dream. | (1) United States offers many opportunities. (2) The USA has a good standard of living. (3) The USA offers opportunities for everyone to achieve the American dream. | | | Social media platforms should be regulated by the government | Con | (1) Social media platforms cannot be regulated by the government. (2) Social media platforms are important to freedom of expression. (3) Private companies should not be regulated. | (1) The social media platforms should not be regulated because they are private companies. (2) Social media platforms should be regulated to prevent crimes. (3) Social media platforms should not be regulated because it would be ineffective. | Table 8: Examples of key points generated from our proposed approach. For the sake of brevity, only the top three key points are shown. ## C Human Evaluation C.2 Dimensions Of Human Evaluation C.1 Tutorial For Human Evaluation The main aim of this evaluation is to assess the quality of the argument summaries automatically generated by the language model. Unlike summaries of articles, this task is presented by a highly condensed set of sentences as a summary. Each of them is known as a key point. Following is an example: Topic: We should abandon the use of school uniform Stance: Con ## Original Text: 1. School uniform keeps everyone looking the same and prevents bullying. 2. Having a school uniform can reduce bullying as students who have no style or cannot afford the latest trends do not stand out. 3. School uniforms can prevent bullying due to economic background and appearance. Key point: School uniform reduces bullying. ## Task Description There are three tasks involved in this evaluation. The first task concerns how well the summary itself serves as a key point. The second task aims to determine which of the two sets of generated key points is more consistent with the way humans produce summaries. The third task evaluates how well the generated set of key points summarises the corpus of arguments. Annotators were asked to evaluate the gold annotated key points as ground truth, followed by an evaluation of the best performing set of generated key points. Before starting, they were given taskoriented training that explained in detail the definition of arguments, key points and topics. The following are the dimensions involved in the evaluation task. - VALIDITY: The key point should be an understandable, well-written sentence. - SENTIMENT: It should have a clear stance towards the debate topic (either positive or negative). - INFORMATIVENESS: It should discuss some aspect of the debate topic and be general enough. Any key point that is too specific or only expresses sentiment cannot be considered a good candidate. - SINGLEASPECT: It should not involve multiple aspects. - SIGNIFICANT: Each key point should stand out and capture a main point. - COVERAGE: A set of KPs should cover the most of semantic information in a given corpus. - FAITHFULNESS: KPs should actually express the meaning in the corpus. No conjecture or unfounded claims arise. - REDUNDANT: Each KP expresses a distinct aspect. In other words, there should be no overlap between the key points. ## C.3 Results Of Human Evaluation The following table shows the consistency between the human annotators on a different topics. | Topic | VL | SN | IN | SA | SG | CV | FF | RD | |-------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Routine-Con | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.49 | 0.84 | 0.42 | 0.75 | 0.49 | 0.79 | | Routine-Pro | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.54 | 0.33 | 0.62 | 0.48 | 0.68 | | Media-Con | 0.45 | 0.84 | 0.64 | 0.58 | 0.40 | 0.67 | 0.43 | 0.54 | | Media-Pro | 0.29 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.54 | 0.35 | 0.73 | | USA-Con | 0.32 | 0.66 | 0.76 | 0.78 | 0.74 | 0.46 | 0.72 | 0.80 | | USA-Pro | 0.25 | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.60 | 0.72 | 0.85 | | Average | 0.40 | 0.69 | 0.63 | 0.69 | 0.53 | 0.61 | 0.53 | 0.74 | Table 9: Result of Krippendorff's Alpha on each dimension. Each score is the average score of seven annotators on the dimension (HT1 left and HT2 right). Reported are, from left to right, VALIDITY, SENTIMENT, IN-FORMATIVENESS, SINGLEASPECT, SIGNIFICANCE, COVERAGE, FAITHFULNESS and REDUNDANCY ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Left blank. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 3,5 And Appendix ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section appendix The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section appendix ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 3,4,5 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 4,5 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Section 4 ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 4 ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section Ethics Statement ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Section Ethics Statement ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Section 4 and Ethics Statement

wu-etal-2023-ambiguous

Ambiguous Learning from Retrieval: Towards Zero-shot Semantic Parsing

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.787

Current neural semantic parsers take a supervised approach requiring a considerable amount of training data which is expensive and difficult to obtain. Thus, minimizing the supervision effort is one of the key challenges in semantic parsing. In this paper, we propose the Retrieval as Ambiguous Supervision framework, in which we construct a retrieval system based on pretrained language models to collect high-coverage candidates. Assuming candidates always contain the correct ones, we convert zero-shot task into ambiguously supervised task. To improve the precision and coverage of such ambiguous supervision, we propose a confidence-driven self-training algorithm, in which a semantic parser is learned and exploited to disambiguate the candidates iteratively. Experimental results show that our approach significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art zero-shot semantic parsing methods.

# Ambiguous Learning From Retrieval: Towards Zero-Shot Semantic Parsing Shan Wu1,3,∗, Chunlei Xin1,3,∗, Hongyu Lin1,†, Xianpei Han1,2**, Cao Liu**4, Jiansong Chen4, Fan Yang4, Guanglu Wan4**, Le Sun**1,2,† 1Chinese Information Processing Laboratory 2State Key Laboratory of Computer Science Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 3University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 4Meituan-Dianping Group {wushan2018,chunlei2021,hongyu2016,xianpei,sunle}@iscas.ac.cn, {liucao,chenjiansong,yangfan79,wanguanglu}@meituan.com ## Abstract  Current neural semantic parsers mostly take supervised approaches, which require a considerable amount of expensive training data. As a result, minimizing supervision requirements has been one of the key challenges in semantic parsing. In this paper, we propose a Retrieval as Ambiguous Supervision framework, which can effectively collect high-coverage ambiguous supervisions (i.e., the parse candidates of an utterance) via a pre-trained language modelsbased retrieval system. Then, by assuming candidates will contain the correct ones, the zeroshot task can be converted into an ambiguously supervised task. To improve the precision and coverage of such ambiguous supervision, we propose a confidence-driven self-training algorithm, in which a semantic parser is learned and exploited to disambiguate candidates iteratively. Experimental results show that our approach significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art zero-shot semantic parsing methods. ## 1 Introduction Semantic parsing aims to map natural language sentences into computer-understandable meaning representations(MRs), which has attracted substantial attention for many years (Wong and Mooney, 2007; Kate et al., 2005; Lu et al., 2008; Dong and Lapata, 2016). Nowadays, neural network methods have become the mainstream for semantic parsing. Since neural semantic parsers are limited to the patterns observed in the training data, a large number of annotated data is required. However, annotating utterances with detailed, correct meaning representations is a difficult and time-consuming task, which relies on expert knowledge about MRs. Recent studies in semantic parsing try to employ pre-trained language models (PLMs) to alleviate the problem of data insufficiency. Shin et al. (2021); Wu et al. (2021); Schucher et al. (2022) reformulate semantic parsing as constrained paraphrasing generation, where paraphrasing generation is modeled by PLMs. To eliminate the need for humanannotated data, Xu et al. (2020) employ PLMs to paraphrase repeatedly and obtain millions of data. However, these methods still rely on lots of detailed annotated data or heavy data synthesis. In this paper, we propose a Retrieval as Ambiguous Supervision (RaAS) framework for zero-shot semantic parsing, which is simple and effective. In the RaAS framework, we make full use of a PLMsbased retriever to return high-coverage candidates, and then convert zero-shot semantic parsing into ambiguously supervised semantic parsing1. As previous work found, sentence similarity and PLMs can provide effective candidates: Herzig and Berant (2019) use sentence similarity scores and Belyy et al. (2022) use PLMs to provide candidates for manual annotation, and PLMs-based paraphrasing models can provide parsing results with consider1In ambiguous supervision (Kate and Mooney, 2007; Kim and Mooney, 2010), where each sentence is annotated with multiple potential meaning representations and the correct ones are within them. Strictly speaking, our setting is approximate ambiguous supervision or noisy ambiguous supervision. 14081 able top-20 accuracy (Wu et al., 2021). Thus, we propose an effective PLMs-based retrieval system to retrieve MRs from the collected MRs datastore, and select the top-k MRs as ambiguous supervision signals, in which we suppose there is at least one true meaning representation. Then, we employ a self-training protocol that exploits the sequences modeling ability of semantic parsers to improve the coverage and precision of candidates. In our approach, semantic parsers are learned and exploited to supplement candidates and disambiguate the MRs iteratively. Without any supervision, our PLMs-based retrieval system can provide discriminative supervision signals. In our retrieval system, the MRs datastore is built by sampling MRs under a limited depth and preserving the valid ones. Following previous work (Berant and Liang, 2014; Cao et al., 2020), we canonicalize the MRs for scoring. The sentence similarity scores between the query and canonical utterances are calculated by PLMs to retrieve MR candidates. As shown in Fig 1, the retrieval results of PLMs have high top-k accuracy. In all domains of OVERNIGHT, the average top-20 accuracy can reach 95.3% but the average top-1 accuracy is only 59.5%. We assume that the retrieval results can provide sufficient ambiguous supervision, of which the precision and coverage can be further improved by SEQ2SEQ models. To further improve the precision and coverage of the above ambiguous supervision, we propose a confidence-driven self-training algorithm. Our learning method iterates between two stages: 1) Train the semantic parser from the high confidence instances; 2) Expand candidate sets and update the confidence weights of candidates based on the current parser. In summary, our main contributions are: - We propose the Retrieval as Ambiguous Supervision framework, which can exploit the prior knowledge of PLMs and the sequences modeling ability of semantic parsers simultaneously. - We design a confidence-driven self-training algorithm on retrieval, which can improve the precision and coverage of ambiguous supervision. - Experiments on three standard datasets show that our approach significantly outperforms previous zero-shot semantic parsing methods. ## 2 Retrieval As Ambiguous Supervision Framework We propose Retrieval as Ambiguous Supervision framework, which treats the retrieval results as ambiguous supervision signals (Fig. 2). First, for each sentence, we use a pre-trained model to provide reliable meaning representation candidates, in which we assume that at least one is correct. So the zero-shot semantic parsing is converted into an ambiguous supervision task. Then we propose a confidence-driven self-training algorithm, in which high-confidence instances from the candidates are used to train the semantic parser and in turn the semantic parser is exploited to supplement and disambiguate the candidates. This process is iterative. ## 2.1 Plms-Based Mrs Retrieval System In order to make better use of the PLMs to retrieve semantic parsing candidates, we first use the production rules of meaning representations and the constraints of knowledge base to build the retrieval datastore D. Then, given a query sentence x, the pre-trained language models are used to calculate the retrieval score for each MR y in D. The top-k retrieval results form the candidate sets Ux, which are viewed as ambiguous supervision signals. ## 2.1.1 Mrs Collecting For each domain, we use the context free grammar (CFG) of the corresponding semantic formalism. We randomly expand the production rules of CFG to sample a large number of meaning representations Y′. To make full use of the knowledge constraints of the knowledge base, we only preserve the executable meaning representations Y . Following previous work (Jia and Liang, 2016; Xu et al., 2020), through synchronous grammar, we also produce canonical utterances, which are the pseudo-language representations of MRs. Finally, we collect accessible meaning representation and canonical utterance pairs ⟨*y, z*⟩ to build retrieval datastore D = {⟨y1, z1⟩,⟨y2, z2⟩, ...,⟨yn, zn⟩}. ## 2.1.2 Plms-Based Retriever Following previous studies (Su and Yan, 2017; Cao et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2021), we first use canonical utterances to calculate retrieval scores. Canonical utterances can be viewed as sub-language representations of MRs. There is a one-to-one mapping between them. Formally, each MR y can be mapped to its cannonical utterance z by synchronous gr-  Sentences Which player had the same amount of assist as Kobe Bryant | #1 × Score: 0.9390689 Number of assist of player Kobe property (property (kobe, reverse (player )), num_assists ) #2 √ Score: 0.9367738 Player whose number of assist is number of assist of player Kobe property (( λ s (filter (s , num_assists = property (property (kobe , reverse (player )), num_assists )))), player ) #3 × Score: 0.9365325 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Number of assist of player Kobe whose season is 2004 property (filter (property *(kobe, reverse ( player )), season =* 2004 ), num_assists ) mmar. We use z to compute the retrieval score rx,y. Given a query sentence x, we can calculate the cos similarity of x and each canonical utterance z in D by cos(h(x), h(z)) with the PLM encoder h. The encoder has been pre-trained on large-scale public datasets in advance and has not touched any canonical utterances. We normalize the cos similarities to calculate the scores: $$score_{\mathbf{h}}(x,z)={\frac{e^{\cos(\mathbf{h}(x),\mathbf{h}(z))/\tau}}{\sum_{\langle y^{\prime},z^{\prime}\rangle\in D}e^{\cos(\mathbf{h}(x),\mathbf{h}(z^{\prime}))/\tau}}}\,\,\,\,(1)$$ , in which τ is the temperature parameter. The initial confidence scores are obtained from the similarities: rx,y = scoreh(*x, z*). We keep the top-k retrieval results Ux = [⟨y1, z1⟩,⟨y2, z2⟩, ...,⟨yk, zk⟩] and their corresponding scores for later ambiguous learning. In our practice, k is set to 20. Although the retrieval system can provide discriminative supervision signals, the coverage and precision of MR candidates should be further refined. As shown in the example of Fig 3, the retrieval system pays more attention to the relevance and confuses the highly relevant utterances. In this example, the related words 'player', 'amount', 'assist' and 'Kobe' all appear in the first and second candidates, but the meanings of the correct MR \#2 and \#1 are very different. This demonstrates that the retrieval model does not have enough understanding of their accurate semantics. However, it still provides a good initialization of candidates and confidence scores, which can be further refined by more accurate SEQ2SEQ modeling. ## 2.2 Self-Training On Retrieval As mentioned above, after obtaining the ambiguous supervision signals Ux for each given input x and their corresponding initial confidence scores r, we propose a confidence-driven self-training protocol to improve the coverage and precision of candidates with SEQ2SEQ modeling. Our self-training algorithm operates in an EM-like manner, iterating between two stages: 1) Train a semantic parser from the candidates based on their confidence scores. 2) Exploit the current parser to expand the candidates and re-estimate their confidence scores; In our self-training protocol, the Seq2Seq parser with semantic mapping ability is fed with reliable guidance from high-confidence instances, to denoise the supervision of relevant instances iteratively. As shown in Fig 4, after self-training iterations, the parser learns that 'Which player' maps to 'player' rather than 'number' and re-estimates the confidence scores to raise the ranking of the correct MR consequently. Thus the quality of supervision signals can be improved in such iterative  re-estimation, which continually produces better parsers. ## 2.2.1 Prompt-Based Semantic Parsers As shown in previous work (Lester et al., 2021; Schucher et al., 2022), the prompt tuning is suitable for solving the overfitting problem in low resource settings. Following them, we use T5(Raffel et al., 2020) as the base model, and set the prompt length to 150. Given a tokenized utterance x = [x1, x2*, ..., x*n], T5 encodes x into Ex ∈ Rn×e, where e is the dimension of the embedding space. The soft prompt is represented as a parameter θp = [P1; P2; ...; Pv] ∈ Rv×e, in which v is the length of the prompt. The soft prompt is prepended to the input embeddings as [θp; Ex], which is provided to the language model. During prompt tuning, we only optimize θp, and fix the model parameters and the pre-trained vocabulary embeddings of T5. Before self-training iterations (in Iter0), we use the top-1 of the retrieval results Ux as supervision signals to initialize the semantic parsing model. ## 2.2.2 Candidate Expansion And Confidence Re-Estimation In order to improve the precision and coverage of retrieval results, we add the top-m parsing results to the candidate set and disambiguate meaning representation annotations in a moving-average style after each model update. Candidate Expansion As mentioned above, the ambiguous supervision can only be retrieved from the collected data. To make up for the generation label space, the m-best beam search results of the current semantic parser in t-th iteration Y t x = [⟨y1, z1⟩,⟨y2, z2⟩, ...,⟨ym, zm⟩] are employed to update the candidate set: U tx = Ux ∪ Y t x(t ≥ 1). Confidence Re-estimation To improve the supervision precision, and especially to resolve the problem that the retrieval system focuses more on relevance than on precise semantics, we use the generation model to refine and re-estimate the confidence s tx,y of MR labels. We first use a pre-trained paraphrase generation model g to refine the confidence scores: $$s_{x,y}^{0}=r_{x,y}+{\frac{p_{\mathbf{g}}(x|z)}{\sum_{\langle y^{\prime},z^{\prime}\rangle\in U_{x}}p_{\mathbf{g}}(x|z^{\prime})}}$$ $${\mathrm{(2)}}$$ After each model update, we use the new parser p(y|x) to re-evaluate the confidence scores of the meaning representation candidates in a movingaverage style: $$s_{x,y}^{t}=(1-\alpha){\frac{p(y|x)}{\sum_{y^{\prime}\in U_{x}^{t}}p(y^{\prime}|x)}}+\alpha s_{x,y}^{t-1}$$ $$(3)$$ x,y (3) For the meaning representations newly added to the candidate set, we re-estimate their confidence scores as: s tx,y = (1−α t)Pp(y|x) y′∈Utx p(y′|x) +α t(rx,y+ Ppg(x|z) ⟨y′,z′⟩∈Utx pg(x|z′) ). Finally, we get the normalized confidence scores St(y|x) as: $$S_{t}(y|x)={\frac{s_{x,y}^{t}}{\sum_{y^{\prime}\in U_{x}^{t}}s_{x,y}^{t}}}\qquad\qquad(4)$$ ## 2.2.3 Self-Training Update On Retrieval Our learning framework operates in an EM-like manner, iterating between two stages: 1) Add candidates and update the confidence weights of the candidates based on current model parameters; 2) Train the parser from the soft pseudo instances. In the iterations, candidate samples are weighted to train the parser. We use the continuous self-training method proposed by Zou et al. (2019). First, according to the normalized confidence St(y|x), we resolve the soft pseudo-labels as: $$\hat{y}_{x}^{t}=\underset{\hat{y}_{x}}{\operatorname{argmin}}-\sum_{y\in U_{x}^{t}}\hat{y}_{x,y}\log S_{t}(y|x)+\beta r(\hat{y}_{x})\tag{5}$$ - $|U^t|-1\,$, $\mathbf{W}\,$ ... , in which yˆ tx ∈ ∆|Utx|−1. We use a negative entropy label regularizer r(ˆyx) = Py∈Utx yˆx,y log ˆyx,y. The distribution of labels can be solved as: $${\hat{y}}_{x,y}^{t}={\frac{S_{t}(y|x)^{1/\beta}}{\sum_{y^{\prime}\in U_{x}^{t}}S_{t}(y^{\prime}|x)^{1/\beta}}}\qquad\qquad(6)$$ According to the weights of the candidate annotations, we train the parser by the following loss function: $$\mathcal{J}(x,U_{x}^{t})=-\sum_{y\in U_{x}^{t}}\hat{y}_{x,y}^{t}\log p(y|x;\theta_{p})\quad(7)$$ ## 2.2.4 Inference When inferring, we follow the same way as confidence re-estimation. Given a query x, the candidate set consists of retrieval results and beam search results: U = Ux ∪ Yx. Then, we use the similar confidence re-estimation algorithm as in self-training: score(*x, y*) = Pp(y|x) y′∈Ux p(y′|x) + s 0x,y to rerank candidates. Following previous studies (Wu et al., 2021; Shin et al., 2021), we employ constrained decoding and generate canonical representations over meaning representations. ## 3 Experiments Datasets We conduct experiments on three datasets: OVERNIGHT(λ-DCS), GEOGRANNO, and GEO(FunQL), which use different meaning representations and are on different domains. Note that we do not use any MR annotations in training set. O**VERNIGHT** This is a dataset across eight domains, which contains natural language paraphrases paired with lambda DCS logical forms. We use the same train/test splits as Wang et al. (2015). GEOG**RANNO** This is a semantic parsing benchmark about U.S. geography (Herzig and Berant, 2019), in which lambda DCS logical forms paired with canonical utterances are produced from SCFG. Instead of paraphrasing sentences, crowd workers are required to select the correct canonical utterance from candidate list. We follow the split (train/valid/test 487/59/278) in original paper. GEO**(FunQL)** This is another version of GEO (Zelle and Mooney, 1996) using the variable-free semantic representation FunQL (Kate et al., 2005). We extend the FunQL grammar to SCFG for this dataset. Different from the previous datasets, the construction method of this dataset does not dependent on paraphrasing, which can better verify the effectiveness of our methods. We follow the standard 600/280 train/test splits. Pretrained Language Models We use the pretrained sentences similarity model MPNet2(Song et al., 2020) as the retrieve model. The paraphrase generation model is the PEGASUS model (Zhang et al., 2020) fine-tuned for paraphrasing3. The PLMs have been trained on the public paraphrase datasets, which have not touched any canonical utterances. In our experiments, they are fixed and only used for retrieval and reranking. System Settings We train all our models with 3 self-training iterations. In each iteration, the neural semantic parser is trained 1000 epochs, with the initial prompt learning rate of 0.1. We use Adam algorithm to update parameters, with batch size as 80 ~250. The temperature parameter τ is set to 0.1. We initialize soft prompt parameters by uniformly sampling within [-0.1, 0.1]. The beam size m during decoding and candidates expanding is 8. The hyper-parameters α is set to 0.5, β is set to 0.1. Datastore Collecting We use synchronous context free grammars (SCFGs) to generate ⟨MR, CU⟩ pairs in each dataset. We generate roughly 800K, 250K, 20K pairs in OVERNIGHT, GEOGRANNO, GEO(FunQL) respectively. We only preserve the valid ones (are executable or meet type checking), and remove the redundant MRs. We collect roughly 10K, 20K, 3K valid pairs for our datastore in these datasets. Few-shot Settings Following the previous fewshot settings in OVERNIGHT (Shin et al., 2021; Schucher et al., 2022), we randomly subsample 200 training examples for each domain as supervise data, and 20% of the remaining data is used for validation. All other data in training sets are treated as unannotated data, whose ambiguous supervision signals also come from the retrieval results. Bas. Blo. Cal. Hou. Pub. Rec. Res. Soc. **Avg.** | Supervised RECOMBINATION (Jia and Liang, 2016) | 85.2 | 58.1 | 78.0 | 71.4 | 76.4 | 79.6 | 76.2 | 81.4 | 75.8 | |---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------|---------|--------|-----------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | CROSSDOMAIN (Su and Yan, 2017) | 86.2 | 60.2 | 79.8 | 71.4 | 78.9 | 84.7 | 81.6 | 82.9 | 78.2 | | SEQ2ACTION (Chen et al., 2018) | 88.2 | 61.4 | 81.5 | 74.1 | 80.7 | 82.9 | 80.7 | 82.1 | 79.0 | | DUAL (Cao et al., 2019) | 87.5 | 63.7 | 79.8 | 73.0 | 81.4 | 81.5 | 81.6 | 83.0 | 78.9 | | TWO-STAGE (Cao et al., 2020) | 87.2 | 65.7 | 80.4 | 75.7 | 80.1 | 86.1 | 82.8 | 82.7 | 80.1 | | SSD (Wu et al., 2021) | 86.2 | 64.9 | 81.7 | 72.7 | 82.3 | 81.7 | 81.5 | 82.7 | 79.2 | | Few-shot GPT-3 (Shin et al., 2021) | 85.9 | 63.4 | 79.2 | 74.1 | 77.6 | 79.2 | 84.0 | 68.7 | 76.5 | | T5-base (Schucher et al., 2022) | 78.6 | 45.2 | 68.2 | 63.6 | 67.5 | 70.5 | 73.3 | 61.4 | 66.0 | | T5-large (Schucher et al., 2022) | 81.9 | 52.5 | 76.8 | 71.2 | 74.4 | 78.9 | 76.9 | 65.5 | 72.3 | | T5-xl (Schucher et al., 2022) | 83.9 | 54.4 | 77.7 | 72.9 | 77.0 | 79.1 | 78.9 | 70.2 | 74.3 | | RaAS (w/o Self-Training) | 78.0 | 51.9 | 70.2 | 68.8 | 67.1 | 71.3 | 78.9 | 61.8 | 68.5 | | RaAS (Full Model) | 78.5 | 57.1 | 72.0 | 76.7 | 74.5 | 72.7 | 86.1 | 63.0 | 72.6 | | Zero-shot Cross-domain Zero Shot (Su and Yan, 2017) | - | 28.3 | 53.6 | 52.4 | 55.3 | 60.2 | 61.7 | - | - | | GENOVERNIGHT (Wang et al., 2015) | 15.6 | 27.7 | 17.3 | 45.9 | 46.7 | 26.3 | 61.3 | 9.7 | 31.3 | | WMDSAMPLES (Cao et al., 2020) | 31.9 | 29.0 | 36.1 | 47.9 | 34.2 | 41.0 | 53.8 | 35.8 | 38.7 | | TWO-STAGE (Cao et al., 2020) | 64.7 | 53.4 | 58.3 | 59.3 | 60.3 | 68.1 | 73.2 | 48.4 | 60.7 | | AUTOQA (Xu et al., 2020) | 73.9 | 54.9 | 72.6 | 70.9 | 74.5 | 68.1 | 78.6 | 61.5 | 69.4 | | SSD (Wu et al., 2021) | 71.3 | 58.8 | 60.6 | 62.2 | 58.8 | 65.4 | 71.1 | 49.1 | 62.2 | | RaAS (Retriever) | 59.3 | 47.6 | 60.1 | 65.1 | 55.3 | 63.0 | 75.0 | 52.8 | 59.8 | | RaAS (w/o Self-Training) | 61.1 | 51.6 | 64.3 | 66.7 | 62.1 | 64.8 | 75.9 | 52.7 | 62.4 | | RaAS (Full Model) | 78.0 | 55.6 | 71.4 | 76.7 | 73.9 | 71.3 | 85.5 | 58.6 | 71.4 | | Table 1: Overall results on OVERNIGHT. GEO GEO GRANNO (FunQL) | | | | | | | | | | | Supervised | | | | | | | | | | | DEPHT (Jie and Lu, 2018) | - | 89.3 | | | | | | | | | COPYNET (Herzig and Berant, 2019) | 72.0 | - | | | | | | | | | One-stage (Cao et al., 2020) | 71.9 | - | | | | | | | | | Two-stage (Cao et al., 2020) | 71.6 | - | | | | | | | | | SEQ2SEQ (Guo et al., 2020) | - | 87.1 | | | | | | | | | SSD (Wu et al., 2021) | 72.9 | 88.3 | | | | | | | | | Unsupervised | | | | | | | | | | | SYNTH-SEQ2SEQ (Wu et al., 2021) | 32.7 | 36.1 | | | | | | | | | WMDSAMPLES (Cao et al., 2020) | 35.3 | - | | | | | | | | | Two-stage (Cao et al., 2020) | 63.7 | - | | | | | | | | | SSD (Wu et al., 2021) | 58.5 | 63.2 | | | | | | | | | SSD-SAMPLES (Wu et al., 2021) | 64.4 | 65.0 | | | | | | | | | RaAS (Retriever) | 56.1 | 57.5 | | | | | | | | | RaAS (w/o Self-Training) | 55.4 | 58.2 | | | | | | | | | RaAS (Full Model) | 66.1 | 65.3 | | | | | | | | | Table | 2: | Overall | results | on | GEOGRANNO | and | | | | Baselines We compare our method with the following zero-shot/unsupervised baselines: 1) Crossdomain Zero Shot (Herzig and Berant, 2018), which is trained on other source domains and generalizes to target domains in OVERNIGHT and 2) GENOVERNIGHT (Wang et al., 2015), in which models are trained on synthesized ⟨CU, MR⟩ pairs; 3) SYNTH-SEQ2SEQ, in which the neural semantic parser is trained on the synthesized ⟨CU, MR⟩ pairs; 4) SSD (Wu et al., 2021), which use a paraphrase generation model to decode meaning representations. 5) AUTOQA (Xu et al., 2020), in which high-quality synthetic training data is generated by template-based data synthesizers and autoparaphrasers. Zero-shot Settings Any manual MR annotations are not required in our zero-shot settings. And, except for AutoQA, all of these zero-shot methods employ unannotated sentences as we do. We follow the hypothesis in GEOGRANNO: It is easy to access unlabeled utterances, which can typically be found in query logs, or generated by users experimenting with a prototype. Instead of unannotated sentences, AutoQA uses millions of generated sentences, which are not introduced in our method. AutoQA and our approach are two different strategies. The two methods are complementary, which means that our approach can be combined with AutoQA to eliminate the need for unannotated sentences. ## 3.1 Experimental Results 3.1.1 Overall Results The overall results of different baselines and our method are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. We can see that: 1. **By exploiting the prior knowledge of PLMs** and the sequences modeling ability of semantic parsers simultaneously, our RaAS framework (1) FULLMODEL 78.0 55.6 71.4 76.7 73.9 71.3 85.5 58.6 71.4 Inference (2) (1) - Candidate Expansion 77.5 55.4 71.4 76.2 73.9 71.3 84.9 58.5 71.1 (3) (1) - Retrieval Candidates 77.2 56.1 69.0 74.6 72.0 71.8 85.2 57.7 70.5 (4) (3) - Reranking 75.7 56.6 65.5 73.0 70.1 72.7 85.2 57.6 69.6 (5) (2) - Parser Scores 71.6 54.1 67.3 72.5 71.4 69.0 80.7 57.0 68.0 Prompt (6) (1) - Prompt + Fine-Tuning 77.2 52.1 70.8 75.1 73.3 70.4 85.8 58.4 70.4 Self-Training (7) (1) on Iter = 0 61.1 51.6 64.3 66.7 62.1 64.8 75.9 52.7 62.4 (8) (1) on Iter = 1 75.4 54.1 70.8 75.1 72.0 70.8 85.5 59.0 70.3 (9) (1) on Iter = 2 77.0 55.4 70.2 76.7 73.3 70.4 85.2 58.8 70.9 (10) (1) on Iter = 4 77.5 55.6 70.8 76.7 73.9 71.3 85.2 58.3 71.2 Table 3: Ablation results of our model with different settings on OVERNIGHT. Bas. Blo. Cal. Hou. Pub. Rec. Res. Soc. **Avg.** achieves the best zero-shot semantic parsing performance. In all datasets, our method outperforms other baselines in the zero-shot settings, and further narrows the gap between zero-shot and supervised settings. These results demonstrate that zero-shot semantic parsers can be effectively constructed from the RaAS framework. 2. **The retrieval system can provide a good** start without any annotated data. Using pretrained language models to retrieve meaning representations, the retrieval system can obtain an average accuracy rate close to 60% even without any supervision from manually labeled data. Considering the high recall rate of retrieval results, RaAS has the potential for later continuous improvement by ambiguous learning methods. 3. **Self-training can significantly improve the** performances in all datasets. In OVERNIGHT the average accuracy raises from 62.4% to 71.4%. As we mentioned before, the retrieval results have high recall rates but contain lots of noise. We think that the improvement of self-training comes mainly from candidate expansion and confidence re-estimation, which can establish global consistency gradually and reduce data noise iteratively. ## 3.1.2 Detailed Analysis Self-training iterations In Table 3, Lines (7)- (10) show the accuracies on the test dataset as the number of iterations increases. We can see that: 1) The self-training protocol is effective. When we conduct more iterations, the performance gradually increases and stabilizes at a reasonable level - from 62.4% accuracy in Iter 0 to 71.4% in Iter 3 on OVERNIGHT. 2) The self-training process can reach its equilibrium within a few iterations, and the performance of RaAS can be stabilized around the third round.   Composition of candidate set Line (2) in Table 3 shows the results of removing candidate expansion, where we only rerank retrieval candidates. Line (3) shows the results of removing retrieval candidates, where we only use beam search results of the current semantic parser. 1. **The effect of candidate expansion** If the candidate expansion is removed, the performances of RaAS decrease slightly. More importantly, during inferring, candidate expansion ensures the generation capability to produce various valid meaning representations, rather than only providing MRs in the collected retrieval datastore. 2. **The effect of retrieval candidates** Without retrieval candidates, the performances drop slightly on average. We believe that this is because the beam search results are too similar, and the retrieval results can be a good supplement to them. Reranking Line (4) in Table 3 shows the results of removing reranking, where we directly use beam search results of the semantic parser as output. The results of removing parser scores are shown in Line (5). We can see that without reranking, the average performance drops, but it still outperforms previous methods that exploit heavy data augmentations. However, without semantic parser scores, the performances will drop significantly. The effect of prompt tuning Line (6) in Table 3 shows that, after changing the learning method to fine-tuning, the performances decrease slightly, which also proves the robustness and high generalization of prompt tuning. The quality of confidence re-estimation In the Fig 5, we can see the accuracies on the validation set grow with the number of iterations. As the number of iterations increases, the performances gradually increase and stabilizes at a high level. This verifies that our self-training method can improve the quality of supervision signals iteratively by confidence re-estimation. Few-shot settings The few-shot results are shown in Table 1. With the same few-shot settings as in previous studies, we employ T5-base to achieve comparable performances to T5-large and even T5-xl in previous work. Training epochs Fig 6 shows the change of validation accuracies as the number of epochs increases. We can see that the performances of RaAS are stable, which verifies that our method is insensitive to the hyper-parameters of the number of training epochs in each iteration. ## 4 Related Work Retrieval in Seq2Seq Tasks In semantic parsing, many previous studies (Su and Yan, 2017) have propose to employ paraphrase scores to retrieve or rerank MRs, which all follow the order of generating first and then scoring. Berant and Liang (2014) first generate a set of candidate MRs and choose the realization that best paraphrases the input. Yin and Neubig (2019) propose a set of reranking scorer for neural semantic parsers. Guo et al. (2019) combine a retrieval model and a meta-learner to employ the similar datapoints from the training data. Ren et al. (2020) construct parallel sentence pairs through retrieval, and conduct unsupervised machine translation models. Lu et al. (2021); Khandelwal et al. (2021); Parvez et al. (2021) enhance the representations of instances or the robustness of decoder by retrieval. Different from the common generate-then-score framework, the order of our RaAS framework is the reverse of them. We are the first to use retrieval results to obtain supervision for zero-shot semantic parsing. Low Resource Semantic Parsing Many low resource semantic parsing methods have been proposed to reduce the demand for annotations(Artzi and Zettlemoyer, 2013; Sun et al., 2020; Sherborne and Lapata, 2022). Many weakly supervised learning are proposed (Berant et al., 2013; Reddy et al., 2014; Agrawal et al., 2019), such as denotationbased learning (Pasupat and Liang, 2016; Goldman et al., 2018), iterative searching (Dasigi et al., 2019). Semi-supervised semantic parsing is also proposed (Yin et al., 2018; Cao et al., 2019; Ye et al., 2019). One other strategy is to augment data. Wang et al. (2015) construct a semantic parsing dataset from grammar rules and crowdsourcing paraphrase. Guo et al. (2018) produce pseudo-labeled data. Jia and Liang (2016) create new "recombinant" training examples with SCFG. Shin et al. (2021); Wu et al. (2021); Schucher et al. (2022) explore the training / decoding methods of PLMs for low-resource semantic parsing. Different from previous work, our framework focuses on obtaining and facilitating supervision signals rather than model design or data synthesization. ## 5 Conclusions In this paper, we propose a novel method for zeroshot semantic parsing with a Retrieval as Ambiguous Supervision framework. We first retrieve the top-k similar meaning representations from the collected MR datastore. Then in self-training iterations, the candidates are employed to train parsers and refined by the candidate expansion and confidence re-estimation. We leverage the ambiguous supervision signal to train a prompt-based semantic parser and propose a confidence-driven selftraining algorithm to refine the parser iteratively. The experiments show that the final semantic parser is greatly improved after iterative training. ## Limitations Firstly, due to the huge cost of large-scale PLMs, this paper only employs the T5-base as the backbone PLM in our experiments, therefore only limited analysis on the effect of model scale is presented. However, we believe a larger model will benefit our method by providing better language understanding and generation abilities. Secondly, the synthesized canonical utterances need manually designed synchronous grammars, which are used to guide RaAS with knowledge about semantic representation language. Although most few-shot/zero-shot semantic parsing studies also rely on synchronous grammars, we leave how to model semantic representations without grammars as an open problem for future work. ## Acknowledgments We sincerely thank the reviewers for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions. This research work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants no. U1936207, 62122077 and 62106251. Furthermore, this research was supported by Meituan. ## Ethics Consideration This work presents RaAS, an effective framework for zero-shot semantic parsing. All of the involved datasets come from publicly available sources. The MRs and NLs are derived from several common public datasets (Kate et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2015; Herzig and Berant, 2019). The SCFGs are used for canonicalizing MRs, which are from OVERNIGHT and GEOGRANNO(Wang et al., 2015; Herzig and Berant, 2019). Pre-trained models and evaluation codes are all publicly accessible. The hyperparameter settings are given in this paper. Our code and specification of dependencies will be released in the future. ## References Priyanka Agrawal, Ayushi Dalmia, Parag Jain, Abhishek Bansal, Ashish R. Mittal, and Karthik Sankaranarayanan. 2019. Unified semantic parsing with weak supervision. In *Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2,* 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 4801–4810. Yoav Artzi and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2013. Weakly supervised learning of semantic parsers for mapping instructions to actions. *TACL*, 1:49–62. Anton Belyy, Chieh-yang Huang, Jacob Andreas, Emmanouil Antonios Platanios, Sam Thomson, Richard Shin, Subhro Roy, Aleksandr Nisnevich, Charles Chen, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2022. Guided kbest selection for semantic parsing annotation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2022 - System Demonstrations, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 114–126. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs. In *Proceedings of the 2013* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2013, 18-21 October 2013, Grand Hyatt Seattle, Seattle, Washington, USA, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 1533–1544. Jonathan Berant and Percy Liang. 2014. Semantic parsing via paraphrasing. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2014, June 22-27, 2014, Baltimore, MD, USA, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1415–1425. Ruisheng Cao, Su Zhu, Chen Liu, Jieyu Li, and Kai Yu. 2019. Semantic parsing with dual learning. In *Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association* for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 51–64. Ruisheng Cao, Su Zhu, Chenyu Yang, Chen Liu, Rao Ma, Yanbin Zhao, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. 2020. Unsupervised dual paraphrasing for two-stage semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 6806–6817. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bo Chen, Le Sun, and Xianpei Han. 2018. Sequenceto-action: End-to-end semantic graph generation for semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 766–777. Pradeep Dasigi, Matt Gardner, Shikhar Murty, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Eduard H. Hovy. 2019. Iterative search for weakly supervised semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 27, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2669–2680. Li Dong and Mirella Lapata. 2016. Language to logical form with neural attention. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2016, August 7-12, 2016, Berlin, Germany, Volume 1: Long Papers. Omer Goldman, Veronica Latcinnik, Ehud Nave, Amir Globerson, and Jonathan Berant. 2018. Weakly supervised semantic parsing with abstract examples. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1809–1819. Daya Guo, Yibo Sun, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Jian Yin, Hong Chi, James Cao, Peng Chen, and Ming Zhou. 2018. Question generation from SQL queries improves neural semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of the* 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 1597–1607. Daya Guo, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Ming Zhou, and Jian Yin. 2019. Coupling retrieval and meta-learning for context-dependent semantic parsing. In *Proceedings* of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 855–866. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiaqi Guo, Qian Liu, Jian-Guang Lou, Zhenwen Li, Xueqing Liu, Tao Xie, and Ting Liu. 2020. Benchmarking meaning representations in neural semantic parsing. In *EMNLP*. Jonathan Herzig and Jonathan Berant. 2018. Decoupling structure and lexicon for zero-shot semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 1619–1629. Jonathan Herzig and Jonathan Berant. 2019. Don't paraphrase, detect! rapid and effective data collection for semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference* on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 3808–3818. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2016. Data recombination for neural semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2016, August 7-12, 2016, Berlin, Germany, Volume 1: Long Papers. Zhanming Jie and Wei Lu. 2018. Dependency-based hybrid trees for semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of the* 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 2431–2441. Rohit J. Kate and Raymond J. Mooney. 2007. Learning language semantics from ambiguous supervision. In *Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 22-26, 2007, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada*, pages 895–900. AAAI Press. Rohit J. Kate, Yuk Wah Wong, and Raymond J. Mooney. 2005. Learning to transform natural to formal languages. In *Proceedings, The Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Seventeenth* Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, July 9-13, 2005, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, pages 1062–1068. Urvashi Khandelwal, Angela Fan, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Nearest neighbor machine translation. In *9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021*. OpenReview.net. Joohyun Kim and Raymond J. Mooney. 2010. Generative alignment and semantic parsing for learning from ambiguous supervision. In COLING 2010, 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Posters Volume, 23-27 August 2010, Beijing, China, pages 543–551. Chinese Information Processing Society of China. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 3045– 3059. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wei Lu, Hwee Tou Ng, Wee Sun Lee, and Luke S. Zettlemoyer. 2008. A generative model for parsing natural language to meaning representations. In *2008* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2008, Proceedings of the Conference, 25-27 October 2008, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 783–792. Xin Lu, Yijian Tian, Yanyan Zhao, and Bing Qin. 2021. Retrieve, discriminate and rewrite: A simple and effective framework for obtaining affective response in retrieval-based chatbots. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021,* Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 1620 November, 2021, pages 1956–1969. Association for Computational Linguistics. Md. Rizwan Parvez, Wasi Uddin Ahmad, Saikat Chakraborty, Baishakhi Ray, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2021. Retrieval augmented code generation and summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event /* Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 2719–2734. Association for Computational Linguistics. Panupong Pasupat and Percy Liang. 2016. Inferring logical forms from denotations. In *Proceedings of* the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2016, August 7-12, 2016, Berlin, Germany, Volume 1: Long Papers. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. Siva Reddy, Mirella Lapata, and Mark Steedman. 2014. Large-scale semantic parsing without questionanswer pairs. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2:377–392. Shuo Ren, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Ming Zhou, and Shuai Ma. 2020. A retrieve-and-rewrite initialization method for unsupervised machine translation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 3498–3504. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nathan Schucher, Siva Reddy, and Harm de Vries. 2022. The power of prompt tuning for low-resource semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 148–156. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom Sherborne and Mirella Lapata. 2022. Zero-shot cross-lingual semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 4134– 4153. Association for Computational Linguistics. Richard Shin, Christopher H. Lin, Sam Thomson, Charles Chen, Subhro Roy, Emmanouil Antonios Platanios, Adam Pauls, Dan Klein, Jason Eisner, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2021. Constrained language models yield few-shot semantic parsers. pages 7699– 7715. Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and TieYan Liu. 2020. Mpnet: Masked and permuted pretraining for language understanding. In *Advances* in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Yu Su and Xifeng Yan. 2017. Cross-domain semantic parsing via paraphrasing. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 9-11, 2017, pages 1235–1246. Yibo Sun, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Yeyun Gong, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and Daxin Jiang. 2020. Neural semantic parsing in low-resource settings with back-translation and meta-learning. pages 8960– 8967. Yushi Wang, Jonathan Berant, and Percy Liang. 2015. Building a semantic parser overnight. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, ACL 2015, July 26-31, 2015, Beijing, China, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1332–1342. Yuk Wah Wong and Raymond J. Mooney. 2007. Learning synchronous grammars for semantic parsing with lambda calculus. In *ACL 2007, Proceedings of the* 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, June 23-30, 2007, Prague, Czech Republic. Shan Wu, Bo Chen, Chunlei Xin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, Weipeng Zhang, Jiansong Chen, Fan Yang, and Xunliang Cai. 2021. From paraphrasing to semantic parsing: Unsupervised semantic parsing via synchronous semantic decoding. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 5110–5121. Association for Computational Linguistics. Silei Xu, Sina J. Semnani, Giovanni Campagna, and Monica S. Lam. 2020. Autoqa: From databases to QA semantic parsers with only synthetic training data. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 422–434. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hai Ye, Wenjie Li, and Lu Wang. 2019. Jointly learning semantic parser and natural language generator via dual information maximization. In *Proceedings of* the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2090–2101. Pengcheng Yin and Graham Neubig. 2019. Reranking for neural semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of* the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 4553–4559. Pengcheng Yin, Chunting Zhou, Junxian He, and Graham Neubig. 2018. Structvae: Tree-structured latent variable models for semi-supervised semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 754–765. John M. Zelle and Raymond J. Mooney. 1996. Learning to parse database queries using inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Eighth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, AAAI 96, IAAI 96, Portland, Oregon, USA, August 4-8, 1996, Volume 2., pages 1050–1055. Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. PEGASUS: pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 37th International Conference* on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 11328–11339. PMLR. Yang Zou, Zhiding Yu, Xiaofeng Liu, B. V. K. Vijaya Kumar, and Jinsong Wang. 2019. Confidence regularized self-training. In 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2019, Seoul, Korea (South), October 27 - November 2, 2019, pages 5981–5990. IEEE. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 6 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 6 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 8 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 8 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? 7 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? 7 B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 3 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. 3 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 3 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 3 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 3 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 3 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 3 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

li-etal-2023-explicit

Explicit Syntactic Guidance for Neural Text Generation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.788

Most existing text generation models follow the sequence-to-sequence paradigm. Generative Grammar suggests that humans generate natural language texts by learning language grammar. We propose a syntax-guided generation schema, which generates the sequence guided by a constituency parse tree in a top-down direction. The decoding process can be decomposed into two parts: (1) predicting the infilling texts for each constituent in the lexicalized syntax context given the source sentence; (2) mapping and expanding each constituent to construct the next-level syntax context. Accordingly, we propose a structural beam search method to find possible syntax structures hierarchically. Experiments on paraphrase generation and machine translation show that the proposed method outperforms autoregressive baselines, while also demonstrating effectiveness in terms of interpretability, controllability, and diversity.

# Explicit Syntactic Guidance For Neural Text Generation Yafu Li♠♣∗, Leyang Cui♡†, Jianhao Yan♠♣ **, Yongjng Yin**♠♣ Wei Bi♡ , Shuming Shi♡ **, Yue Zhang**♣♢† ♠ Zhejiang University ♡ Tencent AI lab ♣ School of Engineering, Westlake University ♢ Institute of Advanced Technology, Westlake Institute for Advanced Study yafuly@gmail.com {leyangcui,victoriabi,shumingshi}@tencent.com {yanjianhao,yinyongjing,zhangyue}@westlake.edu.cn ## Abstract Most existing text generation models follow the sequence-to-sequence paradigm. *Generative Grammar* suggests that humans generate natural language texts by learning language grammar. We propose a syntax-guided generation schema, which generates the sequence guided by a constituency parse tree in a topdown direction. The decoding process can be decomposed into two parts: (1) predicting the infilling texts for each constituent in the lexicalized syntax context given the source sentence; (2) mapping and expanding each constituent to construct the next-level syntax context. Accordingly, we propose a structural beam search method to find possible syntax structures hierarchically. Experiments on paraphrase generation and machine translation show that the proposed method outperforms autoregressive baselines, while also demonstrating effectiveness in terms of interpretability, controllability, and diversity. ## 1 Introduction Natural language generation (NLG), such as paraphrase generation (Sun et al., 2021), text summarization (Lin et al., 2018), machine translation (Vaswani et al., 2017; Edunov et al., 2018), and language models (Brown et al., 2020; OpenAI, 2023), have shown remarkable progress in the past few years. Most of the highest-performing NLG models train the model based on source-target correspondence and conduct autoregressive inference, which achieves competitive empirical performances yet deviates from a range of desirable attributes of human language generation, e.g., lack of interpretability (Alvarez-Melis and Jaakkola, 2017; He et al., 2019; Li and Yao, 2021). It has been shown that humans generate language by learning and manipulating language grammar (Zholkovskii and Mel'chuk, 1965; Montague, 1974), which generative grammar (Chomsky, 1965) *Work was done during the internship at Tencent AI lab. †Corresponding authors.  considers as a finite rule set that combines words to form grammatical sentences, thereby avoiding enumeration of surface sequences, which can significantly increase data sparsity and reducing learning efficiency (Li et al., 2021; Dankers et al., 2022). In this process, syntax plays a crucial role, imposing constraints on how to construct sentences. Syntax knowledge has been found *implicitly* contained by deep neural models (Kovaleva et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2019) and also useful for NLG tasks (Yang et al., 2020a; Sun et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2021). However, relatively little recent work has considered *explict* syntax in NLG (Wang et al., 2018). Inspired by the above psycholinguistic observation, we propose a syntax-guided generation scheme, which generates text by following a welldefined grammar. As shown in Figure 1, instead of sequential generation, the model generates the sentence in a hierarchically top-down manner guided by the constituency parse tree, starting with the root node <T>. Syntactic categories such as noun phrases <NP> and verb phrases <VP> are integrated with tokens in the generation process, and 14095 the model simultaneously considers multiple syntax structures at each tree depth, hierarchically exploring the syntax tree for reasonable hypotheses. Intuitively, such a generation paradigm has the following advantages compared with autoregressive generation. First, akin to the language learning process of human beings, grammar learning breaks down non-enumerable surface sequences into finite pieces, acting as a training curriculum. Second, it provides an effective and interpretable pathway to probe into the generation process. Consequently, generation errors can be traced back to specific constituent expansion at the respective tree depth. Third, one can manipulate the generation process by exerting versatile control at arbitrary depths, e.g., modifying the translation of a verb phrase and constraining the paraphrase style with syntax templates. Forth, diverse sequences can be generated by exploring various syntax structures hierarchically throughout the syntax tree. We implement the above process on Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017). As shown in Figure 1, the generation process proceeds under the guidance of syntactic grammar. Starting from the root node "<T>", the model recursively generates the infilling texts (e.g., "he" and "seems <S>") for each constituent in the current lexicalized syntax context (e.g, "<NP> <VP>.".), and infills each one accordingly to construct the next-level lexicalized syntax context (e.g., "he seems <S>."). The generation proceeds until there is no remaining constituent. The infilling texts are predicted by a Transformerbased model, which is trained by maximizing the likelihood of infilling texts for each constituent in the syntax context based on the source input. To explore more syntactically diverse and reasonable hypotheses during inference, we propose *structural* beam search, which searches promising syntax structures over the entire syntax tree in a top-down manner, as shown in Figure 1. To isolate the effect of syntax and avoid the influence of other transformation factors, we conduct experiments on two sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) tasks *with semantic equivalence* between the source and target sequences: paraphrase generation and machine translation. Empirical results demonstrate that our method can generate sequences with higher quality than the seq2seq baselines. Quantitative analysis demonstrates that the generation process can be interpreted effectively. In addition, our method demonstrates the capability of executing control from both syntax templates and fine-grained manual modifications. Finally, we show the diversity advantage through both automatic evaluation and human evaluation. We release the code on https://github.com/ yafuly/SyntacticGen. ## 2 Related Work Syntax as Extra Input. A line of work incorporates syntax knowledge as extra input to boost task performance. In paraphrase generation, Iyyer et al. (2018), Chen et al. (2019), Kumar et al. (2020) and (Sun et al., 2021) additionally encode a constituency tree to produce controllable paraphrases. For machine translation, researchers utilize syntactic information to boost the neural machine translation system using syntactic encoders (Li et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2018; Eriguchi et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020a), position encoding (Ma et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2021), attention mechanism (Chen et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2019), and auxiliary training objectives (Ma et al., 2019). Syntax for Generation Guidance. Different from the above work, we focus on guiding generation explicitly following syntactic grammar. Typically, Aharoni and Goldberg (2017) and Le et al. (2017) learn the mapping from sequences to linearized constituency trees to improve machine translation. Eriguchi et al. (2017) proposes a hybrid decoder with RNNG (Dyer et al., 2016) to jointly learn parse actions and word predictions. Wu et al. (2017) and Wang et al. (2018) design a syntactic tree decoder based on LSTM (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), with an extra rule decoder. Yang et al. (2020b) introduce a syntax-guided soft target template as extra prompts in Transformer. Different from their work, our method leverages Transformer strengths and breaks down the sequence-to-sequence generation process into a hierarchically top-down generation guided by the syntax tree. ## 3 Method 3.1 Baseline Transformer Transformer models the correspondence between the source sequence x = {x1*, . . . , x*|x|} and the target sequence y = {y1*, . . . , y*|y|} in an end-to-end fashion. The Transformer encoder transforms the discrete source sequence x into a continuous representation, which the Transformer decoder utilizes  to generate the target sequence. The conditional probability p(y|x) can be factorized in an autoregressive way: $$p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{x})=\prod_{t=1}^{|\mathbf{y}|}p_{\theta}(y_{t}|\mathbf{x},y_{1:t-1}),\qquad(1)$$ where θ denotes the model parameters. Given a source-target training set D = {x i, y i}||D| i=1, the model is optimized by minimizing the cross-entropy (CE) loss: i=1 X T L D ce = − X |D| t=1 log pθ(y i t|x i, yi1:t−1). (2) ## 3.2 Syntax-Guided Generation In this section, we introduce syntax-guided generation, which generates texts by hierarchically expanding constituents in syntax contexts throughout the syntax tree, while also leveraging the strengths of Transformer. In general, the generation process can be decomposed into two stages: (1) **neural generation**: the neural decoder (Section 3.2.2) generates the infilling sequences based on the source sequence and the syntax context; (2) **constituent expansion**: predicted infilling sequences are mapped and filled into each constituent in the syntax context accordingly (Section 3.2.3), forming the next-level syntax context. To facilitate parallelism during training, we decompose the sequence-to-sequence dataset to a triplet set, where the neural decoder is optimized to maximize the probability of the infilled sequence (e.g., "<c> I <c> ate <NP> .") given the lexicalized syntax context (e.g., "<NP> <VP> ."), as shown in Figure 2. ## 3.2.1 Triplet Construction Given a target sequence y, the corresponding constituency parse tree of depth |T| can be composed $${\mathrm{by~a~set~of~labeled~spans~T}}\colon$$ by a set of labeled spans $\mathbb{T}$. $$\mathbb{T}=\{\mathbb{T}_{d}\}\big{|}_{d=1}^{\mathbb{T}}=\{\{(a_{k},b_{k},d,l_{k})\}\big{|}_{k=1}^{|\mathbb{T}_{d}|}\}\big{|}_{d=1}^{|\mathbb{T}|},\tag{3}$$ $\bullet\quad\bullet\quad\bullet\quad\bullet\quad\bullet$ where ak and bk represent the k-th constituent span's fencepost positions at depth d, and lk represents the constituent label. Our model is optimized to predict the next-level span sets Td given the previous one and the source input, i.e., pθ(Td|Td−1, x). Given the set of labeled spans at depth d, i.e., Td, we transform the target sequence into a lexicalized syntax sequence of length |sd|: sd = {sd;1, sd;2*, . . . , s*d;|sd|}, by keeping the lexical tokens and replacing the constituent spans with corresponding labels. For instance, the sequence "I ate an apple ." is transformed to s2 ={<NP>,<VP>,.} at depth 2, and is transformed to s3 ={I,ate,<NP>,.} at depth 3, as shown in Figure 2. The alignment between s2 and s3 can be modeled as a text-infilling task. For example, the {<NP>}, {<VP>} and at depth 2 are replaced by {I} and {ate <NP>} at depth 3, respectively. To generate the whole s3 based on s2 in one pass, we concatenate all the infilling texts with a special token "<c>", yielding an infilling sequence f2 = {<c>,I,<c>,ate,<NP>}. Similarly for each syntax context sd, we collect the respective infilling texts for each constituent in the lexicalized sequence at depth d+1, and concatenate them to construct the target infilling sequence of length |fd|: fd = {fd;1, fd;2*, . . . , f*d;|fd|}. In this way, a triplet is constructed for a source-target sequence pair at depth d: {(x, sd, fd)}. We traverse the target syntax tree in level-order to obtain the full set Φ of training triplets for a training instance: $$\Phi=\{\Phi_{d}\}|_{d=1}^{[\rm T]-1}=\{({\bf x},{\bf s}_{d},{\bf f}_{d})\}|_{d=1}^{[\rm T]-1}.\tag{4}$$ **for a sequence to sequence training set $\Omega$** Given a sequence-to-sequence training set D = 14097 {x i, y i}||D| i=1, we go through the full training set to construct the complete triplet set Ψ: $$\Psi=\{\Phi^{i}\}|_{i=1}^{|D|}=\{({\bf x}^{j},{\bf s}^{j},{\bf f}^{j})\}|_{j=1}^{|D|}\,|\Phi^{i}|.\tag{5}$$ 3.2.2 Neural Decoder Given a triplet instance Ψj, we construct the **neural decoder** based on Transformer to model the generative probability pθ(f j|x j, s j). The neural decoder takes the source sequence and the lexicalized syntax context as input and generates the corresponding infilling texts, as shown in Figure 2. Besides the encoder that encodes source context, we introduce an extra Transformer encoder, i.e., syntax context encoder, to encode the lexicalized syntax context into a representation. On top of selfattention and source context attention, we insert an extra attention layer (syntax context attention) into each decoder layer to incorporate syntax contexts, as shown in the right part of Figure 2. Similarly, the probability of the infilling sequence can be factorized as: $$p_{\theta}(f|\mathbf{x},\mathbf{s})=\prod_{t=1}^{|f|}p_{\theta}(f_{t}|\mathbf{x},\mathbf{s},f_{1:t-1}).\quad\quad(6)$$ We define the scoring function for an infilling sequence as the sum of the log probabilities: $$\operatorname{score}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{s},\mathbf{f})=\sum_{t=1}^{|\mathbf{f}|}\log p_{\mathbf{\theta}}(f_{t}|\mathbf{x},\mathbf{s},f_{1:t-1}).\,\,\,(7)$$ We adopt the standard cross-entropy loss (CE loss) to optimize our model, where the loss for the j-th triplet in the training set Ψ can be written as: $$\mathcal{L}_{ce}^{j}=-\sum_{t=1}^{|f^{j}|}\log p_{\theta}(f_{t}^{j}|\mathbf{x}^{j},\mathbf{s}^{j},f_{1:t-1}^{j}),\tag{8}$$ the CE loss across the whole triple set $\mathcal{H}$ be and the CE loss across the whole triple set Ψ becomes: $${\mathcal{L}}_{c e}^{\Psi}=\sum_{j=1}^{|\Psi|}{\mathcal{L}}_{c e}^{j}.\qquad\qquad\qquad(9)$$ - **P**. ## 3.2.3 Generation Process Given a source sequence, our model generates the target sequence in a top-down manner which is grounded on syntactic grammar rules. As shown in Figure 2, the neural decoder first encodes the source sequence x into the source context representation hsrc, which remains fixed and can be reused throughout the generation process. Initially, the neural decoder generates the infilling sequences t0 given x and s0 ={<T>}, based on Equation 6. Then the model proceeds with the generation process via iteratively generating infilling texts and expanding constituents. At each iteration step (i.e., tree depth), the neural decoder generates the infilling sequence fd for the syntax context sd: $$f_{d}=\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{f^{\prime}}p_{\theta}(f^{\prime}|\mathbf{x},\mathbf{s}_{d})\qquad(10)$$ Then the constituent expansion function yields the next-level syntax context given the syntax context and the infilling sequences predicted by the neural decoder: $$(11)$$ $${\mathbf{s}}_{d+1}=\exp\!\mathrm{and}({\mathbf{s}}_{d},{\mathbf{f}}_{d}).$$ $$\operatorname{inf}$$ Specifically, we first separate the infilling sequences by the special separator "<c>" into a group of infilling texts, e.g., spliting f2 ={{<c>,I,<c>,ate,<NP>}} to {{I},{ate <NP>}}. Then we fill in each of the infilling texts into the corresponding constituent in the syntax context s2 to obtain the syntax context at the following level, e.g., s3={I,ate,<NP>,.}. The syntax context encoder encodes the updated syntax context sd+1 and starts the next iteration. The remaining decoding process loops between these two stages, until there is no constituent label in the syntax context, or a maximum tree depth is reached, as shown in Figure 2. As the model behavior on expanding constituents over the entire syntax tree is completely accessible, the generation process can be effectively interpreted, as shown in Section 6.2. Moreover, manual modifications can be directly incorporated into the expansion process for each constituent throughout the syntax tree (Section 6.3). Finally, more than one syntax structure can be considered simultaneously at each tree depth, enabling searching for hypotheses of better syntactical diversity(Section 6.4). ## 3.2.4 Structural Beam Search By default, our model selects the best infilling texts greedily in each iteration. We introduce **structural** beam search to explore the hypothesis space for a more accurate and diverse generation. Similar to standard beam search (Sutskever et al., 2014), structural beam search maintains a beam width of  candidates at each iteration. Thanks to explicitly traversing the constituency parse tree during inference, our method is able to search promising syntax structures throughout the syntax tree in a top-down manner. We show a real example of our model generating a paraphrase in Figure 3. At each level, we apply standard beam search for neural generation and keep top k infilling texts along with their scores, computed by Equation 7. Taking previous predictions into consideration, we introduce a moving average mechanism to trade off confidence between the predictions from lower levels and the current-level prediction. Specifically, suppose siis the i-th syntax context in the k-width beam at the current depth, with an accumulated score of δsi ; and fj;si is the j-th infilling sequence candidate from the neural generation beam given the syntax context si, with a score of δfj;si . A beam of next-level syntax contexts is constructed, by filling in the current syntax context with the corresponding infilling sequences: $${\mathbf{s}}_{i k+j}=\exp\!\left({\mathbf{s}}_{i},{\mathbf{f}}_{j;{\mathbf{s}}_{i}}\right)\!.\qquad(12)$$ The updated score for each of the next-level syntax contexts in the beam is given by: $$\delta_{i k+j}=\alpha\delta_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}+(1-\alpha)\delta_{f_{j;\mathbf{s}_{i}}},$$ , (13) where α is a hyper-parameter (**accumulation** weight) that determines how much weight is put on predictions at lower levels. Then the beam is further pruned by their updated scores to maintain the beam width. For example, the first two candidate syntax contexts are selected at depth 2 in Figure 3. Algorithm implementation details can be referred to in Appendix A. ## 4 Experiment Setup Datasets For paraphrase generation, we experiment on ParaNMT-small (Chen et al., 2019), which contains 500K sentence-paraphrase pairs for training, 500 for validation, and 800 for testing. Both validation and test sets are provided with humanannotated sentence exemplars from which syntax information can be extracted for controlling paraphrase generation. For machine translation, we use NIST Chinese-English (Zh-En), WMT'16 Romanian-English (Ro-En), WMT'14 EnglishGerman (De-En), and WMT'14 English-German (En-De). For WMT datasets, we follow the official split for validation and testing. For NIST ZhEn, we use MT06 as the validation set and choose MT02, MT03, MT04, MT05, and MT08 as the test sets. For all datasets, we use Berkeley Parser (Kitaev and Klein, 2018; Kitaev et al., 2019) to obtain constituency parse trees and use the most frequent constituents (e.g., <NP>, <VP>, <PP> and <S>) for syntactic guidance. $$(13)$$ Model Settings For Transformer baselines, we adopt the Transformer_Base configuration which consists of a 6-layer encoder and decoder. For our model, we keep the 6-layer source context encoder, and set the number of layers for both the syntax context encoder and the decoder as 3, resulting in a similar model size with Transformer_Base. The accumulation weight α is as 0.8 for structural beam search based on validation experiments. For machine translation, we adopt sequence-level distillation (Kim and Rush, 2016) for both our model and the corresponding baseline Transformer. More details are shown in Appendix B. Evaluation We use the BLEU score (Papineni et al., 2002) to evaluate machine translation performance. For paraphrase generation, we also adopt ROUGE (Lin, 2004) and METEOR (Banerjee and Lavie, 2005) as reference-based metrics. Besides, | Model | BLEU↑ / self-BLEU↓ / iBLEU↑ | METEOR↑ | ROUGE-1/2/L↑ | Dlex↑ | Dsyn ↑ | |-------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------|----------------------|---------|----------| | Copy | 18.5 / 100 / -17.1 | 28.8 | 50.6 / 23.2 / 47.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Gold | 100.0 / 18.6 / 64.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 /100.0 / 100.0 | 20.7 | 32.6 | | without Syntax Control | | | | | | | SCPN (Iyyer et al., 2018) | 12.1 / - / - | 23.3 | 35.7 / 15.1 / 32.9 | - | - | | AESOP (Sun et al., 2021) | 15.0 / - / - | 26.1 | 47.0 / 21.3 / 47.3 | - | - | | Transformer (beam 1) | 15.2 / 28.2 / 2.2 | 29.5 | 49.8 / 23.6 / 49.2 | 17.4 | 19.8 | | Our Method (beam 1) | 18.6 / 15.2 / 8.5 | 30.8 | 51.1 / 26.3 / 51.3 | 21.6 | 24.4 | | Transformer (beam 5) | 17.6 / 33.8 / 2.2 | 31.1 | 51.9 / 26.0 / 51.0 | 16.2 | 18.1 | | Our Method (beam 5) | 19.3 / 16.4 / 8.6 | 31.5 | 51.8 / 27.0 / 52.2 | 21.5 | 25.1 | | with Human-annotated Syntax Control | | | | | | | CGEN (Chen et al., 2019) | 13.6 /- /- | 24.8 | 44.8 / 21.0 / 48.3 | - | - | | SGCP-F (Kumar et al., 2020) | 15.3 / - / - | 25.9 | 46.6 / 21.8 / 49.7 | - | - | | SGCP-R (Kumar et al., 2020) | 16.4 / - / - | 28.8 | 49.4 / 22.9 / 50.3 | - | - | | AESOP-F (Sun et al., 2021) | 20.4 / - /- | 30.0 | 52.0 / 27.8 / 55.3 | - | - | | Our Method | 20.9 / 10.5 / 13.0 | 33.3 | 54.1 / 29.7 / 55.3 | 22.6 | 27.7 | Table 1: Experimental results on paraphrase generation (ParaNMT-small). Model **NIST Zh-En WMT16 WMT14** MT02 MT03 MT04 MT05 MT08 avg Ro-En En-De De-En Transformer (beam 1) 48.9 49.2 50.7 49.3 41.4 47.9 33.9 27.9 30.7 Our Method (beam 1) 50.8 51.8 51.9 51.7 42.2 49.7 34.4 28.6 31.8 Transformer (beam 5) 49.8 50.1 51.1 50.1 42.3 48.7 34.1 28.3 31.3 Our Method (beam 5) **51.1 52.4 52.4 52.1 43.1 50.2 34.9 28.7 32.2** we report iBLEU (Sun and Zhou, 2012): | Model | iBLEU↑ | Dlex↑ | Dsyn↑ | |-------------------|----------|---------|---------| | BART | 4.4 | 19.6 | 24.4 | | BART + Our Method | 8.8 | 21.3 | 24.7 | ## Ibleu = R · Bleu(Hypothesis,Reference) $-\left(1\,-\,r\right)$ $\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{s},\mathrm{s}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{l}$ −(1 − r) · BLEU(hypothesis,source), which evaluates the generation fidelity with novelty to the source sentence considered*. Following Bandel et al. (2022), we consider two referencefree metrics: (1) lexical diversity score, i.e., Dlex, which is the normalized character-level minima edit distance between the bag-of-words; and (2) syntax diversity score, i.e., Dsyn, which is the normalized tree edit distance. Both scores measure generated paraphrases with the source sequences unless specified. ## 5 Results Paraphrase We compare our method with the baselines and previous work on syntax-control paraphrase generation. Another two baselines are also *r is set as 0.7. listed, i.e., copy the source input and use the reference as the output. The results are shown in Table 1. For paraphrase generation **without syntax control** (the center section in Table 1), our method achieves higher performance than the seq2seq Transformer, in both greedy and beam search settings. Typically, our method under greedy decoding obtains comparable results with the Transformer under beam search, and even outperforms under some metrics. The advantage of our method becomes larger for metrics such as iBLEU, Dlex, and Dsyn, which consider generation novelty compared with the source input. For example, compared with Transformer (beam 5), our method (beam 5) gives a much lower self-BLEU score (**16.4** v.s. **33.8**) and higher diversity scores (**21.5** v.s. **16.2** for lexical diversity and **25.1** v.s. **18.1** for syntax diversity), indicating better generation diversity and contributing to a significant improvement on iBLEU (8.6 v.s. 2.2). **With annotated exemplars** (the lower section in Table 1), our model obtains further improvement over the non-exemplar setting and achieves better performance compared to previous work which utilizes full syntactic parse. We extend our method to the **pre-trained language model** (PLM) setting and present the result in Table 3 (Details in Appendix A). It can be seen from the table that the utilization of BART (Lewis et al., 2019) improves the generation diversity for the sequence-to-sequence model significantly. Despite the narrowed gap, our model outperforms the seq2seq counterpart in terms of iBLEU and lexical diversity by a considerable margin. Machine Translation As shown in Table 2, our method achieves consistent performance (BLEU score) improvement over the Transformer baseline. The improvement is larger for the greedy setting (+1.5 BLEU scores on average), compared with the beam search setting (+1.2). This indicates that using syntax to guide and constrain generation yields more reasonable and high-quality hypotheses than the greedy autoregressive generation, and thus relies less on search algorithms (e.g., beam search). Note that compared with the Englishoriented datasets, our model obtains a smaller performance improvement on WMT'14 En-De. This can be because the German parser is less accurate than the English one (92.1 v.s. 96.3 for F1 score), resulting in a training set with lower quality. ## 6 Analysis We first discuss the influence of grammar quality, then we understand the potential advantages of our method from three perspectives, i.e., interpretability, controllability, and diversity. ## 6.1 The Influence Of Grammar Quality Intuitively, learning syntactic grammar of higher quality results in better generation performance, e.g., the advantage of our method on Englishoriented datasets is larger than the German-oriented one. To further explore the influence of grammar quality, we randomly replace a certain ratio of the constituent labels with a random one to simulate a less accurate parser. We conduct experiments on the WMT'16 Ro-En dataset. By injecting noise of ratios of 0.2 and 0.4, the model performance deteriorates from 34.9 to **34.6** and **32.3** accordingly, indicating the quality of syntactic grammar exerts a large influence on model's generation performance. ## 6.2 Interpretability We evaluate the model's interpretability based on its capability of providing explanations in understandable terms to a human (Doshi-Velez and Kim, 2017), i.e., whether it generates texts following language grammar. We trace each constituent expansion during generation and compare the modelinduced tree with the tree parsed by a benchmark | Dataset | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | |---------------|-------------|----------|------------| | ParaNMT-small | 96.0% | 98.4 % | 97.2% | | NIST Zh-En | 96.6% | 96.8% | 96.7% | | WMT'16 Ro-En | 93.5% | 94.2% | 93.9% | | WMT'14 De-En | 95.7% | 96.3% | 96.0% | | WMT'14 En-De | 84.4% | 95.4% | 89.6% | Table 4: The quantitative evaluation of the models' interpretability. Dataset **BLEU** ↑ Dref syn ↓ w/o w w/o w ParaNMT-small 19.3 24.9(+5.6) 25.7 17.2(-8.5) NIST (ref-0) 28.0 30.3(+2.3) 25.1 19.2(-5.9) NIST (ref-1) 27.3 29.3(+2.0) 25.5 20.1(-5.4) NIST (ref-2) 25.7 28.5(+2.8) 25.4 18.3(-7.1) NIST (ref-3) 26.1 28.1(+2.0) 25.7 20.1(-5.6) WMT'16 Ro-En 35.0 35.8(+0.8) 18.3 15.9(-2.4) WMT'14 De-En 32.2 35.3(+3.1) 19.6 14.0(-5.6) WMT'14 En-De 28.7 30.6(+1.9) 28.9 26.3(-2.6) parser, e.g., Berkeley Parser. Specifically, we use the Berkeley parser to parse the same generated hypotheses by our model and treat the corresponding parsing results as golden parses. Quantitative results (Figure 4) show that our model achieves an average F1 score of **94.6** , which demonstrates the generation process highly corresponds to the syntactic grammar and thus can be effectively interpreted. Note that the score for WMT'14 En-De is lower (89.0), possibly due to the less accurate German parser for constructing the syntactic grammar, as discussed in Section 6.1. ## 6.3 Controllability Control with Complete Syntax Template To leverage control signals from delexicalized syntax templates (e.g., "(S (NP) (VP (NP)))" for the sequence "I ate an apple."), we introduce a reward γ into Equation 13: $$\delta_{i k+j}=\alpha\delta_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}+(1-\alpha)\delta_{\mathbf{f}_{j;\mathbf{s}_{i}}}+\gamma.$$ + γ. (14) If the updated syntax context sik+j matches the corresponding template pattern at depth d + 1, the γ is a positive value otherwise 0. For example, the syntax context "<NP> <VP>" in Figure 3 matches the pattern "((NP)(VP))" at depth 2. Intuitively, the reward encourages the model to favor beam candidates that match the syntax template. We set the reward value as 0.32 based on validation results (Appendix F). The testset of ParaNMT-small is provided with human-annotated exemplars and we use it to control generation, with results shown in Table 1. More generally, golden templates can be derived by parsing the reference sentences for each dataset with a parser (e.g., the Berkeley Parser). We present the results in Table 5. Guided by the reference syntax template, our model obtains consistent improvement in terms of hypothesis similarity with references, which is reflected by the decreased syntax edit distance to the references, i.e., D ref syn. For the multi-reference dataset NIST Zh-En, our model can generate translations of different styles which are prompted by alternative syntax templates from multiple references. Control with Partial Syntax Template We further explore whether the model can handle finegrained arbitrary controls. Specifically, we ask three annotators to modify the intermediate syntax contexts output by the model, based on the source input. 100 instances are randomly selected from the NIST Zh-En test set and each annotator gives different modifications for each instance. The modified contexts are fed to the model to predict the infilling texts. We then ask the annotators to evaluate whether their controls (i.e., modifications) are safely responded to by the model. We show some of the control examples in Appendix G. The average control success rate is 81%, which demonstrates the capability of our model to handle arbitrary fine-grained controls. ## 6.4 Diversity Beam Diversity We expect the model to generate diverse hypotheses under beam search, while also maintaining generation quality. To this end, we measure the model's beam diversity by computing two average scores: (1) the average of the mutual diversity scores of every two of the beam candidates, i.e., D*beam* lex and Dbeam syn ; (2) the average generation quality of the beam candidates, measured by BLEU scores. The results for paraphrase generation are shown in Table 6. In terms of generation quality, our model generates consistently better beam candidates on average than the baseline model. Besides, we can see that structural beam search can yield more diverse beam candidates, indicated by the higher mutual diversity (i.e., D*beam* lex and D*beam* syn ) among beam candidates. Effects of Accumulation Weight A larger accumulation weight (α in Eq. 13) indicates a larger | ParaNMT-small | | | | |-----------------|----------------|-------|------| | Model | avg BLEU/iBLEU | Dbeam | | | Transformer | 15.0/1.6 | 12.6 | 11.2 | | Our Method | 16.9/7.1 | 15.0 | 12.6 |   weight on previous decisions when re-ranking the newly updated beam candidates. As a result, early determined syntax structures are less likely to be surpassed throughout the whole structural beam search. On the contrary, a smaller α encourages the model to explore promising candidates at higher levels, and can therefore find more diverse hypotheses. We explore the effects of α with results shown in Figure 4. As the weight grows smaller, the model generates sequences of better syntactic diversity, i.e., Dsyn. However, an overly small weight deteriorates generation quality (iBLEU), which can be caused by the model's overconfidence in local predictions without considering the predictions of syntax contexts at lower levels. Such deterioration is also seen for overly large weights (>0.95), due to limited exploration at higher levels. Human Evaluation We further conduct a human evaluation to evaluate generation quality and diversity on paraphrase generation. We ask three annotators to vote for one of the two candidates: hypotheses from the seq2seq baseline and our method. The annotators are required to decide, which one is better by considering Fidelity, *Novelty*, and *Diversity* (See Appendix H for details). The results are shown in Table 7. As can be seen from the table, our method achieves much better generation novelty and beam diversity compared with the baseline, while maintaining semantic fidelity, which further | Model | Fidelity | Novelty | Diversity | |-------------|------------|-----------|-------------| | Transformer | 50.2% | 29.6 % | 29.0% | | Our Method | 49.8% | 70.4% | 71.0% | Table 7: Human evaluation on paraphrase generation. validates the results of the automatic evaluation. ## 7 Conclusion We proposed a syntax-guided generation paradigm, which leverages the strengths of Transformer and generates sequences by hierarchically expanding constituents in the lexicalized syntax contexts throughout the syntax tree. The neural decoder was trained by maximizing the likelihood of the infilling texts for each constituent in the syntax contexts given the source sequence. Moreover, we proposed the structural beam search to better explore the hypothesis space. Empirical results demonstrated the advantage of generation quality over the seq2seq baseline, and also the effectiveness in terms of interpretability, controllability, and diversity. Our method can be seen as a step towards explicit modelling of psycholinguistic structures during neural text generation , helping the model to have a degree of control over what it intends to generate, which can potentially address salient issues of current neural NLG, such as hallucination (Guerreiro et al., 2023; Dziri et al., 2022) and ethical issues (Sheng et al., 2019, 2021; Weidinger et al., 2021), if semantics, pragmatics, and other factors are also integrated. ## Limitations Despite the competitive performance, there are several limitations of this work: (1) As discussed in Section 6.1, the generation performance relies on the parser performance, which is strong enough for English but still less satisfactory for other languages. Dedicated methods need to be considered to compensate for the weak parser performance if we want to extend our method to more languages. (2) In this work, we consider two NLG tasks with semantic equivalence to testify if the proposed method can convey the source semantics accurately by following the target syntactic grammar. Other tasks such as summarization and dialogue generation can also be tested, where the semantics are not equivalent between the source and target. (3) To train the neural decoder parallelly, we break down the source-target dataset into a triple set. However, the global dependency of the syntax parse tree is not considered, which can deteriorate generation performance. (4) Due to the recursive encoding of the syntax contexts, our model's inference speed is approximately half that of the seq2seq counterpart (Appendix E). (5) Future work should include experiments on large language models (Brown et al., 2020; OpenAI, 2023; Zeng et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023; Taori et al., 2023). to further demonstrate the effectiveness of our method beyond pretrained language models. ## Ethics Statement We honor the ACL Code of Ethics. No private data or non-public information is used in this work. For human annotation (Section 6.3 and Section 6.4), we recruited our annotators from the linguistics departments of local universities through public advertisement with a specified pay rate. All of our annotators are senior undergraduate students or graduate students in linguistic majors who took this annotation as a part-time job. We pay them 60 CNY an hour. The local minimum salary in the year 2022 is 25.3 CNY per hour for part-time jobs. The annotation does not involve any personally sensitive information. The annotated is required to rank the system output and label factual information (i.e., syntactic annotation). ## Acknowledgement We would like to thank all reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions to help improve the paper. We thank Deng Cai and Xinting Huang for their insightful suggestions. This work is funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (grant No. 2022YFE020038). ## References Roee Aharoni and Yoav Goldberg. 2017. Towards string-to-tree neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 132–140, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Elron Bandel, Ranit Aharonov, Michal ShmueliScheuer, Ilya Shnayderman, Noam Slonim, and Liat Ein-Dor. 2022. Quality controlled paraphrase generation. *CoRR*, abs/2203.10940. Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. METEOR: an automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In *Proceedings* of the Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization@ACL 2005, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, June 29, 2005, pages 65–72. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33:* Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Kehai Chen, Rui Wang, Masao Utiyama, Eiichiro Sumita, and Tiejun Zhao. 2018. Syntax-directed attention for neural machine translation. In *Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence*, volume 32. Mingda Chen, Qingming Tang, Sam Wiseman, and Kevin Gimpel. 2019. Controllable paraphrase generation with a syntactic exemplar. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5972–5984, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Noam Chomsky. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Kevin Clark, Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. What does bert look at? an analysis of bert's attention. In *BlackBoxNLP@ACL*. Verna Dankers, Elia Bruni, and Dieuwke Hupkes. 2022. The paradox of the compositionality of natural language: A neural machine translation case study. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 4154–4175. Association for Computational Linguistics. Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv: Machine Learning. Chris Dyer, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Miguel Ballesteros, and Noah A. Smith. 2016. Recurrent neural network grammars. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 199–209, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nouha Dziri, Sivan Milton, Mo Yu, Osmar R. Zaïane, and Siva Reddy. 2022. On the origin of hallucinations in conversational models: Is it the datasets or the models? In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 5271–5285. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sergey Edunov, Myle Ott, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2018. Understanding back-translation at scale. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 489–500, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Akiko Eriguchi, Kazuma Hashimoto, and Yoshimasa Tsuruoka. 2019. Incorporating source-side phrase structures into neural machine translation. *Computational Linguistics*, 45(2):267–292. Akiko Eriguchi, Yoshimasa Tsuruoka, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2017. Learning to parse and translate improves neural machine translation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1702.03525. Nuno Miguel Guerreiro, Elena Voita, and André F. T. Martins. 2023. Looking for a needle in a haystack: A comprehensive study of hallucinations in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2023, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 2-6, 2023, pages 1059–1075. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shilin He, Zhaopeng Tu, Xing Wang, Longyue Wang, Michael Lyu, and Shuming Shi. 2019. Towards understanding neural machine translation with word importance. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 953–962, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural Comput.*, 9(8):1735– 1780. Mohit Iyyer, John Wieting, Kevin Gimpel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Adversarial example generation with syntactically controlled paraphrase networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1875–1885, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yoon Kim and Alexander M. Rush. 2016. Sequencelevel knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1-4, 2016, pages 1317–1327. The Association for Computational Linguistics. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. Nikita Kitaev, Steven Cao, and Dan Klein. 2019. Multilingual constituency parsing with self-attention and pre-training. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 3499–3505, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nikita Kitaev and Dan Klein. 2018. Constituency parsing with a self-attentive encoder. In *Proceedings* of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2676–2686, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Philipp Koehn. 2004. Statistical significance tests for machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , EMNLP 2004, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, held in conjunction with ACL 2004, 25-26 July 2004, Barcelona, Spain, pages 388–395. ACL. Olga Kovaleva, Alexey Romanov, Anna Rogers, and Anna Rumshisky. 2019. Revealing the dark secrets of BERT. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4365–4374, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashutosh Kumar, Kabir Ahuja, Raghuram Vadapalli, and Partha Talukdar. 2020. Syntax-guided controlled generation of paraphrases. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 8:329–345. An Nguyen Le, Ander Martinez, Akifumi Yoshimoto, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2017. Improving sequence to sequence neural machine translation by utilizing syntactic dependency information. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 21–29. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461*. Junhui Li, Deyi Xiong, Zhaopeng Tu, Muhua Zhu, Min Zhang, and Guodong Zhou. 2017. Modeling source syntax for neural machine translation. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for* Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 688–697, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yafu Li, Yongjing Yin, Yulong Chen, and Yue Zhang. 2021. On compositional generalization of neural machine translation. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4767–4780. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yangming Li and Kaisheng Yao. 2021. Interpretable NLG for task-oriented dialogue systems with heterogeneous rendering machines. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13306–13314. AAAI Press. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In *Text Summarization Branches Out*, pages 74–81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Junyang Lin, Xu Sun, Shuming Ma, and Qi Su. 2018. Global encoding for abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 2: Short Papers, pages 163–169. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chunpeng Ma, Akihiro Tamura, Masao Utiyama, Eiichiro Sumita, and Tiejun Zhao. 2019. Improving neural machine translation with neural syntactic distance. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2032–2037. Chunpeng Ma, Akihiro Tamura, Masao Utiyama, Eiichiro Sumita, and Tiejun Zhao. 2020. Syntax-based transformer for neural machine translation. Journal of Natural Language Processing, 27(2):445–466. Chunpeng Ma, Akihiro Tamura, Masao Utiyama, Tiejun Zhao, and Eiichiro Sumita. 2018. Forest-based neural machine translation. In *Proceedings of the 56th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1253– 1263. Richard Montague. 1974. Universal grammar. In Richmond H. Thomason, editor, *Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague*, 222–247. Yale University Press, New Haven, London. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 technical report. *CoRR*, abs/2303.08774. Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. fairseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Demonstrations*, pages 48–53. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, July 6-12, 2002, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pages 311–318. ACL. Ru Peng, Zhitao Chen, Tianyong Hao, and Yi Fang. 2019. Neural machine translation with attention based on a new syntactic branch distance. In *China* Conference on Machine Translation, pages 47–57. Springer. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2016, August 7-12, 2016, Berlin, Germany, Volume 1: Long Papers. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Prem Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2021. Societal biases in language generation: Progress and challenges. In *Proceedings* of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4275–4293. Association for Computational Linguistics. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Premkumar Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 3405–3410. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hong Sun and Ming Zhou. 2012. Joint learning of a dual SMT system for paraphrase generation. In The 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, July 8-14, 2012, Jeju Island, Korea - Volume 2: Short Papers, pages 38–42. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Jiao Sun, Xuezhe Ma, and Nanyun Peng. 2021. AESOP: Paraphrase generation with adaptive syntactic control. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 5176–5189, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27. Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/ stanford_alpaca. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. Xinyi Wang, Hieu Pham, Pengcheng Yin, and Graham Neubig. 2018. A tree-based decoder for neural machine translation. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing, pages 4772–4777, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Zac Kenton, Sasha Brown, Will Hawkins, Tom Stepleton, Courtney Biles, Abeba Birhane, Julia Haas, Laura Rimell, Lisa Anne Hendricks, William Isaac, Sean Legassick, Geoffrey Irving, and Iason Gabriel. 2021. Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. *CoRR*, abs/2112.04359. Shuangzhi Wu, Dongdong Zhang, Nan Yang, Mu Li, and Ming Zhou. 2017. Sequence-to-dependency neural machine translation. In *Proceedings of the 55th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 698–707, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yikuan Xie, Wenyong Wang, Mingqian Du, and Qing He. 2021. Transformer with syntactic position encoding for machine translation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2021), pages 1536–1544. Baosong Yang, Derek F Wong, Lidia S Chao, and Min Zhang. 2020a. Improving tree-based neural machine translation with dynamic lexicalized dependency encoding. *Knowledge-Based Systems*, 188:105042. Jian Yang, Shuming Ma, Dongdong Zhang, Zhoujun Li, and Ming Zhou. 2020b. Improving neural machine translation with soft template prediction. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics, pages 5979–5989. Aohan Zeng, Xiao Liu, Zhengxiao Du, Zihan Wang, Hanyu Lai, Ming Ding, Zhuoyi Yang, Yifan Xu, Wendi Zheng, Xiao Xia, Weng Lam Tam, Zixuan Ma, Yufei Xue, Jidong Zhai, Wenguang Chen, Peng Zhang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. 2022. Glm-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. AK Zholkovskii and IA Mel'chuk. 1965. On a possible method and instrument for semantic synthesis. Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informatsiya,(6). ## Algorithm 1 Structural Beam Search Setup: k: beam size α: accumulation weight dmax: maximum tree depth ENCODER(·): source context encoder terminated(·): termination examination function expand(·, ·): constituent expansion function beam_search(·, ·): standard beam search algorithm Input: x: source sequence 1: d ← 0 2: hsrc ← ENCODER(x) 3: B0 ← {(0,⟨T⟩)} 4: **while** d < dmax do 5: B ← ∅ 6: for (δs, s) ∈ Bd−1 do 7: if terminated(s) **then** 8: B.add((δs, s)) 9: **continue** 10: **end if** 11: F ← beam_search(s, hsrc) 12: for (δf , f) ∈ F do 13: ˆδ ← αδs + (1 − α)δf 14: sˆ ← expand(s, f) 15: B.add((ˆδ, sˆ)) 16: **end for** 17: **end for** 18: Bd ← B.top(k) 19: d ← d + 1 20: **end while** 21: **return** Bdmax ## A Algorithms The scoring algorithm 7 can be rewritten with the source context x encoded into hsrc: $$\text{score}(\mathbf{h}_{src},\mathbf{s},\mathbf{f})=\sum_{t=0}^{|\mathbf{f}|}logp_{\mathbf{\theta}}(f_{t}|\mathbf{h}_{src},\mathbf{s},\int_{1:t-1})\tag{15}$$ The algorithm of **structural beam search** is demonstrated in Algorithm 1, which employs the standard beam search for autoregressive generation, depicted in Algorithm 2. The termination function in Algorithm 1 (i.e., terminated(·)) returns true if the there is no remaining constituent in the input sequence. ## B Experiment Details For NIST Zh-En, we use parts of the bitext provided within NIST'12 OpenMT†and the final train set consists of about 1.8M sentence pairs. We apply BPE (Sennrich et al., 2016) on all datasets: the number of BPE operations is 6K for ParaNMTsmall, and 40K for the other datasets. We implement our model using Fairseq (Ott et al., 2019). †LDC2005T06, LDC2004T07, LDC2003E07, LDC2000T46, LDC2000T47, LDC2000T50, LDC2003E14, LDC2005T10, LDC2002E18, LDC2007T09, LDC2004T08 Algorithm 2 Beam search      Setup: k: beam size tmax: maximum hypothesis length V: target tokens set score(·, ·, ·): scoring function (Eq. 15) Input: s: syntax context hsrc: source context representations 1: t ← 0 2: B0 ← {(0,⟨bos⟩)} 3: **while** t < tmax do 4: B ← ∅ 5: for (δ, f) ∈ Bt−1 do 6: if f*.last*() = ⟨eos⟩ **then** 7: B.add((δ, f))  We train the model using Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) optimizer. The learning rate increases to 7 · 10−4in the first 10K steps and then anneals exponentially. We set the weight decay as 0.01 and label smoothing as 0.1. The dropout is 0.3 for ParaNMT-small, and 0.1 for the other datasets. The batch size is 64K tokens for ParaNMT-small, 256K for WMT'16 Ro-En and NIST Zh-En, and 512K for WMT'14 De↔En. All models are trained for a maximum update of 300K steps unless early stopped. We train the model using 4 V100s and increase gradient accumulation steps for large batch sizes. We choose the 5 best checkpoints based on validation sets and average them for inference. We set the beam width as 5 for beam search. For machine translation, the teacher models for knowledge distillation are Transformer_Base for NIST Zh-En and WMT'16 Ro-en, and Transformer_Big for WMT'14 De↔En. ## C Model Architecture We conduct experiments to compare different model architectures to incorporate syntax context on the WMT'16 Ro-En validation set. We consider the following settings: - *Concat*: concatenate the syntax context with the source sequence, with the vanilla Transformer unmodified. - *Extra-attention*: reuse the source encoder for encoding syntax context and insert an extra at- | Model | BLEU↑ / self-BLEU↓ / iBLEU↑ | METEOR↑ | ROUGE-1/2/L↑ | Dlex↑ | Dsyn↑ | |----------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------|--------------------|---------|---------| | BART Seq2seq (beam 1) | 15.8 / 26.9 / 3.0 | 27.3 | 50.1 / 23.1 / 50.0 | 19.5 | 23.8 | | BART + Our Method (beam 1) | 18.3 / 15.5 / 8.2 | 31.0 | 52.1 / 26.7 / 52.1 | 21.1 | 24.0 | | BART Seq2seq (beam 5) | 17.9 / 27.0 / 4.4 | 28.4 | 51.4 / 24.8 / 51.5 | 19.6 | 24.4 | | BART + Our Method (beam 5) | 19.0 / 15.1 / 8.8 | 31.3 | 52.3 / 27.0 / 52.5 | 21.3 | 24.7 | Table 8: Experimental results on paraphrase generation (ParaNMT-small) based on BART. | Architecture | # params | BLEU | Speed | |-----------------|------------|--------|---------| | Concat | 64.2M | 34.5 | 1.0x | | Extra-attention | 70.5M | 34.7 | 0.9x | | Extra-encoder | 64.2M | 35.3 | 1.1x | tention layer, i.e., the syntax context attention, into each decoder layer. - *Extra-encoder*: introduce an additional encoder for encoding syntax context and also uses the syntax context attention. Empirical results are shown in Table 9. Based on validation results, we adopt the *Extra-encoder* model in all experiments except for training on BART (Table 3), where we adopt the *Concat* model. ## D Experiments On Plm In this section, we introduce our experiment settings of PLM. Following previous work (Sun et al., 2021), we use BART-base (Lewis et al., 2019) as our base model. All models are finetuned for 10 epochs with a batch size of 64k tokens. The learning rate is 3e-5 and the linear decay schedule, as recommended in BART's official repository‡. We use the *Concat* (Appendix C) model architecture for extending our method to BART. The source text and the syntax context are concatenated with a special token "<sep>", e.g., "I ate an apple . <sep> <NP> <VP> .". To effectively employ our method with BART, whose inputs are tokenized sequences byte-level, as same as Radford et al., we make several modifications. In the pre-processing, we make sure our special tokens (e.g., <sep>, <c>, <NP>, <VP>) are not split and add extra byte-level spaces before and after the special token. Thanks to the unused tokens in BART embeddings, we do not need to modify the embedding matrix. Instead, we assign our special tokens to unused token indexes. ‡https://github.com/facebookresearch/ fairseq/tree/main/examples/bart  Finally, in the inference stage, we find the constituency expansion causes a discrepancy between inputs of train and test. Thus, we first detokenize each layer's outputs and then tokenize them back with the same procedure in the preprocessing to avoid such a gap. ## E Generating Linearized Trees Directly A baseline method to induce grammar simultaneously during generation is generating linearized parse trees directly, i.e., training a seq2seq model which takes in source sequences and outputs linearized parse trees. We compare it with our method on WMT'16 Ro-En. Specifically, the BLEU score for WMT'16 Ro-En is only **27.6** compared to the seq2seq baseline (**34.1**) and our method (**34.9**). This can be because the additional parentheses and constituency tags in linearized trees may deteriorate sequence coherence, making learning more difficult. Our method, on the other hand, breaks down syntax trees into level pieces to create a better learning curriculum. Furthermore, Generating linearized parse trees is much slower than the seq2seq counterpart, since the average sequence length of linearized tree sequences is longer (152.3 vs 28.4). As a result, the average speed for generating linearized parse trees is only 0.8 sentences/s compared to 3.6 sentences/s for the seq2seq baseline. Our method achieves an inference speed of 1.7 sentences/s under the same computing condition (V100 GPU). Additionally, generating a linearized parse tree is not easily interpretable or controllable, due to the black-box nature of the sequence-to- | Source | Human Control | Infilling Text | Final Hypothesis the pakistani government and the pakistani people | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | <NP> and <NP> expressed | <c> the pakistani government <c> the | expressed their deep sympathy for the families of the | | | their deep sympathy <PP> . | pakistani people <c> for <NP> | victims . | | | <S> <VP> to the bereaved | <c> the pakistani government and people <c> expressed <NP> | the pakistani government and people expressed their | | | family . | deep sympathy and solicitude to the bereaved family . the government and people of pakistan expressed their | | | | the government and people of pakistan <VP> . <c> expressed <NP> | deep sympathy and solicitude for the families of the victims . | | | | 巴基斯坦 政府 和 人民 对 死难者 的 家属 表示 深切 的 慰问 。 (English: The Government and people of Pakistan express their deep sympathy to the bereaved families.) <PP> , <S> . | <c> in <NP> <c> <NP> <VP> | in an honest way , i think i am much younger than 36 . | | | 老实 说 , 我 认为 自己 要 比 36 岁 年轻 许多 。 (English: To be honest, I consider myself much younger than 36.) to be honest , I consider <S> . <c> <NP> much younger <PP> | to be honest , i consider myself much younger than 36 . | | | | to be honest , <S> . | <c> <NP> <VP> | to be honest , i think i am much younger than 36 . | | | that , however , does not | <c> prevent <NP> <PP> | that , however , does not prevent hamas from making | | | <VP> , voting for an | flexible strategic adjustments , voting for an | | | | independent would be a | independent would be a compromise . | | | | compromise . | that , however , does not prevent hamas from making | | | | that , however , <VP> . <VP> would be a compromise . <c> does not <VP> <c> electing <NP> | flexible strategic adjustments . electing an independent person would be a compromise . | | | | 然而 , 这 并 不 妨碍 哈马斯 作 出 灵活 的 策略 调整 , 推选 独立 人 士 便是 折中 之 策 。 (English: That, however, does not prevent Hamas from manoeuvring nimbly. Voting for an independent would be a compromise.) <S> , <S> | <c> however , <NP> <VP> <c> <S> | however , this does not prevent hamas from making flexible strategic adjustments , choosing an | | | <VP> | independent person is a compromise | | | ## Sequence Paradigm. F Effects Of Control Reward The magnitude of the reward γ determines how much priority is given to beam candidates that match the syntax exemplar. We experiment with different reward values to give a quantitative demonstration, shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the control effectiveness grows with the increase of the reward value until 0.64, which suggests that all possible matched beam candidates are re-ranked to the top in the search space. ## G Control With Partial Syntax Template We present 3 sample cases to demonstrate finegrained controls over the generation process, shown in Figure 6. Each Chinese source sentence is paired with 3 manual controls from three annotators. The model takes in the annotated syntax context and proceeds to obtain the respective translations. ## H Human Evaluation For Paraphrase Generation We ask three annotators to conduct side-by-side human evaluations and report averaged results of their annotations. For each instance, the annotators vote for one of the two outputs by the baseline and our model. The outputs contain top-5 beam candidates under beam search. The annotators are asked to evaluate both the best candidate and the beam results as a whole, based on the following three aspects: - Fidelity: Whether the best candidate is semantics-equivalent with the input. - Novelty: Whether the best candidate modifies the input sentence structure. - Diversity: Whether the generated five candidates are different from each other given the input. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section Limitations. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section Abstract and Section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 & 5. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix B & C. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4; Appendix B & C. C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 5. ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Section 6.4 & 6.4. ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix G & H. ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section Ethics Consideration. ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Appendix G & H. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Section Ethics Consideration.

liscio-etal-2023-text

What does a Text Classifier Learn about Morality? An Explainable Method for Cross-Domain Comparison of Moral Rhetoric

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.789

Moral rhetoric influences our judgement. Although social scientists recognize moral expression as domain specific, there are no systematic methods for analyzing whether a text classifier learns the domain-specific expression of moral language or not. We propose Tomea, a method to compare a supervised classifier{'}s representation of moral rhetoric across domains. Tomea enables quantitative and qualitative comparisons of moral rhetoric via an interpretable exploration of similarities and differences across moral concepts and domains. We apply Tomea on moral narratives in thirty-five thousand tweets from seven domains. We extensively evaluate the method via a crowd study, a series of cross-domain moral classification comparisons, and a qualitative analysis of cross-domain moral expression.

## What Does A Text Classifier Learn About Morality? An Explainable Method For Cross-Domain Comparison Of Moral Rhetoric Enrico Liscio1, Oscar Araque2, Lorenzo Gatti3**, Ionut Constantinescu**4, Catholijn M. Jonker1,6**, Kyriaki Kalimeri**5, and **Pradeep K. Murukannaiah**1 1TU Delft, Delft, the Netherlands 2Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain 3University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands 4ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland 5ISI Foundation, Turin, Italy 6Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands {e.liscio,c.m.jonker,p.k.murukannaiah}@tudelft.nl o.araque@upm.es l.gatti@utwente.nl iconstantinescu100@gmail.com kyriaki.kalimeri@isi.it ## Abstract Moral rhetoric influences our judgement. Although social scientists recognize moral expression as domain specific, there are no systematic methods for analyzing whether a text classifier learns the domain-specific expression of moral language or not. We propose Tomea, a method to compare a supervised classifier's representation of moral rhetoric across domains. Tomea enables quantitative and qualitative comparisons of moral rhetoric via an interpretable exploration of similarities and differences across moral concepts and domains. We apply Tomea on moral narratives in thirtyfive thousand tweets from seven domains. We extensively evaluate the method via a crowd study, a series of cross-domain moral classification comparisons, and a qualitative analysis of cross-domain moral expression. ## 1 Introduction Moral narratives play a fundamental role in stance taken on controversial social issues (Fulgoni et al., 2016). Recognizing moral narratives helps understand the argumentation around important topics such as vaccine hesitancy (Kalimeri et al., 2019b), violent protests (Mooijman et al., 2018), and climate change (Dickinson et al., 2016). Language reveals deep psychological constructs, including moral values (Graham et al., 2013). Thus, language is an important avenue for analyzing moral expression. In particular, supervised text classification models have been showing promising results on morality prediction (Lourie et al., 2021; Hendrycks et al., 2021; Alshomary et al., 2022). These models leverage the wisdom of crowds (via annotations of moral expression) to attain a descriptive understanding of morality. However, the supervised learning paradigm can lead to black-box models (Danilevsky et al., 2020). Understanding what these models learn is crucial, especially for the morality classification task, which is likely to be used in sensitive applications like healthcare (Wen et al., 2019; Carriere et al., 2021). Moral expression is *context* dependent (Hill and Lapsley, 2009; Brännmark, 2015; Kola et al., 2022), where context refers to factors such as actors, actions, judges, and values (Schein, 2020). For a text classifier, the *domain* from which the training data is sourced represents the context. For example, in the context of recent Iranian protests, tweets tagged \#mahsaamini can form the training domain. We expect this domain to have a different moral expression than the training domain of *\#prolife* tweets, representing a different context. Recent works (Liscio et al., 2022a; Huang et al., 2022) analyze the out-of-domain performance of morality classifiers. However, what leads classifiers to perform differently across domains has not been systematically explored. Such an insight is essential for understanding whether classifiers can learn a domain-specific representation of morality. We propose Tomea (from the Greek *τoµα*´ , meaning "domain") to compare a text classifier's representation of morality across domains. Tomea employs the SHAP method (Lundberg and Lee, 2017) to compile domain-specific *moral lexicons*, composed of the lemmas that the classifier deems most predictive of a moral concept in a domain, for each moral concept and domain. Through such moral lexicons, Tomea enables a direct comparison of the linguistic cues that a classification model prioritizes for morality prediction across domains. We employ Tomea to compare moral rhetoric across the seven social domains in the Moral Foundation Twitter Corpus (MFTC) (Hoover et al., 2020). Then, we perform a crowdsourced evaluation to assess the agreement between the human intuition and the automatically obtained results of Tomea. We show that this agreement is consistent across domains but varies across moral concepts. Further, we find a strong correlation between the results of Tomea and the out-of-domain performance 14113 of the models used for obtaining the moral lexicons. In addition, we perform qualitative analyses of the moral impact of specific lemmas, unveiling insightful differences in moral concepts and domains. Tomea allows to inspect and compare the extent to which a supervised classifier can learn domain-specific moral rhetoric from crowdsourced annotations. Tomea can guide computer scientists and practitioners (e.g., social scientists or policymakers) in the responsible use of transfer learning approaches. In transfer learning, large datasets are used to pre-train language models, which are then finetuned with data collected in the domain of interest. Such pre-training typically helps in improving performance in the finetuning domain. However, increased performance may come at the cost of critical mistakes which may hinder the usage of the model, especially when the finetuning domain concerns minority groups (Nadeem et al., 2021). Tomea can assist in the qualitative comparison of pre-training and finetuning domains by unveiling potential critical differences and guiding practitioners in judging the appropriateness of using a morality prediction model in an application. ## 2 Related Works We introduce the theoretical background and review related works in morality classification in text, domain dependency in NLP models, and explainability in NLP. Moral Theories The expression of morality in language has been explored via constructs such as rules-of-thumb on acceptable social behavior (Forbes et al., 2020), moral norms (Lourie et al., 2021; Emelin et al., 2021), and ethical judgements (Hendrycks et al., 2021). However, these constructs are too abstract for our purpose of understanding the domain-specific expression of morality. We base our work on models of *human values*, which represent morality in the form of innate moral elements. Two well-known models of human values are the Moral Foundation Theory (MFT) (Graham et al., 2013) and the Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values (Schwartz, 2012). In this work, we explore the domain-specific expression of moral elements of the MFT. The MFT consists of five foundations, each consisting of a vice–virtue duality, resulting in 10 moral elements, as shown in Table 1. We choose the MFT because of the availability of the Moral Foundation Twitter Corpus (MFTC) (Hoover et al., 2020), a corpus of seven datasets corresponding to seven domains (Section 4.1), enabling cross-domain analyses. | Element | Definition | |---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------| | Care/ | Support for care for others/ | | Harm | Refrain from harming others | | Fairness/ | Support for fairness and equality/ | | Cheating | Refrain from cheating or exploiting others | | Loyalty/ | Support for prioritizing one's inner circle/ | | Betrayal | Refrain from betraying the inner circle | | Authority/ | Support for respecting authority and tradition/ | | Subversion | Refrain from subverting authority or tradition | | Purity/ | Support for the purity of sacred entities/ | | Degradation Refrain from corrupting such entities | | Morality Classification Classification of moral elements in text has been approached via moral lexicons, lists of words depictive of moral elements. Lexicons are generated manually (Graham et al., 2009; Schwartz, 2012), via semi-automated methods (Wilson et al., 2018; Araque et al., 2020), or expanding a seed list with NLP techniques (Ponizovskiy et al., 2020; Araque et al., 2022). The lexicons are then used to classify morality using text similarity (Bahgat et al., 2020; Pavan et al., 2020). Moral elements have also been described as knowledge graphs to perform zero-shot classification (Asprino et al., 2022). More recent methods adopt instead supervised machine learning (Qiu et al., 2022; Alshomary et al., 2022; Kiesel et al., 2022; Liscio et al., 2022a; Huang et al., 2022; Lan and Paraboni, 2022). A textual dataset is annotated with the moral elements, and the resulting labels are used to train a supervised model. This approach represents the starting point for our analysis in this paper. Domain Dependency Domain dependency is a well-known issue in sentiment analysis (Al-Moslmi et al., 2017), where it is often addressed through domain adaptation, the challenge to adapt a lexicon or a machine learning algorithm to a novel domain (Hamilton et al., 2016; Wu and Huang, 2016; Wilson and Cook, 2020; Mohamad Beigi and Moattar, 2021). Our main goal in this paper is to analyze the differences in morality across domains, but not to adapt a lexicon or a model to novel domains. Explainability Explainable AI (XAI) has been used extensively in NLP (Danilevsky et al., 2020). We do not contribute a new method to XAI, but our work is a novel application of an XAI method. A key distinction is whether an XAI method generates local or global explanations. Local explanations expose the rationale behind an individual prediction, e.g., by highlighting the most important words in a sentence (Ribeiro et al., 2016; Lundberg and Lee, 2017). Global explanations expose the rationale behind the whole decision-making of the model, e.g., by inducing taxonomies of words that are predictive of the classified labels (Pryzant et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018). In our analysis, we induce lexicons to explain the decision-making of the models, as they provide an intuitive global explanation. ## 3 The Tomea Method Tomea1is a method for comparing a text classifier's representation of morality across domains. Tomea takes as input two hdataset, classifieri pairs, where, in each pair, the classifier is trained on the corresponding dataset. Since Tomea intends to compare moral expressions across domains, the two datasets input to it are assumed to be collected in different domains. Tomea's output is a qualitative and quantitative representation of the differences in moral expressions between the two input domains. Figure 1 shows the two key steps in the method. First, we generate *moral lexicons* capturing the classifiers' interpretable representations of the moral elements specific to their domains. Then, we compare the moral lexicons in two ways. (1) We compare the moral lexicons generated for the same moral elements in different domains. (2) We combine the moral lexicons generated for the same domains and provide a single measure of moral rhetoric similarity between two domains. ## 3.1 Moral And Domain Lexicons A *moral lexicon* represents how a morality classifier interprets the expression of a moral element in a domain. We represent the expression of morality by determining the impact that each word has toward the classification of a moral element in a domain. Thus, a moral lexicon consists of (*w, i*) pairs, where w in each pair is a word that the classifier considers relevant for predicting the examined moral element in the domain under analysis and i is its impact. This way, we generate a lexicon for each moral element in each domain. We refer to  the union of the moral lexicons generated for all moral elements in a domain as the *domain lexicon*. ## 3.2 Lexicon Generation We use Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) (Lundberg and Lee, 2017) to generate the lexicons. SHAP uses Shapley values to quantify the extent to which an input component (a word) contributes toward predicting a label (a moral element). The impact of a word is computed as the marginal contribution of the word toward a label prediction. Intuitively, the marginal contribution of the word is calculated by removing the word from the sentence and evaluating the difference between the sentence with and without the word. All combinations of words in the sentence (i.e., the power set of features) are created to compute the impact of each word. The resulting impact is positive (if the likelihood of predicting a certain label increases when the word is present) or negative (if the likelihood decreases). We aggregate the local explanations to obtain a global ranking of word impact for each moral element. This can be done by adding the local impact of words for each entry of the dataset due to the additive nature of SHAP. Tomea executes the following steps to obtain 1https://github.com/enricoliscio/tomea moral lexicons from a dataset and a model. (1) Execute SHAP on each entry of the dataset with the related model, resulting in a (*w, i*) pair for each word that appears in the dataset. (2) Replace each word w with its lemma, if one can be found using NLTK's WordNet-based lemmatizer (Bird et al., 2009). (3) Combine words that share the same lemma by adding their impact i together. ## 3.3 Lexicon Comparison Tomea enables the comparisons of (1) moral lexicons across domains, and (2) domain lexicons. Moral Lexicons First, Tomea normalizes each moral lexicon by substituting each word's impact with its z-score (Triola, 2017) based on the distribution of the impact scores of all words in a moral lexicon. Then, Tomea computes an m-distance (moral element distance) to compare the lexicons of a moral element generated in different domains. Let W = {w1, · · · , wn} be the set of n common words between the moral lexicons of a moral element Mi (one of the ten in MFT) in the two domains DA and DB (in practice, all words that appear in both lexicons). Then, let the two vectors, $$\begin{array}{l}{{\mathbf{i}^{(D_{A},M_{i})}=[i_{1}^{(D_{A})},\cdots,i_{n}^{(D_{A})}]{\mathrm{~and~}}}}\\ {{\mathbf{i}^{(D_{B},M_{i})}=[i_{1}^{(D_{B})},\cdots,i_{n}^{(D_{B})}],}}\end{array}$$ represent the impacts of the words belonging to W on Miin domains DA and DB, respectively. Then, the m-distance compares the impacts that the same set of words has in the two domains DA and DB for the moral element Mi as: $$m\text{-}d i s t a n c e_{M_{i}}^{(D_{A},D_{B})}=d(\mathbf{i}^{(D_{A},M_{i})},\mathbf{i}^{(D_{B},M_{i})})/n,\tag{1}$$ where d is Euclidean distance. The common set of words W offers a common reference point for measuring the distance between lexicons—however, we employ the full domain vocabulary to perform qualitative comparisons between domains (Section 5.4). We normalize the distance by n to reward domains with larger sets of common words. For a domain pair we compute ten m-distances, one for each Mi. Domain Lexicons To compare two domain lexicons, Tomea computes a d-distance. The d-distance between two domains DA and DB is the Euclidean norm of the vector of all m-distances computed between the two domains. Intuitively, the Euclidean norm represents the length of the vector of m-distances—the larger the m-distances between two domains, the larger the d-distance. For MFT, with ten moral elements, d-distance is: d-distance(DA,DB) = vuutX 10 i=1 (m-distance(DA,DB) Mi) 2 (2) ## 4 Experiment Design We evaluate Tomea on MFTC (Hoover et al., 2020). Using Tomea, we generate moral and domain lexicons for the seven MFTC domains and perform pairwise comparisons, obtaining 10 mdistances and one d-distance per comparison. The m-distances and d-distances are intended to compare the classifiers' representation of moral rhetoric across domains. We perform two types of evaluation to inspect the extent to which these distances capture the differences in moral expression across domains. We also perform a qualitative analysis to find fine-grained differences across domains. ## 4.1 Dataset MFTC consists of 35,108 tweets, divided into seven datasets, each corresponding to a different subject: All Lives Matter (ALM), Baltimore protests (BLT), Black Lives Matter (BLM), hate speech and offensive language (DAV) (Davidson et al., 2017), 2016 presidential election (ELE), MeToo movement (MT), and hurricane Sandy (SND). Since MFTC consists of datasets from different domains but annotated with the same moral theory, we can perform cross-domain comparisons on the corpus. Each tweet is labeled with one or more of the 10 moral elements of MFT or a *nonmoral* label. Thus, a tweet can have 11 possible labels. To compensate for the subjectivity of morality annotation, each tweet is annotated by multiple annotators (ranging from 3 to 8). The authors of MFTC apply a majority vote to select the definitive label(s) of each tweet, and tweets with no majority label are labeled as nonmoral. Table 2 shows the distribution of labels and the MeanIR, a measure of label imbalance (Charte et al., 2015) for MFTC. The imbalance is high for some domains, which turns out to be an important factor in the cross-domain comparisons. ## 4.2 Model Training We treat morality classification as a multi-class multi-label classification with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), similar to the recent approaches (Liscio et al., 2022a; Alshomary et al., 2022; Kiesel et al.,  2022; Huang et al., 2022). We create seven models (one per domain) using the *sequential training* paradigm (Lourie et al., 2021). That is, for each domain, the model is first pre-trained on the other six domains, and then continued training on the seventh. We choose this paradigm since: (1) it is shown to offer the best performance in transfer learning (Lourie et al., 2021; Liscio et al., 2022a), and (2) it represents a realistic scenario, where it is fair to assume that several annotated datasets are available when a novel dataset is collected. Appendix A includes additional details on training. ## 4.3 Pairwise Comparisons We employ Tomea to perform pairwise comparisons across the seven domains. First, we generate a moral lexicon for each of the ten moral elements in each of the seven domains (we neglect the *nonmoral* label as it does not expose moral rhetoric). This yields 70 moral lexicons. For each moral element, we perform pairwise comparisons across the seven domains, resulting in 21 m-distances per element. Finally, we perform pairwise comparisons of the seven domain lexicons to obtain 21 d-distances. ## 4.4 Evaluation We evaluate the extent to which m-distances and d-distances are predictive of differences in moral expression across domains. First, we perform a crowd evaluation to compare moral lexicons and their related m-distances. Then, we evaluate domain lexicons and d-distances by correlating them to the out-of-domain performances of the models. ## 4.4.1 Crowd Evaluation We recruited human annotators on the crowdsourcing platform Prolific2to evaluate the comparisons of moral lexicons generated for the same moral element across domains (i.e., the m-distances). We designed our annotation task with the covfee annotation tool (Vargas Quiros et al., 2022). The Ethics Committee of the Delft University of Technology approved this study, and we received an informed consent from each subject. Tomea provides m-distances that indicate the distance between domains for each moral element. We evaluate whether humans reach the same conclusions of domain similarity given the moral lexicons generated by Tomea. However, directly providing a distance or similarity between two domains is a challenging task for humans since it lacks a reference point for comparison. Thus, we re-frame the task as a simpler comparative evaluation. Crowd task We represent each moral lexicon through a word bubble plot, where the 10 most impactful words are depicted inside bubbles scaled by word impact (Figure 2 shows an example). A crowd worker is shown three word bubbles, generated for the same moral element in three domains, DA, DB, and DC. We ask the worker to indicate on a 6-point Likert scale whether DA is more similar to DB or DC based on the shown word bubbles. Appendix B shows a visual example of the task.  We fix one domain as DA and choose all possible combinations of the other six domains as DB and DC, leading to (6 ∗ 5)/2 = 15 combinations. We employ each of the seven domains as DA, leading to 105 combinations. We generate these combinations for each of the ten moral elements, resulting in 1050 unique tasks. To account for the subjectivity in the annotation, we ensure that each task 2www.prolific.co is performed by three annotators, pushing the total number of required annotations to 3150. Each annotator performed 20 tasks, resulting in a total of 159 annotators. We included four control tasks in each annotator's assignment. Appendix B provides additional details on the crowd study. Evaluation To compare the results of Tomea and the crowd annotations, we compute the correlation between m-distances and crowd answers. Since the Shapiro test showed that the crowd answers are not normally distributed, we choose Spearman correlation in which only the rank order matters. In the crowd task, workers choose domain similarity on a six-point Likert scale. Given a domain triple (DA, DB, DC), we represent the three choices indicating DA to be more similar to DB than DC as [−2.5, −1.5, −0.5], and DA to be more similar to DC than DB as [0.5, 1.5, 2.5]. For each annotation task, we average the answers received by the three annotators that performed it. In contrast, Tomea computes scores for a domain pair. To compare Tomea's output with the output of the crowd workers, we transform the results of Tomea into the same triples evaluated in the crowd task. To do so, for a domain triple (DA, DB, DC) and a moral element Mi, we compute: S = *m-distance*(DA,DB) Mi− *m-distance*(DA,DC ) Mi As m-distances reflect distance between domains, a negative S indicates that DA is more similar to DB than DC and a positive S indicates that DA is more similar to DC than DB. We correlate S and crowd answers for all 1050 annotated combinations. ## 4.4.2 Out-Of-Domain Performance The d-distances computed by Tomea indicate the similarity between two domains. The more similar the two domains are, the better we expect the outof-domain performance to be. That is, if domains DA and DB are similar, we expect a model trained on DA to have good classification performance on DB, and vice versa. Thus, we evaluate the ddistances by correlating them to the out-of-domain performances of the models, computed by evaluating each model on the remaining six domains. ## 5 Results And Discussion First, we describe the pairwise comparisons resulting from Tomea. Then, we describe the results from the evaluations. Finally, we perform a qualitative analysis to provide fine-grained insights. ## 5.1 Cross-Domain Comparisons For each moral element we perform pairwise comparisons across the seven domains, resulting in 21 m-distances per element. We aggregate the moral lexicons obtained for the ten moral elements to attain seven domain lexicons. We perform pairwise comparisons across the seven domain lexicons to obtain 21 d-distances, which we display in Figure 3 as a 7x7 symmetric matrix. For readability, we show the scores multiplied by 100.  First, we observe that the d-distances have a small magnitude and variation. This is due to the normalization in Equation 1 (the length of the shared vocabulary, n, is in the order of thousands). Second, we intuitively expect the moral rhetoric in the domains ALM and BLM to be relatively similar compared to other domain pairs involving ALM or BLM. The d-distances support this intuition. Third, the BLT and DAV domains have the largest overall distances from the other domains. This can be explained by their label distribution (Table 2), which leads to poor accuracy in predicting moral elements (Liscio et al., 2022a; Huang et al., 2022). As these two domains contain fewer tweets labeled with moral elements, the moral lexicons inferred in these domains are of low quality. This may explain why BLM and BLT, both domains involving protests, do not have a low d-distance. Finally, we caution that the d-distances in Table 3 are aggregated across moral elements. Although the d-distances provide some intuition, the underlying m-distances provide more fine-grained information (Section 5.4 and Appendix C). ## 5.2 Crowd Evaluation Recall that the crowd evaluation consisted of 1050 domain triples and each triple was annotated by three annotators. The resulting Intra-Class Correlation (ICC) between the annotators, an inter-rater reliability (IRR) metric for ordinal data, was 0.66, which can be considered good but not excellent (Hallgren, 2012). This shows that crowd workers did not annotate randomly, but can interpret the moral elements differently. Such subjectivity is inevitable when annotating constructs such as morality (Hoover et al., 2020; Liscio et al., 2022b). We compute the Spearman's rank correlation (ρ) between the crowd annotations and the m-distances as described in Section 4.4.1. Table 4 groups the correlations by domains and moral elements. The mean correlation (without any grouping) is 0.4. | Moral Element | ρ | | | |-----------------------------|-------------|------|------| | Domain | ρ | Care | 0.34 | | Harm | 0.57 | | | | Fairness | 0.74 | | | | Cheating | 0.23 | | | | Loyalty | 0.52 | | | | Betrayal | 0.63 | | | | Authority | 0.20 | | | | Subversion | 0.51 | | | | Purity | -0.05 | | | | Degradation | 0.35 | | | | Average | 0.4 ± 0.24 | | | | (b) Correlation by element. | | | | | ALM | 0.38 | | | | BLT | 0.31 | | | | BLM | 0.43 | | | | DAV | 0.50 | | | | ELE | 0.39 | | | | MT | 0.42 | | | | SND | 0.31 | | | | Average | 0.39 ± 0.07 | | | | (a) Correlation by domain. | | | | We make two observations. First, despite the subjectivity and complexity in comparing moral lexicons, Tomea's results are positively and moderately correlated with human judgment. This shows that Tomea can quantify the differences in how moral elements are represented across domains. Second, although the agreement between Tomea and humans is consistent across domains, there are large variations across moral elements—spanning strong (e.g., *fairness*), weak (e.g., *authority*), and negligible (e.g., *purity*) correlations. Although the lack of annotations for some moral elements in the corpus has likely influenced these results, such variations cannot be solely explained by the label imbalance. In fact, there is only a weak correlation (ρ = 0.24) between the average number of annotations of a moral element across domains (Table 2) and the results in Table 4b. Thus, we conjecture that other factors influence these variations. On the one hand, some moral elements could be more difficult to identify in text than others (Araque et al., 2020; Kennedy et al., 2021). On the other hand, a strong correlation for a moral element could suggest clear differences in representing that element across domains, which both humans and Tomea recognize. Instead, a weak correlation indicates that the agreement between Tomea and humans is almost random, which could suggest that the differences across domains are small or hard to identify. ## 5.3 Out-Of-Domain Performance To compare the domain lexicons, we compare the d-distances to the out-of-domain performance of the models (Section 4.4.2). Table 5 shows the outof-domain macro F1-scores of the models. The rows indicate the domain on which the model was trained, and the columns indicate the domain on which the model was evaluated. For each target domain (i.e., each column) we highlight in bold the source domain that performed best. | Target → ALM BLT BLM DAV ELE | MT | SND | | | | | | |--------------------------------|------|-------|------|------|------|------|------| | Source ↓ ALM | - | 48.2 | 83.7 | 11.0 | 68.6 | 61.9 | 61.2 | | BLT | 58.5 | - | 71.6 | 10.7 | 56.2 | 52.2 | 52.7 | | BLM | 74.0 | 49.9 | - | 12.8 | 75.5 | 64.3 | 64.9 | | DAV | 49.3 | 31.7 | 64.5 | - | 37.9 | 40.4 | 37.1 | | ELE | 73.9 | 53.6 | 87.6 | 11.9 | - | 67.0 | 67.5 | | MT | 71.5 | 56.2 | 84.4 | 11.5 | 72.9 | - | 72.3 | | SND | 73.4 | 51.6 | 88.0 | 12.7 | 72.1 | 67.7 | - | We notice that no single domain stands out as the best source for all targets. Thus, the choice of the source domain influences a model's out-ofdomain performance in a target domain. Hence, we investigate whether the distances Tomea computes are indicative of the out-of-domain performances. We find a strong negative correlation (ρ = −0.79) between the d-distances in Table 3 and the out-of-domain F1-scores in Table 5. Thus, the smaller the d-distance between domains, the higher the out-of-domain performance. This demonstrates that Tomea can provide valuable insights on the out-of-domain performance of a model. To scrutinize this result further, we group the correlations by domain in Table 6. There is a moderate to strong negative correlation in all domains except BLT and DAV. We believe that these exceptions are because of the label imbalance and poor model performance in these two domains mentioned in Section 5.1. ALM BLT BLM DAV ELE MT SND ρ -1.0 0.43 -0.89 0.31 -0.71 -0.83 -0.54 Table 6: Correlation between Tomea results and out-ofdomain performance of the models, divided by domain. ## 5.4 Qualitative Analysis In addition to quantitative analyses, Tomea enables deep qualitative analyses of the moral expression across domains. In this section, we show examples of (1) words that have high impact on the same moral element across domains, (2) words that have largely different impact on the same moral element across domains, and (3) words that have relatively high impact on two different moral elements in two different domains. Then, we show an example procedure for analyzing the differences between two domains. All lexicon values indicated in these analyses are normalized using the z-score. First, Tomea can detect words that have a high impact on a moral element across domains. For example, the word 'equality' has high impact on fairness in both ALM (21.9) and BLM (27.7) domains; similarly, the word 'fraudulent' has high impact on *cheating* in both domains (22.6 for ALM and 16.0 for BLM). Such consistencies with a large number of words shared between the domains show a consistent moral rhetoric across the domains. Second, Tomea can detect words whose impact on a moral element largely varies across domains. This information offers a qualitative perspective on the domain dependency of moral elements. For example, ALM and BLM are two of the most similar domains (Table 3). Yet, Tomea indicates that the word 'treason' has a relatively low impact on the moral element of *betrayal* in ALM (2.6) but a considerably higher impact in BLM (24.6); similarly, the word 'brotherhood' has a high impact on *purity* in ALM (26.9) but a comparably lower impact in BLM (8.3). Another interesting comparison can be found between the SND and BLT domains, where the word 'embarrassing' has negligible impact on *degradation* in SND (-0.1) but a high impact in BLT (27.2). These differences can be explained by anecdotal knowledge—that is, the word 'embarrassing' is not relevant for *degradation* in the Hurricane Sandy relief domain, but it is more relevant in the domain of the Baltimore protests. Third, Tomea can indicate how a word's impact can vary across moral elements, depending on the domain. For example, the word 'crook' has comparable impacts on *cheating* in the ELE domain (3.1) and on *degradation* in the MT domain (3.9); similarly, the word 'looting' has a significant impact on harm in ALM (3.5) and on *cheating* in ELE (6.4). These examples demonstrate why domain is crucial in interpreting the moral meaning of a word. Finally, Tomea facilitates fine-grained comparisons among specific domains of interest. Take ALM and BLM, two very similar domains according to Table 3, for instance. Generally, the mdistances of the moral elements are low for these two domains, as shown in Table 7. However, the m-distances for *authority* and *subversion* are relatively higher than others. We can inspect this further using the moral lexicons generated by Tomea. For example, in *subversion*, words such as 'overthrow' and 'mayhem' have a high impact in ALM, whereas words such as 'encourage' and 'defiance' have a high impact in BLM. This is in line with our intuition that *subversion* has different connotations in the two domains—whereas subversion is negative in ALM, it is instead encouraged in BLM. | Moral Element | m-distance | Moral Element | m-distance | |-----------------|--------------|-----------------|--------------| | Care | 1.62 | Harm | 1.15 | | Fairness | 1.49 | Cheating | 1.30 | | Loyalty | 1.54 | Betrayal | 1.34 | | Authority | 1.80 | Subversion | 1.85 | | Purity | 1.10 | Degradation | 1.30 | Table 7: The m-distances between ALM and BLM. The analyses above are not meant to be exhaustive. We pick examples of moral elements, domains, and words to demonstrate the fine-grained analyses Tomea can facilitate. Our observations, considering that we only analyzed a few examples, may not be significant in themselves. Further, these observations may change with more (or other) data. ## 6 Conclusions And Directions Tomea is a novel method for comparing a text classifier's representation of morality across domains. Tomea offers quantitative measures of similarity in moral rhetoric across moral elements and domains. Further, being an interpretable method, Tomea supports a fine-grained exploration of moral lexicons. Tomea is generalizable over a variety of classification models, domains, and moral constructs. The similarities computed by Tomea positively correlate with human annotations as well as the out-of-domain performance of morality prediction models. Importantly, Tomea can shed light on how domain-specific language conveys morality, e.g., the word 'brotherhood' has a high impact on moral elements in the ALM domain, whereas the word 'treason' has a high impact in the BLM domain. Tomea can be a valuable tool for researchers and practitioners. It can be used to study how a text classifier represents moral rhetoric across personal, situational, and temporal dimensions, and across different types of moral values (Pommeranz et al., 2012; Liscio et al., 2022b). Tomea can support societal applications such as modeling stakeholders' preferences on societal issues (Mouter et al., 2021; Siebert et al., 2022; Liscio et al., 2023), analyzing the impact of events like the COVID-19 pandemic (van de Poel et al., 2022), and predicting violent protests (Mooijman et al., 2018). Finally, Tomea can assist NLP researchers in generating morally aligned text (Ammanabrolu et al., 2022; Bakker et al., 2022) that is domain specific. A key direction to improve Tomea is incorporating refined explanations, e.g., by rule-based inferences (Zhou et al., 2022). Additional distance metrics and normalization procedures may also provide a more accurate lexicon comparison. Finally, the qualitative analysis that we performed could be systematized as a methodology for analysts. ## 7 Ethical Considerations And Limitations There is a growing interest in investigating human morality in text (Russell et al., 2015; Gabriel, 2020). However, like most technologies, morality classification can be misused, especially targeting sensitive features including ethnicity and political orientation (Kalimeri et al., 2019a; Talat et al., 2022). For instance, authorities in non-liberal countries could use Tomea to identify repressed minorities by detecting moral language that diverges from the expected moral rhetoric. Ongoing research is investigating such issues, e.g., by creating methods that mitigate bias and unfairness by design (Dinan et al., 2020; Vargas and Cotterell, 2020). We discuss three main limitations of our analyses related to the corpus we use (MFTC). First, MFTC is composed of English tweets, and we employ a version of BERT that was pre-trained on large-scale English data. Our experiments show that Tomea produces insightful results under these conditions. However, the performance of Tomea with models pre-trained on smaller datasets, e.g., datasets for morphologically richer languages, remains to be investigated. Further, the scalability of Tomea to longer text formats (e.g., news articles) and different mediums of communication (e.g., surveys) is yet to be explored. Second, the tweets in the MFTC were collected using the Twitter API, which only yields public posts. Thus, following Twitter's Terms of Service, deleted content will not be available (limiting the reproducibility of any Twitter-based study). Further, the demographic and cultural distribution of Twitter users may not be representative of the general population, In addition, we required the crowd workers involved in the evaluation to be fluent in English, and their demographic distribution (Appendix B.3) is skewed towards Europe. These factors could possibly lead to the perpetuation of Western values and biases (Mehrabi et al., 2021) in our analyses. Additional experiments are needed to investigate whether Tomea would produce insightful results when applied on a dataset collected on a more extensive slice of the population, with a broader set of linguistical expressions. Third, the MFTC is focused on US-centric topics. However, when recruiting annotators for our crowd evaluation, we did not require familiarity with such topics. Even though the annotators were not exposed to the original tweets but to a processed version of the dataset (i.e., the output of Tomea, see Section 4.4.1), the potential lack of familiarity may have influenced the evaluation results. Finally, we remind that Tomea's d-distances measure how (dis-)similar two domains are, and are thus not a (binary) judgment of (dis-)similarity. Further, two corpora collected in the same domain (e.g., two datasets on BLM protests) will likely not have a d-distance of 0. It is left to the user to judge the similarity of the two corpora, supported by Tomea's quantitative and qualitative metrics. ## Acknowledgments This research was partially supported by the Hybrid Intelligence Center, a 10-year program funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science through the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. Oscar Araque acknowledges the funding by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement 962547 (PARTICIPATION). ## References Tareq Al-Moslmi, Nazlia Omar, Salwani Abdullah, and Mohammed Albared. 2017. Approaches to CrossDomain Sentiment Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review. *IEEE Access*, 5:16173–16192. Milad Alshomary, Roxanne El Baff, Timon Gurcke, and Henning Wachsmuth. 2022. The Moral Debater: A Study on the Computational Generation of Morally Framed Arguments. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL '22, pages 8782–8797, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Liwei Jiang, Maarten Sap, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Aligning to Social Norms and Values in Interactive Narratives. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the* North American Chapter ofthe Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL '22, pages 5994–6017, Seattle, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Oscar Araque, Lorenzo Gatti, and Kyriaki Kalimeri. 2020. MoralStrength: Exploiting a moral lexicon and embedding similarity for moral foundations prediction. *Knowledge-Based Systems*, 191:1–11. Oscar Araque, Lorenzo Gatti, and Kyriaki Kalimeri. 2022. LibertyMFD: A Lexicon to Assess the Moral Foundation of Liberty. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Information Technology for Social Good, GoodIT '22, page 154–160, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Luigi Asprino, Luana Bulla, Stefano De Giorgis, Aldo Gangemi, Ludovica Marinucci, and Misael Mongiovi. 2022. Uncovering values: Detecting latent moral content from natural language with explainable and non-trained methods. In *Proceedings* of Deep Learning Inside Out: The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, DeeLIO '22, pages 33–41, Dublin, Ireland and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mohamed Bahgat, Steven R. Wilson, and Walid Magdy. 2020. Towards Using Word Embedding Vector Space for Better Cohort Analysis. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM '20, pages 919–923, Atlanta, Georgia. AAAI Press. Michiel Bakker, Martin Chadwick, Hannah Sheahan, Michael Tessler, Lucy Campbell-Gillingham, Jan Balaguer, Nat McAleese, Amelia Glaese, John Aslanides, Matt Botvinick, and Christopher Summerfield. 2022. Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferences. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, NeurIPS '22, pages 38176–38189. Curran Associates, Inc. Steven Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2009. Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. O'Reilly Media, Inc. Johan Brännmark. 2015. Moral disunitarianism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 66(264):481–499. Jay Carriere, Hareem Shafi, Katelyn Brehon, Kiran Pohar Manhas, Katie Churchill, Chester Ho, and Mahdi Tavakoli. 2021. Case Report: Utilizing AI and NLP to Assist with Healthcare and Rehabilitation During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4(2):1–7. Francisco Charte, Antonio J. Rivera, María J. del Jesus, and Francisco Herrera. 2015. Addressing imbalance in multilabel classification: Measures and random resampling algorithms. *Neurocomputing*, 163:3–16. Marina Danilevsky, Kun Qian, Ranit Aharonov, Yannis Katsis, Ban Kawas, and Prithviraj Sen. 2020. A Survey of the State of Explainable AI for Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, AACL '20, page 447–459, Suzhou, China. Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, Michael Macy, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Language. In *Proceedings of the 11th International Conference* on Web and Social Media, ICWSM '17, pages 512– 515. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, NAACL '19, page 4171–4186. Janis L Dickinson, Poppy McLeod, Robert Bloomfield, and Shorna Allred. 2016. Which moral foundations predict willingness to make lifestyle changes to avert climate change in the USA? *PLoS ONE*, 11(10):1– 11. Emily Dinan, Angela Fan, Ledell Wu, Jason Weston, Douwe Kiela, and Adina Williams. 2020. MultiDimensional Gender Bias Classification. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, EMNLP '20, pages 314–331. Denis Emelin, Ronan Le Bras, Jena D. Hwang, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2021. Moral Stories: Situated Reasoning about Norms, Intents, Actions, and their Consequences. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP '21, pages 698–718, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maxwell Forbes, Jena D. Hwang, Vered Shwartz, Maarten Sap, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Social Chemistry 101: Learning to Reason about Social and Moral Norms. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP '20, pages 653–670, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dean Fulgoni, Jordan Carpenter, Lyle Ungar, and Daniel Preo¸tiuc-Pietro. 2016. An empirical exploration of moral foundations theory in partisan news sources. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC '16, pages 3730–3736. Iason Gabriel. 2020. Artificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment. *Minds and Machines*, 30(3):411– 437. Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, Sena Koleva, Matt Motyl, Ravi Iyer, Sean P. Wojcik, and Peter H. Ditto. 2013. Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism. In *Advances in Experimental Social Psychology*, volume 47, pages 55–130. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian A. Nosek. 2009. Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations. *Journal of Personality* and Social Psychology, 96(5):1029–1046. Kevin A. Hallgren. 2012. Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial. *Tutor Quant Methods Psychol*, 8(1):23–34. William L. Hamilton, Kevin Clark, Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. 2016. Inducing Domain-Specific Sentiment Lexicons from Unlabeled Corpora. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, EMNLP '16, pages 595–605, Austin, Texas, USA. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andrew Critch, Jerry Li, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Aligning AI With Shared Human Values. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR '21, pages 1– 29. Patrick L. Hill and Daniel K. Lapsley. 2009. Persons and situations in the moral domain. *Journal of Research in Personality*, 43(2):245–246. Joe Hoover, Gwenyth Portillo-Wightman, Leigh Yeh, Shreya Havaldar, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Ying Lin, Brendan Kennedy, Mohammad Atari, Zahra Kamel, Madelyn Mendlen, Gabriela Moreno, Christina Park, Tingyee E. Chang, Jenna Chin, Christian Leong, Jun Yen Leung, Arineh Mirinjian, and Morteza Dehghani. 2020. Moral Foundations Twitter Corpus: A Collection of 35k Tweets Annotated for Moral Sentiment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8):1057–1071. Xiaolei Huang, Alexandra Wormley, and Adam Cohen. 2022. Learning to Adapt Domain Shifts of Moral Values via Instance Weighting. In *Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on Hypertext and* Social Media, HT '22, pages 121–131. Association for Computing Machinery. Kyriaki Kalimeri, Mariano G. Beiró, Matteo Delfino, Robert Raleigh, and Ciro Cattuto. 2019a. Predicting demographics, moral foundations, and human values from digital behaviours. Computers in Human Behavior, 92:428–445. Kyriaki Kalimeri, Mariano G. Beiró, Alessandra Urbinati, Andrea Bonanomi, Alessandro Rosina, and Ciro Cattuto. 2019b. Human values and attitudes towards vaccination in social media. In *Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web* Conference, WWW '19, pages 248–254. Brendan Kennedy, Mohammad Atari, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Joe Hoover, Ali Omrani, Jesse Graham, and Morteza Dehghani. 2021. Moral Concerns are Differentially Observable in Language. *Cognition*, 212:104696. Johannes Kiesel, Milad Alshomary, Nicolas Handke, Xiaoni Cai, Henning Wachsmuth, and Benno Stein. 2022. Identifying the Human Values behind Arguments. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, ACL '22, pages 4459–4471, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ilir Kola, Ralvi Isufaj, and Catholijn M. Jonker. 2022. Does Personalization Help? Predicting How Social Situations Affect Personal Values. In *HHAI2022:* Augmenting Human Intellect, pages 157–169. Alex Gwo Jen Lan and Ivandré Paraboni. 2022. Textand author-dependent moral foundations classification. *New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia*, 0(0):1–21. Enrico Liscio, Alin E. Dondera, Andrei Geadau, Catholijn M. Jonker, and Pradeep K. Murukannaiah. 2022a. Cross-Domain Classification of Moral Values. In *Findings of the 2022 Conference of the North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, NAACL '22, pages 2727–2745, Seattle, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Enrico Liscio, Roger Lera-Leri, Filippo Bistaffa, Roel I.J. Dobbe, Catholijn M. Jonker, Maite LopezSanchez, Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar, and Pradeep K. Murukannaiah. 2023. Value inference in sociotechnical systems: Blue sky ideas track. In *Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems*, AAMAS '23, pages 1–7, London, United Kingdom. IFAAMAS. Enrico Liscio, Michiel van der Meer, Luciano C. Siebert, Catholijn M. Jonker, and Pradeep K. Murukannaiah. 2022b. What Values Should an Agent Align With? *Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent* Systems, 36(23):32. Ninghao Liu, Xiao Huang, Jundong Li, and Xia Hu. 2018. On interpretation of network embedding via taxonomy induction. In *Proceedings of the ACM* SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '18, pages 1812– 1820. ACM. Nicholas Lourie, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2021. UNICORN on RAINBOW: A Universal Commonsense Reasoning Model on a New Multitask Benchmark. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI '21, pages 13480–13488. Scott M. Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In booktitle = Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems,, NeurIPS '17, pages 1208–1217, Long Beach, CA, USA. Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. 2021. A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6). Omid Mohamad Beigi and Mohammad H. Moattar. 2021. Automatic construction of domain-specific sentiment lexicon for unsupervised domain adaptation and sentiment classification. Knowledge-Based Systems, 213:106423. Marlon Mooijman, Joe Hoover, Ying Lin, Heng Ji, and Morteza Dehghani. 2018. Moralization in social networks and the emergence of violence during protests. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(6):389–396. Niek Mouter, Jose Ignacio Hernandez, and Anatol Valerian Itten. 2021. Public Participation in Crisis Policymaking. How 30,000 Dutch Citizens Advised Their Government on Relaxing COVID-19 Lockdown Measures. *PLoS ONE*, 16(5):1–42. Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, and Siva Reddy. 2021. StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL '21, pages 5356–5371, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matheus C. Pavan, Vitor G. Santos, Alex G. J. Lan, Joao Martins, Wesley Ramos Santos, Caio Deutsch, Pablo B. Costa, Fernando C. Hsieh, and Ivandre Paraboni. 2020. Morality Classification in Natural Language Text. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3045(c):1–8. Alina Pommeranz, Christian Detweiler, Pascal Wiggers, and Catholijn M. Jonker. 2012. Elicitation of Situated Values: Need for Tools to Help Stakeholders and Designers to Reflect and Communicate. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(4):285–303. Vladimir Ponizovskiy, Murat Ardag, Lusine Grigoryan, Ryan Boyd, Henrik Dobewall, and Peter Holtz. 2020. Development and Validation of the Personal Values Dictionary: A Theory-Driven Tool for Investigating References to Basic Human Values in Text. *European Journal of Personality*, 34(5):885–902. Reid Pryzant, Kelly Shen, Dan Jurafsky, and Stefan Wager. 2018. Deconfounded Lexicon Induction for Interpretable Social Science. In *Proceedings of* the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, NAACL '18, pages 1615–1625, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Liang Qiu, Yizhou Zhao, Jinchao Li, Pan Lu, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Song-Chun Zhu. 2022. ValueNet: A New Dataset for Human Value Driven Dialogue System. In *Proceedings of the 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, AAAI '22, pages 11183–11191. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '16, pages 1135–1144. Stuart J. Russell, Daniel Dewey, and Max Tegmark. 2015. Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligence. *AI Magazine*, 36(4):105– 114. Chelsea Schein. 2020. The Importance of Context in Moral Judgments. *Perspectives on Psychological* Science, 15(2):207–215. Shalom H. Schwartz. 2012. An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1):1–20. Luciano C. Siebert, Enrico Liscio, Pradeep K. Murukannaiah, Lionel Kaptein, Shannon L. Spruit, Jeroen van den Hoven, and Catholijn M. Jonker. 2022. Estimating Value Preferences in a Hybrid Participatory System. In *HHAI2022: Augmenting* Human Intellect, pages 114–127, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. IOS Press. Zeerak Talat, Hagen Blix, Josef Valvoda, Maya Indira Ganesh, Ryan Cotterell, and Adina Williams. 2022. On the Machine Learning of Ethical Judgments from Natural Language. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, NAACL '22, pages 769–779, Seattle, USA. Mario Triola. 2017. *Elementary Statistics*, 13th edition. Pearsons. Ibo van de Poel, Tristan de Wildt, and Dyami van Kooten Pássaro. 2022. COVID-19 and Changing Values. In *Values for a Post-Pandemic Future*, pages 23–58. Springer International Publishing. Francisco Vargas and Ryan Cotterell. 2020. Exploring the Linear Subspace Hypothesis in Gender Bias Mitigation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP '20, pages 2902–2913. Jose Vargas Quiros, Stephanie Tan, Chirag Raman, Laura Cabrera-Quiros, and Hayley Hung. 2022. Covfee: an extensible web framework for continuous-time annotation of human behavior. In Understanding Social Behavior in Dyadic and Small Group Interactions, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 265–293. PMLR. Andrew Wen, Sunyang Fu, Sungrim Moon, Mohamed El Wazir, Andrew Rosenbaum, Vinod C. Kaggal, Sijia Liu, Sunghwan Sohn, Hongfang Liu, and Jungwei Fan. 2019. Desiderata for delivering NLP to accelerate healthcare AI advancement and a Mayo Clinic NLP-as-a-service implementation. *npj Digital Medicine*, 2(130):1–7. Garrett Wilson and Diane J. Cook. 2020. A Survey of Unsupervised Deep Domain Adaptation. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 11(5). Steven R. Wilson, Yiting Shen, and Rada Mihalcea. 2018. Building and Validating Hierarchical Lexicons with a Case Study on Personal Values. In *Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Informatics*, SocInfo '18, pages 455–470, St. Petersburg, Russia. Springer. Fangzhao Wu and Yongfeng Huang. 2016. Sentiment domain adaptation with multiple sources. In *Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, ACL '16, pages 301–310, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yilun Zhou, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Julie Shah. 2022. Exsum: From local explanations to model understanding. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL '22, pages 5359–5378, Seattle, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Experimental Details We provide here all the information needed for reproducing our experimental results. Code and the complete set of results are provided as supplemental material. The models cannot be shared due to upload size limit, thus will be shared at publication. ## A.1 Data Preprocessing We preprocess the tweets by removing URLs, emails, usernames and mentions. Next, we employ the Ekphrasis package3to correct common spelling mistakes and unpack contractions. Finally, emojis are transformed into their respective words using the Python Emoji package4. ## A.2 Hyperparameters | Hyperparameters | Options | |----------------------|----------------------| | Model name | bert-base-uncased | | Number of parameters | 110M | | Max sequence length | 64 | | Epochs | 2, 3, 5 | | Batch size | 16, 32, 64 | | Dropout | 0.05, 0.1, 0.02 | | Optimizer | AdamW | | Learning Rate | 5*10-5 | | Loss function | Binary Cross Entropy | To select the hyperparameters, we trained and evaluated the model on the entire MFTC corpus with 10-fold cross-validation. Table A1 shows the hyperparameters that were compared in this setting, highlighting in bold the best performing option that we then used in the experiments described in the paper. If a parameter is not present in the table, the default value supplied by the framework was used. Table A1: Hyperparameters tested and selected. ## A.3 Model Training As introduced in Section 4.2, we trained seven models on the seven domains of the MFTC, respectively. Each model was first trained on the remaining six domains, and then continued training on the domain under analysis. The training on the seventh domain was performed on 90% of the domain, leaving 10% out for evaluation. Table A2 shows the performances of the models on the domains portions left out for evaluation. 3https://github.com/cbaziotis/ ekphrasis $$\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathrm{{^{4}h t t t p s://p y p i.org/project/emo j i/}}}^{\mathrm{{^{4}h t t t p s://p y p i.org/project/emo j i/}}}$$ Table A2: Models performance (macro F1-score). ## A.4 Computing Infrastructure | ALM BLT BLM DAV ELE | MT | SND | | | | | | |-----------------------|------|-------|------|-----|------|------|------| | F1-score | 70.3 | 32.1 | 85.3 | 8.7 | 64.8 | 62.3 | 53.9 | The following are the main libraries and computing environment used in our experiments. - PyTorch: 1.8.1 - Hugginface's Transformers: 4.6.0 - NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU - CUDA: 11.2 - cuDNN: 8.1.1.33 ## - Shap: 0.40.0 We spent 7 GPU hours to train the seven models used in the experiments. We spent 70 CPU hours to generate the moral lexicons. ## A.5 Random Seeds In our experiments, to control for randomness, we fixed the random seeds in the following libraries: - Python (random.seed) - NumPy (numpy.random.seed) - PyTorch (torch.manual_seed) - CUDA (torch.cuda. manual_seed_all) ## A.6 Artifacts Usage We have mainly used three artifacts in this research: the MFTC (Hoover et al., 2020), SHAP (Lundberg and Lee, 2017), and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). The MFTC was collected with the intent of facilitating NLP research on morality. It can be downloaded5and used under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. SHAP was intended to explain the output of any machine learning model. Thus, we are using it as originally intended, under its MIT license6. BERT was created with the intent of performing, among others, text classification. Thus, we are using it as originally intended, under its Apache 2.0 distribution license7. 5https://osf.io/k5n7y/ 6https://github.com/slundberg/shap/ blob/master/LICENSE 7https://github.com/google-research/ bert/blob/master/LICENSE ## B Crowd Evaluation Section 4.4.1 introduces the crowd experiment. We first opened a pilot annotation job on Prolific for nine users with an expected completion time of 25 minutes. The average completion time was 21 minutes and the average ICC 0.61. These results encouraged us to proceed with the rest of the experiment. Ultimately, the average time spent by a crowd worker on a job was 22 minutes (± 12 minutes SD). Each worker was paid £3.75 (at the rate of £9/h as per Prolific suggestion of fair retribution). ## B.1 Annotation Job Layout Upon taking the annotation job on Prolific, workers were redirected to a web application hosted on our servers. Here, after accepting the informed consent form, they were asked demographic questions and then were given a brief introduction to the annotation tasks and the moral elements involved. Informed consent form, instructions, and all word bubbles are provided as supplemental material. Figure B2 shows an example of an annotation task. In each individual task, annotators needed to indicate whether the word bubble describing domain DA was more similar to the one describing domain DB or DC. The annotators were given the following six options on a Likert scale: 1. A is clearly more similar to B (than to C) 2. A is more similar to B (than to C) 3. A is slightly more similar to B (than to C) 4. A is slightly more similar to C (than to B) 5. A is more similar to C (than to B) 6. A is clearly more similar to C (than to B) After the initial instructions, each annotator was guided through four sections. Each section contained five tasks where all word bubbles were generated for the same moral element (but multiple different domains), plus one control task (as described in Section B.2). Before each section, the annotator was introduced to the moral element concerned in the following section. Thus, each annotator was introduced to four different moral elements. These elements were chosen from two different moral foundations, for a total of two moral foundations per annotator. For instance, one annotation job could be composed of four annotation sections corresponding to the moral elements of care, *harm*, authority, and *subversion*, resulting in 24 annotations tasks (including four control tasks). ## B.2 Quality Control The crowd workers were required to be fluent in English and have submitted at least 100 Prolific jobs with at least 95% acceptance rate. We included four control tasks, one per section. In each, the word bubbles describing DA and DB were identical, and different from the word bubble describing DC. A total of 186 workers completed the job. Using the Likert options enumeration introduced in Section B.1, we included a worker's job in our analysis only if (1) all four control tasks were answered with options 1, 2, or 3; and (2) at least two control tasks were answered with options 1 or 2. These criteria were set before any analysis of crowd work was done. Of the 186 workers, 159 satisfied the criteria above. ## B.3 User Demographics Upon giving informed consent, workers were asked the following demographic information: - What is your age? - What gender do you identify as? - Where is your home located? - What is the highest degree or level or education you have completed? Figure B1 shows the demographics of the 159 users whose submissions were considered in the study.   The following word bubbles describe the moral concept of care. Please indicate whether the word bubble A is more similar to the word bubble B or C. Please make sure to read all the words in the bubbles. ## C Extended Results C.1 M**-Distances** In Table 3 we show the d-distances describing the distance between domains. In tables C1a to C1j we display the m-distances describing the distance between domains for each moral element. For readability, we show the scores multiplied by 100. The most apparent consideration is that moral expression similarity is not consistent across domains, but rather depends on the moral element under analysis. In Section 5.4 we provide examples on how to explore such fine-grained differences across domains. On top of the explored cases, another insightful example is represented by two domains that ranked with a higher distance, ALM and SND. Nevertheless, the domains ranked relatively more similar in the *care* element. Let us inspect closely the moral lexicons generated for *care* for ALM and SND. At first, we notice some differences, such as the words 'rescue' and 'donation' that are specific to the SND domain, being especially relevant in a hurricane relief domain. However, we also notice many similarities, such as the words 'protect' and 'compassion', typical for describing in-group care. ## C.2 Correlation By Domain And Element Table C2 shows the Spearman correlation (ρ) by moral element and domain. We notice that ρ is generally consistent across moral elements—for instance, the elements of *fairness* and *betrayal* have the highest ρ, while *purity* have the lowest. However, there are some exceptions. SND has a comparatively low ρ for *harm*, and MT for *subversion*, despite having a large number of annotations (Table 2). A possible reason is that the expression of these elements in these domains is less domain specific than in other domains, leading to lower ρ with crowd intuition. Instead, DAV has a high ρ for harm and *betrayal*. This can be explained by the nature of the domain (hate speech), which would lead to highly specific lexicons for these elements. ALM BLT BLM DAV ELE MT SND    ALM - 1.66 1.62 2.28 1.72 1.51 1.43 BLT 1.66 - 1.68 1.13 1.70 1.62 1.53 BLM 1.62 1.68 - 1.28 1.41 1.98 1.80 DAV 2.28 1.13 1.28 - 1.67 1.96 2.26 ELE 1.72 1.70 1.41 1.67 - 1.82 1.64 MT 1.51 1.62 1.98 1.96 1.82 - 1.61 SND 1.43 1.53 1.80 2.26 1.64 1.61 - (a) m-distances for the *care* element. ALM BLT BLM DAV ELE MT SND    ALM - 2.17 1.49 2.21 1.65 1.66 1.86 BLT 2.17 - 2.34 2.24 1.96 1.98 2.09 BLM 1.49 2.34 - 2.22 1.67 1.82 1.93 DAV 2.21 2.24 2.22 - 2.14 2.17 2.49 ELE 1.65 1.96 1.67 2.14 - 1.58 1.66 MT 1.66 1.98 1.82 2.17 1.58 - 1.73 SND 1.86 2.09 1.93 2.49 1.66 1.73 - (c) m-distances for the *fairness* element. ALM BLT BLM DAV ELE MT SND   ALM - 1.58 1.54 2.46 1.93 2.01 1.96 BLT 1.58 - 1.82 1.36 1.65 1.91 1.73 BLM 1.54 1.82 - 2.35 1.60 1.55 1.99 DAV 2.46 1.36 2.35 - 2.40 2.40 2.75 ELE 1.93 1.65 1.60 2.40 - 1.30 1.68 MT 2.01 1.91 1.55 2.40 1.30 - 1.59 SND 1.96 1.73 1.99 2.75 1.68 1.59 - (e) m-distances for the *loyalty* element. ALM BLT BLM DAV ELE MT SND    ALM - 2.18 1.80 2.21 2.02 1.87 2.00 BLT 2.18 - 2.20 2.31 1.67 1.75 1.65 BLM 1.80 2.20 - 1.81 1.80 1.62 1.79 DAV 2.21 2.31 1.81 - 1.61 2.06 1.82 ELE 2.02 1.67 1.80 1.61 - 1.77 1.63 MT 1.87 1.75 1.62 2.06 1.77 - 1.58 SND 2.00 1.65 1.79 1.82 1.63 1.58 - (g) m-distances for the *authority* element. ALM BLT BLM DAV ELE MT SND        ALM - 1.45 1.15 2.48 1.26 1.23 1.12 BLT 1.45 - 1.44 1.85 1.34 1.33 1.38 BLM 1.15 1.44 - 2.19 1.17 1.14 1.06 DAV 2.48 1.85 2.19 - 1.69 2.15 2.11 ELE 1.26 1.34 1.17 1.69 - 1.11 1.11 MT 1.23 1.33 1.14 2.15 1.11 - 1.02 SND 1.12 1.38 1.06 2.11 1.11 1.02 - (b) m-distances for the *harm* element. ALM BLT BLM DAV ELE MT SND        ALM - 1.82 1.30 2.06 1.34 1.60 1.62 BLT 1.82 - 1.84 1.79 1.63 1.62 1.75 BLM 1.30 1.84 - 2.09 1.24 1.35 1.44 DAV 2.06 1.79 2.09 - 2.06 1.98 2.31 ELE 1.34 1.63 1.24 2.06 - 1.23 1.35 MT 1.60 1.62 1.35 1.98 1.23 - 1.47 SND 1.62 1.75 1.44 2.31 1.35 1.47 - (d) m-distances for the *cheating* element. ALM BLT BLM DAV ELE MT SND        ALM - 2.02 1.34 1.75 1.19 1.21 1.13 BLT 2.02 - 1.92 2.04 1.56 1.84 1.73 BLM 1.34 1.92 - 1.69 0.85 1.12 0.90 DAV 1.75 2.04 1.69 - 1.56 1.73 1.61 ELE 1.19 1.56 0.85 1.56 - 1.05 0.87 MT 1.21 1.84 1.12 1.73 1.05 - 0.88 SND 1.13 1.73 0.90 1.61 0.87 0.88 - (f) m-distances for the *betrayal* element. ALM BLT BLM DAV ELE MT SND       ALM - 2.10 1.85 2.48 1.84 2.17 2.30 BLT 2.10 - 1.98 2.12 1.87 1.78 1.66 BLM 1.85 1.98 - 2.30 1.61 2.05 2.05 DAV 2.48 2.12 2.30 - 2.11 2.00 2.35 ELE 1.84 1.87 1.61 2.11 - 1.72 1.63 MT 2.17 1.78 2.05 2.00 1.72 - 1.84 SND 2.30 1.66 2.05 2.35 1.63 1.84 - (h) m-distances for the *subversion* element.       ALM - 1.44 1.30 1.65 1.34 1.94 1.03 BLT 1.44 - 1.27 1.77 1.11 1.47 1.40 BLM 1.30 1.27 - 1.89 1.38 1.61 1.21 DAV 1.65 1.77 1.89 - 1.77 2.40 1.44 ELE 1.34 1.11 1.38 1.77 - 1.60 1.09 MT 1.94 1.47 1.61 2.40 1.60 - 1.76 SND 1.03 1.40 1.21 1.44 1.09 1.76 -  Table C1: m-distances for the ten moral elements. Darker color indicates smaller distance between domains.  ## C.3 Qualitative Analysis In Section 5.4 we suggest methods for qualitatively comparing moral rhetoric across domains. In particular, we show similarities and differences between two domains, ALM and BLM. These are among the most similar domains for the moral elements of *fairness* (Table C1c) and *cheating* (Table C1d). For both domains, the words 'equality' and 'fraud' are among the most impactful words for the two elements, respectively. In Table C3 we show examples of tweets where these words are used, in order to provide additional context on their usage. | Tweet | Domain | Label | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------| | Equality is key. | #AllLivesMatter | | | pray over everyone. Cherish your life cause today you never know | ALM | fairness | | Praying for Justice and equality | BLM | fairness | | Of course #AllLivesMatter Shep, you self righteous, dangerously politically correct fraud posing as a fair journalist. | ALM | cheating | | Shaun King is/was a fraud and a liar and deserved to be outed as such. #BlackLivesMatter deserves better. | BLM | cheating | Table C3: Examples of tweets with similar moral rhetoric in the ALM and BLM domains. On the other hand, ALM and BLM differ in the moral element of *subversion* (Table C1h). Here, words such as 'overthrow' and 'mayhem' have high impact in ALM, whereas words such as 'encourage' and 'defiance' have high impact in BLM. In Table C4 we show examples of tweets where these words are used, in order to provide additional context on their usage. | Tweet | Domain | Label | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|------------| | I am a proponent of civil disobedience and logic driven protest only; not non irrational violence, pillage & mayhem! | ALM | subversion | | For those who try to confuse acts of defiance with deliberate acts of racist terrorism, we pray | BLM | subversion | Table C4: Examples of tweets with different moral rhetoric in the ALM and BLM domains. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 7 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4 And Appendix A ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Sections 2, 3, 4, Appendix A ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix A6 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Appendix A6 ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? The data was collected by Hoover et al. (2020), see Section 4.1. In their paper they discuss the anonimization and filtering process. We further process the tweets by removing URLs, emails, usernames and mentions, as described in Appendix A1. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Details of the artifacts we use are provided by the original authors of MFTC (Hoover et al., 2020) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4.2 and Appendix A3 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4 And Appendix A ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix A2 and A4 ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A2 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Appendix A3 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 3.2 and Appendix A ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Section 4,5, Appendix B ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix B1 and supplemental material (data) ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 4.4.1 and Appendix B ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Appendix B and supplemental material (data) ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Section 4.4.1 and supplemental material (data) ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Appendix B3

liang-etal-2023-graph

Graph-based Relation Mining for Context-free Out-of-vocabulary Word Embedding Learning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.790

The out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words are difficult to represent while critical to the performance of embedding-based downstream models. Prior OOV word embedding learning methods failed to model complex word formation well. In this paper, we propose a novel graph-based relation mining method, namely GRM, for OOV word embedding learning. We first build a Word Relationship Graph (WRG) based on word formation and associate OOV words with their semantically relevant words, which can mine the relational information inside word structures. Subsequently, our GRM can infer high-quality embeddings for OOV words through passing and aggregating semantic attributes and relational information in the WRG, regardless of contextual richness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our model significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on both intrinsic and downstream tasks when faced with OOV words.

# Graph-Based Relation Mining For Context-Free Out-Of-Vocabulary Word Embedding Learning Ziran Liang and **Yuyin Lu** and **Hegang Chen** and **Yanghui Rao**∗ School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China {liangzr5,luyy37,chenhg25}@mail2.sysu.edu.cn, raoyangh@mail.sysu.edu.cn ## Abstract The out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words are difficult to represent while critical to the performance of embedding-based downstream models. Prior OOV word embedding learning methods failed to model complex word formation well. In this paper, we propose a novel graph-based relation mining method, namely GRM, for OOV word embedding learning. We first build a Word Relationship Graph (WRG) based on word formation and associate OOV words with their semantically relevant words, which can mine the relational information inside word structures. Subsequently, our GRM can infer high-quality embeddings for OOV words through passing and aggregating semantic attributes and relational information in the WRG, regardless of contextual richness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our model significantly outperforms state-of-theart baselines on both intrinsic and downstream tasks when faced with OOV words. ## 1 Introduction Pre-trained word embedding models, such as Word2Vec (Mikolov et al., 2013) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), can not only boost the performance of downstream tasks but also accelerate the convergence of downstream models (Kuratov and Arkhipov, 2019; Kao and Lee, 2021). However, in real-world scenarios, the pre-trained models trained with generic large-scaled corpora may encounter a lot of words never seen before in downstream tasks due to domain specificity. These outof-vocabulary (OOV) words rarely appear, resulting in a scarcity of their contexts, while traditional word embedding methods require a large number of contexts to learn high-quality word embeddings (Herbelot and Baroni, 2017). The OOV words may cause a dramatic performance degradation in downstream tasks because of their poor word embeddings (Nayak et al., 2020; Schick and Schütze, ∗The corresponding author. 2020; Won et al., 2021), which leads to the OOV problem. Thus, it is vital to explore an effective way of learning high-quality OOV word embeddings in natural language processing. Traditional methods for tackling the OOV problem injected sub-units of words into the training process of pre-trained word embedding models to get the sub-unit embeddings and then calculated the OOV word embedding as a summation of them (Bojanowski et al., 2017; Cao et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019). These methods require training from scratch, which are time consuming. To save computing resources, two categories of methods have been proposed. Methods in the first category attempted to fully utilize limited contextual information carried by OOV words directly without modifying the training process of background models (Garneau et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2019; Schick and Schütze, 2019). These methods are often lightweight, but they cannot deal with some frequently occurring situations where the OOV words are extremely context-less. To break the limitation of contexts, methods in the other category learned word embeddings for OOV words through fine-grained sub-units or morphemes to model word formation implicitly without using contexts (Pinter et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2022). However, the word formation can be complex and highly internally structured (Anderson, 1992), rendering simple simulations cannot represent the word formation well. In the situation of context absence, it's meaningful to utilize word formation for OOV words since most language vocabularies are derived from the creation of new words on the basis of old ones (Denison, 1997; Josefsson, Gunlög, 1997). Intuitively, humans can guess the meaning of an OOV word based on its complex word formation and association with similar words, as shown in Figure 1. However, the measures of word formation are varied, and the relationships inside word struc14133  tures are sophisticated. Taking this into account, we introduce a *Word Relationship Graph* (WRG) to imitate word formation and word association for better capturing the relational information of word-internal structure, which logically simulates human learning habits when facing an OOV word. In light of these considerations, we propose a Graph-based Relation Mining (GRM) model on the basis of WRG to learn embeddings for OOV words without contexts, which can help mine the relational information about complex word formation. Our method can also explore additional semantic information by associating each OOV word with its relevant words. To achieve these, we transport and incorporate relational information and semantic attributes by *Graph Neural Network* (GNN). Noteworthy, we use the graph structure to find more reasonable positive sample pairs for contrastive learning, forcing every node embedding to be more informative. The contributions of our work can be summarized as follows: - We develop a WRG which is built upon the rules of word formation. The graph structure can mine the relational information of wordinternal structure and associate OOV words with semantically relevant words, which is in line with human study habits. - We present a generic approach that incorporates both relational information and semantic attributes by GNN in word embedding learning. Furthermore, we select rational positive sample pairs for contrastive learning by utilizing graph structure. - Our GRM model achieves state-of-the-art results on various evaluation metrics and largely improves the performance of static and contextual word embedding models on downstream tasks. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Context-Based Out-Of-Vocabulary Word Embedding Learning The occurrence of OOV words is often accompanied by data scarcity of contexts. Traditional methods for OOV word embedding learning integrated the word formation information into the training process of pre-trained models and they were trained from scratch (Bojanowski et al., 2017; Cao et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019; Boukkouri et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2021), which consumed considerable computational resources and time costs. To address this problem, some methods attempted to make full use of the limited contextual information carried by OOV words, which is valuable for learning OOV word embeddings. Herbelot and Baroni (2017) and Kabbach et al. (2019) adopted a high-risk learning rate strategy, while Hu et al. (2019) took a few-shot learning pattern to fit the tiny data situation. Besides, some works employed the attention mechanism to emphasize important and informative contexts (Garneau et al., 2018; Schick and Schütze, 2019). These methods were often lightweight since they didn't modify the training process of original models. However, in practice, some OOV words tend to occur in extremely context-less situations, where these methods are hard to work. Furthermore, the data scarcity of contexts may introduce noise to the context-based models easily, which deteriorates their performance. ## 2.2 Context-Free Out-Of-Vocabulary Word Embedding Learning In some cases, the contextual information of OOV words will be extremely scarce. Context-free approaches can tackle this problem easily by learning the word embedding through the OOV word itself. These methods focused mainly on finding correlations between word embedding and word formation. They represented the word form information through characters (Pinter et al., 2017), sub-units (Zhao et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019; Sasaki et al., 2019; Fukuda et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2022), images (Chen et al., 2020a), and so forth. Generally, word formation is complex and cannot be simulated by simply cutting words or imitating the glyph of words. Although these methods try to implicitly model word formation, partial information about the relationships inside the word structures is usually lost. ## 3 Proposed Method Within the existing methods, Mimick (Pinter et al., 2017) used a lightweight post-processing learning paradigm, which attempted to mimic the vector space of a background embedding model for OOV words and can therefore be applied to different types of embedding models. The mimick paradigm sought to maximize the similarity between the inferred embeddings produced by the OOV word embedding model and the original embeddings derived from the background embedding model. We follow this mimick learning paradigm to mine the relational information about word formation. Compared to other data structures, graph structure can model complex data compositions well. Therefore, we construct a WRG to model word formation rules and associate other semantically related words. The relational information and relevant semantic attributes can be transported and aggregated on WRG by GNN. Besides, we utilize graph structure in the process of positive sample pairs selection for contrastive learning, which can provide the flexibility to obtain more reasonable positive sample words. ## 3.1 Word Relationship Graph Construction To better represent word formation rules, we construct a WRG around each OOV word. Firstly, we tokenize all words into sub-units by WordPiece tokenizer (Wu et al., 2016), which allows a sub-unit to retain its entire semantics in the smallest possible unit like a morpheme. We denote the sub-units produced by WordPiece tokenizer as wordpieces in the following. Then, we connect words with the corresponding wordpieces. This connected edge carries position information, which is the position of the wordpiece in the associated word. Finally, we construct a two-layer undirected graph around an OOV word, with its wordpiece in the first layer and relevant words that have the same wordpiece in the second layer. In this way, we simulate the lexical rules of word formation and naturally associate OOV words with the learned semantic relevant words via common morphemes, which allows us to better model word formation in a human learning mindset. To make full use of the graph structure, we treat a word or a wordpiece as a common node ni in the graph and treat the corresponding node attribute hi ∈ Rd as its embedding, where d denotes the dimension of embedding. Besides, we add a self-loop to the OOV word node  ## Itself To Include Its Attributes. After constructing the WRG around each OOV word, we keep all the nodes in the first layer to maintain the entire wordpiece information. As for the second layer, we only sample a fixed number of nodes for training, because a wordpiece node with a lot of neighbors may be noisy. For example, the morpheme ly mainly plays a syntactic role instead of having sufficient semantic information. We therefore set a threshold δsec to limit the number of neighbor nodes in the second layer, which also saves training costs and prevents over-fitting. For simplicity, we just sample the words to leave in the second layer randomly. We show the WRG construction in Figure 2, where Ni denotes the set of neighbor nodes of node ni. ## 3.2 Model Architecture To exploit information contained in the WRG, we choose GNN as the basic learning method. GNN can transmit the attributes of neighbor nodes to node ni via the topology structure, which can act as a low-pass filter to emphasize the connectivity between nodes in the neighborhood field (NT and Maehara, 2019). Following the transmission routes, the attributes of the pre-trained wordpiece nodes and other in-vocabulary word nodes, as well as topological information about the relationships inside the word structures can be fused and passed to the OOV word nodes. It is worth noting that, in the construction of WRG, we connect relevant words with OOV words indirectly via the same wordpiece nodes rather than directly. Thus, GNN primarily uncovers and transports the relationship of word-internal structure. To extract the most important information and reduce the impact of noise neighbor nodes, we choose *Graph Attention Network* (GAT) (Velickovic et al., 2018) as the backbone in this part, which can assign different learning weights to dif-  $$e_{i j}=a(W h_{i},W h_{j}).$$ $$\alpha_{ij}=softmax_{j}(e_{ij})=\frac{exp(e_{ij})}{\sum_{n_{k}\in\mathcal{N}_{i}}exp(e_{ik})},\tag{2}$$ where $e_{ij}$ denotes the attention coefficients, $a$ is a shared attentional mechanism, W is a learnable weight matrix of GAT. Noteworthy, the graph structure will ignore the sequence information of word formation. To alleviate this problem, we add the position embeddings P Eij of the position information carried by the link between ni and nj proposed by Devlin et al. (2019) to the message passing routes of the basic GAT, as follows: $$h_{i}^{l}=\sigma(\sum_{n_{j}\in{\mathcal{N}}_{i}}\alpha_{i j}(W^{l}h_{j}^{l-1}+P E_{i j})),\quad(3)$$ where hli ∈ Rd means the hidden embedding of node ni in layer l, σ(·) denotes the sigmoid activation function at the end of each GAT layer. Then, we can get the node-level representation h*node*i ∈ Rd of node ni by concatenating the initial input with the hidden embedding of each layer and fusing them using a fully connected network FCN(·), which can prevent information loss between network layers, i.e., $$h_{n o d e_{i}}=F C N(h_{i}^{0}\oplus\ldots\oplus h_{i}^{K}),\qquad(4)$$ where K means the total number of network layers. In our model, K = 2, which is consistent with the number of layers in the WRG. $$(1)$$ Initialization for OOV Nodes At the beginning, we need to assign a node attribute to the corresponding node. The node attributes of invocabulary words or wordpieces are initialized as their pre-trained embeddings. However, as for the OOV word nodes, we cannot know their embeddings in advance. Assigning random initialization or all-zero vectors to OOV words may lead to confusion in the attention mechanism, and thus the performance of the networks will deteriorate. To avoid that, we represent an OOV word as a set of characters and get the initial value by characterlevel embeddings. Instead of a simple summation, we use a self-attention network SA(·) (Vaswani et al., 2017) to emphasize the important character components. This operation not only provides a good initialization for the OOV word nodes but also replenishes the serialized textual information of the OOV words. Notably, it provides sufficient information on word formation even in extreme cases where splitting words is unfeasible. Given a series of n characters, {x1, x2*, ..., x*n}, forming a matrix Xin = {x1, x2, ..., xn} ∈ Rn×d, the representation of the OOV node hoov ∈ Rd can be computed as follows: $$h_{o o v}=S A(X_{i n}).$$ $$({\mathfrak{H}})$$ hoov = SA(Xin). (5) Readout Block At this stage, we can get nodelevel representations of all nodes, but it is not enough to obtain a node-level representation for modeling word formation. The formation of a word is composed of its sub-units and the relationships between sub-units and itself. According to the structure of WRG, the wordpiece nodes in the first layer and the connections between wordpiece nodes and OOV word nodes can represent the internal structure of the OOV word. The graph-level representation can summarize and represent the  information of the entire WRG by aggregating the node-level representation with a readout function. A simple one-layer *Graph Convolutional Network* (GCN) (Kipf and Welling, 2017) can satisfy our needs for representing word formation. In addition, based on the theory of Hou et al. (2022), we mask the OOV word node embedding to force GCN to uncover deeper relationships with neighboring nodes. The operation in the readout block can be described as follows: $$h_{g r a p h_{i}}=\sigma(\sum_{n_{j}\in\mathcal{N}_{i}}\frac{1}{c_{i j}}W_{g c n}h_{n o d e_{i}})),\quad\quad(6)$$ where h*graph*i ∈ Rd means a graph-level representation of node ni, Wgcn is a learnable weight matrix of GCN, cij is the normalization factor, σ(·) denotes the sigmoid activation function at the end of the single GCN layer. Noteworthy, the mask operation in the readout block will not discard all information of the node-level representation h*node*, since our graph WRG is an undirected one, which means the information of h*node* will be passed to its neighbors, especially for the wordpiece nodes. And then in the readout block, this information can be "reawakened" by a layer of GCN. The complete GRM model architecture is illustrated in Figure 3. ## 3.3 Loss Function Mean square error (MSE), a traditional loss function, is fragile and prone to over-fitting (Hou et al., 2022). To avoid this issue, we introduce a contrastive learning loss NT-Xent (Chen et al., 2020b) for the final output, which focuses on two indicators, alignment and uniformity (Wang and Isola, 2020). Alignment makes positive pairs more similar, while uniformity spreads word embeddings out in space. Except for drawing the positive pair (*x, y*) closer, we treat the other 2(N − 1) pairs in the same batch as negative examples and try to keep a distance from them, where N is the batch size. The loss can be calculate as follows: $$l(x,y)=-log\frac{exp(sim(x,y)/\tau)}{\sum_{z=1[z\neq x]}^{2N}exp(sim(x,z)/\tau)},\tag{7}$$ where $sim(\cdot,\cdot)$ is a function that measures the where sim(·, ·) is a function that measures the similarity between two samples. We choose the cosine similarity function here. τ denotes a temperature coefficient. In order to make the node embeddings more semantically informative, we propose a strategy to select positive sample pair (*x, y*) through WRG for contrastive learning. If we take the inferred embedding h*graph*i of OOV word node ni generated by GRM as sample x, then sample y can be the original embedding of the positive sample word from the background model vocabulary, which is what we are trying to mimic. The positive sample word can be selected from the following three options: (1) The relevant words, namely twohop neighbor words of OOV words in the WRG, since they share the same wordpiece nodes with OOV words. (2) The synonyms of each OOV word, which can further improve the learning ability for semantics. (3) The OOV word itself. The proportions of these three choices are λrel, λsyn, and λunc, respectively. We show details about the selection strategy in Figure 4. ## 4 Experiments In this section, we carry out extensive experiments on several widely-used text datasets varying in scale to test different methods, which can be categorized into intrinsic and extrinsic evaluators. Furthermore, we plug GRM into static and contextual word embedding models to show the gains brought by GRM. Finally, we conduct qualitative analysis and ablation study on GRM. ## 4.1 Datasets And Experimental Settings Datasets We evaluate our work on two types of intrinsic evaluators: word similarity and word analogy. For the word similarity task, we follow the setting in Chen et al. (2022) to conduct evaluations on six benchmark datasets: RareWord (Luong et al., 2013), SimLex (Hill et al., 2015), MTurk (Halawi et al., 2012), MEN (Bruni et al., 2014), Rel353 (Agirre et al., 2009), and simverb (Agirre et al., 2009). For the word analogy task, | Model | Params | Word Similarity (Spearman's ρ) | Word Analogy (Acc) | | | | | | | |---------------|----------|----------------------------------|----------------------|---------|--------|-------|--------|-------|-------| | RareWord | MEN | SimLex | Rel353 | simverb | muturk | AVG | Google | | | | Mimick (2017) | 9M | 13.29 | 3.84 | -7.25 | 1.10 | -1.95 | -0.57 | 1.41 | 0.05 | | BoS (2018) | 500M | 40.41 | 48.99 | 14.32 | 39.15 | 15.02 | 40.22 | 33.02 | 39.78 | | KVQ-FH (2019) | 12M | 38.91 | 53.06 | 8.84 | 41.12 | 12.13 | 46.26 | 33.39 | 33.12 | | LOVE (2022) | 9M | 38.38 | 56.00 | 26.51 | 43.87 | 26.65 | 49.13 | 40.09 | 34.27 | | GRM (Ours) | 1.8M | 35.57 | 68.24 | 24.20 | 50.40 | 23.83 | 58.94 | 43.53 | 54.73 | Table 1: Overall experimental results of the context-free models on the word similarity and word analogy tasks. | Model | Params | Named Entity Recognition (F1-score) | POS Tagging (Acc) | | | | | | | |---------------|----------|---------------------------------------|---------------------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------|-------| | CoNLL | BC2GM | BC4Chemd | BC5CDR | NCBI | UD | ARK | Ritter | | | | HiCE (2019) | 5M | 76.69 | 50.41 | 62.17 | 46.93 | 54.63 | 88.82 | 71.14 | 68.31 | | AM (2020) | 52M | 80.57 | 65.60 | 75.34 | 70.63 | 66.55 | 92.44 | 75.29 | 72.06 | | Mimick (2017) | 9M | 66.00 | 41.41 | 48.44 | 56.45 | 33.09 | 87.23 | 65.39 | 60.28 | | BoS (2018) | 500M | 76.72 | 63.59 | 60.61 | 72.84 | 78.39 | 92.03 | 75.22 | 72.76 | | KVQ-FH (2019) | 12M | 54.33 | 34.26 | 47.90 | 46.86 | 28.50 | 89.36 | 67.03 | 58.57 | | LOVE (2022) | 9M | 80.82 | 64.57 | 74.80 | 73.81 | 63.62 | 93.39 | 79.64 | 76.25 | | GRM (Ours) | 1.8M | 83.76 | 71.41 | 81.97 | 83.08 | 77.81 | 93.90 | 85.85 | 82.89 | Table 2: Overall experimental results of GRM and baselines on NER and POS tagging tasks. we conduct evaluations on the Google benchmark dataset (Mikolov et al., 2013). And we evaluate our work on two types of extrinsic evaluators: Named Entity Recognition (NER), and Part-OfSpeech (POS) tagging. For the NER task, we conduct evaluations on five datasets: CoNLL (Sang and Meulder, 2003) , BC2GM (Smith et al., 2008), BC4Chemd (Krallinger et al., 2015), BC5CDR (Wei et al., 2016), and NCBI-DISEASE (Dogan et al., 2014). For the POS tagging task, we conduct evaluations on three datasets: Universal Dependencies (UD) scheme version 1.4 (Marneffe et al., 2014), Twitter POS ARK (Gimpel et al., 2011), and Ritter POS (Ritter et al., 2011). These datasets are all English datasets and most of them have high OOV rates. More details about intrinsic and extrinsic datasets are shown in Appendix A. Experimental Settings Our GRM model requires tokenizing words to construct the WRG, and we choose the wordpiece vocabulary from (Chen et al., 2022). The vocabulary is more finegrained than the vocabulary of BERT, which allows us to discover the relationships of wordinternal structure conveniently. We choose a Word2Vec model trained from a Wikipedia snapshot of 2019 as the pre-trained background word embedding model for the quantitative evaluation by following a previous work (Kabbach et al., 2019). And we use synonyms from WordNet1, which are all in the background vocabulary. For a 1https://wordnet.princeton.edu/ comprehensive and fair comparison, we select two classes of baseline models, which are all proposed for OOV word embedding learning. One class of models don't need any additional contextual information for training, including Mimick (Pinter et al., 2017), BoS (Zhao et al., 2018), KVQFH (Sasaki et al., 2019), and LOVE (Chen et al., 2022). And the other class takes contexts into consideration, including HiCE (Hu et al., 2019) and AM (Schick and Schütze, 2020). We train these baseline models according to their published optimal settings. More information about experimental settings is detailed in Appendix B. ## 4.2 Quantitative Evaluation Intrinsic Evaluation Intrinsic evaluators measure the quality of word embeddings by directly checking whether the word embedding vectors match the semantic relationships between words. The words in the intrinsic datasets have no contextual information, we only compare GRM with the baselines trained without contexts. Table 1 shows all experimental results of intrinsic evaluations. The performance of Mimick was limited because it only considers the information of characters, which is difficult to find semantic relationships between words. Our model achieved the best average score and superior results on most tasks, which demonstrates that GRM can model word formation better than other contextfree models. But GRM performed slightly worse on the RareWord, SimLex, and simverb datasets.   Word2Vec (2013) 61.19 61.40 66.00 70.95 72.48 58.93 77.73 61.23 67.89 63.47 88.51 58.87 70.04 35.63 69.40 33.71 +HiCE (2019) 79.05 79.53 68.67 73.97 77.09 67.56 77.53 61.39 74.68 77.72 91.95 75.65 76.68 53.40 76.08 54.13 +AM (2020) 81.85 82.16 68.50 75.38 78.05 70.08 80.12 69.50 72.61 72.13 93.27 81.20 77.70 54.90 75.99 53.01 +Mimick (2017) 71.53 71.71 69.11 74.71 74.83 64.04 80.31 68.67 70.08 69.65 92.35 76.72 76.43 53.52 76.39 55.66 +BoS (2018) 78.06 78.43 67.61 72.87 77.30 68.29 82.03 **72.05** 69.75 66.39 92.54 77.74 76.26 52.27 75.47 51.05 +KVQ-FH (2019) 64.50 64.72 66.29 70.41 72.97 59.98 77.80 62.40 66.85 61.36 91.15 69.92 71.55 39.15 70.19 39.16 +LOVE (2022) 81.55 81.84 69.93 75.33 78.51 69.91 81.23 69.82 71.89 71.17 94.11 84.32 81.95 68.14 78.70 61.68 +GRM (Ours) 86.10 86.29 71.48 81.86 82.53 82.02 **82.30** 65.44 76.48 80.68 94.64 87.25 86.74 79.96 **83.59 76.36** BERT (2019) 91.18 92.17 87.95 90.20 91.95 92.74 92.23 93.07 91.22 91.77 **96.14 74.68** 77.84 60.91 71.00 **38.20** +HiCE (2019) 88.15 87.82 75.57 79.03 79.94 79.53 75.76 75.72 78.46 79.17 93.92 31.08 58.27 7.69 62.41 5.36 +AM (2020) 93.23 95.95 88.63 92.66 **93.06 94.63** 92.38 94.44 **92.35 94.75** 94.92 67.26 71.83 56.59 69.42 29.31 +Mimick (2017) 91.43 93.82 87.63 91.88 91.57 93.38 92.58 94.20 90.25 93.25 94.20 66.36 74.58 51.71 69.73 28.42 +BoS (2018) 92.55 94.94 87.40 91.57 91.29 92.81 92.29 94.19 91.20 93.34 93.37 61.09 69.07 41.46 67.53 28.72 +KVQ-FH (2019) 91.51 93.85 86.46 90.72 90.38 92.02 89.28 91.72 89.08 92.54 92.44 61.15 66.90 37.75 66.65 25.18 +LOVE (2022) 91.87 93.99 87.71 91.77 91.94 93.66 91.55 93.38 90.88 93.31 95.06 70.33 76.68 57.50 71.57 31.54 +GRM (Ours) 93.29 96.00 **88.71 92.76** 92.84 94.49 **93.19 95.04** 92.19 94.33 95.34 72.46 78.17 62.12 **72.86** 35.38 These datasets provide some superficially unrelated but semantically similar word pairs, especially for the RareWord dataset. Our GRM model is sensitive to word formation, which leads to overfitting in these datasets. Notably, our model outperformed on word analogy tasks due to the superiority of graph structure, which means GRM can uncover the semantic relationship information of word formation. Extrinsic Evaluation Extrinsic evaluators measure word embeddings by their performance on the downstream tasks. Table 2 shows all experimental results of extrinsic evaluations. The performance of baseline models was degraded with varying degrees in these datasets, because it is hard to understand the meaning of OOV words by contexts for downstream models in the datasets with high OOV rates. In contrast, GRM generally performed the best among these models, even in tasks with high OOV rates. This verifies the superior quality of the word embeddings inferred by our model. Besides, our model achieved excellent results even when compared to models that use context, which demonstrates that word formation is indeed valid for learning OOV word embeddings. It's worth noting that our model requires the fewest parameters among these models. More details about the efficiency analysis are described in Appendix E. ## 4.3 Model Adaptability To investigate the effectiveness our model brings to static and contextual models in downstream tasks, we plug our model into Word2Vec and BERT respectively. In order to explore the improvement of our model on the OOV problem, we add metrics on OOV words when conducting experiments on NER and POS tagging tasks. It is easy to extend static word embedding models by directly adding new words and embeddings into the background models. We choose the Word2Vec model mentioned before as the static pre-trained embedding models. And for the contextual pretrained embedding models, we choose the uncased BERT-base model (Wolf et al., 2020) as the background model. Note that the word embeddings in contextual word embedding models are diverse because of their contextual training method. Inspired by Chen et al. (2022), we use the whole words in BERT pre-trained embedding for model training, and infer reasonable embeddings for the words which were tokenized into pieces. Besides, the AM model introduces an one-token approximation (OTA) component to support its application in BERT, which represents a sequence of piece embeddings as an one-token embedding according to contexts (Schick and Schütze, 2020). Obviously, the reason why BERT cannot cope with the OOV problem is that BERT fails to assign a reasonable semantic meaning for those words that are over-divided by general embeddings of wordpieces (Chen et al., 2022). To prevent the phenomenon of over-division, we infer embeddings for the words that should be segmented and fed the embeddings into BERT. Table 3 shows the experimental results of plugging different baseline models. Our GRM model  brought the most significant improvement over the tasks with Word2Vec as the background model, not only in the evaluation of OOV words but also in the overall metric. This demonstrates the rationale for learning high-quality OOV word embeddings through modeling word formation. Furthermore, the mimic learning paradigm allows us to augment the Word2Vec model. The performance of GRM and AM were comparable on the NER tasks with BERT as the background model. However, AM requires initialisation via OTA first, which consumes additional 6 days of GPU time on all these datasets. Besides, plugging BERT with any baseline models led to performance dips on the POS tagging tasks. GRM improved the performance of BERT on some POS tagging tasks, but slipped on the UD dataset, which has a low OOV rate. We conjecture this is because if contextual information is adequate and correct enough, it is easy to tag POS labels over the OOV words. In addition, the word division process in BERT will highlight the syntactic part of words, which also makes tagging OOV words easier. ## 4.4 Qualitative Analysis To better illustrate the quality of word embeddings inferred by GRM, we select six pairs of words from the family part of the Google dataset for the word analogy task and visualize the results by reducing dimension through t-SNE (van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008). Due to space limitations, we only show the top three models that work best on the word analogy task, the rest model results are represented in Appendix D.1. Figure 5 shows the visualization result of different models. The results of BoS and LOVE were inconsistent with the semantics of the words. Although they try to model word formation implicitly, they ignore relational information inside word structures. Our GRM model achieved the best visual result, where the word pairs are almost parallel and uniformly distributed in their linear concatenations, with only two word pairs having opposite gender positions. This shows that GRM can preserve semantic relational information through graphs, which is consistent with human cognition. Furthermore, selecting positive sample pairs by WRG for contrastive learning makes the word embeddings more reasonable. ## 4.5 Ablation Study In this section, we conduct ablation experiment of each component in our GRM model to validate their effectiveness. GRM w/o Readout refers to the GRM model without the readout block. GRM w/o mask denotes the GRM model without mask operations in the readout block. GRM w/o relevant refers to the GRM model having no relevant words in the second layer of the WRG, which means δsec is set as 0. GRM w/o SA refers to the GRM model without the initialization part for OOV nodes. GRM w/o PE denotes that removing the position embeddings to the message passing route in the GAT part. GRM w/o data aug means the GRM model only take the OOV words themselves as the option in positive samples selection, in other words, the value of λunc is set as 1 under the condition of λsim = λsyn = 0. Figure 6 shows ablation experimental results in different tasks, as we can see, the absence of any component will affect the performance of GRM. The effect of GRM w/o Readout slipped dramatically on all tasks, which validates the importance of obtaining a graph-level representation instead of a node-level one. But it is worth to mention that the quality of the node-level representation is also convincing, since GRM w/o Readout achieved a quite competitive result when com-  pared to baselines on the NER task. In addition, the mask operations brought some gains on word analogy, which illustrates the mask operation can force GRM model to uncover deeper relationships inside word structures. The GRM model without relevant words had a slight dip in performance, which indicates that associating related words can compensate for some semantic information. More results about the threshold δsec settings are presented in Appendix C.1. The performance of GRM w/o SA and GRM w/o PE were slightly lower than the GRM model because the SA component provides a reasonable initialization for GRM, while PE makes up some sequential information lost by graph structure. Besides, the GRM w/o data aug also caused a drop in performance in all tasks, which illustrates the strategy of utilizing graph structure for positive pairs selection makes the embeddings more semantically. ## 5 Model Feasibility For Other Languages In this section, we discuss the feasibility of our GRM model to other languages. In the foregoing section, we introduced our GRM model that splits OOV words into wordpieces, then constructs WRG around OOV words, which can associate relevant words through wordpieces. Due to the design of the model, our GRM matches with the properties of an agglutinative language, such as Japanese or Korean, which forms words by stringing morphemes together directly. Fusional language is more difficult to process than agglutinative one because the morphemes are usually linked together. The language explored in our paper, English, is a fusional language with some agglutinative properties. It can be observed that GRM performs quite well on the fusional language by reasonable segmentation of words, which indicates that the application effectiveness of GRM to other languages depends on the rationality of word decomposition only. Theoretically, the graph structure of WRG in GRM can cope with various complex word formations, thus GRM can infer highquality embeddings for OOV words though capturing the relational information inside the word structures and associating other relevant words. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we present a graph-based method named GRM for OOV word embedding learning. We creatively propose to model word formation through using WRG which can help to mine relationships inside word structures and associate relevant words. We demonstrate our superiority over baseline models through word similarity, word analogy, NER, and POS tagging tasks. Besides, our GRM model can be easily incorporated into static and contextual pre-trained embedding models, and help them alleviate the OOV problem effectively. Furthermore, on the qualitative analysis, we observe that GRM can discover the semantic relational information between words, which validates the ability of GRM to recover relationship information between words. Our code and supplementary materials are available in public at: https://github.com/liangzrtvjivo/GRM. ## Limitation The GRM model still has some limitations. Even though our model brings some performance improvement to the contextual word embedding model (i.e., BERT), this improvement is relatively small compared to the static model. In some cases, GRM may hurt the performance of BERT slightly, because the primary objective of context-based word embedding models is to infer word meaning from contexts. The approach set forward in our study enhances their initial input word embeddings through word formation, and the benefits brought by this method are modest. How to efficiently improve the performance of contextual word embedding models when faced with OOV words remains to be explored. ## Acknowledgements We sincerely appreciate all reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. This work has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61972426). ## References Eneko Agirre, Enrique Alfonseca, Keith B. Hall, Jana Kravalova, Marius Pasca, and Aitor Soroa. 2009. A study on similarity and relatedness using distributional and wordnet-based approaches. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 19–27. Stephen R. Anderson. 1992. *A-Morphous Morphology*. Cambridge University Press. Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomás Mikolov. 2017. Enriching word vectors with subword information. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 5:135–146. Hicham El Boukkouri, Olivier Ferret, Thomas Lavergne, Hiroshi Noji, Pierre Zweigenbaum, and Jun'ichi Tsujii. 2020. CharacterBERT: Reconciling ELMo and BERT for word-level open-vocabulary representations from characters. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6903–6915. Elia Bruni, Nam-Khanh Tran, and Marco Baroni. 2014. Multimodal distributional semantics. *Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research*, 49:1–47. Shaosheng Cao, Wei Lu, Jun Zhou, and Xiaolong Li. 2018. Cw2vec: Learning Chinese word embeddings with stroke n-gram information. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5053–5061. Hong-You Chen, Sz-Han Yu, and Shou-de Lin. 2020a. Glyph2Vec: Learning Chinese out-of-vocabulary word embedding from glyphs. In *Proceedings of the* 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2865–2871. Lihu Chen, Gaël Varoquaux, and Fabian M. Suchanek. 2022. Imputing out-of-vocabulary embeddings with LOVE makes language models robust with little cost. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3488–3504. Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2020b. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In *Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning*, volume 119, pages 1597–1607. David Denison. 1997. The cambridge encyclopedia of the english language. *Journal of Linguistics*, 33(1):171–212. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4171–4186. Rezarta Islamaj Dogan, Robert Leaman, and Zhiyong Lu. 2014. NCBI disease corpus: A resource for disease name recognition and concept normalization. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 47:1–10. Nobukazu Fukuda, Naoki Yoshinaga, and Masaru Kitsuregawa. 2020. Robust backed-off estimation of out-of-vocabulary embeddings. In *Findings of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4827–4838. Nicolas Garneau, Jean-Samuel Leboeuf, and Luc Lamontagne. 2018. Predicting and interpreting embeddings for out of vocabulary words in downstream tasks. In *Proceedings of the Workshop: Analyzing* and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 331–333. Kevin Gimpel, Nathan Schneider, Brendan O'Connor, Dipanjan Das, Daniel Mills, Jacob Eisenstein, Michael Heilman, Dani Yogatama, Jeffrey Flanigan, and Noah A. Smith. 2011. Part-of-speech tagging for twitter: Annotation, features, and experiments. In *Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 42–47. Guy Halawi, Gideon Dror, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, and Yehuda Koren. 2012. Large-scale learning of word relatedness with constraints. In *Proceedings of* the 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1406–1414. Aurélie Herbelot and Marco Baroni. 2017. High-risk learning: Acquiring new word vectors from tiny data. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 304–309. Felix Hill, Roi Reichart, and Anna Korhonen. 2015. SimLex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. *Computational Linguistics*, 41(4):665–695. Zhenyu Hou, Xiao Liu, Yukuo Cen, Yuxiao Dong, Hongxia Yang, Chunjie Wang, and Jie Tang. 2022. GraphMAE: Self-supervised masked graph autoencoders. In *Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD* Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 594–604. Ziniu Hu, Ting Chen, Kai-Wei Chang, and Yizhou Sun. 2019. Few-shot representation learning for out-ofvocabulary words. In *Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4102–4112. Zhiheng Huang, Wei Xu, and Kai Yu. 2015. Bidirectional LSTM-CRF models for sequence tagging. CoRR, abs/1508.01991. Josefsson, Gunlög. 1997. On the principles of word formation in Swedish. Ph.D. thesis, Lund University. Alexandre Kabbach, Kristina Gulordava, and Aurélie Herbelot. 2019. Towards incremental learning of word embeddings using context informativeness. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 162–168. Wei-Tsung Kao and Hung-yi Lee. 2021. Is BERT a cross-disciplinary knowledge learner? A surprising finding of pre-trained models' transferability. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 2195–2208. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semisupervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations. Martin Krallinger, Florian Leitner, Obdulia Rabal, Miguel Vazquez, Julen Oyarzabal, and Alfonso Valencia. 2015. CHEMDNER: The drugs and chemical names extraction challenge. *Journal of Cheminformatics*, 7(S-1):S1. Yuri Kuratov and Mikhail Y. Arkhipov. 2019. Adaptation of deep bidirectional multilingual transformers for russian language. *CoRR*, abs/1905.07213. Thang Luong, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2013. Better word representations with recursive neural networks for morphology. In *Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning*, pages 104– 113. Marie-Catherine De Marneffe, Timothy Dozat, Natalia Silveira, Katri Haverinen, Filip Ginter, Joakim Nivre, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Universal stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology. In *Proceedings of the Ninth International* Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 4585–4592. Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer sentinel mixture models. In *5th International Conference on Learning Representations*. Tomás Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In *1st International Conference on Learning Representations*. Anmol Nayak, Hariprasad Timmapathini, Karthikeyan Ponnalagu, and Vijendran Gopalan Venkoparao. 2020. Domain adaptation challenges of BERT in tokenization and sub-word representations of outof-vocabulary words. In *Proceedings of the First* Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP, pages 1–5. Hoang NT and Takanori Maehara. 2019. Revisiting graph neural networks: All we have is low-pass filters. *CoRR*, abs/1905.09550. Yuval Pinter, Robert Guthrie, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2017. Mimicking word embeddings using subword rnns. In *Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 102–112. Radim Reh˚ ˇ uˇrek and Petr Sojka. 2010. Software framework for topic modelling with large corpora. In *Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks*, pages 45–50. Alan Ritter, Sam Clark, Mausam, and Oren Etzioni. 2011. Named entity recognition in tweets: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1524–1534. Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning, pages 142–147. Shota Sasaki, Jun Suzuki, and Kentaro Inui. 2019. Subword-based compact reconstruction of word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3498–3508. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2019. Attentive mimicking: Better word embeddings by attending to informative contexts. In *Proceedings of the 2019* Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 489–494. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Rare words: A major problem for contextualized embeddings and how to fix it by attentive mimicking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 8766–8774. Larry Smith, Lorraine K. Tanabe, Rie Johnson nee Ando, Cheng-Ju Kuo, I-Fang Chung, Chun-Nan Hsu, Yu-Shi Lin, Roman Klinger, Christoph M. Friedrich, Kuzman Ganchev, Manabu Torii, Hongfang Liu, Barry Haddow, Craig A. Struble, Richard J. Povinelli, Andreas Vlachos, William A. Baumgartner, Lawrence Hunter, Bob Carpenter, Richard Tzong-Han Tsai, Hong-Jie Dai, Feng Liu, Yifei Chen, Chengjie Sun, Sophia Katrenko, Pieter Adriaans, Christian Blaschke, Rafael Torres, Mariana Neves, Preslav Nakov, Anna Divoli, Manuel Maña-López, Jacinto Mata, and W. John Wilbur. 2008. Overview of BioCreative II gene mention recognition. *Genome Biology*, 9(S-2):S2. Zijun Sun, Xiaoya Li, Xiaofei Sun, Yuxian Meng, Xiang Ao, Qing He, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2021. ChineseBERT: Chinese pretraining enhanced by glyph and pinyin information. In *Proceedings of the 59th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 2065–2075. Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:2579–2605. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural* Information Processing Systems 2017, pages 5998– 6008. Petar Velickovic, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph attention networks. In *6th International Conference on Learning Representations*. Tongzhou Wang and Phillip Isola. 2020. Understanding contrastive representation learning through alignment and uniformity on the hypersphere. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119, pages 9929–9939. Chih-Hsuan Wei, Yifan Peng, Robert Leaman, Allan Peter Davis, Carolyn J. Mattingly, Jiao Li, Thomas C. Wiegers, and Zhiyong Lu. 2016. Assessing the state of the art in biomedical relation extraction: Overview of the biocreative V chemicaldisease relation (CDR) task. *Database - The Journal of Biological Databases and Curation*, 2016. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45. Min-Sub Won, YunSeok Choi, Samuel Kim, CheolWon Na, and Jee-Hyong Lee. 2021. An embedding method for unseen words considering contextual information and morphological information. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pages 1055–1062. Yonghui Wu, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V. Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim Krikun, Yuan Cao, Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, Jeff Klingner, Apurva Shah, Melvin Johnson, Xiaobing Liu, Lukasz Kaiser, Stephan Gouws, Yoshikiyo Kato, Taku Kudo, Hideto Kazawa, Keith Stevens, George Kurian, Nishant Patil, Wei Wang, Cliff Young, Jason Smith, Jason Riesa, Alex Rudnick, Oriol Vinyals, Greg Corrado, Macduff Hughes, and Jeffrey Dean. 2016. Google's neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. *CoRR*, abs/1609.08144. Ye Zhang and Byron C. Wallace. 2017. A sensitivity analysis of (and practitioners' guide to) convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 253–263. Yun Zhang, Yongguo Liu, Jiajing Zhu, Ziqiang Zheng, Xiaofeng Liu, Weiguang Wang, Zijie Chen, and Shuangqing Zhai. 2019. Learning Chinese word embeddings from stroke, structure and pinyin of characters. In *Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge* Management, pages 1011–1020. Jinman Zhao, Sidharth Mudgal, and Yingyu Liang. 2018. Generalizing word embeddings using bag of subwords. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 601–606. ## A Dataset Statistics In this section, we illustrate specific information about the intrinsic and extrinsic datasets used in our experiments. Table A1 shows the number of word pairs in intrinsic datasets and Table A2 shows a summary of extrinsic datasets, including the size of texts and the rate of OOV words, in which, the calculation of OOV rates is based on the Word2Vec model with 397,585 words. For the extrinsic datasets, the CoNLL and UD datasets are normal and widely-used datasets, which have some OOV words, while the other datasets have high OOV rates. The BC2GM, BC4Chemd, BC5CDR, and NCBI datasets are biomedical datasets that contain many domainspecial words in the biological field. The ARK and Ritter datasets are Twitter datasets, for which, people tend to coin many new words in the Twitter application. Datasets RareWord MEN SimLex Rel353 simverb muturk Google \#Word Pairs 2,034 3,000 999 252 3,500 771 19,544 Table A1: Statistics of intrinsic datasets. ## B Experimental Settings In this section, we present more detailed experimental settings about downstream models, wordpiece embeddings, and training details. ## B.1 Downstream Models We use the gensim (Reh˚ ˇ uˇrek and Sojka, 2010) package for intrinsic tasks. In the situation where static word embedding models are employed as background model, we use a convolutional neural | Datasets | #Train | #Val | #Test | OOV% | | |------------|----------|--------|---------|--------|--------| | word | type | | | | | | CoNLL | 14,986 | 3,466 | 3,684 | 32.09% | 57.99% | | BC2GM | 12,574 | 2,519 | 5,038 | 15.68% | 55.85% | | BC4Chemd | 30,682 | 30,639 | 26,364 | 15.03% | 63.07% | | BC5CDR | 4,560 | 4,581 | 4,797 | 12.97% | 39.35% | | NBCI | 5,432 | 923 | 940 | 15.99% | 38.25% | | UD | 12,543 | 2,002 | 2,077 | 17.13% | 43.22% | | ARK | 1,000 | 327 | 500 | 38.95% | 53.69% | | Ritter | 551 | 118 | 118 | 30.51% | 62.12% | network (Zhang and Wallace, 2017) for text classification tasks, a BiLSTM model with one CRF layer on top (Huang et al., 2015) for NER tasks, and a two-layer LSTM model (Pinter et al., 2017) for POS tagging tasks. And in the situation where contextual word embedding models are employed as background model, we use BERT (Wolf et al., 2020) with a CRF layer2 on top for the NER evaluation tasks and BERT with a token classification layer on top (Wolf et al., 2020) for POS tagging evaluation tasks. ## B.2 Pre-Training Wordpiece Embeddings To obtain the pre-trained embeddings of wordpiece nodes, we tokenized the corpus of background model using WordPiece (Wu et al., 2016) and put the processed corpus into the skipgram model (Mikolov et al., 2013) in the case where the background word embedding model is Word2Vec. We trained the skipgram model with gensim (version 4.1.2) (Reh˚ ˇ uˇrek and Sojka, 2010). The experimental setting of the skipgram model is the same as the background Word2Vec model. And for the case where the background word embedding model is BERT, we directly used the pre-trained token embedding of BERT as our pre-trained embeddings of wordpieces. For the lack of tokens, we generated them by summing the sub-token embeddings to represent their composition. ## B.3 Training Details We use the same background model and synonyms as our GRM model to train the context-free baselines. However, the context-based baselines need an extra training corpus. HiCE is trained with 2https://pypi.org/project/TorchCRF/  WikiText-103 (Merity et al., 2017), which is used in their published experimental setting, while AM was trained with the Wikipedia snapshot of 2019, which is the original corpus of Word2Vec. The embedding dimension of our model depends on the word embedding dimension of the background model. Particularly, the embedding dimension of the Word2Vec background model is 400, and that of the BERT background model is 768. We conduct extensive experiments on several widely-used text datasets varying in scale to evaluate our work. All results are reported with a fixed seed. ## C Parameter Settings Of Grm In this section, we discuss the influence of parameter settings and the selection of parameters. ## C.1 Impact Of Parameter Δsec We finetune the value of threshold δsec in the second layer of WRG to check the influence of word association. As shown in Figure A1, we can find that the performance of our GRM model on the Google dataset and CoNLL dataset gradually enhances as the value of δsec increases, and it reaches the peak when the threshold δsec = 10. That means, the semantically related words in the second layer do provide information for OOV words. The method utilizing lexical rules to associate relevant words complements the semantic information of OOV words. Then the performance decreases when the threshold δsec is greater than 10, especially for the CoNLL dataset. This phenomenon proves that with the increase of threshold, some wordpiece nodes that contain less semantic information will include some irrelevant words, which introduce noise to our GRM model and have a negative impact on extrinsic evaluations. Notably, the noise introduced by word nodes in the second layer does not significantly affect the overall performance since GAT can reduce the influence of noise to some extent.  ## C.2 Hyper-Parameters Of Grm We train the GRM model for 5 epochs in total. For the other hyper-parameters of GRM, we use grid search to determine the best value, the result is shown in Table A3. In the tasks with Word2Vec as the background model, we train GRM with five learning rates {5e−3, 3e−3, 1e−3, 8e−4, 5e−4} and select the best one to report results. And in the tasks with BERT as the background model, we train GRM with five learning rates {1e − 3, 8e − 4, 5e−4, 3e−4, 1e−4} and select the best results to report. \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} \multicolumn{2}{c}{BELT-User New } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{BELT-User } \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{Range} & Value & Range \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{64,128,256} & 128 & [64,128,256] \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.1,0.2,0.3} & 0.2 & [0.1,0.2,0.3] \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.1,0.2,0.3} & 0.2 & [0.1,0.2,0.3] \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.1,0.2,0.3} & 0.2 & [0.1,0.2,0.3] \\ \hline \end{tabular} Hyper- Word2Vec-based BERT-based NER BERT-based POS parameter Range Value Range Value Range Value |B| [64,128,256] 256 [64,128,256] 128 [64,128,256] 64 λsyn [0.1,0.2,0.3] 0.2 [0.1,0.2,0.3] 0.2 [0.1,0.2,0.3] 0.2 λunc [0.1,0.2,0.3] 0.2 [0.1,0.2,0.3] 0.2 [0.1,0.2,0.3] 0.2 ## D Additional Results D.1 Qualitative Analysis Due to the limited space, we provide qualitative analysis on the rest of baselines (i.e., Mimick and KVQ-FH) in this section. As shown in Figure A2, the result of the Mimick model seems to be overlapping, but two parallel pairs have opposite distributions. For example, the gender positions of "aunt-uncle" and "groom-bride" are opposite. The result of the KVQ-FH model is apparently inconsistent with the word semantics. This demonstrates that modelling word formation by characters or sub-units cannot achieve good results in the word analogy task, because of the lost relationship ## D.2 Visualization Of Gat Weights As mentioned before, the GAT can emphasis the most important information and reduce the impact of noise wordpiece nodes for OOV words. To illustrate the action of two-layer GAT, we show an OOV example *insulinomimetic* chosen from the BC2GM dataset and visualize the attention weights on each layer. As shown in Figure A3, we can find that the *insulin* wordpiece which contains the most important semantic information is not assigned a high weight in the first layer, while the proportion of *insulin* increased by more than half in the second layer. Understandably, the OOV word node *insulinomimetic* didn't have a reasonable embedding yet in the first layer, even though we provide a better initialization for it using a self-attention block. It is worth noting that, the \#\#ic wordpiece accounts for the least part overall, which means our model can reduce noise caused by syntactic wordpieces.  ## E Efficiency Analysis In this section, we demonstrate the running time of GRM. We train the GRM model for 5 epochs in total when the Word2Vec model is taken as the background word embedding model. The word vocabulary size of the background Word2Vec model is 397,585. Each epoch consumes 1.8 hours on a workstation equipped with an Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4214R CPU @ 2.40GHz and an Nvidia RTX 1080-Ti GPU. Besides, almost half of the time is spent on sampling the second layer of nodes in WRG, which consumes CPU time instead of GPU time. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? We discuss the limitations of our work in the Limitation section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We treat the potential risks as limitations and discuss them in the Limitation section. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? We summarize the main claims of our work in the Abstract and Introduction sections. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** We novelly propose a new scientific artifact described in Section 3. And we use some scientific artifacts in experiments, which are discussed and cited in Section 4. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? We cite the creators of the used artifacts in Section 4.1. ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We will discuss the license or terms of the artifacts in the ReadME file of our code, which will be released upon publication. ✗ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? We will discuss the intended use of the artifacts in the ReadME file of our code, which will be released upon publication. ✗ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? The datasets we use are all public datasets and there are no relevant sensitive information issues, thus we didn't discuss this problem in our work. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? We report the language and basic information about the artifacts in Section 4, Appendix A, and Appendix B.1. ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. We report relevant statistics in detail in Appendix A. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** We report the setting and results of computational experiments in Section 4, Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? We report the number of parameters in the models used in Section 4.2. And we report the details about the total computational time and the computing infrastructure in Appendix E. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? We discuss the experiment settings in Section 4.1 and Appendix B. And we discuss the parameter settings including hyperparameters in Appendix C. ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? We report summary statistics from sets of experiments in Section 4 and report experimental settings in Appendix B, which is about the details of reporting results. ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? We report the used existing packages for preprocessing and evaluation in Section 4.1 and Appendix B. ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.

agrawal-etal-2023-multimodal

Multimodal Persona Based Generation of Comic Dialogs

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.791

We focus on the novel problem of persona based dialogue generation for comic strips. Dialogs in comic strips is a unique and unexplored area where every strip contains utterances from various characters with each one building upon the previous utterances and the associated visual scene. Previous works like DialoGPT, PersonaGPT and other dialog generation models encode two-party dialogues and do not account for the visual information. To the best of our knowledge we are the first to propose the paradigm of multimodal persona based dialogue generation. We contribute a novel dataset, ComSet, consisting of 54K strips, harvested from 13 popular comics available online. Further, we propose a multimodal persona-based architecture, MPDialog, to generate dialogues for the next panel in the strip which decreases the perplexity score by {\textasciitilde}10 points over strong dialogue generation baseline models. We demonstrate that there is still ample opportunity for improvement, highlighting the importance of building stronger dialogue systems that are able to generate persona-consistent dialogues and understand the context through various modalities.

# Multimodal Persona Based Generation Of Comic Dialogs Harsh Agrawal IIT Delhi harsh.ag14901@gmail.com Aditya M. Mishra IIT Delhi mishramohanaditya@gmail.com Manish Gupta Microsoft gmanish@microsoft.com Mausam IIT Delhi mausam@cse.iitd.ac.in ## Abstract We focus on the novel problem of persona based dialogue generation for comic strips. Dialogs in comic strips is a unique and unexplored area where every strip contains utterances from various characters with each one building upon the previous utterances and the associated visual scene. Previous works like DialoGPT, PersonaGPT and other dialog generation models encode two-party dialogues and do not account for the visual information. To the best of our knowledge we are the first to propose the paradigm of multimodal persona based dialogue generation. We contribute a novel dataset, COMSET, consisting of 54K strips, harvested from 13 popular comics available online. Further, we propose a multimodal persona-based architecture, MPDIALOG, to generate dialogues for the next panel in the strip which decreases the perplexity score by ∼10 points over strong dialogue generation baseline models. We demonstrate that there is still ample opportunity for improvement, highlighting the importance of building stronger dialogue systems that are able to generate persona-consistent dialogues and understand the context through various modalities. ## 1 Introduction Multimodal conversational agents build dialog systems that engage with modalities beyond text, in constructing next responses. They open up a novel direction of text-vision multimodality, where the agent is part of the scene, rather than being a distant observer. This facilitates research and creation of support based multimodal agents. These agents could be critical for various applications such as assistants for visually impaired, conversations with robots in physical settings, instruction following by a digital agent that is manipulating images, clarification discussions during a presentation and so on. Such agents can help to promote literacy and language skills, as users engage with the generated dialogue to create their own stories. In all such cases, a natural conversational experience will be I am the Norse god of war, law and honor.  I am son of Odin, half-brother of Thor. MPDialog (our work): **She can see into space from her home planet I'll never** get married again... ever.... oh well.. thanks for everything it really saved us some time... but we're gonna live together anyway... right??? Gold Response: **It's a really convenient way for me to date other women...** Panel Images **Utterances** Persona Figure 1: Comic Dialogue Generation: Input is a comic strip, with its text utterances, segmented visual panels and persona of target character; output is an utterance. emulated better if visual or other modal elements get incorporated in the AI models. There is substantial recent research in building neural conversational AI systems for *text-only* taskoriented dialogues (Eric et al., 2017; Madotto et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018, 2021; Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; He et al., 2022) as well as open domain conversations (Gao et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Santra et al., 2021; Shuster et al., 2022). On the other hand, research on multimodal conversation is still in its early stages. A key exception is Visual Dialog (Das et al., 2017), where an agent answers multi-turn questions about a single static image. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is little work that builds dialog systems with multiple evolving images. Our goal is to advance research in such multimodal dialog systems. A particular domain that enables us to study this is that of comic books. In contrast with Visual Dialog, a comic strip has several images with temporal progression and an aligned dialog. Building an effective comic dialog 14150 system necessitates understanding the visual narrative, in addition to the textual context, making it a good testbed for multimodal dialog. In addition to multimodality, comics have several other unique characteristics that make the domain challenging for AI systems. For instance, comic conversations are often multiparty, whereas most existing dialog agents assume dyadic (two party) conversations. Moreover, each character in a comic has a distinctive persona and style, and the dialog agent has to learn to follow the right style for each speaker. Finally, many comics are humorous, necessitating the model to be funny in its responses. To study dialog systems in the comics domain, we first curate a novel dataset, COMSET, which consists of ∼54K strips from 13 comics. Each strip is associated with the visual panel (with text masked), along with the text transcript. We harvest strips from a publicly available online collection, GoComics.1 Panel and dialogue segmentation on the visual scene data in these strips leads to a dataset with 200+ characters. To describe the distinctive persona of each lead character, we also curate a set of persona facts (inspired by Zhang et al. (2018)) from popular fandom websites. We define the novel task of next utterance generation for comics conditioned on the textual dialog history, visual scene history, and the persona facts for the comic characters. Fig. 1 shows an example. Since existing dialogue generation models do not handle multi-image multimodal context along with persona, we implement a novel method (MPDIALOG) for the task, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Text utterances, persona facts, and visual scenes are passed into the MultiModal Embedding (MME) module which encodes them into tokens each of D=768 dimensions. These embeddings are then passed on to a language decoder to produce the output tokens. MME module (i) computes the text encodings using a text embedding (TE) layer, (ii) computes visual token embeddings of panel images using CLIP Vision encoder (VE), linearly projects (LP) each embedding of size D to n×D and reshaping it to n tokens each of size D, (iii) interleaves text and visual token embeddings. Interleaving occurs such that the dialogues of a panel are preceded by the respective panel embedding. Extensive comparisons show that MPDIALOG outperforms multiple text-only dialogue generation systems as well as those systems that do not use persona facts. Overall, we make the following main contributions in this work. (1) We contribute a novel multimodal comics dataset, COMSET, containing ∼54K strips and persona facts for 200+ characters. (2) We propose a multimodal persona-based dialog generation baseline, MPDIALOG, which incorporates both the modalities and generates the next utterances effectively. (3) We demonstrate empirically that multimodality and persona orientation leads to better dialogues. This paper adds interesting questions around multimodal persona-based dialogue generation modeling and we hope that our study motivates more work in this area. We make code and dataset publicly available.2 ## 2 Related Work Our work is related to the following three areas: dialogue generation, multimodal models, and multimodal datasets for dialogue generation. Dialogue Generation: Recently, several neural dialog generation models have been proposed (Gao et al., 2018; Ni et al., 2022); we discuss a few here. DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) uses a GPT2 (Radford et al., 2019) decoder pretrained on Reddit conversations and can effectively capture the contextual information in dialogues, thereby generating interesting and human-like responses. However DialoGPT does not allow explicit style control over the generated responses. EDGE (Gupta et al., 2021) allows for controlled response generation by conditioning on semantic frames of exemplar responses. A particular kind of style control models are persona-based models which use "persona" information for personalized dialog generation. Bert-over-Bert (Song et al., 2021) disentangles persona-based dialogue generation into two tasks: dialogue generation and consistency understanding; the model uses a shared BERT encoder but has two task-specific decoders. PersonaGPT (Tang et al., 2021) uses GPT-2 finetuned on PersonaChat (Zhang et al., 2018) dataset, with added persona fact tokens for personalized generation and question control codes for controlled generation. None of these models capture the multimodal multi-party context which is the setting for comic dialogues. Multimodal Datasets for Dialogue Generation: The COMICS (Iyyer et al., 2017) dataset contains scanned images of comic strips but it does not contain manually extracted transcript information or 2https://github.com/dair-iitd/MPdialog information about comic characters. Further, as the authors mention, the dataset is unsuitable for generation tasks due to OCR detection inaccuracies. PersonaChat (Zhang et al., 2018) has conversations between two agents and their corresponding persona facts but it has no images. Other multimodal datasets include ImageChat (Shuster et al., 2020), PhotoChat (Zang et al., 2021) and VisualDialog (Das et al., 2017) which have a conversation between speakers about a single reference image. They differ from our setting, where the speakers are themselves a part of the image, and we have multiple panels (images). Multimodal Models: Recently, several types of multimodal encoders and generators have been proposed for a variety of applications. Models like CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) and ALIGN (Jia et al., 2021) are based on alignment of visual and textual embedding spaces. Frozen (Tsimpoukelli et al., 2021) and ClipCap (Mokady et al., 2021) also align text and visual embedding by projecting visual embeddings onto the textual embedding space. Textimage cross attention is used in VisualGPT (Chen et al., 2021), VC-GPT (Luo et al., 2022), CoCa (Yu et al., 2022). Perceiver-IO (Jaegle et al., 2021) is a fully attentional read-process-write architecture with variants like Uni-Perciever-MOE (Zhu et al., 2022) which use Mixture of Experts for response selection. In SimVLM (Wang et al., 2021) and VisualBERT (Li et al., 2019) the Visual and Textual Models are jointly trained on the task itself. Given its significant zero-shot image classification capabilities, we use CLIP as the image encoder for our MPDIALOG architecture. ## 3 The Comset **Dataset** We contribute a novel comics dataset, COMSET, containing 13 popular English comic strips, obtained from GoComics.1 Each comic strip contains transcription and an image. We remove duplicate strips (re-broadcasts with minor modifications) based on Levenshtein distance between transcripts. For each comic, we also obtained persona facts (representative personality traits) for each character by manually curating such information from websites like Fandom,3 Wikipedia,4and TV Tropes,5 and paraphrasing all collected persona facts into first person English sentences. We describe data ## 3.1 Dataset Pre-Processing The raw dataset was pre-processed as follows. Parsing Transcripts: Parsing transcripts involves parsing speaker (character) and utterance pairs from unstructured conversation transcripts. We first obtained a list of comic characters (for our 13 comics) from same websites that were used to gather character personas. We also added character aliases to this list. Further, we mined frequent proper nouns with PERSON entity tag from all transcripts to search for all potential speaker candidates. We reduced infrequent characters into a catch-all character OTHER. Around 17% utterances in our corpus are attributed to OTHER. Further, there were some frequent speakers which were not named entities, for example, Man, Woman, Stranger, Voice, Noise, Sound. We conflated *Voice, Noise, Sound* into a single speaker (*Voice*) and added all such characters to list of characters. Finally, for all comics except *Doonesbury* and *Cleats*, we used list lookup for extraction of mention spans for character named entities. Using basic heuristics like word followed by colon or quotation characters, we could also do a fuzzy character name match to handle spelling errors in transcripts. Transcripts for *Doonesbury* and *Cleats* contain free-form text like Bucky is holding Smacky and says .... Typically each sentence contains four parts: character/speaker name (*Bucky*), action or attribute phrase (*is holding Smacky and*), speaking verb (*says, replies, asks, proclaims, etc.*6), and utterance. To obtain these parts from transcripts, we first perform part-of-speech tagging, named entity recognition, and dependency parsing using spaCy (Honnibal et al., 2020). Then we use heuristics like (a) speaker name should have the POS tag PROPN, must be the nominal subject (nsubj) and have the NER tag as PERSON, (b) The speaker should have a direct/indirect relation to the speaking verb. Panel Segmentation: Each strip image had several panels and utterances across panels. Classical vision methods like Hough Transform (Duda and Hart, 1972), polygon detection (Li et al., 2014), recursive cuts (Pang et al., 2014) and density gradients (Tanaka et al., 2007) led to poor panel segmentation due to their assumptions about uniform white background and clean gutters. Inspired  by Iyyer et al. (2017), we model the panel segmentation as an object detection problem. We used the 500 manually annotated panel bounding boxes out of comic strips provided by them to train a Faster-RCNN (Ren et al., 2015) architecture with a ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016) backbone, and used it to segment panels from our comic strips. Some segmentation results are shown in Fig. 2. Dialogue Text Detection and Masking: While predicting the next utterance for a character in the current panel, the ground truth utterance in the panel image could lead to a label leak. Hence, to eliminate redundancies and to avoid possibilities of label leak, we mask the utterance text from panel images. Iyyer et al. (2017) detect utterance text on images by training a Faster-RCNN model on 1500 manually annotated panels to detect text boxes. This approach led to poor results for our dataset since text box structure is not consistent across comics, and often there is no explicit text box or bubble to encapsulate the dialogue, also evident from Figs. 2 and 3. Hence, we used offthe-shelf OCR, specifically EasyOCR,7to extract the text and bounding boxes from each segmented panel. We filled bounding boxes with random noise so as to not bias the model towards any color at utterance positions, as shown in Fig. 3. Multimodal Alignment: For each comic strip c, panel segmentation yields a sequence of nc panel images along with OCR text {Pj} nc j=1 for each panel j, and transcript parsing yields a sequence of mc utterances {Di} mc i=1 along with speaker labels. For next utterance prediction, the model needs both text and visual context *aligned* with each other. For each (Di, Pj ) pair, we calculate a 7https://github.com/JaidedAI/EasyOCR  string fuzzy Levenshtein distance-based similarity score Sij which determines the extent to which Di matches with text Pj . The panel index for the i th utterance is then calculated as σi = arg maxj Sij . The matched panel sequence can be written as Σ = {σ1, σ2*, . . . , σ*m}. Due to inaccurate OCR, Σ may not be monotonically increasing. We handle this inconsistency by transforming Σ to a sorted sequence Σ = DP(Σ) where DP is a dynamic programming method to sort an input sequence with minimum number of edits. We found that the DP filter was needed for only 2% of all the utterances. ## 3.2 Dataset Statistics And Quality Across 13 comics, COMSET contains 53,903 strips covering a total of 159,610 panels and 238,484 utterances. Thus, there are 2.96 images per strip. On average, a dialogue contains 16.09 tokens. Each strip has 2.98 characters on average. The dataset contains 6.66 persona facts per character on average across 202 characters. Each persona fact contains 12.23 tokens on average. Table 1 shows key statistics for COMSET. Table 2 shows distribution of number of strips, panels, utterances and characters across the 13 comics. We split the 13 comics into a seen set of 8 comics and unseen set of 5 comics. Seen set was further split randomly 70:10:20 into train:val:test stratified by comic name. We manually inspected our dataset quality using 50 randomly chosen examples. We found that our scripts for parsing speaker from transcripts had an accuracy of ∼98%. Some comics had bad transcripts, and speaker information was completely missing (<1%). In ∼2% of utterances, there were some parts of the speaker overflowing into the previous utterance due to whitespace in speaker names  (ex. 'Voice from television', 'Person on TV'). Text masking was evaluated on 1000 examples and we found ∼4% of all comics had italicized text, or font size too small, low character spacing, that made it difficult to detect and mask bounding boxes. In ∼3% comics, panel segmentation was challenging due to no clear demarcation between several frames, as depicted in Fig. 7 in the Appendix. In ∼5% of all utterances, the dialogue did not map correctly to its panel primarily due to OCR detection errors. We had also assumed that a dialogue can be mapped one-to-one to a panel which is not always true as a dialogue can sometimes overflow into multiple panels, in which case a panel with the most matching words was chosen. Overall, we find error percentages in each part of the dataset curation pipeline to be low. The end to end accuracy over 200 random datapoints from the test set came out to be 91.5% indicating that the resulting dataset is of high enough quality to study the comic generation task. ## 4 Methodology In this section we formalize the next utterance prediction task in the multi-modal persona-based dialogue setting for benchmarking COMSET and propose a novel baseline architecture MPDIALOG. ## 4.1 Next Utterance Prediction Task For a comic strip, consider a conversation history with utterances {Ci} n i=1 and an aligned sequence of images {Ij} m j=1. At any time step t, the objective is to generate Ct given the textual conversation history {Ci} t−1 i=1 and the corresponding image history sequence {Ij} k j=1 where Ctis aligned with Ik, t ≤ n, and k ≤ m. In practice, it may be useful to limit historical context to a history size h of past utterances and their corresponding panel images. While this problem formulation is generally applicable to any setting with multimodal conversation history, we   ## 4.2 Baseline Methods We first describe our adaptation to the existing language model (LM) only methods, as well as LM+persona based methods. LM only: LM only methods use only the text part of the conversations. We experiment with DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) and EDGE (Gupta et al., 2021). DialoGPT is trained on a 147M multi-turn dialogue dataset from Reddit, and conditions response generation on the previous conversation context. EDGE (Gupta et al., 2021) allows controlling dialogue response generation based on semantic structure of exemplar responses. During inference, EDGE retrieves the exemplar responses of the test set context with train set dialogues as the candidate set using a ParlAI Polyencoder (Humeau et al., 2019) model8 pretrained on the ConvAI2 dataset. EDGE then uses the opensesame (Swayamdipta et al., 2017) frame extraction model, which is a frame-semantic parser for automatically detecting FrameNet (Baker et al., 1998) frames and their frame-elements from sentences. We adapt these models to COMSET by extracting the conversation history Ct′:t−1 and finetune the model to predict Ct, where t′ = max(0, t−h). We set the maximum history size h = 5. LM+Persona: These baselines utilize the conversation context along with persona facts for each character to generate persona consistent responses. Models evaluated include PersonaGPT (Tang et al., 2021) and BoB (Song et al., 2021). These models assume a dyadic conversation and require persona facts of both the speakers as input to generate responses. PersonaGPT is finetuned on the PersonaChat (Zhang et al., 2018) dataset, with added spe8https://parl.ai/projects/polyencoder  I am the Norse god .. anger management Tyr: So you won't go out with me? [eot] asgard? [eot] Tyr: AHHH, that don't mean nothing'! It's just a marriage of convenience. [eot] cial tokens ([p1], [p2]) to mark the persona facts. Since our problem is different and includes multi party conversations, we provide the persona facts of the speaker of utterance Ct as a prefix to the input (marked by a single special persona token [p]) with the objective of predicting Ct. Thus, we pre-train the models using the target character persona prefix on their respective datasets and later finetune it on COMSET. ## 4.3 Mpdialog **Architecture** The architecture for MPDIALOG is inspired by Frozen (Tsimpoukelli et al., 2021). It consists of a vision encoder and a language decoder with a linear projection module in between. The vision encoder encodes the visual comic panels into a single vector, which is then projected into visual tokens using the linear projection module and is fed into the language decoder along with text tokens for generation as shown in Fig. 4. We use a CLIP vision encoder (Radford et al., 2021), as it has been shown to be effective in aligning visual embeddings into the same semantic space as text embeddings. Similar to *Frozen*, we project the panel embedding of D dimensions into an n × D dimensional vector using a linear layer and reshape it into n visual tokens each with embedding size D. We use n=2 in our experiments as suggested in Tsimpoukelli et al. (2021). As shown in Fig. 4, in the MME (MultiModal Embedding) module, we concatenate the dialog history tokens separated by the end of text separator token ([eot]) and insert visual token embeddings wherever the panel in the conversation changes (including the first) and feed the resulting sequence into the language decoder. When persona informa- TE TE TE TE VE+LP tion is available we prepend the persona tokens to the sequence input of the language decoder, along with the persona start token [p]. The multimodal MME output is fed as input to the GPT-2 language decoder. We train the model using causal language modelling, i.e., auto regressive loss over the target prediction tokens. We use PersonaGPT-base and a pre-trained CLIP vision encoder as the textual and visual components of MPDIALOG respectively, and finetune it on COMSET in an end-to-end fashion. The projection module is simply a linear layer. Unlike Frozen, we do not freeze any component and train the entire architecture endto-end. Once trained we generate responses using nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) and set top-p=0.95, top-k=50. Other generation parameters are as follows; temperature=0.05, repetition penalty=1.2 (Keskar et al., 2019). Transformer Decoder Module She can see into space … TE TE VE+LP TE [EOS] VE+LP TE MME ## 5 Experiments And Results 5.1 Hyper-Parameters For Reproducibility All results are computed on a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (12 GB) cluster with 64 cores each of Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6142 CPU @ 2.60GHz. There are 12 layers each in both the vision encoder and the text decoder, with 8 multi attention heads in each transformer layer. The vision encoder weights are initialized from openai/clip-vit-base-patch32 available on HuggingFace9and the text decoder weights are initialized from a PersonaGPT-base model trained on PersonaChat dataset. The model was trained for 3 epochs on 2 GPUs with a learning rate of 5e-5 and a linear decay schedule with an initial warmup of 500 steps using the AdamW (ϵ=1e-8) optimizer on a batch size of 12. Further details can be found in our repository.2 ## 5.2 Evaluation Metrics We report the results of various baselines and our proposed method on several natural language generation metrics. We report the perplexity score for each model which measures the uncertainty of a model to output the target sequence given the context words. Further, we evaluate the models on lexical metrics like unigram precision, recall and F1 scores as well as neural metrics like BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020) and MaUde (Sinha et al., 2020). MaUde is a particularly relevant metric as it is curated specifically for dialogue generation and mea9https://huggingface.co/ Model Params PPL BLEURT MaUde Prec. Rec. F1    DialoGPT 117M 30.12 0.221 0.807 0.040 0.110 0.050 EDGE 124M 30.17 0.256 0.897 **0.107** 0.087 0.083 PersonaGPT 117M 19.40 0.233 0.894 0.040 0.130 0.054 BoB 330M 40.00 0.224 0.896 **0.107** 0.114 **0.097** MPDIALOG 213M 19.02 0.266 **0.898** 0.064 **0.254** 0.093 DialoGPT 117M 37.57 0.219 0.792 0.041 0.109 0.051 EDGE 124M 36.86 0.254 0.862 0.130 0.081 0.083 PersonaGPT 117M **24.79** 0.230 0.896 0.045 0.126 0.058 BoB 330M 52.69 0.240 0.872 **0.133** 0.085 0.090 MPDIALOG 213M 25.75 0.257 **0.904** 0.066 0.227 **0.093** Seen  familytree 0.224 0.250 0.230 0.207 **0.265** doonesbury 0.221 **0.256** 0.202 0.227 0.240 getfuzzy 0.230 0.252 0.242 0.226 **0.281** bigtop 0.230 0.266 0.246 0.220 **0.269** garfield 0.207 0.255 0.227 0.233 **0.270** inkpen 0.237 0.259 0.243 0.233 **0.277** cathy 0.205 0.246 0.227 0.217 **0.259** calvin and hobbes 0.221 0.263 0.251 0.234 **0.274** Unseen rip haywire 0.224 0.243 0.231 0.234 **0.255** cleats 0.220 **0.263** 0.228 0.239 0.254 peanuts 0.200 0.249 0.232 0.235 **0.257** bignate 0.221 0.259 0.225 0.247 **0.261** heart of the city 0.234 0.258 0.237 0.247 **0.260** Comic DialoGPT EDGE PersonaGPT BoB MPDIALOG     sures the coherence of responses with the previous conversation context. ## 5.3 Main Results We design extensive experiments to answer the following questions: (1) Can existing dialogue generation language models adapt their knowledge to the comic setting? (2) To what extent does persona orientation of language models help in generating comics? (3) Does adding multimodality help the language model in better understanding the context and thereby generating coherent responses? (4) How does the generalizability to unseen comics (zero-shot setting) vary across architectures. To answer these questions we finetune each of the baseline language-only models and those with persona alignment on only the textual component and later train MPDIALOG on the multimodal dataset. We generate response for each of the trained models using nucleus sampling. This was done for both the seen (finetuned) and unseen (zero-shot) splits of our dataset. The results for these experiments are shown in Table 3. Performance on Seen Dataset: We observe that the proposed model, MPDIALOG, outperforms both the language model only as well as personabased baselines. Language only models (like DialoGPT and EDGE) cannot generate coherent responses (high perplexity and low MaUde) in the comic setting. This is expected as it is very hard to   understand the context of a comic without any information about the characters or the visual scene. We observe that adding persona information of the characters significantly boosts performance as is evident from the perplexity scores, BLEURT and MaUde, of PersonaGPT-base. We conducted a Welch-T (Welch, 1947) test on results of MPDialog with other baselines for precision, recall, F1, MaUde, BLEURT and we got max(p) < 0.025 indicating statistical significance. Persona information delivers meaningful insights into the context and helps the model in understanding the conversation better. Moreover, adding visual scene information along with the persona also boosts performance as the model has now access to the actual scene of the comic in which the conversation is happening. As an ablation we also trained a model with language and visual components but without the persona information. Its perplexity came out to be 23.76 on the seen set, which is better than just the language part (DialoGPT) but worse than MPDialog (which also incorporates persona). For illustration, we show a cherry-picked example in Fig. 5 where PersonaGPT-base and MPDIALOG are able to align their responses with the character persona, whereas responses for other language only models are either too banal (EDGE and BoB) or completely nonsensical (DialoGPT). Performance on Unseen Dataset: We also show results on unseen comics set, for various models in Table 3. Again, MPDIALOG outperforms baselines across most metrics. Perplexity scores of language only models (both DialoGPT and EDGE) are quite high. Adding persona information and evaluating PersonaGPT we find that it significantly boosts the models' ability to generate responses with more certainty, as the perplexity score drops by a factor of ∼12 points. It is worthwhile to note that PersonaGPT performs much better on neural metrics like BertScore and MauDe as compared to language only baselines. Our multimodal model (MPDIALOG) further improves these neural metrics and shows that it is able to produce much more coherent responses by taking into account the associated visual information. Thus the trend (LM + persona + images > LM + persona > LM) can still be observed as in the "seen comics" setting. MPDialog (our work): **You're not alone...you've been** there for years and your whole life has just come full circle around me!! And now that we have each other again..we'll be together foreverrrr!!! We will rule this world!! PersonaGPT (LM + persona): **You're not** alone??!...you know what this is like?? It must be so much better when we get back together and have some sorta conversation over it all....but that doesn't amaze me too hard for no reason. EDGE (LM + frames): I can't live without you BoB (LM + persona): I'm going to have to eat. DialoGPT (LM only): **I'm sobsomn'ing to the world** is a great place, and it's not just for me?!???!!! what do we have in common with each other??? oh my god....what are they doing ' 'out here again Figure 5: Comparison of predictions from various models for a test instance from Garfield. Left: The comic strip, context and the persona facts of the speaker (Arlene). Right: Predictions of various models. Persona Facts (Character: Arlene, Comic: Garfield) - **I am Garfield's on-and-off girlfriend** - **I can unsuccessfully crack jokes at the expense of Garfield**  - **I love to make smart remarks about Garfield, most likely due** - **I am often interested in a deeper relationship with Garfield** Context: **I adore you, I worship you! I love you more than life** Comic DialoGPT EDGE PersonaGPT BoB MPDIALOG   Comic DialoGPT EDGE PersonaGPT BoB MPDIALOG     familytree 43.50 38.10 **22.30** 59.38 **22.30** doonesbury 27.29 28.29 19.92 36.39 **19.35** getfuzzy 32.22 33.91 22.08 41.39 **21.53** bigtop 28.07 29.18 18.40 36.75 **18.28** garfield 21.87 21.36 12.70 29.08 **12.38** inkpen 27.57 30.16 17.99 32.87 **17.62** cathy 35.08 33.40 23.95 49.69 **23.07** calvin and hobbes 25.40 27.02 17.92 34.44 **17.65** rip haywire 52.92 51.24 **33.50** 72.06 36.22 cleats 31.26 31.04 **20.23** 47.79 21.32 peanuts 35.20 33.17 26.19 54.40 **25.80** bignate 31.12 30.42 **19.67** 41.22 20.02 heart of the city 37.34 38.41 **24.35** 48.00 25.40 Seen familytree 0.829 0.894 0.884 0.861 **0.901** doonesbury 0.835 0.908 0.877 0.915 **0.926** getfuzzy 0.829 0.904 **0.917** 0.915 0.903 bigtop 0.813 0.898 0.899 **0.904** 0.901 garfield 0.755 **0.867** 0.858 0.864 0.819 inkpen 0.832 0.922 0.918 **0.935** 0.923 cathy 0.763 0.883 0.894 **0.903** 0.889 calvin and hobbes 0.804 0.908 0.911 0.906 **0.923** Unseen rip haywire 0.836 0.869 0.927 0.898 **0.932** cleats 0.807 0.862 0.885 **0.895** 0.891 peanuts 0.695 0.845 0.892 0.842 **0.897** bignate 0.796 0.868 0.886 0.860 **0.908** heart of the city 0.828 0.868 0.890 0.867 **0.892** Table 5: Comic wise MaUde for various models.   ## 5.4 Comic-Wise Quantitative Analysis Table 4 shows comic-level BLEURT scores for both the seen as well as unseen test sets. We also show MaUde and perplexity scores in Tables 5 and 6 respectively. For most comics across all the three metrics, MPDIALOG performs better than other models. Unlike most comic strips, Cleats comic focuses on the relationships between the characters, their sportsmanship and the challenges of being part of a team. We believe that images in Cleats do not contain much additional information and hence multi-modality of MPDIALOG does not lead to improved results. ## 5.5 Qualitative Analysis  The proposed method, MPDIALOG, is personabased. How well does it capture the persona style in   the generations, compared to other persona-based baselines? To answer this question, we perform the following experiment. For every character c in the train set, we obtain its unigram vocabulary distribution Trainc. Given a model, over the entire test set, we also compute unigram vocabulary distribution Outputsc from combined text of all generations for character c. If the model has captured persona for character c well, the symmetric KL-divergence between Trainc and Outputsc should be small. Hence, we compare MPDIALOG with other persona-based baseline models (PersonaGPT and BoB) using the symmetric KL divergence metric. We observe that symmetric KL divergence is 4.41, 4.56 and 3.36 for PersonaGPT, BoB and MPDIALOG respectively. Thus, we infer that MPDIALOG is the best at capturing the persona information. We also attempt to understand the image patch attribution for a generated dialogue by our model as applied on Fig. 5. We conducted a GradCAM (Selvaraju et al., 2017) analysis to check where the model "looks" while generating its utterances. Since generation is stochastic and dependent on nucleus sampling, we cannot attribute the model's output to a particular attention map over the image. As a surrogate, we calculate the attention map over the visual panels when the model generates the last [eot] token. In Fig. 5, we were able to observe that the model does indeed look at Arlene's face and Garfield's face (as indicated in Fig. 6) and gives less relative importance to the background and the bubble above it. It helped us confirm that our model is able to contextualize within the images as well and generates tokens  based on meaningful and interpretable image features. ## 5.6 Human Evaluation Results We obtain manual annotations for the utterances generated by various models on fluency, engagingness, dialog-consistency, scene-consistency and persona-detection. Four annotators performed judgments on a set of 65 examples, randomly sampled from the test set. We compute inter-annotator agreement as pairwise correlation between method rankings, averaged across the five criteria. It was found to be 0.318 (Kendall's Tau 'B') which is considered as strong agreement. Detailed annotation guidelines are mentioned in the appendix. Specifically, we measure persona detection as follows. Given persona facts of two characters, and a response, the annotator is asked to guess which of the twi persona the response matches to. Table 7 shows that MPDIALOG performs best on all measures except for dialog consistency where EDGE performs the best. EDGE uses semantic frame examplars to guide a structure for the uttterance leading to better consistency. All the other models do not make use of this extra structural input, and amongst them, MPDIA-LOG performs best. On persona detection, MPDIA-LOG performs comparably to PersonaGPT. Overall, MPDIALOG performs quite well on human perceived quality of generated comic dialogues. As an additional qualitative analysis for the proposed model, we performed the following experiment. We considered examples, where in the multimodal input context, we changed the last character prompt to some other character from the same or other comic. The goal was to check how would another character (say "Tyr") respond in a situation in a comic (say "Garfield"). We found that the  generated responses often reflect the persona of the injected character. For example, in Garfield, we found for the same situation: (1) Mom's response showing her down-to-earth, exasperated and sensitive nature who loves her son dearly, and (2) Susie's response to be teasing Calvin, thereby showing her love-hate relationship with Calvin. Thus, our model seems to be capturing the persona behavior somewhat, but we feel there is much more work to be done to generate responses that are contextually more coherent, and at the level of human skill. ## 6 Conclusions And Future Work We propose a novel problem of next utterance prediction for comics given historical multimodal context consisting of previous utterances and panel images. We contribute a novel dataset, COMSET, which contains 53,903 strips, 159,610 panels and 238,484 utterances from 13 comics. We also propose a multimodal persona-based baseline model, MPDIALOG, which performs better compared to strong language-only and persona-based dialogue generation models, both in the seen comic and the unseen comic settings. We make our code and dataset publicly available2. In the future we plan to (1) focus on generation of humor-focused text, and (2) explore generation of next utterances and panel images together. ## Acknowledgements This work is supported by grants by Google, Verisk, and 1MG, an IBM SUR award, and the Jai Gupta chair fellowship by IIT Delhi. We also acknowledge travel support from Google and Yardi School of AI travel grants. We thank the IIT Delhi HPC facility for its computational resources. We also thank Rocktim Jyoti Das for his help with the code for MPDialog. ## Limitations In this paper, we focused on English comics only because of their ease of availability. Although we have not experimented with non-English text, we expect the proposed model to work well in multilingual settings if we replace GPT-2 decoder with other decoders like BLOOM (Scao et al., 2022). ## Ethics Statement Most of our dataset has been obtained from GoComics (https://gocomics.com/). The website allows downloads of comic images for research purposes. However, they do not allow redistribution of images. Hence, in our dataset release, we have only provided links to images on GoComics website. Providing links to images or webpages is a common trend (e.g., Google Landmarks, GoogleConceptualCaptions, WIT datasets). That said, our code base provides all the scripts needed to (1) do pre-processing and modeling based on this images (2) gather transcripts and align with the panels in comic strips. Thus, overall, all steps in the paper are reproducable. Further, we have also provided character identification annotations that we perform on these images as part of the dataset. Natural language generation is in general prone to issues like biased, offensive, harmful, misinformative text generation. Fortunately, in this work, we finetune our models using relatively clean comics dataset. Also, given that these generations are meant to be consumed in a humorous form, we do not foresee the bias (if at all) generated by our model to be hurtful. To the extent we browsed over the generations produced by our model, we did not observe any biased, offensive, harmful, misinformative text getting generated. ## References Collin F Baker, Charles J Fillmore, and John B Lowe. 1998. The berkeley framenet project. In *COLING* 1998 Volume 1: The 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Jun Chen, Han Guo, Kai Yi, Boyang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2021. Visualgpt: Data-efficient image captioning by balancing visual input and linguistic knowledge from pretraining. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2102.10407. Abhishek Das, Satwik Kottur, Khushi Gupta, Avi Singh, Deshraj Yadav, José MF Moura, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. Visual dialog. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 326–335. Richard O Duda and Peter E Hart. 1972. Use of the hough transformation to detect lines and curves in pictures. *Communications of the ACM*, 15(1):11–15. Mihail Eric, Lakshmi Krishnan, Francois Charette, and Christopher D Manning. 2017. Key-value retrieval networks for task-oriented dialogue. In *Proceedings* of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 37–49. Jianfeng Gao, Michel Galley, and Lihong Li. 2018. Neural approaches to conversational ai. In The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval, pages 1371– 1374. Xiang Gao, Yizhe Zhang, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, and William B Dolan. 2020. Dialogue response ranking training with large-scale human feedback data. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 386–395. Prakhar Gupta, Jeffrey P Bigham, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Amy Pavel. 2021. Controlling dialogue generation with semantic exemplars. In *Proceedings of the 2021* Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3018–3029. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In *Proceedings of the IEEE conference on* computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770– 778. Wanwei He, Yinpei Dai, Yinhe Zheng, Yuchuan Wu, Zheng Cao, Dermot Liu, Peng Jiang, Min Yang, Fei Huang, Luo Si, et al. 2022. Galaxy: A generative pre-trained model for task-oriented dialog with semisupervised learning and explicit policy injection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 10749–10757. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In *International Conference on Learning* Representations. Matthew Honnibal, Ines Montani, Sofie Van Landeghem, and Adriane Boyd. 2020. spacy: Industrialstrength natural language processing in python. To appear. Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. 2020. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. *Advances* in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20179– 20191. Samuel Humeau, Kurt Shuster, Marie-Anne Lachaux, and Jason Weston. 2019. Poly-encoders: Architectures and pre-training strategies for fast and accurate multi-sentence scoring. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Mohit Iyyer, Varun Manjunatha, Anupam Guha, Yogarshi Vyas, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Hal Daume, and Larry S Davis. 2017. The amazing mysteries of the gutter: Drawing inferences between panels in comic book narratives. In *Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern recognition*, pages 7186–7195. Andrew Jaegle, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Carl Doersch, Catalin Ionescu, David Ding, Skanda Koppula, Daniel Zoran, Andrew Brock, Evan Shelhamer, et al. 2021. Perceiver io: A general architecture for structured inputs & outputs. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4904–4916. PMLR. Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Lav R Varshney, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Ctrl: A conditional transformer language model for controllable generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.05858*. Liunian Harold Li, Mark Yatskar, Da Yin, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2019. Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03557. Luyuan Li, Yongtao Wang, Zhi Tang, and Liangcai Gao. 2014. Automatic comic page segmentation based on polygon detection. *Multimedia Tools and* Applications, 69(1):171–197. Ziyang Luo, Yadong Xi, Rongsheng Zhang, and Jing Ma. 2022. Vc-gpt: Visual conditioned gpt for endto-end generative vision-and-language pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12723. Andrea Madotto, Chien-sheng Wu, and Pascale Ngan Fung. 2018. Mem2seq: Effectively incorporating knowledge bases into end-to-end task-oriented dialog systems. In ACL 2018-56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference (Long Papers), volume 1, page 1468. Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, and Amit H Bermano. 2021. Clipcap: Clip prefix for image captioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09734. Jinjie Ni, Tom Young, Vlad Pandelea, Fuzhao Xue, and Erik Cambria. 2022. Recent advances in deep learning based dialogue systems: A systematic survey. Artificial intelligence review, pages 1–101. Xufang Pang, Ying Cao, Rynson WH Lau, and Antoni B Chan. 2014. A robust panel extraction method for manga. In *Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia*, pages 1125–1128. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In *International* Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. https://github.com/openai/gpt-2. Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2015. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28. Bishal Santra, Sumegh Roychowdhury, Aishik Mandal, Vasu Gurram, Atharva Naik, Manish Gupta, and Pawan Goyal. 2021. Representation learning for conversational data using discourse mutual information maximization. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05787*. Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilic, Daniel Hesslow, Roman ´ Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Gallé, et al. 2022. Bloom: A 176bparameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100. Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. Bleurt: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 7881– 7892. Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 618–626. Kurt Shuster, Samuel Humeau, Antoine Bordes, and Jason Weston. 2020. Image-chat: Engaging grounded conversations. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2414–2429. Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, et al. 2022. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03188. Koustuv Sinha, Prasanna Parthasarathi, Jasmine Wang, Ryan Lowe, William L Hamilton, and Joelle Pineau. 2020. Learning an unreferenced metric for online dialogue evaluation. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics, pages 2430–2441. Haoyu Song, Yan Wang, Kaiyan Zhang, Weinan Zhang, and Ting Liu. 2021. Bob: Bert over bert for training persona-based dialogue models from limited personalized data. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 167–177. Swabha Swayamdipta, Sam Thomson, Chris Dyer, and Noah A Smith. 2017. Frame-semantic parsing with softmax-margin segmental rnns and a syntactic scaffold. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.09528*. Takamasa Tanaka, Kenji Shoji, Fubito Toyama, and Juichi Miyamichi. 2007. Layout analysis of treestructured scene frames in comic images. In *IJCAI*, volume 7, pages 2885–2890. Fengyi Tang, Lifan Zeng, Fei Wang, and Jiayu Zhou. 2021. Persona authentication through generative dialogue. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12949*. Maria Tsimpoukelli, Jacob L Menick, Serkan Cabi, SM Eslami, Oriol Vinyals, and Felix Hill. 2021. Multimodal few-shot learning with frozen language models. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 34:200–212. Zirui Wang, Jiahui Yu, Adams Wei Yu, Zihang Dai, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Yuan Cao. 2021. Simvlm: Simple visual language model pretraining with weak supervision. In *International Conference on Learning* Representations. B. L. Welch. 1947. The Generalization of 'Student'S' problem when several different population variances are involved. *Biometrika*, 34(1-2):28–35. Chien-Sheng Wu, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2018. Global-to-local memory pointer networks for task-oriented dialogue. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Qingyang Wu, Yichi Zhang, Yu Li, and Zhou Yu. 2021. Alternating recurrent dialog model with large-scale pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1292–1301. Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01917*. Xiaoxue Zang, Lijuan Liu, Maria Wang, Yang Song, Hao Zhang, and Jindong Chen. 2021. Photochat: A human-human dialogue dataset with photo sharing behavior for joint image-text modeling. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6142–6152. Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204–2213. Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and William B Dolan. 2020. Dialogpt: Largescale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 270–278. Jinguo Zhu, Xizhou Zhu, Wenhai Wang, Xiaohua Wang, Hongsheng Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. 2022. Uni-perceiver-moe: Learning sparse generalist models with conditional moes. In *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems. ## A Panel Segmentation Errors Our method produced errors where the demarcation  between frames was not very clear as shown in a few examples in Fig. 7. ## B Annotation Details Human annotations were done by four undergraduate Computer Science students (3 male, 1 female) with an interest in comics in the age group 21-22 years. They were paid as per the rules of our institute for the task. The annotators were informed that this data will be used for research on dialogue generation for comics. The following guidelines were provided to the annotators for evaluation. - Fluency: How fluent is the response on it's own? (1-5), where 1 is "not fluent at all", 5 is "extremely fluent". Fluency encompasses how easy to understand the response is. - Engagingness: How much engaging is the response on its own? (1-5), where 1 is "not engaging at all" or "generic", 5 is "extremely engaging" or "unique". Engagingness is defined as how interesting and unique the response is. Repetition and generic responses are scored low and highly detailed and attention grabbing responses are scored high. - Dialog Consistency: How consistent is the response to the dialogue history? (1-5) 1 is "totally unrelated" and 5 is "Fully consistent". - Scene Consistency: How much consistent is the response to the image history? (1-5) 1 is "totally unrelated" and 5 is "Fully consistent" and 3 is "OK". - Persona Detection: Given persona facts of two characters, which persona does the response match to? ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 8 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 + Abstract ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 8 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 8 ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 8 ✓ B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Section 8 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 3 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 3 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Section 5 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 5 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 5 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 5 ✓ D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Appendix C ✓ D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Appendix C ✓ D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Appendix C ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? There is no personally identifiable information in the dataset. Hence, no specific ethics review was needed. ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Appendix C

jiang-etal-2023-llm

{LLM}-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Ranking and Generative Fusion

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.792

We present LLM-Blender, an ensembling framework designed to attain consistently superior performance by leveraging the diverse strengths of multiple open-source large language models (LLMs). Our framework consists of two modules: PairRanker and GenFuser, addressing the observation that optimal LLMs for different examples can significantly vary. PairRanker employs a specialized pairwise comparison method to distinguish subtle differences between candidate outputs. It jointly encodes the input text and a pair of candidates, using cross-attention encoders to determine the superior one. Our results demonstrate that PairRanker exhibits the highest correlation with ChatGPT-based ranking. Then, GenFuser aims to merge the top-ranked candidates, generating an improved output by capitalizing on their strengths and mitigating their weaknesses. To facilitate large-scale evaluation, we introduce a benchmark dataset, MixInstruct, which is a mixture of multiple instruction datasets featuring oracle pairwise comparisons. Our LLM-Blender significantly outperform individual LLMs and baseline methods across various metrics, establishing a substantial performance gap.

# Llm-Blender**: Ensembling Large Language Models** With Pairwise Ranking And Generative Fusion Dongfu Jiang∑ Xiang Ren∫π **Bill Yuchen Lin**π dongfu@zju.edu.cn, xiangren@usc.edu, yuchenl@allenai.org πAllen Institute for Artificial Intelligence ∫University of Southern California ∑Zhejiang University ## Abstract We present LLM-BLENDER, an ensembling framework designed to attain consistently superior performance by leveraging the diverse strengths of multiple open-source large language models (LLMs). Our framework consists of two modules: PAIRRANKER and GENFUSER, addressing the observation that optimal LLMs for different examples can significantly vary. PAIRRANKER employs a specialized pairwise comparison method to distinguish subtle differences between candidate outputs. It jointly encodes the input text and a pair of candidates, using cross-attention encoders to determine the superior one. Our results demonstrate that PAIRRANKER exhibits the highest correlation with ChatGPT-based ranking. Then, GENFUSER aims to merge the top-ranked candidates, generating an improved output by capitalizing on their strengths and mitigating their weaknesses. To facilitate largescale evaluation, we introduce a benchmark dataset, MixInstruct, which is a mixture of multiple instruction datasets featuring oracle pairwise comparisons. Our LLM-BLENDER significantly outperform individual LLMs and baseline methods across various metrics, establishing a substantial performance gap. 1 2 ## 1 Introduction Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in diverse tasks, primarily due to their capacity to follow instructions and access extensive, high-quality data, showing a promising future for artificial general intelligence (Bubeck et al., 2023). However, prominent LLMs such as GPT-4 and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) are closed-source, restricting insights into their architectures and training data. Open-source LLMs like  Pythia (Biderman et al., 2023), LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023), and Flan-T5 (Chung et al., 2022) offer a chance to fine-tune these models on custom instruction datasets, enabling the development of smaller yet efficient LLMs, such as Alpaca, Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023), OpenAssistant (LAIONAI, 2023), and MPT (MosaicML, 2023). The open-source LLMs exhibit diverse strengths and weaknesses due to variations in data, architectures, and hyperparameters, making them complementary to each other. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of best LLMs on 5,000 instructions that we collected. More ranking details can be found in Sec. 5.1. Although Vicuna achieves the highest percentage, it ranks first in only 21.22% of the examples. Furthermore, the pie chart suggests that the optimal LLMs for different examples can significantly vary and there is no open-source LLM 14165 that dominates the competition. Therefore, it is important to dynamically ensemble these LLMs to generate consistently better responses for each input. Considering the diverse strengths and weaknesses of LLMs, it is crucial to develop an ensembling method that harnesses their complementary potentials, leading to improved robustness, generalization, and accuracy. By combining their unique contributions, we can alleviate biases, errors, and uncertainties in individual LLMs, resulting in outputs better aligned with human preferences. We introduce **LLM-BLENDER**, an ensembling framework designed to achieve consistently superior performance by mixing the outputs of multiple LLMs. LLM-BLENDER comprises two modules: PAIRRANKER and GENFUSER. Initially, PAIRRANKER compares the outputs from N LLMs, which GENFUSER then fuses to generate the final output from the top K ranked outputs. Existing approaches (Ravaut et al., 2022a; Liu and Liu, 2021), including the reward model within InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022), for ranking outputs {y1*,...,y*N } from language models (LMs) on a given input x have mostly focused on *individually* scoring each yi based on x, employing encoding modules in the form of si = f(*x, y*i). Although this list-wise ranking objective can be powerful and efficient when candidate differences are apparent, it may not be as effective when ensembling LLMs. Among the output candidates from LLMs, candidate differences can be quite *subtle*, as they are all produced by very sophisticated models and one may only be marginally better than another. Even for humans, it can be challenging to gauge candidate quality without direct comparison. As a result, we propose a specialized *pairwise* comparison method, **PAIRRANKER** (Sec. 3), to effectively discern subtle differences between candidate outputs and enhance ranking performance. In particular, we first gather the outputs from N models (e.g., the N = 11 models in Fig. 1) for each input and subsequently create the N(N 1)/2 pairs of their outputs. We jointly encode the input x and the two candidate outputs yi and yj as input to a cross-attention encoder (e.g., RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019)), in the form of f(x, yi, yj), to learn and determine which candidate is better. During the inference stage, we compute a matrix containing logits representing pairwise comparison results. Given this matrix, we can infer a ranking of the N outputs for the given input x. Subsequently, we can employ the top-ranked candidate from PAIRRANKER for each input as the final result. Hence, this approach does not rely on a single model for all examples; instead, PAIRRANKER selects the best model for each example by comprehensively comparing all candidate pairs. Nonetheless, this approach may constrain the potential to generate even better outputs than the existing candidates. To investigate this possibility, we introduce the **GENFUSER** (Sec. 4) module to fuse the top K of the N ranked candidates and generate an improved output for end-users. Our goal is to capitalize on the strengths of the top K selected candidates while mitigating their weaknesses. To assess the effectiveness of LLM ensembling methods, we introduce a benchmark dataset called MixInstruct (Sec. 2.2). In this dataset, we use N=11 popular open-source LLMs to generate N candidates for each input across various existing instruction-following tasks formatted as selfinstruct (Wang et al., 2022). The dataset comprises 100k training examples and 5k validation examples for training a candidate ranking module like our PAIRRANKER, and 5k test examples with oracle comparisons for automatic evaluation. In Section 5, our empirical results on the MixInstruct benchmark reveal that the LLM-BLENDER framework significantly boosts overall performance by ensembling LLMs. The selections made by PAIRRANKER outperform any fixed individual LLM models, as indicated by superior performance in both reference-based metrics and GPT-Rank. By leveraging the top selections from PAIRRANKER, GENFUSER further enhances response quality through effective fusion into the final output. LLM-BLENDER achieves the highest scores in terms of both conventional metrics (i.e., BERTScore, BARTScore, BLUERT) and ChatGPT-based ranking. The average rank of LLM-BLENDER stands at 3.2 among the 12 methods, which is considerably better than the best LLM's rank of 3.90. Moreover, LLM-BLENDER's output ranks in the top 3 for 68.59% of examples, while Viccuna only reaches 52.88%. We believe LLM-BLENDER and our findings would benefit both practitioners and researchers for deploying and studying LLMs with ensemble learning. ## 2 Preliminaries We first provide the problem formulation and two common types of ensembling methods. Next, we  present the dataset MixInstruct created for training and evaluation purposes. Finally, we give an overview of our framework. ## 2.1 Problem Setup Given an input x and N models, {M1*,...,*MN }, we can generate N candidate outputs by processing x with each model. We denote the candidates as Y = {y1*,...,y*N }. In the training data, we assume there is a ground truth output, y, while it remains hidden during evaluation at test time. In practice, one might choose a fixed model, such as M9, to infer all unseen examples (i.e., always using y9 as the final output for x). This can be reasonable if M9 demonstrates significantly better overall performance on certain observed examples. However, relying on a pre-selected model may result in sub-optimal performance, as the N models likely possess different strengths and weaknesses in various situations, meaning that the optimal selection for different x values may not always originate from the same model. Our objective is to develop an ensemble learning method that produces an output yˆ for the input x, maximizing the similarity Q(*y, y* ˆ ; x). The Q function can be implemented in various ways, which we will discuss later. We anticipate that this method will yield better overall performance than using a fixed model or randomly selecting a model for x. Specifically, given a test set Dtest = {(x(i), y(i))}, we aim to maximize <i Q(yˆ (i), y(i); x(i)). There are two primary approaches for ensembling LLMs: *selection-based* and *generation-based* methods. Selection-based methods compare candidates in the set Y, selecting the top-ranked can- | Sources | #Examples | Source | I/O Tokens | |---------------|-------------|----------|--------------| | Alpaca-GPT4 | 22,862 | GPT-4 | 22 / 48 | | Dolly-15K | 7,584 | Human | 24 / 53 | | GPT4All-LAION | 76,552 | ChatGPT | 18 / 72 | | ShareGPT | 3,002 | ChatGPT | 36 / 63 | | Total | 110K | Mix | 20 / 66 | didate as the final output yˆ, which implies that yˆ " Y. Due to the inherent nature of selection and the limited solution space, the performance of selection-based methods is bounded by the N candidates being considered. Conversely, generation-based methods focus on fusing K candidates (1 < K & N) from Y to produce an unseen response as the final output yˆ. ## 2.2 Mixinstruct**: A New Benchmark** We introduce a new dataset, MixInstruct, to benchmark ensemble models for LLMs in instruction-following tasks. We collect a largescale set of instruction examples primarily from four sources, as shown in Table 1. After curating and processing this open-source data, we sample 100k examples for training, 5k for validation, and 5k for testing. We then run N = 11 popular opensource LLMs, including Vicuna, OpenAssistant, Alpaca, MPT, and others (see Table 2 and Figure 1), on these 110k examples. To obtain the oracle ranking of candidates, we design comparative prompts for ChatGPT to evaluate all candidate pairs. Specifically, for each example, we prepare 55 pairs of candidates (11 ✓ 10/2). For each pair, we ask ChatGPT to judge the better candidate (or declare a tie). The prompt template can be found in the appendix. For the training and validation sets, we provide the results based on conventional metrics like BERTScore, BLEURT, and BARTScore. In that case, we use function Q(yi, y) to estimate a candidate yi's quality according to its similarity to the ground truth y. ## 2.3 Llm-Blender**: A Novel Framework** We propose a rank-and-fuse pipeline framework, LLM-BLENDER, for ensembling LLMs, as illustrated in Figure 2. This framework consists of two main components: a pairwise ranking module, PAIRRANKER (Section 3), and a fusion module, GENFUSER (Section 4). The PAIRRANKER module learns to compare all pairs of candidates for each input and subsequently rank the list of candidates. We then select the top K = 3 ranked candidates, concatenate them with the input x, and construct the input sequence for the GENFUSER module. The GENFUSER module, a seq2seq LM, ultimately generates the final output to serve users. ## 3 Pairranker: Pairwise Ranking In this section, we introduce three baseline methods for ranking the candidates in Y in Sec. 3.1 and present the proposed PAIRRANKER method. ## 3.1 Baseline Methods Previous reranking methods primarily focus on computing the score si = f(*x, y*i) for each candidate yi " Y independently, where si is solely determined by yi. Notably, the reward model in instruction tuning for GPT-3.5 (Ouyang et al., 2022) also belongs to this category. Figure 3 illustrates these baseline methods, which are further detailed in the following paragraphs. MLM-Scoring (Salazar et al., 2020) assesses the quality of a candidate by calculating its pseudo-loglikelihood, which is obtained by masking tokens one by one and computing the log-likelihood for the masked token using masked LMs (e.g., BERT). Given a candidate yi as a sequence of words W = {w1*, ..., w*∂W∂}, the pseudo-log-likelihood is: si = <∂W∂ t=1 log P(wt∂W\t). This unsupervised method is effective for reranking outputs in NLG tasks such as machine translation and speech recognition. SimCLS (Liu and Liu, 2021) encodes the input x and each generated candidate yi " Y using the same encoder H, resulting in H(x) and H(yi). The cosine similarity between them, si = cos (H(x), H(yi)), serves as the predicted score, as H(x) and H(yi) share the same embedding space induced by the language encoder. In training, marginal ranking loss is used to optimize H. SummaReranker (Ravaut et al., 2022a) concatenates the input x and each candidate yi, using a cross-attention encoder to learn ranking. Specifically, they employ H([x; yi]) to predict the score si, where H is a Transformer model. In the training stage, binary cross-entropy (BCE) loss is employed to differentiate the best candidate from the others. Limitations. Despite using contrastive loss in training, these methods rely on individual scoring for inference. The encoders have not been exposed to pairs of candidates for direct comparison learning. We argue that such pointwise ranking methods may be insufficient for selecting the best candidates in the context of LLMs and instruction-following tasks. One reason is that the quality of LLM outputs is generally high when the chosen LLMs are popular and competitive. Moreover, the responses for instruction tasks can be quite open-ended, unlike summarization tasks. Therefore, merely examining individual candidates may not yield a reliable score. This issue becomes more prominent for shorter responses, where sequences may differ by only a few words but vary significantly in helpfulness, harmfulness, and fairness. Given these limitations, we contend that individual scoring approaches may fail to capture crucial nuances. ## 3.2 Pairwise Comparisons In order to address the limitations of pointwise ranking, we aim to train a ranker f with parameter that can compare a pair of output candidates by encoding them together with the input text. Our ranker module should focus on learning to capture the differences between the two candidates and prefer the ones of higher quality. Given a pair of candidates yi, yj , we obtain their pair-specific scores: s i (i,j) and s j (i,j). We denote the model's confidence in thinking yi is better than yj as sij = s i (i,j) s j (i,j). We can use these scores for all pairs induced from Y to infer the final ranking. To learn this ability, we concatenate the input x and the two candidates to form a sequence [x; yi; yj ] and feed it into a cross-attention Transformer to get the features: f([x; yi; yj ]) for modeling sij . We assume multiple Q functions to optimize  for, such as BERTScore, BARTScore, etc., and consider the learning problem as a multi-task classification problem: $${\mathcal{L}}_{Q}=-z_{i}\log\sigma(s_{(i,j)}^{i})-(1-z_{j})\log\sigma(s_{(i,j)}^{j}),$$ where denotes the sigmoid function and $$(z_{i},z_{j})={\begin{cases}(1,0),&Q(y_{i},y)\geq Q(y_{j},y)\\ (0,1),&Q(y_{i},y)<Q(y_{j},y)\end{cases}}.$$ For optimizing towards multiple Q, we take the average as the final multi-objective loss: L = < LQ. ## 3.3 Pairranker **Architecture** We discuss the concrete designs for the PAIRRANKER module in this subsection. Encoding. We employ Transformer layers to encode an input and a pair of candidates, enabling the attentions to capture the difference between candidates in the context of the input. We concatenate the three segments sequentially and form a single input sequence with special tokens as separators: <source>, <candidate1>, and <candidate2>. The resulting input sequences to Transformers are in the form of "<s><source> x </s> <candidate1> yi </s> <candidate2> yj </s>", where x is the text of a source input and yi and yj are the text of two output candidates. The embeddings of special tokens <source>, <candidate1>, and <candidate2> are used as the representations of x, yi, and yj respectively, denoted as x, yi, yj. Training. To determine the scores for the two candidates, we concatenate the embeddings of x with yi and yj respectively, and pass them through a single-head layer, which is a multi-layer perceptron with the final layer's dimension equal to the number of Q functions to be optimized. Each value within this dimension represents a computed Q score for a specific Q function. We derive the final score s i (i,j) or s j (i,j) for the candidate by averaging these Q scores. Since there are O(N2) unique pair combinations, we apply an effective sub-sampling strategy during the training stage to ensure learning efficiency. During training, we randomly select some combinations from the candidate pool Y2, instead of all the N(N 1)/2 pairs. We also compare the target text with other candidates by extending the candidate pool by mixing the ground truth y into Y. In practice, we found that using 5 pairs per input is sufficient for obtaining decent results. Due to the position embeddings of the language model, the order of the candidates in a pair (x, yi, yj) matters, as the comparison result of 14169 (x, yi, yj) and (x, yj , yi) might not be consistent. Thus, we shuffle the order of candidates within each training pair so that the model learns to be consistent with itself. Inference. During the inference stage, we obtain scores sij for each pair of candidates (yi, yj) " Y2. After N(N 1) iterations, we obtain a matrix M, where Mji = sij represents the *confidence* that yi is better than yj . To identify the best candidate based on M, we introduce three aggregation functions for determining the final ranking of Y. We propose two scoring methods, MaxLogits and MaxWins, which utilize all elements in the matrix. Let Mòi and Mjò denote the i-th row and j-th column of the matrix as vectors. For each candidate yi, its MaxLogits score is defined as si = < (Mòi Miò), while its MaxWins score is defined as si = ∂{sij " Mòi ∂sij > 0}∂ + ∂{sji " Miò∂sji < 0}∂, where ∂∂ denotes the set size. In essence, MaxLogits computes the confidence that yi is superior to all other candidates, whereas MaxWins calculates the number of victories in comparisons with other candidates. However, these two methods necessitate O(N2) iterations for N candidates, which can be computationally burdensome. Thus, we propose a more efficient aggregation method, performing *a single* bubble sort run with pairwise comparisons to select the best candidate. We first shuffle the order of candidates in Y to obtain a default order, and initialize the best candidate index k to 1. We iteratively update the best candidate index as follows: $$k=\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{{k,}}&{{\mathbf{M}_{k}^{i}-\mathbf{M}_{i}^{k}>0}}\\ {{i,}}&{{\mathbf{M}_{i}^{k}-\mathbf{M}_{k}^{i}>0}}\end{array}\right..$$ After N 1 comparisons, we select yk as the best candidate. This method reduces the inference time complexity from O(N2) to O(N), aligning with previous pointwise methods. Regardless of the aggregation method, we can rank all candidates in Y. Our experiments (shown in the appendix) reveal that MaxLogits yields the best performance, so we use MaxLogits as the default aggregator for PAIRRANKER. ## 4 Genfuser: Generative Fusion The effectiveness of PAIRRANKER is constrained by the quality of selections from the candidate pool Y. We hypothesize that by merging multiple top-ranked candidates, we can overcome this  constraint. As these top candidates often showcase complementary strengths and weaknesses, it is plausible to generate a superior response by combining their advantages while mitigating their shortcomings. Our objective is to devise a generative model that takes input x and K top-ranked candidates {y1*, ..., y*K} L Y (e.g., K = 3) and produces an improved output yˆ as the final response. To accomplish this, we present GENFUSER, a seq2seq approach for fusing a set of candidates conditioned on the input instruction to generate an enhanced output. Specifically, we concatenate the input and K candidates sequentially using separator tokens, such as <extra_id_i>, and fine-tune a T5-like model to learn to generate y. In practice, we employ Flan-T5-XL (Chung et al., 2022), which has 3b parameters, due to its superior performance and relatively smaller size. ## 5 Evaluation 5.1 Setup We use MixInstruct (Sec. 2.2) to conduct evaluation, and more results are in the appendix. NLG metrics. We employ two types of evaluation metrics (i.e., Q ). The first group is conventional automatic metrics for NLG tasks: BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020b), BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020), and BARTScore (Yuan et al., 2021). GPT-Rank. The second is based on prompting ChatGPT for pairwise comparisions on all candidates and decide their rank by the number of wins | Category | Methods | BERTScore | BARTScore | BLEURT | GPT-Rank⇤ | ' Vic(%) | ' OA(%) | Top-3(%) | |---------------------------------|--------------------|-------------|-------------|----------|-------------|------------|-----------|------------| | Open Assistant (LAION-AI, 2023) | 74.68 | -3.45 | -0.39 | 3.90 | 62.78 | N/A | 51.98 | | | Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) | 69.60 | -3.44 | -0.61 | 4.13 | N/A | 64.77 | 52.88 | | | Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) | 71.46 | -3.57 | -0.53 | 4.62 | 56.70 | 61.35 | 44.46 | | | Baize (Xu et al., 2023) | 65.57 | -3.53 | -0.66 | 4.86 | 52.76 | 56.40 | 38.80 | | | MOSS (Sun and Qiu, 2023) | 64.85 | -3.65 | -0.73 | 5.09 | 51.62 | 51.79 | 38.27 | | | ChatGLM (Du et al., 2022) | 70.38 | -3.52 | -0.62 | 5.63 | 44.04 | 45.67 | 28.78 | | | Koala (Geng et al., 2023) | 63.96 | -3.85 | -0.84 | 6.76 | 39.93 | 39.01 | 22.55 | | | Dolly V2 (Conover et al., 2023) | 62.26 | -3.83 | -0.87 | 6.90 | 33.33 | 31.44 | 16.45 | | | Mosaic MPT (MosaicML, 2023) | 63.21 | -3.72 | -0.82 | 7.19 | 30.87 | 30.16 | 16.24 | | | StableLM (Stability-AI, 2023) | 62.47 | -4.12 | -0.98 | 8.71 | 21.55 | 19.87 | 7.96 | | | Flan-T5 (Chung et al., 2022) | 64.92 | -4.57 | -1.23 | 8.81 | 23.89 | 19.93 | 5.32 | | | LLMs | Oracle (BERTScore) | 77.67 | -3.17 | -0.27 | 3.88 | 54.41 | 38.84 | 53.49 | | Oracle (BLEURT) | 75.02 | -3.15 | -0.15 | 3.77 | 55.61 | 45.80 | 55.36 | | | Analysis | Oracle (BARTScore) | 73.23 | -2.87 | -0.38 | 3.69 | 50.32 | 57.01 | 57.33 | | Oracle (GPT-Rank) | 70.32 | -3.33 | -0.51 | 1.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | | | MLM-Scoring | 64.77 | -4.03 | -0.88 | 7.00 | 33.87 | 30.39 | 21.46 | | | Rankers | SummaReranker | 71.60 | -3.25 | -0.41 | 3.66 | 55.63 | 48.46 | 57.54 | | PairRanker | 72.97 | -3.14 | -0.37 | 3.20 | 54.76 | 57.79 | 65.12 | | | LLM-BLENDER | PR (K = 3) + GF | 79.09 | -3.02 | -0.17 | 3.01 | 70.73 | 77.72 | 68.59 | (i.e., MaxWins aggregation). We name this GPTbased ranking metric with GPT-Rank. Model training. We use the DeBERTa (He et al., 2021) (400m) as the backbone for PAIRRANKER, and GENFUSER is based on Flan-T5-XL (3b). According to our ablation studies, we choose to use BARTScore for its superior correlation with GPT-Rank as shown in 5.2. ## 5.2 Main Results In Table 2, we present the overall performance of N=11 LLMs as well as other methods on MixInstruct. In addition to the three auto metrics and GPT-Rank, we also show the percentage of examples where each method can produce outputs that are *better than or same good* as the two top LLMs, namely OpenAssistant ('OA) and Vicuna ('Vic), in terms of GPT-Rank. LLMs have diverse strengths and weakness. The table presents the LLMs in a sorted order based on their average rank as determined by ChatGPT (GPT-Rank). Among these models, Open Assistant, Vicuna, and Alpaca are the top-3 performers. Following them, three renowned LLMs, namely Baize, Moss, and ChatGLM, which have been fine-tuned using both Chinese and English instruction data, also exhibit impressive performance on MixInstruct. Conversely, Mosaic MPT, StableLM, and Flan-T5 rank at the bottom-3 in the evaluation. Nevertheless, the average GPT-Rank of top/bottom models maintain a noticeable distance from the first/last position (1 or 11), highlighting the importance of ensembling LLMs. Top LLMs are not always good. It is evident that although OA and Vic perform remarkably well, there is still a substantial percentage of examples where other LLMs are considered to outperform them. For instance, despite Koala having an average GPT-Rank of 6.76, approximately 40% of the examples demonstrate that Koala produces responses that are better or equally as good as both OA and Vic. This further emphasizes the significance of employing our LLM-BLENDER framework for ranking and fusion purposes. NLG Metrics. Moreover, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the performance of oracle (top-1) selections based on each of the metrics themselves. The findings demonstrate that these selections also exhibit favorable performance across other metrics as well. For example, the oracle selections derived from **GPT-Rank** achieve a BARTScore of 3.33, surpassing that of OA (3.45). Conversely, the oracle selections of BARTScore yield 3.69 in GPT-Rank, also significantly outperforming OA (3.90). This observation substantiates the rationality of using BARTScore to provide supervision for PAIRRANKER, which is also suggested by Table 3. PAIRRANKER **outperforms other rankers.** MLM-Scoring fails to outperform even random selection, highlighting the limitations of its unsupervised paradigm. On the contrary, SimCLS, SummaReranker, and PAIRRANKER exhibit su- | Ranking Methods | Pearson | Spearman's | Spearman's | |-------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | Correlation | Correlation | Footrule ⇤ | | | Random | 0.00 | 0.00 | 48.27 | | BLEU | 28.70 | 26.92 | 33.57 | | Rouge2 | 29.17 | 27.77 | 32.96 | | BERTScore | 32.25 | 30.33 | 33.34 | | BLEURT | 34.14 | 32.31 | 32.17 | | BARTScore | 38.49 | 36.76 | 30.93 | | MLM-Scoring | -0.02 | -0.01 | 47.16 | | SimCLS | 39.89 | 38.13 | 29.32 | | SummaReranker | 41.13 | 39.10 | 29.69 | | PairRanker | 46.98 | 44.98 | 27.52 | perior performance compared to the best model (OA) across BARTScore and GPT-Rank. Notably, the average GPT-rank of the responses selected by PAIRRANKER (3.20) significantly outperforms the best model by 0.70 (a 18% relative performance gain) and also all other rankers. Moreover, it achieves impressive results in metrics such as BARTScore (3.14) with a substantial advantage. PAIRRANKER's selections are better than or equal to Vic/OA on 54.76%/57.79% examples respectively, and ranks in top 3 for 65.12% examples. LLM-BLENDER **is the best.** We use top-3 selections from the PAIRRANKER and feed them as candidates for GENFUSER. Based on this integration, LLM-BLENDER demonstrates remarkable capabilities as expected. In terms of GPT-Rank, it achieves 3.01, surpassing both the best model OA (3.90) by a significant margin. The scores for BERTScore (79.09), BARTScore (3.02), and BELURT (0.17) all exceed the best model by 4.41, 0.43, and 0.22 respectively, showcasing substantial advantages. Moreover, LLM-BLENDER also performs well in surpassing the top two models, Vic (70.73) and OA (77.72), thereby complementing the weaknesses of PAIRRANKER. Ranking correlation. In addition to focusing solely on the top-1 selection of each ranker, we present a comprehensive analysis of the overall rank correlation among all the candidates with GPT-Rank (see Table 3). The correlation metrics used here include the Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Spearman's Correlation, and Spearman's Footrule distance(Diaconis and Graham, 1977). It turns our that BARTScore gets the highest correlation with GPT-Rank against other metrics, which suggests we use BARTScore to provide supervision for training. For rankers, MLM-Scoring still falls short of outperforming random permutations. On the other side, SummaReranker demonstrates better correlation in terms of the Pearson Correlation (41.13) and Spearman's Correlation (39.10), while SimCLS gets a better Spearman's Footrule distance (29.32) Notably, PAIRRANKER achieves the highest correlation with GPT-Rank across all correlation types, which is even way better than the BARTScore. More analysis. We leave many other ablation studies and analyses in Appendix, where we apply PAIRRANKER to the three typical natural language generation (NLG) tasks: summarization (CNN/DM), machine translation (WMT18-zh-en), and constrained text generation (CommonGen). We find that PAIRRANKER still outperforms other methods by a large margin in the context of using a single same base model to decode N candidates (with different algorithms). We also show that MaxLogits is much better than MaxWins and the bubble sort method is very cost-effective if the inference efficiency is a big concern. ## 6 Related Work LLM evaluation As open-source large language models (LLMs) continue to flourish and demonstrate remarkable competitiveness across various natural language generation (NLG) tasks, assessing the capabilities of LLMs has become an exceedingly challenging endeavor. To address this issue, Zheng et al. (2023) pioneered the creation of a chatbot arena, enabling users to provide pairwise evaluations of responses generated by two randomly selected LLMs. Based on these evaluations, they established an LLM Elo rating leaderboard. In a similar vein, Cabrera and Neubig (2023) conducted an evaluation study on a customer service dataset, leveraging automated metrics such as BERTScore and ChrF. This approach yielded similar LLM ranking results. Not content with relying solely on human evaluation, (Yidong et al., 2023) developed a fine-tuned model called PandaLM to compare responses generated by different LLMs. Impressively, this model achieved a accuracy of 94% when compared against ChatGPT-based comparisons. Pairwise ranking Pairwise ranking, known for its long-standing effectiveness, has demonstrated exceptional performance across a wide array of NLP tasks (Jamieson and Nowak, 2011). Notably, Ranknet (Burges et al., 2005) and LambdaRank (Burges, 2010) have emerged as powerful techniques for various ranking problems. Furthermore, within the renowned RLHF procedure(Ouyang et al., 2022), these methods incorporate pairwise training of their reward model based on OPT. However, these approaches still compute scores individually and solely undergo pairwise training at the loss level. In contrast, our proposed PAIRRERANKER not only employs pairwise training but also utilizes the attention mechanism for pairwise inference during the inference stage. We posit that this approach better captures the subtleties between candidates and yields superior results, as demonstrated in Section 5.2. Ensemble learning Ensemble learning is a widely employed technique to enhance a model's capabilities by leveraging multiple weaker models (Sagi and Rokach, 2018; Anioł and Pietron´, 2019; Wang et al., 2016). Typically, ensembling is performed either by considering model weights or by combining diverse outputs. Recently, Izacard and Grave (2021) introduced a novel framework named Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) to improve the quality of question answering by fusing retrieved text. Building upon FiD, Ravaut et al. (2022b) further investigated the effectiveness of fusion in the context of text summarization. However, they neglected to incorporate a selection process prior to feeding the candidates into the fuser, resulting in only moderate improvements. In contrast, our proposed approach, referred to as LLM-BLENDER, initially utilizes the PAIRRANKER algorithm to filter out candidates of poor quality. Subsequently, fusion is performed exclusively on the top-ranked candidates, leading to superior performance. ## 7 Conclusion & Future Directions In this paper, we formulated the motivation to exploit the diverse strengths and weaknesses of open-source large language models (LLMs), aiming to create an ensembling framework that leverages their complementary capabilities to generate consistently superior results on various instructionfollowing tasks. By dynamically ensembling LLMs, we aimed to reduce biases, errors, and uncertainties in individual models, yielding outputs better aligned with human feedback. Our major contributions are as follows: - A new framework: **LLM-BLENDER** is a post-hoc ensemble learning method for ranking and fusing the outputs from multiple LLMs. It is composed of two modules: PAIRRANKER and GENFUSER, and both are straightforward yet effective. - A new dataset: **MixInstruct** is a benchmark dataset, created for training and evaluating LLM ensembling methods on instruction-following tasks. - **Promising results:** We show that our method can significantly improve the overall results on various metrics, and our findings indicates that this direction is promising for both research community and practitioners. - **Toolkit:** By open-sourcing our framework, we aim to make it easier for others to leverage our approach, enabling the development of more advanced AI systems that achieve robustness, generalization, and enhanced accuracy in a wide variety of tasks. Future directions. Potential future directions include extending the LLM-BLENDER framework to more types of models or even non-text modalities, developing more sophisticated ranking and fusion techniques, and investigating the transferability of our ensembling approach to other domains and tasks. Additionally, exploring ways to minimize computational overhead and incorporating active learning strategies for rapid adaptation to new specialized domains and data sources represent fruitful areas for further research. Overall, our work underscores the value of combining the unique contributions of multiple models. ## *Limitations Efficiency. To get the optimal performance from PAIRRANKER, one may need to call the model O(n 2 ) times for getting the full matrix, thus resulting in a much less efficient solution. We attempted to resolve this limitation by proposing to use multiple rounds of bubble sort methods to reduce the number of inferences needed, and we find it works pretty well. We also want to argue that although the number of inferences can be large for obtaining the best performance with PAIRRANKER, those inferences can be executed in parallel because they are totally independent. Human evaluation. We agree that automatic metrics have limitations. Human evaluation could provide us with more reliable and comprehensive evaluation results. However, due to the number of models as well as the amounts of generation candidates, we cannot afford large-scale human evaluation. We argue that our use of ChatGPT for evaluation is a good alternative, according to recent studies. Also, we would like to highlight that we show the ground truths when using ChatGPT to do pairwise comparisions, which is quite informative than the common practice. ## *Ethical Statement This work fully complies with the ACL Ethics Policy. We declare that there are no ethical issues in this paper, to the best of our knowledge. ## Acknowledgements We thank members of the INK lab at USC and the Mosaic team at AI2 for valuable feedback on this project. Xiang is supported in part by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), via the HIATUS Program contract \#2022-22072200006, the DARPA MCS program under Contract No. N660011924033, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency with award W911NF-19-20271, NSF IIS 2048211, and gift awards from Google and Amazon. Yuchen's research was also supported by the Allen Institute for AI (AI2). The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of ODNI, IARPA, or the U.S. Government. ## References Anna Anioł and Marcin Pietron. 2019. Ensemble ap- ´ proach for natural language question answering problem. *2019 Seventh International Symposium on* Computing and Networking Workshops (CANDARW), pages 180–183. Stella Rose Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin G. Anthony, Herbie Bradley, Kyle O'Brien, Eric Hallahan, Mohammad Aflah Khan, Shivanshu Purohit, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Edward Raff, Aviya Skowron, Lintang Sutawika, and Oskar van der Wal. 2023. Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2304.01373. Ondˇrej Bojar, Rajen Chatterjee, Christian Federmann, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Shujian Huang, Matthias Huck, Philipp Koehn, Qun Liu, Varvara Logacheva, Christof Monz, Matteo Negri, Matt Post, Raphael Rubino, Lucia Specia, and Marco Turchi. 2017. Findings of the 2017 conference on machine translation (WMT17). In *Proceedings of the Second* Conference on Machine Translation, pages 169–214, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, John A. Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuan-Fang Li, Scott M. Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2303.12712. Christopher J. C. Burges. 2010. From ranknet to lambdarank to lambdamart: An overview. Christopher J. C. Burges, Tal Shaked, Erin Renshaw, Ari Lazier, Matt Deeds, Nicole Hamilton, and Gregory N. Hullender. 2005. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In *Machine Learning, Proceedings of* the Twenty-Second International Conference (ICML 2005), Bonn, Germany, August 7-11, 2005, volume 119 of *ACM International Conference Proceeding* Series, pages 89–96. ACM. Alex Cabrera and Graham Neubig. 2023. Zeno chatbot report. Blog post. Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam M. Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Benton C. Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier García, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Díaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathleen S. Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2204.02311. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, S. Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Dasha Valter, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Wei Yu, Vincent Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed Huai hsin Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/2210.11416. Mike Conover, Matt Hayes, Ankit Mathur, Xiangrui Meng, Jianwei Xie, Jun Wan, Sam Shah, Ali Ghodsi, Patrick Wendell, Matei Zaharia, and Reynold Xin. 2023. Free dolly: Introducing the world's first truly open instruction-tuned llm. Persi Diaconis and Ron Graham. 1977. Spearman's footrule as a measure of disarray. *Journal of the royal* statistical society series b-methodological, 39:262– 268. Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. GLM: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 320–335, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinyang Geng, Arnav Gudibande, Hao Liu, Eric Wallace, Pieter Abbeel, Sergey Levine, and Dawn Song. 2023. Koala: A dialogue model for academic research. Blog post. Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Debertav3: Improving deberta using electra-style pretraining with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2111.09543. Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomás Kociský, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In *Advances in Neural Information* Processing Systems 28: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, December 7-12, 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 1693– 1701. Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In *Proceedings of the 16th* Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874–880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kevin G. Jamieson and Robert D. Nowak. 2011. Active ranking using pairwise comparisons. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24: 25th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2011. Proceedings of a meeting held 12-14 December 2011, Granada, Spain, pages 2240–2248. LAION-AI. 2023. Open assistant. https:// github.com/LAION-AI/Open-Assistant. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 7871–7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bill Yuchen Lin, Wangchunshu Zhou, Ming Shen, Pei Zhou, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin Choi, and Xiang Ren. 2020. CommonGen: A constrained text generation challenge for generative commonsense reasoning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 1823–1840, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/1907.11692. Yixin Liu and Pengfei Liu. 2021. SimCLS: A simple framework for contrastive learning of abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1065–1072, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. NLP Team MosaicML. 2023. Introducing mpt-7b: A new standard for open-source, ly usable llms. Accessed: 2023-05-23. Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero dos Santos, Çaglar Gulçehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. ˘ Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence RNNs and beyond. In Proceedings of the 20th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 280–290, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E. Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan J. Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2203.02155. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. Mathieu Ravaut, Shafiq Joty, and Nancy Chen. 2022a. SummaReranker: A multi-task mixture-of-experts re-ranking framework for abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4504–4524, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mathieu Ravaut, Shafiq Joty, and Nancy Chen. 2022b. Towards summary candidates fusion. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8488–8504, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Omer Sagi and Lior Rokach. 2018. Ensemble learning: A survey. *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data* Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8. Julian Salazar, Davis Liang, Toan Q. Nguyen, and Katrin Kirchhoff. 2020. Masked language model scoring. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2699–2712, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881–7892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Noam Shazeer and Mitchell Stern. 2018. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholmsmässan, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018, volume 80 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 4603–4611. PMLR. Stability-AI. 2023. Stablelm: Stability ai language models. https://github.com/ stability-AI/stableLM. Tianxiang Sun and Xipeng Qiu. 2023. Moss. https: //github.com/OpenLMLab/MOSS. Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/ stanford_alpaca. Jörg Tiedemann and Santhosh Thottingal. 2020a. OPUS-MT - building open translation services for the world. In *Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation*, pages 479–480, Lisboa, Portugal. European Association for Machine Translation. Jörg Tiedemann and Santhosh Thottingal. 2020b. OPUS-MT - building open translation services for the world. In *Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation*, pages 479–480, Lisboa, Portugal. European Association for Machine Translation. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aur'elien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/2302.13971. Benyou Wang, Jiabin Niu, Liqun Ma, Yuhua Zhang, Lipeng Zhang, Jingfei Li, Peng Zhang, and Dawei Song. 2016. A chinese question answering approach integrating count-based and embedding-based features. In *NLPCC/ICCPOL*. Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Self-instruct: Aligning language model with self generated instructions. ArXiv preprint, abs/2212.10560. Canwen Xu, Daya Guo, Nan Duan, and Julian McAuley. 2023. Baize: An open-source chat model with parameter-efficient tuning on self-chat data. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/2304.01196. Wang Yidong, Yu Zhuohao, Zeng Zhengran, Yang Linyi, Heng Qiang, Wang Cunxiang, Chen Hao, Jiang Chaoya, Xie Rui, Wang Jindong, Xie Xing, Ye Wei, Zhang Shikun, and Zhang Yue. 2023. Pandalm: Reproducible and automated language model assessment. https://github.com/ WeOpenML/PandaLM. Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. Bartscore: Evaluating generated text as text generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 27263–27277. Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. PEGASUS: pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of *Proceedings of Machine* Learning Research, pages 11328–11339. PMLR. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020b. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In *8th International Conference on Learning Representations,* ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Chatbot arena: Benchmarking llms in the wild with elo ratings. Blog post. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Limitations ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Introduction and Conclusion ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 2 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? mainly in Sec 4 B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section 2 B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? in Section 2 ✓ B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 2 Table 1 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 4 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix A The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 4 ✓ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4 ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? appendix E Metrics ## D ✗ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank.

zeng-etal-2023-seen

Seen to Unseen: Exploring Compositional Generalization of Multi-Attribute Controllable Dialogue Generation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.793

Existing controllable dialogue generation work focuses on the single-attribute control and lacks generalization capability to out-of-distribution multiple attribute combinations. In this paper, we explore the compositional generalization for multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation where a model can learn from seen attribute values and generalize to unseen combinations. We propose a prompt-based disentangled controllable dialogue generation model, DCG. It learns attribute concept composition by generating attribute-oriented prompt vectors and uses a disentanglement loss to disentangle different attributes for better generalization. Besides, we design a unified reference-free evaluation framework for multiple attributes with different levels of granularities. Experiment results on two benchmarks prove the effectiveness of our method and the evaluation metric.

# Seen To Unseen: Exploring Compositional Generalization Of Multi-Attribute Controllable Dialogue Generation Weihao Zeng1∗, Lulu Zhao1∗, Keqing He2**, Ruotong Geng**1 Jingang Wang2, Wei Wu2**, Weiran Xu**1∗ 1Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China 2Meituan, Beijing, China {zengwh,zhaoll,ruotonggeng,xuweiran}@bupt.edu.cn {hekeqing,wangjingang,wuwei}@meituan.com ## Abstract Existing controllable dialogue generation work focuses on the single-attribute control and lacks generalization capability to out-of-distribution multiple attribute combinations. In this paper, we explore the compositional generalization for multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation where a model can learn from seen attribute values and generalize to unseen combinations. We propose a prompt-based disentangled controllable dialogue generation model, DCG. It learns attribute concept composition by generating attribute-oriented prompt vectors and uses a disentanglement loss to disentangle different attributes for better generalization. Besides, we design a unified reference-free evaluation framework for multiple attributes with different levels of granularities. Experiment results on two benchmarks prove the effectiveness of our method and the evaluation metric. ## 1 Introduction Recently, large pre-trained language models (PLMs) like DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020), BlenderBot (Roller et al., 2020) and Meena (Adiwardana et al., 2020) can produce fluent and relevant responses for dialogue contexts. However, the generated responses are often uninformative and factual inconsistent. Hence, controllable dialogue generation (CDG) is proposed to guide dialogue generation towards the desired attributes such as emotions (Zhou et al., 2018), acts (Li et al., 2017), and personas (Zhang et al., 2018). Previous work focused on directly fine-tuning the large-scale PLMs (Keskar et al., 2019) or using an extra attribute discriminator (Krause et al., 2021; Dathathri et al., 2019) to guide generation. The former is expensive and requires extensive annotated attribute labels. The decoding of the latter is computationally intensive, reducing the response fluency and generation speed. ∗The first two authors contribute equally. Weiran Xu is the corresponding author.  (a) E-ACC Although these methods have made some progress in CDG, most of them focus on singleattribute generation where there is only one attribute label like *happiness* in emotion and pay less attention to the multi-attribute generation, which is a more practical setting. Therefore, we are committed to filling this gap in CDG. Noted that different from single-attribute, the control signal of the multiattribute generation is a combination of multiple values from different attributes, which faces the challenge of lacking sufficient annotated attributespecific data. We also find state-of-the-art methods for multi-attribute controllable text generation (Yang et al., 2022; Qian et al., 2022), which combine controllers learned from single-attribute, only suitable for discrete attributes with specific labels (Li et al., 2017) but not for continuous attributes (Zhang et al., 2018). More importantly, we further show directly applying all existing models achieves superior attribute accuracy on seen attribute combinations but drops significantly on unseen combinations, as shown in Figure 1. It proves that previous work lacks compositional generalization capability from seen attribute values to unseen combinations. Besides, the evaluation of controllability in CDG is severely limited by attribute types and annotated attribute data (Du and Ji, 2021), which is not ap14179  plicable to all cases. Therefore, it is valuable to explore a unified and efficient evaluation metric. In this paper, we try to explore the compositional generalization for multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation where a model could learn from seen attribute values and generalize to unseen combinations. Figure 2 shows two granularities of multi-attribute compositional generalization, where the token-level attribute labels are regarded as coarse-grained discrete attributes and the sentence-level attribute descriptions are regarded as fine-grained continuous attributes. Specifically, we propose a Disentangled Controllable Generation model (DCG), for compositional generalization in multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation. Inspired by prompt learning (Lester et al., 2021), we adopt the attribute values in a combination as attribute-oriented prompts to elicit knowledge from PLMs where the prompts for all instances learn a shared transformation layer, instead of learning an independent prompt representation for each attribute value (Clive et al., 2022; Qian et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022). Our method helps transfer attribute concepts from seen values to unseen combinations by learning different prompt embeddings and is easily applied to attribute combination with a huge number of discrete or continuous attribute values. To further disentangle different attribute values, we construct a set of pseudo combinations and design a novel objective of controllable attribute combinations for prompt-tuning, which separates desired attribute combination from others. Furthermore, to unify the evaluation of different granularity attributes, we design a novel and general reference-free evaluation framework, i.e. Multiple Attribute Evaluation (MAE), to measure the consistency between desired seen/unseen attribute combinations and generated responses. Specifically, the evaluation of each attribute is converted to a text-to-text generation task based on T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) with handcrafted templates, and the generated probability of "yes" is regarded as the controllability score. To mitigate the potential bias of different handcrafted modalities (Zhao et al., 2019; Ke et al., 2022), we add a trainable continuous prompt to improve stability and robustness. Through human evaluation, we show that our proposed evaluation metric can handle both coarse-grained discrete attributes and fine-grained continuous attributes well. Our contributions are as follows: (1) To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to explore the compositional generalization for multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation and find existing models lack generalization capability to outof-distribution multi-attribute combinations. (2) We propose a disentangled controllable generation, DCG, which learns attribute concepts from seen values to unseen combinations via a shared mapping of attribute-oriented prompts and uses a disentanglement loss to disentangle different attribute combinations. (3) We introduce a unified reference-free evaluation framework, MAE, for different granularities of attributes. Two benchmarks are established and sufficient experiment results prove the effectiveness of our method and evaluation metric. ## 2 Related Work Controllable Dialogue Generation Currently, there have existed many studies on CDG (Zhou et al., 2018; Li et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). CTRL (Keskar et al., 2019) used 55 kinds of attribute control codes to finetune an LM which is expensive and requires extensive annotated attribute labels. Krause et al. (2021); Dathathri et al. (2019); Yang and Klein (2021); Lin and Riedl (2021) addressed these limitations by employing an attribute discriminator to update the hidden activations or re-weight the next token distributions, resulting in a slow inference speed. Despite the progress, these models all focus on the single-attribute CDG where the attribute only contains coarse-grained discrete values, such as *happiness* in emotion-controlled generation. It is also vital to explore multi-attribute CDG with multi-granularity attributes. Recently, some works (Yang et al., 2022; Qian et al., 2022) extend to multi-attribute controllable text generation by simply concatenating the prefixes trained for single attribute. However, they are only suitable for discrete attributes but not for fine-grained continuous attributes like personas (Zhang et al., 2018). Besides, we find all these methods have a large performance drop from seen attribute values to unseen combinations. Therefore, in this paper, we are the first to explore the compositional generalization for multi-attribute CDG where a model could learn from seen attributes and generalize to out-of-distribution (OOD) combinations. Compositional Generalization in NLP Compositional generalization has gradually attracted the interest of NLP researchers. The main application is in semantic parsing, involving grammar-based approaches (Herzig and Berant, 2021), data augmentation strategies (Oren et al., 2020), disentangled representations (Zheng and Lapata, 2022), etc. Recently, a large-scale benchmark, STYLEPTB, is constructed to advance the development of compositional style transfer (Lyu et al., 2021), and a template-based input representation is also performed on the data-to-text task (Mehta et al., 2022). Overall, the application of compositional generalization in NLP tasks is not widespread and there is no related work on CDG at all. Prompt Learning Prompt-based methods have achieved significant success in many NLP fields (Lester et al., 2021; Schick and Schütze, 2021). Li and Liang (2021) proposed the task-specific continuous prompts to finetune a NLG model. For controllable generation, Clive et al. (2022); Qian et al. (2022); Yang et al. (2022) applied the prompt learning to represent each attribute value as an independent prefix. However, those methods are impractical for fine-grained attributes with a large value set. In contrast, we use the control codes to generate attribute-oriented prompts to guide the generation via a shared MLP layer. ## 3 Problem Formulation Given a predefined set of attributes X = {*A, B, C, ...*}, each attribute contains various values A = {a1*, ..., a*k} and k is the number of values of attribute A. Multi-attribute controlled dialogue response generation aims to generate responses r that satisfy multiple desirable attributes c = (a1, b2*, ...*) conditioned on the dialogue history d, where a1 and b2 are one value of the attribute A and B, and c ∈ Cv is a combination of attribute values. It can be symbolized as p(r|*d, a*1, b2*, ...*), LD  LPLM (a1 ∈ A, b2 ∈ *B, ...*). In this paper, we further focus on the multiattribute compositional generalization, where the combinations of multiple attribute values for the training set and the test set are disjoint, i.e., Cv,train ∩ C*v,test* = ∅. ## 4 Methodology As shown in Figure 3, our model is on the basis of the framework of DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) with the compositional prompt module. ## 4.1 Compositional Prompt 4.1.1 Prompt Design To better use the control signals, we design two types of prompts to elicit the attribute-related information from the PLM: Attribute-oriented Prompt We use the combination of controlled attribute values corresponding to each instance as prompts to guide the model to focus on the controlled information in the dialogue. Here, the controlled attribute values are discrete attribute labels in DailyDialog or continuous attribute descriptions in ConvAI2. The multiple attribute values ai,·in the corresponding combination c are simply concatenated as an attribute-oriented prompt sequence, i.e., patt = [a1, b2*, ...*]. We encode the prompt tokens using the word embedding layer of a pre-trained DialogGPT and then employ a shared MLPθ1 to generate the embeddings Eatt of the attribute-oriented prompts. Note that we don't require independent parameters for each attribute value like Clive et al. (2022); Qian et al. (2022); Yang et al. (2022), but only a shared transformation MLP layer. Task-oriented Prompt Although attribute-oriented prompts capture the instance-specific control signals, the dialogue response generation task also is guided by the instance-independent global features. Following Lester et al. (2021), we adopt a series of randomly initialized tokens as the task-oriented prompt, i.e., p*task* = [p1*, ..., p*m], where m is the length of the task-oriented prompt sequence. We look up this prompt sequence in the randomly initialized embedding table Mθ2 and get the prompt embeddings E*task*. Finally, we concatenate the two prompt embeddings as the whole prompt embeddings, i.e., Ep = [Eatt; E*task*]. ## 4.1.2 Disentanglement Learning Given an instance (*d, c*), d is the dialogue history and c is the combination of controllable attribute values. To force the model to distinguish different combinations of multiple attribute values, we design some pseudo combinations to enhance the diversity of the prompts, which improves the generalization ability of our model. A disentanglement loss LD is further introduced to disentangle the combination representations and train multiple compositional prompts simultaneously: $${\mathcal{L}}_{D}=-l o g{\frac{P(r|d,c)}{P(r|d,c)+\sum_{c^{\prime}\in C_{p s e}}P(r|d,c^{\prime})}}\tag{1}$$ where Cpse is the set of pseudo combinations and at least one value in the combination c ′is different from the corresponding value in the golden combination.1 Here, we maximize the generated likelihood of the desirable positive combination P(r|*d, c*) against the generated likelihood of pseudo combinations P(r|*d, c*′) to generate more controllable responses relevant to given attributes. ## 4.2 Training Strategy We use DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) as the backbone of our model. Given the dialogue history d, the embedding Ed is obtained by DialoGPT. Then, the embeddings of the prompt sequence Ep are prepended to the Ed as a whole input embedding matrix. Overall, the PLM loss is calculated as: $$\mathcal{L}_{PLM}=-\sum_{t=1}^{T}\log p_{\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\varphi}(y_{t}|y_{<t},d,p_{att},p_{task})\tag{2}$$ where T is the length of generated sequence, i.e., the dialogue history and response. φ is the parameter of the PLM and is fixed. The parameters of two prompts, θ1 and θ2, are the only updated parameters. Therefore, the training loss L is the 1We find constructing pseudo combinations with at least one different attribute value is slightly better than with all different attributes in the experiments.  Mh M e L = αLD + (1 − α)L*P LM* (3) When the training is completed, we save all parameters of the prompt module. During the inference, the data from the test set is mapped to the representations of prompts only via the embedding matrices, where the features of the attributes seen in the training set can be transferred to the unseen combinations. ## 5 Method Of Mae To fill the gap in metrics for multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation, we propose a unified and efficient evaluation framework without additional large-scale labeled data, as shown in Figure 4, which converts the evaluation of each attribute to a unified text-to-text generation task, just like Gu et al. (2022). T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) is used as the base model for our work. A template is designed as discrete prompts, i.e., "The emotion/act/persona controls the response [MASK]". To alleviate the potential bias of different handcrafted patterns (Ke et al., 2022), we further add a trainable continuous task-oriented prompt to improve stability and robustness. Specifically, the continuous prompt sequence is prepended to the response as a prefix, which makes up the input of the encoder. Another continuous prompt sequence, the attribute values, and the template are concatenated and fed to the decoder. We take the probability of generating "yes" corresponding to [MASK] token as the controllability score. In training process, only embeddings of continuous prompts are updated and the parameters of T5 are fixed. Note that our model-based evaluation ap- | Split | DailyDialog-CG | ConvAI2-CG | | | | | | | | | |------------|------------------|--------------|----------|---------|------|----------|-------------|----------|---------|------| | Size | Turn.num | Att_com.num | Dial.len | Res.len | Size | Turn.num | Att_com.num | Dial.len | Res.len | | | Train | 12,504 | 6.8 | 18 | 77.6 | 12.9 | 18,000 | 5.0 | 11,566 | 46.5 | 11.7 | | Validation | 1,390 | 6.5 | 18 | 75.0 | 13.0 | 2,000 | 5.0 | 1,883 | 46.8 | 11.6 | | Test | 1970 | 6.0 | 6 | 69.6 | 13.9 | 2,000 | 5.0 | 873 | 46.1 | 11.6 | Table 1: Statistics of DailyDialog-CG and ConvAI2-CG ("CG" means compositional generalization). "Size" and "Att_com.num"denote the numbers of examples and attribute combinations. "Turn.num" are the average number turns per example. "Dial.len" and "Res.len" are the average lengths of dialogue history and response. proach gets rid of the reliance on golden response when tested and can be uniformly applied to various granularities of attributes. ## 6 Experiments 6.1 Datasets We construct two datasets based on DailyDialog (Li et al., 2017) and ConvAI2 (Dinan et al., 2020) for compositional generalization in multi-attribute controllable dialogue response generation. DailyDialog-CG DailyDialog is an open-domain dialogue dataset with two controllable attributes: emotion and act. Here, we treat the labels of the two attributes as an attribute combination, e.g., (surprise, inform). For dialogues, each utterance with two attribute labels is regarded as the response and all preceding texts of this utterance are considered as the corresponding dialogue history. In this way, we get 14,879 examples. We count the attribute combinations labeled in all examples, 18 of which are selected as C*v,train* and the other 6 are C*v,test*. Then, the examples are divided into the training set and test set according to the combination set. We also extract 10% samples from the training set as the validation set. ConvAI2-CG ConvAI2 is a persona-based dialogue dataset in which the persona profile of each dialogue is consisting of 4 or 5 personalized sentences. We treat each sentence as an attribute value and the sentences in the same position belong to the same attribute. The persona profile is regarded as an attribute combination, e.g., ("My mom is my best friend.", "I've four sisters.", "I believe that mermaids are real.", "I love iced tea."). For each dialogue, we choose the first 4 utterances as the dialogue history and the 5th utterance as the response. Consistent with the processing method of DailyDialog-CG, we select 11,566 combinations as C*v,train* 2and the other 873 combinations as C*v,test*. After that, we obtain the corresponding training set, validation set, and test set. The statistics about the two datasets are shown in Table 1. ## 6.2 Baselines We compare our methods with several competitive baselines. The common dialogue generation models are included: (1) DialoGPT-Ori (Zhang et al., 2020); (2) FUDGE (Yang and Klein, 2021); (3) PPLM (Dathathri et al., 2019); (4) Cocon (Chan et al., 2020); (5) Fine-tuning; (6) CTRL (Keskar et al., 2019). We also implement some promptbased methods for comparison: (1) Prompt-tuning (Lester et al., 2021); (2) CatPrompt (Yang et al., 2022). More details can be seen in Appendix A 3. ## 6.3 Evaluation Metrics In this work, we focus on evaluating the attribute controllability and text quality for different controllable generation methods. Attribute Controllability It aims to evaluate whether the method can generate responses constrained by multiple attributes successfully. 1. For the control of coarse-grained discrete attributes in DailyDialog-CG, we use the classification accuracy, i.e., E-ACC and A-ACC, for each attribute computed by an independently trained Roberta classifier (Liu et al., 2019), respectively. 2. For the control of fine-grained continuous attributes in ConvAI2-CG, we calculate the cosine similarity between the representations of attribute sentences and the generated response, i.e., PSIM(Du and Ji, 2021). We also evaluate the model by measuring the consistency of attribute sentences with the generated response via a Roberta-based Natural Language Inference (NLI) model, i.e., PNLI(Madotto et al., 2019). 3. We propose a unified model-based evaluation metric, i.e., MAE, for various granularities of 2The 1,883 combinations of the validation set are included in the 11,566 combinations of the training set. 3Our code, models and other related resources are publicly available at https://github.com/Zeng-WH/Seen-to-Unseen. Controllability **Text Quality** Method E-ACC ↑ E-MAE ↑ A-ACC ↑ A-MAE ↑ BLEU-1 ↑ BLEU-2 ↑ **METEOR** ↑ DialoGPT-Ori 50.36 60.46 27.82 31.61 11.53 1.58 9.03 FUDGE 60.10 64.29 27.21 29.21 12.24 1.13 8.67 PPLM 51.57 56.87 33.60 33.71 11.77 1.34 9.26 CoCon 52.79 59.99 29.44 34.51 6.91 0.42 11.50 Fine-tuning 62.74 66.77 35.66 37.02 21.64 10.19 19.15 CTRL 67.34 69.55 33.50 36.15 24.76 11.42 20.45 Prompt-tuning 57.06 62.78 30.36 32.53 19.71 7.36 15.13 CatPrompt 60.91 66.50 36.75 38.43 24.07 11.17 20.72 DCG (ours) **70.66 72.61** 38.98 41.63 **26.33 14.16 24.57** DCG w/o AOP (Prompt-tuning) 57.06 62.78 30.36 32.53 19.71 7.36 15.13 DCG w/o TOP 66.80 68.02 **41.83** 41.50 19.18 6.74 15.63 DCG w/o DL 60.41 64.57 38.07 39.45 22.45 9.20 19.55 Table 2: The performance of compositional generalization in multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation for DailyDialog-CG. "E" and "A" denote controllable attributes of "Emotion" and "Act". "AOP", "TOP", and "DL" mean attribute-oriented prompt, task-oriented prompt, and disentanglement learning. Results are averaged over three random runs. ↑ means a higher score is better. (p < 0.01 under t-test) Controllability **Text Quality** Method P-SIM ↑ P-NLI ↑ P-MAE↑ BLEU-1↑ BLEU-2↑ **METEOR**↑ DialoGPT-Ori 60.16 72.47 23.12 12.33 1.54 8.95 PPLM 59.90 75.98 25.03 13.20 1.65 9.06 Fine-tuning 65.48 69.50 19.21 16.53 2.40 10.96 CTRL 65.20 77.65 26.12 18.39 **3.12** 12.23 Prompt-tuning 64.84 74.30 24.56 17.59 2.60 11.22 DCG (ours) 69.03 81.20 30.42 **19.55** 2.68 **12.42** DCG w/o AOP (Prompt-tuning) 64.84 74.30 24.56 17.59 2.60 11.22 DCG w/o TOP 67.35 78.50 28.44 12.18 1.05 7.61 DCG w/o DL 68.25 79.00 28.53 18.34 2.39 11.63 Table 3: The performance of compositional generalization in multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation for ConvAI2-CG. "P" denotes controllable attribute of "Persona". Results are averaged over three random runs. ↑ means a higher score is better. (p < 0.01 under t-test) attributes, the details can be seen in Section 5. Text Quality We use the BLEUs (Papineni et al., 2002) and METEOR (Banerjee and Lavie, 2005) to measure the match scores between generated responses and ground-truth references. ## 6.4 Main Results Results on DailyDialog-CG Table 2 presents the results of controllable dialogue generation about unseen attribute combinations for DailyDialogCG. 4 We conduct experiments based on some strong controllable dialogue generation models and novel prompt-based methods. In general, our DCG outperforms all other baselines in terms of attribute controllability and text quality. Compared to CTRL, our model improves by 1.6%, 2.7%, 4.1% in BLEU-1, BLEU-2, METEOR for text quality, and 3.3%, 3.1%, 5.5%, 5.5% in E-ACC, E-MAE, A-ACC, A-MAE for attribute controllability. We also find the FUDGE and PPLM, two methods based on the decoding strategy, perform poorly here, especially in text quality, which illustrates the incompatibility of these decoding strategies for combinatorial generalization. Besides, as observed, Catprompt is a relatively well-performing prompt-based baseline, but it is still far worse than our method. This is because it directly concatenates all trained single-attribute prompts as the multi-attribute prompt for test. This inconsistency between training and testing stages decreases the performance. Different from these methods, our method optimizes the language modeling loss only based on discrete prompts for attribute combination and continuous task-oriented prompt, which can focus on the features of multiple attributes at the same time also during the training and achieve a better transfer via a learnable mapping. Besides, we also concern whether DCG benefits from attribute-oriented prompt, task-oriented prompt, and disentanglement learning. We find that DCG w/o AOP is the same with Prompt-tuning and it performs poorly in attribute controllability, which shows attribute-oriented prompt plays an important role in guiding the model to focus on the controlled information. After removing the taskoriented prompt, the DCG w/o TOP decreases to 19.18%, 6.74%, and 15.63% on text quality, but still maintains high controllability. It proves taskoriented prompt helps improve text quality. We also conduct experiments to prove that TOP can improve text quality when combined with other methods. (See Appendix H). Besides, after removing disentanglement learning, the DCG w/o DL drops significantly, which shows disentanglement learning effectively disentangles attribute combinations and improves the ability of compositional generalization. Results on ConvAI2-CG Table 3 presents the results of generalization on unseen attribute combinations for ConvAI2-CG. Due to the diversity of attribute values and attribute combinations, it is very difficult to implement CatPrompt in ConvAI2- CG. Therefore, we remove this baseline. We also remove FUDGE and Cocon for their poor generation quality and slow decoding speed, which is shown in Table 2 and Table 5. We can observe that the trend of overall performance is consistent with that of DailyDialog-CG. Compared to CTRL, our model achieves a great improvement in attribute controllability and text quality, which proves the generality of our methods on the coarse-grained discrete attribute control and fine-grained continuous attribute control. It also shows the effectiveness of our method when more attributes are combined. However, all BLEU scores are low, which is because the ConvAI2-CG has more diverse and complex attribute combinations and leads to the instability of models facing new attribute combinations. Generally, the results show that the compositional generalization for multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation is necessary and meaningful. Noted that we also conduct experiments on the setting with changed number of attributes from training to inference (See in Appendix G). ## 7 Qualitative Analysis 7.1 Comparison Between Seen And Unseen Attribute Values Figure 5 displays the comparison of the performance on seen and unseen attribute combinations for DailyDialog-CG. We report the controllability metrics, E-ACC (emotion) and A-ACC (act), and the BLEUs of the Fine-tuning, CTRL, and our DCG. The top of each box denotes the result of seen attribute combinations and the bottom represents unseen attribute combinations. We find all methods achieve significantly superior performance on seen attribute combinations than on unseen combinations. For example, CTRL achieves 71.27% E-ACC and 43.15% A-ACC on seen attribute combinations but drops to 67.34%(-3.93) and 33.50%(- 9.65) on unseen combinations. It strongly proves previous methods suffer from the difficulty of compositional generalization for the multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation. However, we find our proposed DCG can greatly alleviate this gap. The DCG has a smaller drop of 0.41% and 0.11% for E-ACC and A-ACC, and it also outperforms CTRL on both controllability and text equality of unseen attribute combinations. The results confirm the effectiveness of our method for transferring seen attributes to unseen combinations. We find CTRL achieves a higher A-ACC on seen combinations but a lower score on unseen combinations than Finetuning, which demonstrates directly adding control codes may cause overfitting to seen attribute combinations. ## 7.2 Correlation Results On Metrics Following Guan and Huang (2020), we adopt Pearson (r), Spearman (ρ), and Kendall (τ ) correlation coefficients between our proposed automatic metric, MAE, and human judgments (details can be seen in Appendix D) to measure the quality of different metrics. Table 4 shows the overall results on the controllability of coarse-grained discrete attributes, emotion and act, and the fine-grained continuous attributes, persona description. We can observe that our MAE outperforms classic metrics, E-ACC, A-ACC, P-SIM, and P-NLI, by a large margin, indicating the effectiveness of our unified metric on different granularities. We also conducted experiments on some variants of MAE. After the removal of continuous prompts, the correlation scores decrease. It is because the task-oriented prompts are the only parameters can be fine-tuned, which is important for MAE. We also implement MAE on another PLM, BART, to demonstrate generality for our model. Robustness Analysis To verify the effect of the bias of the handcrafted template, we design another two templates. The Template 1 is "The response is related to the emotion/act/persona [MASK]" and Template 2 is "The response is about the emotion/act/persona [MASK]". As shown in Table 4, MAE (T1) and MAE (T2) achieve similar correlation results (within 0.50%) while the results of MAE w/o Prompt (T1) and MAE w/o Prompt (T2) (b) A-ACC  (c) BLEU-1 (a) E-ACC Metrics DailyDialog-CG **ConvAI2-CG** Emotion Act **Persona** Pearson Spearman Kendall Pearson Spearman Kendall **Pearson Spearman Kendall** ACC 0.5242 0.4936 0.4834 0.3852 0.4077 **0.4027** \ \ \ P-SIM \ \ \ \ \ \ -0.0683 0.0065 0.0098 P-NLI \ \ \ \ \ \ -0.0881 -0.0741 -0.0706 MAE 0.6821 **0.7500 0.6242** 0.5446 **0.4661** 0.3936 **0.5793** 0.5768 0.4418 MAE w/o Prompt 0.3665 0.4802 0.3857 -0.2832 -0.2136 -0.1789 -0.0529 0.2591 0.2062 MAE (BART) **0.6829** 0.7396 0.6102 **0.5478** 0.4358 0.3697 0.5550 **0.5848 0.4517** MAE (T1) 0.6801 0.7661 0.6382 0.5557 0.4661 0.3935 0.6037 0.6235 0.4811 MAE (T2) 0.6758 0.7070 0.5851 0.5357 0.4055 0.3458 0.5724 0.5767 0.4418 MAE w/o Prompt (T1) 0.1158 0.1053 0.0912 -0.3035 -0.2684 -0.2266 0.0835 0.0984 0.0884 MAE w/o Prompt (T2) 0.0417 -0.0257 -0.0210 -0.2680 -0.1040 -0.0835 -0.0512 -0.0199 -0.0295 are quite different. It suggests the trainable continuous task-oriented prompt can alleviate the potential bias of different handcrafted templates and further improve the robustness of MAE. ## 7.3 Prompt Visualization To show the effect of prompts for compositional generalization, we display a visualization of the concatenated prompt embeddings of two attributes via PCA (Jolliffe and Cadima, 2016) on DailyDialog-CG in Figure 6. For CatPrompt in Figure 6(a), all the multi-attribute combinations (6(emotion) × 4(act) = 24) almost collapse into four dots where each dot is of the same act attribute value but of different emotion values. We find directly concatenating two single-attribute prompts makes the model only focus on the latter attribute (act), i.e., position sensitive, so that the CatPrompt cannot distinguish different combinations with the other attribute (emotion). Therefore, it's hard for CatPrompt to learn multi-attribute compositional generalization. In Figure 6(b), We find that DCG w/o DL can distinguish different multi-attribute combinations to some extent. However, the combinations of different attribute values are tightly entangled, such as (a0, b2) and (a4, b1). Figure 6(c) shows that our DCG has a close distribution with prompts of the same attribute value, i.e., (a0, b0), (a0, b1), (a0, b2), and a sparse distribution with prompts of different attribute values, e.g., (a0, b2) and (a4, b1). It proves our DCG can disentangle attribute combinations and learn relations between different attributes. Furthermore, DCG learns generalization capability from seen attributes to unseen combinations. For example, (a2, b1) -> (a0, b1) (unseen path) is equal to (a2, b0) -> (a0, b0) (seen path). The results confirm that our proposed attribute-oriented prompt outperforms the models that learn an independent prompt for each attribute value. The shared embedding mapping helps learn attribute concepts from seen values to unseen combinations. ## 7.4 Few-Shot Learning To study the effect of few-shot learning, we randomly select a ratio of original training data from DailyDialog-CG to train CTRL or DCG in lowresource settings and evaluate the model performance on the original test set. "Full" denotes the same setting as the main results. 5000, 1000, and 500 denote the number of examples chosen from the original training data respectively. The results are shown in Figure 7. Note that we keep the original test set fixed for a fair comparison. As the  (a) CatPrompt (b) CtrlPrompt  size of training data decreases, the performance of both CTRL and DCG presents a dropping trend and our DCG model is consistently better than CTRL, which confirms our model has a strong capability for multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation. ## 8 Case Study Figure 9 (See in Appendix) shows two examples from Dailydialog-CG and ConvAI2-CG, respectively. For example one in the DailyDialog-CG, the CTRL generates the word "great", showing that the generated response is emotionally controllable. However, both sentences in the response are declarative sentences, which does not control the act *question*. As observed, the response generated by our DCG contains the word "Wow", which strongly expresses the emotion of *happiness*. Besides, a question sentence is also generated. Example two in ConvAI2-CG needs to control 5 attributes, of which the golden response contains 2 attributes. The CTRL only controls "like to skate", while our DCG controls "like to write poetry and skate", which is highly consistent with the golden response. Compared with previous models, our model addresses many difficult issues in compositional generalization for multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation. With an attribute-oriented prompt and a task-oriented prompt, our method learns attribute concepts from seen attribute values to unseen attribute combinations. Through a disentanglement learning, some artificial-constructed unseen pseudo combinations are injected into the training process, which greatly improves the generalization ability of our model. ## 9 Conclusion In this paper, we study the compositional generalization for multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation. We propose a prompt-based disentangled controllable dialogue generation model which generates attribute-specific prompt vectors from control codes and uses a disentanglement loss to disentangle different attributes. Further, we develop a unified reference-free evaluation framework, MAE, for multi-attribute generation with different levels of granularities. Experiments and analysis show our method achieves better text quality and controllability scores. Moreover, our proposed MAE has a higher correlation with human judgments for evaluation on CDG. ## Acknowledgements We thank all anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to the track organizers for their valuable work. This work was partially supported by National Key R&D Program of China No. 2019YFF0303300 and Subject II No. 2019YFF0303302, DOCOMO Beijing Communications Laboratories Co., Ltd, MoE-CMCC "Artifical Intelligence" Project No. MCM20190701. Jingang Wang is funded by Beijing Nova Program(Grant NO. 20220484098) ## Limitations Although DCG achieves significant improvements compared with existing baselines, there are still avenues to be explored in future research. (1) DCG in this paper focuses on the compositional generalization for multi-attribute on controllable dialogue generation. We hope to extend the method to other generative tasks, including but not limited to dialogue summarization and story generation. (2) In this paper, we explored the control of coarsegrained discrete attributes and the control of finegrained ones separately, and we intend to study the combination of these two attributes in future research. ## Ethics Statement Controllable dialogue generation(CDG) is an essential task in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and has been widely studied for decades, which aims to guide dialogue generation toward the desired attributes such as emotions, acts, and personas. In the open-domain dialogue scenario, CDG can generate emotional and diverse responses to enhance the user's sense of participation. In the task-oriented dialogue scenario, CDG can generate responses that meet the user's needs according to the user's intent. However, most previous works focus on singleattribute generation where there is only one attribute label like *happiness* in emotion and pay less attention to the multi-attribute generation, which is a more practical setting. Different from singleattribute, the control signal of the multi-attribute generation is a combination of multiple values from different attributes, which faces the challenge of lacking sufficient annotated attribute-specific data. Therefore, we explore the compositional generalization for multi-attribute controllable dialogue generation where a model could learn from seen attribute values and generalize to unseen combinations. We also design a novel and general referencefree evaluation framework to unify the evaluation of different granularity attributes. The experimental results prove the effectiveness of our model and evaluation framework. Besides, there is no huge biased content in the datasets and the models. If the knowledge base is further used, the biased content will be brought into the generated responses, just like biased content posted by content creators on the Web which is promoted by a search engine. To prevent the technology from being abused for disinformation, we look forward to more research effort being paid to fake/biased/offensive content detection and encourage developers to carefully choose the proper dataset and content to build the knowledge base. ## References Daniel Adiwardana, Minh-Thang Luong, David R So, Jamie Hall, Noah Fiedel, Romal Thoppilan, Zi Yang, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Gaurav Nemade, Yifeng Lu, et al. 2020. Towards a human-like open-domain chatbot. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09977*. Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. METEOR: An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In *Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization*, pages 65–72, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peter F Brown, Stephen A Della Pietra, Vincent J Della Pietra, Jennifer C Lai, and Robert L Mercer. 1992. An estimate of an upper bound for the entropy of english. *Computational Linguistics*, 18(1):31–40. Alvin Chan, Yew-Soon Ong, Bill Pung, Aston Zhang, and Jie Fu. 2020. Cocon: A self-supervised approach for controlled text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03535. Jordan Clive, Kris Cao, and Marek Rei. 2022. Control prefixes for parameter-efficient text generation. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM), pages 363–382. Sumanth Dathathri, Andrea Madotto, Janice Lan, Jane Hung, Eric Frank, Piero Molino, Jason Yosinski, and Rosanne Liu. 2019. Plug and play language models: A simple approach to controlled text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02164. Emily Dinan, Varvara Logacheva, Valentin Malykh, Alexander Miller, Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Douwe Kiela, Arthur Szlam, Iulian Serban, Ryan Lowe, et al. 2020. The second conversational intelligence challenge (convai2). In The NeurIPS'18 Competition: From Machine Learning to Intelligent Conversations, pages 187–208. Springer. Wanyu Du and Yangfeng Ji. 2021. SideControl: Controlled open-domain dialogue generation via additive side networks. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 2175–2194, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuxian Gu, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. PPT: Pre-trained prompt tuning for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8410–8423, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jian Guan and Minlie Huang. 2020. UNION: An Unreferenced Metric for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generation. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9157–9166, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonathan Herzig and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Spanbased semantic parsing for compositional generalization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 908–921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ian T Jolliffe and Jorge Cadima. 2016. Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments. Philosophical transactions of the royal society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2065):20150202. Pei Ke, Hao Zhou, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. CTRLEval: An unsupervised reference-free metric for evaluating controlled text generation. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2306–2319, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Lav R Varshney, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Ctrl: A conditional transformer language model for controllable generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.05858*. Ben Krause, Akhilesh Deepak Gotmare, Bryan McCann, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Shafiq Joty, Richard Socher, and Nazneen Fatema Rajani. 2021. GeDi: Generative discriminator guided sequence generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 4929–4952, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045–3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4582– 4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yanran Li, Hui Su, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Shuzi Niu. 2017. DailyDialog: A manually labelled multi-turn dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 986–995, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In *Text Summarization Branches Out*, pages 74–81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhiyu Lin and Mark Riedl. 2021. Plug-and-blend: A framework for controllable story generation with blended control codes. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2104.04039. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1711.05101. Yiwei Lyu, Paul Pu Liang, Hai Pham, Eduard Hovy, Barnabás Póczos, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and LouisPhilippe Morency. 2021. Styleptb: A compositional benchmark for fine-grained controllable text style transfer. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05196*. Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Personalizing dialogue agents via meta-learning. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics, pages 5454–5459. Sanket Vaibhav Mehta, Jinfeng Rao, Yi Tay, Mihir Kale, Ankur Parikh, and Emma Strubell. 2022. Improving compositional generalization with self-training for data-to-text generation. In *Proceedings of the 60th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4205– 4219, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexander Miller, Will Feng, Dhruv Batra, Antoine Bordes, Adam Fisch, Jiasen Lu, Devi Parikh, and Jason Weston. 2017. ParlAI: A dialog research software platform. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 79–84, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Inbar Oren, Jonathan Herzig, Nitish Gupta, Matt Gardner, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Improving compositional generalization in semantic parsing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 2482–2495, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jing Qian, Li Dong, Yelong Shen, Furu Wei, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Controllable natural language generation with contrastive prefixes. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 2912–2924, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *The Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21(1):5485–5551. Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Kurt Shuster, Eric M Smith, et al. 2020. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13637. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. It's not just size that matters: Small language models are also fewshot learners. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2339–2352, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kevin Yang and Dan Klein. 2021. FUDGE: Controlled text generation with future discriminators. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3511–3535, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kexin Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Wenqiang Lei, Baosong Yang, Mingfeng Xue, Boxing Chen, and Jun Xie. 2022. Tailor: A prompt-based approach to attributebased controlled text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.13362. Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. Bartscore: Evaluating generated text as text generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:27263–27277. Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204–2213, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1904.09675. Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and Bill Dolan. 2020. DIALOGPT : Large-scale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 270–278, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wei Zhao, Maxime Peyrard, Fei Liu, Yang Gao, Christian M. Meyer, and Steffen Eger. 2019. MoverScore: Text generation evaluating with contextualized embeddings and earth mover distance. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 563–578, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hao Zheng and Mirella Lapata. 2022. Disentangled sequence to sequence learning for compositional generalization. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4256–4268, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hao Zhou, Minlie Huang, Tianyang Zhang, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Bing Liu. 2018. Emotional chatting machine: Emotional conversation generation with internal and external memory. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32. ## A Baselines DialoGPT-Ori: Proposed by (Zhang et al., 2020), this model is a dialogue generative pre-trained transformer. Here, we use the original DialoGPT for open-domain dialogue generation. DialoGPT is the backbone for all other baselines except CoCon. Fine-tuning: We use dialogue history in datasets to fine-tune the DialoGPT for dialogue generation. CTRL: Proposed by (Keskar et al., 2019), this method provides attribute control codes for a language model trained from scratch. We concatenate multi-attribute control codes with dialogue history to fine-tune the DialoGPT. CoCon: Proposed by (Chan et al., 2020), this method uses a content input to control an GPT's output text at a fine-grained level. PPLM: Proposed by (Dathathri et al., 2019), this method is a gradient-based baseline that uses a plug-and-play language model(PPLM) to guide the language model. We train a joint classifier of emotion and dialogue act which takes a single response as input and predicts the attribute combination of the emotion and dialogue act on DailyDialog-CG. Noted that the attribute classifiers of PPLM can not directly generalize to unknown attribute combinations, so we use both training data and test data to train the attribute classifiers. We use the bagof-words attribute model which encodes persona profile to control the DialoGPT on ConvAI2-CG. FUDGE: Proposed by (Yang and Klein, 2021), this method is a weighted decoding baseline which uses a future discriminator for generation(FUDGE) to guide the DialoGPT. We train a joint discriminator that takes the dialogue history and the current response as input and predicts the attribute combination of emotion and dialogue act on DailyDialogCG. Prompt-tuning: Proposed by (Lester et al., 2021), this method uses continue prompts to fine-tune language models. We apply this method to the DialoGPT for dialogue generation. CatPrompt: Inspired by Yang et al. (2022); Qian et al. (2022), we initialize an unique prompt for each single attribute value and concatenate singleattribute prompts as the multi-attribute prompts. We fine-tune multi-attribute prompts for dialogue generation. Note that CatPrompt is only applied to coarse-grained discrete attributes like emotion and act instead of persona. Because persona has a large value set, resulting in numerous parameters (see Table 6). ## B Implementation Details Our implementation is based on the Hugging Face Transformer models5. DialoGPTSmall is used as a backbone and the input sequence length is truncated to 512 tokens. Following the HuggingFace default setup, we use an AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) and a linear learning rate scheduler with an initial rate of 7.5 · 10−5, and the batch size is set to 8. The prompt lengths 5https://github.com/huggingface/transformers | Method | Decoding Speed ↑ | |---------------|--------------------| | DialoGPT-Ori | 1.1837x | | FUDGE | 0.0041x | | PPLM | 0.0006x | | CoCon | 0.0044x | | Fine-tuning | 1.1347x | | CTRL | 1.1673x | | Prompt-tuning | 1.0000x | | CatPrompt | 1.0408x | | DCG (ours) | 1.0490x | | DCG w/o DL | 1.0122x | are set to 50 and 150, the attribute-oriented prompt lengths are set to 6 and 100, the disentanglement loss weight is set to 0.1 and 0.03, and the number of Pseudo Combinations is set to 8 and 6 for DailyDialog-CG and ConvAI2-CG, respectively. Our model is trained on Tesla V100 machines, taking 24 minutes per epoch on DailyDialog-CG and 36 minutes per epoch on ConvAI2-CG. For all experiments, we set the number of training epochs to 30. At the decoding phase, we use a greedy search and max generated tokens of 150. ## C Inference Efficiency We compare the average inference efficiency of our methods with the baselines. As we can observe from Table 5, the inference speed of PPLM, FUDGE, and CoCon is far slower than the original GPT-2 model. Prompt-based methods are much faster than that decoding strategy based methods. The inference speed of our method is close to the original DialoGPT methods. As shown in Table 6, with the growth of attribute combinations, the trainable parameters of CatPrompt increase rapidly, from 0.84M to 224M, which even exceeds the 117M trainable parameters of full DialoGPT. While our method achieves better results with a lower number of trainable parameters on DialyDialogCG and ConvAI2-CG. ## D Human Evaluation To validate the good performance of DCG, we further deploy a set of human evaluations to compare the controllability and text quality between several methods. We randomly sample 100 examples from two datasets and collect the corresponding generated responses of CTRL, DCG, and DCG w/o DL. For the controllability, 5 human annotators are invited to evaluate on a scale of 1-3, where score 1 | Model | DailyDialog-CG | ConvAI2-CG | | | |-----------------------|-------------------|-----------------------|-------------------|-------| | Traninable Parameters | Percent Trainable | Traninable Parameters | Percent Trainable | | | Fine-tuning | 117M | 100% | 117M | 100% | | CTRL | 117M | 100% | 117M | 100% | | Prompt-tuning | 0.13M | 0.11% | 0.21M | 0.18% | | CatPrompt | 0.84M | 0.71% | 244M | 205% | | DCG (ours) | 0.66M | 0.56% | 0.66M | 0.56% | | DCG w/o DL | 0.66M | 0.56% | 0.66M | 0.56% | Model DailyDialog-CG **ConvAI2-CG** Controllability Text Quality Controllability **Text Quality** Emo. Act. Flu. Rel. Per. Flu. **Rel.** CTRL 2.20 2.05 4.19 3.35 1.70 4.02 3.25 DCG 2.35 2.85 4.42 3.89 2.17 4.03 3.26 DCG w/o DL 1.70 2.30 4.04 3.18 1.61 4.07 3.22 Table 7: Human evaluation on controllability and text quality for DailyDialog-CG and ConvAI2-CG. Emo., Act., and Per. are the attributes of emotion, act, and persona. Flu. and Rel. are the fluency and context relevancy. means that the generated response is completely inconsistent with the expected attribute label, score 2 denotes that the generated response has the same meaning as the expected attribute label, but no explicit attribute-related words, and score 3 means that the generated response contains some clear attribute words. For the text quality, we ask the annotators to evaluate the fluency and context relevancy of the generated responses on a scale of 1-5, where a higher score indicates better quality. The inter-annotator agreement on the controllability and text quality is 0.63 and 0.61 for DailyDialog-GC, and 0.58 and 0.60 for ConvAI2-CG. For all metrics, the average score of the 5 annotators is treated as the final score. As shown in Table 7, the text quality scores of all models are high, which is because the models finetuned on contextualized language backbones can generate fluent sentences with relevant information. For controllability, our DCG achieves better performance than CTRL both on the coarse-grained discrete attributes and fine-grained continuous attributes, which suggests that our shared prompt mapping can learn the attribute concepts from seen attribute values to unseen attribute combinations and is useful for diverse attributes. Besides, when removing the disentanglement learning, the scores of our DCG w/o DL drop significantly, which further shows the effectiveness of the combination disentanglement to improve the generation ability. ## E Effect Of Model Parameters Prompt Length Figure 8 (a) displays the effect of overall prompt lengths of Ep. Since the length of attribute-oriented prompt is fixed to the number of control code, we change the length of the taskoriented prompt. We find that our DCG achieves superior performance when the prompt length is between 20 and 100, and gets the best scores when the prompt length is 50. The DCG outperforms the strong baseline CTRL by the 3.19% (averaged) for MAE and 2.16% (averaged) for BLEUs but uses only 56% trainable parameters of CTRL, which verifies the effectiveness and robustness of our method. Weight of Disentanglement Loss Figure 8 (b) shows the effect of different weight ratios α for the disentanglement loss LD. We observe that α ∈ (0.05, 0.15) achieves consistent improvements than CTRL and we take α = 0.10 in all experiments. Number of Pseudo Combinations Figure 8 (c) shows the effect of the number of pseudo combinations in the disentanglement loss. We find a larger number will improve the controllability of our model. It's because more pseudo attribute values help the model to separate the desired attribute combination from the others. ## F Comparison With Ctrleval Automatic evaluation metrics are important for text generation tasks, including reference-based like BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), ROUGE (Lin, 2004),  (a) Prompt Length (b) Disentanglement Loss Weight | DailyDialog-CG | ConvAI2-CG | | | | | | | | | |------------------|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|----------|---------|--------| | Metrics | Emotion | Act | Persona | | | | | | | | Pearson | Spearman | Kendall | Pearson | Spearman | Kendall | Pearson | Spearman | Kendall | | | CTRLEval | 0.6927 | 0.6994 | 0.5961 | 0.1232 | 0.3391 | 0.2743 | 0.4059 | 0.3622 | 0.2847 | | MAE | 0.6821 | 0.7500 | 0.6242 | 0.5446 | 0.4661 | 0.3936 | 0.5793 | 0.5768 | 0.4418 | BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2019) and unreferenced like perplexity (Brown et al., 1992), discriminator scores (Dathathri et al., 2019), BARTScore (Yuan et al., 2021). To evaluate controllability, (Dathathri et al., 2019; Yang and Klein, 2021) trained an attribute classifier to predict the probability using labeled external data, which is hard to multi-attribute controllable generation. As a concurrent work, CTRLEval (Ke et al., 2022) proposes an evaluation method for controllable text generation. Different from our MAE, CTRLEval uses handcrafted prompts to evaluate attribute relevance. However, handcrafted prompts are hard to construct for new tasks and cause generation bias. In contrast, our MAE uses a learnable soft prompt based on PLMs to enhance the generalization capability and robustness. We also provide a performance comparison in Table 8. Results show our MAE shows superior correlations of attribute controllability. ## G Performance On Number Of Attribute To prove our model still be useful when the number of attributes varies from training to inference, we train CTRL and our DCG with 4 attributes and inference with 5 attributes in ConvAI2-CG. As shown in Table 9, DCG outperforms the strong baseline CTRL by 3.54% , 5.99%, 4.8% in P-SIM, P-NLI and P-MAE on controllability and achieves comparable BLEU scores. It proves DCG can also handle well with changed number of attributes. ## H Impact Of Top On Text Quality We prove that task-oriented prompts (TOP) can also improve text quality when combined with other methods. Specifically, we trained CTRL with TOP in our experiments. As Table 10 shows, the results of CTRL for BLEU-1, BLEU-2, and METEOR are 24.76%, 11.42%, and 20.45%, respectively. Meanwhile, the results of CTRL+TOP for BLEU1, BLEU-2, and METEOR are 25.88%, 14.36%, and 21.82%. These results indicate that CTRL can utilize TOP to enhance text quality. | Example one in DailyDialog | Example two in Convai2 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Dialogue History: A: Smells good! What's for breakfast? B: Well, since we are getting up so late, I decided to make a big breakfast!" A: Nice! Brunch!" B: Kind of, I made scrambled and soft boiled eggs, some French toast and buttermilk pancakes! Dialogue History: A: Hi! how are you doing today? B: I am doing good and yourself? A: I am doing alright. What are some of your hobbies? B: I love the outdoors and camping" Controllable Attribute Combination: Controllable Attribute Combination: (happiness, question) I sometimes write poetry. My favorite color is black. I sing in a punk band. I like to skate. I want to visit the uk. Golden Response Wow! You really went all out! Did you make any coffee? Golden Response That sounds fun. I like to write poetry and to go ice stating haha. CTRL That sounds like a great breakfast! I'll make a big omelet, toast, and buttermilk pancakes! CTRL Just like to skate and ski. DCG (ours) Wow! You really went all out with it! Did you make any coffee? DCG (ours) That is cool. I like to write poetry and skate. | | Figure 9: Case study for two examples from DailyDialog-CG and ConvAI2-CG. We present the dialogue history, its corresponding controllable attribute combination, golden response, CTRL prediction, and prediction of our DCG. | Model | Controllability | Text Quality | | | | | |---------|-------------------|----------------|----------|----------|----------|-------| | P-SIM ↑ | P-NLI ↑ | P-MAE ↑ | BLEU-1 ↑ | BLEU-2 ↑ | METEOR ↑ | | | CTRL | 67.09 | 77.21 | 26.38 | 19.44 | 3.20 | 12.51 | | DCG | 70.63 | 83.20 | 31.18 | 18.63 | 2.32 | 11.87 | Table 9: The performance of CTRL and DCG for ConvAI2-CG when the number of attributes varies. We train models with 4 attributes and inference with 5 attributes. Results are averaged over three random runs. ↑ means a higher score is better. (p < 0.01 under t-test) | Model | BLEU-1 ↑ | BLEU-2 ↑ | METEOR ↑ | |----------|------------|------------|------------| | CTRL | 24.76 | 11.42 | 20.45 | | CTRL+TOP | 25.88 | 14.36 | 21.82 | | DCG | 26.33 | 14.16 | 24.57 | Table 10: The performance of CTRL , CTRL+TOP and DCG for DailyDialog-CG. Results are averaged over three random runs. ↑ means a higher score is better. (p < 0.01 under t-test) ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Left blank. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Left blank. A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Left blank. A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Left blank. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Left blank. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank. ## C **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left blank. C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Left blank. The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank. C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank. C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank. D **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank.

zheng-etal-2023-generating

Generating Structured Pseudo Labels for Noise-resistant Zero-shot Video Sentence Localization

https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.794

Video sentence localization aims to locate moments in an unstructured video according to a given natural language query. A main challenge is the expensive annotation costs and the annotation bias. In this work, we study video sentence localization in a zero-shot setting, which learns with only video data without any annotation. Existing zero-shot pipelines usually generate event proposals and then generate a pseudo query for each event proposal. However, their event proposals are obtained via visual feature clustering, which is query-independent and inaccurate; and the pseudo-queries are short or less interpretable. Moreover, existing approaches ignores the risk of pseudo-label noise when leveraging them in training. To address the above problems, we propose a Structure-based Pseudo Label generation (SPL), which first generate free-form interpretable pseudo queries before constructing query-dependent event proposals by modeling the event temporal structure. To mitigate the effect of pseudo-label noise, we propose a noise-resistant iterative method that repeatedly re-weight the training sample based on noise estimation to train a grounding model and correct pseudo labels. Experiments on the ActivityNet Captions and Charades-STA datasets demonstrate the advantages of our approach. Code can be found at \url{https://github.com/minghangz/SPL}.

# Generating Structured Pseudo Labels For Noise-Resistant Zero-Shot Video Sentence Localization Minghang Zheng1, Shaogang Gong2, Hailin Jin3**, Yuxin Peng**1, 4**, and Yang Liu**1,5∗ 1Wangxuan Institute of Computer Technology, Peking University 2Queen Mary University of London, 3Adobe Research 4 National Key Laboratory for Multimedia Information Processing, Peking University 5 National Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, BIGAI {minghang, pengyuxin, yangliu}@pku.edu.cn s.gong@qmul.ac.uk, hljin@adobe.com ## Abstract Video sentence localization aims to locate moments in an unstructured video according to a given natural language query. A main challenge is the expensive annotation costs and the annotation bias. In this work, we study video sentence localization in a zero-shot setting, which learns with only video data without any annotation. Existing zero-shot pipelines usually generate event proposals and then generate a pseudo query for each event proposal. However, their event proposals are obtained via visual feature clustering, which is query-independent and inaccurate; and the pseudo-queries are short or less interpretable. Moreover, existing approaches ignores the risk of pseudo-label noise when leveraging them in training. To address the above problems, we propose a Structurebased Pseudo Label generation (SPL), which first generate free-form interpretable pseudo queries before constructing query-dependent event proposals by modeling the event temporal structure. To mitigate the effect of pseudolabel noise, we propose a noise-resistant iterative method that repeatedly re-weight the training sample based on noise estimation to train a grounding model and correct pseudo labels. Experiments on the ActivityNet Captions and Charades-STA datasets demonstrate the advantages of our approach. Code can be found at https://github.com/minghangz/SPL. ## 1 Introduction Video sentence localization, which aims to localize the most salient video segments from an untrimmed video given a free-form nature language query, has attained increasing attention due to its potential applications in video surveillance (Collins et al., 2000), robot manipulation (Kemp et al., 2007), etc. The free-form natural language queries allow the model to be flexibly adapted to the requirements of different practical applications. ∗Corresponding author  Figure 1: (a) Training data for fully-supervised models. (b) Training data for weakly-supervised models. (c) The zero-shot models are trained with videos only. Existing pipeline may generate unaligned pseudo event-query pairs. (d) We construct query-dependent event proposals by modeling the event temporal structure. In recent years, the performance of video sentence localization has been improved with the help of advanced deep learning techniques and massively annotated data. However, the high annotation cost and the annotation bias still prevent the practical application of these models. On the one hand, the process of generating descriptions for the events in the video and labeling the corresponding events with the exact start and end timestamps are labor-intensive. On the other hand, many methods tend to capture the annotation bias (both in the query and timestamps) in the dataset, thus affecting the robustness of these models (Yuan et al., 2021; Otani et al., 2020). As shown in Figure 1, although the weakly supervised approaches do not require the timestamps annotation, the annotation costs of natural language queries are still unavoidable and 14197 they still suffer language-related annotation bias (e.g. query style and structure, etc). Therefore, in this work, we study the video sentence localisation in a zero-shot setting, i.e. only video data is needed for training without any manual annotation1. Existing zero-shot video sentence localization approaches (Nam et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2023) follow the same pipeline, i.e. looking for event proposals in the video, and then generating pseudo queries for the events. They either construct a simple subject-verb-object pseudo query by detecting possible verbs and nouns in the video or directly use the CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) features of video frames to serve as the query text features, assuming the visual and text feature spaces are well aligned. However, there are three problems in this pipeline. Firstly, their pseudo queries are either too simple (simple subject-verbobject structure) or less interpretable (only given as features), which makes it potentially difficult to generalize the model to the real queries. Besides, they usually generate nouns and verbs by pretrained object detectors or image-text pre-trained models, where temporal structured information is absent. Secondly, as shown in Figure 1(c), though they encourage the pseudo queries to have high semantic relevance to the proposal, they ignore the pseudo queries might also have a high score to the time-span out of the proposal, leading to miss-alignment between the pseudo queries and proposals, which may result in the model learning the incorrect visual and text alignment. Thirdly, existing methods train the model directly using pseudo-labels, ignoring the risk of noise in the generated start and end timestamps. They may fit the noise during training, resulting in poor test performance. To tackle these problems, we propose a novel Structure-base Pseudo Label generation pipeline (SPL) to generate flexible and generalizable pseudo-labels and reduce the noise in the pseudolabels during training. Firstly, to generate free-form pseudo-queries, we sample video frames and generate captions using a pre-trained image caption model. The queries from the caption model are more diverse and flexible than those simple subjectverb-object pseudo queries. Secondly, to generate reasonable events for pseudo-queries, we consider the temporal structure of an event, i.e. the relevance between the query and the content in the event should be high, while the relevance outside the event should be low. Specifically, we enumerate event proposals and select the one with the largest gap between the semantic relevance to the query within the event and outside the event, and use the gap value as the quality of the pseudo query. To prevent too many queries from describing the same event, we use non-maximum suppression to filter out the pseudo-queries whose events have a high IoU with others and keep the top-K pseudoquery-event pairs based on their quality. Finally, to mitigate the effect of pseudo-label noise when training a fully supervised model using our pseudoquery-event pairs, we propose a noise-resistant iterative method. We repeatedly re-weight each training sample based on our noise estimation from the model's prediction, and continuously refine the temporal labels during training. Our pipeline shows significant performance advantages on the Charades-STA and ActivityNet Captions datasets. Our contributions are: (1) We propose a novel model learning process for zero-shot video sentence localization, which generates free-form pseudo query candidates first, and then generates pseudo events according to the temporal structure of an event. (2) We propose a sample re-weight and pseudo-label refinement method to reduce the effect of pseudo-label noise on the model. (3) Experiments on Charades-STA and ActivityNet Captions demonstrate the advantages of our method. ## 2 Related Works 2.1 **Fully/Weakly Supervised Video Temporal** Localization The fully supervised methods(Gao et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2020, 2021; Zheng et al., 2023) usually train a model with the annotations of start and end timestamps for each video and query. However, the high cost of manual annotation limits the scalability of fully supervised methods. Moreover, as studied in (Yuan et al., 2021; Otani et al., 2020), the annotation bias in the dataset may also affect the robustness of these models. To reduce the annotation cost, the weakly supervised methods (Lin et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2022b,a; Yang et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2021; Mithun et al., 2019) train the model with only the videos and annotated queries. However, the weakly supervised methods still suffer the language-related annotation bias, and the annotation costs of natural language queries are also unavoidable. Therefore, in this work, we study the video sentence localization using only video data (without any manual annotation), which is more practical but also more challenging. ## 2.2 Zero-Shot Video Temporal Localization In the zero-shot setting, only the video data are required during training. Existing zero-shot methods (Nam et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2022; Gao and Xu, 2021) follow the same pipeline, i.e. search event proposals in the video, and then generate pseudo queries for the events. PSVL (Nam et al., 2021) first discovers the temporal event proposals and then generates simplified pseudo queries by detecting nouns in the video and discovering appropriate verbs with those nouns. Gao et al. (Gao and Xu, 2021) directly generate pseudo query features in the pre-trained visual language feature space. However, the pseudo queries in existing methods are either too simple or less interpretable. Besides, the existing pipeline does not take the temporal structure of an event into account, which may lead to unaligned pseudo-events and queries. Moreover, they ignore the risk of pseudo-label noise when leveraging them in model training. In this paper, we generate free-form interpretable pseudo queries and construct querydependent event proposals by modeling the event temporal structure and propose a noise-resistant method to mitigate the effect of pseudo-label noise. ## 2.3 Learning With Noisy Labels Many works have explored how to train models with noisy labels on the tasks such as image classification (Han et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020), object detection (Li et al., 2020, 2022b), et al. Some approaches correct the noisy labels by learning from a small set of clean samples (Xiao et al., 2015; Veit et al., 2017), or learning with hard or soft labels using the model predictions (Tanaka et al., 2018; Yi and Wu, 2019; Li et al., 2020, 2022b). Some approaches re-weight or select training samples by estimating the noise in each sample (Li et al., 2020; Arazo et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2019). Existing noisy label image classification methods mostly assume noisy labels in different pixels are i.i.d, which is not realistic in the video sentence localization task, where pseudo label noise is likely to be introduced near the boundary of the events. To the best of our knowledge, we make the first attempt to reduce label noise introduced by pseudo labels in the video sentence localization task by iterative sample re-weighting and pseudo-label refinement. ## 3 Approach The overview of our model design is illustrated in Figure 2. Our method is divided into four steps. In the first step, we generate pseudo queries for a given video. To obtain realistic free-form nature language queries, we sample video frames and generate captions using a pre-trained image caption model, which will serve as our pseudo query candidates. In the second step, we generate pseudoevent proposals for each pseudo query. As the events described by the query should have a certain structure, i.e. the relevance to the query in the event should be high, while the relevance to the query outside the event should be low, we calculate the similarity between each query candidate and each video frame. Then, for each pseudo query, we select the best event proposal with the largest gap between the correlation within the event and the correlation outside the event, and the gap is served as the quality of that pseudo query. As a good pseudo query should not be too general (e.g. 'there is a person' is a bad query), it should be significantly more relevant to the corresponding event in the video than other video segments. Thus, in the third step, we will only keep the top-k highquality proposal-query pairs. In the last step, we will train a fully supervised model using the filtered pseudo-query-event pair. To reduce the noise in the pseudo-labels, we propose to estimate the noise and then re-weight each sample, while refining the pseudo-labels during training. ## 3.1 Pseudo Query Generation In this step, we will generate free-form natural language queries based on the video. The pseudo queries in previous works are usually too simple (simple subject-verb-object structure) or unspecified (only given as features), which have a large gap between the real nature language queries. Thus, we propose to generate free-form nature language queries using a pre-trained image caption model based on the video frames. Specifically, given a video V , we first uniformly sample N frames v1, v2*, ..., v*N . Then, we use a pre-trained BLIP model (Li et al., 2022a) to gener-  ate captions for each frame. As a video frame may be rich in content, we generate multiple queries for the same frame to ensure that the description of the frame is as complete as possible. Then, the captions c1, c2*, ..., c*M serve as our pseudo query candidates, where M is the number of captions in the video. Note that in this step, M will usually be large in order to ensure that the candidate queries contain as many meaningful queries as possible. However, this can also lead to a large number of low-quality queries in the candidates, which will be filtered out in the method described in Sec. 3.3 ## 3.2 Pseudo Event Generation In this step, we generate pseudo-events (i.e. start and end timestamps) for each pseudo-query candidate. Existing methods usually generate queryindependent pseudo-events first, and then generate pseudo-queries for those pseudo-events. They ignore the temporal structure of real events, i.e. video within the event should be highly correlated with the query, while video outside the event should be lowly correlated with the query. Therefore, we take full account of in-event and out-of-event relevance to the query to produce high-quality pseudo-events. Specifically, for each pseudo-query candidate c1*, ..., c*M, we use pre-trained BLIP text encoder to extract text features F c = [f c 1 , ..., fcM] ∈ RM×D, where D is the feature dimension. Then, for each video frames v1*, ..., v*N , we can also use the BLIP image encoder to extract image features F v = [f v 1 , ..., f vN ] ∈ R N×D. As the BLIP text and image feature space are well aligned, We can directly use the cosine similarity of the text and image features to measure the relevance of the query and the video frame: $$S=\frac{F^{c}F^{v\intercal}}{\|F^{c}\|\|F^{v}\|}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}\tag{1}$$ We believe that the most relevant event for a given query should satisfy the requirement that videos within the event have a high relevance to the query and videos outside the event have a low relevance to the query. Therefore, we use the sliding window to enumerate the possible event proposals p1, p2*, ..., p*Np , where Np is the number of event proposals. Then, we calculate the average similarity within each event and the average similarity outside each event, and use the difference between them as the quality for each event proposal: $$Q_{ik}=\frac{1}{\|p_{k}\|}\sum_{j\in p_{k}}S_{ij}-\frac{1}{N-\|p_{k}\|}\sum_{j\notin p_{k}}S_{ij}\tag{2}$$ where $Q_{ik}$ is the quality of the $k$-th event proposal. Algorithm 1: Pseudo label generation Input :Training videos Output :Pseudo query-event pairs 1 for *each training video* do 2 Generate image captions for video frames using BLIP model 3 Calculate the similarity between captions and video frames by Eq.(1) 4 for *each pseudo query (caption)* do 5 Calculate event quality by Eq.(2) 6 Keep the best event by Eq.(3) 7 for *each the query-event pairs* do 8 Calculate query quality by Eq.(4) 9 Keep top-K query-event via NMS to the i-th query candidate, Sij is the relevance of the i-th query and the the j-th frame, and ∥pk∥ is the number of frames in the event proposal pk. Finally, to ensure that the event to each query is unique, we select the highest quality event proposal as the pseudo-event label for the i-th query: $$e_{i}=p_{\hat{k}},\hat{k}=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{k}Q_{i k}$$ $$({\mathfrak{I}})$$ Qik (3) ## 3.3 Label Filtering Due to the uneven quality of the large number of pseudo query-event pairs, we will filter them further. We believe that a good query-event pair should not be too general, so the relevance to the video within the corresponding event should be as high as possible, while the relevance to the video outside the event should be as low as possible. This means that the quality of the best event proposal for each query candidate in Eq.(2) can also be used to evaluate the quality of that query-event pair. Specifically, we define the quality of the i-th query-event pair as: $$Q_{i}^{c}=m a x_{k=1}^{N_{p}}Q_{i k}$$ k=1Qik (4) We do not want too many queries describing the same event in the video, so we will further filter out those query-event pairs whose events have a high IoU between others using Non-maximum suppression. Finally, we will keep the top-K query-event pairs in order of quality Qcfor a video. We summarise our pseudo label generation pipeline including the pseudo event generation and label filtering in Algorithm 1. ## 3.4 Training With Noisy Pseudo Label In this step, we can use the generated pseudoqueries with their corresponding events to train any of the fully supervised video sentence localization models. Considering the performance, we chose the recent open-source model EMB (Huang et al., 2022). EMB conducts a proposal-based video-text alignment first, and then constructs elastic boundaries with the timestamps between the predicted endpoints and the manually labeled endpoints. EMB requires the model to select the endpoints in these elastic boundaries and thus models the uncertainty of the temporal boundaries. However, most of the existing fully supervised models are designed for clean training data and may not be robust enough for pseudo-labels that contain a lot of noise. Therefore, we design a sample reweight and label refinement method to reduce the effect of label noise on the fully supervised model. Sample Re-weight. It has been shown neural networks are trained to fit clean data first and then to fit the noise (Han et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2019). Therefore, the confidence of a model in its prediction can reflect the noise in the sample. That is, if the model is more confident in its predictions and the predictions are close to the training labels, there is relatively less noise in the data. Specifically, we use the video-text matching score given by EMB between its prediction and pseudo query as the confidence s conf ifor the i-th training sample. Then, we calculate the interaction-over-union (IoU) between the prediction and pseudo label s iou i. The higher s conf and s iou, the lower the noise, and the greater the weight of the training sample should be. Therefore, we define the sample weights as: $$w=\alpha{\frac{1}{1-s^{i o u}}}+(1-\alpha){\frac{1}{1-s^{c o n f}}}\qquad(5)$$ $$(4)$$ where α is a hyper-parameter to balance the effects of s iou and s conf . Finally, we use the same loss function as EMB and re-weight different samples loss using w. By sample re-weight, we can reduce the negative impact of noisy labels, but we prefer that noisy labels also provide useful training signals, so we further propose a label refinement method to correct the noisy labels. Label Refinement. Since the pseudo-events may not be accurate enough, we design a label refinement procedure, so that the model can update higher-quality pseudo-labels during training. During training, if the model is confident in its prediction, it is possible that the prediction is the true label. Besides, we also believe that the true label should not differ too much from the pseudolabel, so we will also consider the IoU between the prediction and the pseudo-label to prevent the model from being overconfident in the wrong prediction. Specifically, we can obtain the visual-text matching scores s m kfor the k-th proposal to the query in EMB as well as its IoU s iou k with the pseudo label. We will select the ˆk-th proposal as the refined pseudo-label for the next epoch model training, where ˆk = arg maxk(βsm k + (1−β)s iou k) and β is a hyper-parameter. In this way, if the model has sufficient confidence in the prediction of the correct label, it is possible to refine the noisy label to the correct one. The overall loss function is formulated as: $${\mathcal{L}}=\sum_{i=1}^{B}w_{i}{\mathcal{L}}_{l o c}(V_{i},c_{i},{\hat{e}}_{i})\qquad\qquad({\bf6})$$ where wiis the weight for the i-th pseudo queryevent pair for training, Viis the video, ciis the pseudo query, eˆiis the refined pseudo event, Lloc is the localization loss function used in EMB (Huang et al., 2022), and B is the batch-size. ## 4 Experiments To evaluate our method, we conduct experiments on the Charades-STA (Gao et al., 2017) and ActivityNet Captions (Krishna et al., 2017) dataset. ## 4.1 Datasets ActivityNet Captions. ActivityNet Captions (Caba Heilbron et al., 2015; Krishna et al., 2017) was originally collected for video captioning, which contains 20K videos. There are 37,417/17,505/17,031 video-query pairs in the train /val_1/val_2 split. We follow previous works and report the performance on the val_2 split. Charades-STA. Charades-STA (Gao et al., 2017) was built upon the Charades dataset. There are 12,408/3,720 video-query pairs in the train/test split. We report the performance on the test split. ## 4.2 Evaluation Metrics We follow the evaluation metrics 'R@m' and 'mIoU' in the previous work (Nam et al., 2021), where m is the predefined temporal Intersection over Union (IoU) threshold. In particular, 'R@m' means that the percentage of predicted moments that have the IoU value larger than m. 'mIoU' represents the average Intersection over Union. ## 4.3 Implementation Details We use the BLIP model(Li et al., 2022a) to generate captions for the video. We sample an image every 8 and 16 frames and use BLIP to generate 10 and 5 captions for each image on the CharadesSTA and ActivityNet Captions datasets respectively. For each video, we only keep the top-10 and top-5 pseudo queries for Charades-STA and ActivityNet Captions datasets respectively. We train the EMB (Huang et al., 2022) model using our pseudo labels and keep the training hyper-parameters consistent. The hyper-parameters in sample re-weight and label refinement are α = β = 0.75. ## 4.4 Comparison With Other Methods Table 1 shows the performance comparison of our SPL to other methods on Charades-STA and ActivityNet Captions datasets respectively. As we can see, on the Charades-STA dataset, we led in all metrics, e.g. the mIoU is 4.42% higher than the second place (Kim et al., 2023). On the ActivityNet Captions dataset, we obtained the best performance for R@0.3 and mIoU. On the other hand, we outperform some of the weakly supervised methods without using any human annotation, proving the quality of the pseudo-labels we generated. ## 4.5 Experiments On Annotation Bias In Table 2, we empirically investigate how the performance of different methods are affected by the annotation bias on the Charades-CD dataset (Yuan et al., 2021). Charades-CD re-partitioned the Charades-STA dataset to obtain the test_iid (independent and identically distributed (IID)) and test_ood (out-of-distribution (OOD)) splits. As we can see, the fully supervised method EMB (Huang et al., 2022) shows a significant drop (7.79%) in performance on test_ood split, which indicates that EMB relies on the annotation bias in the training data. Our method is not affected by the annotation bias, and hence there is no significant drop in performance on the test_ood split. As the Charades-CD dataset is constructed considering only the bias in the timestamps, the degradation of the weakly supervised method CPL (Zheng et al., 2022b) is also not significant, but their overall performance is worse even with the help of annotated queries. This proves the quality of the pseudolabels we generated. | Method | Sup. | Charades-STA | ActivityNet Captions | | | | | | | |--------------------------------|--------|----------------|------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | R@0.3 | R@0.5 | R@0.7 | mIoU | R@0.3 | R@0.5 | R@0.7 | mIoU | | | | 2D-TAN (Zhang et al., 2020) | - | 39.81 | 23.25 | - | 58.75 | 44.05 | 27.38 | - | | | EMB (Huang et al., 2022) | fully | 72.50 | 58.33 | 39.25 | 53.09 | 64.13 | 44.81 | 26.07 | 45.59 | | MGSL-Net (Liu et al., 2022) | - | 63.98 | 41.03 | - | - | 51.87 | 31.42 | - | | | CRM (Huang et al., 2021) | 53.66 | 34.76 | 16.37 | - | 55.26 | 32.19 | - | - | | | CNM∗ (Zheng et al., 2022a) | weakly | 60.39 | 35.43 | 15.45 | - | 55.68 | 33.33 | - | - | | CPL (Zheng et al., 2022b) | 66.40 | 49.24 | 22.39 | - | 55.73 | 31.37 | - | - | | | Gao et al.∗ (Gao and Xu, 2021) | 46.69 | 20.14 | 8.27 | - | 46.15 | 26.38 | 11.64 | - | | | PSVL∗ (Nam et al., 2021) | 46.47 | 31.29 | 14.17 | 31.24 | 44.74 | 30.08 | 14.74 | 29.62 | | | no | | | | | | | | | | | PZVMR∗ (Wang et al., 2022) | 46.83 | 33.21 | 18.51 | 32.62 | 45.73 | 31.26 | 17.84 | 30.35 | | | Kim et al.∗ (Kim et al., 2023) | 52.95 | 37.24 | 19.33 | 36.05 | 47.61 | 32.59 | 15.42 | 31.85 | | | SPL∗ (ours) | no | 60.73 | 40.70 | 19.62 | 40.47 | 50.24 | 27.24 | 15.03 | 35.44 | Table 1: Evaluation Results on the Charades-STA Dataset and ActivityNet Captions Dataset. ∗These works use pre-trained models: ours uses BLIP (Li et al., 2022a), CNM, PZVMR, and Kim et al. use CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), PSVL fine-tune RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), Gao et al. uses VSE++ (Faghri et al., 2017). | Method | Sup. | mIoU | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------| | iid | ood | drop | | EMB (Huang et al., 2022) | fully | 55.44 47.65 7.79 | | CPL (Zheng et al., 2022b) weakly 35.29 33.28 2.01 SPL (ours) no 41.32 39.61 1.71 | | | Table 2: Experiment on annotation bias on Charades. ## 4.6 Reducing Annotation Cost Our pseudo-label generation method can reduce the cost of manual annotation. In practice, considering the balance between performance and annotation cost, we can manually annotate a portion of data and use our generated pseudo-labels for the remainder. In Figure 3(a), We train a fully supervised model using partially annotated data and augment missing data with our generated pseudo-labels. As we can see, supplementing data with pseudolabels improves performance compared with training without pseudo-labels, and when only using 70% of the manually annotated data, the model performance drops by just 0.14%. This shows the practical application of our approach in reducing annotation costs and improving annotation efficiency. ## 4.7 Ablation Studies To verify the effectiveness of our method, we conduct ablation studies on the Charades-STA dataset. Compare with existing pipeline. In Table 3, we compare the pipeline used in exsisting methods and our method. We train our localization model with PSVL (Nam et al., 2021)'s and our pseudo queries and events respectively. As we can see in Table 3, (1) even with the same query from PSVL,  | Event | Query | Model | R@0.5 | R@0.7 | mIoU | |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|--------| | PSVL | PSVL | PSVL | 31.29 | 14.17 | 31.24 | | PSVL | PSVL | Ours | 29.62 | 15.70 | 33.45 | | PSVL | Ours | Ours | 36.94 | 19.30 | 38.31 | | Ours | Ours | Ours | 40.70 | 19.62 | 40.47 | Table 3: Compare with PSVL (Nam et al., 2021)'s pipeline on the Charades-STA dataset. our noise-robust localization model still show clear performance advantages; (2) our pseudo queries and temporally structured events demonstrate significant performance improvements, which proves the effectiveness of our pipeline. Besides, we calculate the variances of pseudo-query features in our method and PSVL. The variances are 0.88 and 0.67 respectively, which demonstrates our pseudoqueries are more flexible and diverse. Effectiveness of pseudo event generation. Table 4 shows the performance of different ways of generating pseudo-events. 'Naive' means randomly generating events; 'Expand' means expanding the frame where the query is generated until the similar- | Event generation | R@0.5 | R@0.7 | mIoU | |--------------------|---------|---------|--------| | Naive | 28.31 | 11.99 | 33.59 | | Expand | 30.62 | 15.24 | 35.23 | | PSVL | 36.94 | 19.30 | 38.31 | | SPL | 40.70 | 19.62 | 40.47 | Table 4: Effectiveness of pseudo event generation. | Label filter | R@0.5 | R@0.7 | mIoU | |----------------|---------|---------|--------| | Random | 24.52 | 12.20 | 34.12 | | Similarity | 32.45 | 16.72 | 31.85 | | SPL | 40.70 | 19.62 | 40.47 | ity falls below a certain threshold. 'PSVL' means the pseudo-events used in (Nam et al., 2021). It can be found that our method takes into account the temporal structure of the event, and therefore has the best performance. Effectiveness of label filtering. Table 5 shows the performance of different ways of selecting pseudo labels. 'Random' means randomly selecting K pseudo labels for a video; 'Similarity' means selecting top-K pseudo labels with the highest average similarity within the event. As we can see, our method requires not only a high similarity within the event but also a low similarity outside the event to prevent the query from being too general and therefore having the best performance. Number of training queries. Table 6 shows the performance trained with different number of pseudo-labels generated for a video. As we can see, when the number of pseudo-labels is small, increasing the number of pseudo-labels improves the performance. However, when the number of pseudo-labels is too large, the number of incorrect pseudo-labels also increases and therefore has a negative impact on the model. Effectiveness of reducing label noise. Table 7 shows the effectiveness of sample re-weight and pseudo-label refinement. As we can see, both the sample re-weight and pseudo label refinement improve the performance. In addition, to intuitively demonstrate the effect of label re-weight, we construct a noise-controlled training set by randomly offsetting the temporal annotations in the Charades-STA dataset. Figure 3(b) shows the average weights assigned to the samples with different cleanliness (IoU with true label). As we can see, the cleaner the sample is, the greater the weight assigned to it, which demonstrates that our re-weight Table 6: Different number of pseudo-queries per video. Reweight Refine R@0.5 R@0.7 mIoU | Queries per video | R@0.5 | R@0.7 | mIoU | |---------------------|---------|---------|--------| | 1 | 26.96 | 12.98 | 32.32 | | 5 | 35.59 | 18.41 | 37.70 | | 10 | 40.70 | 19.62 | 40.47 | | 20 | 40.43 | 19.49 | 39.84 | % % 38.74 18.71 39.38 % " 39.68 **20.13** 40.07 " % 39.76 19.78 39.91 " " **40.70** 19.62 **40.47** method indeed estimates the noise in the sample. Choices of hyper-parameters α and β. In Figure 4, we compared the performance of using different values of hyper-parameters α and β in sample re-weight and label refinement. As we can see, when α or β is small, our sample re-weight and label refinement overly relies on the confidence of the model's output. This can have a negative impact when the model's output confidence is not accurate. As α and β gradually increase to 0.75, the model performance also gradually improves. When α and β are both 1, we do not re-weight samples or refine the labels, which exacerbates the impact of label noise on the model and leads to a decrease in performance. ## 4.8 Qualitative Results Figure 5 shows some qualitative results on the Charades-STA dataset. In Figure 5(a), we show some pseudo queries and pseudo events from the Charades-STA and ActivityNet Captions datasets respectively. As we can see, we generate the free-form nature language query for the video and the pseudo-event is also correct. In Figure 5(b), we show some predictions of our model on the Charades-STA dataset. As we can see, the knowledge learned from the pseudo-labels can be gener- * 40.5 39.7 40.07 8.40.5 * 39.5 39.3 38.5 * 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 * (a) Different values of $\alpha$ **Exams 4: Charios of human head** (b) Different values of β 37.02 0.25 0.5 0.75 1  Figure 4: Choices of hyper-parameters α and β.  ## Gt Alized To Real Queries. 0.0S 8.1S 1.0S 11.0S 5 Conclusion In this work, we introduce a novel model SPL for zero-shot video sentence localization. We first generate free-form interpretable pseudo queries for video frames and construct query-dependent event proposals by modeling the event temporal structure. To mitigate the effect of pseudo-label noise, we propose an iterative sample re-weight and pseudo-label refinement method during training. Experiments on the Charades-STA and ActivityNet Captions datasets show the advantages of our method. ## 6 Limitations In this work, we propose a structure-based pseudolabel generation method for zero-shot video sentence localization and propose a noise-resistant method to reduce the effect of pseudo-label noise. The limitations of our work are: (1) although we generate free-form natural language queries, the distribution of generated queries may still differ from the distribution of queries in the dataset (e.g. queries on the Charades-STA dataset usually start with 'person'), which may degrade the performance during testing; (2) our pseudo label refinement can correct the noisy event labels, but there is no mechanism to correct noisy queries. These can be studied as future works. ## 7 Acknowledgements This work was supported by the grants from the Zhejiang Lab (NO.2022NB0AB05), National Natural Science Foundation of China (61925201,62132001,U22B2048), CAAI-Huawei MindSpore Open Fund, Alan Turing Institute Turing Fellowship, Veritone and Adobe. We thank MindSpore2for the partial support of this work, which is a new deep learning computing framework. ## References Eric Arazo, Diego Ortego, Paul Albert, Noel O'Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. 2019. Unsupervised label noise modeling and loss correction. In *International* conference on machine learning, pages 312–321. PMLR. Fabian Caba Heilbron, Victor Escorcia, Bernard Ghanem, and Juan Carlos Niebles. 2015. Activitynet: A large-scale video benchmark for human activity understanding. In *Proceedings of the ieee conference* on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 961–970. Pengfei Chen, Ben Ben Liao, Guangyong Chen, and Shengyu Zhang. 2019. Understanding and utilizing deep neural networks trained with noisy labels. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 1062–1070. PMLR. Robert T Collins, Alan J Lipton, Takeo Kanade, Hironobu Fujiyoshi, David Duggins, Yanghai Tsin, David Tolliver, Nobuyoshi Enomoto, Osamu Hasegawa, Peter Burt, et al. 2000. A system for video surveillance and monitoring. *VSAM final report*, 2000(1-68):1. Fartash Faghri, David J Fleet, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Sanja Fidler. 2017. Vse++: Improving visualsemantic embeddings with hard negatives. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1707.05612. Jiyang Gao, Chen Sun, Zhenheng Yang, and Ram Nevatia. 2017. Tall: Temporal activity localization via language query. In *Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision*, pages 5267– 5275. Junyu Gao and Changsheng Xu. 2021. Learning video moment retrieval without a single annotated video. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 32(3):1646–1657. Bo Han, Quanming Yao, Xingrui Yu, Gang Niu, Miao Xu, Weihua Hu, Ivor Tsang, and Masashi Sugiyama. 2018. Co-teaching: Robust training of deep neural networks with extremely noisy labels. *Advances in* neural information processing systems, 31. 2https://www.mindspore.cn/ Jiabo Huang, Hailin Jin, Shaogang Gong, and Yang Liu. 2022. Video activity localisation with uncertainties in temporal boundary. In *European Conference on* Computer Vision, pages 724–740. Springer. Jiabo Huang, Yang Liu, Shaogang Gong, and Hailin Jin. 2021. Cross-sentence temporal and semantic relations in video activity localisation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 7199–7208. Charles C Kemp, Aaron Edsinger, and Eduardo TorresJara. 2007. Challenges for robot manipulation in human environments [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 14(1):20– 29. Dahye Kim, Jungin Park, Jiyoung Lee, Seongheon Park, and Kwanghoon Sohn. 2023. Language-free training for zero-shot video grounding. In *Proceedings of* the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2539–2548. R. Krishna, K. Hata, F. Ren, L. Fei-Fei, and J. C. Niebles. 2017. Dense-captioning events in videos. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). Hengduo Li, Zuxuan Wu, Chen Zhu, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Larry S Davis. 2020. Learning from noisy anchors for one-stage object detection. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference* on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10588–10597. Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022a. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining for unified vision-language understanding and generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12086*. Shuai Li, Chenhang He, Ruihuang Li, and Lei Zhang. 2022b. A dual weighting label assignment scheme for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9387–9396. Zhijie Lin, Zhou Zhao, Zhu Zhang, Qi Wang, and Huasheng Liu. 2020. Weakly-supervised video moment retrieval via semantic completion network. Daizong Liu, Xiaoye Qu, Xing Di, Yu Cheng, Zichuan Xu, and Pan Zhou. 2022. Memory-guided semantic learning network for temporal sentence grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00454. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Niluthpol Chowdhury Mithun, Sujoy Paul, and Amit K Roy-Chowdhury. 2019. Weakly supervised video moment retrieval from text queries. In *Proceedings* of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11592–11601. Jinwoo Nam, Daechul Ahn, Dongyeop Kang, Seong Jong Ha, and Jonghyun Choi. 2021. Zeroshot natural language video localization. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on* Computer Vision, pages 1470–1479. Mayu Otani, Yuta Nakashima, Esa Rahtu, and Janne Heikkilä. 2020. Uncovering hidden challenges in query-based video moment retrieval. In *BMVC*. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR. Daiki Tanaka, Daiki Ikami, Toshihiko Yamasaki, and Kiyoharu Aizawa. 2018. Joint optimization framework for learning with noisy labels. In *Proceedings* of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5552–5560. Andreas Veit, Neil Alldrin, Gal Chechik, Ivan Krasin, Abhinav Gupta, and Serge Belongie. 2017. Learning from noisy large-scale datasets with minimal supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 839– 847. Guolong Wang, Xun Wu, Zhaoyuan Liu, and Junchi Yan. 2022. Prompt-based zero-shot video moment retrieval. In *Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia*, pages 413–421. Hao Wang, Zheng-Jun Zha, Liang Li, Dong Liu, and Jiebo Luo. 2021. Structured multi-level interaction network for video moment localization via language query. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference* on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 7026–7035. Tong Xiao, Tian Xia, Yi Yang, Chang Huang, and Xiaogang Wang. 2015. Learning from massive noisy labeled data for image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2691–2699. Wenfei Yang, Tianzhu Zhang, Yongdong Zhang, and Feng Wu. 2021. Local correspondence network for weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30:3252– 3262. Kun Yi and Jianxin Wu. 2019. Probabilistic end-to-end noise correction for learning with noisy labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7017– 7025. Xingrui Yu, Bo Han, Jiangchao Yao, Gang Niu, Ivor Tsang, and Masashi Sugiyama. 2019. How does disagreement help generalization against label corruption? In *International Conference on Machine* Learning, pages 7164–7173. PMLR. Yitian Yuan, Xiaohan Lan, Xin Wang, Long Chen, Zhi Wang, and Wenwu Zhu. 2021. A closer look at temporal sentence grounding in videos: Dataset and metric. In *Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Human-centric Multimedia Analysis*, pages 13–21. Mingxing Zhang, Yang Yang, Xinghan Chen, Yanli Ji, Xing Xu, Jingjing Li, and Heng Tao Shen. 2021. Multi-stage aggregated transformer network for temporal language localization in videos. In *Proceedings* of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12669–12678. Songyang Zhang, Houwen Peng, Jianlong Fu, and Jiebo Luo. 2020. Learning 2d temporal adjacent networks for moment localization with natural language. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 12870–12877. Yang Zhao, Zhou Zhao, Zhu Zhang, and Zhijie Lin. 2021. Cascaded prediction network via segment tree for temporal video grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4197–4206. Minghang Zheng, Yanjie Huang, Qingchao Chen, and Yang Liu. 2022a. Weakly supervised video moment localization with contrastive negative sample mining. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Minghang Zheng, Yanjie Huang, Qingchao Chen, Yuxin Peng, and Yang Liu. 2022b. Weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding with gaussian-based contrastive proposal learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Minghang Zheng, Sizhe Li, Qingchao Chen, Yuxin Peng, and Yang Liu. 2023. Phrase-level temporal relationship mining for temporal sentence localization. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence. H. Zhou, C. Zhang, Y. Luo, Y. Chen, and C. Hu. 2021. Embracing uncertainty: Decoupling and de-bias for robust temporal grounding. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8441–8450, Los Alamitos, CA, USA. IEEE Computer Society. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 6 ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? no potential risks need to be discuss ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✗ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 4 ✗ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Our model requires only a small amount of computational resources The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 4.3 ✗ C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? We report the results of a single run ✓ C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 4.3 D ✗ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Left blank. D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response.