QAPyramid: Fine-grained Evaluation of Content Selection for Text Summarization

How to properly conduct human evaluations for text summarization is a longstanding challenge. The Pyramid human evaluation protocol, which assesses content selection by breaking the reference summary into sub-units and verifying their presence in the system summary, has been widely adopted. However, it suffers from a lack of systematicity in the definition and granularity of the sub-units. We address these problems by proposing QAPyramid, which decomposes each reference summary into finer-grained question-answer (QA) pairs according to the QA-SRL framework. We collect QA-SRL annotations for reference summaries from CNN/DM and evaluate 10 summarization systems, resulting in 8.9K QA-level annotations. We show that, compared to Pyramid, QAPyramid provides more systematic and fine-grained content selection evaluation while maintaining high inter-annotator agreement without needing expert annotations. Furthermore, we propose metrics that automate the evaluation pipeline and achieve higher correlations with QAPyramid than other widely adopted metrics, allowing future work to accurately and efficiently benchmark summarization systems.

Localizing Factual Inconsistencies in Attributable Text Generation

There has been an increasing interest in detecting hallucinations in model-generated texts, both manually and automatically, at varying levels of granularity. However, most existing methods fail to precisely pinpoint the errors. In this work, we introduce QASemConsistency, a new formalism for localizing factual inconsistencies in attributable text generation, at a fine-grained level. Drawing inspiration from Neo-Davidsonian formal semantics, we propose decomposing the generated text into minimal predicate-argument level propositions, expressed as simple question-answer (QA) pairs, and assess whether each individual QA pair is supported by a trusted reference text. As each QA pair corresponds to a single semantic relation between a predicate and an argument, QASemConsistency effectively localizes the unsupported information. We first demonstrate the effectiveness of the QASemConsistency methodology for human annotation, by collecting crowdsourced annotations of granular consistency errors, while achieving a substantial inter-annotator agreement ($\kappa > 0.7)$. Then, we implement several methods for automatically detecting localized factual inconsistencies, with both supervised entailment models and open-source LLMs.

Explicating the Implicit: Argument Detection Beyond Sentence Boundaries

Detecting semantic arguments of a predicate word has been conventionally modeled as a sentence-level task. The typical reader, however, perfectly interprets predicate-argument relations in a much wider context than just the sentence where the predicate was evoked. In this work, we reformulate the problem of argument detection through textual entailment to capture semantic relations across sentence boundaries. We propose a method that tests whether some semantic relation can be inferred from a full passage by first encoding it into a simple and standalone proposition and then testing for entailment against the passage. Our method does not require direct supervision, which is generally absent due to dataset scarcity, but instead builds on existing NLI and sentence-level SRL resources. Such a method can potentially explicate pragmatically understood relations into a set of explicit sentences. We demonstrate it on a recent document-level benchmark, outperforming some supervised methods and contemporary language models.

Is It Really Long Context if All You Need Is Retrieval? Towards Genuinely Difficult Long Context NLP

Improvements in language models' capabilities have pushed their applications towards longer contexts, making long-context evaluation and development an active research area. However, many disparate use-cases are grouped together under the umbrella term of "long-context", defined simply by the total length of the model's input, including - for example - Needle-in-a-Haystack tasks, book summarization, and information aggregation. Given their varied difficulty, in this position paper we argue that conflating different tasks by their context length is unproductive. As a community, we require a more precise vocabulary to understand what makes long-context tasks similar or different. We propose to unpack the taxonomy of long-context based on the properties that make them more difficult with longer contexts. We propose two orthogonal axes of difficulty: (I) Diffusion: How hard is it to find the necessary information in the context? (II) Scope: How much necessary information is there to find? We survey the literature on long-context, provide justification for this taxonomy as an informative descriptor, and situate the literature with respect to it. We conclude that the most difficult and interesting settings, whose necessary information is very long and highly diffused within the input, is severely under-explored. By using a descriptive vocabulary and discussing the relevant properties of difficulty in long-context, we can implement more informed research in this area. We call for a careful design of tasks and benchmarks with distinctly long context, taking into account the characteristics that make it qualitatively different from shorter context.

Identifying User Goals from UI Trajectories

Autonomous agents that interact with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) hold significant potential for enhancing user experiences. To further improve these experiences, agents need to be personalized and proactive. By effectively comprehending user intentions through their actions and interactions with GUIs, agents will be better positioned to achieve these goals. This paper introduces the task of goal identification from observed UI trajectories, aiming to infer the user's intended task based on their GUI interactions. We propose a novel evaluation metric to assess whether two task descriptions are paraphrases within a specific UI environment. By Leveraging the inverse relation with the UI automation task, we utilized the Android-In-The-Wild and Mind2Web datasets for our experiments. Using our metric and these datasets, we conducted several experiments comparing the performance of humans and state-of-the-art models, specifically GPT-4 and Gemini-1.5 Pro. Our results show that Gemini performs better than GPT but still underperforms compared to humans, indicating significant room for improvement.

The Power of Summary-Source Alignments

Multi-document summarization (MDS) is a challenging task, often decomposed to subtasks of salience and redundancy detection, followed by text generation. In this context, alignment of corresponding sentences between a reference summary and its source documents has been leveraged to generate training data for some of the component tasks. Yet, this enabling alignment step has usually been applied heuristically on the sentence level on a limited number of subtasks. In this paper, we propose extending the summary-source alignment framework by (1) applying it at the more fine-grained proposition span level, (2) annotating alignment manually in a multi-document setup, and (3) revealing the great potential of summary-source alignments to yield several datasets for at least six different tasks. Specifically, for each of the tasks, we release a manually annotated test set that was derived automatically from the alignment annotation. We also release development and train sets in the same way, but from automatically derived alignments. Using the datasets, each task is demonstrated with baseline models and corresponding evaluation metrics to spur future research on this broad challenge.

Superlatives in Context: Explicit and Implicit Domain Restrictions for Superlative Frames

Superlatives are used to single out elements with a maximal/minimal property. Semantically, superlatives perform a set comparison: something (or some things) has the min/max property out of a set. As such, superlatives provide an ideal phenomenon for studying implicit phenomena and discourse restrictions. While this comparison set is often not explicitly defined, its (implicit) restrictions can be inferred from the discourse context the expression appears in. In this work we provide an extensive computational study on the semantics of superlatives. We propose a unified account of superlative semantics which allows us to derive a broad-coverage annotation schema. Using this unified schema we annotated a multi-domain dataset of superlatives and their semantic interpretations. We specifically focus on interpreting implicit or ambiguous superlative expressions, by analyzing how the discourse context restricts the set of interpretations. In a set of experiments we then analyze how well models perform at variations of predicting superlative semantics, with and without context. We show that the fine-grained semantics of superlatives in context can be challenging for contemporary models, including GPT-4.

Selective Annotation via Data Allocation: These Data Should Be Triaged to Experts for Annotation Rather Than the Model

To obtain high-quality annotations under limited budget, semi-automatic annotation methods are commonly used, where a portion of the data is annotated by experts and a model is then trained to complete the annotations for the remaining data. However, these methods mainly focus on selecting informative data for expert annotations to improve the model predictive ability (i.e., triage-to-human data), while the rest of the data is indiscriminately assigned to model annotation (i.e., triage-to-model data). This may lead to inefficiencies in budget allocation for annotations, as easy data that the model could accurately annotate may be unnecessarily assigned to the expert, and hard data may be misclassified by the model. As a result, the overall annotation quality may be compromised. To address this issue, we propose a selective annotation framework called SANT. It effectively takes advantage of both the triage-to-human and triage-to-model data through the proposed error-aware triage and bi-weighting mechanisms. As such, informative or hard data is assigned to the expert for annotation, while easy data is handled by the model. Experimental results show that SANT consistently outperforms other baselines, leading to higher-quality annotation through its proper allocation of data to both expert and model workers. We provide pioneering work on data annotation within budget constraints, establishing a landmark for future triage-based annotation studies.

Efficient Data Generation for Source-grounded Information-seeking Dialogs: A Use Case for Meeting Transcripts

Existing methods for creating source-grounded information-seeking dialog datasets are often costly and hard to implement due to their sole reliance on human annotators. We propose combining large language models (LLMs) prompting with human expertise for more efficient and reliable data generation. Instead of the labor-intensive Wizard-of-Oz (WOZ) method, where two annotators generate a dialog from scratch, role-playing agent and user, we use LLM generation to simulate the two roles. Annotators then verify the output and augment it with attribution data. We demonstrate our method by constructing MISeD -- Meeting Information Seeking Dialogs dataset -- the first information-seeking dialog dataset focused on meeting transcripts. Models finetuned with MISeD demonstrate superior performance on our test set, as well as on a novel fully-manual WOZ test set and an existing query-based summarization benchmark, suggesting the utility of our approach.

Attribute First, then Generate: Locally-attributable Grounded Text Generation

Recent efforts to address hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) have focused on attributed text generation, which supplements generated texts with citations of supporting sources for post-generation fact-checking and corrections. Yet, these citations often point to entire documents or paragraphs, burdening users with extensive verification work. In this paper, we introduce a locally-attributable text generation approach, prioritizing concise attributions. Our method, named ``Attribute First, then Generate'', breaks down the conventional end-to-end generation process into three intuitive steps: content selection, sentence planning, and sequential sentence generation. By initially identifying relevant source segments (``select first'') and then conditioning the generation process on them (``then generate''), we ensure these segments also act as the output's fine-grained attributions (``select'' becomes ``attribute''). Tested on Multi-document Summarization and Long-form Question-answering, our method not only yields more concise citations than the baselines but also maintains - and in some cases enhances - both generation quality and attribution accuracy. Furthermore, it significantly reduces the time required for fact verification by human assessors.