arXiv daily

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

Wed, 02 Aug 2023

Other arXiv digests in this category:Thu, 14 Sep 2023; Wed, 13 Sep 2023; Tue, 12 Sep 2023; Mon, 11 Sep 2023; Fri, 08 Sep 2023; Tue, 05 Sep 2023; Fri, 01 Sep 2023; Thu, 31 Aug 2023; Wed, 30 Aug 2023; Tue, 29 Aug 2023; Mon, 28 Aug 2023; Fri, 25 Aug 2023; Thu, 24 Aug 2023; Wed, 23 Aug 2023; Tue, 22 Aug 2023; Mon, 21 Aug 2023; Fri, 18 Aug 2023; Thu, 17 Aug 2023; Wed, 16 Aug 2023; Tue, 15 Aug 2023; Mon, 14 Aug 2023; Fri, 11 Aug 2023; Thu, 10 Aug 2023; Wed, 09 Aug 2023; Tue, 08 Aug 2023; Mon, 07 Aug 2023; Fri, 04 Aug 2023; Thu, 03 Aug 2023; Tue, 01 Aug 2023; Mon, 31 Jul 2023; Fri, 28 Jul 2023; Thu, 27 Jul 2023; Wed, 26 Jul 2023; Tue, 25 Jul 2023; Mon, 24 Jul 2023; Fri, 21 Jul 2023; Thu, 20 Jul 2023; Wed, 19 Jul 2023; Tue, 18 Jul 2023; Mon, 17 Jul 2023; Fri, 14 Jul 2023; Thu, 13 Jul 2023; Wed, 12 Jul 2023; Tue, 11 Jul 2023; Mon, 10 Jul 2023; Fri, 07 Jul 2023; Thu, 06 Jul 2023; Wed, 05 Jul 2023; Tue, 04 Jul 2023; Mon, 03 Jul 2023; Fri, 30 Jun 2023; Thu, 29 Jun 2023; Wed, 28 Jun 2023; Tue, 27 Jun 2023; Mon, 26 Jun 2023; Fri, 23 Jun 2023; Thu, 22 Jun 2023; Wed, 21 Jun 2023; Tue, 20 Jun 2023; Fri, 16 Jun 2023; Thu, 15 Jun 2023; Tue, 13 Jun 2023; Mon, 12 Jun 2023; Fri, 09 Jun 2023; Thu, 08 Jun 2023; Wed, 07 Jun 2023; Tue, 06 Jun 2023; Mon, 05 Jun 2023; Fri, 02 Jun 2023; Thu, 01 Jun 2023; Wed, 31 May 2023; Tue, 30 May 2023; Mon, 29 May 2023; Fri, 26 May 2023; Thu, 25 May 2023; Wed, 24 May 2023; Tue, 23 May 2023; Mon, 22 May 2023; Fri, 19 May 2023; Thu, 18 May 2023; Wed, 17 May 2023; Tue, 16 May 2023; Mon, 15 May 2023; Fri, 12 May 2023; Thu, 11 May 2023; Wed, 10 May 2023; Tue, 09 May 2023; Mon, 08 May 2023; Fri, 05 May 2023; Thu, 04 May 2023; Wed, 03 May 2023; Tue, 02 May 2023; Mon, 01 May 2023; Fri, 28 Apr 2023; Thu, 27 Apr 2023; Wed, 26 Apr 2023; Tue, 25 Apr 2023; Mon, 24 Apr 2023; Fri, 21 Apr 2023; Thu, 20 Apr 2023; Wed, 19 Apr 2023; Tue, 18 Apr 2023; Mon, 17 Apr 2023; Fri, 14 Apr 2023; Thu, 13 Apr 2023; Wed, 12 Apr 2023; Tue, 11 Apr 2023; Mon, 10 Apr 2023
1.Teaching Smaller Language Models To Generalise To Unseen Compositional Questions

Authors:Tim Hartill, Neset TAN, Michael Witbrock, Patricia J. Riddle

Abstract: We equip a smaller Language Model to generalise to answering challenging compositional questions that have not been seen in training. To do so we propose a combination of multitask supervised pretraining on up to 93 tasks designed to instill diverse reasoning abilities, and a dense retrieval system that aims to retrieve a set of evidential paragraph fragments. Recent progress in question-answering has been achieved either through prompting methods against very large pretrained Language Models in zero or few-shot fashion, or by fine-tuning smaller models, sometimes in conjunction with information retrieval. We focus on the less explored question of the extent to which zero-shot generalisation can be enabled in smaller models with retrieval against a corpus within which sufficient information to answer a particular question may not exist. We establish strong baselines in this setting for diverse evaluation datasets (StrategyQA, CommonsenseQA, IIRC, DROP, Musique and ARC-DA), and show that performance can be significantly improved by adding retrieval-augmented training datasets which are designed to expose our models to a variety of heuristic reasoning strategies such as weighing partial evidence or ignoring an irrelevant context.

2.SALTTS: Leveraging Self-Supervised Speech Representations for improved Text-to-Speech Synthesis

Authors:Ramanan Sivaguru, Vasista Sai Lodagala, S Umesh

Abstract: While FastSpeech2 aims to integrate aspects of speech such as pitch, energy, and duration as conditional inputs, it still leaves scope for richer representations. As a part of this work, we leverage representations from various Self-Supervised Learning (SSL) models to enhance the quality of the synthesized speech. In particular, we pass the FastSpeech2 encoder's length-regulated outputs through a series of encoder layers with the objective of reconstructing the SSL representations. In the SALTTS-parallel implementation, the representations from this second encoder are used for an auxiliary reconstruction loss with the SSL features. The SALTTS-cascade implementation, however, passes these representations through the decoder in addition to having the reconstruction loss. The richness of speech characteristics from the SSL features reflects in the output speech quality, with the objective and subjective evaluation measures of the proposed approach outperforming the baseline FastSpeech2.

3.Chat Translation Error Detection for Assisting Cross-lingual Communications

Authors:Yunmeng Li, Jun Suzuki, Makoto Morishita, Kaori Abe, Ryoko Tokuhisa, Ana Brassard, Kentaro Inui

Abstract: In this paper, we describe the development of a communication support system that detects erroneous translations to facilitate crosslingual communications due to the limitations of current machine chat translation methods. We trained an error detector as the baseline of the system and constructed a new Japanese-English bilingual chat corpus, BPersona-chat, which comprises multiturn colloquial chats augmented with crowdsourced quality ratings. The error detector can serve as an encouraging foundation for more advanced erroneous translation detection systems.

4.Leveraging Few-Shot Data Augmentation and Waterfall Prompting for Response Generation

Authors:Lea Krause, Selene Báez Santamaría, Michiel van der Meer, Urja Khurana

Abstract: This paper discusses our approaches for task-oriented conversational modelling using subjective knowledge, with a particular emphasis on response generation. Our methodology was shaped by an extensive data analysis that evaluated key factors such as response length, sentiment, and dialogue acts present in the provided dataset. We used few-shot learning to augment the data with newly generated subjective knowledge items and present three approaches for DSTC11: (1) task-specific model exploration, (2) incorporation of the most frequent question into all generated responses, and (3) a waterfall prompting technique using a combination of both GPT-3 and ChatGPT.

5.Do Multilingual Language Models Think Better in English?

Authors:Julen Etxaniz, Gorka Azkune, Aitor Soroa, Oier Lopez de Lacalle, Mikel Artetxe

Abstract: Translate-test is a popular technique to improve the performance of multilingual language models. This approach works by translating the input into English using an external machine translation system, and running inference over the translated input. However, these improvements can be attributed to the use of a separate translation system, which is typically trained on large amounts of parallel data not seen by the language model. In this work, we introduce a new approach called self-translate, which overcomes the need of an external translation system by leveraging the few-shot translation capabilities of multilingual language models. Experiments over 5 tasks show that self-translate consistently outperforms direct inference, demonstrating that language models are unable to leverage their full multilingual potential when prompted in non-English languages. Our code is available at https://github.com/juletx/self-translate.

6.Evaluating Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models on Code Comprehension and Generation

Authors:Zhiqiang Yuan, Junwei Liu, Qiancheng Zi, Mingwei Liu, Xin Peng, Yiling Lou

Abstract: In this work, we evaluate 10 open-source instructed LLMs on four representative code comprehension and generation tasks. We have the following main findings. First, for the zero-shot setting, instructed LLMs are very competitive on code comprehension and generation tasks and sometimes even better than small SOTA models specifically fine-tuned on each downstream task. We also find that larger instructed LLMs are not always better on code-related tasks. Second, for the few-shot setting, we find that adding demonstration examples substantially helps instructed LLMs perform better on most code comprehension and generation tasks; however, the examples would sometimes induce unstable or even worse performance. Furthermore, we find widely-used BM25-based shot selection strategy significantly outperforms the basic random selection or fixed selection only on generation problems. Third, for the fine-tuning setting, we find that fine-tuning could further improve the model performance on downstream code comprehension and generation tasks compared to the zero-shot/one-shot performance. In addition, after being fine-tuned on the same downstream task dataset, instructed LLMs outperform both the small SOTA models and similar-scaled LLMs without instruction tuning. Based on our findings, we further present practical implications on model and usage recommendation, performance and cost trade-offs, and future direction.

7.XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models

Authors:Paul Röttger, Hannah Rose Kirk, Bertie Vidgen, Giuseppe Attanasio, Federico Bianchi, Dirk Hovy

Abstract: Without proper safeguards, large language models will readily follow malicious instructions and generate toxic content. This motivates safety efforts such as red-teaming and large-scale feedback learning, which aim to make models both helpful and harmless. However, there is a tension between these two objectives, since harmlessness requires models to refuse complying with unsafe prompts, and thus not be helpful. Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that some models may have struck a poor balance, so that even clearly safe prompts are refused if they use similar language to unsafe prompts or mention sensitive topics. In this paper, we introduce a new test suite called XSTest to identify such eXaggerated Safety behaviours in a structured and systematic way. In its current form, XSTest comprises 200 safe prompts across ten prompt types that well-calibrated models should not refuse to comply with. We describe XSTest's creation and composition, and use the test suite to highlight systematic failure modes in a recently-released state-of-the-art language model.

8.Fighting Fire with Fire: Can ChatGPT Detect AI-generated Text?

Authors:Amrita Bhattacharjee, Huan Liu

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are increasingly being used for various use cases, including text content generation at scale. Although detection methods for such AI-generated text exist already, we investigate ChatGPT's performance as a detector on such AI-generated text, inspired by works that use ChatGPT as a data labeler or annotator. We evaluate the zero-shot performance of ChatGPT in the task of human-written vs. AI-generated text detection, and perform experiments on publicly available datasets. We empirically investigate if ChatGPT is symmetrically effective in detecting AI-generated or human-written text. Our findings provide insight on how ChatGPT and similar LLMs may be leveraged in automated detection pipelines by simply focusing on solving a specific aspect of the problem and deriving the rest from that solution. All code and data is available at \url{https://github.com/AmritaBh/ChatGPT-as-Detector}.