How to Weight Multitask Finetuning? Fast Previews via Bayesian Model-Merging

When finetuning multiple tasks altogether, it is important to carefully weigh them to get a good performance, but searching for good weights can be difficult and costly. Here, we propose to aid the search with fast previews to quickly get a rough idea of different reweighting options. We use model merging to create previews by simply reusing and averaging parameters of models trained on each task separately (no retraining required). To improve the quality of previews, we propose a Bayesian approach to design new merging strategies by using more flexible posteriors. We validate our findings on vision and natural-language transformers. Our work shows the benefits of model merging via Bayes to improve multitask finetuning.

Are Large Language Models Good Classifiers? A Study on Edit Intent Classification in Scientific Document Revisions

Classification is a core NLP task architecture with many potential applications. While large language models (LLMs) have brought substantial advancements in text generation, their potential for enhancing classification tasks remains underexplored. To address this gap, we propose a framework for thoroughly investigating fine-tuning LLMs for classification, including both generation- and encoding-based approaches. We instantiate this framework in edit intent classification (EIC), a challenging and underexplored classification task. Our extensive experiments and systematic comparisons with various training approaches and a representative selection of LLMs yield new insights into their application for EIC. We investigate the generalizability of these findings on five further classification tasks. To demonstrate the proposed methods and address the data shortage for empirical edit analysis, we use our best-performing EIC model to create Re3-Sci2.0, a new large-scale dataset of 1,780 scientific document revisions with over 94k labeled edits. The quality of the dataset is assessed through human evaluation. The new dataset enables an in-depth empirical study of human editing behavior in academic writing. We make our experimental framework, models and data publicly available.

The Nature of NLP: Analyzing Contributions in NLP Papers

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a dynamic, interdisciplinary field that integrates intellectual traditions from computer science, linguistics, social science, and more. Despite its established presence, the definition of what constitutes NLP research remains debated. In this work, we quantitatively investigate what constitutes NLP by examining research papers. For this purpose, we propose a taxonomy and introduce NLPContributions, a dataset of nearly $2k$ research paper abstracts, expertly annotated to identify scientific contributions and classify their types according to this taxonomy. We also propose a novel task to automatically identify these elements, for which we train a strong baseline on our dataset. We present experimental results from this task and apply our model to $\sim$$29k$ NLP research papers to analyze their contributions, aiding in the understanding of the nature of NLP research. Our findings reveal a rising involvement of machine learning in NLP since the early nineties, alongside a declining focus on adding knowledge about language or people; again, in post-2020, there has been a resurgence of focus on language and people. We hope this work will spark discussions on our community norms and inspire efforts to consciously shape the future.

Transforming Scholarly Landscapes: Influence of Large Language Models on Academic Fields beyond Computer Science

Large Language Models (LLMs) have ushered in a transformative era in Natural Language Processing (NLP), reshaping research and extending NLP's influence to other fields of study. However, there is little to no work examining the degree to which LLMs influence other research fields. This work empirically and systematically examines the influence and use of LLMs in fields beyond NLP. We curate $106$ LLMs and analyze $\sim$$148k$ papers citing LLMs to quantify their influence and reveal trends in their usage patterns. Our analysis reveals not only the increasing prevalence of LLMs in non-CS fields but also the disparities in their usage, with some fields utilizing them more frequently than others since 2018, notably Linguistics and Engineering together accounting for $\sim$$45\%$ of LLM citations. Our findings further indicate that most of these fields predominantly employ task-agnostic LLMs, proficient in zero or few-shot learning without requiring further fine-tuning, to address their domain-specific problems. This study sheds light on the cross-disciplinary impact of NLP through LLMs, providing a better understanding of the opportunities and challenges.

The Lou Dataset -- Exploring the Impact of Gender-Fair Language in German Text Classification

Gender-fair language, an evolving German linguistic variation, fosters inclusion by addressing all genders or using neutral forms. Nevertheless, there is a significant lack of resources to assess the impact of this linguistic shift on classification using language models (LMs), which are probably not trained on such variations. To address this gap, we present Lou, the first dataset featuring high-quality reformulations for German text classification covering seven tasks, like stance detection and toxicity classification. Evaluating 16 mono- and multi-lingual LMs on Lou shows that gender-fair language substantially impacts predictions by flipping labels, reducing certainty, and altering attention patterns. However, existing evaluations remain valid, as LM rankings of original and reformulated instances do not significantly differ. While we offer initial insights on the effect on German text classification, the findings likely apply to other languages, as consistent patterns were observed in multi-lingual and English LMs.

Diagnostic Reasoning in Natural Language: Computational Model and Application

Diagnostic reasoning is a key component of expert work in many domains. It is a hard, time-consuming activity that requires expertise, and AI research has investigated the ways automated systems can support this process. Yet, due to the complexity of natural language, the applications of AI for diagnostic reasoning to language-related tasks are lacking. To close this gap, we investigate diagnostic abductive reasoning (DAR) in the context of language-grounded tasks (NL-DAR). We propose a novel modeling framework for NL-DAR based on Pearl's structural causal models and instantiate it in a comprehensive study of scientific paper assessment in the biomedical domain. We use the resulting dataset to investigate the human decision-making process in NL-DAR and determine the potential of LLMs to support structured decision-making over text. Our framework, open resources and tools lay the groundwork for the empirical study of collaborative diagnostic reasoning in the age of LLMs, in the scholarly domain and beyond.

RegNLP in Action: Facilitating Compliance Through Automated Information Retrieval and Answer Generation

Regulatory documents, issued by governmental regulatory bodies, establish rules, guidelines, and standards that organizations must adhere to for legal compliance. These documents, characterized by their length, complexity and frequent updates, are challenging to interpret, requiring significant allocation of time and expertise on the part of organizations to ensure ongoing compliance.Regulatory Natural Language Processing (RegNLP) is a multidisciplinary subfield aimed at simplifying access to and interpretation of regulatory rules and obligations. We define an Automated Question-Passage Generation task for RegNLP, create the ObliQA dataset containing 27,869 questions derived from the Abu Dhabi Global Markets (ADGM) financial regulation document collection, design a baseline Regulatory Information Retrieval and Answer Generation system, and evaluate it with RePASs, a novel evaluation metric that tests whether generated answers accurately capture all relevant obligations and avoid contradictions.

DOCE: Finding the Sweet Spot for Execution-Based Code Generation

Recently, a diverse set of decoding and reranking procedures have been shown effective for LLM-based code generation. However, a comprehensive framework that links and experimentally compares these methods is missing. We address this by proposing Decoding Objectives for Code Execution, a comprehensive framework that includes candidate generation, $n$-best reranking, minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding, and self-debugging as the core components. We then study the contributions of these components through execution-based evaluation metrics. Our findings highlight the importance of execution-based methods and the difference gap between execution-based and execution-free methods. Furthermore, we assess the impact of filtering based on trial unit tests, a simple and effective strategy that has been often overlooked in prior works. We also propose self-debugging on multiple candidates, obtaining state-of-the-art performance on reranking for code generation. We expect our framework to provide a solid guideline for future research on code generation.

Grounding Fallacies Misrepresenting Scientific Publications in Evidence

Health-related misinformation claims often falsely cite a credible biomedical publication as evidence, which superficially appears to support the false claim. The publication does not really support the claim, but a reader could believe it thanks to the use of logical fallacies. Here, we aim to detect and to highlight such fallacies, which requires carefully assessing the exact content of the misrepresented publications. To achieve this, we introduce MissciPlus, an extension of the fallacy detection dataset Missci. MissciPlus builds on Missci by grounding the applied fallacies in real-world passages from misrepresented studies. This creates a realistic test-bed for detecting and verbalizing these fallacies under real-world input conditions, and enables novel passage-retrieval tasks. MissciPlus is the first logical fallacy dataset which pairs the real-world misrepresented evidence with incorrect claims, identical to the input to evidence-based fact-checking models. With MissciPlus, we i) benchmark retrieval models in identifying passages that support claims only when fallacies are applied, ii) evaluate how well LLMs articulate fallacious reasoning from misrepresented scientific passages, and iii) assess the effectiveness of fact-checking models in refuting claims that misrepresent biomedical research. Our findings show that current fact-checking models struggle to use relevant passages from misrepresented publications to refute misinformation. Moreover, these passages can mislead LLMs into accepting false claims as true.

"Image, Tell me your story!" Predicting the original meta-context of visual misinformation

To assist human fact-checkers, researchers have developed automated approaches for visual misinformation detection. These methods assign veracity scores by identifying inconsistencies between the image and its caption, or by detecting forgeries in the image. However, they neglect a crucial point of the human fact-checking process: identifying the original meta-context of the image. By explaining what is actually true about the image, fact-checkers can better detect misinformation, focus their efforts on check-worthy visual content, engage in counter-messaging before misinformation spreads widely, and make their explanation more convincing. Here, we fill this gap by introducing the task of automated image contextualization. We create 5Pils, a dataset of 1,676 fact-checked images with question-answer pairs about their original meta-context. Annotations are based on the 5 Pillars fact-checking framework. We implement a first baseline that grounds the image in its original meta-context using the content of the image and textual evidence retrieved from the open web. Our experiments show promising results while highlighting several open challenges in retrieval and reasoning. We make our code and data publicly available.