NewsEdits 2.0: Learning the Intentions Behind Updating News

As events progress, news articles often update with new information: if we are not cautious, we risk propagating outdated facts. In this work, we hypothesize that linguistic features indicate factual fluidity, and that we can predict which facts in a news article will update using solely the text of a news article (i.e. not external resources like search engines). We test this hypothesis, first, by isolating fact-updates in large news revisions corpora. News articles may update for many reasons (e.g. factual, stylistic, narrative). We introduce the NewsEdits 2.0 taxonomy, an edit-intentions schema that separates fact updates from stylistic and narrative updates in news writing. We annotate over 9,200 pairs of sentence revisions and train high-scoring ensemble models to apply this schema. Then, taking a large dataset of silver-labeled pairs, we show that we can predict when facts will update in older article drafts with high precision. Finally, to demonstrate the usefulness of these findings, we construct a language model question asking (LLM-QA) abstention task. We wish the LLM to abstain from answering questions when information is likely to become outdated. Using our predictions, we show, LLM absention reaches near oracle levels of accuracy.

NewsInterview: a Dataset and a Playground to Evaluate LLMs' Ground Gap via Informational Interviews

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in generating coherent text but often struggle with grounding language and strategic dialogue. To address this gap, we focus on journalistic interviews, a domain rich in grounding communication and abundant in data. We curate a dataset of 40,000 two-person informational interviews from NPR and CNN, and reveal that LLMs are significantly less likely than human interviewers to use acknowledgements and to pivot to higher-level questions. Realizing that a fundamental deficit exists in multi-turn planning and strategic thinking, we develop a realistic simulated environment, incorporating source personas and persuasive elements, in order to facilitate the development of agents with longer-horizon rewards. Our experiments show that while source LLMs mimic human behavior in information sharing, interviewer LLMs struggle with recognizing when questions are answered and engaging persuasively, leading to suboptimal information extraction across model size and capability. These findings underscore the need for enhancing LLMs' strategic dialogue capabilities.

Personalized Help for Optimizing Low-Skilled Users' Strategy

AIs can beat humans in game environments; however, how helpful those agents are to human remains understudied. We augment CICERO, a natural language agent that demonstrates superhuman performance in Diplomacy, to generate both move and message advice based on player intentions. A dozen Diplomacy games with novice and experienced players, with varying advice settings, show that some of the generated advice is beneficial. It helps novices compete with experienced players and in some instances even surpass them. The mere presence of advice can be advantageous, even if players do not follow it.

Explaining Mixtures of Sources in News Articles

Human writers plan, then write. For large language models (LLMs) to play a role in longer-form article generation, we must understand the planning steps humans make before writing. We explore one kind of planning, source-selection in news, as a case-study for evaluating plans in long-form generation. We ask: why do specific stories call for specific kinds of sources? We imagine a generative process for story writing where a source-selection schema is first selected by a journalist, and then sources are chosen based on categories in that schema. Learning the article's plan means predicting the schema initially chosen by the journalist. Working with professional journalists, we adapt five existing schemata and introduce three new ones to describe journalistic plans for the inclusion of sources in documents. Then, inspired by Bayesian latent-variable modeling, we develop metrics to select the most likely plan, or schema, underlying a story, which we use to compare schemata. We find that two schemata: stance and social affiliation best explain source plans in most documents. However, other schemata like textual entailment explain source plans in factually rich topics like "Science". Finally, we find we can predict the most suitable schema given just the article's headline with reasonable accuracy. We see this as an important case-study for human planning, and provides a framework and approach for evaluating other kinds of plans. We release a corpora, NewsSources, with annotations for 4M articles.

A Little Human Data Goes A Long Way

Faced with an expensive human annotation process, creators of NLP systems increasingly turn to synthetic data generation. While this method shows promise, the extent to which synthetic data can replace human annotation is poorly understood. We investigate the use of synthetic data in Fact Verification (FV) and Question Answering (QA) by studying the effects of incrementally replacing human generated data with synthetic points on eight diverse datasets. Strikingly, replacing up to 90% of the training data only marginally decreases performance, but replacing the final 10% leads to severe declines. We find that models trained on purely synthetic data can be reliably improved by including as few as 125 human generated data points. We show that matching the performance gain of just a little additional human data (only 200 points) requires an order of magnitude more synthetic data and estimate price ratios at which human annotation would be a more cost-effective solution. Our results suggest that even when human annotation at scale is infeasible, there is great value to having a small proportion of the dataset being human generated.

BotEval: Facilitating Interactive Human Evaluation

Following the rapid progress in natural language processing (NLP) models, language models are applied to increasingly more complex interactive tasks such as negotiations and conversation moderations. Having human evaluators directly interact with these NLP models is essential for adequately evaluating the performance on such interactive tasks. We develop BotEval, an easily customizable, open-source, evaluation toolkit that focuses on enabling human-bot interactions as part of the evaluation process, as opposed to human evaluators making judgements for a static input. BotEval balances flexibility for customization and user-friendliness by providing templates for common use cases that span various degrees of complexity and built-in compatibility with popular crowdsourcing platforms. We showcase the numerous useful features of BotEval through a study that evaluates the performance of various chatbots on their effectiveness for conversational moderation and discuss how BotEval differs from other annotation tools.

Are Large Language Models Capable of Generating Human-Level Narratives?

This paper investigates the capability of LLMs in storytelling, focusing on narrative development and plot progression. We introduce a novel computational framework to analyze narratives through three discourse-level aspects: i) story arcs, ii) turning points, and iii) affective dimensions, including arousal and valence. By leveraging expert and automatic annotations, we uncover significant discrepancies between the LLM- and human- written stories. While human-written stories are suspenseful, arousing, and diverse in narrative structures, LLM stories are homogeneously positive and lack tension. Next, we measure narrative reasoning skills as a precursor to generative capacities, concluding that most LLMs fall short of human abilities in discourse understanding. Finally, we show that explicit integration of aforementioned discourse features can enhance storytelling, as is demonstrated by over 40% improvement in neural storytelling in terms of diversity, suspense, and arousal.

Style Transfer with Multi-iteration Preference Optimization

Numerous recent techniques for text style transfer characterize their approaches as variants of reinforcement learning and preference optimization. In this work, we consider the relationship between these approaches and a class of optimization approaches developed primarily for (non-neural) statistical machine translation, formerly known as 'tuning'. Inspired by these techniques from the past, we improve upon established preference optimization approaches, incorporating multiple iterations of exploration and optimization, and choosing contrastive examples by following a 'hope' vs 'fear' sampling strategy. Cognizant of the difference between machine translation and style transfer, however, we further tailor our framework with a new pseudo-parallel generation method and a dynamic weighted reward aggregation method to tackle the lack of parallel data and the need for a multi-objective reward. We evaluate our model on two commonly used text style transfer datasets. Through automatic and human evaluation results we show the effectiveness and the superiority of our model compared to state-of-the-art baselines.

GNOME: Generating Negotiations through Open-Domain Mapping of Exchanges

Language Models have previously shown strong negotiation capabilities in closed domains where the negotiation strategy prediction scope is constrained to a specific setup. In this paper, we first show that these models are not generalizable beyond their original training domain despite their wide-scale pretraining. Following this, we propose an automated framework called GNOME, which processes existing human-annotated, closed-domain datasets using Large Language Models and produces synthetic open-domain dialogues for negotiation. GNOME improves the generalizability of negotiation systems while reducing the expensive and subjective task of manual data curation. Through our experimental setup, we create a benchmark comparing encoder and decoder models trained on existing datasets against datasets created through GNOME. Our results show that models trained on our dataset not only perform better than previous state of the art models on domain specific strategy prediction, but also generalize better to previously unseen domains.

More Victories, Less Cooperation: Assessing Cicero's Diplomacy Play

The boardgame Diplomacy is a challenging setting for communicative and cooperative artificial intelligence. The most prominent communicative Diplomacy AI, Cicero, has excellent strategic abilities, exceeding human players. However, the best Diplomacy players master communication, not just tactics, which is why the game has received attention as an AI challenge. This work seeks to understand the degree to which Cicero succeeds at communication. First, we annotate in-game communication with abstract meaning representation to separate in-game tactics from general language. Second, we run two dozen games with humans and Cicero, totaling over 200 human-player hours of competition. While AI can consistently outplay human players, AI-Human communication is still limited because of AI's difficulty with deception and persuasion. This shows that Cicero relies on strategy and has not yet reached the full promise of communicative and cooperative AI.