Document collections of various domains, e.g., legal, medical, or financial, often share some underlying collection-wide structure, which captures information that can aid both human users and structure-aware models. We propose to identify the typical structure of document within a collection, which requires to capture recurring topics across the collection, while abstracting over arbitrary header paraphrases, and ground each topic to respective document locations. These requirements pose several challenges: headers that mark recurring topics frequently differ in phrasing, certain section headers are unique to individual documents and do not reflect the typical structure, and the order of topics can vary between documents. Subsequently, we develop an unsupervised graph-based method which leverages both inter- and intra-document similarities, to extract the underlying collection-wide structure. Our evaluations on three diverse domains in both English and Hebrew indicate that our method extracts meaningful collection-wide structure, and we hope that future work will leverage our method for multi-document applications and structure-aware models.

Few shot in-context learning (ICL) typically assumes access to large annotated training sets. However, in many real world scenarios, such as domain adaptation, there is only a limited budget to annotate a small number of samples, with the goal of maximizing downstream performance. We study various methods for selecting samples to annotate within a predefined budget, specifically focusing on the named entity recognition (NER) task, which has real-world applications, is expensive to annotate, and is relatively less studied in ICL setups. Across different models and datasets, we find that a relatively small pool of annotated samples can achieve results comparable to using the entire training set. Moreover, we discover that random selection of samples for annotation yields surprisingly good performance. Finally, we observe that a diverse annotation pool is correlated with improved performance. We hope that future work adopts our realistic paradigm which takes annotation budget into account.

Most works on gender bias focus on intrinsic bias -- removing traces of information about a protected group from the model's internal representation. However, these works are often disconnected from the impact of such debiasing on downstream applications, which is the main motivation for debiasing in the first place. In this work, we systematically test how methods for intrinsic debiasing affect neural machine translation models, by measuring the extrinsic bias of such systems under different design choices. We highlight three challenges and mismatches between the debiasing techniques and their end-goal usage, including the choice of embeddings to debias, the mismatch between words and sub-word tokens debiasing, and the effect on different target languages. We find that these considerations have a significant impact on downstream performance and the success of debiasing.

Cross-domain alignment refers to the task of mapping a concept from one domain to another. For example, ``If a \textit{doctor} were a \textit{color}, what color would it be?''. This seemingly peculiar task is designed to investigate how people represent concrete and abstract concepts through their mappings between categories and their reasoning processes over those mappings. In this paper, we adapt this task from cognitive science to evaluate the conceptualization and reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) through a behavioral study. We examine several LLMs by prompting them with a cross-domain mapping task and analyzing their responses at both the population and individual levels. Additionally, we assess the models' ability to reason about their predictions by analyzing and categorizing their explanations for these mappings. The results reveal several similarities between humans' and models' mappings and explanations, suggesting that models represent concepts similarly to humans. This similarity is evident not only in the model representation but also in their behavior. Furthermore, the models mostly provide valid explanations and deploy reasoning paths that are similar to those of humans.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to the development of various evaluation benchmarks. These benchmarks typically rely on a single instruction template for evaluating all LLMs on a specific task. In this paper, we comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances, involving 20 different LLMs and 39 tasks from 3 benchmarks. To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead. We discuss tailored evaluation metrics for specific use cases (e.g., LLM developers vs. developers interested in a specific downstream task), ensuring a more reliable and meaningful assessment of LLM capabilities. We then implement these criteria and conduct evaluations of multiple models, providing insights into the true strengths and limitations of current LLMs.

Ensuring the accuracy of responses provided by large language models (LLMs) is crucial, particularly in clinical settings where incorrect information may directly impact patient health. To address this challenge, we construct K-QA, a dataset containing 1,212 patient questions originating from real-world conversations held on K Health (an AI-driven clinical platform). We employ a panel of in-house physicians to answer and manually decompose a subset of K-QA into self-contained statements. Additionally, we formulate two NLI-based evaluation metrics approximating recall and precision: (1) comprehensiveness, measuring the percentage of essential clinical information in the generated answer and (2) hallucination rate, measuring the number of statements from the physician-curated response contradicted by the LLM answer. Finally, we use K-QA along with these metrics to evaluate several state-of-the-art models, as well as the effect of in-context learning and medically-oriented augmented retrieval schemes developed by the authors. Our findings indicate that in-context learning improves the comprehensiveness of the models, and augmented retrieval is effective in reducing hallucinations. We make K-QA available to to the community to spur research into medically accurate NLP applications.

In this paper, we explore the question of whether large language models can support cost-efficient information extraction from tables. We introduce schema-driven information extraction, a new task that transforms tabular data into structured records following a human-authored schema. To assess various LLM's capabilities on this task, we develop a benchmark composed of tables from four diverse domains: machine learning papers, chemistry literature, material science journals, and webpages. Alongside the benchmark, we present an extraction method based on instruction-tuned LLMs. Our approach shows competitive performance without task-specific labels, achieving F1 scores ranging from 74.2 to 96.1, while maintaining great cost efficiency. Moreover, we validate the possibility of distilling compact table-extraction models to reduce API reliance, as well as extraction from image tables using multi-modal models. By developing a benchmark and demonstrating the feasibility of this task using proprietary models, we aim to support future work on open-source schema-driven IE models.

We study the effect of tokenization on gender bias in machine translation, an aspect that has been largely overlooked in previous works. Specifically, we focus on the interactions between the frequency of gendered profession names in training data, their representation in the subword tokenizer's vocabulary, and gender bias. We observe that female and non-stereotypical gender inflections of profession names (e.g., Spanish "doctora" for "female doctor") tend to be split into multiple subword tokens. Our results indicate that the imbalance of gender forms in the model's training corpus is a major factor contributing to gender bias and has a greater impact than subword splitting. We show that analyzing subword splits provides good estimates of gender-form imbalance in the training data and can be used even when the corpus is not publicly available. We also demonstrate that fine-tuning just the token embedding layer can decrease the gap in gender prediction accuracy between female and male forms without impairing the translation quality.

Weird, unusual, and uncanny images pique the curiosity of observers because they challenge commonsense. For example, an image released during the 2022 world cup depicts the famous soccer stars Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo playing chess, which playfully violates our expectation that their competition should occur on the football field. Humans can easily recognize and interpret these unconventional images, but can AI models do the same? We introduce WHOOPS!, a new dataset and benchmark for visual commonsense. The dataset is comprised of purposefully commonsense-defying images created by designers using publicly-available image generation tools like Midjourney. We consider several tasks posed over the dataset. In addition to image captioning, cross-modal matching, and visual question answering, we introduce a difficult explanation generation task, where models must identify and explain why a given image is unusual. Our results show that state-of-the-art models such as GPT3 and BLIP2 still lag behind human performance on WHOOPS!. We hope our dataset will inspire the development of AI models with stronger visual commonsense reasoning abilities. Data, models and code are available at the project website: whoops-benchmark.github.io

Recent studies show that instruction tuning and learning from human feedback improve the abilities of large language models (LMs) dramatically. While these tuning methods can make models generate high-quality text, we conjecture that more implicit cognitive biases may arise in these fine-tuned models. Our work provides evidence that these fine-tuned models exhibit biases that were absent or less pronounced in their pretrained predecessors. We examine the extent of this phenomenon in three cognitive biases - the decoy effect, the certainty effect, and the belief bias - all of which are known to influence human decision-making and reasoning. Our findings highlight the presence of these biases in various models, especially those that have undergone instruction tuning, such as Flan-T5, GPT3.5, and GPT4. This research constitutes a step toward comprehending cognitive biases in instruction-tuned LMs, which is crucial for the development of more reliable and unbiased language models.