Science journalism refers to the task of reporting technical findings of a scientific paper as a less technical news article to the general public audience. We aim to design an automated system to support this real-world task (i.e., automatic science journalism) by 1) introducing a newly-constructed and real-world dataset (SciTechNews), with tuples of a publicly-available scientific paper, its corresponding news article, and an expert-written short summary snippet; 2) proposing a novel technical framework that integrates a paper's discourse structure with its metadata to guide generation; and, 3) demonstrating with extensive automatic and human experiments that our framework outperforms other baseline methods (e.g. Alpaca and ChatGPT) in elaborating a content plan meaningful for the target audience, simplifying the information selected, and producing a coherent final report in a layman's style.

Developing accurate off-policy estimators is crucial for both evaluating and optimizing for new policies. The main challenge in off-policy estimation is the distribution shift between the logging policy that generates data and the target policy that we aim to evaluate. Typically, techniques for correcting distribution shift involve some form of importance sampling. This approach results in unbiased value estimation but often comes with the trade-off of high variance, even in the simpler case of one-step contextual bandits. Furthermore, importance sampling relies on the common support assumption, which becomes impractical when the action space is large. To address these challenges, we introduce the Policy Convolution (PC) family of estimators. These methods leverage latent structure within actions -- made available through action embeddings -- to strategically convolve the logging and target policies. This convolution introduces a unique bias-variance trade-off, which can be controlled by adjusting the amount of convolution. Our experiments on synthetic and benchmark datasets demonstrate remarkable mean squared error (MSE) improvements when using PC, especially when either the action space or policy mismatch becomes large, with gains of up to 5 - 6 orders of magnitude over existing estimators.

Most existing stylistic text rewriting methods and evaluation metrics operate on a sentence level, but ignoring the broader context of the text can lead to preferring generic, ambiguous, and incoherent rewrites. In this paper, we investigate integrating the preceding textual context into both the $\textit{rewriting}$ and $\textit{evaluation}$ stages of stylistic text rewriting, and introduce a new composite contextual evaluation metric $\texttt{CtxSimFit}$ that combines similarity to the original sentence with contextual cohesiveness. We comparatively evaluate non-contextual and contextual rewrites in formality, toxicity, and sentiment transfer tasks. Our experiments show that humans significantly prefer contextual rewrites as more fitting and natural over non-contextual ones, yet existing sentence-level automatic metrics (e.g., ROUGE, SBERT) correlate poorly with human preferences ($\rho$=0--0.3). In contrast, human preferences are much better reflected by both our novel $\texttt{CtxSimFit}$ ($\rho$=0.7--0.9) as well as proposed context-infused versions of common metrics ($\rho$=0.4--0.7). Overall, our findings highlight the importance of integrating context into the generation and especially the evaluation stages of stylistic text rewriting.

Large language model (LLM) prompting is a promising new approach for users to create and customize their own chatbots. However, current methods for steering a chatbot's outputs, such as prompt engineering and fine-tuning, do not support users in converting their natural feedback on the model's outputs to changes in the prompt or model. In this work, we explore how to enable users to interactively refine model outputs through their feedback, by helping them convert their feedback into a set of principles (i.e. a constitution) that dictate the model's behavior. From a formative study, we (1) found that users needed support converting their feedback into principles for the chatbot and (2) classified the different principle types desired by users. Inspired by these findings, we developed ConstitutionMaker, an interactive tool for converting user feedback into principles, to steer LLM-based chatbots. With ConstitutionMaker, users can provide either positive or negative feedback in natural language, select auto-generated feedback, or rewrite the chatbot's response; each mode of feedback automatically generates a principle that is inserted into the chatbot's prompt. In a user study with 14 participants, we compare ConstitutionMaker to an ablated version, where users write their own principles. With ConstitutionMaker, participants felt that their principles could better guide the chatbot, that they could more easily convert their feedback into principles, and that they could write principles more efficiently, with less mental demand. ConstitutionMaker helped users identify ways to improve the chatbot, formulate their intuitive responses to the model into feedback, and convert this feedback into specific and clear principles. Together, these findings inform future tools that support the interactive critiquing of LLM outputs.

In recent years, data lakes emerged as away to manage large amounts of heterogeneous data for modern data analytics. One way to prevent data lakes from turning into inoperable data swamps is semantic data management. Some approaches propose the linkage of metadata to knowledge graphs based on the Linked Data principles to provide more meaning and semantics to the data in the lake. Such a semantic layer may be utilized not only for data management but also to tackle the problem of data integration from heterogeneous sources, in order to make data access more expressive and interoperable. In this survey, we review recent approaches with a specific focus on the application within data lake systems and scalability to Big Data. We classify the approaches into (i) basic semantic data management, (ii) semantic modeling approaches for enriching metadata in data lakes, and (iii) methods for ontologybased data access. In each category, we cover the main techniques and their background, and compare latest research. Finally, we point out challenges for future work in this research area, which needs a closer integration of Big Data and Semantic Web technologies.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized the domain of natural language processing (NLP) with remarkable capabilities of generating human-like text responses. However, despite these advancements, several works in the existing literature have raised serious concerns about the potential misuse of LLMs such as spreading misinformation, generating fake news, plagiarism in academia, and contaminating the web. To address these concerns, a consensus among the research community is to develop algorithmic solutions to detect AI-generated text. The basic idea is that whenever we can tell if the given text is either written by a human or an AI, we can utilize this information to address the above-mentioned concerns. To that end, a plethora of detection frameworks have been proposed, highlighting the possibilities of AI-generated text detection. But in parallel to the development of detection frameworks, researchers have also concentrated on designing strategies to elude detection, i.e., focusing on the impossibilities of AI-generated text detection. This is a crucial step in order to make sure the detection frameworks are robust enough and it is not too easy to fool a detector. Despite the huge interest and the flurry of research in this domain, the community currently lacks a comprehensive analysis of recent developments. In this survey, we aim to provide a concise categorization and overview of current work encompassing both the prospects and the limitations of AI-generated text detection. To enrich the collective knowledge, we engage in an exhaustive discussion on critical and challenging open questions related to ongoing research on AI-generated text detection.

Sentiment is a pervasive feature in natural language text, yet it is an open question how sentiment is represented within Large Language Models (LLMs). In this study, we reveal that across a range of models, sentiment is represented linearly: a single direction in activation space mostly captures the feature across a range of tasks with one extreme for positive and the other for negative. Through causal interventions, we isolate this direction and show it is causally relevant in both toy tasks and real world datasets such as Stanford Sentiment Treebank. Through this case study we model a thorough investigation of what a single direction means on a broad data distribution. We further uncover the mechanisms that involve this direction, highlighting the roles of a small subset of attention heads and neurons. Finally, we discover a phenomenon which we term the summarization motif: sentiment is not solely represented on emotionally charged words, but is additionally summarized at intermediate positions without inherent sentiment, such as punctuation and names. We show that in Stanford Sentiment Treebank zero-shot classification, 76% of above-chance classification accuracy is lost when ablating the sentiment direction, nearly half of which (36%) is due to ablating the summarized sentiment direction exclusively at comma positions.

With large language models (LLMs) poised to become embedded in our daily lives, questions are starting to be raised about the dataset(s) they learned from. These questions range from potential bias or misinformation LLMs could retain from their training data to questions of copyright and fair use of human-generated text. However, while these questions emerge, developers of the recent state-of-the-art LLMs become increasingly reluctant to disclose details on their training corpus. We here introduce the task of document-level membership inference for real-world LLMs, i.e. inferring whether the LLM has seen a given document during training or not. First, we propose a procedure for the development and evaluation of document-level membership inference for LLMs by leveraging commonly used data sources for training and the model release date. We then propose a practical, black-box method to predict document-level membership and instantiate it on OpenLLaMA-7B with both books and academic papers. We show our methodology to perform very well, reaching an impressive AUC of 0.856 for books and 0.678 for papers. We then show our approach to outperform the sentence-level membership inference attacks used in the privacy literature for the document-level membership task. We finally evaluate whether smaller models might be less sensitive to document-level inference and show OpenLLaMA-3B to be approximately as sensitive as OpenLLaMA-7B to our approach. Taken together, our results show that accurate document-level membership can be inferred for LLMs, increasing the transparency of technology poised to change our lives.

Questions in open-domain question answering are often ambiguous, allowing multiple interpretations. One approach to handling them is to identify all possible interpretations of the ambiguous question (AQ) and to generate a long-form answer addressing them all, as suggested by Stelmakh et al., (2022). While it provides a comprehensive response without bothering the user for clarification, considering multiple dimensions of ambiguity and gathering corresponding knowledge remains a challenge. To cope with the challenge, we propose a novel framework, Tree of Clarifications (ToC): It recursively constructs a tree of disambiguations for the AQ -- via few-shot prompting leveraging external knowledge -- and uses it to generate a long-form answer. ToC outperforms existing baselines on ASQA in a few-shot setup across the metrics, while surpassing fully-supervised baselines trained on the whole training set in terms of Disambig-F1 and Disambig-ROUGE. Code is available at https://github.com/gankim/tree-of-clarifications.

Entity linking is a prominent thread of research focused on structured data creation by linking spans of text to an ontology or knowledge source. We revisit the use of structured prediction for entity linking which classifies each individual input token as an entity, and aggregates the token predictions. Our system, called SpEL (Structured prediction for Entity Linking) is a state-of-the-art entity linking system that uses some new ideas to apply structured prediction to the task of entity linking including: two refined fine-tuning steps; a context sensitive prediction aggregation strategy; reduction of the size of the model's output vocabulary, and; we address a common problem in entity-linking systems where there is a training vs. inference tokenization mismatch. Our experiments show that we can outperform the state-of-the-art on the commonly used AIDA benchmark dataset for entity linking to Wikipedia. Our method is also very compute efficient in terms of number of parameters and speed of inference.