Retrieval augmentation can aid language models (LMs) in knowledge-intensive tasks by supplying them with external information. Prior works on retrieval augmentation usually jointly fine-tune the retriever and the LM, making them closely coupled. In this paper, we explore the scheme of generic retrieval plug-in: the retriever is to assist target LMs that may not be known beforehand or are unable to be fine-tuned together. To retrieve useful documents for unseen target LMs, we propose augmentation-adapted retriever (AAR), which learns LM's preferences obtained from a known source LM. Experiments on the MMLU and PopQA datasets demonstrate that our AAR trained with a small source LM is able to significantly improve the zero-shot generalization of larger target LMs ranging from 250M Flan-T5 to 175B InstructGPT. Further analysis indicates that the preferences of different LMs overlap, enabling AAR trained with a single source LM to serve as a generic plug-in for various target LMs. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/OpenMatch/Augmentation-Adapted-Retriever.

Task-oriented dialog (TOD) agents often ground their responses on external knowledge bases (KBs). These KBs can be dynamic and may be updated frequently. Existing approaches for learning TOD agents assume the KB snapshot contemporary to each individual dialog is available during training. However, in real-world scenarios, only the latest KB snapshot is available during training and as a result, the train dialogs may contain facts conflicting with the latest KB. These dialog-KB inconsistencies in the training data may potentially confuse the TOD agent learning algorithm. In this work, we define the novel problem of learning a TOD agent with dialog-KB inconsistencies in the training data. We propose a Dialog-KB Arbitration Framework (DKAF) which reduces the dialog-KB inconsistencies by predicting the contemporary KB snapshot for each train dialog. These predicted KB snapshots are then used for training downstream TOD agents. As there are no existing datasets with dialog-KB inconsistencies, we systematically introduce inconsistencies in two publicly available dialog datasets. We show that TOD agents trained with DKAF perform better than existing baselines on both these datasets

Dogwhistles are coded expressions that simultaneously convey one meaning to a broad audience and a second one, often hateful or provocative, to a narrow in-group; they are deployed to evade both political repercussions and algorithmic content moderation. For example, in the sentence 'we need to end the cosmopolitan experiment,' the word 'cosmopolitan' likely means 'worldly' to many, but secretly means 'Jewish' to a select few. We present the first large-scale computational investigation of dogwhistles. We develop a typology of dogwhistles, curate the largest-to-date glossary of over 300 dogwhistles with rich contextual information and examples, and analyze their usage in historical U.S. politicians' speeches. We then assess whether a large language model (GPT-3) can identify dogwhistles and their meanings, and find that GPT-3's performance varies widely across types of dogwhistles and targeted groups. Finally, we show that harmful content containing dogwhistles avoids toxicity detection, highlighting online risks of such coded language. This work sheds light on the theoretical and applied importance of dogwhistles in both NLP and computational social science, and provides resources for future research in modeling dogwhistles and mitigating their online harms.

Benchmarking and co-design are essential for driving optimizations and innovation around ML models, ML software, and next-generation hardware. Full workload benchmarks, e.g. MLPerf, play an essential role in enabling fair comparison across different software and hardware stacks especially once systems are fully designed and deployed. However, the pace of AI innovation demands a more agile methodology to benchmark creation and usage by simulators and emulators for future system co-design. We propose Chakra, an open graph schema for standardizing workload specification capturing key operations and dependencies, also known as Execution Trace (ET). In addition, we propose a complementary set of tools/capabilities to enable collection, generation, and adoption of Chakra ETs by a wide range of simulators, emulators, and benchmarks. For instance, we use generative AI models to learn latent statistical properties across thousands of Chakra ETs and use these models to synthesize Chakra ETs. These synthetic ETs can obfuscate key proprietary information and also target future what-if scenarios. As an example, we demonstrate an end-to-end proof-of-concept that converts PyTorch ETs to Chakra ETs and uses this to drive an open-source training system simulator (ASTRA-sim). Our end-goal is to build a vibrant industry-wide ecosystem of agile benchmarks and tools to drive future AI system co-design.

Multilingual pretrained language models (mPLMs) acquire valuable, generalizable linguistic information during pretraining and have advanced the state of the art on task-specific finetuning. To date, only ~31 out of ~2,000 African languages are covered in existing language models. We ameliorate this limitation by developing SERENGETI, a massively multilingual language model that covers 517 African languages and language varieties. We evaluate our novel models on eight natural language understanding tasks across 20 datasets, comparing to 4 mPLMs that cover 4-23 African languages. SERENGETI outperforms other models on 11 datasets across the eights tasks, achieving 82.27 average F_1. We also perform analyses of errors from our models, which allows us to investigate the influence of language genealogy and linguistic similarity when the models are applied under zero-shot settings. We will publicly release our models for research.\footnote{\href{https://github.com/UBC-NLP/serengeti}{https://github.com/UBC-NLP/serengeti}}

Morality in dialogue systems has raised great attention in research recently. A moral dialogue system aligned with users' values could enhance conversation engagement and user connections. In this paper, we propose a framework, MoralDial to train and evaluate moral dialogue systems. In our framework, we first explore the communication mechanisms of morality and resolve expressed morality into three parts, which indicate the roadmap for building a moral dialogue system. Based on that, we design a simple yet effective method: constructing moral discussions between simulated specific users and the dialogue system. The constructed discussions consist of expressing, explaining, revising, and inferring moral views in dialogue exchanges, which makes conversational models learn morality well in a natural manner. Furthermore, we propose a novel evaluation method under the framework. We evaluate the multiple aspects of morality by judging the relation between dialogue responses and human values in discussions, where the multifaceted nature of morality is particularly considered. Automatic and manual experiments demonstrate that our framework is promising to train and evaluate moral dialogue systems.

We present sustain.AI, an intelligent, context-aware recommender system that assists auditors and financial investors as well as the general public to efficiently analyze companies' sustainability reports. The tool leverages an end-to-end trainable architecture that couples a BERT-based encoding module with a multi-label classification head to match relevant text passages from sustainability reports to their respective law regulations from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards. We evaluate our model on two novel German sustainability reporting data sets and consistently achieve a significantly higher recommendation performance compared to multiple strong baselines. Furthermore, sustain.AI is publicly available Figure 1: A screenshot of the sustain.AI recommender tool.

An assurance case is intended to provide justifiable confidence in the truth of its top claim, which typically concerns safety or security. A natural question is then "how much" confidence does the case provide? We argue that confidence cannot be reduced to a single attribute or measurement. Instead, we suggest it should be based on attributes that draw on three different perspectives: positive, negative, and residual doubts. Positive Perspectives consider the extent to which the evidence and overall argument of the case combine to make a positive statement justifying belief in its claims. We set a high bar for justification, requiring it to be indefeasible. The primary positive measure for this is soundness, which interprets the argument as a logical proof. Confidence in evidence can be expressed probabilistically and we use confirmation measures to ensure that the "weight" of evidence crosses some threshold. In addition, probabilities can be aggregated from evidence through the steps of the argument using probability logics to yield what we call probabilistic valuations for the claims. Negative Perspectives record doubts and challenges to the case, typically expressed as defeaters, and their exploration and resolution. Assurance developers must guard against confirmation bias and should vigorously explore potential defeaters as they develop the case, and should record them and their resolution to avoid rework and to aid reviewers. Residual Doubts: the world is uncertain so not all potential defeaters can be resolved. We explore risks and may deem them acceptable or unavoidable. It is crucial however that these judgments are conscious ones and that they are recorded in the assurance case. This report examines the perspectives in detail and indicates how Clarissa, our prototype toolset for Assurance 2.0, assists in their evaluation.

"Leichte Sprache", the German counterpart to Simple English, is a regulated language aiming to facilitate complex written language that would otherwise stay inaccessible to different groups of people. We present a new sentence-aligned monolingual corpus for Simple German -- German. It contains multiple document-aligned sources which we have aligned using automatic sentence-alignment methods. We evaluate our alignments based on a manually labelled subset of aligned documents. The quality of our sentence alignments, as measured by F1-score, surpasses previous work. We publish the dataset under CC BY-SA and the accompanying code under MIT license.

Optimizing the phrasing of argumentative text is crucial in higher education and professional development. However, assessing whether and how the different claims in a text should be revised is a hard task, especially for novice writers. In this work, we explore the main challenges to identifying argumentative claims in need of specific revisions. By learning from collaborative editing behaviors in online debates, we seek to capture implicit revision patterns in order to develop approaches aimed at guiding writers in how to further improve their arguments. We systematically compare the ability of common word embedding models to capture the differences between different versions of the same text, and we analyze their impact on various types of writing issues. To deal with the noisy nature of revision-based corpora, we propose a new sampling strategy based on revision distance. Opposed to approaches from prior work, such sampling can be done without employing additional annotations and judgments. Moreover, we provide evidence that using contextual information and domain knowledge can further improve prediction results. How useful a certain type of context is, depends on the issue the claim is suffering from, though.