Natural Language Processing for Human Resources: A Survey

The domain of human resources (HR) includes a broad spectrum of tasks related to natural language processing (NLP) techniques. Recent breakthroughs in NLP have generated significant interest in its industrial applications in this domain and potentially alleviate challenges such as the difficulty of resource acquisition and the complexity of problems. At the same time, the HR domain can also present unique challenges that drive state-of-the-art in NLP research. To support this, we provide NLP researchers and practitioners with an overview of key HR tasks from an NLP perspective, illustrating how specific sub-tasks (e.g., skill extraction) contribute to broader objectives (e.g., job matching). Through this survey, we identify opportunities in NLP for HR and suggest directions for future exploration.

From Single to Multi: How LLMs Hallucinate in Multi-Document Summarization

Although many studies have investigated and reduced hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) for single-document tasks, research on hallucination in multi-document summarization (MDS) tasks remains largely unexplored. Specifically, it is unclear how the challenges arising from handling multiple documents (e.g., repetition and diversity of information) affect models outputs. In this work, we investigate how hallucinations manifest in LLMs when summarizing topic-specific information from multiple documents. Since no benchmarks exist for investigating hallucinations in MDS, we use existing news and conversation datasets, annotated with topic-specific insights, to create two novel multi-document benchmarks. When evaluating 5 LLMs on our benchmarks, we observe that on average, up to 75% of the content in LLM-generated summary is hallucinated, with hallucinations more likely to occur towards the end of the summaries. Moreover, when summarizing non-existent topic-related information, gpt-3.5-turbo and GPT-4o still generate summaries about 79.35% and 44% of the time, raising concerns about their tendency to fabricate content. To understand the characteristics of these hallucinations, we manually evaluate 700+ insights and find that most errors stem from either failing to follow instructions or producing overly generic insights. Motivated by these observations, we investigate the efficacy of simple post-hoc baselines in mitigating hallucinations but find them only moderately effective. Our results underscore the need for more effective approaches to systematically mitigate hallucinations in MDS. We release our dataset and code at github.com/megagonlabs/Hallucination_MDS.

A Blueprint Architecture of Compound AI Systems for Enterprise

Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable capabilities surpassing conventional NLP challenges, creating opportunities for use in production use cases. Towards this goal, there is a notable shift to building compound AI systems, wherein LLMs are integrated into an expansive software infrastructure with many components like models, retrievers, databases and tools. In this paper, we introduce a blueprint architecture for compound AI systems to operate in enterprise settings cost-effectively and feasibly. Our proposed architecture aims for seamless integration with existing compute and data infrastructure, with ``stream'' serving as the key orchestration concept to coordinate data and instructions among agents and other components. Task and data planners, respectively, break down, map, and optimize tasks and data to available agents and data sources defined in respective registries, given production constraints such as accuracy and latency.

Multi-Conditional Ranking with Large Language Models

Utilizing large language models (LLMs) to rank a set of items has become a common approach in recommendation and retrieval systems. Typically, these systems focus on ordering a substantial number of documents in a monotonic order based on a given query. However, real-world scenarios often present a different challenge: ranking a comparatively smaller set of items, but according to a variety of diverse and occasionally conflicting conditions. In this paper, we define and explore the task of multi-conditional ranking by introducing MCRank, a benchmark tailored for assessing multi-conditional ranking across various item types and conditions. Our analysis of LLMs using MCRank indicates a significant decrease in performance as the number and complexity of items and conditions grow. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel decomposed reasoning method, consisting of EXtracting and Sorting the conditions, and then Iterativly Ranking the items (EXSIR). Our extensive experiments show that this decomposed reasoning method enhances LLMs' performance significantly, achieving up to a 12% improvement over existing LLMs. We also provide a detailed analysis of LLMs performance across various condition categories, and examine the effectiveness of decomposition step. Furthermore, we compare our method with existing approaches such as Chain-of-Thought and an encoder-type ranking model, demonstrating the superiority of our approach and complexity of MCR task. We released our dataset and code.

Reasoning Capacity in Multi-Agent Systems: Limitations, Challenges and Human-Centered Solutions

Remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in a variety of tasks brings forth many opportunities as well as challenges of utilizing them in production settings. Towards practical adoption of LLMs, multi-agent systems hold great promise to augment, integrate, and orchestrate LLMs in the larger context of enterprise platforms that use existing proprietary data and models to tackle complex real-world tasks. Despite the tremendous success of these systems, current approaches rely on narrow, single-focus objectives for optimization and evaluation, often overlooking potential constraints in real-world scenarios, including restricted budgets, resources and time. Furthermore, interpreting, analyzing, and debugging these systems requires different components to be evaluated in relation to one another. This demand is currently not feasible with existing methodologies. In this postion paper, we introduce the concept of reasoning capacity as a unifying criterion to enable integration of constraints during optimization and establish connections among different components within the system, which also enable a more holistic and comprehensive approach to evaluation. We present a formal definition of reasoning capacity and illustrate its utility in identifying limitations within each component of the system. We then argue how these limitations can be addressed with a self-reflective process wherein human-feedback is used to alleviate shortcomings in reasoning and enhance overall consistency of the system.

Knowledge Graphs are not Created Equal: Exploring the Properties and Structure of Real KGs

Despite the recent popularity of knowledge graph (KG) related tasks and benchmarks such as KG embeddings, link prediction, entity alignment and evaluation of the reasoning abilities of pretrained language models as KGs, the structure and properties of real KGs are not well studied. In this paper, we perform a large scale comparative study of 29 real KG datasets from diverse domains such as the natural sciences, medicine, and NLP to analyze their properties and structural patterns. Based on our findings, we make several recommendations regarding KG-based model development and evaluation. We believe that the rich structural information contained in KGs can benefit the development of better KG models across fields and we hope this study will contribute to breaking the existing data silos between different areas of research (e.g., ML, NLP, AI for sciences).

Distilling Large Language Models using Skill-Occupation Graph Context for HR-Related Tasks

Numerous HR applications are centered around resumes and job descriptions. While they can benefit from advancements in NLP, particularly large language models, their real-world adoption faces challenges due to absence of comprehensive benchmarks for various HR tasks, and lack of smaller models with competitive capabilities. In this paper, we aim to bridge this gap by introducing the Resume-Job Description Benchmark (RJDB). We meticulously craft this benchmark to cater to a wide array of HR tasks, including matching and explaining resumes to job descriptions, extracting skills and experiences from resumes, and editing resumes. To create this benchmark, we propose to distill domain-specific knowledge from a large language model (LLM). We rely on a curated skill-occupation graph to ensure diversity and provide context for LLMs generation. Our benchmark includes over 50 thousand triples of job descriptions, matched resumes and unmatched resumes. Using RJDB, we train multiple smaller student models. Our experiments reveal that the student models achieve near/better performance than the teacher model (GPT-4), affirming the effectiveness of the benchmark. Additionally, we explore the utility of RJDB on out-of-distribution data for skill extraction and resume-job description matching, in zero-shot and weak supervision manner. We release our datasets and code to foster further research and industry applications.

Characterizing Large Language Models as Rationalizers of Knowledge-intensive Tasks

Large language models (LLMs) are proficient at generating fluent text with minimal task-specific supervision. Yet, their ability to provide well-grounded rationalizations for knowledge-intensive tasks remains under-explored. Such tasks, like commonsense multiple-choice questions, require rationales based on world knowledge to support predictions and refute alternate options. We consider the task of generating knowledge-guided rationalization in natural language by using expert-written examples in a few-shot manner. Surprisingly, crowd-workers preferred knowledge-grounded rationales over crowdsourced rationalizations, citing their factuality, sufficiency, and comprehensive refutations. Although LLMs-generated rationales were preferable, further improvements in conciseness and novelty are required. In another study, we show how rationalization of incorrect model predictions erodes humans' trust in LLM-generated rationales. Motivated by these observations, we create a two-stage pipeline to review task predictions and eliminate potential incorrect decisions before rationalization, enabling trustworthy rationale generation.

Less is More for Long Document Summary Evaluation by LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in summary evaluation tasks, yet they face challenges such as high computational costs and the Lost-in-the-Middle problem where important information in the middle of long documents is often overlooked. To address these issues, this paper introduces a novel approach, Extract-then-Evaluate, which involves extracting key sentences from a long source document and then evaluating the summary by prompting LLMs. The results reveal that the proposed method not only significantly reduces evaluation costs but also exhibits a higher correlation with human evaluations. Furthermore, we provide practical recommendations for optimal document length and sentence extraction methods, contributing to the development of cost-effective yet more accurate methods for LLM-based text generation evaluation.

Rethinking Language Models as Symbolic Knowledge Graphs

Symbolic knowledge graphs (KGs) play a pivotal role in knowledge-centric applications such as search, question answering and recommendation. As contemporary language models (LMs) trained on extensive textual data have gained prominence, researchers have extensively explored whether the parametric knowledge within these models can match up to that present in knowledge graphs. Various methodologies have indicated that enhancing the size of the model or the volume of training data enhances its capacity to retrieve symbolic knowledge, often with minimal or no human supervision. Despite these advancements, there is a void in comprehensively evaluating whether LMs can encompass the intricate topological and semantic attributes of KGs, attributes crucial for reasoning processes. In this work, we provide an exhaustive evaluation of language models of varying sizes and capabilities. We construct nine qualitative benchmarks that encompass a spectrum of attributes including symmetry, asymmetry, hierarchy, bidirectionality, compositionality, paths, entity-centricity, bias and ambiguity. Additionally, we propose novel evaluation metrics tailored for each of these attributes. Our extensive evaluation of various LMs shows that while these models exhibit considerable potential in recalling factual information, their ability to capture intricate topological and semantic traits of KGs remains significantly constrained. We note that our proposed evaluation metrics are more reliable in evaluating these abilities than the existing metrics. Lastly, some of our benchmarks challenge the common notion that larger LMs (e.g., GPT-4) universally outshine their smaller counterparts (e.g., BERT).