Boosting Logical Fallacy Reasoning in LLMs via Logical Structure Tree

Logical fallacy uses invalid or faulty reasoning in the construction of a statement. Despite the prevalence and harmfulness of logical fallacies, detecting and classifying logical fallacies still remains a challenging task. We observe that logical fallacies often use connective words to indicate an intended logical relation between two arguments, while the argument semantics does not actually support the logical relation. Inspired by this observation, we propose to build a logical structure tree to explicitly represent and track the hierarchical logic flow among relation connectives and their arguments in a statement. Specifically, this logical structure tree is constructed in an unsupervised manner guided by the constituency tree and a taxonomy of connectives for ten common logical relations, with relation connectives as non-terminal nodes and textual arguments as terminal nodes, and the latter are mostly elementary discourse units. We further develop two strategies to incorporate the logical structure tree into LLMs for fallacy reasoning. Firstly, we transform the tree into natural language descriptions and feed the textualized tree into LLMs as a part of the hard text prompt. Secondly, we derive a relation-aware tree embedding and insert the tree embedding into LLMs as a soft prompt. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that our approach based on logical structure tree significantly improves precision and recall for both fallacy detection and fallacy classification.

Evaluating Gender Bias of LLMs in Making Morality Judgements

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in a multitude of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. However, these models are still not immune to limitations such as social biases, especially gender bias. This work investigates whether current closed and open-source LLMs possess gender bias, especially when asked to give moral opinions. To evaluate these models, we curate and introduce a new dataset GenMO (Gender-bias in Morality Opinions) comprising parallel short stories featuring male and female characters respectively. Specifically, we test models from the GPT family (GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-3.5-turbo-instruct, GPT-4-turbo), Llama 3 and 3.1 families (8B/70B), Mistral-7B and Claude 3 families (Sonnet and Opus). Surprisingly, despite employing safety checks, all production-standard models we tested display significant gender bias with GPT-3.5-turbo giving biased opinions in 24% of the samples. Additionally, all models consistently favour female characters, with GPT showing bias in 68-85% of cases and Llama 3 in around 81-85% instances. Additionally, our study investigates the impact of model parameters on gender bias and explores real-world situations where LLMs reveal biases in moral decision-making.

UAL-Bench: The First Comprehensive Unusual Activity Localization Benchmark

Localizing unusual activities, such as human errors or surveillance incidents, in videos holds practical significance. However, current video understanding models struggle with localizing these unusual events likely because of their insufficient representation in models' pretraining datasets. To explore foundation models' capability in localizing unusual activity, we introduce UAL-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for unusual activity localization, featuring three video datasets: UAG-OOPS, UAG-SSBD, UAG-FunQA, and an instruction-tune dataset: OOPS-UAG-Instruct, to improve model capabilities. UAL-Bench evaluates three approaches: Video-Language Models (Vid-LLMs), instruction-tuned Vid-LLMs, and a novel integration of Vision-Language Models and Large Language Models (VLM-LLM). Our results show the VLM-LLM approach excels in localizing short-span unusual events and predicting their onset (start time) more accurately than Vid-LLMs. We also propose a new metric, R@1, TD <= p, to address limitations in existing evaluation methods. Our findings highlight the challenges posed by long-duration videos, particularly in autism diagnosis scenarios, and the need for further advancements in localization techniques. Our work not only provides a benchmark for unusual activity localization but also outlines the key challenges for existing foundation models, suggesting future research directions on this important task.

Are LLMs Good Annotators for Discourse-level Event Relation Extraction?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated proficiency in a wide array of natural language processing tasks. However, its effectiveness over discourse-level event relation extraction (ERE) tasks remains unexplored. In this paper, we assess the effectiveness of LLMs in addressing discourse-level ERE tasks characterized by lengthy documents and intricate relations encompassing coreference, temporal, causal, and subevent types. Evaluation is conducted using an commercial model, GPT-3.5, and an open-source model, LLaMA-2. Our study reveals a notable underperformance of LLMs compared to the baseline established through supervised learning. Although Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) can improve LLMs performance, it does not scale well compared to the smaller supervised baseline model. Our quantitative and qualitative analysis shows that LLMs have several weaknesses when applied for extracting event relations, including a tendency to fabricate event mentions, and failures to capture transitivity rules among relations, detect long distance relations, or comprehend contexts with dense event mentions.

LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

Indexing Analytics to Instances: How Integrating a Dashboard can Support Design Education

We investigate how to use AI-based analytics to support design education. The analytics at hand measure multiscale design, that is, students' use of space and scale to visually and conceptually organize their design work. With the goal of making the analytics intelligible to instructors, we developed a research artifact integrating a design analytics dashboard with design instances, and the design environment that students use to create them. We theorize about how Suchman's notion of mutual intelligibility requires contextualized investigation of AI in order to develop findings about how analytics work for people. We studied the research artifact in 5 situated course contexts, in 3 departments. A total of 236 students used the multiscale design environment. The 9 instructors who taught those students experienced the analytics via the new research artifact. We derive findings from a qualitative analysis of interviews with instructors regarding their experiences. Instructors reflected on how the analytics and their presentation in the dashboard have the potential to affect design education. We develop research implications addressing: (1) how indexing design analytics in the dashboard to actual design work instances helps design instructors reflect on what they mean and, more broadly, is a technique for how AI-based design analytics can support instructors' assessment and feedback experiences in situated course contexts; and (2) how multiscale design analytics, in particular, have the potential to support design education. By indexing, we mean linking which provides context, here connecting the numbers of the analytics with visually annotated design work instances.

EMONA: Event-level Moral Opinions in News Articles

Most previous research on moral frames has focused on social media short texts, little work has explored moral sentiment within news articles. In news articles, authors often express their opinions or political stance through moral judgment towards events, specifically whether the event is right or wrong according to social moral rules. This paper initiates a new task to understand moral opinions towards events in news articles. We have created a new dataset, EMONA, and annotated event-level moral opinions in news articles. This dataset consists of 400 news articles containing over 10k sentences and 45k events, among which 9,613 events received moral foundation labels. Extracting event morality is a challenging task, as moral judgment towards events can be very implicit. Baseline models were built for event moral identification and classification. In addition, we also conduct extrinsic evaluations to integrate event-level moral opinions into three downstream tasks. The statistical analysis and experiments show that moral opinions of events can serve as informative features for identifying ideological bias or subjective events.

Sentence-level Media Bias Analysis with Event Relation Graph

Media outlets are becoming more partisan and polarized nowadays. In this paper, we identify media bias at the sentence level, and pinpoint bias sentences that intend to sway readers' opinions. As bias sentences are often expressed in a neutral and factual way, considering broader context outside a sentence can help reveal the bias. In particular, we observe that events in a bias sentence need to be understood in associations with other events in the document. Therefore, we propose to construct an event relation graph to explicitly reason about event-event relations for sentence-level bias identification. The designed event relation graph consists of events as nodes and four common types of event relations: coreference, temporal, causal, and subevent relations. Then, we incorporate event relation graph for bias sentences identification in two steps: an event-aware language model is built to inject the events and event relations knowledge into the basic language model via soft labels; further, a relation-aware graph attention network is designed to update sentence embedding with events and event relations information based on hard labels. Experiments on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that our approach with the aid of event relation graph improves both precision and recall of bias sentence identification.

Polarity Calibration for Opinion Summarization

Opinion summarization is automatically generating summaries from a variety of subjective information, such as product reviews or political opinions. The challenge of opinions summarization lies in presenting divergent or even conflicting opinions. We conduct an analysis of previous summarization models, which reveals their inclination to amplify the polarity bias, emphasizing the majority opinions while ignoring the minority opinions. To address this issue and make the summarizer express both sides of opinions, we introduce the concept of polarity calibration, which aims to align the polarity of output summary with that of input text. Specifically, we develop a reinforcement training approach for polarity calibration. This approach feeds the polarity distance between output summary and input text as reward into the summarizer, and also balance polarity calibration with content preservation and language naturality. We evaluate our Polarity Calibration model (PoCa) on two types of opinions summarization tasks: summarizing product reviews and political opinions articles. Automatic and human evaluation demonstrate that our approach can mitigate the polarity mismatch between output summary and input text, as well as maintain the content semantic and language quality.

All Things Considered: Detecting Partisan Events from News Media with Cross-Article Comparison

Public opinion is shaped by the information news media provide, and that information in turn may be shaped by the ideological preferences of media outlets. But while much attention has been devoted to media bias via overt ideological language or topic selection, a more unobtrusive way in which the media shape opinion is via the strategic inclusion or omission of partisan events that may support one side or the other. We develop a latent variable-based framework to predict the ideology of news articles by comparing multiple articles on the same story and identifying partisan events whose inclusion or omission reveals ideology. Our experiments first validate the existence of partisan event selection, and then show that article alignment and cross-document comparison detect partisan events and article ideology better than competitive baselines. Our results reveal the high-level form of media bias, which is present even among mainstream media with strong norms of objectivity and nonpartisanship. Our codebase and dataset are available at https://github.com/launchnlp/ATC.