Evaluating Language Model Math Reasoning via Grounding in Educational Curricula

Our work presents a novel angle for evaluating language models' (LMs) mathematical abilities, by investigating whether they can discern skills and concepts enabled by math content. We contribute two datasets: one consisting of 385 fine-grained descriptions of K-12 math skills and concepts, or standards, from Achieve the Core (ATC), and another of 9.9K problems labeled with these standards (MathFish). Working with experienced teachers, we find that LMs struggle to tag and verify standards linked to problems, and instead predict labels that are close to ground truth, but differ in subtle ways. We also show that LMs often generate problems that do not fully align with standards described in prompts. Finally, we categorize problems in GSM8k using math standards, allowing us to better understand why some problems are more difficult to solve for models than others.

A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants

In our era of rapid technological advancement, the research landscape for writing assistants has become increasingly fragmented across various research communities. We seek to address this challenge by proposing a design space as a structured way to examine and explore the multidimensional space of intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Through a large community collaboration, we explore five aspects of writing assistants: task, user, technology, interaction, and ecosystem. Within each aspect, we define dimensions (i.e., fundamental components of an aspect) and codes (i.e., potential options for each dimension) by systematically reviewing 115 papers. Our design space aims to offer researchers and designers a practical tool to navigate, comprehend, and compare the various possibilities of writing assistants, and aid in the envisioning and design of new writing assistants.

Leveraging Large Language Models for Learning Complex Legal Concepts through Storytelling

Making legal knowledge accessible to non-experts is crucial for enhancing general legal literacy and encouraging civic participation in democracy. However, legal documents are often challenging to understand for people without legal backgrounds. In this paper, we present a novel application of large language models (LLMs) in legal education to help non-experts learn intricate legal concepts through storytelling, an effective pedagogical tool in conveying complex and abstract concepts. We also introduce a new dataset LegalStories, which consists of 295 complex legal doctrines, each accompanied by a story and a set of multiple-choice questions generated by LLMs. To construct the dataset, we experiment with various LLMs to generate legal stories explaining these concepts. Furthermore, we use an expert-in-the-loop method to iteratively design multiple-choice questions. Then, we evaluate the effectiveness of storytelling with LLMs through an RCT experiment with legal novices on 10 samples from the dataset. We find that LLM-generated stories enhance comprehension of legal concepts and interest in law among non-native speakers compared to only definitions. Moreover, stories consistently help participants relate legal concepts to their lives. Finally, we find that learning with stories shows a higher retention rate for non-native speakers in the follow-up assessment. Our work has strong implications for using LLMs in promoting teaching and learning in the legal field and beyond.

Personalized Jargon Identification for Enhanced Interdisciplinary Communication

Scientific jargon can impede researchers when they read materials from other domains. Current methods of jargon identification mainly use corpus-level familiarity indicators (e.g., Simple Wikipedia represents plain language). However, researchers' familiarity of a term can vary greatly based on their own background. We collect a dataset of over 10K term familiarity annotations from 11 computer science researchers for terms drawn from 100 paper abstracts. Analysis of this data reveals that jargon familiarity and information needs vary widely across annotators, even within the same sub-domain (e.g., NLP). We investigate features representing individual, sub-domain, and domain knowledge to predict individual jargon familiarity. We compare supervised and prompt-based approaches, finding that prompt-based methods including personal publications yields the highest accuracy, though zero-shot prompting provides a strong baseline. This research offers insight into features and methods to integrate personal data into scientific jargon identification.

APPLS: A Meta-evaluation Testbed for Plain Language Summarization

While there has been significant development of models for Plain Language Summarization (PLS), evaluation remains a challenge. This is in part because PLS involves multiple, interrelated language transformations (e.g., adding background explanations, removing specialized terminology). No metrics are explicitly engineered for PLS, and the suitability of other text generation evaluation metrics remains unclear. To address these concerns, our study presents a granular meta-evaluation testbed, APPLS, designed to evaluate existing metrics for PLS. Drawing on insights from previous research, we define controlled perturbations for our testbed along four criteria that a metric of plain language should capture: informativeness, simplification, coherence, and faithfulness. Our analysis of metrics using this testbed reveals that current metrics fail to capture simplification, signaling a crucial gap. In response, we introduce POMME, a novel metric designed to assess text simplification in PLS. We demonstrate its correlation with simplification perturbations and validate across a variety of datasets. Our research contributes the first meta-evaluation testbed for PLS and a comprehensive evaluation of existing metrics, offering insights with relevance to other text generation tasks.

Beyond Summarization: Designing AI Support for Real-World Expository Writing Tasks

Large language models have introduced exciting new opportunities and challenges in designing and developing new AI-assisted writing support tools. Recent work has shown that leveraging this new technology can transform writing in many scenarios such as ideation during creative writing, editing support, and summarization. However, AI-supported expository writing--including real-world tasks like scholars writing literature reviews or doctors writing progress notes--is relatively understudied. In this position paper, we argue that developing AI supports for expository writing has unique and exciting research challenges and can lead to high real-world impacts. We characterize expository writing as evidence-based and knowledge-generating: it contains summaries of external documents as well as new information or knowledge. It can be seen as the product of authors' sensemaking process over a set of source documents, and the interplay between reading, reflection, and writing opens up new opportunities for designing AI support. We sketch three components for AI support design and discuss considerations for future research.

The Semantic Reader Project: Augmenting Scholarly Documents through AI-Powered Interactive Reading Interfaces

Scholarly publications are key to the transfer of knowledge from scholars to others. However, research papers are information-dense, and as the volume of the scientific literature grows, the need for new technology to support the reading process grows. In contrast to the process of finding papers, which has been transformed by Internet technology, the experience of reading research papers has changed little in decades. The PDF format for sharing research papers is widely used due to its portability, but it has significant downsides including: static content, poor accessibility for low-vision readers, and difficulty reading on mobile devices. This paper explores the question "Can recent advances in AI and HCI power intelligent, interactive, and accessible reading interfaces -- even for legacy PDFs?" We describe the Semantic Reader Project, a collaborative effort across multiple institutions to explore automatic creation of dynamic reading interfaces for research papers. Through this project, we've developed ten research prototype interfaces and conducted usability studies with more than 300 participants and real-world users showing improved reading experiences for scholars. We've also released a production reading interface for research papers that will incorporate the best features as they mature. We structure this paper around challenges scholars and the public face when reading research papers -- Discovery, Efficiency, Comprehension, Synthesis, and Accessibility -- and present an overview of our progress and remaining open challenges.

Paper Plain: Making Medical Research Papers Approachable to Healthcare Consumers with Natural Language Processing

When seeking information not covered in patient-friendly documents, like medical pamphlets, healthcare consumers may turn to the research literature. Reading medical papers, however, can be a challenging experience. To improve access to medical papers, we introduce a novel interactive interface-Paper Plain-with four features powered by natural language processing: definitions of unfamiliar terms, in-situ plain language section summaries, a collection of key questions that guide readers to answering passages, and plain language summaries of the answering passages. We evaluate Paper Plain, finding that participants who use Paper Plain have an easier time reading and understanding research papers without a loss in paper comprehension compared to those who use a typical PDF reader. Altogether, the study results suggest that guiding readers to relevant passages and providing plain language summaries, or "gists," alongside the original paper content can make reading medical papers easier and give readers more confidence to approach these papers.

All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Text

Human evaluations are typically considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but as models' fluency improves, how well can evaluators detect and judge machine-generated text? We run a study assessing non-experts' ability to distinguish between human- and machine-authored text (GPT2 and GPT3) in three domains (stories, news articles, and recipes). We find that, without training, evaluators distinguished between GPT3- and human-authored text at random chance level. We explore three approaches for quickly training evaluators to better identify GPT3-authored text (detailed instructions, annotated examples, and paired examples) and find that while evaluators' accuracy improved up to 55%, it did not significantly improve across the three domains. Given the inconsistent results across text domains and the often contradictory reasons evaluators gave for their judgments, we examine the role untrained human evaluations play in NLG evaluation and provide recommendations to NLG researchers for improving human evaluations of text generated from state-of-the-art models.

The Effect of Moderation on Online Mental Health Conversations

Many people struggling with mental health issues are unable to access adequate care due to high costs and a shortage of mental health professionals, leading to a global mental health crisis. Online mental health communities can help mitigate this crisis by offering a scalable, easily accessible alternative to in-person sessions with therapists or support groups. However, people seeking emotional or psychological support online may be especially vulnerable to the kinds of antisocial behavior that sometimes occur in online discussions. Moderation can improve online discourse quality, but we lack an understanding of its effects on online mental health conversations. In this work, we leveraged a natural experiment, occurring across 200,000 messages from 7,000 conversations hosted on a mental health mobile application, to evaluate the effects of moderation on online mental health discussions. We found that participation in group mental health discussions led to improvements in psychological perspective, and that these improvements were larger in moderated conversations. The presence of a moderator increased user engagement, encouraged users to discuss negative emotions more candidly, and dramatically reduced bad behavior among chat participants. Moderation also encouraged stronger linguistic coordination, which is indicative of trust building. In addition, moderators who remained active in conversations were especially successful in keeping conversations on topic. Our findings suggest that moderation can serve as a valuable tool to improve the efficacy and safety of online mental health conversations. Based on these findings, we discuss implications and trade-offs involved in designing effective online spaces for mental health support.