Anchors Aweigh! Sail for Optimal Unified Multi-Modal Representations

Multimodal learning plays a crucial role in enabling machine learning models to fuse and utilize diverse data sources, such as text, images, and audio, to support a variety of downstream tasks. A unified representation across various modalities is particularly important for improving efficiency and performance. Recent binding methods, such as ImageBind (Girdhar et al., 2023), typically use a fixed anchor modality to align multimodal data in the anchor modal embedding space. In this paper, we mathematically analyze the fixed anchor binding methods and uncover notable limitations: (1) over-reliance on the choice of the anchor modality, (2) failure to capture intra-modal information, and (3) failure to account for inter-modal correlation among non-anchored modalities. To address these limitations, we propose CentroBind, a simple yet powerful approach that eliminates the need for a fixed anchor; instead, it employs dynamically adjustable centroid-based anchors generated from all available modalities, resulting in a balanced and rich representation space. We theoretically demonstrate that our method captures three crucial properties of multimodal learning: intra-modal learning, inter-modal learning, and multimodal alignment, while also constructing a robust unified representation across all modalities. Our experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method, showing that dynamic anchor methods outperform all fixed anchor binding methods as the former captures more nuanced multimodal interactions.

Human-AI Collaborative Taxonomy Construction: A Case Study in Profession-Specific Writing Assistants

Large Language Models (LLMs) have assisted humans in several writing tasks, including text revision and story generation. However, their effectiveness in supporting domain-specific writing, particularly in business contexts, is relatively less explored. Our formative study with industry professionals revealed the limitations in current LLMs' understanding of the nuances in such domain-specific writing. To address this gap, we propose an approach of human-AI collaborative taxonomy development to perform as a guideline for domain-specific writing assistants. This method integrates iterative feedback from domain experts and multiple interactions between these experts and LLMs to refine the taxonomy. Through larger-scale experiments, we aim to validate this methodology and thus improve LLM-powered writing assistance, tailoring it to meet the unique requirements of different stakeholder needs.

Threads of Subtlety: Detecting Machine-Generated Texts Through Discourse Motifs

With the advent of large language models (LLM), the line between human-crafted and machine-generated texts has become increasingly blurred. This paper delves into the inquiry of identifying discernible and unique linguistic properties in texts that were written by humans, particularly uncovering the underlying discourse structures of texts beyond their surface structures. Introducing a novel methodology, we leverage hierarchical parse trees and recursive hypergraphs to unveil distinctive discourse patterns in texts produced by both LLMs and humans. Empirical findings demonstrate that, although both LLMs and humans generate distinct discourse patterns influenced by specific domains, human-written texts exhibit more structural variability, reflecting the nuanced nature of human writing in different domains. Notably, incorporating hierarchical discourse features enhances binary classifiers' overall performance in distinguishing between human-written and machine-generated texts, even on out-of-distribution and paraphrased samples. This underscores the significance of incorporating hierarchical discourse features in the analysis of text patterns. The code and dataset will be available at [TBA].

Under the Surface: Tracking the Artifactuality of LLM-Generated Data

This work delves into the expanding role of large language models (LLMs) in generating artificial data. LLMs are increasingly employed to create a variety of outputs, including annotations, preferences, instruction prompts, simulated dialogues, and free text. As these forms of LLM-generated data often intersect in their application, they exert mutual influence on each other and raise significant concerns about the quality and diversity of the artificial data incorporated into training cycles, leading to an artificial data ecosystem. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to aggregate various types of LLM-generated text data, from more tightly constrained data like "task labels" to more lightly constrained "free-form text". We then stress test the quality and implications of LLM-generated artificial data, comparing it with human data across various existing benchmarks. Despite artificial data's capability to match human performance, this paper reveals significant hidden disparities, especially in complex tasks where LLMs often miss the nuanced understanding of intrinsic human-generated content. This study critically examines diverse LLM-generated data and emphasizes the need for ethical practices in data creation and when using LLMs. It highlights the LLMs' shortcomings in replicating human traits and behaviors, underscoring the importance of addressing biases and artifacts produced in LLM-generated content for future research and development. All data and code are available on our project page.

Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. In this work, we assemble 15 LLMs of four different size ranges and evaluate their output responses by preference ranking from the other LLMs as evaluators, such as System Star is better than System Square. We then evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators (CoBBLEr), a benchmark to measure six different cognitive biases in LLM evaluation outputs, such as the Egocentric bias where a model prefers to rank its own outputs highly in evaluation. We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark (average of 40% of comparisons across all models) within each of their evaluations that question their robustness as evaluators. Furthermore, we examine the correlation between human and machine preferences and calculate the average Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) score to be 49.6%, indicating that machine preferences are misaligned with humans. According to our findings, LLMs may still be unable to be utilized for automatic annotation aligned with human preferences. Our project page is at: https://minnesotanlp.github.io/cobbler.

An Analysis of Reader Engagement in Literary Fiction through Eye Tracking and Linguistic Features

Capturing readers' engagement in fiction is a challenging but important aspect of narrative understanding. In this study, we collected 23 readers' reactions to 2 short stories through eye tracking, sentence-level annotations, and an overall engagement scale survey. We analyzed the significance of various qualities of the text in predicting how engaging a reader is likely to find it. As enjoyment of fiction is highly contextual, we also investigated individual differences in our data. Furthering our understanding of what captivates readers in fiction will help better inform models used in creative narrative generation and collaborative writing tools.

Diffusion Models in NLP: A Survey

This survey paper provides a comprehensive review of the use of diffusion models in natural language processing (NLP). Diffusion models are a class of mathematical models that aim to capture the diffusion of information or signals across a network or manifold. In NLP, diffusion models have been used in a variety of applications, such as natural language generation, sentiment analysis, topic modeling, and machine translation. This paper discusses the different formulations of diffusion models used in NLP, their strengths and limitations, and their applications. We also perform a thorough comparison between diffusion models and alternative generative models, specifically highlighting the autoregressive (AR) models, while also examining how diverse architectures incorporate the Transformer in conjunction with diffusion models. Compared to AR models, diffusion models have significant advantages for parallel generation, text interpolation, token-level controls such as syntactic structures and semantic contents, and robustness. Exploring further permutations of integrating Transformers into diffusion models would be a valuable pursuit. Also, the development of multimodal diffusion models and large-scale diffusion language models with notable capabilities for few-shot learning would be important directions for the future advance of diffusion models in NLP.

"Is the Pope Catholic?" Applying Chain-of-Thought Reasoning to Understanding Conversational Implicatures

Conversational implicatures are pragmatic inferences that require listeners to deduce the intended meaning conveyed by a speaker from their explicit utterances. Although such inferential reasoning is fundamental to human communication, recent research indicates that large language models struggle to comprehend these implicatures as effectively as the average human. This paper demonstrates that by incorporating Grice's Four Maxims into the model through chain-of-thought prompting, we can significantly enhance its performance, surpassing even the average human performance on this task.

Improving Iterative Text Revision by Learning Where to Edit from Other Revision Tasks

Iterative text revision improves text quality by fixing grammatical errors, rephrasing for better readability or contextual appropriateness, or reorganizing sentence structures throughout a document. Most recent research has focused on understanding and classifying different types of edits in the iterative revision process from human-written text instead of building accurate and robust systems for iterative text revision. In this work, we aim to build an end-to-end text revision system that can iteratively generate helpful edits by explicitly detecting editable spans (where-to-edit) with their corresponding edit intents and then instructing a revision model to revise the detected edit spans. Leveraging datasets from other related text editing NLP tasks, combined with the specification of editable spans, leads our system to more accurately model the process of iterative text refinement, as evidenced by empirical results and human evaluations. Our system significantly outperforms previous baselines on our text revision tasks and other standard text revision tasks, including grammatical error correction, text simplification, sentence fusion, and style transfer. Through extensive qualitative and quantitative analysis, we make vital connections between edit intentions and writing quality, and better computational modeling of iterative text revisions.

Read, Revise, Repeat: A System Demonstration for Human-in-the-loop Iterative Text Revision

Revision is an essential part of the human writing process. It tends to be strategic, adaptive, and, more importantly, iterative in nature. Despite the success of large language models on text revision tasks, they are limited to non-iterative, one-shot revisions. Examining and evaluating the capability of large language models for making continuous revisions and collaborating with human writers is a critical step towards building effective writing assistants. In this work, we present a human-in-the-loop iterative text revision system, Read, Revise, Repeat (R3), which aims at achieving high quality text revisions with minimal human efforts by reading model-generated revisions and user feedbacks, revising documents, and repeating human-machine interactions. In R3, a text revision model provides text editing suggestions for human writers, who can accept or reject the suggested edits. The accepted edits are then incorporated into the model for the next iteration of document revision. Writers can therefore revise documents iteratively by interacting with the system and simply accepting/rejecting its suggested edits until the text revision model stops making further revisions or reaches a predefined maximum number of revisions. Empirical experiments show that R3 can generate revisions with comparable acceptance rate to human writers at early revision depths, and the human-machine interaction can get higher quality revisions with fewer iterations and edits. The collected human-model interaction dataset and system code are available at \url{https://github.com/vipulraheja/IteraTeR}. Our system demonstration is available at \url{https://youtu.be/lK08tIpEoaE}.