This work develops a probabilistic child language acquisition model to learn a range of linguistic phenonmena, most notably long-range syntactic dependencies of the sort found in object wh-questions, among other constructions. The model is trained on a corpus of real child-directed speech, where each utterance is paired with a logical form as a meaning representation. It then learns both word meanings and language-specific syntax simultaneously. After training, the model can deduce the correct parse tree and word meanings for a given utterance-meaning pair, and can infer the meaning if given only the utterance. The successful modelling of long-range dependencies is theoretically important because it exploits aspects of the model that are, in general, trans-context-free.

LLMs are often claimed to be capable of Natural Language Inference (NLI), which is widely regarded as a cornerstone of more complex forms of reasoning. However, recent works show that LLMs still suffer from hallucinations in NLI due to attestation bias, where LLMs overly rely on propositional memory to build shortcuts. To solve the issue, we design an unsupervised framework to construct counterfactual reasoning data and fine-tune LLMs to reduce attestation bias. To measure bias reduction, we build bias-adversarial variants of NLI datasets with randomly replaced predicates in premises while keeping hypotheses unchanged. Extensive evaluations show that our framework can significantly reduce hallucinations from attestation bias. Then, we further evaluate LLMs fine-tuned with our framework on original NLI datasets and their bias-neutralized versions, where original entities are replaced with randomly sampled ones. Extensive results show that our framework consistently improves inferential performance on both original and bias-neutralized NLI datasets.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable proficiency in reasoning, there is still a concern about hallucinations and unreliable reasoning issues due to semantic associations and superficial logical chains. To evaluate the extent to which LLMs perform robust reasoning instead of relying on superficial logical chains, we propose a new evaluation dataset, the Concept-Reversed Winograd Schema Challenge (CR-WSC), based on the famous Winograd Schema Challenge (WSC) dataset. By simply reversing the concepts to those that are more associated with the wrong answer, we find that the performance of LLMs drops significantly despite the rationale of reasoning remaining the same. Furthermore, we propose Abstraction-of-Thought (AoT), a novel prompt method for recovering adversarial cases to normal cases using conceptual abstraction to improve LLMs' robustness and consistency in reasoning, as demonstrated by experiments on CR-WSC.

This paper proposes a methodology for constructing such corpora of child directed speech (CDS) paired with sentential logical forms, and uses this method to create two such corpora, in English and Hebrew. The approach enforces a cross-linguistically consistent representation, building on recent advances in dependency representation and semantic parsing. Specifically, the approach involves two steps. First, we annotate the corpora using the Universal Dependencies (UD) scheme for syntactic annotation, which has been developed to apply consistently to a wide variety of domains and typologically diverse languages. Next, we further annotate these data by applying an automatic method for transducing sentential logical forms (LFs) from UD structures. The UD and LF representations have complementary strengths: UD structures are language-neutral and support consistent and reliable annotation by multiple annotators, whereas LFs are neutral as to their syntactic derivation and transparently encode semantic relations. Using this approach, we provide syntactic and semantic annotation for two corpora from CHILDES: Brown's Adam corpus (English; we annotate ~80% of its child-directed utterances), all child-directed utterances from Berman's Hagar corpus (Hebrew). We verify the quality of the UD annotation using an inter-annotator agreement study, and manually evaluate the transduced meaning representations. We then demonstrate the utility of the compiled corpora through (1) a longitudinal corpus study of the prevalence of different syntactic and semantic phenomena in the CDS, and (2) applying an existing computational model of language acquisition to the two corpora and briefly comparing the results across languages.

Identifying and understanding user intents is a pivotal task for E-Commerce. Despite its popularity, intent understanding has not been consistently defined or accurately benchmarked. In this paper, we focus on predicative user intents as "how a customer uses a product", and pose intent understanding as a natural language reasoning task, independent of product ontologies. We identify two weaknesses of FolkScope, the SOTA E-Commerce Intent Knowledge Graph, that limit its capacity to reason about user intents and to recommend diverse useful products. Following these observations, we introduce a Product Recovery Benchmark including a novel evaluation framework and an example dataset. We further validate the above FolkScope weaknesses on this benchmark.

Recent machine translation (MT) metrics calibrate their effectiveness by correlating with human judgement but without any insights about their behaviour across different error types. Challenge sets are used to probe specific dimensions of metric behaviour but there are very few such datasets and they either focus on a limited number of phenomena or a limited number of language pairs. We introduce ACES, a contrastive challenge set spanning 146 language pairs, aimed at discovering whether metrics can identify 68 translation accuracy errors. These phenomena range from simple alterations at the word/character level to more complex errors based on discourse and real-world knowledge. We conduct a large-scale study by benchmarking ACES on 50 metrics submitted to the WMT 2022 and 2023 metrics shared tasks. We benchmark metric performance, assess their incremental performance over successive campaigns, and measure their sensitivity to a range of linguistic phenomena. We also investigate claims that Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective as MT evaluators by evaluating on ACES. Our results demonstrate that different metric families struggle with different phenomena and that LLM-based methods fail to demonstrate reliable performance. Our analyses indicate that most metrics ignore the source sentence, tend to prefer surface-level overlap and end up incorporating properties of base models which are not always beneficial. We expand ACES to include error span annotations, denoted as SPAN-ACES and we use this dataset to evaluate span-based error metrics showing these metrics also need considerable improvement. Finally, we provide a set of recommendations for building better MT metrics, including focusing on error labels instead of scores, ensembling, designing strategies to explicitly focus on the source sentence, focusing on semantic content and choosing the right base model for representations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are claimed to be capable of Natural Language Inference (NLI), necessary for applied tasks like question answering and summarization. We present a series of behavioral studies on several LLM families (LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM) which probe their behavior using controlled experiments. We establish two biases originating from pretraining which predict much of their behavior, and show that these are major sources of hallucination in generative LLMs. First, memorization at the level of sentences: we show that, regardless of the premise, models falsely label NLI test samples as entailing when the hypothesis is attested in training data, and that entities are used as ``indices'' to access the memorized data. Second, statistical patterns of usage learned at the level of corpora: we further show a similar effect when the premise predicate is less frequent than that of the hypothesis in the training data, a bias following from previous studies. We demonstrate that LLMs perform significantly worse on NLI test samples which do not conform to these biases than those which do, and we offer these as valuable controls for future LLM evaluation.

The diversity and Zipfian frequency distribution of natural language predicates in corpora leads to sparsity in Entailment Graphs (EGs) built by Open Relation Extraction (ORE). EGs are computationally efficient and explainable models of natural language inference, but as symbolic models, they fail if a novel premise or hypothesis vertex is missing at test-time. We present theory and methodology for overcoming such sparsity in symbolic models. First, we introduce a theory of optimal smoothing of EGs by constructing transitive chains. We then demonstrate an efficient, open-domain, and unsupervised smoothing method using an off-the-shelf Language Model to find approximations of missing premise predicates. This improves recall by 25.1 and 16.3 percentage points on two difficult directional entailment datasets, while raising average precision and maintaining model explainability. Further, in a QA task we show that EG smoothing is most useful for answering questions with lesser supporting text, where missing premise predicates are more costly. Finally, controlled experiments with WordNet confirm our theory and show that hypothesis smoothing is difficult, but possible in principle.

Automatic machine translation (MT) metrics are widely used to distinguish the translation qualities of machine translation systems across relatively large test sets (system-level evaluation). However, it is unclear if automatic metrics are reliable at distinguishing good translations from bad translations at the sentence level (segment-level evaluation). In this paper, we investigate how useful MT metrics are at detecting the success of a machine translation component when placed in a larger platform with a downstream task. We evaluate the segment-level performance of the most widely used MT metrics (chrF, COMET, BERTScore, etc.) on three downstream cross-lingual tasks (dialogue state tracking, question answering, and semantic parsing). For each task, we only have access to a monolingual task-specific model. We calculate the correlation between the metric's ability to predict a good/bad translation with the success/failure on the final task for the Translate-Test setup. Our experiments demonstrate that all metrics exhibit negligible correlation with the extrinsic evaluation of the downstream outcomes. We also find that the scores provided by neural metrics are not interpretable mostly because of undefined ranges. We synthesise our analysis into recommendations for future MT metrics to produce labels rather than scores for more informative interaction between machine translation and multilingual language understanding.

In Multi-Document Summarization (MDS), the input can be modeled as a set of documents, and the output is its summary. In this paper, we focus on pretraining objectives for MDS. Specifically, we introduce a novel pretraining objective, which involves selecting the ROUGE-based centroid of each document cluster as a proxy for its summary. Our objective thus does not require human written summaries and can be utilized for pretraining on a dataset consisting solely of document sets. Through zero-shot, few-shot, and fully supervised experiments on multiple MDS datasets, we show that our model Centrum is better or comparable to a state-of-the-art model. We make the pretrained and fine-tuned models freely available to the research community https://github.com/ratishsp/centrum.