Knowledge acquisition for dialogue agents using reinforcement learning on graph representations

We develop an artificial agent motivated to augment its knowledge base beyond its initial training. The agent actively participates in dialogues with other agents, strategically acquiring new information. The agent models its knowledge as an RDF knowledge graph, integrating new beliefs acquired through conversation. Responses in dialogue are generated by identifying graph patterns around these new integrated beliefs. We show that policies can be learned using reinforcement learning to select effective graph patterns during an interaction, without relying on explicit user feedback. Within this context, our study is a proof of concept for leveraging users as effective sources of information.

Grounding Toxicity in Real-World Events across Languages

Social media conversations frequently suffer from toxicity, creating significant issues for users, moderators, and entire communities. Events in the real world, like elections or conflicts, can initiate and escalate toxic behavior online. Our study investigates how real-world events influence the origin and spread of toxicity in online discussions across various languages and regions. We gathered Reddit data comprising 4.5 million comments from 31 thousand posts in six different languages (Dutch, English, German, Arabic, Turkish and Spanish). We target fifteen major social and political world events that occurred between 2020 and 2023. We observe significant variations in toxicity, negative sentiment, and emotion expressions across different events and language communities, showing that toxicity is a complex phenomenon in which many different factors interact and still need to be investigated. We will release the data for further research along with our code.

The Constant in HATE: Analyzing Toxicity in Reddit across Topics and Languages

Toxic language remains an ongoing challenge on social media platforms, presenting significant issues for users and communities. This paper provides a cross-topic and cross-lingual analysis of toxicity in Reddit conversations. We collect 1.5 million comment threads from 481 communities in six languages: English, German, Spanish, Turkish,Arabic, and Dutch, covering 80 topics such as Culture, Politics, and News. We thoroughly analyze how toxicity spikes within different communities in relation to specific topics. We observe consistent patterns of increased toxicity across languages for certain topics, while also noting significant variations within specific language communities.

Unknown Script: Impact of Script on Cross-Lingual Transfer

Cross-lingual transfer has become an effective way of transferring knowledge between languages. In this paper, we explore an often-overlooked aspect in this domain: the influence of the source language of the base language model on transfer performance. We conduct a series of experiments to determine the effect of the script and tokenizer used in the pre-trained model on the performance of the downstream task. Our findings reveal the importance of the tokenizer as a stronger factor than the sharing of the script, the language typology match, and the model size.

Truth-value judgment in language models: belief directions are context sensitive

Recent work has demonstrated that the latent spaces of large language models (LLMs) contain directions predictive of the truth of sentences. Multiple methods recover such directions and build probes that are described as getting at a model's "knowledge" or "beliefs". We investigate this phenomenon, looking closely at the impact of context on the probes. Our experiments establish where in the LLM the probe's predictions can be described as being conditional on the preceding (related) sentences. Specifically, we quantify the responsiveness of the probes to the presence of (negated) supporting and contradicting sentences, and score the probes on their consistency. We also perform a causal intervention experiment, investigating whether moving the representation of a premise along these belief directions influences the position of the hypothesis along that same direction. We find that the probes we test are generally context sensitive, but that contexts which should not affect the truth often still impact the probe outputs. Our experiments show that the type of errors depend on the layer, the (type of) model, and the kind of data. Finally, our results suggest that belief directions are (one of the) causal mediators in the inference process that incorporates in-context information.

A Hybrid Intelligence Method for Argument Mining

Large-scale survey tools enable the collection of citizen feedback in opinion corpora. Extracting the key arguments from a large and noisy set of opinions helps in understanding the opinions quickly and accurately. Fully automated methods can extract arguments but (1) require large labeled datasets that induce large annotation costs and (2) work well for known viewpoints, but not for novel points of view. We propose HyEnA, a hybrid (human + AI) method for extracting arguments from opinionated texts, combining the speed of automated processing with the understanding and reasoning capabilities of humans. We evaluate HyEnA on three citizen feedback corpora. We find that, on the one hand, HyEnA achieves higher coverage and precision than a state-of-the-art automated method when compared to a common set of diverse opinions, justifying the need for human insight. On the other hand, HyEnA requires less human effort and does not compromise quality compared to (fully manual) expert analysis, demonstrating the benefit of combining human and artificial intelligence.

An Empirical Analysis of Diversity in Argument Summarization

Presenting high-level arguments is a crucial task for fostering participation in online societal discussions. Current argument summarization approaches miss an important facet of this task -- capturing diversity -- which is important for accommodating multiple perspectives. We introduce three aspects of diversity: those of opinions, annotators, and sources. We evaluate approaches to a popular argument summarization task called Key Point Analysis, which shows how these approaches struggle to (1) represent arguments shared by few people, (2) deal with data from various sources, and (3) align with subjectivity in human-provided annotations. We find that both general-purpose LLMs and dedicated KPA models exhibit this behavior, but have complementary strengths. Further, we observe that diversification of training data may ameliorate generalization. Addressing diversity in argument summarization requires a mix of strategies to deal with subjectivity.

Do Differences in Values Influence Disagreements in Online Discussions?

Disagreements are common in online discussions. Disagreement may foster collaboration and improve the quality of a discussion under some conditions. Although there exist methods for recognizing disagreement, a deeper understanding of factors that influence disagreement is lacking in the literature. We investigate a hypothesis that differences in personal values are indicative of disagreement in online discussions. We show how state-of-the-art models can be used for estimating values in online discussions and how the estimated values can be aggregated into value profiles. We evaluate the estimated value profiles based on human-annotated agreement labels. We find that the dissimilarity of value profiles correlates with disagreement in specific cases. We also find that including value information in agreement prediction improves performance.

Reasoning about Ambiguous Definite Descriptions

Natural language reasoning plays an increasingly important role in improving language models' ability to solve complex language understanding tasks. An interesting use case for reasoning is the resolution of context-dependent ambiguity. But no resources exist to evaluate how well Large Language Models can use explicit reasoning to resolve ambiguity in language. We propose to use ambiguous definite descriptions for this purpose and create and publish the first benchmark dataset consisting of such phrases. Our method includes all information required to resolve the ambiguity in the prompt, which means a model does not require anything but reasoning to do well. We find this to be a challenging task for recent LLMs. Code and data available at: https://github.com/sfschouten/exploiting-ambiguity

Cross-Domain Toxic Spans Detection

Given the dynamic nature of toxic language use, automated methods for detecting toxic spans are likely to encounter distributional shift. To explore this phenomenon, we evaluate three approaches for detecting toxic spans under cross-domain conditions: lexicon-based, rationale extraction, and fine-tuned language models. Our findings indicate that a simple method using off-the-shelf lexicons performs best in the cross-domain setup. The cross-domain error analysis suggests that (1) rationale extraction methods are prone to false negatives, while (2) language models, despite performing best for the in-domain case, recall fewer explicitly toxic words than lexicons and are prone to certain types of false positives. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/sfschouten/toxic-cross-domain.