Hate speech (HS) erodes the inclusiveness of online users and propagates negativity and division. Counterspeech has been recognized as a way to mitigate the harmful consequences. While some research has investigated the impact of user-generated counterspeech on social media platforms, few have examined and modeled haters' reactions toward counterspeech, despite the immediate alteration of haters' attitudes being an important aspect of counterspeech. This study fills the gap by analyzing the impact of counterspeech from the hater's perspective, focusing on whether the counterspeech leads the hater to reenter the conversation and if the reentry is hateful. We compile the Reddit Echoes of Hate dataset (ReEco), which consists of triple-turn conversations featuring haters' reactions, to assess the impact of counterspeech. To predict haters' behaviors, we employ two strategies: a two-stage reaction predictor and a three-way classifier. The linguistic analysis sheds insights on the language of counterspeech to hate eliciting different haters' reactions. Experimental results demonstrate that the 3-way classification model outperforms the two-stage reaction predictor, which first predicts reentry and then determines the reentry type. We conclude the study with an assessment showing the most common errors identified by the best-performing model.

Negation has been a long-standing challenge for language models. Previous studies have shown that they struggle with negation in many natural language understanding tasks. In this work, we propose a self-supervised method to make language models more robust against negation. We introduce a novel task, Next Sentence Polarity Prediction (NSPP), and a variation of the Next Sentence Prediction (NSP) task. We show that BERT and RoBERTa further pre-trained on our tasks outperform the off-the-shelf versions on nine negation-related benchmarks. Most notably, our pre-training tasks yield between 1.8% and 9.1% improvement on CondaQA, a large question-answering corpus requiring reasoning over negation.

Counterspeech is a targeted response to counteract and challenge abusive or hateful content. It effectively curbs the spread of hatred and fosters constructive online communication. Previous studies have proposed different strategies for automatically generated counterspeech. Evaluations, however, focus on relevance, surface form, and other shallow linguistic characteristics. This paper investigates the human likeness of AI-generated counterspeech, a critical factor influencing effectiveness. We implement and evaluate several LLM-based generation strategies, and discover that AI-generated and human-written counterspeech can be easily distinguished by both simple classifiers and humans. Further, we reveal differences in linguistic characteristics, politeness, and specificity. The dataset used in this study is publicly available for further research.

This paper introduces UnSeenTimeQA, a novel time-sensitive question-answering (TSQA) benchmark that diverges from traditional TSQA benchmarks by avoiding factual and web-searchable queries. We present a series of time-sensitive event scenarios decoupled from real-world factual information. It requires large language models (LLMs) to engage in genuine temporal reasoning, disassociating from the knowledge acquired during the pre-training phase. Our evaluation of six open-source LLMs (ranging from 2B to 70B in size) and three closed-source LLMs reveal that the questions from the UnSeenTimeQA present substantial challenges. This indicates the models' difficulties in handling complex temporal reasoning scenarios. Additionally, we present several analyses shedding light on the models' performance in answering time-sensitive questions.

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

Negation is a common linguistic phenomenon. Yet language models face challenges with negation in many natural language understanding tasks such as question answering and natural language inference. In this paper, we experiment with seamless strategies that incorporate affirmative interpretations (i.e., paraphrases without negation) to make models more robust against negation. Crucially, our affirmative interpretations are obtained automatically. We show improvements with CondaQA, a large corpus requiring reasoning with negation, and five natural language understanding tasks.

This paper presents a question-answering approach to extract document-level event-argument structures. We automatically ask and answer questions for each argument type an event may have. Questions are generated using manually defined templates and generative transformers. Template-based questions are generated using predefined role-specific wh-words and event triggers from the context document. Transformer-based questions are generated using large language models trained to formulate questions based on a passage and the expected answer. Additionally, we develop novel data augmentation strategies specialized in inter-sentential event-argument relations. We use a simple span-swapping technique, coreference resolution, and large language models to augment the training instances. Our approach enables transfer learning without any corpora-specific modifications and yields competitive results with the RAMS dataset. It outperforms previous work, and it is especially beneficial to extract arguments that appear in different sentences than the event trigger. We also present detailed quantitative and qualitative analyses shedding light on the most common errors made by our best model.

People often answer yes-no questions without explicitly saying yes, no, or similar polar keywords. Figuring out the meaning of indirect answers is challenging, even for large language models. In this paper, we investigate this problem working with dialogues from multiple domains. We present new benchmarks in three diverse domains: movie scripts, tennis interviews, and airline customer service. We present an approach grounded on distant supervision and blended training to quickly adapt to a new dialogue domain. Experimental results show that our approach is never detrimental and yields F1 improvements as high as 11-34%.

This paper presents multiple question generation strategies for document-level event argument extraction. These strategies do not require human involvement and result in uncontextualized questions as well as contextualized questions grounded on the event and document of interest. Experimental results show that combining uncontextualized and contextualized questions is beneficial, especially when event triggers and arguments appear in different sentences. Our approach does not have corpus-specific components, in particular, the question generation strategies transfer across corpora. We also present a qualitative analysis of the most common errors made by our best model.

Counterspeech that challenges or responds to hate speech has been seen as an alternative to mitigate the negative impact of hate speech and foster productive online communications. Research endeavors have been directed to using language models for the automatic generation of counterspeech to assist efforts in combating online hate. Existing research focuses on the generation of counterspeech with certain linguistic attributes, such as being polite, informative, and intent-driven. However, it remains unclear what impact the counterspeech might have in an online environment. We first explore methods that utilize large language models (LLM) to generate counterspeech constrained by potential conversation outcomes. We build two conversation outcome classifiers that predict the incivility level and the hater reentry behavior following replies to hate with Reddit data, then propose four methods to incorporate the desired outcomes, i.e., low conversation incivility and non-hateful hater reentry, into the text generation process, including Prompt with Instructions, Prompt and Select, LLM finetune, and LLM transformer reinforcement learning (TRL). Evaluation results show effective strategies to generate outcome-constrained counterspeech and the linguistic characteristics of texts generated by different methods.