Abstractive multi-document summarization (MDS) is the task of automatically summarizing information in multiple documents, from news articles to conversations with multiple speakers. The training approaches for current MDS models can be grouped into four approaches: end-to-end with special pre-training ("direct"), chunk-then-summarize, extract-then-summarize, and inference with GPT-style models. In this work, we evaluate MDS models across training approaches, domains, and dimensions (reference similarity, quality, and factuality), to analyze how and why models trained on one domain can fail to summarize documents from another (News, Science, and Conversation) in the zero-shot domain transfer setting. We define domain-transfer "failure" as a decrease in factuality, higher deviation from the target, and a general decrease in summary quality. In addition to exploring domain transfer for MDS models, we examine potential issues with applying popular summarization metrics out-of-the-box.

The decompose-then-verify strategy for verification of Large Language Model (LLM) generations decomposes claims that are then independently verified. Decontextualization augments text (claims) to ensure it can be verified outside of the original context, enabling reliable verification. While decomposition and decontextualization have been explored independently, their interactions in a complete system have not been investigated. Their conflicting purposes can create tensions: decomposition isolates atomic facts while decontextualization inserts relevant information. Furthermore, a decontextualized subclaim presents a challenge to the verification step: what part of the augmented text should be verified as it now contains multiple atomic facts? We conduct an evaluation of different decomposition, decontextualization, and verification strategies and find that the choice of strategy matters in the resulting factuality scores. Additionally, we introduce DnDScore, a decontextualization aware verification method which validates subclaims in the context of contextual information.

WARNING: This paper contains content that maybe upsetting or offensive to some readers. Dog whistles are coded expressions with dual meanings: one intended for the general public (outgroup) and another that conveys a specific message to an intended audience (ingroup). Often, these expressions are used to convey controversial political opinions while maintaining plausible deniability and slip by content moderation filters. Identification of dog whistles relies on curated lexicons, which have trouble keeping up to date. We introduce \textbf{FETCH!}, a task for finding novel dog whistles in massive social media corpora. We find that state-of-the-art systems fail to achieve meaningful results across three distinct social media case studies. We present \textbf{EarShot}, a novel system that combines the strengths of vector databases and Large Language Models (LLMs) to efficiently and effectively identify new dog whistles.

Large language models with a transformer-based encoder/decoder architecture, such as T5, have become standard platforms for supervised tasks. To bring these technologies to the clinical domain, recent work has trained new or adapted existing models to clinical data. However, the evaluation of these clinical T5 models and comparison to other models has been limited. Are the clinical T5 models better choices than FLAN-tuned generic T5 models? Do they generalize better to new clinical domains that differ from the training sets? We comprehensively evaluate these models across several clinical tasks and domains. We find that clinical T5 models provide marginal improvements over existing models, and perform worse when evaluated on different domains. Our results inform future choices in developing clinical LLMs.

Clinical Question Answering (QA) systems enable doctors to quickly access patient information from electronic health records (EHRs). However, training these systems requires significant annotated data, which is limited due to the expertise needed and the privacy concerns associated with clinical data. This paper explores generating Clinical QA data using large language models (LLMs) in a zero-shot setting. We find that naive prompting often results in easy questions that do not reflect the complexity of clinical scenarios. To address this, we propose two prompting strategies: 1) instructing the model to generate questions that do not overlap with the input context, and 2) summarizing the input record using a predefined schema to scaffold question generation. Experiments on two Clinical QA datasets demonstrate that our method generates more challenging questions, significantly improving fine-tuning performance over baselines. We compare synthetic and gold data and find a gap between their training efficacy resulting from the quality of synthetically generated answers.

Large language models (LLMs) acquire beliefs about gender from training data and can therefore generate text with stereotypical gender attitudes. Prior studies have demonstrated model generations favor one gender or exhibit stereotypes about gender, but have not investigated the complex dynamics that can influence model reasoning and decision-making involving gender. We study gender equity within LLMs through a decision-making lens with a new dataset, DeMET Prompts, containing scenarios related to intimate, romantic relationships. We explore nine relationship configurations through name pairs across three name lists (men, women, neutral). We investigate equity in the context of gender roles through numerous lenses: typical and gender-neutral names, with and without model safety enhancements, same and mixed-gender relationships, and egalitarian versus traditional scenarios across various topics. While all models exhibit the same biases (women favored, then those with gender-neutral names, and lastly men), safety guardrails reduce bias. In addition, models tend to circumvent traditional male dominance stereotypes and side with 'traditionally female' individuals more often, suggesting relationships are viewed as a female domain by the models.

As generated text becomes more commonplace, it is increasingly important to evaluate how well-supported such text is by external knowledge sources. Many approaches for evaluating textual support rely on some method for decomposing text into its individual subclaims which are scored against a trusted reference. We investigate how various methods of claim decomposition -- especially LLM-based methods -- affect the result of an evaluation approach such as the recently proposed FActScore, finding that it is sensitive to the decomposition method used. This sensitivity arises because such metrics attribute overall textual support to the model that generated the text even though error can also come from the metric's decomposition step. To measure decomposition quality, we introduce an adaptation of FActScore, which we call DecompScore. We then propose an LLM-based approach to generating decompositions inspired by Bertrand Russell's theory of logical atomism and neo-Davidsonian semantics and demonstrate its improved decomposition quality over previous methods.

Chat-based large language models have the opportunity to empower individuals lacking high-quality healthcare access to receive personalized information across a variety of topics. However, users may ask underspecified questions that require additional context for a model to correctly answer. We study how large language model biases are exhibited through these contextual questions in the healthcare domain. To accomplish this, we curate a dataset of sexual and reproductive healthcare questions that are dependent on age, sex, and location attributes. We compare models' outputs with and without demographic context to determine group alignment among our contextual questions. Our experiments reveal biases in each of these attributes, where young adult female users are favored.

The use of NLP in the realm of financial technology is broad and complex, with applications ranging from sentiment analysis and named entity recognition to question answering. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective on a variety of tasks; however, no LLM specialized for the financial domain has been reported in literature. In this work, we present BloombergGPT, a 50 billion parameter language model that is trained on a wide range of financial data. We construct a 363 billion token dataset based on Bloomberg's extensive data sources, perhaps the largest domain-specific dataset yet, augmented with 345 billion tokens from general purpose datasets. We validate BloombergGPT on standard LLM benchmarks, open financial benchmarks, and a suite of internal benchmarks that most accurately reflect our intended usage. Our mixed dataset training leads to a model that outperforms existing models on financial tasks by significant margins without sacrificing performance on general LLM benchmarks. Additionally, we explain our modeling choices, training process, and evaluation methodology. We release Training Chronicles (Appendix C) detailing our experience in training BloombergGPT.

Recently, work in NLP has shifted to few-shot (in-context) learning, with large language models (LLMs) performing well across a range of tasks. However, while fairness evaluations have become a standard for supervised methods, little is known about the fairness of LLMs as prediction systems. Further, common standard methods for fairness involve access to models weights or are applied during finetuning, which are not applicable in few-shot learning. Do LLMs exhibit prediction biases when used for standard NLP tasks? In this work, we explore the effect of shots, which directly affect the performance of models, on the fairness of LLMs as NLP classification systems. We consider how different shot selection strategies, both existing and new demographically sensitive methods, affect model fairness across three standard fairness datasets. We discuss how future work can include LLM fairness evaluations.