Data sanitization in the context of language modeling involves identifying sensitive content, such as personally identifiable information (PII), and redacting them from a dataset corpus. It is a common practice used in natural language processing (NLP) to maintain privacy. Nevertheless, the impact of data sanitization on the language understanding capability of a language model remains less studied. This paper empirically analyzes the effects of data sanitization across several benchmark language-modeling tasks including comprehension question answering (Q&A), entailment, sentiment analysis, and text classification. Our experiments cover a wide spectrum comprising finetuning small-scale language models, to prompting large language models (LLMs), on both original and sanitized datasets, and comparing their performance across the tasks. Interestingly, our results suggest that for some tasks such as sentiment analysis or entailment, the impact of redaction is quite low, typically around 1-5%, while for tasks such as comprehension Q&A there is a big drop of >25% in performance observed in redacted queries as compared to the original. For tasks that have a higher impact, we perform a deeper dive to inspect the presence of task-critical entities. Finally, we investigate correlation between performance and number of redacted entities, and also suggest a strategy to repair an already redacted dataset by means of content-based subsampling. Additional details are available at https://sites.google.com/view/datasan.

This paper sheds light on the limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) by rigorously evaluating their ability to process masked text. We introduce two novel tasks: MskQA, measuring reasoning on masked question-answering datasets like RealtimeQA, and MskCal, assessing numerical reasoning on masked arithmetic problems.Testing GPT-4o and 4o-mini reveals that while LLMs exhibit some resilience to masked text, their performance is highly contingent on masking rates and semantic cues. Specifically, "solid masking," where semantic clues are entirely absent, leads to a significant performance drop compared to "partial lifting," where some semantic information is retained, indicating LLMs' reliance on surface-level patterns. Interestingly, GPT-4o consistently outperforms 4o-mini, particularly in MskCal, demonstrating a greater ability to handle numerical reasoning with masked text. This underscores the crucial role of semantic cues in the reasoning process of LLMs. Our study illuminates the interplay between background knowledge and reasoning ability in masked text processing, paving the way for a deeper understanding of LLM capabilities and limitations, and highlighting the need for more robust evaluation methods to accurately assess their true comprehension abilities.

Political misinformation poses significant challenges to democratic processes, shaping public opinion and trust in media. Manual fact-checking methods face issues of scalability and annotator bias, while machine learning models require large, costly labelled datasets. This study investigates the use of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) as reliable annotators for detecting political factuality in news articles. Using open-source LLMs, we create a politically diverse dataset, labelled for bias through LLM-generated annotations. These annotations are validated by human experts and further evaluated by LLM-based judges to assess the accuracy and reliability of the annotations. Our approach offers a scalable and robust alternative to traditional fact-checking, enhancing transparency and public trust in media.

The proliferation of Internet memes in the age of social media necessitates effective identification of harmful ones. Due to the dynamic nature of memes, existing data-driven models may struggle in low-resource scenarios where only a few labeled examples are available. In this paper, we propose an agency-driven framework for low-resource harmful meme detection, employing both outward and inward analysis with few-shot annotated samples. Inspired by the powerful capacity of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) on multimodal reasoning, we first retrieve relative memes with annotations to leverage label information as auxiliary signals for the LMM agent. Then, we elicit knowledge-revising behavior within the LMM agent to derive well-generalized insights into meme harmfulness. By combining these strategies, our approach enables dialectical reasoning over intricate and implicit harm-indicative patterns. Extensive experiments conducted on three meme datasets demonstrate that our proposed approach achieves superior performance than state-of-the-art methods on the low-resource harmful meme detection task.

Dense document embeddings are central to neural retrieval. The dominant paradigm is to train and construct embeddings by running encoders directly on individual documents. In this work, we argue that these embeddings, while effective, are implicitly out-of-context for targeted use cases of retrieval, and that a contextualized document embedding should take into account both the document and neighboring documents in context - analogous to contextualized word embeddings. We propose two complementary methods for contextualized document embeddings: first, an alternative contrastive learning objective that explicitly incorporates the document neighbors into the intra-batch contextual loss; second, a new contextual architecture that explicitly encodes neighbor document information into the encoded representation. Results show that both methods achieve better performance than biencoders in several settings, with differences especially pronounced out-of-domain. We achieve state-of-the-art results on the MTEB benchmark with no hard negative mining, score distillation, dataset-specific instructions, intra-GPU example-sharing, or extremely large batch sizes. Our method can be applied to improve performance on any contrastive learning dataset and any biencoder.

Large language models (LLMs) represent a promising, but controversial, tool in aiding scientific peer review. This study evaluates the usefulness of LLMs in a conference setting as a tool for vetting paper submissions against submission standards. We conduct an experiment at the 2024 Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) conference, where 234 papers were voluntarily submitted to an "LLM-based Checklist Assistant." This assistant validates whether papers adhere to the author checklist used by NeurIPS, which includes questions to ensure compliance with research and manuscript preparation standards. Evaluation of the assistant by NeurIPS paper authors suggests that the LLM-based assistant was generally helpful in verifying checklist completion. In post-usage surveys, over 70% of authors found the assistant useful, and 70% indicate that they would revise their papers or checklist responses based on its feedback. While causal attribution to the assistant is not definitive, qualitative evidence suggests that the LLM contributed to improving some submissions. Survey responses and analysis of re-submissions indicate that authors made substantive revisions to their submissions in response to specific feedback from the LLM. The experiment also highlights common issues with LLMs: inaccuracy (20/52) and excessive strictness (14/52) were the most frequent issues flagged by authors. We also conduct experiments to understand potential gaming of the system, which reveal that the assistant could be manipulated to enhance scores through fabricated justifications, highlighting potential vulnerabilities of automated review tools.

With the growing applications of Deep Learning (DL), especially recent spectacular achievements of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and LLaMA, the commercial significance of these remarkable models has soared. However, acquiring well-trained models is costly and resource-intensive. It requires a considerable high-quality dataset, substantial investment in dedicated architecture design, expensive computational resources, and efforts to develop technical expertise. Consequently, safeguarding the Intellectual Property (IP) of well-trained models is attracting increasing attention. In contrast to existing surveys overwhelmingly focusing on model IPP mainly, this survey not only encompasses the protection on model level intelligence but also valuable dataset intelligence. Firstly, according to the requirements for effective IPP design, this work systematically summarizes the general and scheme-specific performance evaluation metrics. Secondly, from proactive IP infringement prevention and reactive IP ownership verification perspectives, it comprehensively investigates and analyzes the existing IPP methods for both dataset and model intelligence. Additionally, from the standpoint of training settings, it delves into the unique challenges that distributed settings pose to IPP compared to centralized settings. Furthermore, this work examines various attacks faced by deep IPP techniques. Finally, we outline prospects for promising future directions that may act as a guide for innovative research.

Tabular data plays a pivotal role in various fields, making it a popular format for data manipulation and exchange, particularly on the web. The interpretation, extraction, and processing of tabular information are invaluable for knowledge-intensive applications. Notably, significant efforts have been invested in annotating tabular data with ontologies and entities from background knowledge graphs, a process known as Semantic Table Interpretation (STI). STI automation aids in building knowledge graphs, enriching data, and enhancing web-based question answering. This survey aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the STI landscape. It starts by categorizing approaches using a taxonomy of 31 attributes, allowing for comparisons and evaluations. It also examines available tools, assessing them based on 12 criteria. Furthermore, the survey offers an in-depth analysis of the Gold Standards used for evaluating STI approaches. Finally, it provides practical guidance to help end-users choose the most suitable approach for their specific tasks while also discussing unresolved issues and suggesting potential future research directions.

Human writers plan, then write. For large language models (LLMs) to play a role in longer-form article generation, we must understand the planning steps humans make before writing. We explore one kind of planning, source-selection in news, as a case-study for evaluating plans in long-form generation. We ask: why do specific stories call for specific kinds of sources? We imagine a generative process for story writing where a source-selection schema is first selected by a journalist, and then sources are chosen based on categories in that schema. Learning the article's plan means predicting the schema initially chosen by the journalist. Working with professional journalists, we adapt five existing schemata and introduce three new ones to describe journalistic plans for the inclusion of sources in documents. Then, inspired by Bayesian latent-variable modeling, we develop metrics to select the most likely plan, or schema, underlying a story, which we use to compare schemata. We find that two schemata: stance and social affiliation best explain source plans in most documents. However, other schemata like textual entailment explain source plans in factually rich topics like "Science". Finally, we find we can predict the most suitable schema given just the article's headline with reasonable accuracy. We see this as an important case-study for human planning, and provides a framework and approach for evaluating other kinds of plans. We release a corpora, NewsSources, with annotations for 4M articles.

What is the context which gave rise to the obligation to carry out a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) in the AI Act? How has assessment of the impact on fundamental rights been framed by the EU legislator in the AI Act? What methodological criteria should be followed in developing the FRIA? These are the three main research questions that this article aims to address, through both legal analysis of the relevant provisions of the AI Act and discussion of various possible models for assessment of the impact of AI on fundamental rights. The overall objective of this article is to fill existing gaps in the theoretical and methodological elaboration of the FRIA, as outlined in the AI Act. In order to facilitate the future work of EU and national bodies and AI operators in placing this key tool for human-centric and trustworthy AI at the heart of the EU approach to AI design and development, this article outlines the main building blocks of a model template for the FRIA. While this proposal is consistent with the rationale and scope of the AI Act, it is also applicable beyond the cases listed in Article 27 and can serve as a blueprint for other national and international regulatory initiatives to ensure that AI is fully consistent with human rights.