The recent success of prompting large language models like GPT-3 has led to a paradigm shift in NLP research. In this paper, we study its impact on text summarization, focusing on the classic benchmark domain of news summarization. First, we investigate how GPT-3 compares against fine-tuned models trained on large summarization datasets. We show that not only do humans overwhelmingly prefer GPT-3 summaries, prompted using only a task description, but these also do not suffer from common dataset-specific issues such as poor factuality. Next, we study what this means for evaluation, particularly the role of gold standard test sets. Our experiments show that both reference-based and reference-free automatic metrics cannot reliably evaluate GPT-3 summaries. Finally, we evaluate models on a setting beyond generic summarization, specifically keyword-based summarization, and show how dominant fine-tuning approaches compare to prompting. To support further research, we release: (a) a corpus of 10K generated summaries from fine-tuned and prompt-based models across 4 standard summarization benchmarks, (b) 1K human preference judgments comparing different systems for generic- and keyword-based summarization.

Evidence retrieval is a core part of automatic fact-checking. Prior work makes simplifying assumptions in retrieval that depart from real-world use cases: either no access to evidence, access to evidence curated by a human fact-checker, or access to evidence available long after the claim has been made. In this work, we present the first fully automated pipeline to check real-world claims by retrieving raw evidence from the web. We restrict our retriever to only search documents available prior to the claim's making, modeling the realistic scenario where an emerging claim needs to be checked. Our pipeline includes five components: claim decomposition, raw document retrieval, fine-grained evidence retrieval, claim-focused summarization, and veracity judgment. We conduct experiments on complex political claims in the ClaimDecomp dataset and show that the aggregated evidence produced by our pipeline improves veracity judgments. Human evaluation finds the evidence summary produced by our system is reliable (it does not hallucinate information) and relevant to answering key questions about a claim, suggesting that it can assist fact-checkers even when it cannot surface a complete evidence set.

Automatic discourse processing is bottlenecked by data: current discourse formalisms pose highly demanding annotation tasks involving large taxonomies of discourse relations, making them inaccessible to lay annotators. This work instead adopts the linguistic framework of Questions Under Discussion (QUD) for discourse analysis and seeks to derive QUD structures automatically. QUD views each sentence as an answer to a question triggered in prior context; thus, we characterize relationships between sentences as free-form questions, in contrast to exhaustive fine-grained taxonomies. We develop the first-of-its-kind QUD parser that derives a dependency structure of questions over full documents, trained using a large, crowdsourced question-answering dataset DCQA (Ko et al., 2022). Human evaluation results show that QUD dependency parsing is possible for language models trained with this crowdsourced, generalizable annotation scheme. We illustrate how our QUD structure is distinct from RST trees, and demonstrate the utility of QUD analysis in the context of document simplification. Our findings show that QUD parsing is an appealing alternative for automatic discourse processing.

Pre-trained language models (LMs) are used for knowledge intensive tasks like question answering, but their knowledge gets continuously outdated as the world changes. Prior work has studied targeted updates to LMs, injecting individual facts and evaluating whether the model learns these facts while not changing predictions on other contexts. We take a step forward and study LMs' abilities to make inferences based on injected facts (or propagate those facts): for example, after learning that something is a TV show, does an LM predict that you can watch it? We study this with two cloze-style tasks: an existing dataset of real-world sentences about novel entities (ECBD) as well as a new controlled benchmark with manually designed templates requiring varying levels of inference about injected knowledge. Surprisingly, we find that existing methods for updating knowledge (gradient-based fine-tuning and modifications of this approach) show little propagation of injected knowledge. These methods improve performance on cloze instances only when there is lexical overlap between injected facts and target inferences. Yet, prepending entity definitions in an LM's context improves performance across all settings, suggesting that there is substantial headroom for parameter-updating approaches for knowledge injection.

There has been growing interest in automatically predicting missing type annotations in programs written in Python and JavaScript. While prior methods have achieved impressive accuracy when predicting the most common types, they often perform poorly on rare or complex types. In this paper, we present a new type inference method that treats type prediction as a code infilling task by leveraging CodeT5, a state-of-the-art seq2seq pre-trained language model for code. Our method uses static analysis to construct dynamic contexts for each code element whose type signature is to be predicted by the model. We also propose an iterative decoding scheme that incorporates previous type predictions in the model's input context, allowing information exchange between related code elements. Our evaluation shows that the proposed approach, TypeT5, not only achieves a higher overall accuracy (particularly on rare and complex types) but also produces more coherent results with fewer type errors -- while enabling easy user intervention.

Event scenarios are often complex and involve multiple event sequences connected through different entity participants. Exploring such complex scenarios requires an ability to branch through different sequences, something that is difficult to achieve with standard event language modeling. To address this, we propose a question-guided generation framework that models events in complex scenarios as answers to questions about participants. At any step in the generation process, the framework uses the previously generated events as context, but generates the next event as an answer to one of three questions: what else a participant did, what else happened to a participant, or what else happened. The participants and the questions themselves can be sampled or be provided as input from a user, allowing for controllable exploration. Our empirical evaluation shows that this question-guided generation provides better coverage of participants, diverse events within a domain, comparable perplexities for modeling event sequences, and more effective control for interactive schema generation.

Despite recent progress in abstractive summarization, models often generate summaries with factual errors. Numerous approaches to detect these errors have been proposed, the most popular of which are question answering (QA)-based factuality metrics. These have been shown to work well at predicting summary-level factuality and have potential to localize errors within summaries, but this latter capability has not been systematically evaluated in past research. In this paper, we conduct the first such analysis and find that, contrary to our expectations, QA-based frameworks fail to correctly identify error spans in generated summaries and are outperformed by trivial exact match baselines. Our analysis reveals a major reason for such poor localization: questions generated by the QG module often inherit errors from non-factual summaries which are then propagated further into downstream modules. Moreover, even human-in-the-loop question generation cannot easily offset these problems. Our experiments conclusively show that there exist fundamental issues with localization using the QA framework which cannot be fixed solely by stronger QA and QG models.

In settings from fact-checking to question answering, we frequently want to know whether a collection of evidence entails a hypothesis. Existing methods primarily focus on end-to-end discriminative versions of this task, but less work has treated the generative version in which a model searches over the space of entailed statements to derive the hypothesis. We propose a system for natural language deduction that decomposes the task into separate steps coordinated by best-first search, producing a tree of intermediate conclusions that faithfully reflects the system's reasoning process. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed system can better distinguish verifiable hypotheses from unverifiable ones and produce natural language explanations that are more internally consistent than those produced by an end-to-end T5 model.

Document-level information extraction is a flexible framework compatible with applications where information is not necessarily localized in a single sentence. For example, key features of a diagnosis in radiology a report may not be explicitly stated, but nevertheless can be inferred from the report's text. However, document-level neural models can easily learn spurious correlations from irrelevant information. This work studies how to ensure that these models make correct inferences from complex text and make those inferences in an auditable way: beyond just being right, are these models "right for the right reasons?" We experiment with post-hoc evidence extraction in a predict-select-verify framework using feature attribution techniques. While this basic approach can extract reasonable evidence, it can be regularized with small amounts of evidence supervision during training, which substantially improves the quality of extracted evidence. We evaluate on two domains: a small-scale labeled dataset of brain MRI reports and a large-scale modified version of DocRED (Yao et al., 2019) and show that models' plausibility can be improved with no loss in accuracy.

Most benchmark datasets targeting commonsense reasoning focus on everyday scenarios: physical knowledge like knowing that you could fill a cup under a waterfall [Talmor et al., 2019], social knowledge like bumping into someone is awkward [Sap et al., 2019], and other generic situations. However, there is a rich space of commonsense inferences anchored to knowledge about specific entities: for example, deciding the truthfulness of a claim "Harry Potter can teach classes on how to fly on a broomstick." Can models learn to combine entity knowledge with commonsense reasoning in this fashion? We introduce CREAK, a testbed for commonsense reasoning about entity knowledge, bridging fact-checking about entities (Harry Potter is a wizard and is skilled at riding a broomstick) with commonsense inferences (if you're good at a skill you can teach others how to do it). Our dataset consists of 13k human-authored English claims about entities that are either true or false, in addition to a small contrast set. Crowdworkers can easily come up with these statements and human performance on the dataset is high (high 90s); we argue that models should be able to blend entity knowledge and commonsense reasoning to do well here. In our experiments, we focus on the closed-book setting and observe that a baseline model finetuned on existing fact verification benchmark struggles on CREAK. Training a model on CREAK improves accuracy by a substantial margin, but still falls short of human performance. Our benchmark provides a unique probe into natural language understanding models, testing both its ability to retrieve facts (e.g., who teaches at the University of Chicago?) and unstated commonsense knowledge (e.g., butlers do not yell at guests).