Automatically determining whether a text and a corresponding image are semantically aligned is a significant challenge for vision-language models, with applications in generative text-to-image and image-to-text tasks. In this work, we study methods for automatic text-image alignment evaluation. We first introduce SeeTRUE: a comprehensive evaluation set, spanning multiple datasets from both text-to-image and image-to-text generation tasks, with human judgements for whether a given text-image pair is semantically aligned. We then describe two automatic methods to determine alignment: the first involving a pipeline based on question generation and visual question answering models, and the second employing an end-to-end classification approach by finetuning multimodal pretrained models. Both methods surpass prior approaches in various text-image alignment tasks, with significant improvements in challenging cases that involve complex composition or unnatural images. Finally, we demonstrate how our approaches can localize specific misalignments between an image and a given text, and how they can be used to automatically re-rank candidates in text-to-image generation.

Trustworthy answer content is abundant in many high-resource languages and is instantly accessible through question answering systems, yet this content can be hard to access for those that do not speak these languages. The leap forward in cross-lingual modeling quality offered by generative language models offers much promise, yet their raw generations often fall short in factuality. To improve trustworthiness in these systems, a promising direction is to attribute the answer to a retrieved source, possibly in a content-rich language different from the query. Our work is the first to study attribution for cross-lingual question answering. First, we collect data in 5 languages to assess the attribution level of a state-of-the-art cross-lingual QA system. To our surprise, we find that a substantial portion of the answers is not attributable to any retrieved passages (up to 50% of answers exactly matching a gold reference) despite the system being able to attend directly to the retrieved text. Second, to address this poor attribution level, we experiment with a wide range of attribution detection techniques. We find that Natural Language Inference models and PaLM 2 fine-tuned on a very small amount of attribution data can accurately detect attribution. Based on these models, we improve the attribution level of a cross-lingual question-answering system. Overall, we show that current academic generative cross-lingual QA systems have substantial shortcomings in attribution and we build tooling to mitigate these issues.

Factual consistency evaluation is often conducted using Natural Language Inference (NLI) models, yet these models exhibit limited success in evaluating summaries. Previous work improved such models with synthetic training data. However, the data is typically based on perturbed human-written summaries, which often differ in their characteristics from real model-generated summaries and have limited coverage of possible factual errors. Alternatively, large language models (LLMs) have recently shown promising results in directly evaluating generative tasks, but are too computationally expensive for practical use. Motivated by these limitations, we introduce TrueTeacher, a method for generating synthetic data by annotating diverse model-generated summaries using a LLM. Unlike prior work, TrueTeacher does not rely on human-written summaries, and is multilingual by nature. Experiments on the TRUE benchmark show that a student model trained using our data, substantially outperforms both the state-of-the-art model with similar capacity, and the LLM teacher. In a systematic study, we compare TrueTeacher to existing synthetic data generation methods and demonstrate its superiority and robustness to domain-shift. We also show that our method generalizes to multilingual scenarios. Lastly, we release our large scale synthetic dataset (1.4M examples), generated using TrueTeacher, and a checkpoint trained on this data.

Existing benchmarks for open-domain question answering (ODQA) typically focus on questions whose answers can be extracted from a single paragraph. By contrast, many natural questions, such as "What players were drafted by the Brooklyn Nets?" have a list of answers. Answering such questions requires retrieving and reading from many passages, in a large corpus. We introduce QAMPARI, an ODQA benchmark, where question answers are lists of entities, spread across many paragraphs. We created QAMPARI by (a) generating questions with multiple answers from Wikipedia's knowledge graph and tables, (b) automatically pairing answers with supporting evidence in Wikipedia paragraphs, and (c) manually paraphrasing questions and validating each answer. We train ODQA models from the retrieve-and-read family and find that QAMPARI is challenging in terms of both passage retrieval and answer generation, reaching an F1 score of 32.8 at best. Our results highlight the need for developing ODQA models that handle a broad range of question types, including single and multi-answer questions.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive results while requiring little or no direct supervision. Further, there is mounting evidence that LLMs may have potential in information-seeking scenarios. We believe the ability of an LLM to attribute the text that it generates is likely to be crucial in this setting. We formulate and study Attributed QA as a key first step in the development of attributed LLMs. We propose a reproducible evaluation framework for the task and benchmark a broad set of architectures. We take human annotations as a gold standard and show that a correlated automatic metric is suitable for development. Our experimental work gives concrete answers to two key questions (How to measure attribution?, and How well do current state-of-the-art methods perform on attribution?), and give some hints as to how to address a third (How to build LLMs with attribution?).

One prominent approach for data collection has been to automatically generate pseudo-language paired with logical forms, and paraphrase the pseudo-language to natural language through crowdsourcing (Wang et al., 2015). However, this data collection procedure often leads to low performance on real data, due to a mismatch between the true distribution of examples and the distribution induced by the data collection procedure. In this paper, we thoroughly analyze two sources of mismatch in this process: the mismatch in logical form distribution and the mismatch in language distribution between the true and induced distributions. We quantify the effects of these mismatches, and propose a new data collection approach that mitigates them. Assuming access to unlabeled utterances from the true distribution, we combine crowdsourcing with a paraphrase model to detect correct logical forms for the unlabeled utterances. On two datasets, our method leads to 70.6 accuracy on average on the true distribution, compared to 51.3 in paraphrasing-based data collection. 1 Introduction Conversing with a virtual assistant in natural language is one of the most exciting current applications of semantic parsing, the task of mapping natural language utterances to executable logical forms (Zelle and Mooney, 1996; Zettlemoyer and Collins, 2005; Liang et al., 2011). Semantic parsing models rely on supervised training data that pairs natural language utterances with logical forms. Alas, such data does not occur naturally, especially in virtual assistants that are meant to support thousands of different applications and use-cases. Thus, efficient data collection is per-Figure 1: An overview of G RA NNO, a method for annotating unlabeled utterances with their logical forms.

When answering a question, people often draw upon their rich world knowledge in addition to some task-specific context. Recent work has focused primarily on answering questions based on some relevant document or content, and required very little general background. To investigate question answering with prior knowledge, we present CommonsenseQA: a difficult new dataset for commonsense question answering. To capture common sense beyond associations, each question discriminates between three target concepts that all share the same relationship to a single source drawn from ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017). This constraint encourages crowd workers to author multiple-choice questions with complex semantics, in which all candidates relate to the subject in a similar way. We create 9,500 questions through this procedure and demonstrate the dataset's difficulty with a large number of strong baselines. Our best baseline, the OpenAI GPT (Radford et al., 2018), obtains 54.8% accuracy, well below human performance, which is 95.3%.

Building a semantic parser quickly in a new domain is a fundamental challenge for conversational interfaces, as current semantic parsers require expensive supervision and lack the ability to generalize to new domains. In this paper, we introduce a zero-shot approach to semantic parsing that can parse utterances in unseen domains while only being trained on examples in other source domains. First, we map an utterance to an abstract, domain-independent, logical form that represents the structure of the logical form, but contains slots instead of KB constants. Then, we replace slots with KB constants via lexical alignment scores and global inference. Our model reaches an average accuracy of 53.1% on 7 domains in the Overnight dataset, substantially better than other zero-shot baselines, and performs as good as a parser trained on over 30% of the target domain examples.