Asking questions is a fundamental aspect of learning that facilitates deeper understanding. However, characterizing and crafting questions that effectively improve learning remains elusive. To address this gap, we propose QUEST (Question Utility Estimation with Simulated Tests). QUEST simulates a learning environment that enables the quantification of a question's utility based on its direct impact on improving learning outcomes. Furthermore, we can identify high-utility questions and use them to fine-tune question generation models with rejection sampling. We find that questions generated by models trained with rejection sampling based on question utility result in exam scores that are higher by at least 20% than those from specialized prompting grounded on educational objectives literature and models fine-tuned with indirect measures of question quality, such as saliency and expected information gain.

Language models are aligned to the collective voice of many, resulting in generic outputs that do not align with specific users' styles. In this work, we present Trial-Error-Explain In-Context Learning (TICL), a tuning-free method that personalizes language models for text generation tasks with fewer than 10 examples per user. TICL iteratively expands an in-context learning prompt via a trial-error-explain process, adding model-generated negative samples and explanations that provide fine-grained guidance towards a specific user's style. TICL achieves favorable win rates on pairwise comparisons with LLM-as-a-judge up to 91.5% against the previous state-of-the-art and outperforms competitive tuning-free baselines for personalized alignment tasks of writing emails, essays and news articles. Both lexical and qualitative analyses show that the negative samples and explanations enable language models to learn stylistic context more effectively and overcome the bias towards structural and formal phrases observed in their zero-shot outputs. By front-loading inference compute to create a user-specific in-context learning prompt that does not require extra generation steps at test time, TICL presents a novel yet simple approach for personalized alignment.

As events progress, news articles often update with new information: if we are not cautious, we risk propagating outdated facts. In this work, we hypothesize that linguistic features indicate factual fluidity, and that we can predict which facts in a news article will update using solely the text of a news article (i.e. not external resources like search engines). We test this hypothesis, first, by isolating fact-updates in large news revisions corpora. News articles may update for many reasons (e.g. factual, stylistic, narrative). We introduce the NewsEdits 2.0 taxonomy, an edit-intentions schema that separates fact updates from stylistic and narrative updates in news writing. We annotate over 9,200 pairs of sentence revisions and train high-scoring ensemble models to apply this schema. Then, taking a large dataset of silver-labeled pairs, we show that we can predict when facts will update in older article drafts with high precision. Finally, to demonstrate the usefulness of these findings, we construct a language model question asking (LLM-QA) abstention task. We wish the LLM to abstain from answering questions when information is likely to become outdated. Using our predictions, we show, LLM absention reaches near oracle levels of accuracy.

Current instruction-tuned language models are exclusively trained with textual preference data and thus are often not aligned with the unique requirements of other modalities, such as speech. To better align language models with the speech domain, we explore (i) prompting strategies grounded in radio-industry best practices and (ii) preference learning using a novel speech-based preference data of 20K samples, generated with a wide spectrum of prompts that induce varying dimensions of speech-suitability and labeled by annotators who listen to response pairs. Both human and automatic evaluation show that both prompting and preference learning increase the speech-suitability of popular instruction-tuned LLMs. Interestingly, we find that prompting and preference learning can be additive; combining them achieves the best win rates in head-to-head comparison, resulting in responses that are preferred or tied to the base model in 76.2% of comparisons on average. Lastly, we share lexical, syntactical, and qualitative analyses to showcase how each method contributes to improving the speech-suitability of generated responses.

Dialogue systems are frequently updated to accommodate new services, but naively updating them by continually training with data for new services in diminishing performance on previously learnt services. Motivated by the insight that dialogue state tracking (DST), a crucial component of dialogue systems that estimates the user's goal as a conversation proceeds, is a simple natural language understanding task, we propose reformulating it as a bundle of granular example-guided question answering tasks to minimize the task shift between services and thus benefit continual learning. Our approach alleviates service-specific memorization and teaches a model to contextualize the given question and example to extract the necessary information from the conversation. We find that a model with just 60M parameters can achieve a significant boost by learning to learn from in-context examples retrieved by a retriever trained to identify turns with similar dialogue state changes. Combining our method with dialogue-level memory replay, our approach attains state of the art performance on DST continual learning metrics without relying on any complex regularization or parameter expansion methods.

Human moderation of online conversation is essential to maintaining civility and focus in a dialogue, but is challenging to scale and harmful to moderators. The inclusion of sophisticated natural language generation modules as a force multiplier aid moderators is a tantalizing prospect, but adequate evaluation approaches have so far been elusive. In this paper, we establish a systematic definition of conversational moderation effectiveness through a multidisciplinary lens that incorporates insights from social science. We then propose a comprehensive evaluation framework that uses this definition to asses models' moderation capabilities independently of human intervention. With our framework, we conduct the first known study Figure 1: While banning users or deleting their comments of conversational dialogue models as moderators, may push them towards echo chambers (left), conversational finding that appropriately prompted models moderation can guide users towards more can provide specific and fair feedback on constructive behavior (right). Recent developments in toxic behavior but struggle to influence users to conversational AI present an opportunity to perform this increase their levels of respect and cooperation.

Human communication relies on common ground (CG), the mutual knowledge and beliefs shared by participants, to produce coherent and interesting conversations. In this paper, we demonstrate that current response generation (RG) models produce generic and dull responses in dialogues because they act reflexively, failing to explicitly model CG, both due to the lack of CG in training data and the standard RG training procedure. We introduce Reflect, a dataset that annotates dialogues with explicit CG (materialized as inferences approximating shared knowledge and beliefs) and solicits 9k diverse human-generated responses each following one common ground. Using Reflect, we showcase the limitations of current dialogue data and RG models: less than half of the responses in current data are rated as high quality (sensible, specific, and interesting) and models trained using this data have even lower quality, while most Reflect responses are judged high quality. Next, we analyze whether CG can help models produce better-quality responses by using Reflect CG to guide RG models. Surprisingly, we find that simply prompting GPT3 to "think" about CG generates 30% more quality responses, showing promising benefits to integrating CG into the RG process.

Recent works that revealed the vulnerability of dialogue state tracking (DST) models to distributional shifts have made holistic comparisons on robustness and qualitative analyses increasingly important for understanding their relative performance. We present our findings from standardized and comprehensive DST diagnoses, which have previously been sparse and uncoordinated, using our toolkit, CheckDST, a collection of robustness tests and failure mode analytics. We discover that different classes of DST models have clear strengths and weaknesses, where generation models are more promising for handling language variety while span-based classification models are more robust to unseen entities. Prompted by this discovery, we also compare checkpoints from the same model and find that the standard practice of selecting checkpoints using validation loss/accuracy is prone to overfitting and each model class has distinct patterns of failure. Lastly, we demonstrate how our diagnoses motivate a pre-finetuning procedure with non-dialogue data that offers comprehensive improvements to generation models by alleviating the impact of distributional shifts through transfer learning.